archBOSTON.org

Go Back   archBOSTON.org > Boston's Built Environment > Design a Better Boston

Design a Better Boston Are you disappointed with the state of Boston's current architecture/development? Think you have a better idea? Post it here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-18-2013, 06:11 PM   #1
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 4,147
Which building should be redeveloped

Anyone have an opinion?

If you could renovate an existing building into residential / mixed-use, which one would it be?

It seems some people think the Shreve, Crump & Low building could be saved. Should that be renovated into residential (or commercial / office space)?

Any others?
__________________
"You must really like hearing yourself talk, because you do an awful lot of it whether or not you know anything at all about the topic at hand ..."
JohnAKeith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 07:03 PM   #2
Proposition Joe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 294
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

I always thought the old Shreve, Crump, and Low building would make for a nice location of the Boston Museum.

#1 building that needs to be torn down is the Post Office.
Proposition Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 10:41 PM   #3
Scalziand
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Worcester, MA
Posts: 444
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

Boston needs more sliver buildings. And this burned out tenement is right across from South Station.

http://goo.gl/maps/wvgK1
__________________
Shadows no longer exist. They will henceforth be known as shade.
Scalziand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 07:57 AM   #4
MBTAddict
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 473
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnAKeith View Post
Anyone have an opinion?

If you could renovate an existing building into residential / mixed-use, which one would it be?

It seems some people think the Shreve, Crump & Low building could be saved. Should that be renovated into residential (or commercial / office space)?

Any others?
Isn't the Shreve Crump and Low building already offices for Greg Selkoe's company Karmaloop?
MBTAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 09:02 AM   #5
underground
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North End
Posts: 2,386
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

The State Services building needs MASSIVE rehab. It seriously looks like it's about to fall into the ground. I know those offices need to go somewhere convenient, but I don't think there's ever going to be a state office willing and/or able to pay the appropriate amount for upkeep that the building needs (and deserves as an architectural landmark). If the state agencies could be moved, and a private operation with money to burn could move in, the building itself would benefit hugely. Especially if they figured out some way to activate the ground floors.

In that same area, the Federal Building and low rise portion of the JFK also need to be either completely replaced or completely renovated. They're straight up street level killers. Again, the issue is that A) no government agency is going to want to go through the hassle and burn through the money; and B) those agencies need to stay in convenient locations.
underground is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 08:33 PM   #6
Digital_Islandboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 361
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalziand View Post
Boston needs more sliver buildings. And this burned out tenement is right across from South Station.

http://goo.gl/maps/wvgK1
From the otherside. The former Boston Edison's building is the one next to that burnt out one.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...575693932).jpg

The ten story pink building to the left is the MBTA Operations Control Centre. (45 High Street) aka (O.C.C.) Used to work in there. They offered that Hardware store MONEY many times to take over that property, tare it down and add to their own building. They turned it down. Instead the MBTA retrofitted their own building using that bracing on the outside and built upward.

The man used to only open that hardware store a few days a week and then it caught fire one day. The MBTA now no longer has the money to buy the building next door since Romney's little Wall Street deals which are bleeding the MBTA/Commonwealth of millions annually.
Digital_Islandboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 09:49 PM   #7
Scalziand
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Worcester, MA
Posts: 444
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

^Thanks for sharing the backstory on that building. It's understandable that the owner might not have wanted to sell previously, but it's a shame that they won't fix it and keep in this blighted condition.
__________________
Shadows no longer exist. They will henceforth be known as shade.
Scalziand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 08:52 PM   #8
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 4,147
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

Trying to find other threads with this conversation in it but unable to do so.

I don't know if it's been mentioned on the forum before but the building at 51-53 High Street (between High and Purchase streets) is for sale.

I'll drink gasoline if "a 350 tall building with 29 floors," equating to approximately a 70,000 GSF 'skinny skyscraper' under the current footprint of 2,440 SF" is proposed, much less built, on this site.

__________________
"You must really like hearing yourself talk, because you do an awful lot of it whether or not you know anything at all about the topic at hand ..."
JohnAKeith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 09:51 PM   #9
JumboBuc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: The Fenway
Posts: 1,519
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

^ This has been discussed over here in the Rose Kennedy Greenway thread, starting at post #5949
JumboBuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 10:38 PM   #10
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 4,147
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

Amazing
__________________
"You must really like hearing yourself talk, because you do an awful lot of it whether or not you know anything at all about the topic at hand ..."
JohnAKeith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2016, 01:40 PM   #11
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 4,010
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2016, 03:39 PM   #12
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
 
Charlie_mta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,082
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

^ Another gift from the 1960's BRA "redevelopment" of Boston.

Seeing all these gruesome mistakes from that era reminds me of when the Berlin Wall came down, and all the ugly Soviet developments in East Berlin stuck out like sore thumbs, exactly like these BRA relics do in Boston from the 1960's. Time to do like Germany has done, and clean up the mess.
Charlie_mta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2016, 04:01 PM   #13
oyhimylm
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 30
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

That building is rather ugly, but I don't think it's all that bad from a functional point of view. The "sidewalk" here is gigantic, the ground level is entirely retail, the overhang provides shelter from inclement weather, and despite its impermeable appearance, there are several pedestrian cut throughs that keep it from actually being so.
oyhimylm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2016, 10:14 PM   #14
meddlepal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,085
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

I actually rather like that building.
meddlepal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2016, 04:57 AM   #15
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,361
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

It's ugly as sin, but I agree: highly functional with a great street interface. The retail row really helps to keep the block commercially vibrant as yin-yang to the Christian Science Plaza, especially in winter when the plaza is cold and empty. I don't think that positive effect can be much improved upon. It also is narrow enough in width to not have destroyed any of the neighborhood along Westland immediately behind it, so I wouldn't call that an urban renewal warcrime either. The residential and small retail between Boylston-Huntington-Riverway-Mass Ave. retains its character.

It could use some lipstick on that concrete cladding next renovation, but that's about it.



Now, if you want an ugly fucker to gawk at on that block, try the parking garage immediately behind it on Westland: https://goo.gl/maps/FSWTTYzADx12. Although that too does a good job with functionality, cramming a full-size Whole Foods on the ground level.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2016, 01:52 PM   #16
curcuas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 221
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

The apartments inside that monstrosity are quite nice too. It needs recladding at most.
curcuas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2016, 10:36 AM   #17
Suffolk 83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South End
Posts: 1,790
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

I dont know about redeveloping because its part of the hospital but they should consider blowing these two up (or is it one?) and starting over

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3364...8i6656!6m1!1e1

The one on the right might be the ugliest building I've ever seen, at least the one on the left has some color..... either way, terrible
Suffolk 83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2016, 10:38 AM   #18
Suffolk 83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South End
Posts: 1,790
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

Also, this one a little further down harrison:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3377...7i13312!8i6656
Suffolk 83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2016, 11:36 AM   #19
CSTH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,473
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

Quote:
Originally Posted by F-Line to Dudley View Post
It's ugly as sin, but I agree: highly functional with a great street interface. The retail row really helps to keep the block commercially vibrant as yin-yang to the Christian Science Plaza, especially in winter when the plaza is cold and empty. I don't think that positive effect can be much improved upon. It also is narrow enough in width to not have destroyed any of the neighborhood along Westland immediately behind it, so I wouldn't call that an urban renewal warcrime either. The residential and small retail between Boylston-Huntington-Riverway-Mass Ave. retains its character.
I agree that the Mass Ave. side is functional enough.

It's real sin though is cutting the nose off the acute intersection of Mass Ave. and Westland, across from Symphony hall. The short side of the building there totally disrepects the geometry of the intersection and the relationship to Symphony and Hort Halls. Before this went in, there was a rounded tower / turret there. There's a good write-up of this in Cityscapes Boston - will see if I can find and scan tonight.
CSTH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2016, 11:45 AM   #20
CSTH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,473
Re: Which building should be redeveloped

This is on the harbor with great views of downtown, charlestown and the Tobin
[/IMG]



For good measure - this is a school:
CSTH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A redeveloped cleveland circle palindrome Design a Better Boston 69 10-14-2015 10:41 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.