MGH Ragon Building | 55 Fruit Street | West End

Status
Not open for further replies.
220', hyper dense, interesting enough design for a hospital. For that location, I'll take it.
 
FK4 said:
Yeah. “Provision” being the operative word, but hopefully the city and meeting attendees can agitate for this.

I’m curious about what is going on with the apparent plans for the Bartlett building.
Click to expand...

Since the MGH initially proposed this, the MBTA has gotten much more serious about RBX. Hopefully it will be less than 5 years between completion of this building and the new Blue Line station. But yes, just a provision until the project is fully in design.
 
Equilibria said:
Since the MGH initially proposed this, the MBTA has gotten much more serious about RBX. Hopefully it will be less than 5 years between completion of this building and the new Blue Line station. But yes, just a provision until the project is fully in design.
Click to expand...

To clarify, I meant that I think it's reasonable to ask that MGH build or leave space for a headhouse, but not that they partially fund the BLX/RBX itself, as I think had been suggested upthread at some point.
 
It would have been relatively easy and preferable to plan on keeping the MGH professional office building (or at least the Cambridge St Facade) and just build behind it.

I really dislike that the plan is to knock down one of the nicer looking buildings on their property in order to replace it with a less nice (shoddy) looking building that doesn't blend in with the beacon hill architecture as well.

I mean replacing the parking lot and garage is great, but it seems like a step backwards from the Cambridge St ground level perspective. I wouldn't protest or anything about it, but it just seems like bad architectural design. And it bodes ill that the MGH block is just going further down the path of becoming an amorphous blob of steel and glass.
 
Interesting that the Wang building is not red… I know there are long-term plans to replace that building as well, but not sure if this is just a render error, or if they plan to re-clad the building, or what.
 
stick n move said:


Click to expand...

Lovin the seemly random bump-outs, inserts, and various angles in these two buildings. Here's hoping the more proportional bump-outs in the Hub on Causeway office building will look as good! I'm optomistic!
 
I understand there are a lot of moving functional pieces that make it difficult for a hospital complex to have great campus planning... just wish we could see planning support better preservation of the Bullfinch building and restoration of a real functional quad with Bullfinch as a backdrop. Undoing a hundred years of architectural encroachment would be worth some consideration.
 
tangent said:
I understand there are a lot of moving functional pieces that make it difficult for a hospital complex to have great campus planning... just wish we could see planning support better preservation of the Bullfinch building and restoration of a real functional quad with Bullfinch as a backdrop. Undoing a hundred years of architectural encroachment would be worth some consideration.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

Interesting to note that although there was historically more of a green in front of Bullfinch, it's never had that much space in front of it — as it was always walled off from Cambridge Street even in the beginning.
 
FK4 said:
Totally agree.

Interesting to note that although there was historically more of a green in front of Bullfinch, it's never had that much space in front of it — as it was always walled off from Cambridge Street even in the beginning.
Click to expand...

Yes, that Bullfinch and the green are walled off from Cambridge St are completely fine in my view. Just for a green to be functional (for aesthetic value and for value as a gathering place.) then it should have some good amount of grass sufficiently away from roads and paths that people can stop without getting in the way or feeling overwhelmed by cars. And being loomed over by buildings doesn't help. Even having large trees in front of the ether dome interrupts sight lines and makes the area too shady in part. Again with enough space you can have shaded areas and sunny spots and good sight lines with mature trees.

I know the consideration has to be functional for the hospital, but with enough long term planning and a focus on Bullfinch then I think they can really do some sensible restoration along the way.

And I know there are a lot of people that will want to preserve the White building, but I think it should eventually be replaced (or pushed back on the Bullfinch side) in favor of the Bullfinch Green if possible.

Also eventually replacing the parking garage and Wang as well as street reconfiguration/infill could go a long way towards giving MGH the flexibility build a great green in front of Bullfinch. Even as-is sacrificing a small number of parking spaces would go a long way.

And I have to say the idea of having the medical museum in a small building along Cambridge is silly when you have the operating theater of Bullfinch as one of the most historically significant sites in medical history just around the corner. Last time I was there, years ago, it felt a bit neglected.


To me this is a great example of a very functional green as it was in front of Bullfinch, reminiscent of Killian Court at MIT, unlike what you see at MGH today.



mgh_01b.jpg
 
^^^
Great pic, nice elms.

The hospital really should make the green a long term goal. But it will take a lot of time to get there - all the ugly research buildings on Blossom, as well as Wang, and maybe White (tho that’s manageable) need to be torn down and redesigned.

The Ether Dome is heavily used... it’s in good shape, just sparse in the usual crusty New England antique way. But neither the Dome nor Bullfinch would ever accommodate the museum well; I think the building of the museum was a little bit of an odd decision, but overall it’s a nice space with a nice little viewing platform on the roof that’s worth visiting.
 
Just so I have this correct, they will be demolishing these buildings and are replacing it with the northern building. The southern building goes where the gas station once was plus they demo a bunch of small buildings behind the current parking lot.

https://flic.kr/p/2gYtj6s
 
Last edited:
tangent said:
I understand there are a lot of moving functional pieces that make it difficult for a hospital complex to have great campus planning... just wish we could see planning support better preservation of the Bullfinch building and restoration of a real functional quad with Bullfinch as a backdrop. Undoing a hundred years of architectural encroachment would be worth some consideration.
Click to expand...

I think the official name for that entire area is "Claustrophobia".
 
The West End museum has weighed in on this proposal. Could one of our architects/historians let me know how to feel about this?

FULL ARTICLE: https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...int-dont-destroy-what-remains-of-bostons.html

"We at the West End Museum oppose any development project by Massachusetts General Hospital that would demolish any of the few remnants of the West End that remain.

At risk are West End buildings that survived the 1950s urban renewal that leveled most of the West End. The West End House and The Winchell Elementary School on Blossom Street are historically and culturally significant, and they hold fond memories for former and current West End residents and their families.

The Winchell Elementary School, located at 24 Blossom St., was built as a public elementary school in 1884-1885. Arthur H. Vinal, Boston’s city architect from 1884 to 1888, was responsible for the Romanesque Revival design. The school closed in 1960, and the building was purchased by Massachusetts General Hospital in 1963 for use as a school of nursing. Since 1985 it has housed various other hospital functions. Winchell Elementary School is one of roughly a dozen buildings to survive urban renewal and was determined eligible for National Register listing by the Massachusetts Historical Commission in 2005.

The West End House is located at 16-18 Blossom St. and consists of a three-story, five-bay-by-two-bay Colonial Revival brick building constructed in 1929 as a settlement house."

1572026322257.png
 
Last edited:
Vagabond said:
The West End museum has weighed in on this proposal. Could one of our architects/historians let me know how to feel about this?

FULL ARTICLE: https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...int-dont-destroy-what-remains-of-bostons.html

"We at the West End Museum oppose any development project by Massachusetts General Hospital that would demolish any of the few remnants of the West End that remain.

At risk are West End buildings that survived the 1950s urban renewal that leveled most of the West End. The West End House and The Winchell Elementary School on Blossom Street are historically and culturally significant, and they hold fond memories for former and current West End residents and their families.

The Winchell Elementary School, located at 24 Blossom St., was built as a public elementary school in 1884-1885. Arthur H. Vinal, Boston’s city architect from 1884 to 1888, was responsible for the Romanesque Revival design. The school closed in 1960, and the building was purchased by Massachusetts General Hospital in 1963 for use as a school of nursing. Since 1985 it has housed various other hospital functions. Winchell Elementary School is one of roughly a dozen buildings to survive urban renewal and was determined eligible for National Register listing by the Massachusetts Historical Commission in 2005.

The West End House is located at 16-18 Blossom St. and consists of a three-story, five-bay-by-two-bay Colonial Revival brick building constructed in 1929 as a settlement house."

View attachment 929
Click to expand...
The folks affiliated with the West End Museum and various West End enthusiasts have been up in arms ever since MGH's initial proposal, so that article is no surprise. They are likely to fight this.

I'm a former romantic when it comes to these buildings. When I was younger, I loved that they were vestiges of the old West End. But, the fact is, the West End is gone and has been gone for decades. This is a different neighborhood now. Moreover, these buildings hold this area back, rather than contribute to it. They're tired, and they are also almost completely unusable for any clinical purposes because of ADA issues. Sure, if MGH or someone else wanted to rehab this hell out of them and fill the rest of the blocks back in with other reasonably tasteful brick structures, you could recreate a Disneyland version of the old West End. But why would we do such a thing? That time is over. Done. Kaput. In reality, these two buildings also just aren't that great: they're just old, and they weren't special then and they aren't special now. It's utterly ridiculous to talk of jacking them up and moving them... I harp on this all the time now, but people's romaticism over all things old is out of control these days. Save the stuff that's truly exemplary, and understand that the world moves organically and obsolete things must be turned over to give way for new. This is downtown these days, we need more density, and these aren't anywhere near close to being important or significant enough (preservationist organization of your choice's historical designation or not) to warrant the huge expense of saving or moving elsewhere.
 
I generally agree with what FK4 said. One of the great things about Boston is its historic buddings and nature--it give the city a lot of individual character. But not everything is worth saving and sometime what is proposed is more important than what's there now. It can be a difficult discussion, but just saying that everything old has to be saved isn't useful--it wastes energy that should be devoted to the really important things that are in danger. In this case, the hospital expansion is arguably a public good, as are the improved Cambridge Street. So ask MGH to really donate to the West End Museum or fund an amazing exhibit on the history of this area. Get funding for a red-blue connection or a better crossing at Charles Street MGH station. These are not exceptional buildings and they have lost their context. It sucks and that's why we don't do neighborhood clearance any more but what the people of Boston can get from allowing these to go is way more than keeping them will achieve.

And this focus keeps us from spending time on other issues that have been raised like making the Bullfinch Green a good space or other public amenities that could be provided in this building. Or the design--is two giant towers right or is one taller tower better?



Vagabond said:
The West End museum has weighed in on this proposal. Could one of our architects/historians let me know how to feel about this?

FULL ARTICLE: https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...int-dont-destroy-what-remains-of-bostons.html

"We at the West End Museum oppose any development project by Massachusetts General Hospital that would demolish any of the few remnants of the West End that remain.

At risk are West End buildings that survived the 1950s urban renewal that leveled most of the West End. The West End House and The Winchell Elementary School on Blossom Street are historically and culturally significant, and they hold fond memories for former and current West End residents and their families.

The Winchell Elementary School, located at 24 Blossom St., was built as a public elementary school in 1884-1885. Arthur H. Vinal, Boston’s city architect from 1884 to 1888, was responsible for the Romanesque Revival design. The school closed in 1960, and the building was purchased by Massachusetts General Hospital in 1963 for use as a school of nursing. Since 1985 it has housed various other hospital functions. Winchell Elementary School is one of roughly a dozen buildings to survive urban renewal and was determined eligible for National Register listing by the Massachusetts Historical Commission in 2005.

The West End House is located at 16-18 Blossom St. and consists of a three-story, five-bay-by-two-bay Colonial Revival brick building constructed in 1929 as a settlement house."

View attachment 929
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top