Boston in the Seventies (the 18-70's)

J

JohnAKeith

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
4,321
Reaction score
69
I haven't been able to find any information on this so I was hoping someone might have some suggestions ...

Have you noticed that all the sidewalks in the South End and Back Bay are brick? Did you think this was "historically-correct"?

It's not. In olden-times, the sidewalks were dirt paths.

I can't find any discussions about this or photos (why would a person take a photo of a sidewalk in 1870???).

I am calling for a return of those days ... dirt paths or concrete. Brick pathways are bad for baby carriages, those with canes, and those in wheelchairs. Plus, brick breaks more easily than concrete.
 
Not historically correct. Triumph of aesthetics over common sense.

Financial District and North End had/have granite-slab sidewalks, dimpled to make them a little less slippery. Sometimes they're capped with asphalt.
 
Does anyone else find them aesthetically offensive? They scream "1970s historical comb-over", particularly when employed in strange contexts (like City Hall Plaza, which would actually look 75% more attractive in concrete). They remind me of modern evaluations of Colonial Williamsburg - that it better represents the 1930s idea of what colonial America would look like than what it actually did. The sidewalks are like a cartoon bicentennial pastiche - in summer, when the school buses start rolling down the Freedom Trail, the whole city feels like it's about to turn into a "Schoolhouse Rocks" musical. Admittedly, I find them charming on some narrow South End sidewalks, but I wouldn't mind seeing half these pathways replaced.
 
czsz said:
Does anyone else find them aesthetically offensive?
....
Admittedly, I find them charming on some narrow South End sidewalks, but I wouldn't mind seeing half these pathways replaced.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Good for a path to the front door through the garden, or encircling the private island parks in Lousiburg Square, or Union Square, or even something like Chester Square in the South End.
Bad for the whole shebang.
And on hills. In winter. With any precip. *shuddering*

Redundancy from another thread/topic: I find cobblestone to be as skid-worthy as brick. Why was it de riguer for so long? (History of 'paving' ... anybody?)
 
ablarc, I realized my mistake just minutes ago as I walked in front of Aquataine and realized slabs were most likely the original material; you can see the old coal chute covers, still.
 
I thought that when the Porter house in the South End was build(1806) that the city required them to build brick sidewalks.
 
ablarc said:
Not historically correct. Triumph of aesthetics over common sense.
Click to expand...

Yep.

czsz said:
Does anyone else find them aesthetically offensive? They scream "1970s historical comb-over", particularly when employed in strange contexts (like City Hall Plaza, which would actually look 75% more attractive in concrete).
Click to expand...

No, usually I don't find the brick sidewalks aesthetically offensive, just because they look nicer than concrete of asphalt in most places (except City Hall Plaza, of course). The brick would look a lot nicer if it was kept in better condition or used more sparingly. My favorite sidewalks are the ones with granite curbs (fairly standard), concrete walking surface, and edged/separated by rows two bricks wide. You get the function of concrete, and the aesthetic of brick (reflecting the buildings, but not making you sick of it). And the granite looks good and is functional.
 
I think the white brick in kenmore square looks good.
 
^ White brick??!
What have I missed? (Haven't been in the Kenmore area since 2007.)

So... what some of you are saying is that this is okay?
img47191024x768ju6.jpg
 
ablarc said:
^ Ghastly.
Click to expand...

It's even worse right around this time of year, after a solid set of freeze-thaw cycles, when the brick has started heaving up and there are gaping holes in the sidewalk.
 
JohnAKeith said:
I haven't been able to find any information on this so I was hoping someone might have some suggestions ...

Have you noticed that all the sidewalks in the South End and Back Bay are brick? Did you think this was "historically-correct"?

It's not. In olden-times, the sidewalks were dirt paths.

I can't find any discussions about this or photos (why would a person take a photo of a sidewalk in 1870???).

I am calling for a return of those days ... dirt paths or concrete. Brick pathways are bad for baby carriages, those with canes, and those in wheelchairs. Plus, brick breaks more easily than concrete.
Click to expand...


I wonder about this too. They're disastrous. In Portland, ME They're all brick too. even in some of the most obscure residential neighborhoods. I thought it was historic (until reading this thread), but in most places (in Portland as well as Boston) they are crumbling and worthless. I like the brick in some spots, but it's too widespread (in Portland AND Boston) to be aesthetically pleasing anymore and I think plain old concrete would look better than the broken, jagged bricks.

The one benefit I've noticed though is entertainment. If you're ever out at night, especially in the winter or after a summer rain storm, watching the inebriated ladies in heels try to navigate the treacherous surface is absolutely hilarious (unless you're accompanying said lady and have to essentially carry here... been there). Maybe I'm evil for saying this, but it's sort of funny watching someone who's tried SOOO hard to look their best lose any sort of grace while fumbling to walk straight and keep from falling.

Would anyone with a bit more expertise in this area know how well (and realistic given costs) something like this would work (from a Quebec City trip in October)?:



Or this surface used in Quebec City's pedestrian streets (sorry about the quality on this one... cell phone shot):



The reason I ask is because they seem to function well up there in similar (worse, actually) conditions to what we have in New England. Frost heaving doesn't seem to be TOO big of a problem, nor does traction in the snow. It's also a bit more appealing than plain concrete.

*Edit* Changed second picture as I initially chose the wrong one.
 
Granite, limestone, or slate were all used around the city until concrete came into use in the 191xs. The oldest surviving concrete sidewalks have bronze plates from tradesman. The little plates, usually the size of an index card, declare their company name, year of construction, and pride in employing new technology. The aggregate usually helps to date the pour as well.

A good concrete or rubber sidewalk, on paper, should last an upwards of forty years, but they never do due to craft issues or utility work. For better sidewalk materials, there are engineered blocks used for sidewalks and streets, which look and wear like lovely stone, used throughout Italy and Germany. One would think it would be cheaper to pull them up and plunk them back down for utility work, or to repair frost heaves. However, even if brick sidewalks our utility companies think nothing of sawing up the ground and patching with asphalt.

It needs to be a law that all utility work is repaired "in kind". All the asphalt blotches in brick and concrete look like industrial dog crap. Give the typical asphalt patch two winters and it erodes into a dirt hole for some wheelchair or stroller to get lost in.
 
The surface of that pedestrian street in Quebec City looks good to the eyes and I bet it also works well for walking on.

An issue we see a lot with brick is that it is moved by the thawing of the ground every spring. I guess every surface is exposed this but I imagine that some hold up better than others.
 
The globe article is full of it. Huntington Ave and Boylston Street, which were redone after 2005 with brick or new concrete, have already been sliced up and poorly patched with asphalt.
 
I probably should have written "policy" rather than policy :)
 
I like the look of Quebec City (which is a fantastic place to visit), and wonder about their pavers, specifically depth. 3x3 squares are used on Boylston, and are highly susceptible to heaving. Of course, they're only about 3/8" thick, so there's nothing holding them down except gravity. If they were true cut stone, or even a concrete-molded subsitute with some heft, I feel like it'd work better.

In the absence of a good solution, I'd rather have uniform concrete that is navigable rather than something that looks pretty for three months and goes to hell in the winter.
 
Thanks for the info all.

Cannot quite wrap my eyes/brain around what is going on in that pic of Kenmore. I assume those are bricks? Paving stones? White mixed with gray or red?

Anyway, frost heaves. Ha! There's something I've forgotten about. Although I live in the land of ground rifts--different mechanisms to the same end result, without the ice and snow, though.

Quebec City is one great physical place, eh? Those 'paving stones' are solid. I think they'd do well in parts of Boston, especially where they could cover the main walkways/pathways, and then have them augmented by the precious 'historicism' of brick along their edges.

Aside: My dad used to have a prominent office view down State and Broad Streets. During the winter, he would actually call us, laughing, because he would watch people navigate the slippery sidewalks and feel the need to relay the amusing scenarios he observed. It's all fun until you crack your own skull on the pavement, though. (killjoy)

As far as the Codman Square neighborhood dissent about paying for sidewalk replacement--I'm on the fence. Nickle-and-diming aside, I would want old asphalt/macadam removed and would be happy to pay for the alternatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top