The Hub on Causeway (née TD Garden Towers) | 80 Causeway Street | West End

stick n move said:
Yea all we do is give ourselves trash, never fails. But you cant tell me that new piece of hot garbage is better than that above. No way. The old one at least looked like a regular respectable building. This thing goes out of its way to suck. THAT is our grand entrance from the north to Boston...... TRASH. Why go out of your way to try as hard as u can to suck ass. Plus why do we always get baited and switched. Pick something and stick with it its not that hard.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna disagree. I really hated the spire one. It was uninspired.

I think I'm the only one who likes this new one. Yes it's boxes, but the top reminds me of the Frank Gehry tower records building on Newbury and Mass Ave, and the main section's thick black structural mullion is sweet.

Obviously this is a render, but the color contrasts of red and black are such a nice break from the silver glass that has been dominating in recent years -- I hope it comes 1/10th to having that vibrancy.

In some part, it reminds me of the Fenway Landmark:
http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=308279&postcount=268

but with a bit more frankenstein.
 
The spire on the old render was kinda weak. The multiple facades on this are hideous. That middle one reminds me of the pregnant building. The only things I like about it is the reddish color illuminated inside the top overhang and the contrasting orange and blue tones. Hopefully they'd light it like that in the end.
 
stick n move said:
Yea all we do is give ourselves trash, never fails. But you cant tell me that new piece of hot garbage is better than that above. No way. The old one at least looked like a regular respectable building. This thing goes out of its way to suck. THAT is our grand entrance from the north to Boston...... TRASH. Why go out of your way to try as hard as u can to suck ass. Plus why do we always get baited and switched. Pick something and stick with it its not that hard.
Click to expand...

The previous proposal looked like the bastard love child of the Belmont Mormon temple and the Hancock with a glandular problem.
 
The thing is, if they knew they wanted to go bigger with the office tower, they should have switched the 2 and then built the office 600'+, with a more normal design. This is supposed to have been a standout, gateway site. It's kind of tough to stand out so much when neither building is going to be in Boston's Top 20 within a couple of years. Maybe we dodged a bullet.

If anybody from Boston Properties reads this, I would like to reiterate that I hate you guys, and I hope you pack your bags and leave my city forever. Go to hell Boston Properties.
 
If that's the Gateway to the city, I'm turning around.
 
I agree with rev paco.

I kind of like the new design. This is more coherent than what we usually see in buildings that share these design elements. It has a distinctive roofline that feels like it belongs there, especially the way it aligns with the recessed corner on the left. I like the size of the windows and the strong black lines around them. The glass "bump outs", which usually annoy me as a design feature, are not random here but applied consistently. The whole thing feels like it has a throwback/industrial vibe but with modern flourishes.

I don't like the fat blue section in the middle, at least in that render. I can only assume it will not be emanating a blue glow in real life, so it will probably be okay.

The architect's statement about the "scale and texture" of the immediate surroundings seems relevant. I understand wanting something more distinctive here, and I definitely understand the frustration with the bait-and-switch, but I think this is still better than a glass box with a flimsy and apologetic spire. I never liked that.
 
To each their own but I never understood why anyone likes the collosal size "windows". It gives off the illusion that the building is shorter and squater than it really is. And while the spire is probably the most underwhelming spire I've ever seen, the only thing worse than an underwhelming spire is an underwhelming flat roof and unlike spires, the city already has plenty of underwhelming flat roofs.

And yes this is an underwhelming flat roof because it looks like they are topping it off with a concrete slab.
 
Poolio said:
This is more coherent than...
Click to expand...

Funny. To me it looks like three completely unrelated buildings stacked on top of one another, the uppermost of which itself was glued together with spare parts.
 
Justin7 said:
Funny. To me it looks like three completely unrelated buildings stacked on top of one another, the uppermost of which itself was glued together with spare parts.
Click to expand...

This. The blue mid section looks like the scaffolding used to build the top section.
 
Holy Christ is the new design terrible.

It looks like a fatter, less-elegant version of Mukesh Ambani's home in Mumbai -- which itself is as elegant as CVS jewelry.

The previous design had some grace; it strove upward with spires, it had some design elements other than being a fat box with tacky balconies or burped-out bulge-pods or whatever they are oozing out of the upper floors of the building; and it at least notionally paid homage to the Garden.

Yes, some may say paying homage to anything built before Lever House is cheesy; but frankly cheesy architecture works a lot better for our sensual enjoyment than does academically masturbatory architecture. And, for that matter, this new iteration is neither; it's pure profit-maximization at the disservice of architecture, aesthetics and the built environment. Even a tenured GSD professor would be hard-pressed to like this turd.
 
I want to like it because it is different, but I can't. It's an incoherent mess. 3 different buildings tacked on top of each other is right. I can't not see it as three different parts - each of which looks worse as you ascend. It looks like someone rendered a shitty third phase to the Quaker Lane "cap." and stuck it over here.

No, the spire wasn't good and I'm not unhappy to see it gone. However, this is not an improvement.

KentXie said:
To each their own but I never understood why anyone likes the collosal size "windows". It gives off the illusion that the building is shorter and squater than it really is.
Click to expand...

This. I hate it on Atlantic Wharf, I hated it on the 115 Winthrop renders, and I hate it here. I'm convinced the shortening effect is intentional to trick neighborhood groups and potential opposition into believing the building is shorter than it is. In fact, the "stacking" going on here adds to the effect even more. What a mess.
 
Lrfox said:
I want to like it because it is different, but I can't. It's an incoherent mess. 3 different buildings tacked on top of each other is right. I can't not see it as three different parts - each of which looks worse as you ascend. It looks like someone rendered a shitty third phase to the Quaker Lane "cap." and stuck it over here.

No, the spire wasn't good and I'm not unhappy to see it gone. However, this is not an improvement.



This. I hate it on Atlantic Wharf, I hated it on the 115 Winthrop renders, and I hate it here. I'm convinced the shortening effect is intentional to trick neighborhood groups and potential opposition into believing the building is shorter than it is. In fact, the "stacking" going on here adds to the effect even more. What a mess.
Click to expand...

Could be, but it makes no sense here, they already have the height approved so no reason to pull that
 
Notice of Project Change is here [pdf]

This will have to go before the BCDC again. The previous version went through extensive and detailed design review here [pdf]. Note that Phase III still has not been approved (and is currently open for public comment) while Phases I and II have been approved and building permits have been issued. Submit your comments here.

I think the worst offender in this redesign is the "girdle" at floors 9-15. That's just blatantly squeezing in as many square feet as possible. If the upper portion came all the way down to the podium the tower would at least have some consistency. Maybe the girdle is just a bargaining chip to be dropped?

On the ground floor plan from the NPC, I believe the "food hall" is new. Before that was just "retail." It's also too bad that there's no MBTA access direct from the main center "the hub" area. To get to the T from the north side of Causeway you either have to go through the loading dock area or in and around the CR station.
 
What an absolute turd of a redesign. Not that the original was great, but UGH. Why can't we have anything nice?
 
As bad as this is it actually improves the West End area.
 
JumboBuc said:
Notice of Project Change is here [pdf]

This will have to go before the BCDC again. The previous version went through extensive and detailed design review here [pdf]. Note that Phase III still has not been approved (and is currently open for public comment) while Phases I and II have been approved and building permits have been issued. Submit your comments here.

I think the worst offender in this redesign is the "girdle" at floors 9-15. That's just blatantly squeezing in as many square feet as possible. If the upper portion came all the way down to the podium the tower would at least have some consistency. Maybe the girdle is just a bargaining chip to be dropped?

On the ground floor plan from the NPC, I believe the "food hall" is new. Before that was just "retail." It's also too bad that there's no MBTA access direct from the main center "the hub" area. To get to the T from the north side of Causeway you either have to go through the loading dock area or in and around the CR station.
Click to expand...

This deserves to be bumped to the forefront of the new thread page (thanks Jumbo). All with opinions should write in.

My stance is similar to others'...it's the fat blue glass mid-section that kills it for me:

KentXie said:
This. The blue mid section looks like the scaffolding used to build the top section.
Click to expand...

Poolio said:
I don't like the fat blue section in the middle, at least in that render. I can only assume it will not be emanating a blue glow in real life, so it will probably be okay.
Click to expand...

One doesn't have to be a height fetishist to care about proportions and eye-pleasing aesthetics; and in this case a sleeker, taller-seeming (regardless of height) design at this location would be MUCH appreciated. I actually don't mind the black window grid in the main portion of the tower and wish they'd just extend it down for a sleeker look. This would be less of an issue if all of downtown didn't have such a boxy-feel. But this is an opportunity to avoid the boxy-feel, yet this redesign perpetuates it with the boxy facade changes. I would accept a sleeker version of a similar concept to this...the blue glass belt REALLY kills it.
 
Someone mentioned it upthread I think, but it bears repeating: this schizophrenic multiple-facades style is not going to age well. It doesn't allow buildings to develop an identity. Even buildings I don't particularly like maintain a respectable presence in the skyline because people think of them as a singular thing. "The pregnant building" is ugly but we all know which one is meant. How do you describe this without having to resort to where it is? They're also always cheaper and not as well-resolved because the design teams have to develop drawings for like 5 different cladding systems in the same amount of time as another team might only have one or two.

I understand how it happens. Developers don't give a shit about design, clearly. But I'd just like to see a building that has the right proportions and does one thing well. These fat boxes wearing 4 different ill-fitting shirts have me depressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top