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

Along West 4th Street in Boston, just past I-93 and the MBTA train yard, there’s a big brown apartment building with an odd sloping roof. I live about a mile away, and I’ve gone past this building several times on walks and bike rides without thinking much about it, except that it’s unattractive in an early-1970s sort of way. It reminded me of the work of the late Josep Lluís Sert, the architect responsible for such aging modernist eyesores as Harvard’s Science Center and Holyoke Center, the Peabody Terrace apartments in Cambridge, and the George Sherman Union complex at Boston University.

I was surprised to learn this week that not only is the brown building brand new, but it’s being celebrated as an example of green design. It’s called the Macallen Building, and it’s the subject of an independent documentary, “The Greening of Southie,” that’s currently making the film-festival rounds; I caught the movie this Tuesday at a screening hosted by Atlas Venture, a Boston-area venture capital firm. (Update 11/20/08: Here’s a video about the screening prepared by the filmmakers themselves.)

A 140-unit luxury condominium complex, the Macallen Building has garnered warm reviews from architecture critics, including no less a figure than Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe writer Robert Campbell. It’s also the first residential building in Boston to win a Gold-level LEED rating, something that can only be achieved through serious effort on the part of architects and developers. (LEED, for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is a voluntary certification system devised by U.S. Green Building Council to encourage sustainable building practices.)

So I’ll probably sound like an unenlightened, anti-environmentalist crank when I say this, but the Macallen Building strikes me as a sorry excuse for the “greening” of anything, let alone South Boston, the working-class neighborhood over which it looms. If this project comes to be seen as a model for green development in Boston and other cities, the green-building movement is in big trouble.

Macallen Building, South BostonI do give the developers of the Macallen Building, Pappas Enterprises, credit for deciding to pursue LEED certification in the first place. As the film makes clear, the decision led to a thousand headaches that the company could have avoided by doing things the old-fashioned way. Construction crews had to set aside scrap metal for recycling, for example, rather than tossing all of the project’s construction waste into landfill-bound dumpsters. They cheerfully tried unproven but “sustainable” materials—such as the non-toxic glue holding down the condo units’ bamboo floors—that wound up causing costly complications. And you can’t argue with green design’s benefits: features like double-flush toilets, rainwater-trapping systems for landscape irrigation, and extensive natural lighting through double-paned, floor-to-ceiling windows mean that the building will save 600,000 gallons of water per year and use 30 percent less electricity than a non-green building.

I also have no objection to the way Pappas has made the building’s green design into a selling point with environmentally conscious condo buyers. Because the building is LEED-certified, the company is able to charge about 10 percent more than developers are getting for similarly sized condos in this corner of the city, according to the real estate review site ApartmentTherapy. That’s fine with me. After going to so much trouble, the company deserves to earn a bit of profit—and who’s going to finance the green-technology overhaul this country needs, if not capitalists? “Green is not about sacrifice…it is about understanding that doing good and doing well often go hand in hand,” the Macallen Building’s website intones. I couldn’t have put it better myself.

But there are several aspects of the Macallen project that bother me. One is the unfortunate symbolism in the fact that Boston’s first green residential building is a luxury condo. You have to be doing pretty well, indeed, to afford a one-bedroom, one-bath unit for $600,000 or a three-bedroom for $2.1 million. According to this 2005 Boston Globe article, the Pappas brothers—Tim, Andrew, and Jay—design their urban properties for city-loving young professionals like themselves. “We look at our peers and we look at our friends,” Andrew Pappas, then 26, told the paper. Another Globe article described Luke Peterson—a 25-year-old mortgage banker who put down $685,000 for a townhouse at First+First, another Pappas project in South Boston—as the ideal Pappas client.

I’m going to hazard a guess that 25-year-old mortgage-banking tycoons are in shorter supply these days. Indeed, there are still 20 empty units at the Macallen, even though the company briefly tried giving away a Toyota Camry Hybrid with each purchase. But at least the penthouse may soon be occupied; at last report, Tim Pappas, the 34-year-old real estate heir who heads Pappas Enterprises and drives racecars in his spare time, was close to persuading his girlfriend that … Next Page »

Single PageCurrently on Page: 1 2 3

Wade Roush is a freelance science and technology journalist and the producer and host of the podcast Soonish. Follow @soonishpodcast

Trending on Xconomy

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

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

  1. Bryan Willman says:

    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…)

  2. Mark Jaquith says:

    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.

  3. Dave says:

    “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.

  4. Jay Barker says:

    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!

  5. Ryan says:

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

  6. Pierce says:

    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.