Too complicated to play musical chairs. The greater public good must be the deciding factor for non historical buildings. If you sell the Hurley and the Transportation building you will reap half a billion dollars from the sale price as well as putting the properties back on the tax rolls. Then turn around and rent space in the new building or elsewhere if you need to. There is no logical reason to deny 500M in badly needed funds to maintain a vanity project for a dwindling # of people who feel these buildings are worth saving.
Hurley Building Redevelopment | 19 Staniford St | West End
- Thread starter Lrfox
- Start date
Too complicated to play musical chairs. The greater public good must be the deciding factor for non historical buildings. If you sell the Hurley and the Transportation building you will reap half a billion dollars from the sale price as well as putting the properties back on the tax rolls. Then turn around and rent space in the new building or elsewhere if you need to. There is no logical reason to deny 500M in badly needed funds to maintain a vanity project for a dwindling # of people who feel these buildings are worth saving.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,997
- Reaction score
- 1,735
Please, the state gives far more of your tax dollars away to less deserving projects. It's a value call. You don't value the building so no price would be worth it. But look around the city and you'll see plenty of examples where a developer fixed up or at least kept part of an older building and made their money back on the value they added to it.
Its been a while since a project has been so polarizing.
I am a little on the fence on this and think the process is going to be key. The four main facts to me are, the building is striking example of brutalism, it is also brutal (not urban or up to current standards in many regards) in its current configuration and condition, the land is very valuable, and renovation is expensive.
I do think in the hands of Bruner/Cott or similar it could be made into something really special. I am sure that "special outcome" would not be universally loved no matter how well executed because of the structure itself but I am also sure that it could be made to be much urban, functional, and beautiful. It could easily be a landmark project for the city and leading precedent for the revitalization of the brutalist style/form in an urban context. I don't think any of us see a world in which this construction method or style is coming back, some may think that's great and some may think that is why it is important to preserve strong examples of the style. I do think that brutalism is an important part of Boston's DNA and that to extent reasonable that it should be integrated into our future rather than erased, I think most agree?
Then there are the economics. Is that special outcome economically viable for the private sector? Probably not without adding a massive amount of density somewhere on site.
Is that special outcome the best use of tax payer dollars? Debatable, it certainly seems like an inefficient building for their current needs and renovation pound for pound is going to be *much* more costly to the tax payer than demo. Even if you sold the property to private developers with reuse requirements, there would be a steep (in theory direct) discount to the sale price reflecting the costs of those improvements. There are also the opportunity costs to consider, if you side on a pure form of preservation with limited added density then there is a significant lost opportunity cost, the land could support much more density and thus could be very valuable. Plenty of Boston is already under preservation restrictions that limit density and I think it merits pause before adding another large parcel to that list. There are also the opportunity costs of public money put to or foregone to preservation of this structure versus other priorities.
I would say, I am generally not in favor of this as currently structured without including the Lindemann building. I think it will be more difficult to achieve a good outcome regardless of the path chosen, adaptive reuse or redevelopment, without having that parcel/building included.
I am a little on the fence on this and think the process is going to be key. The four main facts to me are, the building is striking example of brutalism, it is also brutal (not urban or up to current standards in many regards) in its current configuration and condition, the land is very valuable, and renovation is expensive.
I do think in the hands of Bruner/Cott or similar it could be made into something really special. I am sure that "special outcome" would not be universally loved no matter how well executed because of the structure itself but I am also sure that it could be made to be much urban, functional, and beautiful. It could easily be a landmark project for the city and leading precedent for the revitalization of the brutalist style/form in an urban context. I don't think any of us see a world in which this construction method or style is coming back, some may think that's great and some may think that is why it is important to preserve strong examples of the style. I do think that brutalism is an important part of Boston's DNA and that to extent reasonable that it should be integrated into our future rather than erased, I think most agree?
Then there are the economics. Is that special outcome economically viable for the private sector? Probably not without adding a massive amount of density somewhere on site.
Is that special outcome the best use of tax payer dollars? Debatable, it certainly seems like an inefficient building for their current needs and renovation pound for pound is going to be *much* more costly to the tax payer than demo. Even if you sold the property to private developers with reuse requirements, there would be a steep (in theory direct) discount to the sale price reflecting the costs of those improvements. There are also the opportunity costs to consider, if you side on a pure form of preservation with limited added density then there is a significant lost opportunity cost, the land could support much more density and thus could be very valuable. Plenty of Boston is already under preservation restrictions that limit density and I think it merits pause before adding another large parcel to that list. There are also the opportunity costs of public money put to or foregone to preservation of this structure versus other priorities.
I would say, I am generally not in favor of this as currently structured without including the Lindemann building. I think it will be more difficult to achieve a good outcome regardless of the path chosen, adaptive reuse or redevelopment, without having that parcel/building included.
So because the state wastes money in some places its okay to waste money here??? I'm sorry but that makes no sense.
However, if there's a way to save a portion of the building and also max out revenue from the sale price go for it. It'll have to be a small portion though because that godawful streetscape cannot be allowed to remain. BUT, where I draw the line is the idea that the state should require a multi million dollar rehab of the existing building which would cut significantly into the sale price. No way. Not to make the 5 people happy who actually like this building. What's next, giving a historical designation to the Harbor Towers Garage?
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Well we'll just have to wait and see what transpires
Remember that there have been other attempts to get private development on state owned property -- some succeed and some don't
Now I can't think of any intrinsic limits or complications to this site -- except for preservation of the Lindemann building and its functions
Remember that there have been other attempts to get private development on state owned property -- some succeed and some don't
Now I can't think of any intrinsic limits or complications to this site -- except for preservation of the Lindemann building and its functions
From 11/17. Boston looks insanely urban from the Skywalk. Hub office tower peaking out on the left.
IMG_8938 copy by David Z, on Flickr
IMG_8938 copy by David Z, on Flickr
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 525
Again no new news but at least they got the right building this time!
www.architecturaldigest.com
I think we all know the answer to this.
Although we might be lucky to get a glassy blue box with a Shake Shack. More likely we get a 5-over-one, panel-clad box with a DD, CVS and BOA on the ground floor.
This Paul Rudolph Brutalist Building in Boston Is Set For Demolition
Located in a historic section of the city, the 50-year-old Charles F. Hurley Building occupies three acres of land in the middle of Boston’s red-hot real estate market
AD said:
I think we all know the answer to this.
Although we might be lucky to get a glassy blue box with a Shake Shack. More likely we get a 5-over-one, panel-clad box with a DD, CVS and BOA on the ground floor.
Last edited:
tocoto
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 82
“ Hurley Building, a structure intended to celebrate the power of government to improve people’s lives? Will it be designed by an architect with an interest in creating unique, dignified, and engaging spaces,”
the problem with the Hurley building is that while it may have been conceived to achieve the grand plan mentioned it failed badly and is a non functional eyesore. Few will miss it significant as it may be in architectural history.
the problem with the Hurley building is that while it may have been conceived to achieve the grand plan mentioned it failed badly and is a non functional eyesore. Few will miss it significant as it may be in architectural history.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,038
Are there any of those in Downtown? I can't think of one...
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 525
No, you are right. I thought of that after I posted it. But I feel pretty comfortable assuming that whatever gets built here will be incredibly bland.
I stand by the DD/CVS/BOA triumvirate though. Yes, the building is already surrounded by multiple CVSs/DDs but that has never stopped them opening new ones.
I stand by the DD/CVS/BOA triumvirate though. Yes, the building is already surrounded by multiple CVSs/DDs but that has never stopped them opening new ones.
Last edited:
"Boston has a contentious relationship with its brutalist monuments to social bureaucracy. City Hall, designed by Kallmann McKinnell & Knowles, occupies the same downtown complex and is one of the most divisive buildings ever built in Boston."
Oh really? Tell me more, Mr. Tucker, about how Boston City Hall and the Hurley Building are part of the same complex. Silly me, I was laboring under the delusion that they were separated by New Chardon St., Sudbury St., and several acres of hideous bleak anti-human windswept plaza.
<I'm sorry if this seems like nit-picking but seriously how does a writer get this wrong?!>
Oh really? Tell me more, Mr. Tucker, about how Boston City Hall and the Hurley Building are part of the same complex. Silly me, I was laboring under the delusion that they were separated by New Chardon St., Sudbury St., and several acres of hideous bleak anti-human windswept plaza.
<I'm sorry if this seems like nit-picking but seriously how does a writer get this wrong?!>
That's how I've always thought of it too. But to be fair, it's vague at best. The City of Boston has a Government Center/Markets District map which includes all that you mention as well as India St., Broad St., Batterymarch St., and a chunk of the RKG. Seems accurate to me minus India, Broad, and Batterymarch (and maybe the stretch of the RKG) which I would have put under the Financial District umbrella. If you google "Government Center Map" you'll get a google map with a boundary around City Hall Plaza, the JFK, Faneuil Hall/Quincy Market, the Blackstone Block and Haymarket area, and the Public Market. So it doesn't include the State Services Center or courthouses. Anyway, I agree with you that it's certainly not wrong to include the Hurley in the larger Gov't Center umbrella.
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,559
- Reaction score
- 3,195
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,038
Yeah, I think that's the point he was making. They might not all be one "complex" but the Hurley is part of Government Center.
Right but city hall = Boston and Hurley = state offices which is why they seem distinct to me as well. Aside from the butt ugly architecture I wouldn't have figured they go together.
And the JFK building that's on the Plaza is Federal. Hence the general "Government Center" instead of "City, State, or Federal Center."
I "get it" I'm just saying I understand why people don't consider the Hurley and Govt Center to be related at first glance, despite the shared ugliness of both buildings.