I have some sympathy for the argument Preservation Massachusetts is making here, and I think they’ve done good work at times, both in Boston proper and elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
However, the article cites Millennium Place and Millennium Tower as examples for this quote:
What got the area a spot on the list this year is the concern that big developments like those will take away from the neighborhood’s historic charm. Preservation Massachusetts would also like to draw attention to the many historic buildings in the area that could use some renovations.
Um, Millennium Place replaced a parking lot that had been a parking lot for a long time. The parking lot was detracting from the neighborhood’s historic charm. I would argue that the new building is a very good example of a modern structure that both looks good in and of itself (considered outside of its context) and also nicely complements the historic charm (considering it IN its context). There’s a spectacular example right across Washington from M Place, and I like the way the Washington streetscape looks now. Others might disagree, but even if you really hate Millennium Place’s architecture, it’s hard to say it takes away from historic charm as much as the pre-existing parking lot (unless you REALLY despise the new building).
Millennium Tower replaced the ugly ass-end of a failed department store. One could certainly argue that the Tower part of the development, and the massive profits generated there, was the critical component that made possible the very excellent renovation of the Burnham Building (Filene’s). That was one of the most critically important acts of historic preservation in Boston we’re likely to see over any twenty year span. Could the renovation part have happened without the new Tower part? Perhaps, but it did not in fact happen that way, the City used its leverage to tie the two together.
The Millennium Tower is great in and of itself, though I don’t yet think its streetscape portion does as good a job of complementing the existing streetscape as well as Millennium Place (while not being bad at it), and I must note that there’s nothing like the Paramount Theater across from the M Tower. But still, it’s not a streetscape failure in my eyes, just maybe not as much of a success as M Place. When it’s all done and open, maybe I’ll like it better. It sure as hell is better than the ugly ass-end of the Filene’s annex that it replaced.
So, while having some sympathy for Pres MA’s goals, their choice of examples is pretty ridiculous. I don’t know if that was the article writer’s decision or someone at Pres MA (that quote up above is of the arcile, it was not a quote within the article of a Pres MA spokesperson).
This was a quote of someone from the Boston Preservation Alliance (distinct group from Preservation MA):
“The listing will assist the Alliance and partners as we advocate for thoughtful investment that considers the important role of preserving the special character of this neighborhood during this period of rapid development.”
Excellent goal, I applaud them for having it. My best two examples of how to do it right? Millennium Place and Millennium Tower. I am sensing a disconnect between what they see and what I see, even though we seem to be looking at the same things.
