Charlestown Bridge Walkway

These folks are even worse than the idiots in the western suburbs who buy a nice house for cheap in the summer and then suddenly discover that Rt-128, Hanscom Runways, Rt-2, Rt-3, etc. are directly behind them. Apparently the $ discount blinds them to the reality of what happens when the deciduous trees lose their leaves? Then they start to complain about noise, etc.

How can anyone buy a condo in the former Stop and Shop Bakery and not notice the Lovejoy Wharf structure between them and the Charles? It's only been there for almost 100 years.

Westy
 
This building (Lovejoy Wharf) has enormous structural problems - when the tide is very high it floods, and the building is leaning into the water. You can't fix structural problems that bad without a LOT of money... and nobody's going to finance it's redevelopment unless you can make a LOT of money back in the form of density. One prominent developer is rumored to have spent $1M to study - and ultimately NOT buy this building.

In the past decades I've worked for a major Boston developer, a major real estate services company, a small commercial real estate finance firm, and now a real estate consulting firm. By far, the most I learned about architecture and design was from the short stint at the finance company. Financing kills design and creativity faster than NIMBYs do.

It is my understanding that the walkway will not be finished until the building is finished. The walkways hang there incomplete to this day. So the developers are holding out on this major public benefit in order to compell the city to allow them to build the density needed to make this project profitable.
 
Are the developers building this walkway? I thought the state (DCR) was.
 
Westy -

I'm in no way defending the residents of Strada234, but as a former condo owner there, I did want to mention that when the building became luxury condos, the developer's broker (Otis and Ahearn) was assuring buyers that the Lovejoy Wharf buildings could NOT be expanded upon (in height) as a result of some city (or state) ordinance that forbids new construction directly along the waterfront that exceeds 55 feet in height. Since the building already exceeded that height, they said any developer could only remodel the existing building or replace portions of it with shorter structures.

So, I wouldn't equate this to a suburbanite who buys near Route 128 and complains when the leaves are gone and the highway is exposed. In this case, people purchased expensive condos only after practically being promised that a building could NOT block their views (though, I personally think they were stupid to take a real estate broker's word for it since we all know they'll say anything to make a sale). Hell, I think the residents should sue Otis and Ahearn for misrepresentation.

That said, even while I was a resident of Strada234, I was excited about the prospect of Lovejoy Wharf redevelopment (and my unit was faced the Lovejoy Wharf site. This is a prime location for redevelopment and it should be developed. If anything, I think it will HELP resale prices of the majority of Strada234 units facing Lovejoy Wharf (currently, the building houses a methodone clinic on the first floor and is abandoned on all upper levels...I used to watch pigeons fly in ducts/windows). It's an eyesore from the perspective of Strada234.

Plus, units on the 9th floor and below overlooked the existing building already so it's really only going to "block" view for floors 10, 11, and 12. And even then, it's only the units facing the back that will be affected. The majority of the units won't be affected adversely at all.
 
Does anybody have any photos of the building at 131 Beverly Street that is slated for demolition?
 
DSC_0404.JPG

DSC_0405.JPG

DSC_0406.JPG

DSC_0407.JPG

DSC_0408.JPG

DSC_0409.JPG

DSC_0410.JPG

DSC_0411.JPG

DSC_0412.JPG


here is 131 Beverly. The only active organization in the building is an alcohol and drug recovery program called STEP. It's such a nice building. Am I the only one who thinks that? Besides that, it sure is awfully loud down there. I can't see how anyone would be particularly thrilled by the loud glaring traffic noise.
 
It's a beautiful building. :)

Thanks for the photos.
 
What about this building do you find to be beautiful?
 
I love the long thin foot print, the craftsmanship of the brick work, especially at the crown. I like how it manages to be simple yet somehow ornate (but not fussy).

It has a lot or character (something most new building are devoid of).

Some of it is simply age, it tells the story of a different time. I like that.
Robert Campbell once described a city as an onion. As you walk around and look at the buildings of various ages it's like peeling back the layers.

The parking lot next to it should be filled in with some new, something contrasting. Adding a new layer...

Edit: Hi Brad!
 
Mostly reiterating what statler said; it's unique and shows a dead style - soon to be lost and forgotten. I'm not saying I don't want it to be torn down, it's just a shame. You need to go up to it and walk around the lot to see it's full beauty. I'm all for Boston's future and redevelopment. Go see it while you still have a chance. But also reiterating my last post, how does someone tolerate the noise from the highway? Is there any sort of plan to buffer the traffic noise? Judging by the current status of the area, a lot of residential projects are going in. Some sort of buffer cap that stretches out over the highway to the bridge? - drowned in style of course. I just know I can't have a conversation with my friend who is a foot away from me without talking loud and scaring the dog next to me. I'm not trying to be one of those picky mothers either, it's just an idea.
 
This building is definately interesting. I feel like there's alot of buildings like this in other cities but very few left here in Boston. This is the type of building movies love to film.... throw on some fake graph. and some trash swirling.... bam you have a movie scene.
 
This is why I love this forum. I am a huge fan of all things architecture, from towering skyscrapers ala Petronas in Malaysia to medieval hovels in Toledo (Spain). Some good architecture is painfully obvious... I'd love to meet a person (who still has eyesight) who can stand at the archway at the gate to the Taj Mahal complex and not be awe inspired (it's the most beautiful example i have seen in person to date). But at the same time, there are the buildings that the average person wouldn't think twice about that really have a story and the more you look at them, the more you see.

I unfortunately don't have a great eye for the "ordinary" great architecture and had Statler not pointed out the subtle features that make this structure stand out, i most likely would have brushed it aside. It's a pretty building, if it were a girl, she would blend into the crowd, but once you're alone with her, you'd see her for what she really is (err... beautiful). Thanks for pointing these features out.

The layer of the onion analogy is a good one and a true one. I love looking at Boston's skyline and streets with it's 16 "skyscrapers" more than I like looking at Miami, L.A. Rio, or Hong Kong's because that blend of old and new is fascinating. (Side Note, I had a history book in high school with a shot of the Old State house in front of One Boston in the "Modern America" Chapter, and it's still one of my favorite shots of this city)
 
It's the difference between a dry cracker (a lot of newer buildings) and really good Boston Cream Pie (invented, btw, at the Parker House): it has a layers, a crown of confection and complex depth of texture and flavor.
 
Beautiful? You guys know a lot more than me. Somehow you've swung me to think that City Hall (which I've always detested) is actually a beautiful building, so maybe there's something about this building (is it all one building?) that I'm not getting. Personally, I think Boston Cream Pie is a pretty good analogy. It?s very basic. Not bad, but it?s no cr?me br?l?e.

Has anyone found any older pictures of it?
 
nico, my suggestion is that you take a walk around the Back Bay streets and look carefully at the use of brick in many of the town houses, especially when the brick is used decoratively, as trim work, or to fill in sections between floors or windows. At one point the artistic use of brick became so prevalent that it gave rise to the "brick panel" style of architecture, most popular during in the Queen Anne style and Arts and Crafts movement. You'll find some of this decorative brick work on the old building in question...it's a delight to the eye; the sunlight playing off the texture and color of the facade is a far cry from what you would see on such "flat" buildings as the nearby Garden, or even on most contemporary buildings that have used brick for facade or trim material.
 
Hmmmmmmmmmmm I know many of you could write a poem about this building, but for me it's like trying to visualize Elizabeth Taylor as she looked in "Cleopatra", "Father of the Bride", or "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof!" while watching her character in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf!" Almost impossible!! This building, in it's present condition is a wreak, no if's, and's, or but's, about it. However, with tender loving care...lots of it...I guess it could be beautiful again! Hey, if Joan Rivers at her age looks great...anything's possible.
 
I'll take your suggestion Padre; but this has been my hobby for the past 5/6 years. I've had the good fortune of a flexible job schedule where in good weather, 3 hour lunches go unnoticed. I?m curios to know if this building was ever considered to be beautiful. For as long as I can remember I?ve just been waiting/expecting for this building to tumble into the river. Do you know what its original purpose was?
 
I don't know the history of this building so I'm just guessing here, but I would assume that this building was most likely built for utility (it looks like a warehouse or factory to me).
The thing is, it was built during a time when builders took pride in their craft and so even the most humble of buildings had a certain beauty to them.
For some reason, this seemed to change after WWII or so. Maybe it was the war, maybe it the Modernist movement or a combination of the two, I don't really know.
Or perhaps I'm romanticizing the past and all the truly humble and unremarkable buildings of the past have been destroyed already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top