I think it falls into the style "Contemporary Ugly." It's nice that it appears to have a lot of glass along the first floor, and an awning over part of the sidewalk, but the overall look of it is so generic, almost big box style, it's offensive. It looks like they tried to match the look of Davis while providing lots of daylight for the people inside the building, but a lot of the details just make me cringe. On the other hand, I'm studying architecture right now, so I may have some biases about lack of originality and half-assed attention to detail.
But at least it isn't as in-your-face, out of place, what the HELL was the architect thinking as that . . . that Thing on Mass. Ave., opposite the stone church (a couple three blocks toward Davis from Porter - I forget what the cross street is).
Mass. Ave. and Beech Street. The Porter Square Neighbors Association is very angry about that building. I think they sued the city of Cambridge over it, claiming that it violated zoning and shouldn't have been issued a permit. The developer said he was adding to the Long Funeral Service when what he really did was totally replace it.
developer said he was adding to the Long Funeral Service when what he really did was totally replace it
Ah - that might explain why there is one old brick wall included in the building, which is a complete mismatch to the new construction. "Adding to" my ass.
The architect was probably thinking about a cost-effective way to turn an early 20th century structure that had served as a funeral home into a series of luxury condos.
'Course, you can't look into the second floor of the Hobbs building to see people running on treadmills.
I don't know... given this community's bias against large chains and creeping gentrification, it's a little surprising that there's not more of a reaction to another chain pharmacy with a chain gym going in a building that looks remarkably like the similar complex in Porter Square. Is the 'meh' based entirely around perceived convenience, or is it more because there aren't beloved businesses that are immediately threatened - as was the case with Chipotle?
At the Davis Square Task Force meetings I attended, people were lukewarm at best about CVS, but didn't strongly object to it -- as you point out, it isn't displacing something else people were attached to.
A number of us said "why not Trader Joe's instead?" The developer said he'd talked to TJ's and they weren't interested in a site with no parking (even though they do just fine on Boylston St. without parking).
I go to that parking-less Trader Joe's on Boylston and it's always very busy. I don't think TJ's understands the population density in and around Davis, or the high population of car-free locals who don't give a hoot about parking. A bike rack would be enough as far as "parking" is concerned. But hey, if they're not interested, their loss.
I don't know how they can turn their nose up at the 5th most densely populated community in America. The one in Cambridge is very inconvenient to get to for those without cars, so I go to the T-able one on Boylston. But if TJs didn't have that T-able location, they wouldn't get my business at all. That TJs is sort of a mini-TJs, very small. I'd be happy even if they gave us a wee little one.
Maybe that's the problem -- that space isn't wee little at all, and is too big for them to want to risk.
I don't think it's that much uglier than what was there. I'll admit that it has a bit of that looks-like-every-other-building thing going on, but frankly there are plenty of ugly buildings in Davis.
is that an excuse to put another one in though? There was decent potential, and this is frankly a little sad.
Does anyone know if one were to have a BSC membership could they split between using the Central and Davis locations regularly? I live near one (soon), work near the other :)
Rather better than the thing that was on that site before. Though I'm disappointed that it looks like the Day Street side of the building is going to be pretty faceless.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 06:51 pm (UTC)(And to the first commenter -- what's wrong with a gym?)
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 06:55 pm (UTC)I also don't understand what's wrong with a gym.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 07:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 07:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 07:06 pm (UTC)I don't like BSC *as* a gym because I don't like their marketing. So I'm not opposed to a *gym* it's just that I don't like BSC.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 07:24 pm (UTC)But I think it looks nicer than the CVS building in Porter Sq. And it's a lot nicer than the rusting building that was there before.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 09:01 pm (UTC)But at least it isn't as in-your-face, out of place, what the HELL was the architect thinking as that . . . that Thing on Mass. Ave., opposite the stone church (a couple three blocks toward Davis from Porter - I forget what the cross street is).
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 09:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 09:07 pm (UTC)Ah - that might explain why there is one old brick wall included in the building, which is a complete mismatch to the new construction. "Adding to" my ass.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 09:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 09:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-08 01:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 09:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-08 04:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 07:17 pm (UTC)I don't know... given this community's bias against large chains and creeping gentrification, it's a little surprising that there's not more of a reaction to another chain pharmacy with a chain gym going in a building that looks remarkably like the similar complex in Porter Square. Is the 'meh' based entirely around perceived convenience, or is it more because there aren't beloved businesses that are immediately threatened - as was the case with Chipotle?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 07:19 pm (UTC)A number of us said "why not Trader Joe's instead?" The developer said he'd talked to TJ's and they weren't interested in a site with no parking (even though they do just fine on Boylston St. without parking).
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 08:40 pm (UTC)"Why you dis us? Why you dis our fine land?"
"No dis intended, there's just no parking."
"Somervillian have strong leather feet, no need car. Give us food!"
"Um...we'll consider it."
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 10:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 10:58 pm (UTC)Maybe that's the problem -- that space isn't wee little at all, and is too big for them to want to risk.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-08 01:22 am (UTC)Does anyone know if one were to have a BSC membership could they split between using the Central and Davis locations regularly? I live near one (soon), work near the other :)
no subject
Date: 2006-12-08 01:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-08 01:42 am (UTC)