South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown

Re: South Station Tower

F-Line to Dudley said:
If it weren't for that handshake required with the paralyzed federal gov't and the local institutions moving with their typical sloth, that's a deal the sorting facility would make in a heartbeat. They aren't the ones being naturally reluctant. It's the hands that tie USPS approvals, and the hands the locals are tying themselves in knots that are making the process drag and drag.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it wasn't. IIRC, the hold-up in last-year's tripartie discussion was the value of the mail truck parking lot adjacent to the BCDC, which Massport didn't value as highly as USPS. They might save some money on operations by moving, but it seems it's worth it to wait if they can cash in even more on the capital side.

I don't think you can blame the local institutions for this one. MassDOT and Massport were all ready to go.
 
Re: South Station Tower

Time for a new "snail mail fail" thread.
 
Re: South Station Tower

I went on to Pelli's website recently and discovered that the new version of this projects design is up on the site and there is an unseen render angle as well. Link
 
Re: South Station Tower

citylover94 said:
I went on to Pelli's website recently and discovered that the new version of this projects design is up on the site and there is an unseen render angle as well. Link
Click to expand...

Good catch!

85uVLgi.png
 
Re: South Station Tower

I got lucky. This rendering also seems to solve the issue of all the buildings in the initial rendering looking to short. SST looks as tall as expected here. I also think this angle is more flattering even though the tower looks much fatter. The website also says that the top of the tower will be lit at night.
 
Re: South Station Tower

It's not out-of-this-world awesome...but it is pretty cool.
 
Re: South Station Tower

stick n move said:
Renders.





Something else I know AB will like.

"The new tower features an illuminated crown which will become a prominent feature on the Boston skyline."

http://www.kendall-heaton.com/projects/boston-south-station/
Click to expand...

Stick any details as to what we are looking at in the upper render

I presume that the lower render is the entrance to the tower wedged into the space along Atlantic Ave between the HeadHouse and the Bus Terminal currently used as a garden and a taxi stand

1429296665774


South_Station_Bus_Terminal.agr.jpg


Thiswhat that section once looked like -- too bad Peli and Co with their high sounding rhetoric

An overriding objective in the design of the project is to be respectful of the architectural character and historic significance of the train station and the neighborhood. The narrow oval profile of the tower, as seen from Dewey Square facing the main entrance of South Station, will minimize any obstruction of views and daylight. Its exterior will refract light, accentuating the verticality of the tower and diminishing its mass. The project’s pedestrian-​friendly street level profile along Atlantic Avenue will be one of smaller scale buildings that reflect the architectural character of existing buildings in the Leather District.
Click to expand...

couldn't do something to make the section look more like it did in the heyday of South Station
ENR04012013NWA_station.jpg

SHORPY-4a17830a1.jpg

circa 1905
 
Last edited:
Re: South Station Tower

"The tower top will be gently lit at night..." Better than nothing I guess.

I do like this tower and think it'll be a great addition to the skyline, but it's all the more reason why I'd love to see Lendlease over at Winthrop Sq. The juxtaposition of something BOLD and different vs. the the sleek simplicity of SST.
 
Re: South Station Tower

I agree with him that the nsrl is much more important, but I also agree its not mutually exclusive. If it comes down to it and there are only funds for one Id pick nsrl every time. If they can weasel money from the developers to pay for the track expansion and then use state/federal funds for nsrl that would be perfect.

The post office has no agreement to move at the moment and emminent domain does not work with this scenario so its essentially dead in the water at the moment.

Id work towards nsrl and I can almost gaurintee by the time that is done the post office situation will be figured out as it would be at least 10 years in the future bare minimum.
 
Re: South Station Tower

stick n move said:
I agree with him that the nsrl is much more important, but I also agree its not mutually exclusive. If it comes down to it and there are only funds for one Id pick nsrl every time. If they can weasel money from the developers to pay for the track expansion and then use state/federal funds for nsrl that would be perfect.

The post office has no agreement to move at the moment and emminent domain does not work with this scenario so its essentially dead in the water at the moment.

Id work towards nsrl and I can almost gaurintee by the time that is done the post office situation will be figured out as it would be at least 10 years in the future bare minimum.
Click to expand...

So...is it mutually exclusive or is it not mutually exclusive? You're start by saying it isn't, then make an argument that it is.

NSRL will take a minimum of 20 years in study + design before first shovel goes in ground. Put a rush-rush-rush on it and it's still going to be a multi-decade process because of the enormous complexity. South Station will be tapped out of capacity in less than 10 years, imposing a mobility cap on Amtrak and commuter rail. By mutual exclusivity, is it better to wait until 15 years after the cap has yanked the choke chain on the economy to address the capacity problem...or to address it before it pours cold water on the region's growth? If USPS gets a relocation deal approved in 2018 they can raze the structure in 2020, start track construction in 2020, and open in 2022. So why are we treating USPS as the everlasting century-level blocker and NSRL the only path forward when the fastest giddayup leaves us in a multi-decade transit capacity lurch? All because federal sign-off on lease paperwork is too hard???

That makes no sense.

They both have to be built because there isn't a linear timeline that lets you finish NSRL before the capacity choke. Nevermind that it is a myth-myth-myth too oft-repeated that NSRL in any way replaces surface terminal capacity. Mainline track capacity entering/exiting Boston isn't utilized 100% unless NSRL and SSX and NSX are utilized in tandem. So why are we even letting ourselves hand-wring for one second about binary choices and the value proposition of doing a surface terminal expansion ahead of that imminently-approaching capacity crunch? We need it now, and we'll keep needing for the rest of the 21st century if the mainline rail network eventually scales to U-bahn -level service densities.



Also...gad, Michael Flaherty is one useless shit-stirring tool. Yes, concern-troll the layover site that has yet to be identified within a 10-mile radius. But pay no mind to the fact that opening up Dot Ave. with street-facing mixed use is going to re-knit the neighborhoods together. The Council must use its valuable time to debate vanity grievances, because it turns out the vote from the space-savers mob!

Was it really only 7 years ago that this hack was considered serious mayoral pedigree for when Menino stepped down?
 
Re: South Station Tower

^^great!

F-Line to Dudley said:
Nevermind that it is a myth-myth-myth too oft-repeated that NSRL in any way replaces surface terminal capacity.
Click to expand...

++you really need Philly's agile power cars to pull thru traffic off in an effective way.

Silly anyone thinks it helps traffic since so little traffic from NEC is going all the way to Maine anyway.

Dukakis; "Nobody in the railroad world is expanding 19th century stub end stations – they are connecting them. It is happening in dozens of cities around the world,”

We're well behind Europe and the far East.

Chicago has the same issues with Ogilvie and Union Stations not connecting. As does NYC with Grand Central and Penn Stations.

Philly has it with traffic gliding though 30th St, Suburban and Jefferson (formally known as Market East) Stations. but who else?

Your adroit post needs to go to press by dawn, lest the unwashed masses get bent over by hack-geezer Dukakis. **(your kind words for our Councilor left out).
 
Last edited:
Re: South Station Tower

F-Line to Dudley said:
So...is it mutually exclusive or is it not mutually exclusive? You're start by saying it isn't, then make an argument that it is.
Click to expand...

The way is was used in the article the projects are not mutually exclusive because one can happen without the other. As in you don't need to expand the station to build the NSRL. When it comes down to funding though its going to be next to impossible to fund both of these projects so what I was getting at is I would rather see NSRL over SST expansion because the link connects a major gap in the system and also frees up needed platform space for both stations instead of just one. If they can weasel money from the developers who are building at south station, maybe they could use their money to build the platform so the state money could instead be used on the NSRL. As it stands now the state would pay for both aka the taxpayers...not happening any time soon. That is probably the only way that both of these could be done in our lifetime. NSRL already most likely will not, but if they get a huge discount at South Station by obtaining and then selling post office land, track air rights, developer funding, and whatever else maybe there is a shot.
 
Re: South Station Tower

stick n move said:
The way is was used in the article the projects are not mutually exclusive because one can happen without the other. As in you don't need to expand the station to build the NSRL. When it comes down to funding though its going to be next to impossible to fund both of these projects so what I was getting at is I would rather see NSRL over SST expansion because the link connects a major gap in the system and also frees up needed platform space for both stations instead of just one. If they can weasel money from the developers who are building at south station, maybe they could use their money to build the platform so the state money could instead be used on the NSRL. As it stands now the state would pay for both aka the taxpayers...not happening any time soon. That is probably the only way that both of these could be done in our lifetime. NSRL already most likely will not, but if they get a huge discount at South Station by obtaining and then selling post office land, track air rights, developer funding, and whatever else maybe there is a shot.
Click to expand...

Why is there a binary funding choice on projects that can't be built any less than 20 years apart? They're de-coupled because time can't be bent hard enough to put them in less than 2 decades' proximity of each other. In addition to being de-coupled because of totally, divergently different needs.

If you would rather see all chips pushed away from SSX towards a drop-in-the-bucket down payment on decade-plus of paper-pushing preliminaries on NSRL, you are making an explicit choice that you are A-OK with a capacity cap being imposed in 1 decade that allows not one more additional Purple Line or Amtrak train ever being added to the schedule. For the duration of the rest of the multi-decade wait for NSRL...which you acknowledge will most likely not be done in your lifetime. That is a solidly-reasoned choice...why, again?


Do you see the fallacy here of boiling down completely unrelated things to binary choices? "These projects separated a generation apart address divergently different needs/problems in divergently different eras, but we should make an explicit decision today to screw ourselves S.O.L. for the quarter-century between them because iffier longer-term project that is completely different sounds bigger and stuff."

Huh???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top