Hurley Building Redevelopment | 19 Staniford St | West End

Just in case anyone was on the edge of their seat worrying about whether these folks would chime in...

...the Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture tweeted that they are reviewing the proposal and will soon release a statement “about the building and the impact this proposal will have to its future and current historical significance.”
Click to expand...

From:
www.archpaper.com

Paul Rudolph’s Hurley Building to be “transformed” in new redevelopment

A new plan for the site of Boston's Hurley Building by Paul Rudolph will reuse a portion of the building, as part of a mixed-use development.
www.archpaper.com www.archpaper.com
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
I agree with the premise of the argument, but I also think that this specific case is more of a design challenge than simply a case of a building which cannot be reused.
Click to expand...
First - Vanshnookenraggen. I have much respect for you, your abilities and I've always loved your maps and the finds. Never, never, never stop posting.
Second - we're not always going to agree, but I will always listen
Third - Insulting the inanimate Hurley is not an insult to you. I just really hate this particular example of brutalism for so many reasons.
Mostly because the Hurley (And Lindemann):
  • Failed in its ostensible goals -- and I'm paraphrasing -- to democratize the building's form to make it accessible to the common man without ornament.
  • Logistically separated formerly connected parts of the city from each other, dividing residents and their daily functions from each other.
  • Deterred participation in open government by making its own active spaces inaccessible
  • Planted a worst case carchitecture on top of former residences
  • Squat greedily in a city where people are begging for a few square feet to live (maybe if the OG tower had been built I'd feel differently)
Let me go cinemtatic: The Hurley Lindemann pair is like the alien craft in Arrival or District 9: Neat to look at from a distance, scary up close, but really menacing no matter how you see it. I can't see the creatures inside bringing anything but confusion and disruption at best, and maltreatment at worst. It's HVAC and interior discomforts call to mind dystopian movies like Brazil, with lighting from Joe Versus the Volcano.
Oh how I wish it all worked.

And Vanshnookenraggen, at the very least you make us all feel something. Our passions may not align here, but I will always have your back no matter where you post from!
 
Equilibria said:
Why is it so hard to understand? Build nice looking stuff. A large percentage of daring designs fail - that's what makes them daring. Put that on a campus in the middle of nowhere or be daring with your own damn house, not when we all have to live with the consequences.
Click to expand...

I guess I am implying a different standard for the term daring here. I don't even mean a daring architectural design necessarily but the daring required of a developer to really transform a site, proposal a new urban form, or change an existing condition that might at all be contentious. Developers, and by extension designers, have largely lost that daring as it is perceived to be too risky or too costly. Planning I feel supports this as the profession has withdrawn to be largely facilitators of a process where public opinion and market conditions reign.

It's not all bad but I do think it lends itself to mixed results and I think most of us agree, this proposal is lackluster and in my opinion that is largely because it lacks daring in form/density/scale as well as refinement.
 
BeyondRevenue said:
First - Vanshnookenraggen. I have much respect for you, your abilities and I've always loved your maps and the finds. Never, never, never stop posting.
Second - we're not always going to agree, but I will always listen
Third - Insulting the inanimate Hurley is not an insult to you. I just really hate this particular example of brutalism for so many reasons.
Mostly because the Hurley (And Lindemann):
  • Failed in its ostensible goals -- and I'm paraphrasing -- to democratize the building's form to make it accessible to the common man without ornament.
  • Logistically separated formerly connected parts of the city from each other, dividing residents and their daily functions from each other.
  • Deterred participation in open government by making its own active spaces inaccessible
  • Planted a worst case carchitecture on top of former residences
  • Squat greedily in a city where people are begging for a few square feet to live (maybe if the OG tower had been built I'd feel differently)
Let me go cinemtatic: The Hurley Lindemann pair is like the alien craft in Arrival or District 9: Neat to look at from a distance, scary up close, but really menacing no matter how you see it. I can't see the creatures inside bringing anything but confusion and disruption at best, and maltreatment at worst. It's HVAC and interior discomforts call to mind dystopian movies like Brazil, with lighting from Joe Versus the Volcano.
Oh how I wish it all worked.

And Vanshnookenraggen, at the very least you make us all feel something. Our passions may not align here, but I will always have your back no matter where you post from!
Click to expand...

Finally, a quality post.

I was specifically trying to avoid maligning anyone personally for their views, that's not why I come here.
But somehow that's how a few people took it. I get it, this is a hard building to love.
All the more reason that there needs to be an educated discussion about it! That's why I come here.
 
Looks like they’ve moved or are moving services out of here.
B19CEB51-B08E-40EE-B1F9-8D368E49EE85.jpeg
 
Charlie_mta said:
Good. Let's rev up the wrecking ball, jack hammers and dozers, and clear that puppy out!
Click to expand...

Yes, and once that's done, move that wreaking ball, those jack hammers, and the dozers over to the Lindemann Building and do the same! Start over with a fresh canvas and build something the city can be proud of.
 
atlantaden said:
Yes, and once that's done, move that wreaking ball, those jack hammers, and the dozers over to the Lindemann Building and do the same! Start over with a fresh canvas and build something the city can be proud of.
Click to expand...

Not everyone hates brutalism, in general, or the buildings you so joyfully await the demolition of, in specific.

I'm sure -- obviously, or it wouldn't have happened -- plenty were gung-ho about razing the West End tenements and all of Scollay Square, too. Seems like a great idea in hindsight, right?
 
chrisbrat said:
I'm sure -- obviously, or it wouldn't have happened -- plenty were gung-ho about razing the West End tenements and all of Scollay Square, too. Seems like a great idea in hindsight, right?
Click to expand...

How many houses, restaurants, and shops will be destroyed if the Hurley gets torn down?

Talk about false equivalency.. 🙄
 
Blackbird said:
How many houses, restaurants, and shops will be destroyed if the Hurley gets torn down?

Talk about false equivalency.. 🙄
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the wholesale eradication of architecture that is very much of a specific time. I wondered if someone would take the lazy route and bring up your point -- hooray, you win! Comparing getting rid of these two significant buildings to the razing of the West End isn't apples to apples on every single level, no -- obviously -- and you could have easily understood my meaning. I'd wager you *did* understand what I was attempting to get across, but kudos to you: you're correct. My cheeks burn red with shame that I didn't make abundantly clear that tearing down these buildings would NOT be 100% like what happened with the West End.

Allow me to clarify: I feel that tearing down these two distinctive and (to some, anyway) significant buildings would be retroactively looked upon as a rash and misguided move, just as many now look back on the "urban renewal" of the '50s and '60 as a horrible experiment gone wrong that has robbed us of important and (to some, anyway) significant buildings.

Does that undo my "false equivalancy?"

Clear enough? Do you need me to underscore that it's now 2022 and not 1962, as well?
 
chrisbrat said:
Not everyone hates brutalism, in general, or the buildings you so joyfully await the demolition of, in specific.

I'm sure -- obviously, or it wouldn't have happened -- plenty were gung-ho about razing the West End tenements and all of Scollay Square, too. Seems like a great idea in hindsight, right?
Click to expand...
I think the building is so hated by everyone except for a few eggheads that it is almost completely unused.
 
chrisbrat said:
Does that undo my "false equivalancy?"
Click to expand...

It doesn’t. Even if people in 2057 regret losing the Hurley, it’d be the same as missing the old Post Office building or the Dainty Dot.

We are not talking about displacing thousands of people and businesses. It’s not just “not apples to apples” it’s wildly different enough to the point of being almost offensive. Especially considering how the Hurley was born of the very displacement that you’re trying to use as justification.
 
chrisbrat said:
Not everyone hates brutalism, in general, or the buildings you so joyfully await the demolition of, in specific.

I'm sure -- obviously, or it wouldn't have happened -- plenty were gung-ho about razing the West End tenements and all of Scollay Square, too. Seems like a great idea in hindsight, right?
Click to expand...
...And not all brutalism is worth saving.
Massive amounts of people objected to the destruction of the West End.
Those thousands of people were generally poor, and therefore, ignored.
This was built when a handful of grand egos met a fat developer bankroll and ill-applied state funds.
The main reason it has stayed is because nobody wants to own this colossal mistake... or pay for it.
If there is an upside to overpriced square footage, the destruction of this experiment is it.
 
Blackbird said:
It doesn’t. Even if people in 2057 regret losing the Hurley, it’d be the same as missing the old Post Office building or the Dainty Dot.

We are not talking about displacing thousands of people and businesses. It’s not just “not apples to apples” it’s wildly different enough to the point of being almost offensive. Especially considering how the Hurley was born of the very displacement that you’re trying to use as justification.
Click to expand...

Well, be almost offended i guess. These are unusual and significant buildings in my opinion -- that opinion is independent of my thoughts on housing or the (mis)treatment of marginalized portions of the population, then or now.

Lots of great art was created directly by, or as a byproduct of indifference to, the suffering of many. Judging the resultant art on its own merits is one coversation; discussing the (lack of) morality that informed the making of said art is another conversation.
 
I lived near the Hurley building for a number of years, and I'd love to have seen it when it was new, since the only form of the building I've known is the one that's falling apart, surrounded by debris, and random bits of temporary chain link fence all over (until recently, it appears)

As art, the buildings are very distinct and seem to create some emotion in everyone that encounters them. As elements of a vibrant neighborhood, their detachment from the street -- city hall in its separation by the infinite plaza in the front and the garage/walls in the rear and Hurley in its complete lack of interaction with 4 streets bounding it, "looming" massing of the upper floors, and fortress-like appearance. I've walked by the Hurley building several hundred times over the years, and I still couldn't tell you where a pedestrian entrance to the building is.

On one hand, I'd be happy to see the Hurley go, but I'd also want the replacement to be something that is a part of the neighborhood, and not a fortress block.
 
I actually like the building. I did pick up a couple of unemployment checks there back in the day. The interior totally had the bureaucratic feel that was portrayed in the movie Brazil. If I remember correctly the main cavernous space with 20' high ceilings had fluorescent lights hanging all the way down to about 10' above the floor! Some lights were flickering I'm sure. There was a strange colored rug, somewhere between salmon and burgundy paired with gray green cubicles that would be filled with government employees (portrayed perfectly in the character "Roz").

As ugly as it was/ is, I think it can be improved. I vote for restoration with the addition of a couple of towers on top of the existing building. The Suffolk Superior Court tower is past it's life time, the State should reconstruct the entire block and maintain it as a large state complex with a new Suffolk courthouse and the other tower would be supporting State functions. These new functions would have a lot more traffic that would activate the four corners of the block as well as the center courtyard during the better weather days.

The courthouse lobby would be on the corner of Staniford and Merrimac and would enclose the entire plaza as a grand lobby. The front of the 5 or so stories of the existing concrete building including the monumental stairs currently in front of the Linden Building would be totally enclosed as the grand entrance with large pillars and glazing and the tower above. The building should have somewhat of a formal government architectural language as well; something like 101 California Street in San Francisco (Phillip Johnson). I'm sure the State could sell the current Suffolk tower to help with funding. That site would be great for new residential on Beacon Hill.

The tower on the the Cambridge Street end would be a wood type skyscraper language. I know we all want one in Boston! But the only way to get a descent size wood motif building would be with public funding. I picture something that has a language similar to the tower design in Stockholm posted below. If this type of building can be built in that cold weather country, it can be built in Boston! I'm also thinking the screening elements could be incorporated into the Hurley façade to address the cavernous portions of the existing building and alleviate some of the deep shadows that make it look so ominous along the sidewalk. The other plus of the State constructing new buildings is they can override any Nimby objections to 2 new 50 story towers being built downtown. I would gladly like my taxes to go towards this fight.

Untitled 2.png
101 california.png
tratoppon-stockholm-skyscraper-1.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top