Anything can happen, but that wasn't intimated.
Hurley Building Redevelopment | 19 Staniford St | West End
- Thread starter Lrfox
- Start date
Anything can happen, but that wasn't intimated.
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,197
- Reaction score
- 15,401
Same put this thing out of its misery once and for all. There is no way to modify the existing monstrosity to make it pedestrian friendly and welcoming. Ground level is the most important part of any building and thats where this thing is world class bad.
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,768
- Reaction score
- 8,731
Fellow aBers, we do realize that this same exact "let's implode the Hurley" / "we must save the Hurley" debate erupts every single time there's an update on this, correct? (Just checking that I'm not trapped in some space-time-distortion-loop).
Count me amongst the few who actually like the details of the Government services Center (Granted, I actually like the Lindemann - I don't care about the Hurley as much.) I personally feel it's a good building epically let down by how the state uses it. This approach, through the building into its courtyard should have been celebrated, not turned into a chain link parking lot. The plaza parking lots on the corners are truly terrible - this is what it was supposed to be.
That said, I like the form, not the structure of it so I'm in favor of thoughtful redevelopment. Even that sculptural entry is vastly under activated... But some grass and trees, perhaps a water feature between the wings and that would be actually a really nice small public park. But that central courtyard... That is just built at a wholly inappropriate scale - I've never seen more than one of the many designed seating areas occupied. Most of those semicircles should have been punctuated by retail spaces connected to the building itself. The central premise that it being available would cause people to hang out in a concrete bowl was grossly overestimated.
Keep the exterior, the "monumental" approaches, but do *something* with the courtyard to create a reason to be there.
That said, I like the form, not the structure of it so I'm in favor of thoughtful redevelopment. Even that sculptural entry is vastly under activated... But some grass and trees, perhaps a water feature between the wings and that would be actually a really nice small public park. But that central courtyard... That is just built at a wholly inappropriate scale - I've never seen more than one of the many designed seating areas occupied. Most of those semicircles should have been punctuated by retail spaces connected to the building itself. The central premise that it being available would cause people to hang out in a concrete bowl was grossly overestimated.
Keep the exterior, the "monumental" approaches, but do *something* with the courtyard to create a reason to be there.
Attachments
Last edited:
Yes. And it's gone on since long before even the first proposal for the site, really.
To be fair, my stance has evolved over time. I'm leaning towards "blow it up." I appreciate the art, the artist, and I think there are many examples that could/should be saved. I would still welcome any redevelopment that utilized some of the more unique elements of the complex. But I don't think there's a realistic/feasible scenario in which that happens. And preserving either or both of these whole structures doesn't benefit the city as much as carving up the block and adding a mixed-use development.
Are they going to have enough people biting at this? Haven't seen large scale residential talked about in a while, and most small-scale developers I know are holding off for better rates. I imagine it's the same story for the big developers.
Hopefully they do the right thing by taking the Accordia design for Winthrop Square and building it here, right around 725'.
That wasn't intimated..
"Skate to where the puck is GOING TO BE" Wayne Gretzky
Blackbird
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,172
- Reaction score
- 1,679
So long as they preserve frogface!
Though I guess I’d be okay if they tore down the lindemann and kept that bit as a standalone sculpture.
Longfellow
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2023
- Messages
- 207
- Reaction score
- 508
As long as we leave this building and its friends, city hall and the flat part of the JFK building stand, we are letting the urban renewal guys win. Stop giving them what they want! Let’s have a city with real buildings built by developers trying to make money, not whatever that is.
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,370
- Reaction score
- 6,062
I fully agree. GC has not aged well, looking today like a dystopian sci-fi movie filmed in a deserted Brasilia. It's long past time to tear down the windswept barren concrete monoliths and plazas, and replace them with a vibrant city of real buildings and streetscapes.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,963
- Reaction score
- 3,888
Isn't this process pretty much under state control, not city?
Considering its DCAMM overseeing the process, yes. Also, the Healey Administration will likely prove unwilling to ceed control to the city - it looks like DCAMM will be more "muscular" under Healey in leading the redevelopment process. The MCI Concord legislation is probably a good example of this; it has wording in it that means that DCAMM is in charge of redeveloping the site vs handing it over to Concord.
Jahvon09
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,324
- Reaction score
- 806
It kind of looks almost similar to the latest proposal for Tower Two for the new World Trade Center!!
The reason I made that comment is I haven't been able to figure out what kind of Mayor Wu is when it comes to big bold and dense development in the downtown area. I knew where Menino and Walsh stood. They wanted to go big with almost everything from height to hosting the Olympics. Because of the lack of proposals we've had since she took office she's still kind of a mystery to me. She might not have much of a say here but she'll certainly have an opinion.
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,768
- Reaction score
- 8,731
Right, but the one-two punch of the pandemic and then Interest rates being very unfriendly for development have made it not really possible to tell. For contrast: if there were a marquee city-controlled parcel (of decent size) available in the urban core, coupled with rates drastically improving, what would she do? That situation hasn't existed yet during her administration. It's easy to say she's anti-development, but without that kind of opportunity to test, in fairness, it really is hard to know.
Here's a small but promising sign: the West End Branch of Boston Public Library (a low, under-utilized, city-controlled parcel) was put forward during the Wu administration for redevelopment to include a 10-story residential building. No one forced her to do that, she could have just sat on that library building forever.
She sure hasn't articulated a big picture vision has she? All I see are small gimmicks so far. But I'll withhold full judgement until interest rates decrease to a more encouraging level for development.
But she did create the position "Nightlife Czar"
: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/04...s-is-mission-make-boston-vibrant-after-hours/You're right and I forgot to mention that in my post. She really hasn't had much of a chance yet because of the reasons you mentioned. It took awhile for Menino as well. I like the West End proposal and if I remember correctly she is in favor of changing the zoning to allow for much taller building in the Bullfinch Triangle. I'm not giving up on her I just am anxious to she where she stands with this particular project.