Boston in the Seventies

ablarc said:
Here ya go, Statler. See where the stone changes color near the top? That's where they started adding to the building. Robbed it of its full measure of taper.
Click to expand...

Of the thousands of times I've looked up at that building I've never really noticed that.
Now of course, I can't help but see it. So, thanks for that - I guess. ;)
 
I don't know how true this is, but I've heard that cargo ships coming from England were weighed down w/cobble stones on their way here. The stones were unloaded and the ships were filled w/goods form New England to take back. Our early streets were then paved w/these stones.
This comes second hand form someone who took a tour.
 
I know they used ballast to fill in made land so it probably isn't too far off that they used the same to pave the streets... when they did pave them. Most streets were just dirt anyways.
 
not just cobble used as ballast

not just cobble used as ballast
Torso of King Achoris
Egyptian, Late Period, Dynasty 29, reign of Achoris, 393?381 B.C.
The statue came to the United States during the American Civil War (1861?65), along with four other Egyptian sculptures now in the Museum. They were acquired by a Yankee sea captain who touched at Alexandria on his way home from a voyage to the Mediterranean. No doubt they were collected more for their sheer weight (as ballast) than for their artistic merit.
Click to expand...
http://www.mfa.org/collections/sear...der=0&coll_view=0&coll_package=0&coll_start=1
 
Ron Newman said:
In the 1970s, if you walked the length of Boylston Street, you would pass by or within a block of: the Pilgrim (porn), State (porn), Center/Pagoda (Chinese), Essex (Chinese), Publix (third-run exploitation), Astor (exploitation), Saxon (first-run), Garden (art/foreign), Park Square (revival), Paris (first-run), Cinema 733 (revival double-feature), Exeter (art/foreign), Pru (porn), and Cheri (first-run).

Walk a couple more blocks away from Boylston and you'd also find the Savoy (first-run), Stuart (third-run exploitation), Paramount (porn?), Mayflower (porn?), Music Hall (first-run and rock concerts), Gary (first-run), Cinema 57 (first-run). I'm probably forgetting some.

A few of these are now live stages (Savoy -> Opera House, Cinema 57 -> Stuart Street Playhouse, Saxon -> Majestic, Music Hall -> Wang), but most are just gone now as entertainment venues.
Click to expand...
Someone said earlier in this thread that things always look better in one's memory. These facts aren't just memories; they're all you need to know to see how Boston has declined as a functioning city.

Especially sad: once-great Washington Street, Main Street of Downtown, the Theatre District and Combat Zone, the South End, and Roxbury.
 
But I wonder if any other city has done better. The concentration of movie exhibition from scattered single screens into a few larger complexes is a national, if not international, trend. As is the rise of first the VCR and then the DVD and On-Demand cable. If you read CinemaTreasures.com regularly, it seems to be telling the same story everywhere.

At least some cities like Boston, Columbus, Cleveland, and (belatedly) Los Angeles are recycling the old downtown movie houses into live stages.
 
^ Charlotte: 93 screens in 10 venues.



Except in New York, live theatre is a sometime thing.

Boston's Theatre District scene is best described as moribund.
 
Are those 93 screens in 10 venues all in downtown Charlotte or within walking distance of it? To compare like with like, we need to make sure the square-mile areas are comparable.

If I group Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline together, I get 66 screens in 8 venues. Add two to each number if I include the Harvard Film Archive and Museum of Fine Arts, which present film almost daily. Add two more if I include the IMAX screens at the Museum of Science and the Aquarium.
 
Last edited:
ablarc said:
Someone said earlier in this thread that things always look better in one's memory. These facts aren't just memories; they're all you need to know to see how Boston has declined as a functioning city.

Especially sad: once-great Washington Street, Main Street of Downtown, the Theatre District and Combat Zone, the South End, and Roxbury.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that a drop in the number of movie theatres is really an indication of a city no longer being functional. First, movie theatres are only one thing out of hundreds that make a functional city. Second, I'm not sure you could argue that the movie going public is being served any worse today than they were in the past (in fact, they're probably served better). Third, as other's pointed out, this isn't really a reflection of Boston, but of a national trend. Of course it's sad that beutiful old buildings get knocked down or fall into disrepair, but that's hardly a sign that the city no longer functions. As a resident of Downtown Boston, I think it functions great.
 
What is true, however, is that Washington Street used to have throngs of people at night, and it no longer does. Some were going to department stores, some to movies, some to strip clubs, and some to live stage shows.
 
That's true definitly true, but is Boston any less functional because of Washington Street's decline? Have the city's retail, dining, or entertainmnet options declines over all, or have they just moved to other places? Keep in mind that in it's hay day DTX didn't have as many things to compete with. Now we have many other shopping areas (Copley Place and the Pru especially), we have many other places that are dining destinations (the South End primarily, but even the North End wasn't much of a tourist destination back in the day), and we have about a billion new entertainment options (TV, DVDs, video games, computers).

That being said, I don't personally like the idea of having a void in the middle of downtown, but if we want to bring DTX back, trying to recreate the past will probably fail. Recreating the area as a downtown residential neighborhood mixed with fancy condo dwellers and college students is a new approach that I think would probably work best. I know if I was a Suffolk or Emerson student, I'd be gorging myself on Fajitas and 'Ritas and drinking at Silvertone on an almost daily basis.
 
underground said:
I'm not sure that a drop in the number of movie theatres is really an indication of a city no longer being functional. First, movie theatres are only one thing out of hundreds that make a functional city. Second, I'm not sure you could argue that the movie going public is being served any worse today than they were in the past (in fact, they're probably served better). Third, as other's pointed out, this isn't really a reflection of Boston, but of a national trend. Of course it's sad that beutiful old buildings get knocked down or fall into disrepair, but that's hardly a sign that the city no longer functions. As a resident of Downtown Boston, I think it functions great.
Click to expand...
Somebody said that?

Oh... it was you.
 
Not to belabor, but that someone was you:
These facts aren't just memories; they're all you need to know to see how Boston has declined as a functioning city.
Click to expand...
 
To be fair:

'declined' is not the same 'no longer functioning'
 
Thanks statler, I wasn't going to respond.

Often I wonder if it's worth trying to write precisely if folks can't be bothered to read precisely.

It would be nice if we all took the trouble to respond to what's actually said, rather than imputing things not said.

Or are we so enveloped in hyperbole these days that nuance is lost on us?

Karl Rove has made this the Age of Goebbels.
 
On the other side of the coin, this answers your actual point:

As a resident of Downtown Boston, I think it functions great.
Click to expand...

Of course, great is relative. But it would at least indicate that the decline may not be all that steep.
 
Sorry to have mis-read, but I'd make the same argument against the city having declined in functionality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top