South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown

SMCYB said:
View attachment 65996View attachment 65997

I took the train the New York over the weekend. While I was there I visited Penn Station's Moynihan Hall, the Oculus, and Grand Central Terminal. I want to say good things about our new train station, but all three New York stations blew away the new South Station concourse by orders of magnitude. This is embarrassing by comparison. The only thing good about it is the three domes. The floor is ugly concrete, the train arrival/departure sign is what you see here (hopefully they install a permanent one, but I saw no signs of that happening), and the place is a wind tunnel. I was standing there on an August day with a temperature of about 75ºF and I was chilly. I can only imagine how cold it will be in the winter, especially on a 34º day with wind and rain. And I'm not talking about the ridiculous gap above the old concourse building; I'm talking about the whole thing. I was hoping to be happy with what I saw, but I was utterly disappointed.

I understand that Boston still has diesel trains, but whomever got paid to design this station with that in mind received waaaaaaay too much money for the small amount of thought they put into it.

I'm sorry to those of you who want to defend it, but I suggest you go visit the three amazing stations in New York and then come back with a fully-formed, objective opinion. :(
Click to expand...
I understand the disappointment, but NYC and its rail system are obviously many, many magnitudes larger and more robust than Boston's, and will thus have more impressive facilities. I'm pleased as punch that what got done at South Station actually happened.
 
It's certainly better than it was, but not as good as it could have been for the same amount of money.
 
SMCYB said:
It's certainly better than it was, but not as good as it could have been for the same amount of money.
Click to expand...
I mean, to compare apples to apples, this is the platform area. Take your examples of Moynihan, GCT or the Oculus - your train doesn't arrive in the grand waiting hall and concourse. At NYP and GCT you still board at a rather dank and cramped underground platform, and likewise the platform at the WTC is also much more utilitarian than the headhouse above. The arches are a comparatively "grand" interstitial space between platform and headhouse, and more exposed by nature of being ground level and not underground.

I also think its a mistake to think of this in the same way as Moynihan and other recently built or renovated transportation hubs - this wasn't a passenger experience project, its the literal foundation of the skyscraper above it. Its infrastructure - a pretty foundation that we get to walk under, but thats what it is. The concourse is filled with problems, but its not affiliated with the tower developers.

Besides... Its also useful to note that Amtrak, Boston & the MBTA didn't pay for these arches and platform improvements. The developer did, including the significant and yet to open Bus Terminal expansion. That alone is a major expansion of the facility as a whole, and its basically a gift to the city and MBTA thats worth a hundred million dollars. Thats not to say its perfect, because as this thread will attest its not, but it is good.
1000041258.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thank you ^^^. I agree that Moynihan is very impressive, but to compare that hall with SS's platform is... questionable.
 
Atlantic Ave landscaping completed and the GAP 8/17/25.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9215.JPG
    IMG_9215.JPG
    5.1 MB · Views: 249
  • IMG_9216.JPG
    IMG_9216.JPG
    4.9 MB · Views: 236
  • IMG_9217.JPG
    IMG_9217.JPG
    5 MB · Views: 240
  • IMG_9219.JPG
    IMG_9219.JPG
    4.2 MB · Views: 231
  • IMG_9218.jpg
    IMG_9218.jpg
    5.7 MB · Views: 237
  • IMG_9220.jpg
    IMG_9220.jpg
    3.2 MB · Views: 247
SMCYB said:
I'm sorry to those of you who want to defend it, but I suggest you go visit the three amazing stations in New York and then come back with a fully-formed, objective opinion. :(
Click to expand...
Do you really think that most people here are not familiar with these stations? I don't need to pile on your questionable comparisons as others already have.
 
The composition on that shot is great, with the clean line up of the Back Bay towers leading the way eye to the South Station tower.

Also, you have managed to find the one shot that makes One Financial Center look good.
 
RandomWalk said:
The composition on that shot is great, with the clean line up of the Back Bay towers leading the way eye to the South Station tower.

Also, you have managed to find the one shot that makes One Financial Center look good.
Click to expand...
Agree on One Financial. My least favorite building in the skyline.
 
Last edited:
Bananarama said:
That's a temporary sign. Pretty sure they're gunna hang one here on the other side:
View attachment 65998

Re: comment about food - they're opening up a renovated Regina opposite the McDonald's soon. SS is ugly but I appreciate some shitty cheap food.
Moynihan is beautiful but bougie (somehow the bar there actually has a decent happy hour). And the food court, while nice, is always crazy loud. They had an actual DJ there last time I was over in the evening and it felt so unnecessary and weird. There's definitely some aggressive indirect anti-loitering practices in place there - the antithesis being SS which attracts some... characters...
Click to expand...
It isn't fancy or local, but Chick Fil A is going to be opening in South Station sometime in the near future too
 
Stlin said:
I mean, to compare apples to apples, this is the platform area. Take your examples of Moynihan, GCT or the Oculus - your train doesn't arrive in the grand waiting hall and concourse. At NYP and GCT you still board at a rather dank and cramped underground platform, and likewise the platform at the WTC is also much more utilitarian than the headhouse above. The arches are a comparatively "grand" interstitial space between platform and headhouse, and more exposed by nature of being ground level and not underground.

I also think its a mistake to think of this in the same way as Moynihan and other recently built or renovated transportation hubs - this wasn't a passenger experience project, its the literal foundation of the skyscraper above it. Its infrastructure - a pretty foundation that we get to walk under, but thats what it is. The concourse is filled with problems, but its not affiliated with the tower developers.

Besides... Its also useful to note that Amtrak, Boston & the MBTA didn't pay for these arches and platform improvements. The developer did, including the significant and yet to open Bus Terminal expansion. That alone is a major expansion of the facility as a whole, and its basically a gift to the city and MBTA thats worth a hundred million dollars. Thats not to say its perfect, because as this thread will attest its not, but it is good. View attachment 66002
Click to expand...
If it were a good design, I would say so. I want Boston to have a great train station, as evidenced by what I've already said. But it's not; it's only mediocre. I won't make excuses for the design team; they could have done better. Everyone here knows that.
 
SMCYB said:
If it were a good design, I would say so. I want Boston to have a great train station, as evidenced by what I've already said. But it's not; it's only mediocre. I won't make excuses for the design team; they could have done better. Everyone here knows that.
Click to expand...
What part are you complaining about? The only sections of the station this project built were a ceiling for the platforms and the arched space. The platforms of all the stations we're discussing are about equally unpleasant, so the real comparison here is of the South Station headhouse as built in 1899 to Grand Central Terminal as built in 1913, Moynihan Station (a historic courtyard that already existed on the site that was subject to adaptive reuse) and the Oculus, which is functionally a mall and which I've seen a ton of people criticize since it opened (and which at $4B cost more than double the entire South Station Tower and associated improvements combined).

The space with the arches is world class. This project did not build the headhouse. Platforms suck everywhere except Berlin Hauptbanhof. NYC has some very nice train stations.
 
Last edited:
Equilibria said:
What part are you complaining about? The only sections of the station this project built were a ceiling for the platforms and the arched space. The platforms of all the stations we're discussing are about equally unpleasant, so the real comparison here is of the South Station headhouse as built in 1899 to Grand Central Terminal as built in 1913, Moynihan Station (a historic courtyard that already existed on the site that was subject to adaptive reuse) and the Oculus, which is functionally a mall and which I've seen a ton of people criticize since it opened (and which at $4B cost more than double the entire South Station Tower and associated improvements combined).

The space with the arches is world class. This project did not build the headhouse. Platforms suck everywhere except Berin Hauptbanhof. NYC has some very nice train stations.
Click to expand...
I don't expect you to go back and read every comment I've made, but things I've mentioned are that the arches are nice but the concrete floor under it could have been better even while still being concrete (if that's a necessity for some reason), it creates a wind tunnel that I think will be quite cold in the winter, it allows rain to come in through the big gap (which has been discussed at length), it doesn't integrate well with the headhouse or the train platform (they look like three entirely different buildings even though two were designed together)... and the comparison to Moynihan is very much a valid one as both are gateways to their respective train platforms.

The platforms are indeed much better because they are now covered, but the approach to them is certainly not as good as it could have been if say, you, designed it. I'm assuming you have some good ideas about design, as do a lot of people in this forum. Any number of people here could have done a better job than the people who actually designed it.

Anyway, I've made my point and I'm here to discuss, not argue, so please take it that way. Have a good one! :)
 
I think what rubbed some people, including me, the wrong way about your posts on South Station was your unflattering comparison of South Station to the major NYC rail terminals. I've certainly been critical on here of some developments in Boston and environs, so I'm not casting blame for anyone on here being critical of a project. But the unflattering comparison to NYC probably ignited territorial envy and rankled the Bostonian pride. And who would have it any other way?
 
I wish Boston people were more honest about the shortcomings of their city, or at least appreciated positive growth and change. The attitude of “Boston is the best because it is” results in a desire to hold on to the past. People are hesitant to support change because it’s like admitting the city isn’t as good as it is in their mind.
 
Not sure who you’re addressing or why. It’s the opposite actually. Someone subjectively didn’t like the floor and then told everyone to go out there and compare their apples to our oranges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top