Is Brown the New Green? Why Boston’s Ugly, Expensive Macallen Condos Shouldn’t Be a Model For Green Buildings

10/17/08Follow @wroush

(Page 2 of 3)

they should move out of their Court Square Press loft and into the $8 million, 5,600-square-foot top floor at the Macallen, which comes complete with a retractable roof over the lap pool.

The anonymous author of the local blog Bostonia Rantida puts the question exactly right: “It’s nice that it’s a green building, but isn’t there a way to have green buildings for, I don’t know, the NON-ultra rich?” There may be—but somehow I don’t think you’ll see the Pappas brothers building green housing for the 50 percent of Boston families who earn less than $46,000 per year.

It’s also distressing that a such a high-profile green building wound up looking so forbidding. The architects—Monica Ponce de Leon and Nader Tehrani of the Boston firm Office dA—gave the building an aluminum skin that was supposed to shimmer like bronze but turned out to be a flat, unsavory shade of brown. According to Campbell’s review, this skin was conceived as a “pliable curtain” weaving its way basket-like among the tips of the steel trusses that hold up the building, but to my untrained eye, it looks like it’s simply peeling and buckling.

To passersby, the building is anything but friendly-looking. The grass-covered roof, one of the building’s most unusual and remarked-upon features, is invisible from the street. Instead, pedestrians get a lovely view of the parking garage. The lobby entrance is hidden away on a private alley between the Macallen building and Pappas’ other residential project, the Court Square Press building. Video cameras loom over the sidewalk, signs warn of 24-hour surveillance, and one side of the building is protected by a curtain of spikes that looks like the perfect place for a row of severed heads.

The Macallen Building\'s LEED Gold PlaqueThe Macallen is also remarkably noisy. The double-paned windows may keep the condo units as quiet as a morgue on the inside—but if you’re outside, the two giant ventilating units facing West 4th Street, one at each end of the parking level, generate more of a racket than the locomotives rumbling through the adjoining train yard.

A final criticism, based on what I learned from the movie—which is surprisingly unbiased, considering what intimate access the filmmakers had to Pappas Enterprises and the job site—has to do with the sometimes self-defeating logic of green design. Is it really “sustainable” to use double-flush toilets if you have to bring them all the way from Australia, on container ships that burn huge amounts of diesel fuel? Are bamboo floors still green if you have to bring the wood from China? How much sense is there in using special glues that are free of volatile organic compounds if it means that those bamboo floors buckle and have to be ripped out (and new bamboo ordered from China)?

The fault here doesn’t lie with the architects or the developers but with the LEED checklists, which award points if builders include certain features (e.g., locally-mixed concrete, recycled steel, cotton-based insulation, and you guessed it, bamboo floors). The system almost seems set up to encourage point-mongering—often at the expense of a project’s actual carbon footprint. Indeed, the LEED system is under fire from some quarters for putting too little emphasis on measures that could reduce carbon emissions and help to arrest climate change.

Of course, Boston’s green building movement doesn’t begin and end at Macallen. In August, Boston Mayor Tom Menino decreed that all new affordable housing funded by the city’s Department of Neighborhood Development must obtain a LEED Silver rating. “We want to keep the working class in the city,” Menino told a Globe reporter after a press conference in Fields Corner, where the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative had just announced a $2 million grant to help six Boston housing projects meet the standard.

So, the same $2 million that will get you a single three-bedroom condo in the Macallen Building will help six housing projects in the heart of Dorchester go green. I wonder which one does more good?

Continue to Page 3 for more photos of the Macallen Building.

For a full list of my columns, check out the World Wide Wade Archive. You can also subscribe to the column via RSS or e-mail.

… Next Page »

Wade Roush is a contributing editor at Xconomy. Follow @wroush

Single Page Currently on Page: 1 2 3 previous page

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

  • Bryan Willman

    Why do you worry about “which will do more good” based on the price? I agree that shipping toilets from Australia may well be self defeating. But do you really think low end housing can ever lead style and practice for mainstream housing? And do you really think that government mandates directed at public or semi-public housing projects will ever lead trends in mainstream housing?
    It may well be that high end projects do “more good” by setting examples the large middle market aspires too. (Leaving aside bamboo floors redone and toilets shipped from literally the far side of the Earth…)

  • Mark Jaquith

    Butt ugly for sure. Maybe the next one will add some color, or maybe even visual interest. With luck lessons have been learned re materials etc.

    Mr. Willman makes a good point about the business of building housing these days. Where is the incentive to build “mainstream” housing at all. The motivators are for maxing out your floor area ratio and selling high. If anyone can point out a “neighborhood” that has been built lately, it would be a nice surprise. It seems that for the most part urban planning and even zoning responsibilities have been abandoned by government and eagerly snapped up by developers and their lenders. Hey, isn’t that similar to what happened to the mortgage industry? It didn’t work out too well.

    All that being said, at least someone is building LEED gold.

  • Dave

    “It’s nice that it’s a green building, but isn’t there a way to have green buildings for, I don’t know, the NON-ultra rich?” It’s expensive to build green, duh, for the same reasons that organic food at Whole Foods is more expensive than the processed stuff in the mainstream grocery store. Specialty products at low volumes that generally require more labor and material cost are… more expensive. If being environmentally smart was cheap, well, I’m not even going to bother with the rest of this sentence.

    The only way to get various green features down in cost is to buy a lot more of them and make them mainstream, so stop criticizing the rich for being brave enough to be the early adopters.

    On a separate note, quite right to point out the arbitrary and silly nature of some LEED points. The system definitely needs constant updating and tweaking to make sure it does what it is supposed to do. Question – who should really be the arbiters of what is green? The US Green Building Council? Congress? Local building officials and town councils? Academics? Tough one to answer in a realistic manner.

  • http://www.condolifestylesmagazine.com Jay Barker

    Wade – I enjoyed your article and it’s simply amazing that in 2008 this is the first LEED Gold condo in Boston. And while I’m not a big personal fan of the building design – it seems uninspired (the name is a bit self-serving and uninspired as well), there will come a better “model for green development in Boston.” It’s already happening in other environmentally progressive cities.

    I wanted though to comment on the quote “Green is not about sacrifice… it is about understanding that doing good and doing well often go hand in hand.” Actually, Green *is* about some sacrifice, while Green Marketing is what try’s to convince us it’s not. I’ll throw in that sacrifice doesn’t have to be negative – it can come with change, changing priorities, changing views, changing lifestyles.

    Also, it *can* be true that doing good and doing well often go hand-in-hand, but too often doing well trumps doing good. This is partly why the Macallen Building is the first LEED condo in Boston.

    In the new economy where developers will be more limited to building where there is actual market demand, some of them are going to figure out that if you commit first to doing good – doing well will follow (some are already on this path). Too many approach it the other way around and then hide behind nice sounding quotes like the one you found on Macallen’s website.

    Thanks again for your article!

  • EBR
  • Pingback: Is Brown the New Green? I dunno, but Green is the color of envy

  • Ryan

    Ha! Campbell’s review calls it “LEEDS”. That must have been acceptable in 2007.

  • Pierce

    I think this building is beautiful–well detailed, engaging, and successfully navigates a context that includes industrial warehouses, railyards and infrastructure, a city skyline and a residential neighborhood..  The largest similarity I can find to Sert’s work is that you don’t like it, which is unfortunate but to each his own.  I for one feel inspired everytime I pass the Macallen building, and I dream of a Boston with many many more buildings like it.

  • Pingback: Thinking Sustainable in Southie: Boston's Macallen Building - 1-800-RECYCLING

  • Pingback: Living Sustainably in Southie: Boston's Macallen Building - 1-800-RECYCLING