Boston seems to have a problem with picking it's battles. Maybe there are zoning laws forbidding tall buildings, but in areas like this, it seems like it would be easier to get the area rezoned then fight with powerful back bay neighborhood associations. I think at times the problem is not thinking outside the box. Before the Prudential was built, how many people thought a tower would be built there? Maybe someone can enlighten me to the sentiments back then.... padre mike?
Happy to accommodate, to the best of my knowledge. Anyone can correct anything here that may not be accurate.
Boston was a relatively sleepy port colony until the China and East India trade and the advent of fast clipper ships brought great wealth to New England. The "old money" made back then became the kernal of Boston's banking and insurance institutions, which, by the end of the 19th C, were powerful controlling interests in the city. It was no wonder that, after the disasterous fire of 1872, the financial district was rebuilt practically overnight, and with many significant buildings, at that. By the end of the Civil War, shipping was diverted from Boston's port to New York and Philadelphia, which could accommodate a much greater volume of traffic. By the turn of the 20th Boston was in an economic funk, though the "old money" men continued to finance banking and insurance institutions and thus extend their influence far beyond Boston, which became frozen in time.
The building codes in the city until the 1960's permitted primarily low-rise structures. When exceptions were made in residential areas, such as the Back Bay, NIMBY complaints usually squashed further high rise development. In the downtown area, the federal government got away with the Custom House tower, and, in the Art Deco period, other buildings such as the Post Office, United Shoe Machinery Building, the Old John Hancock building, Bell Telephone, etc., received exemptions to the building code.
During WWII Boston hummed as a shipyard and a terminus for travelers. South Station was the busiest in the nation during the war and great ships were built and repaired in the Charlestown navy yard.
By the end of WWII, Boston was still geared toward manufacturing and fishing and was reduced to serving as a secondary port for the east coast. The navy yard was in decline after the war, shoe manufacturing was going elsewhere, along with the leather tanning industry, clothing manufacturing, etc.. The Bulfinch Triangle, North Station area, the entire waterfront district, the leather district, and the South Boston waterfront had all been heavy industry- and manufacturing-related. Also included were parts of residential areas: the North End, South End, West End, and, of course, the annexed towns and areas that comprise the rest of Boston's neighborhoods. These traditional, "dirtier" industries were becoming passe in American cities in favor of "service" industries. The growth of suburbs left older cities like Boston in the dust. Boston was not a place one wanted to invest money. Buildings were emptying and were being sacrificed. Despite the birth of historic preservation having taken place in Boston regarding the Old State House, only "worthy" colonial and Federal structures were deemed truly historic and worth saving. Thus the advent of the Freedom Trail.
The building of the Central Artery, ripping out hundreds of buildings in the center of the city, communicated that Boston was slowly becoming a "modern" city, allowing traffic (especially trucking) to flow freely through, entering and exiting at various industrial points of the city. This came at a time when railroads were being torn up and replaced by highways across the country, especially in the Northeast. Then came the push for "urban renewal." Parts of the South End and the entire West End (save for St. Joseph's Church, the hospitals, the jail and one, lone tenament near the O'Neil Building) were bulldozed in favor of housing projects for poor and rich alike. The Mass Pike extention into Boston and the derelict rail yards in the Back Bay (which at this time was comprised of rooming houses and cheap apartments) seemed like a great opportunity to develop a "signature" center built over the highway and railroads, thanks to a big insurance company: the Prudential. Scollay Square and Corn Hill were ripped up for Government Center (a grave disappointment to many). There seemed to be very little of downtown left standing after all of this "renewal". Long-time residents of Boston were being kicked out of the old Shawmut peninsula in favor of mega-developments. They were forced into the suburbs and their long-standing neighborhood associations were gone forever. After the West End debacle, residents were very skeptical of "development" and increasingly vocal.
In the 1970's Mayor Kevin White encouraged massive amounts of redevelopment throughout the downtown. It was he who coined "world class city" in reference to Boston and was determined to make Boston able to turn the corner from the 20th to the 21st C. The Bicentennial celebrations, the Tall Ships, Quincy Market, waterfront redevelopment, condo developments, reuse of old buildings, the "high spine" concept following the Mass. Pike extention, the redevelopment of Park Square, the expansion of medical and educational institutions, and much more, all came about or were initiated, in his tenure. This endeared him to many living in outlying neighborhoods, who benefitted from developers' linkage money that paid for neighborhood needs. It also drove people such as ourselves a bit crazy because of the amount of inappropriate (the "Darth Vader" building on Boylston St.) or mediocre (Copley Place) architecture built in his tenure.
By the 1990's, a lot of people on both sides of the development issue began to wonder if the city they had known was being overrun by anonymous skyscrapers that were not in keeping with the "flavor" of Boston. They asked a lot of questions: Was Boston destined to become just another city among American cities? Would the 19th C. neighborhoods such as the Back Bay or Beacon Hill become like Disneylands, tucked within a faceless and overdeveloped city of tall buildings, shadows, and traffic? Would Boston become like downtown Hartford (at the time)...busy with commuters by day, dead by night? Would Boston regress into its dark days of the first half of the 20th C if constant tearing down and building up was not in its future? What is "appropriate" architecture for a city that finds is roots in 17th C. England? Where are new residents to live, especially low income (meaning, in this day and age, people who make "only" $50K per annum!) These are the types of questions that had been asked in most major, older cities throughout Europe, as well.
Thus we come to today, with lots of open land needing development, and the fear that these new parcels will become bonanzas for greedy developers and corrupt polititians, without regard for the people who live and work in the city. Thus the power of the NIMBY's, who know their history and who refuse to get shafted again by urban renewal and eminent domain power plays. Thus the fear of skyscrapers for their own sake, that produce wind and shadows and loom anonymously over low-rise buildings, bringing upscale people, higher taxes, and that drive out older neighborhood businesses and institutions. Thus the often last-minute and strident drive for democatic participation in the game of city development.
