South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown

[JumboBuc]

Re: South Station Tower

What is the difference between Spec Tower vs Vanity Tower? The location alone is going to get them the same rents no matter what they build.
Why couldn't they build a vanity tower in this location.

I do realize this is a complex location due to South Station in general.

A "spec" building is speculative; it's built by a developer with no tenants in place on the hope that some tenant(s) will be signed by the time the building is complete and ready for occupancy. One Marina Park Drive was probably the last purely spec office building finished in Boston, and a few others (121 Seaport) are currently under construction.

A "vanity" building is sponsored and built by a specific tenant, and is planned all along to fit that tenant's needs. For example, the new Liberty Mutual or GE buildings.

"Spec" buildings are likely pretty cookie-cutter, as the developer doesn't know who the future tenants will be / exactly what they will want and doesn't want to risk the money on fancy architecture given this uncertainty. This is like when you're trying to sell a house so you try to make all the finishes as "neutral" as possible. "Vanity" buildings are more likely to feature distinctive architecture, as the tenant/owner wants to make a statement with their building. This is like when you're designing and building your own house, so you throw in all the neat, personal stuff that you think is cool but other potential buyers may not like.

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: South Station Tower

Looked at the Skyline Rendering again--Way to BLAND.

Why can't Hines just build for Vanity for this location-- Which will change the design.
I don't believe they will have a problem in finding a tenant for this location.
Build a high quality and something Epic building for this location.

 

[tysmith95]

Re: South Station Tower

Not sure if we have anymore local builders or developers besides Suffolk Construction.

HYM investment group. Boston Properties. Chiofaro. Those come to the top of my head but I'm sure there are more.

 

[bigpicture7]

Re: South Station Tower

You're mixing real estate investors/developers with construction contracting firms.

According to BBJ, the top five construction contracting firms in boston are:
1) Suffolk
2) Consigli
3) Gilbane
4) Walsh Bros.
5) Shawmut

Also near the top, I believe, are Turner, Commodore Builders, and Bond Bros.

Link: http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2013/05/boston-largest-general-contractors.html

 

[tysmith95]

Re: South Station Tower

^He did mention developers. I believe that it's the developers who choose the design while the builders build it.

 

[KentXie]

Re: South Station Tower

Looked at the Skyline Rendering again--Way to BLAND.

Why can't Hines just build for Vanity for this location-- Which will change the design.
I don't believe they will have a problem in finding a tenant for this location.
Build a high quality and something Epic building for this location.

If they didn't have a problem finding a tenant, they would have found one already. You think a developer would prefer to build on spec over having a tenant?

 

[bigpicture7]

Re: South Station Tower

^He did mention developers. I believe that it's the developers who choose the design while the builders build it.

Sure - he mentioned both and you are correct regarding developers. I was just separating out the construction contractors.

On the developer side, I think some of the larger ones in Boston are (overlapping with what you mentioned):

Boston Properties, Campanelli, New Eng. Development, Fallon Company, Related Beal, HYM, Transnational, etc...

(this one is tougher, because a lot of developers are very active across different cities in the nation, whereas many of the top construction contractors tend to be most active in their home-base city...Gilbane being one exception)

 

[bigpicture7]

Re: South Station Tower

If they didn't have a problem finding a tenant, they would have found one already. You think a developer would prefer to build on spec over having a tenant?

He mentions in the article that the 4-year build time is part of the issue. Even in a very strong market, it's very tough to sign a lease for 4 years out. I guess the logistics and complex structure associated with this site extend the build time.

 

[DZH22]

Re: South Station Tower

If they didn't have a problem finding a tenant, they would have found one already. You think a developer would prefer to build on spec over having a tenant?

This. Kent and I may not always agree but you can't phrase it better than this.

Looked at the Skyline Rendering again--Way to BLAND.

Why can't Hines just build for Vanity for this location-- Which will change the design.
I don't believe they will have a problem in finding a tenant for this location.
Build a high quality and something Epic building for this location.

What about the garbage towers we're getting at North Station, without the FAA constraints? What about the garbage proposals over Back Bay garage? Why don't you direct more of your ire towards Boston Properties (which could technically get a NEW CITY TALLEST at either location) and away from the guy building to the FAA height limit on spec?

 

[bobthebuilder]

Re: South Station Tower

...Gilbane being one exception)

Gilbane actually has a development side, and have several offices.

Shawmut doesn't really do high rise construction.

J. Calnan is another builder that does a lot of tall buildings, as well as Moriarty, & Tishman (AECOM).

Skanska & Lend Lease work both on the developing aspect & construction.

Spaulding & Slye Investments (now part of JLL) used to do develop & build, now mostly just the planning/permitting. They started the 45 W 3rd project, brought it through permitting (I believe) then sold it.

Just to rattle off a few off the top of my head.

Here's the ENR list for tops in NE: http://www.enr.com/new-england/Toplists/2016-Top-Contractors

 

[bakgwailo]

Re: South Station Tower

I think something with a modernish take on Art Deco style would have really worked/been cool. The glass tower isn't horrible, either, but the current design just seems... awkward and fat? Would have loved a more streamlined/skinny tower. Love the ground level platform render, though. Oh well - anyone taking bets if it actually will be finally built after how many years?

 

[JeffDowntown]

Re: South Station Tower

What is the difference between Spec Tower vs Vanity Tower? The location alone is going to get them the same rents no matter what they build.
Why couldn't they build a vanity tower in this location.

I do realize this is a complex location due to South Station in general.

Developer is going to try to minimize costs until they know they have a solid tenant. That is just how they work.

Look at the difference in materials and detail work in something like the new Liberty Mutual building (a corporate owned vanity building) and the boxes in the seaport.

South Station is a great location, but that alone will sell it. The developer has little incentive to go further (in terms of cost) unless there is a corporate entity pushing them for more elegant design (that delivers less leasable space), vanity details, finishes, etc.

 

[goldenretrievers]

Re: South Station Tower

I think something with a modernish take on Art Deco style would have really worked/been cool. The glass tower isn't horrible, either, but the current design just seems... awkward and fat? Would have loved a more streamlined/skinny tower. Love the ground level platform render, though. Oh well - anyone taking bets if it actually will be finally built after how many years?

I agree on both points...perhaps some sort of asymmetric art deco building instead

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: South Station Tower

...I'd be curious to hear some of the architecturally-inclined members' views on what type of tower, ideally, should be built here.

My $0.02, recycled from up-thread.

Considering this building will essentially become part of South Station, does this building add or subtract from South Station's presence?

Hard to say based on renderings. The way that the new construction meets the ground and the existing South Station is the defining factor. Scale, materials, consciousnesses of Boston's unforgiving climate, and our civic propensity to slovenliness in the public realm are all to be considered in how we fill out our scorecard.

Since the original South Station building has such historic value, should the new tower pay greater homage to the original design? Or does it pay greater respect to South Station by not trying to steal design cues from original building?

This is a question that all of Pelli's proposals for this site have failed to intelligently answer. South Station is an "ambitious" civic building, even though time has clipped away its original scale and the industrial grandeur of its train-shed. The three tower iterations only display ambition through their height. The forms are bland, and the materials are completely inert; the overall effect is anonymity, a tallish glazed shaft that could be on any site, in any city.

Someday, we'll all get excited about a tower proposal that aspires to more than being a "background building."

Today is not that day.

 

[odurandina]

Re: South Station Tower

New York has it. i won't say we don't.... We're close.

 

[DZH22]

Re: South Station Tower

Someday, we'll all get excited about a tower proposal that aspires to more than being a "background building."

Today is not that day.

It's going to be Boston's 5th tallest, and even then not for long. It's not that I necessarily disagree with you here. But in the "new" Boston skyline, it will be the "historical" equivalent of a 1 Financial or Pregnant Building. (certainly fat like Preggers) Also, since it's working within tight FAA constraints, I don't hold this one to as high of a standard as I would, say, North Station. (Blech to those towers!!!)

For those advocating Art Deco style, I would say we should push for a nice spired Art Deco type building at Back Bay Station. A spire wouldn't work for SST because it would be at the expense of usable floor space, since this runs right up to the FAA limit. The negative feedback for this would be better served focusing on sites that could potentially eclipse the (tower formerly known as the) Hancock. North Station was a candidate. Bubble Garage by North Station was a candidate. Back Bay Station and some other spots in the high spine are still candidates. Due to the airport we'll never get the visual game-changers in the heart of downtown that we could still get in the peripherals.

 

[odurandina]

Re: South Station Tower

i'd like to see 1-3 Center Plaza become something similar to Liberty Mutual.... i'd like to see the Suffolk Court tower turned to residences. Then a new Suffolk Courthouse tower done at the State Service site. i'd like to see that site go very tall, maybe in some type of onyx tinted cladding. Then City Hall redone like something very old you see in Lower Manhatten, perhaps even with a green top. why not? it'll be old someday and people will forget why purists hated it.

Both the original and the revised proposal are complete stiffs. The brooding Pan Am Building (often referred to as the most reviled tall building in Manhattan) is distilled artistry by comparison.

Pelli offered an inert prism wearing a cheap-looking tiara, or a vaguely art deco massing model. The great sweeping curve of South Station's facade should serve as inspiration to any competent architect.

Strangely, the curvy Congress Street Garage proposal would work better here.

Just narrower.

1 Congress is too fat. We don't want another too fat thing near South Station. ....unfortunately, the lower section of the SST is fat. made to look even moreso by it's drastically narrowed top.

 

[stick n move]

Re: South Station Tower

I wish the render of this behind south station was shown from ground level. It actually may look good from an upward angle, we just don't know yet. The only way were going to know if this comes out alright is once we see the cladding in person and see the tower from real perspectives. For all we know this might actually be an impressive tower.


This and the new render are both real life perspectives.

This view will never be seen by 99.9% of people.

Both renders showing a real world view look good, we wont know if the view from actually in front of South Station from the ground will look good until theres new renders or its built.

 

[whighlander]

Re: South Station Tower

My $0.02, recycled from up-thread.



Hard to say based on renderings. The way that the new construction meets the ground and the existing South Station is the defining factor. Scale, materials, consciousnesses of Boston's unforgiving climate, and our civic propensity to slovenliness in the public realm are all to be considered is how we fill out our scorecard.



This is a question that all of Pelli's proposals for this site have failed to intelligently answer. South Station is an "ambitious" civic building, even though time has clipped away its original scale and the industrial grandeur of it's train-shed. The three tower iterations only display ambition through their height. The forms are bland, and the materials are completely inert; the overall effect is anonymity, a tallish glazed shaft that could be on any site, in any city.

Someday, we'll all get excited about a tower proposal that aspires to more than being a "background building."

Today is not that day.

Breton Brut -- If you are trying to do something more than any anonymity with respect to a true architectural masterpiece -- you have to be very very good and very very contextual

As Boston examples of the process:

• The Custom House Tower [Peabody & Stearns] enhanced the old architectural masterpiece of the Custom House [Ami B. Young]
  
  
  
  
  
• Conversion of Commonwealth Pier into World Trade Center Complex works because most of the changes to the original Pier's structure are hidden behind the unaltered headhouse and the rest is across a fairly wide street connected by the Viaduct
• Foster & Partners additions to the MFA works because its mostly glass and reasonably isolated from Lowell's orginal masterpiece
• I M Pei's addtion to the MFA did not work well because it just glommed-on without any type of transition
• various additions to the 1960's iconic tower of the MOS -- hit or miss except for the Glass Wall which is a definite winner
• additions to the NE Aquarium -- mostly are misses although the original box was not the greatest to begin with
• additions to the Bulfinch masterpiece State House
  
  
  -- except for the marble wings in front [ thoughfully recessed back and also made of something very different looking than red brick
  
  
  -- the rest were big misses but thankfully are hidden in back
• The Philip Johnson addition the McKim's sublime BPL was not a successful addition architecturally -- in particularly because it didn't obviously separate its massive bulkiness from the light and human-scale of the original. the most recent work has helped by opening up the front facade of the addition
• ?? for the South Station Tower -- from the front it appears in the renders to be recessed back enough and of mostly glass so that you almost don't know that its connected. The renders from Atlantic Ave don't look quite so nice in terms of isolation
  
  

We will just have to wait to see where the SST falls in the above list

 

[GW]

Re: South Station Tower

My guess is we won't see a whole lot of the tower from right in from of South Station (the corner of Summer and Atlantic) because the old station building will block much of it. We'd have to stand further away but even across the street or a block down, perspective will shrink the visual weight of the top relative to the base. So I guess I'm saying that I think it will look better in person than some of the skeptics here would think. As far as ground level, a lot depends on how the new vaulted entrance, which looks nice in the new render, interacts with the street, and how that area transitions into the bus station.

From a distance and from most angles I think this will look good, nothing spectacular, like a glassier MetLife building. The reflections at sunset and sunrise should be very nice.