South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown

Re: South Station Tower

DZH22 said:
So what's your point, that we need to turn the South Station Tower into a concert hall? Everything else in that picture is pretty much meh. So you come on here and insult everybody, but WHAT IS THE DAMN POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE?!?! You showed us one daring building and that's it. Atlantic Wharf does it better, mainly by actually rehabbing and adding to a building that was worth saving to begin with.

I clicked your link and, frankly, I don't see where you get off talking down to the rest of us. There is a difference between actively hoping for "soulless" glass boxes (this isn't a box btw) and deciding we are better off getting something out of the ground here than waiting another 20 years. I am disappointed with the latest iteration but not every building needs to cry out of attention. I certainly wouldn't want a 200m version of that Hamburg thing here in Boston so.... WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Click to expand...

:confused:
pardon me, but I never said the project should be a concert hall at all- It could well be anything! neither I ever said Boston needs to place the EBL on top of South station -please take the time to read and "understand" what I stated. My entire point is that such high rise building landing on top of one of Boston's landmarks should aspire to be something much greater & ambitious than a banal glass tower that can well be placed anywhere in the planet without noticing- So The sample I showed was to express how a solution was "customized" to an specific set of goals & needs in Hamburg to redevelop & enhance the area- IOW I'm simply saying that Boston can well "learn from that experience" and come up with a building that "belongs to Boston" and not to a "global fetish of dumb soulless glazed towers"

As far as the glazing appearance objection- I have stated endless times - I'm not against glass at all- I always object the "misuse and abuse of it" - glazing is a wonderful material if it is applied well!! there are magnificent examples of great well-thought glazed boxes and then there are "soulless" & dumb "boxes" -and sorry- most of them emerging in the Seaport area

Hope this statement clarifies it for you once for all!
 
Re: South Station Tower

Hufer said:
So The sample I showed was to express how a solution was "customized" to an specific set of goals & needs in Hamburg to redevelop & enhance the area- IOW I'm simply saying that Boston can well "learn from that experience" and come up with a building that "belongs to Boston" and not to a "global fetish of dumb soulless glazed towers"
Click to expand...

But Boston has been redeveloping and enhancing buildings for years. The recent redo of the brutish Johnson Addition to the Boston Public Library (a building that definitely belongs to Boston) and years before, the complete redo of Fanueil Hall/Quincy Market along with so many of the once decrepit warehouses along the waterfront turned into million dollar residences are just a few examples that I can think of. DZ's example of Russia Wharf is another. Actually, Boston has been a leader in the redevelopment of the old. I do find Hamburg's waterfront fascinating. I also find the wild, crazy, and fun pharma buildings going up in Cambridge as fascinating and eye catching as any that can be found anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Re: South Station Tower

The members arguing about shoving a bland tower through South Station are the same ones that constantly derails thread saying there are too many turds in Boston. Whaaat?
 
Re: South Station Tower

I agree that the tower is "blah", and nothing more than another modern glass box. Though, I do like the version from 2006, when it was much more rounded and less oval-esque. Fortunately, Hines adapted to the needs of the market and kept afloat. The project has been going on since the early 90's (when Tufts was leading the project and the anchor tenant). It missed several key market opportunities, and now is the time to make a comeback. Got to give Hines credit - this has got to be one of the more challenging projects, working with the federal, state and local agencies, as well as whatever NIMBY has time on their hands. It has a slew of critiques (not to mention the ones on here).

Bottom line is - the MBTA/MassDOT are strapped for cash, and this is a good opportunity for them to improve their asset by fixing fundamental issues with the station and improving other functions like the bus facility and the parking garage (who knows if they would ever get funding to fix those things). Hines will build a dedicated, weather protected connection from the great hall to the expanded bus facility. Of course the developer does well on the deal too. It gets the air rights to build a Phase 1 tower, and a potential Phase 2 and 3 developments (market permitting). As long as it does not impact operations for MBTA, Amtrak and their customers, then it is a win-win for everyone. It is also good for the city/surrounding neighborhood and creates a better transition from/streetscape around the Chinatown/Leather District.

Build it!
 
Re: South Station Tower

^^Great post. Attending 3 of the meetings (including when the late version was approved), i got to see the project from the developer's point of view. Many of the points you made affected my opinion and made me much more appreciative of the efforts of Hines and Pelli-Clark-Pelli. We had the 759' version, and two 677' versions. ....i like the first 677' version best, but this final version's weak aspects aren't really that weak - especially when you compare it to the alternative/s.

The attractive, top section of this tower will be visible from most parts of the city. From those parts of the city where the tower's two sections will be most clearly on display, the large majority of that will be viewing the tower's best sides and angles, and not be overwhelmed by it's odd features. For Southie, and the Greenway, you'll be seeing it's odd features clearly.

The floors at the base of the tower, including the large new retail spaces and eating choices will be a fantastic improvement over what we have now. Overall, the tower will be fine.

Yes, build it!
 
Re: South Station Tower

Hufer said:
:confused:
pardon me, but I never said the project should be a concert hall at all- It could well be anything! neither I ever said Boston needs to place the EBL on top of South station -please take the time to read and "understand" what I stated. My entire point is that such high rise building landing on top of one of Boston's landmarks should aspire to be something much greater & ambitious than a banal glass tower that can well be placed anywhere in the planet without noticing- So The sample I showed was to express how a solution was "customized" to an specific set of goals & needs in Hamburg to redevelop & enhance the area- IOW I'm simply saying that Boston can well "learn from that experience" and come up with a building that "belongs to Boston" and not to a "global fetish of dumb soulless glazed towers"

As far as the glazing appearance objection- I have stated endless times - I'm not against glass at all- I always object the "misuse and abuse of it" - glazing is a wonderful material if it is applied well!! there are magnificent examples of great well-thought glazed boxes and then there are "soulless" & dumb "boxes" -and sorry- most of them emerging in the Seaport area

Hope this statement clarifies it for you once for all!
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I went a little overboard with my reaction and for that I apologize.
 
Re: South Station Tower

TomOfBoston said:
"People have a fetish for weird ass architecture. " Boston City Hall was considered magnificent in the 1960's. "Just what staid Boston needed!" LOL
Click to expand...

To me, there is a fundamental difference between Government Center(GC) and the Hamburg development that Hufer posted. I see GC as a group of soulless superblocks with sprawling brutalist behemoths surrounded by dead plazas. GC is totally out of scale and context with the surrounding urban fabric. In some cases its not so much the buildings themselves. City Hall wouldn't have been so bad if it had been sited in a much smaller street grid with no setbacks or plazas and an active street level life.

Of course some of the GC buildings are irredeemable, such as the State Service Center, which really does look like it was designed on LSD (trust me, I was a young man in the 60's and know all about that vibe, and it wasn't pretty).

The Hamburg development, on the other hand, seems to me to have discreet, reasonably sized and sited buildings that probably fit fairly well into its urban context. And, in my opinion, the buildings, though unconventional, are way easier on the eye than GC's jumbled concrete train wrecks. Just my observations....
 
Last edited:
Re: South Station Tower

Not to derail this thread entirely, but I am baffled by the idea that anyone with an interest in architecture, urbanism, or adaptive reuse would have anything negative to say about the Elbe Philharmonic Hall.
 
Re: South Station Tower

^^but, it's hideous.
Guam might take it.
 
Re: South Station Tower

Thats one of the ugliest buildings I've ever seen. Too many clashing angles, colors, and just a general what the hell is going on right now vibe.
 
Re: South Station Tower

"City Hall wouldn't have been so bad if it had been sited in a much smaller street grid with no setbacks or plazas and an active street level life. "

...oh, you mean like the Scollay Square neighborhood that was torn down to build City Hall?
a05d2293711f5ab8568c5aa1896f7265.jpg


...apologies for the derail

Charlie_mta said:
To me, there is a fundamental difference between Government Center(GC) and the Hamburg development that Hufer posted. I see GC as a group of soulless superblocks with sprawling brutalist behemoths surrounded by dead plazas. GC is totally out of scale and context with the surrounding urban fabric. In some cases its not so much the buildings themselves. City Hall wouldn't have been so bad if it had been sited in a much smaller street grid with no setbacks or plazas and an active street level life.

Of course some of the GC buildings are irredeemable, such as the State Service Center, which really does look like it was designed on LSD (trust me, I was a young man in the 60's and know all about that vibe, and it wasn't pretty).

The Hamburg development, on the other hand, seems to me to have discreet, reasonably sized and sited buildings that probably fit fairly well into its urban context. And, in my opinion, the buildings, though unconventional, are way easier on the eye than GC's jumbled concrete train wrecks. Just my observations....
Click to expand...
 
Re: South Station Tower

How about some current renderings to get this thread back on point!?
south-station_hres_web.jpg


072916southstationair1.jpg


Old Renders:
southstationtower.jpg


southstationtower.jpg
 
Re: South Station Tower

The last one with the spire was my favorite.
 
Re: South Station Tower

The most recent render is my least favorite, but I'll still take it, I guess. I wish they could have come up with a less bloated design. Perhaps something sleek like a smaller London Shard or a smaller Salesforce Tower (SF)....
 
Re: South Station Tower

^ yeah; a neat way to get skinny on the top (for residential) and fat on the bottom (for office) is a straight or arc'd continuous taper -- rather than FAT, big step, skinny -- and those mid-fattness floors between the two can be used for amenity stuff

It's hard to help but see the giant step-in (e.g., current version) as lazy because it looks like they just removed the middle step-in from the previous version.

THAT SAID, I do believe this is one that will look a lot better in real life than the renders, because in renders you can't help but view specific distinct viewing angles one at a time, whereas as you walk around this thing in real-life, it will look decent from many angles and only look like a ketchup bottle from a couple of specific vantage points

EDIT: I also think this would look really cool if it were only tapered on one side...like the face opposite the main station entrance, and non-tapered on the other 3 sides
 
Re: South Station Tower

It's gone pear shaped for no good reason.
 
Re: South Station Tower

The last one still looks like a giant upraised middle finger. Guess I have a warped mind....
 
Re: South Station Tower

The last one looks a lot like 1 Financial with a spire on top. Maybe it's just the way they rendered the cladding.
 
Re: South Station Tower

They should reduce the office space more so it truly would look like it was flipping us the bird. Then it'd be like the building itself was responding when people insult it's figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top