^^
Sicilian, you wrote: "As far as I know, no BLC guidelines can prevent a demolition -- they can slow the process of demolition down for study and consideration."
Really? You try tearing a building down in a Landmark district like the Back Bay or Beacon Hill, or demolishing a landmarked structure like Trinity Church or 160 Federal Street some day and see how far those guidelines can be stretched....they absolutey do prevent demolition!! The building in Fort Point that the district commission (NOT the BLC) considered was slated for demolition before the Fort Point district was landmarked and if I know the building right, it's an unornamented, totally regular brick box that has nothing of architectural note about it, but again - the Fort Point district is only about a year old so the building's demolition was actually written into the landmarking report...not much one could do about it.
You wrote, "the building's demolition was actually written into the landmarking report."
You're playing fast and loose with facts as usual.
The building considered by the Commissioners last week was ANTICIPATED for demolition during the 100 Acre planning process and a tower was ANTICIPATED on the site but BY NO MEANS WAS SLATED for demolition. Neither the 100 Acre Plan nor the BLC's Fort Point Guidelines include any language regarding a statement of support for the buildings' demolition. I challenge you to find any planning document that states support for its demolition. At best, because the District designation occured after the 100 Acre Plan was published, and the BRA anticipated the demolition during the planning process, the BLC guidelines suggest that Commissioners have regard for the intent of prior planning processes (100 Acre Plan, Municipal Harbor Plan, Seaport Public Realm Plan, etc.).
And last week, the Commissioners supported the intention of the BRA as anticipated by the 100 Acre Plan -- not anything written into the 100 Acre Plan or the BLC Guidelines. They were not obliged to do so.
Furthermore, although the building cited (319 A St Rear) may not be ornamental by comparison with the front of 319 A St, it was built by the Boston Wharf Co. in 1923, is defined as "Classical Influence" in the BLC Study Report, and was considered significant by the BLC's historian during the drafting of the BLC Study Report. To many, it is a handsome building and includes some incredible features such as the original rail tracks along its loading docks and a opening at its interface with the front building.
You have a very limited understanding of the Fort Point District's designation process if you are defining "ornamental" as a criteria for designation and/or consideration by the Commission. The Fort Point District was worthy of district recognition because it stood as a nationally notable COLLECTION of buildings -- not based on the individual merits of particular buildings. The concept of a "collection" was critical during designation because prior to the designation, developers were doing EXACTLY what you are doing -- qualifying one wharf building as less significant than another. In fact, the District designation extends not only to what you call "unornamented" structures within the FPLDC boundaries, it even designates empty parcels within the boundaries for oversight by the Commissioners.
