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

I'm thinking this whole thing will look far less shitty than expected.
 
^ I'm not rooting against it. I'm frustrated that the opportunity this site presents will be occupied by a bigger, more value-engineered version of this. I'm well passed tired of "good enough" architecture.
 
It's late and I'm tired and I don't want that tiredness to go negative on Boston. Bit when I see the visionary stuff going up in Chicago, it makes Boston appear a bit too careful and small, as exemplified by this site. I wish Boston would dream a bit bigger.
 
cca said:
You guys are so cute when you are upset. Why do you think these choices are made? How do you think these choices are made? In another post yesterday (the MIT nano thread I think) I explained that in a project like this the price of the building has everything to do with the price of the exterior skin (because it is an empty box full of air is essence) and if you save $1/sf of facade on a project of this scope you can take $1M out of the pro forma. Imagine the pressure on the developers project managers to get that $1/sf or $30/sf out of the facade costs. Think of the bonus you would get at the end of the year when the choice to go from a facade that looks like something at Hudson Yards (which is the gold standard of tower design) to something that is "good enough to get past BCDC". So ... you get sad, flat, cheap, but just good enough to be acceptable in projects like this.

cca
Click to expand...

I explained exactly why I think those choices are made. I asked why can't the cheap materials be used differently- the pseudo brick thing just cheapens the looks further (in the non-monetary sense). I mean, they could just choose black instead for a color and it would look better.

If they wanted contrast, I think it'd look good in a dark brownish mauve. It'd be different without being gaudy and offensive, and would be similar in color to those darker off-color bricks you see in traditional brick mixes.
 
Last edited:
Beton Brut said:
And from where I sit, as a "thinker on the built environment," this is the problem of our age. There was a time when a lack of resources lead to innovation. Look no further than the early Florida houses of Paul Rudolph during his partnership with Ralph Twitchell -- innovative and flexible, impermanent yet timeless.

Today we build willfully impermanent buildings, where the only value is the bottom line. But we pay lip-service to the color and texture of brick. It's "let's make pretend" architecture, as authentic as the buildings on a Hollywood backlot. Cynical and sickening. Less like this, please...
Click to expand...

You and I ... as usual ... agree. Maybe we can come up with a "what now" discussion. The only argument I have been able to drum up in my career is to talk about how when you buy cheap you buy risk. (I call it the buyer beware argument" That almost works, but when buildings are investments ONLY, that argument is answered pretty quickly with "its a risk for the next guy, not me, this thing will lease up in a flash and I am going to flip this so fast that the paint wont even be dry so,it wont every be MY problem" ... so ... we get what we get and we dont get upset because ... these kinds of projects perfectly express the collective values that we hold. Fast, cheap, disposable ... everything ... including skyscrapers. Because we can, and will, until its not profitable any longer.

cca

PS JouHou, It is pretty clear that they are trying to evoke the industrial past of causeway street with the multi-pane windows and the black steel detailing. It makes sense that they are also evoking the brick color of those buildings. It makes sense .. .but it is being done on the super cheap.
 
Jouhou said:
I explained exactly why I think those choices are made. I asked why can't the cheap materials be used differently- the pseudo brick thing just cheapens the looks further (in the non-monetary sense). I mean, they could just choose black instead for a color and it would look better.

If they wanted contrast, I think it'd look good in a dark brownish mauve. It'd be different without being gaudy and offensive, and would be similar in color to those darker off-color bricks you see in traditional brick mixes.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I thought your post was clear and didn't understand the point of the response, which managed to be condescending despite answering the wrong question.

As for the facade itself, I disagree with the common negative assessment on here. Sure, the panels are a brick-ish color but to me it is more of a reference than a cheap mimicry. I actually find this to be a more honest, less cynical approach than much of the poorly done brick precast going up (see directly across the street). I also appreciate the depth these panels add which is more pronounced then your typical flat facade. It will come down to the horizontal "beams", but I still think this may turn out all right.

That's not to say that this is anything special. We should continue to fight something better and I commend those doing so.

I still hate the tower design.
 
stefalarchitect said:
Waiting on confirming a tenant. Design changes were supposedly made for the prospective tenant months ago and we've heard nothing since. Once the tenant is officially signed on, they'll begin on the office tower. There's no official time frame as of right now.
Click to expand...

In addition to the rumors about Oath signing on as the lead tenant, there was a post in B&T last month about negotiations with Epsilon as well. I don't have an account with them so I can't confirm the exact details, but here is the tweet from the author hinting at it: https://twitter.com/SteveAdamsTweet/status/1007379396737556490

And here is a link to one of Epsilon's lease agreements in Wakefield. It has a termination date of 12/31/2020 which would fit in roughly with the timeline of this building (if it commences soon): https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1101215/000119312509042284/dex1013.htm

🦏
 
^^
Heyyy welcome to aB!​​​​

Beton Brut said:
^ I'm not rooting against it. I'm frustrated that the opportunity this site presents will be occupied by a bigger, more value-engineered version of this. I'm well passed tired of "good enough" architecture.
Click to expand...

Charlie_mta said:
It's late and I'm tired and I don't want that tiredness to go negative on Boston. Bit when I see the visionary stuff going up in Chicago, it makes Boston appear a bit too careful and small, as exemplified by this site. I wish Boston would dream a bit bigger.
Click to expand...

i wish i could find it in my writing to offer maybe 1/6th the brilliance expressed here in so few words. i believe we're getting a few incredible projects around town, at various scale. But we continue to fumble round about in some kind of silent edict that discourages developers from going for broke more often. 1000 Boylston.... Back Bay Station.... possibly Winthrop Square.

cca said:
It is pretty clear that they are trying to evoke the industrial past of causeway street with the multi-pane windows and the black steel detailing. It makes sense that they are also evoking the brick color of those buildings. It makes sense .. .but it is being done on the super cheap.
Click to expand...

But, why drive 300 miles in your 288-GTO only to pull into Maaco for the new paint?
 
Last edited:
Based on the webcam, looks like windows going in on the west side of the residential tower.
 
Elkus has defined its signature style as an incoherent mish-mash of unrelated architectural styles.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
All of the above commentary makes me sad about Boston's ambitions and actions, when I look around my neighborhood, I see bold statements like on Hudson Yard's Instagram today, "30 Hudson Yards is home to panoramic views and the tallest outdoor observation deck in the Western Hemisphere!"

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bla5SE_AIQb/?hl=en&taken-by=_hudsonyardsnyc
Click to expand...

It's very dumb to compare Boston to NYC in almost any way. Boston can't be expected to produce the same level of ambitious projects as the largest market in the country.
 
Gensler's PR Department said:
Rising from a lively podium, office, residential and hotel towers will house premium entertainment venues, specialty retailers, high-concept dining and loft-style office space to result in a work/live/play “city within a city.”
Click to expand...

Gotta love the MarketingSpeak. They make it sound like the project brief for a McDonaldLand FunZone.

cca said:
..."its a risk for the next guy, not me, this thing will lease up in a flash and I am going to flip this so fast that the paint wont even be dry so,it wont every be MY problem" ... so ... we get what we get and we dont get upset because ... these kinds of projects perfectly express the collective values that we hold. Fast, cheap, disposable ... everything ... including skyscrapers.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Scale used to influence ethos, but those days are long gone. And like everything else, yesterday's dystopian entertainment is tomorrow's headline.

There's a point where "fast culture" stops being culture and becomes...I'm not wise and worldly enough to imagine. Depending on who you are, where you live, and how you conduct your life, modulates the impact. I'm no Luddite. I'm not saying we should stand on the brakes, but can we ease up on the accelerator?

I'm not sure how this project has become such a dog whistle for me, an emblem of what's wrong with design and the confluence of disciplines connected to it. Probably because it represents the final crescendo of the Bulfinch Triangle build-out that I've been hating on for nearly a decade.
 
Not a comparison on projects, but why shouldn't Boston be as ambitious as NYC. Hudson Yards was a wasteland 10 years ago and the High Line was considered an eyesore.

Shoot for the stars and miss and you will still land on the moon.
I am not sure what Boston developers are shooting for sometimes.

awood91 said:
It's very dumb to compare Boston to NYC in almost any way. Boston can't be expected to produce the same level of ambitious projects as the largest market in the country.
Click to expand...
 
Czervik.Construction said:
I am not sure what Boston developers are shooting for sometimes.
Click to expand...

Based mostly on my observation at the neighborhood level and much smaller projects, they're shooting for a fast buck, often using a weapon with a high rate of fire (the unwelcome substitute for good marksmanship). Unfortunately, these economics scale up pretty well...

In my world, one that thinks ahead, we'd be looking at a masterplan to develop the former Spalding site, the jail, and the air rights over the North Station rail terminus, with front-end provisions for a four track incline to the NSRL. Let 'em build the Boston-scaled equivalent of the Hudson Yards here, as long as the developers pony up for the NSRL.
 
Beton Brut and CCA for consuls, there were always two of them right?
 
Czervik.Construction said:
Not a comparison on projects, but why shouldn't Boston be as ambitious as NYC. Hudson Yards was a wasteland 10 years ago and the High Line was considered an eyesore.
Click to expand...

As impressive and massive as Hudson Yards is, it is a bunch of glass with some angles. Would welcome it here, but I don't think it's as visually pleasing as everyone makes it out to be. The plan along with that area was to make it a city within the city because it was a wasteland. Causeway Street is not a wasteland, and nowhere as big.

Speaking of High Line, I bet that if someone took the current Garden Office tower and proposed it on the High Line, everyone would think it's so original
and daring.
 
type001 said:
Causeway Street is not a wasteland, and nowhere as big.
Click to expand...

Agree, Hudson Yards on Causeway Street would be overkill. But a scaled down version of Time Warner Center would have worked just fine.

type001 said:
I bet that if someone took the current Garden Office tower and proposed it on the High Line, everyone would think it's so original and daring.
Click to expand...

Disagree. It looks like a kindergartener's drawing of 56 Leonard, with the exact proportions of a port-o-potty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top