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

DZH22 said:
I actually rank Verizon ahead of both the Hub Residential and the Avalon tower in the NS cluster. I think a big part of that is that it was originally supposed to be around 400', with the residential well over 600'. This one ended up improving while the residential is among my biggest disappointments. The residential was supposed to be the area's peak, but now the area has no peak. It looks like 4 buildings of essentially the same height.

Overall ranking of new addition to the main skyline, spanning Government Center through North Station:
1: State Street Tower (expected) - Obviously not up yet, but I suspect this one will challenge MT, 1 Dalton, and potentially the Aquarium Tower if it happens, for best building out of the entire boom. It's the peak that legitimizes the area as a true extension of the financial district skyline. Also, I typically favor office buildings over other uses from an aesthetic standpoint, and it's been a while since we got a really good office tower like this.
2: The Sudbury - Classy, high quality materials, less bulky than expected, plays well with its neighbors. I love this one and am sad to see it disappear from the North so soon, although not THAT sad since it's SST replacing it.
3: The Alcott - Classy/classical look, glassy, bright. I like it a lot, but think the materials on The Sudbury (plus the extra height at a crowded level of the plateau) put this one behind the Congress Street Garage pair.
4: Verizon - I like the powerful, neo-industrial look, and the base section also looks great. The blob glass above the base is the worst part. Materials are good. Kind of looks like it belongs in Tokyo. Also, I'll take a surprise 500'+ building any day, every day.
5: Hub Residential - Very disappointing compared to what might/should have been from a height perspective. For what it is, glass looks OK, pattern is unique for the city, and the thin side from Government Center actually looks pretty great.
6. Avalon - I actually was perfectly satisfied with this one when it was first built. However, in context with the surrounding towers it's the shortest and blobbiest, with the worst materials. It kind of looks like a mess compared to the rest of them, but at least it adds to the density and set a new precedent for height in the neighborhood.
Click to expand...

I like this take. I've never fully understood the hate for the Verizon building on here. I agree I think it looks better than the residential tower immediately adjacent.
 
DZH22 said:
I actually rank Verizon ahead of both the Hub Residential and the Avalon tower in the NS cluster. I think a big part of that is that it was originally supposed to be around 400', with the residential well over 600'. This one ended up improving while the residential is among my biggest disappointments. The residential was supposed to be the area's peak, but now the area has no peak. It looks like 4 buildings of essentially the same height.

Overall ranking of new addition to the main skyline, spanning Government Center through North Station:
1: State Street Tower (expected) - Obviously not up yet, but I suspect this one will challenge MT, 1 Dalton, and potentially the Aquarium Tower if it happens, for best building out of the entire boom. It's the peak that legitimizes the area as a true extension of the financial district skyline. Also, I typically favor office buildings over other uses from an aesthetic standpoint, and it's been a while since we got a really good office tower like this.
2: The Sudbury - Classy, high quality materials, less bulky than expected, plays well with its neighbors. I love this one and am sad to see it disappear from the North so soon, although not THAT sad since it's SST replacing it.
3: The Alcott - Classy/classical look, glassy, bright. I like it a lot, but think the materials on The Sudbury (plus the extra height at a crowded level of the plateau) put this one behind the Congress Street Garage pair.
4: Verizon - I like the powerful, neo-industrial look, and the base section also looks great. The blob glass above the base is the worst part. Materials are good. Kind of looks like it belongs in Tokyo. Also, I'll take a surprise 500'+ building any day, every day.
5: Hub Residential - Very disappointing compared to what might/should have been from a height perspective. For what it is, glass looks OK, pattern is unique for the city, and the thin side from Government Center actually looks pretty great.
6. Avalon - I actually was perfectly satisfied with this one when it was first built. However, in context with the surrounding towers it's the shortest and blobbiest, with the worst materials. It kind of looks like a mess compared to the rest of them, but at least it adds to the density and set a new precedent for height in the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
Agree on the Avalon. Hate the material. Like the lighting a bit. Odd thing… if you peek into the lobby…the floors are cracked. Happened shortly after opening.
 
Here's where the hate for the Verizon building is coming from: It's a glorified Jenga Tower crossed with a Rubiks Cube. That being said, it is the most Boxton tower that you can get. Literally the design comprises of boxes within a box within a box. The most uncreative design imaginable that is partly salvaged by the quality of the material. Unfortunately, unlike it's unassuming residential tower neighbor, this tower stands out in all the wrong ways.
 
Last edited:
KentXie said:
Here's where the hate for the Verizon building is coming from: It's a glorified Jenga Tower crossed with a Rubiks Cube. That being said, it is the most Boxton tower that you can get. Literally the design comprises of boxes within a box within a box. The most uncreative design imaginable that is partly salvaged by the quality of the material. Unfortunately, unlike it's unassuming residential tower neighbor, this tower stands out in all the wrong ways.
Click to expand...

My Lyft took the fun way home from East Boston so I had the luxury of driving to Chelsea and hitting Route 1. I live above the tunnel in West End so my Lyft tried to drop me off right before the Govt Center exit below. Anyway, to your exact point, this thing looks so fat and stupid when you enter the city, and because it's right there it has the same size effect as the rest of downtown in terms of height...but definitely not width.
 
I wonder, in 5 years will it be a jolly old friend and a beloved part of the Boston landscape or reviled? It is uniquely ugly and comically out of proportion and sometimes that's enough for people to fall in love with a place and make it part of the local lore. Soon, when people get out again and start to relate it with good times at the Garden it might become a symbol of fun.
 
Last edited:
KentXie said:
Here's where the hate for the Verizon building is coming from: It's a glorified Jenga Tower crossed with a Rubiks Cube. That being said, it is the most Boxton tower that you can get. Literally the design comprises of boxes within a box within a box. The most uncreative design imaginable that is partly salvaged by the quality of the material. Unfortunately, unlike it's unassuming residential tower neighbor, this tower stands out in all the wrong ways.
Click to expand...

My only issue with it is that it was supposed to be so much better. The original version with the peaked roof and the spire wasn't great, and what was built isn't awful IMO, but it's definitely worse. IIRC, it was Verizon that forced the change so they could get bigger floor plates.

Also, I don't really see the case for "Boston" buildings being boxes. The four most prominent buildings in this cycle are an elongated triangle (One Dalton), whatever shape we're saying 115 Winthrop Square is (I don't think it's really a box and at least the facade is pleated), a sweeping oval (One Congress), and, again, a nonsense shape for Millennium Tower. While everything is a box if you parse it that way, I also wouldn't call the Hancock a box. 111 Huntington isn't a box. The Federal Reserve isn't a box.
 
Last edited:
Equilibria said:
My only issue with it is that it was supposed to be so much better. The original version with the peaked roof and the spire wasn't great, and what was built isn't awful IMO, but it's definitely worse. IIRC, it was Verizon that forced the change so they could get bigger floor plates.

Also, I don't really see the case for "Boston" buildings being boxes. The four most prominent buildings in this cycle are an elongated triangle (One Dalton), whatever shape we're saying 115 Winthrop Square is (I don't think it's really a box and at least the facade is pleated), a sweeping oval (One Congress), and, again, a nonsense shape for Millennium Tower. While everything is a box if you parse it that way, I also wouldn't call the Hancock a box. 111 Huntington isn't a box. The Federal Reserve isn't a box.
Click to expand...
For sure, give it a few years and Boston will grow out of it's boxy reputation but prior to the latter half of this cycle, Boston was essentially a bunch of boxes and flat tops. Actually, a better term might be monolithic but that doesn't roll off the tongue as easy as boxy.
 
KentXie said:
For sure, give it a few years and Boston will grow out of it's boxy reputation but prior to the latter half of this cycle, Boston was essentially a bunch of boxes and flat tops. Actually, a better term might be monolithic but that doesn't roll off the tongue as easy as boxy.
Click to expand...

I would definitely characterize the Boston skyline as flat-topped. That's a good term. We suck at spires since the Custom House Tower.
 
Just wanted to compile a few of the major design iterations here so that people don't have to go through dozens of previous pages to find them (this thread is pretttty long). Since the discussion brought up the old spire.
11.JPG

22.jpg

33.png

(current)

The design approach (from what I can gather) really seemed to lean into the interchangeable top piece. The podium didn't even change between the middle, more... techtonic(?) iteration of the tower and the built version. Explains to me why it all seems so disjointed. I guess that amalgamated city block look was what they were going for, so contrasting masses was intended. Not sold on the aesthetics though personally.

The older design with the spire might have had a smidge more character. Still too broken up and fighting against the unfortunate proportions - trying to look taller than it is.
 
I always thought the second iteration of the office tower was a play on the NBC tower in Chicago, though much wider and with fewer setbacks, with both incorporating flying buttresses in their design. They are both near identical in height with the NBC tower being slightly taller at 524 ft to the roof compared to 510ft for the Hub on Causeway.

1616533957169.png
 
Bananarama said:
Just wanted to compile a few of the major design iterations here so that people don't have to go through dozens of previous pages to find them (this thread is pretttty long). Since the discussion brought up the old spire.
View attachment 11467
View attachment 11468
View attachment 11469
(current)

The design approach (from what I can gather) really seemed to lean into the interchangeable top piece. The podium didn't even change between the middle, more... techtonic(?) iteration of the tower and the built version. Explains to me why it all seems so disjointed. I guess that amalgamated city block look was what they were going for, so contrasting masses was intended. Not sold on the aesthetics though personally.

The older design with the spire might have had a smidge more character. Still too broken up and fighting against the unfortunate proportions - trying to look taller than it is.
Click to expand...
I think all three design iterations look clunky. It's just as well that they built the third iteration.
 
KentXie said:
I always thought the second iteration of the office tower was a play on the NBC tower in Chicago, though much wider and with fewer setbacks, with both incorporating flying buttresses in their design. They are both near identical in height with the NBC tower being slightly taller at 524 ft to the roof compared to 510ft for the Hub on Causeway.

View attachment 11487
Click to expand...

Oh god - that thing screams high-walled cubicle farms and rows of file cabinets. No, thank you, we'll let that era fade and try something new.

(If it makes any of you grumblers feel better - remember that the Verizon building is full of dying Oath brands like AOL, Yahoo, and Tumblr. Maybe they deserved a building architecture style that will die soon.)
 
Last edited:
Honestly the proposal we got was the least bad of the options. The spire one was... not good. I sort of recall one of the early proposals had a more industrial look to the roof canopy which I liked too.
 
Vagabond said:
Oh god - that thing screams high-walled cubicle farms and rows of file cabinets. No, thank you, we'll let that era fade and try something new.
Click to expand...
You mean art-deco?

meddlepal said:
Honestly the proposal we got was the least bad of the options. The spire one was... not good. I sort of recall one of the early proposals had a more industrial look to the roof canopy which I liked too.
Click to expand...
I understand that the design was dictated by Verizon. Just unfortunate that the standard we have to set is "the least bad". Then again, I work in the telecom industry and Verizon's headquarter is on par with other telecom headquarters I've seen or visited.
 
Last edited:
KentXie said:
For sure, give it a few years and Boston will grow out of it's boxy reputation but prior to the latter half of this cycle, Boston was essentially a bunch of boxes and flat tops. Actually, a better term might be monolithic but that doesn't roll off the tongue as easy as boxy.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that Boston has such flat topped buildings. The other major US city well known for flat tops is Los Angeles, where for most of its history required helicopter pads on skyscraper roofs. I'm not aware of any regulation like that in Boston, though, so it's a bit of a mystery.
 
I definitely think the hub residential is the lesser of the bunch. Theres just way too much going on there. It has like 5 types of glass, stilts here, a notch there, balconies randomly start 1/3 of the way up, blank strip for the mech floor, and we cant forget the magically iconic checkerboard pattern with that one single panel in the wrong place... The thing is I wouldnt call it average, the moxy is average, this is mediocre.
 
HenryAlan said:
It's interesting that Boston has such flat topped buildings. The other major US city well known for flat tops is Los Angeles, where for most of its history required helicopter pads on skyscraper roofs. I'm not aware of any regulation like that in Boston, though, so it's a bit of a mystery.
Click to expand...

Like anything else, I always assumed it was Logan-related. With the FAA limiting heights throughout the city, most developers would just assume build right up to the artificial height limit and call it a day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top