Hurley Building Redevelopment | 19 Staniford St | West End

[Lrfox]

I feel like people are letting their preexisting hatred for this building cloud their creative mind. This is the Johnson Public Library building before and after reno. This is exactly what we are talking about here.

I don't actually hate the building. I like it. I like the Lindemann too. I'd be for any proposal that can largely preserve the building, break up the megablock, and create a more active, human-scaled area. That said, the Johnson isn't exactly what we're talking about. Yes, it's a very successful renovation, but the scale and function of the Hurley is very different than the Library. It's hard to imagine being able to duplicate that type of activated streetwall at the Hurley given the use (9-5 offices vs. public library), and the fact that the facade takes up hundreds of feet of sidewalk space on 3 separate streets. If we're just talking the small Cambridge St. section, I would be inclined to agree with you. But the amount of space as well as the slope of the hill on New Chardon and Staniford St. make anything like the Johnson building extremely difficult/impossible to replicate. When you factor in the uses of either building, I don't see much parallel beyond the similar architectural style.

This is all about height. The difference between walking alongside a 3 foot wall vs a 6 foot wall vs a 40 foot wall need no further explanation. If the sidewalk itself was activated by adding trees — and, especially by widening it even more to make this stretch of sidewalk it's own "thing" and give a sense of place — the 5-6 foot high wall there could actually help enclose this space in a nice way, rather than exacerbate the situation.

I'm not really arguing about the height of the wall. My point is that the entire stretch of New Chardon is bad from a pedestrian standpoint and trying to make the case that the Brooke is somehow significantly worse than the Hurley over there doesn't hold a lot of water for me. Trees, a wider sidewalk, bike lanes, bus lanes, etc. are nice, but they don't address the larger issue which is that the whole super block is not designed for humans. Staniford has very wide sidewalks, windows at the street level, newly planted trees, and a separated bike lane. It's still a miserable pedestrian experience and even mature trees wouldn't fix it.

 

[Equilibria]

Again, to you, specifically, Equilibria, I know you hate the urbanism of this building, and I'm not sitting here saying it's perfect or it works, but I am saying that there many things that could be done that would vastly improve the urban design flaws. Whether it's worth the cost is another question, although I would be very interested to see some actual proposals on that first. If you had MIT students come up with ten visions for this site along with cost analyses for each, that would tell me much more than simply the state saying the outrageous figure it's going to cost to rehab this building* and therefore offering only one alternative, which is redevelopment.

And my point is that by the time you've punched holes in the building, glassed over the entire facade to make a winter garden, built new doorways by reconfiguring the interior, built new stairs down into light wells to turn them into corridors... have you really saved the building? This building is designed to be hostile. The plaza around it is designed to encourage people to get indoors or in a car as quickly as possible.

I'm sure MIT students will study this on their own. MIT students will definitely not consider the costs of their proposals or the operational and programmatic impacts - they're architecture students, not office layout designers. The Commonwealth has that expertise. They have said the best solution is to rebuild.

 

[FK4]

This building is designed to be hostile. The plaza around it is designed to encourage people to get indoors or in a car as quickly as possible.

See, that is what I take issue with. That was clearly not the intent of the architect, which is why there's tons of seating literally ringing the entire building, and a huge plaza in the middle of it. Those were not built for show; they are there because people were supposed to be there.

The "design" to "encourage people to get indoors or in a car" is the ethos of the urban planners, not the architects.

The superblock also would not exist as such for those on foot if the Merrimac side wasn't fenced off — it's a passge that I myself, along with many other people, would use often if it were open. And there's another cut through from Staniford to Chardon as well.

Maybe we should have the next aB meetup around here and we can all argue in the rotunda, in person.

 

[Equilibria]

See, that is what I take issue with. That was clearly not the intent of the architect, which is why there's tons of seating literally ringing the entire building, and a huge plaza in the middle of it. Those were not built for show; they are there because people were supposed to be there.

If you build a line of benches on a facade with no doors, separated from the street by a grade change and an unbroken retaining wall, you are either very naiive or the benches are for show. The proof is in the pudding here, and I don't think you can blame the Merrimac issue. If there were a reason to be up there, people would be up there.

The "design" to "encourage people to get indoors or in a car" is the ethos of the urban planners, not the architects.

The architect here designed the entire block - buildings, plaza, unbuilt buildings... that makes him the planner of the site, not just the architect. As you might guess, in my opinion that's part of the problem.

 

[Shepard]

View attachment 1076What this picture needs is less cars, and more pedestrians and more trees. Yes, there are creative ways to rethink this. But you cannot actually contend that there’s literally nothing that could be done that could seriously improve this... that’s what design is all about. It may not be as satisfactory to some as a replacement, but the building - sidewalk - street interaction as exists now is awful. But, nowhere near as horrible as the Brooke Courthouse - that’s truly a blank wall for an entire two blocks. Another building that’s interesting on the interior-of-the-block angle but bad on the street.

FK, you're being a good advocate for this building, which I appreciate. But the honest truth - and I don't believe this is very subjective - is that nobody looks at that photo and thinks "hmmm... that's a potentially friendly building there, but a bad unfriendly streetscape."

 

[Shepard]

I'd also like to play devil's advocate about the Brooke Courthouse. The courthouse is boring to walk next to - no doubt about that - but it employs enough recognizable common tropes of urban form (varied masonry at ground level, sight-lines to a grand entrance) that make it much more urban-friendly and pleasant than walking next to the Hurley will probably ever be.

 

[FK4]

I'd also like to play devil's advocate about the Brooke Courthouse. The courthouse is boring to walk next to - no doubt about that - but it employs enough recognizable common tropes of urban form (varied masonry at ground level, sight-lines to a grand entrance) that make it much more urban-friendly and pleasant than walking next to the Hurley will probably ever be.

I don’t like the Chardon Street façade at all. But, the courthouse partly also suffers from the same planning catastrophes as the entire area... especially the intersection of Merrimac/Congress/Chardon. There’s more than enough room in that intersection to make a nice little park right in front of the courthouse...

Tough facades can always be softened by their surroundings.

And in re your previous post, come downtown and meet me someday and I can show you what I mean. Sometimes a picture doesn’t do justice to an experience.

 

[Scott]

About the future of the Lindemann. Eventually it will need to be replaced or renovated. In my mind the most important thing is that the state provides needed services in a fiscally responsible way. In a parallel universe the state does the right thing by the taxpayer, and the population served, by selling the place and using the money to build a modern facility elsewhere. I think this could be a hell of a facedectomy (sic?) but that should be done by the private sector.

 

[BeeLine]

Interesting article from the Bisnow site. Site could fetch $230M.

Massachusetts Puts 3.6-Acre Downtown Office Site On The Market

The state wants to partner with a private developer to renovate and redevelop an underutilized, 3.5-acre downtown Boston office complex.

www.bisnow.com

 

[dotdude78]

Interesting article from the Bisnow site. Site could fetch $230M.

Massachusetts Puts 3.6-Acre Downtown Office Site On The Market

The state wants to partner with a private developer to renovate and redevelop an underutilized, 3.5-acre downtown Boston office complex.

www.bisnow.com

That kind of $$ justifies 800' ; )

 

[Massachoicetts]

That kind of $$ justifies 800' ; )

Is there a way that zoning could be upped from 400' to 800'? Not height fetching but this is going to be an expanded CBD in like 5 years and if I was a developer I would not pay 220 mil for a 400 footer.

 

[KentXie]

See, that is what I take issue with. That was clearly not the intent of the architect, which is why there's tons of seating literally ringing the entire building, and a huge plaza in the middle of it. Those were not built for show; they are there because people were supposed to be there.

Intent and execution are two different things. Maybe the architect didn't intend to be hostile. Unfortunately, the execution did not follow that intent because it is every bit hostile. Just like how Government Center Plaza was intended to be a friendly public gathering space but the execution resulted in a windswept wasteland when there isn't an event going on.

 

[Equilibria]

Is there a way that zoning could be upped from 400' to 800'? Not height fetching but this is going to be an expanded CBD in like 5 years and if I was a developer I would not pay 220 mil for a 400 footer.

Again, zoning height in Boston is virtually meaningless. The developer will propose what it wants and the BPDA and ZBA will decide whether to allow the height.

 

[SlothofDespond]

Interesting article from the Bisnow site. Site could fetch $230M.

Massachusetts Puts 3.6-Acre Downtown Office Site On The Market

The state wants to partner with a private developer to renovate and redevelop an underutilized, 3.5-acre downtown Boston office complex.

www.bisnow.com

So the state is looking at either receiving $200M+ for the site, or paying $200M+ to rehab the building. And pretty much everyone hates the building. The building is gone, baby, gone.

 

[FK4]

Intent and execution are two different things. Maybe the architect didn't intend to be hostile. Unfortunately, the execution did not follow that intent because it is every bit hostile. Just like how Government Center Plaza was intended to be a friendly public gathering space but the execution resulted in a windswept wasteland when there isn't an event going on.

...I guess I’m just gonna be the broken record every time I hear this. You are mixing arguments here: the “execution” has as much to do with the overall urban design of this area as it does with the building. The “product” that you’re referring to is not the building, but the building + the environs, roads, and adjacent structures. The latter isn’t the only problem, but it’s inextricably linked to the problems of the building itself and does not, on its own, lead to a series of inevitable conclusions that 1) the problems are due to the building alone and 2) the only way to solve them is to tear it down.

 

[KentXie]

...I guess I’m just gonna be the broken record every time I hear this. You are mixing arguments here: the “execution” has as much to do with the overall urban design of this area as it does with the building. The “product” that you’re referring to is not the building, but the building + the environs, roads, and adjacent structures. The latter isn’t the only problem, but it’s inextricably linked to the problems of the building itself and does not, on its own, lead to a series of inevitable conclusions that 1) the problems are due to the building alone and 2) the only way to solve them is to tear it down.

I understand that. My conclusion is I don't trust any developer will be able to fix it in the way many of you who wish to preserve it are proposing. I've seen enough band-aids applied to City Hall to know that is a pipe dream and honestly, not worth decades of wasted years stymieing the potential here.

 

[FK4]

I understand that. My conclusion is I don't trust any developer will be able to fix it in the way many of you who wish to preserve it are proposing. I've seen enough band-aids applied to City Hall to know that is a pipe dream and honestly, not worth decades of wasted years stymieing the potential here.

#daretodream

 

[navigator4]

About the future of the Lindemann. Eventually it will need to be replaced or renovated. In my mind the most important thing is that the state provides needed services in a fiscally responsible way. In a parallel universe the state does the right thing by the taxpayer, and the population served, by selling the place and using the money to build a modern facility elsewhere. I think this could be a hell of a facedectomy (sic?) but that should be done by the private sector.

Having worked in the Hurley, it's a disaster. The internal walls are also hammered concrete and people are constantly ripping their clothes on them.

Also, I don't understand keeping the Lindemann. It is actually more offsetting and imposing then the Hurley. The main entrance is down a narrow corridor and through a parking lot. Most of the architectural features of the Lindemann are behind gates to prevent the patients from walking away. It seems that selling both the Lindemann and Hurley and moving patients and state employees to a modern facility elsewhere would make a lot more sense. It would also create much better pallet to create a better and more open new tower.

 

[Arlington]

Could the Lindemann at least be repurposed as a fun object to climb on, like "The Vessel" in the middle of Hudson Yards? I have always wanted to explore, but couldn't (given the gates & security) find a path to explore it.

 

[Rover]

Just blow the thing up already. Its always the same people who lock on to the most hideous buildings because they think being a contrarian gives their opinion more weight.

But this eyesore goes against everything people out here are for. The streetscape is atrocious, arguably the worst downtown. Its a landscaper in a place where density is at a premium and height is part of that equation. Its also a waste of taxpayer money to revitalize when you could deal it for hundreds of millions of dollars.

So, as its a state owned site I'm not sure Boston zoning applies? I'd sell it with the stipulation that the state will allow a building up to FAA limits and maximize potential revenue from the sale. For those of you in love with this hunk of junk you can always take a trip down to UMass Dartmouth if you want to see a whole campus built in similar ugliness. Or if you're feeling really adventurous a trip to the former Soviet Union should have plenty of the same architecture.