South Station Tower | South Station | Downtown

bakgwailo

Active Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
950
Reaction score
51
My poorly made point was that SF demolished its station and replaced it something barely better than a "bland urban renewal box". We're fortunate that didn't happen here.
Ah, sorry - completely didn't read that correctly. Also would agree, the Caltrain station in SF was underwhelming at best when I first used it, being used to South/North Station, Penn, Grand Central, etc.
 

Norval Elliot

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
31
Reaction score
11
In 1966, the BRA was fully expecting to demolish South Station and replace it with another bland 1960's urban renewal box. Thank goodness that bullet was dodged.
Instead, we'll have a tower that will look like a stake through the heart of South Station.
 

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
249
i lean toward the Tabasco Tower gaining favor if not becoming beloved.
it won't have an awkward appearance from 98% of vantage points.
 
Last edited:

Brad Plaid

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
179
The version before the Tabasco Turd was fine—well-proportioned even elegant. But Pelli can be a lazy firm and they coast too much on repetitive, interchangeable cut and paste design. They just thinned out the residential section with no apparent effort to make the proportions work. Ultimately of course the blame belongs to Hines but Pelli deserves some of it too.
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,648
Reaction score
866
i lean toward the Tabasco Tower gaining favor if not becoming beloved.
it won't have an awkward appearance from 98% of vantage points.
Agreed, this is the thing with renders. Lots of the angles shown are from angles that no one is going to see, so it doesnt really matter how it looks from those angles.The views of this tower that people will see in normal day to day life look good.

The view from out front of South Station will be seen by millions of commuters every year walking up to the entrance of south station. It looks great from here.



The view of the tower in the skyline will be seen by millions of people every year at Logan airport, millions of people driving on rt 1A south, I90 west, and from people living, working, and passing through Eastie, enjoying the East Boston waterfront, and piers park.
*Bonus, theres not a render, but the inverse of this angle is the view youll have from the South End.


Another angle that will be seen by millions of people driving on rt 93 North, and by people living/working/and passing through Southie and Dorchester.


Who cares if it looks like a bottle of tobasco sauce from 200’ in the air over the greenway? I dont... Once its built youre going to never see it from this angle again.
 
Last edited:

whighlander

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
7,410
Reaction score
435
Looking forward a couple of years

There are going to be some most interesting juxtapositions of South Station tower with Winthrop Square tower since they are very close to each other but have totally non rectlinear alignments and both have complex cross sections changing with elevation, etc.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
1,516
Reaction score
161
Still not feeling the love for this. It would have been better to have a tower in materials complementing South Station rather than all glass. Awhile ago Jess had posted one from another project that would have fit South Station well (minus the trees at the bottom):

 
Last edited:

whighlander

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
7,410
Reaction score
435
Still not feeling the love for this. It would have been better to have a tower in materials complementing South Station rather than all glass. Someone a few months ago had posted one from another project that would have fit South Station well.
Charlie_MTA -- No you don't want to muck with near perfection -- South Station like the McKim Wing of the main BPL, the main MFA, Isabella Stewart Gardner is nearly perfect as architecture

South Station just needs a bit of help as urban core due to the demolition which was allowed to happen a generation or so ago

But -- anything that is built and visible from the Greenway or Dewey Sq., Chinatown Gateway from which the original Headhouse structure, eagle, clock, etc. is visible has to be isolated from the existing architecture -- the only real way to do that is relatively unobtrusive glass with the right amount of set-back from the front facade

However --you love or hate the rest of the tower -- the base meets that requirement quite well
 

meddlepal

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
1,449
Reaction score
154
Still not feeling the love for this. It would have been better to have a tower in materials complementing South Station rather than all glass. Awhile ago Jess had posted one from another project that would have fit South Station well (minus the trees at the bottom):
It's hard for developers to justify architecture like this because the market really really demands lots of window area to let in natural light.
 

stefal

Active Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
780
Reaction score
235
I'm okay with the tower we have going up, but it definitely could've been better.

Perhaps not entirely following the stone and glass to make it appear as if it were always a part of South Station, which is not the case, but a more classically defined tower, following the footsteps of CentraRuddy's Rose Hill Tower for Rockefeller Group (a group that has money for this kind of stuff), would've been interesting to see here. You'd still satisfy the demands for window area, while getting some materials other than glass, all in a refreshing and respectful design. It'd be clear it's from the 21st century, but still respectful of its context.
1579986753432.png
1579986946078.png


Img Sources
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
1,516
Reaction score
161
Stefal, that ^ is exactly what I would have liked.

I guess I just basically hate the proposed tower whether it's on top of South Station or not. The view from Dewey Square is ugly IMO, a tabasco sauce bottle or a giant middle finger upraised. Seriously. it's hideous as far as I'm concerned. Maybe it will look better in reality than in the render, I'm hoping.
 

KriterionBOS

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
97
Reaction score
6
Agreed, this is the thing with renders. Lots of the angles shown are from angles that no one is going to see, so it doesnt really matter how it looks from those angles.The views of this tower that people will see in normal day to day life look good.

The view from out front of South Station will be seen by millions of commuters every year walking up to the entrance of south station. It looks great from here.



The view of the tower in the skyline will be seen by millions of people every year at Logan airport, millions of people driving on rt 1A south, I90 west, and from people living, working, and passing through Eastie, enjoying the East Boston waterfront, and piers park.
*Bonus, theres not a render, but the inverse of this angle is the view youll have from the South End.


Another angle that will be seen by millions of people driving on rt 93 North, and by people living/working/and passing through Southie and Dorchester.


Who cares if it looks like a bottle of tobasco sauce from 200’ in the air over the greenway? I dont... Once its built youre going to never see it from this angle again.
I agree. This tower looks great. Might even look better than Winthrop Center. Most important, its a 200+ meter addition to a city that has a good number of 150+ buildings but is more vertically challenged by most of her peers.
 

meddlepal

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
1,449
Reaction score
154
I like the side profile of this tower, but I think the front looks dated... 80's Dallas / Super Corporate feeling.

The head on angle is gonna be a pretty rare view so I'm not too phased by it.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
116
Stefal, that ^ is exactly what I would have liked.

I guess I just basically hate the proposed tower whether it's on top of South Station or not. The view from Dewey Square is ugly IMO, a tabasco sauce bottle or a giant middle finger upraised. Seriously. it's hideous as far as I'm concerned. Maybe it will look better in reality than in the render, I'm hoping.
It's a bland, long, bald bullet.

It doesn't live up to its location. South Station deserved something better.

.
 

DZH22

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
2,251
Still not feeling the love for this. It would have been better to have a tower in materials complementing South Station rather than all glass. Awhile ago Jess had posted one from another project that would have fit South Station well (minus the trees at the bottom):

I think the biggest issue I have with this specific render is that the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh (what the tower actually is) was built in 1926. South Station itself was built in 1899. Architectural design really shifted dramatically in 1950 and beyond, so they just don't build buildings like this anymore. If we tried to emulate a tower from 1926 today, it would never come out as well or be as architecturally significant as the older versions. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while these buildings look like they fit pretty well, it would be difficult for a building built today in a similar vein to be as contextual as what we are seeing here. I'm not saying it's a bad sentiment, I just think this is romanticizing it because we won't have an old pre-war tower there no matter what gets built.
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,648
Reaction score
866
Im not saying its the greatest tower ever either. I was just pointing out that the good thing is that its more unflattering angles are angles that wont be seen in day to day life and the ones that will are its better angles.

I liked the tower 1 version before this one better as well, buuut some of that was because it looks better in the render... which is a 200ft over the greenway view. Soo in practice this will be a pretty solid addition, definitely not my favorite tower ever either, but its pretty good.

-The funny thing about some people saying that an art deco tower would have been better (which I agree with btw) is that every time I advocate for new art deco towers to be built in Boston some people on here say its stupid to build “knock off” art deco towers and that the time has passed... even though we had no problem building Quincy market long after the fall of ancient Greece. I think that as long as the result is a quality building it doesnt matter when its built. People who enjoy built spaces dont enjoy them less if theyre not “old enough” or whatever... Anyways since this is the tower were getting, Im fine with it, and once its built and people are seeing it from real life angles and sight lines itll be fine.
 
Last edited:

DZH22

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
2,251
I liked the tower 1 version before this one better as well, buuut some of that was because it looks better in the render... which is a 200ft over the greenway view.
I think the one thing most of can agree on is that it looked better with the extra setback in the prior version. More graceful, less jarring of a transition.

Capture by David Z, on Flickr
 

stefal

Active Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
780
Reaction score
235
-The funny thing about some people saying that an art deco tower would have been better (which I agree with btw) is that every time I advocate for new art deco towers to be built in Boston some people on here say its stupid to build “knock off” art deco towers and that the time has passed... even though we had no problem building Quincy market after the fall of the Roman empire. I think that as long as
If it's going to be art deco built in 2020, I think it has to reflect that. Mimicking a style from another period without showing much advancement in technology and design (respectfully and thoughtfully of course) is where I draw the line between good and bad design.
 

Jahvon09

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
1,574
Reaction score
16
I think the one thing most of can agree on is that it looked better with the extra setback in the prior version. More graceful, less jarring of a transition.

Capture by David Z, on Flickr

This one looks like a shortened version of the Trump Tower in Chcago. :)
 

Top