To be clear, the Frog Face isn't going anywhere. This is ONLY the Hurley side of the building, not the Lindemann. For those unsure, I've pulled this highly official image highlighting what is slated for redevelopment:
Last edited:
Hurley Building Redevelopment | 19 Staniford St | West End
- Thread starter Lrfox
- Start date
To be clear, the Frog Face isn't going anywhere. This is ONLY the Hurley side of the building, not the Lindemann. For those unsure, I've pulled this highly official image highlighting what is slated for redevelopment:
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
This thread is the existential angst this forum needed. I'm loving reading through all of this.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
Really? I see a long wait coming (a la Government Center Garage) but I think developers will fall on this like vultures on carrion. GSA had no trouble selling Volpe, and that included very specific requirements for a replacement facility, as opposed to the vague ones here.
Volpe and Winthrop Square demonstrate that when government (Feds and City in the those cases) make offers like this, developers respond.
Agreed. I'm having one myself. I really like this building. That said, it's flat out bad urbanism and there's no denying that. I'm glad the Lindemann isn't going anywhere. It's the most architecturally significant portion of the complex in my opinion and I think it stands well on its own. I like the opportunity to break up the block a bit and better utilize the space (it's a huge footprint for ~650 people to occupy 8hrs/day 5 days/week). I'm hopeful that any proposal will creatively utilize the existing structure (or a significant part of it). There's room along Staniford and Cambridge to build out retail storefronts (minimalist/glass preferably - something that plays well with the existing concrete), and there's room along New Chardon and in the place to add the bulk of the projects square footage in tower form while preserving as much of the existing structure as possible.
Barring an economic collapse between now and groundbreaking, I agree with you. Seeing as the state wants to retain office space at this location, it's likely that the developer will have some risk mitigation that might not exist in a purely private development.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,963
- Reaction score
- 3,887
Eh, we've had lots of discussions about this. Yes, it is an interesting building from a pure design point of view, maybe even an important building. But it fails miserably on street level engagement. There is more to urban form than architecture alone. This building is massively disruptive to the urban fabric and should not be there.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,963
- Reaction score
- 3,887
Some people may hate the building in the abstract. I'm not among that group. I think it's a very interesting building. I come at this as a fan of brutalism, so the building itself works for me. But I simply cannot abide by what it does to the city. Hence my happiness at the idea it may soon be gone. Also, since the plan involves keeping the Lindemann, we will still have some compelling brutalist architecture in this space, it simply will no longer overwhelm such a large swath of downtown.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Rather than destroying it, they should be calling Bruner/Cott or designLAB in to add some glass and do a strategic reworking of the ground level spaces ala BU Law Tower (Sert) or UMD Carney Library (Rudolph) to enhance the characteristics of the brutalism, rather than erase them. There ARE ways to make brutalism work in 2019 that celebrate the original form.
Ultimately, we'll still have the Lindemann portion, so we get to keep and appreciate some of it.
Also, DOCOMOMO is going to raise HELL. The Hurley is not going to go down without a long, drawn out fight with the modernism preservationist groups.
Ultimately, we'll still have the Lindemann portion, so we get to keep and appreciate some of it.
Also, DOCOMOMO is going to raise HELL. The Hurley is not going to go down without a long, drawn out fight with the modernism preservationist groups.
citydweller
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2019
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 638
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Brad -- you over reached
The Lindemann is not going to be torn down as in the announcement it is "architecturally more significant"
$200M to fix the Hurley building*1 and not even make it very useful [designed for a very different era] is very very very poor use of taxpayer's money
*1 estimate of cost to repair [leaks] and update to 21st C office standards [e.g. energy utilization, ADA compliance, etc.]
Last edited:
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
Speaking to the entire complex,
Some may call for this crazy, perverse sand castle to be saved. As hard it may be for good people to accept, this absurd mass of concrete is one of the greatest urban blights in USA. However, there's more to ridding ourselves of it (for the greater good) than just bringing an end to blight.
It's not hard to see once you weigh it's jovial, cynical, quasi-historic value vs the site's unrealized potential.... If the building is allowed to survive, a vital part of Downtown, already confined with a critical lack of space will continue to be under-utilized and fail to become an iconic address in Boston. Not only is the footprint of the building one of the last straightforward, realistic sites for one or more future skyscrapers. But, it is worthy to become the next Cobb/Pei or Piano type masterpiece.
One of the reasons why i admire the work of Don Chiofaro and Joe Larkin, is they recognize that when a site is well suited, or particularly merits having an iconic building put on it, it shouldn't be developed with 2/3 of an iconic building on it--but rather, get the full building. In particular for Chiofaro, there's more to it than just putting up a highrise and making a profit. Chiofaro risks it all: money, reputation and more to create something that will be tall, and have permanence. With Millennium, maybe the pursuit of profit pushes their form to follow function. Well enough: Good urbanism prevails! It should happen more often in an iconic City (such that Boston is). We got the Pru/which along with the Seagram Bldg (375 Park Ave/NYC) very likely, are the best modernist towers of the late 50's to the 70's. Thank God.
In New York, they could screw up massively (Pan Am/Met Life), years later, put some PoMo garbage, and decades later keep doing better on the next generation of towers.
There aren't those same opportunities in Boston – including right here with the Hurley + Lindemann Mental Health Bldg/s. It ALL needs to go – and we need to get it right, not just by what reaches skyward, but by considering that other sites could be integrated into a far better foot path/walk-able street grid (after this site is developed).
Boston can live without these buildings a lot better than it can live (with) it all still standing. Everyone knows it never should have been built. The argument for Brutalism as a worthy architectural endeavor can probably be made: we've seen plenty of examples. But not even in Pyongyang, should something as absurd, and dehumanizing as this vastly huge building, with its extended prison walls–exist. It sure as hell shouldn't exist in Downtown Boston, closing off 3 neighborhoods from each other, in a precious, historic, walk-able zone.
That said, i've saved the best reason, and if i may, with boldface, garish aplomb.
The Monolith rails at the former residents of the West End in perpetuity, and that fact alone makes it a particularly expensive exercise in Brutalist adventurism and urban malfeasance. People who support its continued existence, or any type of similar tribute building should pick their battles and sell Brutalist preservation someplace else. Here, they're selling 'crazy.' The wrecking balls won't come soon enough.
reverend_paco
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2012
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 261
That's good news. I love the look of that part of the complex.
For anyone who has been in these buildings, how is that they are considered separate buildings? They seem contiguous on ground-level (the white/black demarcation on the aerial is eye-opening). Were they built at different times?
I certainly hope the money raised will go to reviving the Lindemann in some way. Abstract curves like the following have been one of my favorite parts of looking at the building but I have always felt less invited to stroll around in recent years with the chain-link.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
I think it was State Police Headquarters. This looked more bleakly imposing than the actual HQ, on Route 9 in Framingham (which is just bleak).
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
The entire embarrassment to architecture is all coming down, frog face and all.
Just not anytime soon, unfortunately.
Sadly, very likely not in my lifetime,
and tragically, possibly not in the lifetimes of anyone currently living.
Just not anytime soon, unfortunately.
Sadly, very likely not in my lifetime,
and tragically, possibly not in the lifetimes of anyone currently living.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,963
- Reaction score
- 3,887
I don't know whether they are structurally distinct, but if nothing else, you should not be able to access one from the other. The Lindemann is a secure facility as it was designed to include inpatient mental health care services. I'm not sure that any inpatient care continues at this time, but originally it was a significant aspect of how that building was used.
I am probably not the best person to answer this, but I think they are actually separate structures with walls that abut one another. There are separate main entrances (the Lindemann's current main entrance was never intended to be such - the intended main entrance is a conference room), separate facilities, and no way (that I know of, anyway) to travel between the two indoors. They may share the parking garage, but I'm not sure about that. If you really look at the two from the street, you can see some significant differences in the facades. But the continuity of the concrete adds to the monolithic appearance.
Thankfully, there have been some minor improvements and most of the chain link fence around the building is gone. But all of the public space is underutilized, especially the intended plaza at the Staniford/Merrimac intersection which is used for parking (though the original concrete benches remain).
Yup. And more recently, The Possession of Hannah Grace which looks understandably awful. Many of the hospital/morgue scenes were filmed inside the building (and other Brutalist structures) and the ambulance loading dock is in the parking garage of the Lindemann. Some of the Lindemann is visible in the trailer as are other locations. Discerning eyes can see what matches up and what doesn't.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
I have always loved the "Future Shock" / "Logan's Run" look to the building, but that's because stuff like them was touted in Architectural Record in my youth, not because I ever went near them.
The problem with the whole building is that the vertical beton brut "pillar-vanes" (15 feet deep?) make it impossible to "window shop" the ground floor--they're like giant arms (three-foot thick, 30 foot high, covered with spikes) pushing you 15 feet away. And they're set about every 30 feet across the entire streetfront.
Unlike I.M. Pei's Christian Science colonade, there's no sheltering element, and no getting behind them or through them or near them (you'll only snag your sweater).
Usually I'd say keep a building that was so perfectly of its time, but this one is too perfectly hostile.
Keep Lindeman (and lose the scattered carhenges, and get it some color, plants and plaza).
Enjoy the Christian Science complex as beton brut that works.
Dynamite the Hurley and let's build something civil and humane.
The problem with the whole building is that the vertical beton brut "pillar-vanes" (15 feet deep?) make it impossible to "window shop" the ground floor--they're like giant arms (three-foot thick, 30 foot high, covered with spikes) pushing you 15 feet away. And they're set about every 30 feet across the entire streetfront.
Unlike I.M. Pei's Christian Science colonade, there's no sheltering element, and no getting behind them or through them or near them (you'll only snag your sweater).
Usually I'd say keep a building that was so perfectly of its time, but this one is too perfectly hostile.
Keep Lindeman (and lose the scattered carhenges, and get it some color, plants and plaza).
Enjoy the Christian Science complex as beton brut that works.
Dynamite the Hurley and let's build something civil and humane.
Last edited:
I don't know how I feel about this, and I'll have to become more familiar with the building as most of the time I am drawn away by the chain link fences and general coldness of the area to see if it could be improved with some enhancements, but that^ is just a blatant strawman argument. Different contexts, different massings, different executions, etc.
So pretty. So beautiful. Every new building should look like this!
What building is this? Is this the building from the movie Scanners? I have been trying to figure out what that is forever.