Hurley Building Redevelopment | 19 Staniford St | West End

Another pic of this one from the present, 11/17. Beacon Hill looks hyper dense from up here. So much urbanity.

IMG_8939 by David Z, on Flickr
 
DZH22 said:
I can't post the picture directly but it's a rendering of a "New Boston" from 1965 and includes the complex, with tower, in the upper left. Click in to view it full size.

https://flic.kr/p/2hYgnpY
Click to expand...
It also shows the long Union Street hotel and tower, not built, on the other side of City Hall. I prefer the park.
I hope the entire complex gets ultra modernist architectural incorporation of rusticated steel, wood and glass shell that basically saves the original building as an interior feature, made up of large lobbies and large civic spaces
 
Last edited:
Rover said:
I "get it" I'm just saying I understand why people don't consider the Hurley and Govt Center to be related at first glance, despite the shared ugliness of both buildings.
Click to expand...
By the Government == Ugliness criterion you would have to include the O'Neil as a spillover from the JFK lowrise and the ugly State Office Bldg towers on the other side of Cambridge St from Boston City Hall as well
 
whighlander said:
By the Government == Ugliness criterion you would have to include the O'Neil as a spillover from the JFK lowrise and the ugly State Office Bldg towers on the other side of Cambridge St from Boston City Hall as well
Click to expand...
The truly sad thing is that a lot of that architectural ugliness came as the result of architectural competitions! Unfortunately, we were not the winners (even if the architects were).
 
To me, the problem with this building is not the building itself, but the way Staniford and New Chardon St. create a block shape that conspires against anything urban. My first thought would be to break this block into two pieces. William Cardinal 0'Connell Way should be pushed east through the middle of it. The question then becomes whether that would connect via a pedestrian way (with vehicle access) that goes straight to to northern edge of Bowdoin Square, or does it continue to meet Bulfinch Place. The advantage to the latter is that it would meet square (as only a Bostonian could say) with the edge of the courthouse and neatly give the plaza real street frontage.

In the really big picture, the extention of Bullfinch Place would lead to the opening up of the real looser in this whole part of town, which is that strange set of buildings (police, post office, WHDH...), which seem to have disappeared completely from the map. Just ask yourself when the last time you were on Sudbury St. Or actually, ask yourself if you even knew it existed.
 
JSic said:
Tear it down, build an 800' footer and name it the Scollay Square Tower. Sort of as a roundabout FU to urban renewal.
Click to expand...
This. #no more 500'ers.
Start the next 20 year urban war to build twin towers as tall as the FAA will allow.
Rename Beacon Hill: Shadow Cerro.
 
Last edited:
The State just released a consultants report on what could be done with the Hurley. There is a good history and analysis of the site. Here are four alternatives they propose.

A.JPG

B.JPG

C.JPG

D.JPG


Scenario A is most like what I had proposed a couple months ago. I think some kind of half A/ half C would be best.

vanshnookenraggen said:
Now that the shock has worn off I got to thinking about how you could save the base and still develop a tower above. Lord knows worse buildings have been saved this way in Boston before. Cutting the super block up is a must and I realized that with the garage entrance on the side you could turn this into a kind of through street entry arch with a pedestrian street cutting the site in half. Sticking the tower in the center isn't any different from the original plan anyways. This also allows a step back effect with different massing. As others have pointed out the Hurley itself is less architecturally significant, the court yard area even less than the street wall. Done right, this is a redevelopment I could support. View attachment 1060View attachment 1061View attachment 1062
Click to expand...
 
Why is the max zoning 400 feet? Is it FAA related or something else? There's no parks around there that I can think of.
 
It says the max zoning height is only 400'. Obviously a variance will need to be requested, as is the norm in Boston. That way everybody gets their pound of flesh. Does anybody have access to a zoning map, and what is the highest zoning the city of Boston allows as-of-right?
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
The State just released a consultants report on what could be done with the Hurley. There is a good history and analysis of the site. Here are four alternatives they propose.


Scenario A is most like what I had proposed a couple months ago. I think some kind of half A/ half C would be best.
Click to expand...

Thanks for finding! It may be too early for this, but none of these proposals look like they address the street experience for any part of the Hurley Building they save. That's important IMO. If you're going to save it, it needs to be more welcoming and more permeable.
 
DZH22 said:
It says the max zoning height is only 400'. Obviously a variance will need to be requested, as is the norm in Boston. That way everybody gets their pound of flesh. Does anybody have access to a zoning map, and what is the highest zoning the city of Boston allows as-of-right?
Click to expand...

FAA limit is ~800ft.


Edit: just realized this isn’t what you asked for. I have no idea how to find a map of the BPDA’s official zoning heights.
 
^^^Yeah I am wondering if there is anywhere in the city that is even zoned over 400' to begin with. FAA limits are the true hard caps we have to work with, while zoning is the arbitrary cap in order to extort from potential developers.
 
Purchase price is going to be based on the 400' ft height because the state can't control whether a zoning variance will be approved. I'm highly skeptical a zoning variance would fly here given proximity to Beacon Hill (even with a 600fter @ Congress a stone's throw away).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top