South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown

The initial development plans for the site called for more than 2 million square feet of additional development over the station, including a 759-foot-high tower, which at the time was criticized as too tall.
Click to expand...

I know it can't be asked enough, but WTF? Do NIMBY's feel some elitist power by choosing to only have flat-stubby buildings? Yes, let's have a crappy skyline instead of something strking. Or should I say "Manhattanized"?

I think the new rendering is very boring. The original spired-rendering was way better. I know people here consider all this a victory, but I see it as a defeat.
 
At 621 feet, it's a little shorter than I would like.
Click to expand...
I think that the article is misleading. The 621 feet is probably the zoning height (i.e, the height to the top of the last occupiable floor). I suspect the actual height is higher (reportedly 680 feet).

Note that the article says that the original project was proposed at 759 feet. In fact, the original proposal was taller than the Hancock tower, including the spire, at over 800 feet I believe. I assume that 759 feet was the zoning height of the original proposal.
 
I suppose I should be happy with this, but I still get frustrated whenever I read something along the lines of "too-tall".

However, I tried to make myself believe that the new building was cooler than the original rendering. Hopefully Menino can use his power again to make them add that spire. That original rendering was just awesome in my eyes.
 
In the main rendering (the one posted earlier, looking at the tower from above Dewey Square), there appears to be one semi-uniform streetwall on the eastern side of Atlantic Ave. The building directly next to the South Station terminal also appears to be in the same style, a sort of continuation of the existing building.

I really like both of these ideas. (Didn't the South Station building used to extend farther down both Summer and Atlantic Aves?)

In the uncropped version of the Atlantic Ave. elevation, found of page D4 of today's Globe, there seems to be absolutely no attempt to give the development any sort of cohesion or regularity at the street level. To my eye, it looks like a cluttered mess.

(By the way, in the cropped rendering posted here, the existing bus terminal is everything from the center to the right side of the picture.) The rest (from that brownish-looking element, on to the left) is currently just space open to the tracks.

So, my suggestion would be this: continue with some sort of uniform height and texture all the way from the station building to the terminal building. There should be several distinct buildings, with several entrances reflecting the different uses of the new buildings, but I think they should all conform to a more traditional look (some real stone would be nice, and with a project of this size and expense, I'm sure they could afford it). Save the modernity for the tower components, all of which appear to be set back from the street anyway.

Here's a link to the bird's eye view of Atlantic Ave:

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=r1rqgs92bxyp&style=o&lvl=1&scene=2980227
 
In this particular case doesn't the "too tall" argument have something to do with flight pats and the airport? I thought I had heard that.

In any case, my feeling is that as long as it's architecturally interesting I really don't care too much about height. I'd rather have an interesting building at 621 feet than a big box at 800 feet.

As for the top, I think it looks better without the original spire. Normally I like spires. But I like this building better in the second drawing.
 
callahan said:
In this particular case doesn't the "too tall" argument have something to do with flight pats and the airport? I thought I had heard that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't think the height reduction had anything to do with 'NIMBYS' complaining but instead because of the FAA's height restrictions.

In any case, my feeling is that as long as it's architecturally interesting I really don't care too much about height. I'd rather have an interesting building at 621 feet than a big box at 800 feet.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think people get too wrapped up in height. Not just people on this forum, people on all skyscraper forums, it seems they don't care about the design most of the time, just the height. I think this building will make a nice addition to the skyline because of the fact it's vastly different from any building in that area.

There's a lot of decent sized buildings in that area, they problem is they all look the same. Adding this tall and slender building will be a good start in changing the stubby boxes in this area. Even if the top remains the same, it's still different (assuming it gets lit up at night).

As for the top, I think it looks better without the original spire. Normally I like spires. But I like this building better in the second drawing.
Click to expand...

Your post is exactly what I was going post. I prefer spires or crowns, but I wasn't too enthusiastic about the original design's spire. It just seemed awkward, I'd much prefer them redo it and make something that looks more fitting, but I don't mind this new design as much as some of the other posters.
 
This tower reminds me of the new Hearst Tower that just opened in midtown Manhattan. The base is the original Hearst Building (yes, that Hearst) which was supposed to be a tower but due to the Depression only was built to about the size of South Station.

render1.jpg


I personally don't like the design of the tower but it illustrates the point.

There is something about glass walls that don't work very well in Boston. The Hancock Tower is the exception but I just think this tower will stand out in a bad way. It just seems like the design was an after thought. I would love to see something like 1 Lincoln only not as fat. Something that connects with the design of South Station but stands out on its own. This design isn't Manhattanization, it's Houstinization.
 
I used to live right down the street from that Hearst building. I left New York a few months before construction started. I still can't decide if I like it or not.

As for glass buildings, I think maybe they'll work better in that area when there are a few more of them. As it is now almost everything is brown. The new Intercontinental Hotel really stands out. I like the way it looks. If the new South Station Tower reflects what's around it nicely I think it will work well.
 
Did the SST, Columbus Center, Russia Wharf and the Ft. Point development really all get the go ahead this week or have I been dreaming? I'm just going to dwell on that for a minute.
 
..

i tend to agree with callahan on this one. the current design is a pelli firm (not even pelli himself from what i can tell) design that could be anywhere. nothing bostonian about...

... for something that will inevitably become a focal point of dewey square, it should be better.

hopefully we will see some better designs for the Winthrop development
 
I agree that this design could be anywhere, but so could 33 Arch, or One Lincoln, or Millenium Place, or 111 Huntington...... I think we lost that fight years upon years ago. A Bostonian tower to me would either be 222 Berkeley or One Beacon St, neither of which I'd want over South Station.

Do I like this design? yes. Do I think it could be better? yes. But I know that's not gonna happen, and I don't see anything inherently wrong with an all glass tower in that area. Maybe they'll do up the base in some precast stone like they did to 111 Huntington....that'd be reeeal nice :wink:
 
The JHT "could" be anywhere, and would have become the face of the city wherever it was built. It happened to be built in Boston (where it was (and still is, if you think about it)) completely out of place, but yet has become a part of the city and I couldn't imagine it without it.
 
...

and yet its location is what makes the JHT great. In any other city, this building would be lost amongst other modern monoliths. In the back bay, it just so happens reflect Boston almost to the point of invisibilty.

A reflective building in dewey square would only reflect the surrounding, mostly boring highrises around it, most notably 1 Financial.

At any rate, i don't hate the SST design, i just don't love it, and i think it could be better.
 
I think they should add a small spire to it that lights up. Maybe one that extends from the back.
 
DarkFenX said:
I think they should add a small spire to it that lights up. Maybe one that extends from the back.
Click to expand...

they should put a sculpture of king kong on the top waving his fists. No but really a spire of some sort would certainly make the building more prominent and less houstonish, as someone else called the design, i forget who.
 
I like too design too. I don't think it's out of place. In fact, as I said before, I think a glass tower down there will only help.
 
SST, Columbus Center and Russia Wharf: three major new projects each with no new footprint. This is one of those magical things about city development.
 
btw- From the south and particularly from the water, the InterContinental Hotel reflects white from surrounding buildings making it look like it is covered in ice, SST might have the same effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top