Hurley Building Redevelopment | 19 Staniford St | West End

[Equilibria]

Just seeing this now. Horrible news, completely unexpected, and then to scroll down and see all of the reactions… Sad. This is no longer an architecture forum.

This is a hideous building that should never have had the opportunity to be built. It has moments of semi-attractiveness, but is elevated to true infamy not by pure aesthetics, but by the compounding factor of the ugly racist urban renewal movement it's an idol to.

My support for tearing this down is completely independent from my desire to see a tall building here.

 

[Massachoicetts]

Just seeing this now. Horrible news, completely unexpected, and then to scroll down and see all of the reactions… Sad. This is no longer an architecture forum.

Its more of an Urban Planning forum. This site is a perfect example of horrible urban planning of the brutalistic age. That is not architecture. That is a monstrosity with a potential to unify this part of Boston to the rest. If we can work on improving the streetscape, building a beautiful crown to Boston's skyline all while making it fair to the area we have something good going on.

If you consider what is currently present, good architecture.. I have no words for you. You dont know good architecture.

Also dont get excited about the hieght, the document states it can only go as high as 400 ft in parts of it, with an overall FAR of 10.0

 

[FK4]

I'm far from a Dubai fanboi. This superblock is an urban dead zone, lacking in energy, vitality and activity. It's a depressing too-big-slice of Albany right there in the heart of the city. It's cool architecture, and it was fun while it lasted, but it's a fortress that needs to be taken down.

This building has its own thread under “design a better Boston“, and has been discussed for years. I’m sure you’re familiar with it since you’ve been here a while... but... There’s plenty of room between “tear it down” and “it’s perfect in every way”. While it’s sad that we all, if we have a modicum of realism, have zero faith in the bureaucracy of this government to do anything with nuance or sensitivity, there IS a lot that could be done to address the real issues with this building that you outline. If the state actually stopped using the plaza spaces as parking areas, redesigned the front plaza on Cambridge Street, that alone would make a huge difference. And this building is only one offender among many that makes this area dead...

The larger scale change that could seriously fix problems is if they opened up the building at the Merrimac/Staniford intersection, so movement could flow from Bowdoin Sq down to Causeway and the obstruction posed currently would be alleviated. Again, the state government is never going to do something thoughtful like this, but they could. The sad reality is that while so many people to falling over themselves to preserve piece of shit buildings from the 19 century all over the place, we basically have set some arbitrary fixed point somewhere in the early 20th century (I would argue, sadly, it’s after and not before the disaster that was Art Deco) whereby anything from before this time simply must be saved, has oodles of historic character, and millions spent on preservation, while everything afterwards is dispensable. This in and of itself is a problem that should prompt self examination as to what exactly our “true” values are. Do we actually value art and architecture for their own sake, or are enamored with old stuff because we are sentimental, are enamored with the notion that the ancients knew better than us, and are unaware that to appreciate old things appeals to our own insecurities about our inability to create anything new in modern times that’s just as good?

 

[Scott]

It makes sense to gauge whether any public building is cost effective. Particularly if the ground it sits on is literally worth a fortune. I like the building but would we be doing the taxpayer a disservice by maintaining the status quo? It is not the old state house

 

[FK4]

If you consider what is currently present, good architecture.. I have no words for you. You dont know good architecture.

This is helpful, I’ve been wondering for so many years what my problem is, and have sought thoughtful debate and thorough exploration of issues to come to final conclusions. But I guess it’s really quite simple; I just don’t know good architecture.

 

[eber]

There's a whole slide from the proposal link on the previous page dedicated to historical preservation...

DCAMM’s approach to redevelopment will acknowledge the architecturally significant elements of the Hurley-Lindemann site, while addressing its flaws.
– The Government Services Center complex was planned by prominent architect Paul Rudolph.
– The complex was meant to include three buildings, but only two of the original buildings were built (Brooke courthouse was added later).
– The Lindemann Mental Health Center was also designed by Rudolph, and is more architecturally significant than the Hurley building.
– DCAMM is required to file a Project Notification Form (PNF) with the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). DCAMM will then work with MHC to develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding future development at the site

So I don't think we're going to see a full tear-down-and-replace-with-a-glass-box project. Nonetheless I am excited about the redevelopment of this super-block that feels so cold and uninviting to walk around.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

I'll have to see the replacement plan but I think good things will happen. Keep some of the Brutalist heritage but integrate it into a bustling streetscape like the rest of Boston. Many other Brutalist buildings in Boston do that, this can easily do that too, especially in this location.

 

[DZH22]

.....The sad reality is that while so many people to falling over themselves to preserve piece of shit buildings from the 19 century all over the place, we basically have set some arbitrary fixed point somewhere in the early 20th century (I would argue, sadly, it’s after and not before the disaster that was Art Deco).................

This is helpful, I’ve been wondering for so many years what my problem is, and have sought thoughtful debate and thorough exploration of issues to come to final conclusions. But I guess it’s really quite simple; I just don’t know good architecture.

I recognize that the second part was supposed to be sarcasm, but when read in conjunction with the first part, there is no sarcasm necessary. As a locally/world famous coach would say, "It is what it is."

 

[Equilibria]

And this building is only one offender among many that makes this area dead...

That's right, but it's not a reason to keep this part of the area dead just because you (and a few other folks in communities like this one) value the style.

This in and of itself is a problem that should prompt self examination as to what exactly our “true” values are. Do we actually value art and architecture for their own sake, or are enamored with old stuff because we are sentimental, are enamored with the notion that the ancients knew better than us, and are unaware that to appreciate old things appeals to our own insecurities about our inability to create anything new in modern times that’s just as good?

If I may offer a guess... you hold a minority opinion, and a vast majority of people believe that brutalist concrete structures are ugly in appearance and hostile to experience, so not only do they not want to preserve it, they want to tear it down and forget it existed. In the same vein, the vast majority of people find 19th Century masonry timeless and beautiful. Not to mention that they whole GSC is a maintenance nightmare because concrete ages horribly and these buildings were designed for momentary architectural kudos rather than long-term usability.

It's ironic to hear Van say I want Dubai. I'd say you and Van want Dubai. Cheesy fad architecture built to glorify a government that had too much money, that ages poorly and is hard to maintain? That's brutalism in a nutshell.

 

[FK4]

That's right, but it's not a reason to keep this part of the area dead just because you (and a few other folks in communities like this one) value the style.



If I may offer a guess... you hold a minority opinion, and a vast majority of people believe that brutalist concrete structures are ugly in appearance and hostile to experience, so not only do they not want to preserve it, they want to tear it down and forget it existed. Not to mention that they whole GSC is a maintenance nightmare because concrete ages horribly and these buildings were designed for momentary architectural kudos rather than long-term usability.

It's ironic to hear Van say I want Dubai. I'd say you and Van want Dubai. Cheesy fad architecture that ages poorly and is hard to maintain? That's brutalism in a nutshell.

I cannot speak for Van or who he was specifically designating with the moniker. I can say I was surprised at your reaction, given your participation on this forum, but taste is taste. That being said, aB was not, and I goddam hope it is not becoming, a forum that simply caters to majority opinions. We could all debate the merits of brutalist architecture, or various forms of modernism, until we are blue in the face. The fact is, there are many people who appreciate this form of architecture, and this building is one of the most preeminent examples of all. Personally, I would love to see just about everything within half a mile raised to the ground and rebuilt from scratch, and 10 times over if it would make this area conducive for pedestrian activity such that this one building could be more appreciated by the general public. But that’s my opinion. Either way, neither your nor my opinion dictates who’s right and wrong... But I know you’re a reasonable guy, and you are one of the last people on this site whom I would ever expect to rationalize, in the end, your opinion simply because the “majority” holds it, or to compare the work of Paul Rudolph with the tawdry garbage of nouveau riche oil money.

 

[Coyote137]

Valuing this building for its supposed contribution to art and architecture while ignoring the horrific experience it is and would continue to be in terms of actually living life in Boston is the kind of crap I'd expect from that authoritarian/Swiss asshole Le Corbusier.

 

[393b40]

Architecture is about more than just the building. It's also about place making and its relation to the urban fabric. This building fails miserably at those.

Are we just supposed to preserve crap because it's iconic crap or built by a well regarded architect?

 

[Massachoicetts]

Architecture is about more than just the building. It's also about place making and its relation to the urban fabric. This building fails miserably at those.

Are we just supposed to preserve crap because it's iconic crap or built by a well regarded architect?

Exactly. Theres a neighborhood aspect to it, an urban design dimension... and a connectivity aspect to boot.The building blocks street flow, and separates a whole neighorhood from another. Its a failed project.

 

[Semass]

Carefully done, these structures could be repurposed as a really interesting podium to a much larger building. With the various overhangs and angles, plus the textures it could actually create more value to a new building than it does as a standalone. The cost to gut and repurpose it as an element of a tower could be less than the rehab for current use. I can picture a gym, retail, roof cafes, "creative" office, and restaurants in that space much more easily than I can imagine state offices.

 

[Equilibria]

Carefully done, these structures could be repurposed as a really interesting podium to a much larger building. With the various overhangs and angles, plus the textures it could actually create more value to a new building than it does as a standalone. The cost to gut and repurpose it as an element of a tower could be less than the rehab for current use. I can picture a gym, retail, roof cafes, "creative" office, and restaurants in that space much more easily than I can imagine state offices.

The issues with that sort of plan are likely to be (1) the building hasn't been maintained well and will be very expensive to save (and keep saved) and (2) the principal office tenant here will still be the Commonwealth, and they don't sound very interested in preserving this half of the complex. I'd expect this to take a similar form as the Volpe project: a 200-300' office tower for the Commonwealth and 2-3 other towers for office and residential, one of which hopefully will be the tallest in Boston.

When Deval was exploring moving MassDOT to Tremont Crossing (who knows, maybe Baker will pick that one back up), it was conceptualized to look like this:

The new State Services Center will probably be similarly-designed. Ideally, maybe Baker can swing a new statement building like the new Volpe.

 

[sidewalks]

I love architecture and I love urbanism, but if I am forced to choose I will opt for urbanism every time. This building has destroyed the urban fabric of a massive swath of downtown Boston for fifty years. Ours is a small city and we can't sacrifice acres of downtown for a desolate, lifeless box of bureaucracy. That is a sin that cannot be forgiven whatever its merits as a hulking sculpture to brutalism.

 

[iamdjmichael]

There's a whole slide from the proposal link on the previous page dedicated to historical preservation...



So I don't think we're going to see a full tear-down-and-replace-with-a-glass-box project. Nonetheless I am excited about the redevelopment of this super-block that feels so cold and uninviting to walk around.

I think we could still see some sort of box if they enclose the front of it per-se in the lobby of a new tower

 

[Equilibria]

I think we could still see some sort of box if they enclose the front of it per-se in the lobby of a new tower

The slide refers to preserving the other half of the complex. I think this half is likely to go. Their justification for the project is that the Hurley Building is an inefficient layout and costs too much to maintain - they certainly sound like they want a new office building with simple floor plates.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Yeah, I don't really get why people are crying about people not liking this building. It is the antithesis of the fine-grained urbanism most of us want. There is nothing wrong with Brutalism if it respects the context and adds value to the surroundings (the Clark University library of my alma mater is one) but here it clearly doesn't.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

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.