Hurley Building Redevelopment | 19 Staniford St | West End

i've lived in toronto -- twice! -- and, while a lovely city in many respects, the comment, "Boston does not resemble that wonderful city in any way…sadly," has me baffled. i don't know that you could find many -- experts, laymen, tourists, whatever -- who would claim that toronto is boston's superior when it comes to architecture of any variety.
 
chrisbrat said:
i've lived in toronto -- twice! -- and, while a lovely city in many respects, the comment, "Boston does not resemble that wonderful city in any way…sadly," has me baffled. i don't know that you could find many -- experts, laymen, tourists, whatever -- who would claim that toronto is boston's superior when it comes to architecture of any variety.
Click to expand...
Just my opinion. The vast amount of new construction there makes for a stunning skyline. Some interesting new buildings as well. With dozens more to come…am sure there will be gems in the bunch.
 
kmp1284 said:
What Blackbird linked to is absolutely devoid of any architectural or urban character. Just a couple very mediocre skyscrapers and the next thing to be demolished for another one. It’s all as generic as generic gets and it could be anywhere. Is that really the kind of city you want to live in?
Click to expand...

I mean honestly sort of? The street scape in those pictures looked better than a lot of Bostons. Fuck the towers can be giant glass boxes with if the street scape is great. I live in the city, not 30 miles outside of it.
 
DZH22 said:
The State Street building is going to be absolutely critical to tie this area together with an actual peak. Otherwise, as transformative as it is, it's also woefully underwhelming in a lot of ways.
Click to expand...
I agree that a 800 foot building or whatever the FAA height limit is would be awesome here.... you do realize literally zero people outside this board give one half of a shit about this stuff right? The city isn't redeveloped based off what it looks likes from the top of a hill. I think we need to keep some perspective
 
Suffolk 83 said:
I agree that a 800 foot building or whatever the FAA height limit is would be awesome here.... you do realize literally zero people outside this board give one half of a shit about this stuff right? The city isn't redeveloped based off what it looks likes from the top of a hill. I think we need to keep some perspective
Click to expand...

Actually, on that site the visual impact from a nearby hill is the defining constraint...
 
Equilibria said:
Fair enough. It's a shame they aren't tearing all down, but this is a white whale for erasing the legacy of urban renewal.

FWIW, the FAA height limit on this site is 800-825'. The City and Commonwealth should clearly intimate that they won't settle for less, just as the BPDA did at Winthrop Square (where they actually said they wouldn't take less than something much higher than the FAA limit...).

I'm not a height junkie, but there's no excuse not to do it here. It's a forest of towers on all sides.



If you set it back in the site, it's as far from Cambridge Street as the residential tower at Bulfinch Crossing...
Click to expand...
Hello Equilibria.......Yes, the Hurley Building is an architectural disgrace as are almost all examples of Brutalist architecture with few exceptions (the Christian Science Center Colonnade along with the reflecting pool along Huntington Avenue has some merit in my opinion). To wit, the Lindemann Mental Health Center, which I believe is ironically enough a hideous monstrosity, the sight of which can be causative of having either a complete nervous breakdown or a case of severe depression, sort of like an Architectural Medusa, but in this case "Medusa" is the hunk of ugly stone masonry and concrete. Well, as such, I would love to see this building go down to the ground as well, and yes, I am in total agreement with you on the issue of erasing the terrible tragedy of horrid "Urban Renewal" envisioned by the Architects, Planners, and Urban Designers of the late 1950s, early 1960s - so many beautiful buildings in Scollay Square which could have been restored knocked mercilessly down all for the sake of creating a "New Boston". On the issue of building height, again, in agreement with you that there is nothing wrong with high rise buildings, but are you sure about the height limit for this Hurley Building site slated for 800-825 FT? (I did not see as to when in time you posted this post as we all now know that the FAA whittled down the Winthrop Tower to 691 FT in its stocking feet, and similarly, the South Station Tower was originally proposed at something like 787 FT, but now cut down to 677 feet in height). I thought I heard Charlie Baker mention something some time ago, on the line of 400 to maybe 450 FT for a residential tower on the hopefully soon-to-be-construction site where the Hurley now currently stands. Interesting subject!
 
Suffolk 83 said:
I agree that a 800 foot building or whatever the FAA height limit is would be awesome here.... you do realize literally zero people outside this board give one half of a shit about this stuff right? The city isn't redeveloped based off what it looks likes from the top of a hill. I think we need to keep some perspective
Click to expand...

There are tons of people outside this board who are not 1/100th as passionate as we are, but absolutely enjoy the buildings when they are built. Millennium Tower was a huge conversation piece during construction. I witnessed people gawking and talking about it literally every time I was in DTX when it was going up. While I personally live and die with this stuff, there are a ton more people who think these big towers (with good designs and execution) look cool than there are NIMBY's who oppose them.

The most common narrative among my friends is that, while they don't necessarily follow this stuff, they appreciate the buildings once they are built. Would we feel the same pride in the Hancock if it was only 400' instead of 790'? When the Pru was built it was the tallest building in North America outside NYC. So obviously it mattered at that point, and it was a bragging rights thing.

Even peer/rival/reach cities like San Francisco, Philadelphia, and London have all gone over 1000'. Are we somehow "better" than those cities? Why did they all decide to build new 21st century symbols to be proud of, while we insist that 400' is good enough on one of the few spots that could possibly eclipse the Hancock?
 
So, is the height 'restriction' merely to appease Beacon Hill residents afraid of the shadows a larger building might cast? If so, I think if a good developer can justify going higher with the economics and the architecture, it won't be that difficult (something similar to harbor garage maybe).
 
eddy2698 said:
So, is the height 'restriction' merely to appease Beacon Hill residents afraid of the shadows a larger building might cast? If so, I think if a good developer can justify going higher with the economics and the architecture, it won't be that difficult (something similar to harbor garage maybe).
Click to expand...

You're right, it won't be that difficult. It will be ridiculously difficult. I don't want to be right...I hope I'm not right...but I've seen this happen too many times to take the glass half full position.
 
BE947610-39EC-4377-9554-BE642BFE669C.jpeg
 
DZH22 said:
There are tons of people outside this board who are not 1/100th as passionate as we are, but absolutely enjoy the buildings when they are built. Millennium Tower was a huge conversation piece during construction. I witnessed people gawking and talking about it literally every time I was in DTX when it was going up. While I personally live and die with this stuff, there are a ton more people who think these big towers (with good designs and execution) look cool than there are NIMBY's who oppose them.

The most common narrative among my friends is that, while they don't necessarily follow this stuff, they appreciate the buildings once they are built. Would we feel the same pride in the Hancock if it was only 400' instead of 790'? When the Pru was built it was the tallest building in North America outside NYC. So obviously it mattered at that point, and it was a bragging rights thing.

Even peer/rival/reach cities like San Francisco, Philadelphia, and London have all gone over 1000'. Are we somehow "better" than those cities? Why did they all decide to build new 21st century symbols to be proud of, while we insist that 400' is good enough on one of the few spots that could possibly eclipse the Hancock?
Click to expand...
I dont disagree with anything you're saying here I just grow tired of the repetition into our echo chamber when we almost all agree. Its doesnt even need to be said here its just a given
 
Toronto superior to Boston? Really? When were you last there? I've worked in Toronto. It's a fine place, has many qualities, I've enjoyed my time there... but it's no Boston. Not in my opinion. Not even close. (The locals I worked with spoke enviously of Boston.)

FYI: There is push back in powerful circles in Toronto about generic glass boxes. The word I heard: "Blandification."
 
The point of the Toronto reference was to show that you can still have a nice, vibrant street with old, short and new, tall buildings immediately adjacent to and across from one another similar to how Cambridge Street will look if the developer goes tall here. The point wasn't to put Toronto's architecture on a pedestal above Boston's.

My thought process was "well maybe a very tall building would be out of context here" followed by "well maybe 'context' is overrated, because at least one city [Toronto] exists where this sort of thing happens all the time and it's fine".
 
Last edited:
Blackbird said:
My thought process was "well maybe a very tall building would be out of context here" followed by "well maybe 'context' is overrated, because at least one city [Toronto] exists where this sort of thing happens all the time and it's fine".
Click to expand...

There would be no Custom House, Hancock (old or "new"), or Pru, if everything had to be in context of the existing cityscape.

We act like we are some rinky dink city, yet Boston is a mega player on the global stage. For instance, in Schroders newest Global Cities Index, Boston is literally ranked #4... IN THE WORLD!
www.schroders.com

Global Cities Index - Chinese cities tumble

Chinese cities lose their top 10 rankings and Los Angeles falls as environmental concerns roil Schroders’ Global Cities index.
www.schroders.com www.schroders.com

Kearney has us at 21st, and 7th in outlook, IN THE WORLD.
www.kearney.com

Read @Kearney: A question of talent: how human capital will determine the next global leaders

The Global Cities index and outlook reveal the world’s top-performing cities and those with the most potential.
www.kearney.com www.kearney.com

Mori has us at 25th, IN THE WORLD, ahead of Chicago.

Yet somehow eclipsing 400' at a ripe site (one requiring extensive remediation at that) in the heart of downtown is controversial? Does anybody else wonder why the city completely blew its wad on the 691' Winthrop Square Tower but insists on limiting sensical developments in locations that could actually go taller? I'm middle aged, born in the early 80's, and well on my way to dying with my dream of seeing a new tallest in Boston unfulfilled. I'll be like all those die-hard Red Sox fans who lived between 1918-2004. It makes me sad to see such small-minded attitudes continue to prevail in what's actually a major global city.

Honestly, 1 building 800'+ near North Station (or even in Kendall), plus 1 building 900'+ over Hynes or the Kings parking garage in Back Bay, and I promise to shut up about this forever. Here though, we should go 700', and pave the way for the 800'+ by North Station to cap the neighborhood.
 
Beton Brut said:
View attachment 8548
Click to expand...

I don't dislike Paul Rudolph.

I do dislike the Hurley Building.

Just perusing some websites on his work, this, this, and this are all fantastic. However, I like them because they're bright, airy, sleek, and they fit in with their surroundings. The Hurley is dark, menacing, sharp, and spiteful towards its neighbors.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top