State Street HQ | One Congress | Bulfinch Crossing | West End

real_EthanHunt

New member
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
56
Reaction score
39
So it looks like the overhang comes down after the tower tops out. Interesting.
video shows the garage will be coming down as the building is about half way. 1:05 mark shows the garage starting to come down and it then uses the inset video to show the garage coming down as the building continues to rise in the main shot.
 

Lrfox

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
2,678
Reaction score
228
video shows the garage will be coming down as the building is about half way. 1:05 mark shows the garage starting to come down and it then uses the inset video to show the garage coming down as the building continues to rise in the main shot.
Looks as if it's behind schedule according to the video. There's a timeline at the top and it shows the garage starting to come down starting in October. It also shows glass going up starting in October/November. Maybe we'll see it start to come down in late winter/early spring?
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
7,221
Reaction score
1,764
The day the overhang is gone new Boston has officially arrived and one of the last major scars of urban renewal is finally remedied.. with the rest either already fixed, u/c or with plans on the books. Cant wait to look down congress and be able to see the custom house tower.
 

Blackbird

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
332
Reaction score
320
The day the overhang is gone new Boston has officially arrived and one of the last major scars of urban renewal is finally remedied.. with the rest either already fixed, u/c or with plans on the books. Cant wait to look down congress and be able to see the custom house tower.
I'm far more excited about the overhang coming down then I am the State Street HQ going up!
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
585
Planners truly hated the idea of cities back then.
They did. I remember very clearly back in the earl 60's how scared shitless Boston was of the growing suburbs, frightened to death of white flight, and anxious to make the city core as suburban as possible tp try to bring back some of that demographic. That was a big motivator for the Charles River Park apartment complex ("towers in the park") as well as GC. In doing so they carpet-bombed the hell out of a huge section of the city core.
 

Life Coach Mike

Active Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Messages
110
Reaction score
122
They did. I remember very clearly back in the earl 60's how scared shitless Boston was of the growing suburbs, frightened to death of white flight, and anxious to make the city core as suburban as possible tp try to bring back some of that demographic. That was a big motivator for the Charles River Park apartment complex ("towers in the park") as well as GC. In doing so they carpet-bombed the hell out of a huge section of the city core.
Yes, everything you said plus I recall what downtown looked like...a run-down, sooty area filled with a lot of unkempt buildings. Scollay Sq. was a mess (recall the Combat Zone, only seedier). Many buildings had only ground-floor occupancy (look at the Ladder Streets today). What used to be Haymarket Sq (located under the GC garage overhang) was a traffic nightmare. The concepts of adaptive reuse, of appreciation and preservation of architectural styles from the past, and an recognition of the need for small apartments led to the much of the destruction. The only buildings worthy of preservation were very old historic sites preserved for posterity and the Freedom Trail. Even then Old State House was nearly destroyed by later additions and not appreciated till it was nearly torn down. Let's not forget the appalling condition of the South End (considered "slums") at this time and of much of the Back Bay, peppered with with rooming houses and degraded properties. Many apartments in the North End still had no private toilets or showers (my uncle didn't get his till well into the 70's for his 4 room flat). The public areas of tenements were smelly firetraps and caked with 20 layers of paint. And the subway system and multiple elevated track systems may have been only 10 cents a ride, but were a dismal and grimy experience. It's no wonder that drastic measures seemed to be the only option and "dispensable" neighborhoods filled with poorer immigrants became primary targets (the West End). The only chic neighborhood downtown was the south side of Beacon Hill, Charles St., and the "flats". Boston was desperate for investment and the New York World's Fair style of "moderne" public "architecture" became the paradigm (witness the globe street lights formerly on Cambridge St. and elsewhere, the entire original Pru scheme, and the use of space in GC.) And admittedly, at the time we thought all the new stuff was the ultimate in renewal. It was such an improvement over the dumpiness still extant in Faneuil Hall and Quincy Market, overrun with rats and commercial trucking.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
585
Yes, everything you said plus I recall what downtown looked like...a run-down, sooty area filled with a lot of unkempt buildings. Scollay Sq. was a mess (recall the Combat Zone, only seedier). Many buildings had only ground-floor occupancy (look at the Ladder Streets today). What used to be Haymarket Sq (located under the GC garage overhang) was a traffic nightmare. The concepts of adaptive reuse, of appreciation and preservation of architectural styles from the past, and an recognition of the need for small apartments led to the much of the destruction. The only buildings worthy of preservation were very old historic sites preserved for posterity and the Freedom Trail. Even then Old State House was nearly destroyed by later additions and not appreciated till it was nearly torn down. Let's not forget the appalling condition of the South End (considered "slums") at this time and of much of the Back Bay, peppered with with rooming houses and degraded properties. Many apartments in the North End still had no private toilets or showers (my uncle didn't get his till well into the 70's for his 4 room flat). The public areas of tenements were smelly firetraps and caked with 20 layers of paint. And the subway system and multiple elevated track systems may have been only 10 cents a ride, but were a dismal and grimy experience. It's no wonder that drastic measures seemed to be the only option and "dispensable" neighborhoods filled with poorer immigrants became primary targets (the West End). The only chic neighborhood downtown was the south side of Beacon Hill, Charles St., and the "flats". Boston was desperate for investment and the New York World's Fair style of "moderne" public "architecture" became the paradigm (witness the globe street lights formerly on Cambridge St. and elsewhere, the entire original Pru scheme, and the use of space in GC.) And admittedly, at the time we thought all the new stuff was the ultimate in renewal. It was such an improvement over the dumpiness still extant in Faneuil Hall and Quincy Market, overrun with rats and commercial trucking.
They could have reinvigorated Scollay Square and Haymarket Square without leveling them. I was 17 in 1967, working in downtown Boston, and the shopping area was not sooty but goddamn exciting and vibrant. The South End, the North End and Downtown Crossing were spared the wrecking ball, and look at what they are today. With a good mount of surgical reconstruction and replacement, the GC area and West End could have been that way as well.
 

real_EthanHunt

New member
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
56
Reaction score
39
yes, totally for the post above.
They did. I remember very clearly back in the earl 60's how scared shitless Boston was of the growing suburbs, frightened to death of white flight, and anxious to make the city core as suburban as possible tp try to bring back some of that demographic.
Isnt it amazing that the suburbs are now trying to replicate the urban experience with mixed use 'downtowns' to keep the same demographic from moving back into the cities.
 

Life Coach Mike

Active Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Messages
110
Reaction score
122
They could have reinvigorated Scollay Square and Haymarket Square without leveling them. I was 17 in 1967, working in downtown Boston, and the shopping area was not sooty but goddamn exciting and vibrant. The South End, the North End and Downtown Crossing were spared the wrecking ball, and look at what they are today. With a good mount of surgical reconstruction and replacement, the GC area and West End could have been that way as well.
Exactly my point Charlie. I agree totally with you (I left the Washington Street shopping off my comments for the reason you cite). The areas spared of the most vicious urban renewal (after swaths of the South End had been already razed) were kept intact by default, not by imagination. We could have lost much more. And the vibrant shopping area soon went south when suburban malls became the rage. If only they could have predicted the future then. Everything that got bulldozed could have been fantastic as refurbished housing, office space, and retail.
 

Top