Hurley Building Redevelopment | 19 Staniford St | West End

This is one of the few brutalist buildings that I really like (the other being the Yale architecture building).

I completely get both sides of the argument as the current unmaintained (chain-linked fence?, for gosh sake) super block is doing nothing for urbanism. But I do love its architecture (an undefined and loaded word).

If it goes I will be sad for its loss, but would look forward to something dramatic and engaging replacing it.

Most of all I would be sad to lose the frog face
VUf8wf2h.png
 
I agree that if your interaction with the buildings of Boston comes from looking at photos, more interesting photos will be better. But the vast majority of people on this forum derive concrete (hah) benefits from the substantial expansion of the urban fabric post 2012. Boston is unique and interesting for a host of reasons, but the primary one is the people in the city. Because of that it's not prima-facie obvious that a particularly notable historic building is worth millions of sf of space devoted to people living, working, etc. It's obviously fine to disagree and say that the architecural hertiage is more important, but the pro-keep posters are throwing around a degree of moral authority that isn't warranted.
 
This is one of the few brutalist buildings that I really like (the other being the Yale architecture building).

I completely get both sides of the argument as the current unmaintained (chain-linked fence?, for gosh sake) super block is doing nothing for urbanism. But I do love its architecture (an undefined and loaded word).

If it goes I will be sad for its loss, but would look forward to something dramatic and engaging replacing it.

Most of all I would be sad to lose the frog face

Reverend Paco


800px-2590347158_BerkeleySt_Boston.jpg
FifthBuildingThorpe2.jpg
FifthBuildingThorpe3%20First%20Church%201865.jpg
FCB1868int.jpg

The church as it existed prior to the fire [mostly from http://www.firstchurchbostonhistory.org/fifthbuilding.html]*1
The only thing of Paul Rudolph in Greater Boston worth preserving is the redo of the great old church in the Back Bay [1st Church circa 1865 - 1868] that burned in 1968 -- leaving mostly just the bell tower

Fire.jpg

After the fire 1968


Paul Rudolph was hired to build a new church for both the 1st and 2nd Churches [they had separated during the colonial period]
he saved the remainder of the Marlborough St. facade and the bell tower and behind the 19th Century Neo-Gothic he built a mid 20th C sanctuary with very good acoustics and not bad [but soto voce aesthetics]





1280px-First_Church_in_Boston_MA.jpg

essentially the same view as the original post reno/redo [1968-1972] by Rudolph*2 photo circa 2000

Aerial shot showing Sanctuary Roof
FCBExt2005.jpg



*1
Ware and Van Brunt were the architects of the Fifth Building of what could be called Boston's heritage church. Van Brunt was a member of the church.
They were also the architects of Harvard's Memorial Hall, and one can see a similarity in the roof tiling, and the interior. The church was inspired by Westminster Hall in London, England. Dark wood paneling and marble memorial plaques lined the wall.

*2 Paul Rudolph design, model and sanctuary circa 1968
DrPresentBuilding.jpg
MockupPresentBuilding.jpg


DrInt1972.jpg
NewChurchPlan.jpg
 
Last edited:
First let me say that I don't love this building because it is pretty; It isn't. I've always felt that some redevelopment of the site was necessary because of the terrible urbanism it presents. So we are all in agreement there.

But to say I don't know what architecture is clearly shows that you have no actual understanding of the word. Architecture isn't pretty buildings, it's a design that has something to say. Paul Rudolph had something to say. He wanted to make concrete fun (if such a thing is even possible). Words like "pretty" and "ugly" don't exist in the lexicon of an architect. Does the building function the way intended? In this case, no. But does that mean it should be demolished? Hell no. Ripping this down would be a lazy solution as bad as ripping down the West End was in the first place. But we already made that mistake once so why again? Anything that would replace this would have zero vision and be as disposable as every other piece of shit that's gone up in the city over the last 15 years. New buildings don't try anymore. They know they are going to be replaced in a generation so why bother. This is the ultimate failing of "architecture" these days; it has nothing to do with actual design because it's all figured out based on economics already. The architect just comes in an tells them what color the glass should be.

Every day I come on to this site and spend about 2 mins going through all the new threads. I spend so little time because each new building is the same as the last, so much so that I honestly cannot tell you the difference between anything that is going up in Kendall or the Seaport. Boston has one of the richest traditions of Brutalist architecture in the nation and here we have an entire forum champing at the bit to replace these unique and interesting buildings with more throw away garbage. What we need now more than ever is actual architecture. What we have instead are glass boxes that would look at home in Anyplace, USA. Boston won't be unique or interesting because of that. It will be unique and interesting because of the building and places which tried to be different.

Hurley isn't perfect but the great thing about cities and buildings is they evolve. Quincy Market was once seen as an obsolete eye sore until someone will vision came around to fix it. Can you imagine the blow back if someone proposed ripping that down today? Hurley needs someone with a vision that understands how to bring out the best of the building while fixing what doesn't work.
I understand the gist of the point you are trying to make but if this is what being a visionary architect is, then being one means being out of touch of the people that live and use the spaces in the city.

It sounds stuck up and condescending, boiled down essentially to "you don't understand my art because it's deep and complex and you guys are casuals." You should strive to design something deep and complex AND connects/relates with the people. This concept exists in all forms of art: music, dance, stories, media, etc. and those that are deemed exemplary in each of those forms typically are able to master the ability to be relatable but also subtly deep and complex. But if you approach architecture with the former attitude then stick with designing monuments where interactions are at the surface level. It's a whole another thing when constructing something that people interact on the street and within.
 
Last edited:
As to the Hurly Bldg -- Perhaps it should be subjected to a Neo-Rudolph Brutalism

Take a large Hydraulic Hammer attach it to a Excavator

crawler-excavators-340f-uhd-caterpillar(1).jpg


and let the operator have at it -- perhaps ala the 1st Church a corner could be preserved [in part before and in part after] for the Butalist / Neo-Brutalist crowd to make a pilgrimage there to
 
This is one of the few brutalist buildings that I really like (the other being the Yale architecture building).

I completely get both sides of the argument as the current unmaintained (chain-linked fence?, for gosh sake) super block is doing nothing for urbanism. But I do love its architecture (an undefined and loaded word).

If it goes I will be sad for its loss, but would look forward to something dramatic and engaging replacing it.

Most of all I would be sad to lose the frog face
VUf8wf2h.png
The frog face is on the "building" next to it! They look like the same building from the outside, but on an aerial you can differentiate the two buildings by the roof colors. The white roofed building is going, the black roofed building is staying, well, at least for now as far as this RFP goes.
 
Does the building function the way intended? In this case, no. But does that mean it should be demolished? Hell no. Ripping this down would be a lazy solution as bad as ripping down the West End was in the first place. But we already made that mistake once so why again?

So it's ugly, it's hostile to pedestrians, it's holding back the community fabric, but we should keep it because it's horrible on purpose?

Boston has one of the richest traditions of Brutalist architecture in the nation and here we have an entire forum champing at the bit to replace these unique and interesting buildings with more throw away garbage. What we need now more than ever is actual architecture. What we have instead are glass boxes that would look at home in Anyplace, USA. Boston won't be unique or interesting because of that. It will be unique and interesting because of the building and places which tried to be different.

WHAT?! Boston has a lot of brutalist buildings because it ripped its heart out with bigoted policies of urban renewal. There are cities whose identities revolve around Brutalism: Brasilia and Chandigarh. They aren't typically considered good places to walk around or to live in.

Hurley isn't perfect but the great thing about cities and buildings is they evolve. Quincy Market was once seen as an obsolete eye sore until someone will vision came around to fix it. Can you imagine the blow back if someone proposed ripping that down today? Hurley needs someone with a vision that understands how to bring out the best of the building while fixing what doesn't work.

Quincy Market is an attractive building and always was, and it was well-suited to its new purpose as a food court. Hurley is an unattractive building (which you admit) and is poorly-suited to the purpose its owners continue to need (which you also admit). (and for what it's worth, I don't think anyone would notice if Quincy Market were replaced with a new long rectangular building...)
 
If it isn't City Hall it's this one the knives are always out for. Simply put it's been a greatly misunderstood and highly abused masterpiece, from the beginning when the tower was cancelled, through all the decades of poor maintenance and neglect, to the really insulting parking lot the back has become. The city at some point decided Hurley (and Lindemann) were disposable and gave up on them. That kind of willful disinvestment will blight any building.
The outline of the proposal to reinvent and save it has great potential. It stresses an opening up for better circulation and that the ground floor and front plaza need to seriously interact with the street. And a significant residential tower (in place of the useless park in back?) is crucial. It can be done, the reno of the Carney library at UMass Dartmouth is excellent proof of that. https://www.architectmagazine.com/project-gallery/claire-t-carney-library_o
 
Whoa, the powderkeg went off in here today! Not having any background in architecture, design, urban planning, etc., I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but it was a fun read.
 
"Historic Preservation Approach"
bahhaahhaahhaahhaahhaahhaahaa
1/2 the whole smash.
Calling the current site a shyttehole is an insult

to North Korea.

Finally! Tear this POS down.
PS - are people worried about Boston losing its "brutalist heritage"? Boston has brutalism everywhere. Its practically overpowering.
Orwell never imagined anyone would have the gall to build Winston Smith's Oceana. Boston's 60's planners were truly sick.
 
Last edited:
I agree that if your interaction with the buildings of Boston comes from looking at photos, more interesting photos will be better. But the vast majority of people on this forum derive concrete (hah) benefits from the substantial expansion of the urban fabric post 2012. Boston is unique and interesting for a host of reasons, but the primary one is the people in the city. Because of that it's not prima-facie obvious that a particularly notable historic building is worth millions of sf of space devoted to people living, working, etc. It's obviously fine to disagree and say that the architecural hertiage is more important, but the pro-keep posters are throwing around a degree of moral authority that isn't warranted.

I don't think that's true. What I am hearing is mostly a lot of people who just don't like this building, but who are mixing arguments and saying that it's the bad effect on urban planning/experience that's the real reason this needs to go.

If you hate the building, fine. That in and of itself is not sufficient reason to demolish anything. It's a matter of pure aesthetic opinion. So, onto the next point: it's bad urban planning and ruins the area. OK, well, as I already said a hundred times, there are many ways to address the negative urban experience left over from the 1960s, and most of them don't include tearing anything down. Activate the sidewalks with landscaping, slim down the urban highways, and actually give this building some TLC and that will do wonders to the area. It may not change most people's minds about the aesthetics, but keep the arguments separate, please, because you're mixing up two different points. If what you want is better circulation and better pedestrian experience, there is a helluva lot to do here first. And, as Bradplaid put it, the state has willfully disinvested in this building for years. That's something that ruins any area.

Back to your point, FitchburgLine: I don't see any moral highground, really, being taken by anyone. I do think there's a long-simmering irritation between people on the forum who want to jack off over skylines and those who consider themselves architecture afficionados. Most of the posts on here fall into neither category (other than the usual anti-intellectual tripe by he-who-shall-not-be-named). That's all well and good. But there is something to be said for taking pause and considering what this building is and what it could be, because even if you hate it, this is not some superficial throwaway. I will argue that anyone who thinks that is objectively incorrect. There are pieces of shit all over, but while you may find this to be an aesthetic piece of shit, it's not devoid of thoughtfulness and intellectual rigor. Pretty much everything else around here, actually, totally devoid of anything intellectually, or aesthetically stimulating.

And that's another frustration I have with what people are saying on here. I have worked in this area since 2013 and I walk all over it every day. I also, for the record, have worked in this building on and off over the last few years, and I walk by, through, and around it constantly. I look out my office window two days a week at it. Yes, it's not perfect but it's not the murderously horrid thing people here are calling it, and I am pretty damned sure most of the posters have rarely interacted with it, let alone worked inside it, to the extent I have (except, I think, maybe Lrfox, if I remember correctly). And I do think it's important to state that relationship since mine, with this building, is not just some architectural fetish based on photos and drive-by's. I live and breathe the West End and the near part of Govt Center and I feel like I suffer the death of a thousand knives not from this building, but from the worthless drivel that is pretty much everything else around here... the West End boxes, the PoMo nonsense by Bowdoin, whatever-it-is that you would call the Kraft Center, the pedestrian-killing wall of the Brooke Courthouse along the Chardon facade... and the lack of cut-throughs and connections to other streets, and the horrible experience of the roads themselves, all being many lanes too wide. And to here people arguing that replacing this one building, with what I absolutely know is going to be another thoughtless, architectural turd, is actually going to make that much difference — or that there are not actual alternatives to that one single plan that could make an equivalent, if not superior, difference — I do find that to be narrowminded.
 
While trying to look up the difference between Hurley and Lindemann I discovered how amazing they look in old photos. I was really happy when I heard the news at first as I always hated and avoided these rundown buildings, but - wow. There's something really dreamy and evocative about these... And apparently some people can still see that through cracked concrete, chain link fences and trash.
Not being a real architect (just one in software :)) I have no idea if it is even possible to bring back those old looks and at the same time "humanize" the setting all the while making some money.
I suspected not, but now I'm hoping against hope that maybe...
 
I really want to emphasize that I don't think this building is perfect. But calling for outright destruction is the most mob spun ignorance I can imagine. If you can't walk around this complex and see the wonderful details, details that can only be experienced as a pedestrian mind you, then I don't understand how you can love a city as rich as Boston. There are so many small spaces, open to the public, that could be enhanced to bring people into the building rather than cut them off from the city. I always thought it would be great for a hotel lobby, encased in some glass exostrucutre. The fact that so many on here only care about height and development for the sake of development has always been annoying but now it's insulting.
 
I really want to emphasize that I don't think this building is perfect. But calling for outright destruction is the most mob spun ignorance I can imagine. If you can't walk around this complex and see the wonderful details, details that can only be experienced as a pedestrian mind you, then I don't understand how you can love a city as rich as Boston. There are so many small spaces, open to the public, that could be enhanced to bring people into the building rather than cut them off from the city. I always thought it would be great for a hotel lobby, encased in some glass exostrucutre. The fact that so many on here only care about height and development for the sake of development has always been annoying but now it's insulting.

And if you can't understand why this building and complex are an affront to the city and the people trying to live in it, when you have a whole thread of people (who you continue to insultingly dismiss as a "mob") talking about that and not about height, then I think we're done here.
 
A series of separate issues, each of which needs to be addressed in full before making rash decisions about the building:
1. A complex built at a time when the entire area was bull-dozed/run-down and the city was desperate for "signature" buildings for Govt. Center. It sat in the midst of a massive no-man's land for years, though this is slowly changing with the modicum of improvements on Staniford St., Cambridge St., and with the huge changes in the North Station area.
2. It was designed when city/state/federal bureaucracies were in their hey-day of expansion and they seemed to get along.
3. When service to the mentally ill was actually something value in the state.
4. Having run out of money the complex was never completed to Rudolph's specs. The courtyard remained a mess for decades until the courthouse was built. Some relief ensued until the place was surrounded by chain link for over a decade.
5. There were no pedestrian concerns when it was built because people simply drove into town and parked to do their business, back when the streets were navigable. The concept of mixed-use as a ready solution had not yet reached a tipping point. (The JFK fed building is just as abominable, IMO. It remains as a tomb-stone, just sitting there, having soaked up millions of tax money in asbestos-abatement.
6. Which concept of architecture will dominate? Architecture as: serving the public; stand-alone art; transcendent experience; political statement; sign of wealth and prosperity; monument to civic or industry; practical use for constituencies; political football?
7. The civic will to spend the money to create something new out of the old e.g., Quincy Market: great success (at least for tourism); City Hall Plaza: an ongoing exercise in frustration for the same issues listed above..
8. The need for activity on BOTH sides of a street to create pedestrian interest. This still has not reached critical mass and sufficient variety of purposes...or even someplace to eat.
My prediction: the status quo will remain for the foreseeable future, until the full build-out of the garage complex and the demand to use the building as a profitable venture is actually being funded (privately). Otherwise it's not going anywhere, just like the North/South Station connector.
 

Back
Top