Could the solution be as simple as building a wall on the roof of the headhouse? It wouldn't need to keep out the cold... just block the wind and rain/snow.
South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown
- Thread starter castevens
- Start date
Ryanontherails
New member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2025
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 75
Here is a picture of the gap itself:
The problem isn't this per se, in my opinion, but rather how it drains out. Getting rained on may be annoying, but no one wants to walk through a puddle.
Some pictures from last weekend:
The problem isn't this per se, in my opinion, but rather how it drains out. Getting rained on may be annoying, but no one wants to walk through a puddle.
Some pictures from last weekend:
Last edited:
That's another problem, absolutely. Walking through a puddle after you get rained on. It's just one problem after another.
Ryanontherails
New member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2025
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 75
If you look at my picture of the puddles, there does appear to be a drain to the right in front of the second door, so if they could alter the concrete platform so that the water flows to that drain, that would make such a big difference.
I continue to love this gap! (you know i'm not trolling; we have discussed)
Last edited:
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 4,043
- Reaction score
- 10,367
First, to be clear, I am definitely a proponent of some sort of rain shield and puddle mitigation here...
But to put all of this in accurate perspective: there is full overhead coverage for the three main doors of the South Station headhouse to the platform area -- it is visually quite clear, now that all construction barriers are down and the concourse is fully re-opened, that those are the main doors (i.e., beneath the train times ticker sign) and I am sure 90%+ of passengers are going to go that way. So this is basically a non-issue for most people, especially out of town visitors. It is only these doors on the far left and right "wings" where you've got this gap. SO, if you don't want to get rained on/step in puddles, just go through a door 20 feet to your left!
Ryanontherails
New member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2025
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 75
I agree it's a non-issue for the most part, especially since the inside no longer has signs for each track like it used to, so if someone is heading to Track 1 or Track 2 they're not as likely to use those doors as they used to. But the puddles can be solved pretty easily, and why not just take care of it so that it's a non-issue at all?
Also for what it's worth the rain and wind that day was such that I could still feel rain on me well inside the arch. But like I said, I don't care about the rain, I just don't want to open a door and find a puddle if I can help it!
I respect that people have different opinions. Mine is that "good enough" is not enough. If 90% of passengers aren't going to get wet, that means 10% will, and many of them won't be expecting it. And some may not mind it, but others certainly will. The gap is definitely an issue, and one that could have been easily avoided. I have a hard time accepting that this is the best they could do.
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 4,043
- Reaction score
- 10,367
I actually fully share your opinion: there should not be rain exposure nor puddles at the location we're talking about. It's lousy design to have a walking path so suboptimal given a major renovation is being done and now should be the time to address such a thing. For the aB readers who don't frequent SS, I was just documenting the fact that there is still a large area of covered walkway, but it doesn't take away from my agreement that the non-covered path is BS. I figured some folks browsing aB might not know the full context.
I'd also wanted to highlight the (likely) failure mode of this design issue though. A lot of projects don't go as far as they should to address project boundary issues and fail to go through the appropriate but very hard work of cross-organization coordination. Example: When the Longfellow bridge was re-built, they replaced all the crumbling concrete along the Red Line ROW right up until -- and distinctly stopping at -- the Red Line portal that goes underground toward Kendall (here is where I am talking about). That portal (until now) appeared to have been of similar vintage to the rest of the grade separation barrier on the Longfellow. Had they extended the work another couple hundred ft or so, the entire grade separated ROW would have been brought up to good standard of care. It was a ridiculous missed opportunity. I fully get that it's different "ownership," but if these organizations had one iota of vision and gave half a sh!t, they would have rebuilt the portal at the same time as the bridge, integrating the efforts and probably saving huge $$ on construction economies of scale. Instead, you have just the portal sitting there rotting and crumbling (it is in really bad shape - I mean, how long are we going to have to wait until this caves in onto the tracks and the Red Line is shut down indefinitely while they figure out how to rebuild this whole thing) due to the "project boundary." I believe this to be the case at SS too: the old head house and it's roof are out-of-project scope, so they didn't extend/affix a skylight or roof extension over it so as not to violate the project boundary.
Last edited:
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 13,361
- Reaction score
- 23,942
Even if they couldn't coordinate with the head house, could they have built a little roof that is supported on the side of the new addition and only comes up to an inch away from the head house and then an inch wide rubber gasket touches the head house to form a seal? That way they are not altering it in any way just building right up to the “property line”?
Yes. They easily could have. Or they could have hung a wall, cantilevered, etc. As is often the case, never assume that just because someone got paid a lot of money, they did a good job.
Ok, so chrisbrat’s photos present a problem I have with the crown: it photographs well, but to the naked eye it appears very dim IMO.
I was entering Boston from the northeast (drove down Lynnshore drive to 1A through TWT). From Lynn, Winthrop was bright and very visible, but I wasn’t convinced SST was illuminated.
As I got closer, it was clear that it was, but it looked very dim, especially when compared to the crown at Atlantic Wharf. Not sure how the lighting will evolve over time, but I was disappointed at first glance.
I was entering Boston from the northeast (drove down Lynnshore drive to 1A through TWT). From Lynn, Winthrop was bright and very visible, but I wasn’t convinced SST was illuminated.
As I got closer, it was clear that it was, but it looked very dim, especially when compared to the crown at Atlantic Wharf. Not sure how the lighting will evolve over time, but I was disappointed at first glance.
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 13,361
- Reaction score
- 23,942
Yea, I feel like thats kind of bostons aesthetic.. is muted, understated lighting, if it exists at all. I wouldnt be surprised if sst was made that way on purpose. It seems to follow the reserved attitude of the city overall.
Boston is an established, respected city. We don't need to shout for attention like Dubai or Vegas.
atlantaden
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,675
- Reaction score
- 3,321
Boston needs to quit clutching it’s pearls with regards to lighting! Take a cue from the Eiffel Tower, the London Eye, the Pyramids, the Taj Mahal, the Empire State Building, etc!! Too much understated equals freakin boring!
