Hey, there! Log in / Register
It would be kind of hysterical if John Hancock were the insurer for the Government Center rebuild
By adamg on Mon, 09/14/2015 - 12:47pm
Mike Kix watched workers replace some defective glass panels with plywood at the new Government Center T station today.
When Boston was home to the world's tallest plywood building.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Who Decided Upon This Design, And Why?
I'd really like to know: who exactly is responsible for selecting such grandiose designs for transit stations, within the constraints of the Ⓣ's limited budget, and with the overwhelming backlog of general maintenance needed to actually make the trains run?
It seems to be one of the many symptoms of a transit system whose priorities are significantly misaligned, with the mission of providing the public with reliable and efficient transportation.
Transit stations, like this
Transit stations, like this one, are designed with Federal grant money. They arent designed and built with the general operating budget. This station in particular was part of the package to bring all the stations up to ADA compliance. As a hub it was designed to be more iconic than what was designed for say Arlington which is also part of the overall budget for this project. It's only after the design is done that the T would apply for the federal money. After winning they have to complete what was purposed they simply can not move money from on thing or another to suit budget needs.
So, Since It's Fed Money, Then Soak It For All You Can Get?
The problem is, this results in things that will incur much higher maintenance costs in the future, which will indeed come from the operating budget. Or, perhaps more likely, quickly crumble into disrepair.
The costly glass tower does nothing to facilitate or enhance ADA compliance.
pretty much
Pretty much, and you need to spend all the budgeted dollars on the project.
Do you have facts and/or numbers to support your 'costly glass' vs other construction materials?
Glass is cheaper since it can be made off site (and usually out of state) and assembled quickly on site since it requires less labor on site to do so. Any other materials will probably cost far more than that. This is why buildings are no longer built with brick, since the labor costs are too much. Glass is simply cheaper.
It's The Tower That's Costly — It Happens To Be Made Of Glass
I'm not at all saying that glass, in and of itself, is a costly building material. Indeed, pre-fabricated and/or "off-the-shelf" glass components are economical choices.
But this structure is far from an "off-the-shelf" design — the massive, structural steel support columns, and the huge glass panels, were custom-designed and manufactured for this individual project.
(which also, is exactly why they're having so many problems putting it together!)
There's simply no purpose for it to be any taller than a single story. You can't tell me that the cheapest option was to build it as tall and as massive as this.
Facts
Again, do you have any facts to back up what you are saying at all?
I don't think you do, because you just backpedaled after I corrected you. And yes, you did because you said initially "costly glass", yet you just said:
I also never said "off the shelf". It's not like they can go to HomeDepot.com and order this stuff. Of course, it has to be custom made for this project. My point being is that it costs significantly less for the glass structure to be made off site, elsewhere, and be brought in and assembled on site far cheaper than any other building material. This is why most high rises are glass today. It's cheaper.
Again, show me some facts that have lead you to your very large assumption about this.
This could have been an engineering error, a manufacturing error off site, or not installed correctly. There's many more variables to this than I think you understand about why this happened.
I never said any of those. You're making assumptions again. I just said glass was cheaper. I never said it was the cheapest option, however I said "glass is simply cheaper" (than other building materials). I never said it was the cheapest or the most expensive.
So please come back when you have some facts to base your opinions on.
The Cost To Construct Any Wall Is Proportional To Surface Area
It requires twice as much glass to build a forty foot wall, than it does to build a twenty foot wall. It's just elementary geometry. If you can't grasp that concept, well then...
FYI — I wasn't "backpedaling". I merely clarified my statement to help correct your misunderstanding of it.
Of course, building products in this class are not available at Home Depot. But there are numerous manufacturers who have pre-engineered, commercial grade products. Architects and designers specify the desired dimensions and other details, and the supplier fulfills the order. It's done all the time for office buildings, shopping malls, and other structures. For example:
Devner Union Station — Glass wall and roof by Kawneer/Alcoa
oh I grasp it
Oh I get the concept very well. I just don't think you fully understand what is going on with the project such as much as you think you do. I also don't think you have any facts to backup your claims with any of what you say at all. It's easy to say "you can't grasp the concept" and not provide any facts.
I've asked for facts to prove your original post and followings posts after are valid. And you have yet to provide any that prove what you were saying is correct, especially when it pertains to this project. This is what I was trying to get you to provide facts for. Not general statements, but ones specific to the the construction of Government Center Station. And you have provided zero except your opinion and a few generalizations.
No you were backpedaling. You do exactly what I see many posters here do, you start off on an unsubstantiated claim like "costly glass" and then have nothing to back it up on when someone calls you out on it. Then when you're corrected, you realized you were wrong, and just backpedaled on the issue or in your words "clarifying". If you didn't mean to say "costly glass", then why didn't you say something different initially? Don't try to push the statement back at me saying I didn't understand, I'm just correcting your incorrect original statement.
A pretty picture isn't facts. Please show me how that picture of a station you post was used with 'prefabricated' parts? Got some links to share to manufacturers of "numerous manufacturers" you seem to know about? I just don't think you do, because you are just grasping at straws at this point. Because I bet if you did look, you'd see all the glass in that station was custom made, just like Government Center station. You are just making a broad assumption without any facts to backup what you are at all.
You still didn't answer any of my questions or provide any facts on any of my questions above, because I just don't think you have any. And you're starting to realize you don't have anything to back up any of what you are saying and someone called you out on it.
So I'm still waiting for my facts, but I don't think I'm going to get any because you'd rather just do the "the T sucks at construction" rant that you and many other posters here do so often without much merit behind them and just leave it at that. Want to prove me entirely wrong? Find some facts to backup all your statements.
Adorable!
Weed grows tall
If you're going to build a greenhouse for MBTA advocates, it needs to be taller than if growing tomato plants.
Reinforced concrete would have been fine.
I don't imagine anyone expected a brick job any more than they expected artisan stone.
Just set up forms, pour and get out of there instead of wasting so much time on effete architect vanity.
My guess
The MBTA was looking for a flashy design and picked a firm with a pretty good design. But as the budget came together and other groups weighed in they kept scaling back and redesigning the station until you had something which neither looked good nor had good usability or robustness. (But still had some glass from the original design.) Crap via committee, if you will.
I want to know why it needed to be so tall. The whole thing could be 1/4 the height and still provide sunlight below plus it would have been cheaper, not block street views, etc.
not exactly adorable
John Hancock
Isn't a property & casualty insurance company, they office life insurance.
Odd fact, they are the largest commercial agricultural firm in CA.
Big Dig logic meets Gilligans Island.
The station really just needed to be ADA compliant, that's it, your three hour tour.
But the grifting started getting rough and blew the Minnow into Big Dig mind set where it proceeds from that simple aim to a grandiose hog trough for pet designers, contractors and consultants.
I still think the local vain architect shill brigade is the only constituency that thinks this isn't sucky, overdone and stupid.
The rest of us just want the damned station done.
I dont know, I think theres a
I dont know, I think theres a case to be made that the station seriously needed some ventilation improvements. That place was disgusting as soon as the weather got anywhere above fifty. More room for people to get up and down wasn't a bad goal either, plus the second headhouse....
But as usual, some good ideas got wrapped up in crap.
Not as bad as the Kenmore Station design
Who was the designer of the new-ish Kenmore Station design?. Did they ever think of how the design would affect the many commuters who have to wait for a bus there? The current deign is more of a wind tunnel (and water, when it rains). There is virtually no shelter from the elements at this very busy bus stop.
It may have been the same idiots.
I noticed how utterly worthless that thing is as a shelter too.
The contract for the new glass crap was probably set in motion after the last glass disaster.
Send them to Dubai or some other overly grandiose place and fire the MassDot/T jackass who foisted it off on the public..
I't's the GOVERNMENT CENTER T stop
Sorry for the caps but I wanted to emphasize the location. It's the portal to City Hall, courthouses and other state offices and federal offices. It shouldn't be a utilitarian shack.
A structure of significant gravitas was appropriate. I think this was what was the goal.
Unfortunately the end result has fallen far short.
This structure may look ok with meticulous cleaning and maintenance, but we all know that ain't happening. It'll be an eyesore in a year, two years max.
OK, a monument to bloat, dysfunction, and wasted tax dollars
You really helped explain it all. It does symbolize that, thank you!
Government center T Station
Sadly, the new glass box completely obscures the view of Old North Church from the medallion left by Charles Hilgenhurst and the BRA in 1960 securing the view for future generations. Unfortunately the BRA of today really does not care about the view corridors of our city.