The Boulevard (née The Times/Littlest Bar) | 110 Broad St | Downtown

odurandina said:
Stating the obvious; why couldn't the developer have preserved the entire facade of the first 2 floors of The Times Bldg?

OK, the developer is no saint & wasn't volunteering to keep it.

How was this egregious omission missed by the City?
Click to expand...

I don't know if I understand why it was worth saving. Based on this picture from page 1, the most recent facade was installed post-1973.

JohnAKeith said:
5516904963_7e21fdd3cd.jpg


http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/

circa 1973, copyright Boston Public Library
Click to expand...
 
It was considered worth saving because it was designed by Charles Bulfinch and is one of the few remaining examples of his work in everyday buildings. If I remember correctly.
 
citylover94 said:
It was considered worth saving because it was designed by Charles Bulfinch and is one of the few remaining examples of his work in everyday buildings. If I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the Times building which was not saved. Bullfinch building was worth saving.
 
If I recall the narrative correctly, the east wall of the Bulfinch building was demolished when the Times building was built, creating a party wall between the two buildings. Which would complicate the effort to save the Bulfinch building.

And to do a facadectomy on the Times building with no depth to the profile would have been a grotesque result, an unnecessary and expensive added cost for a project on an irregularly sized lot created by filling in the harbor. The north wall of the Bulfinch building was lost either prior to or during construction of the elevated artery. The two walls that are preserved are the only remaining walls of the original.
 
That makes sense. I'm not just in the dark about the dates and use of these buildings but, the recent use of the lower floors.... i had wrote this before you posted so i'll leave as is.

When 55 India got approved, i walked the area. i was thinking the whole street wall for 110 Broad was being saved (except i was wrong). Like some aB members, i thought the demo was some type of an accident. i was asleep on this, clueless that it's value (neighborhood use) was being so badly damaged.

Consider the buildings lost recently in this area such as the Dainty Dot. If it's not proper to leap over a few blocks, consider; how many unsung places like this we've been losing. With all the units we're adding around here, a lot of thought needs to be given to these spaces so well suited to support restaurants, pubs and dive bars.

The photo you included demonstrates the homogeneous appearance of the newer building. The facade of "the Times" up to the top of the 2nd floor should have been in the conversation for saving, imo.

Compare your photo from 1973 to when original companion to the Bullfinch "thing" was replaced. 1910? (a guess) i don't know the history. But continuity was given. Fast forward to 2016; the facade still there; improved, now possessing a wonderful aesthetic, enhancing the neighborhood, ready to seduce visitor/s & (blind assumption) as well-activated as any time in the history of this block.

Now compare that to what that street front will be in 2020. ....We're saving confectionery alley bridges in Fort Point for Christ sakes. This space served a significant part of the Greenway community. Instead, half of that street front is GONE.

Not saying any other part of the building should have been saved, but the facade as it was – was spectacular. ...And, even if it had been given those tourist-friendly updates in recent years, the meat and bones dates back a while. Compare to recent abominations such as the Dock Square garage. We should be preserving places like this; not destroying them.

W/ this mid-rise tower and 55 India Street going up, Harbor Garage and Hook Lobster, a far better effort to save this facade and keep the street level pub/s, should have occurred... Even if it meant conceding to the developer an extra floor, it would have been a huge win.

Less important to me is the entire front not being "genuine Bullfinch." We're missing the point. The opportunity to have something really good was forfeited for something much less so, along with good amount of sense, imo.
 
Last edited:
I also feel like there are less expensive places to develop than the cost it took to meticulously destroy this one.
 
9466005.jpg


^^^One of my fav facadectomies. The Embassy of Mexico on Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington DC.

2000penn.jpg


^^^Across the street from the Embassy of Mexico. The preserved buildings are pretty much full depth, sparing us the montage of a cruise ship having smashed into the dock. This set of buildings was the creation of George Washington University.
 
stellarfun said:
If I recall the narrative correctly, the east wall of the Bulfinch building was demolished when the Times building was built, creating a party wall between the two buildings. Which would complicate the effort to save the Bulfinch building. ... The north wall of the Bulfinch building was lost either prior to or during construction of the elevated artery. The two walls that are preserved are the only remaining walls of the original.
Click to expand...

No. It's more complicated than that. Close observation during the 2016 demolition work indicated that "The Littlest Bar" structure consisted of one near-complete Bulfinch warehouse (with all interior framing and roof structure intact) extending three bays along Broad Street and five bays along Wharf St. (where there was an original party wall), and four more bays along Wharf St. of an additional, heavily-modified Bulfinch warehouse, the north end of which had been truncated at some point and many structural modifications made. Only the exterior walls of the above two buildings remain.

"The Times", which was divided from "The Littlest Bar" by an original party wall, consisted of two further Bulfinch warehouses separated by another original party wall, with the original rear party walls intact, another original party wall facing the Greenway, and original second and third story framing intact. At some point, probably around 1900-1910, these two warehouses were re-fronted with light-colored brick and altered windows including a mostly-glass second floor elevation, the heavy central mullion of which marked the intact center party wall. The Bulfinch-era roof was removed and a fourth story added, as well as a northward extension.

Aside from the near-fully intact Bulfinch warehouse "unit" at the corner of Broad and Wharf, the further partial unit along Wharf and the two re-fronted and extended units which comprised "The Times" were all, arguably, fully capable of complete restoration to the Bulfinch era. Those who witnessed, or have studied photos of the 1970s Quincy Market restoration will know that more than a few of the warehouse units there had been more severely compromised, and contained far less original fabric, than the four Bulfinch units which existed (more or less) until recently, in the guise of The Littlest Bar and The Times. I consider the sadder loss to not be the later "Times" facade, but the perhaps 75 to 80% of the original Bulfinch-era construction of the entire block that was smashed and disposed of in 2016.
 
Spectorsky, thank you very much for that post and the clarifying detail.

I will bring up two points though.

1.) Only the Littlest Bar building was/is landmarked, and that for the exterior only.

2.) As you describe, the Times building was so substantially modified that to restore it to the appearance of a Bulfinch warehouse(s) would amount to a reconstruction, at least by my reading of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (which I suspect you are familiar with). A reconstruction does not quality for a Federal historic preservation tax credit, which likely makes any attempt at a restoration uneconomical.
 
The idea isn't terrible. But, the execution is poor.

i hate the colors and how they're paired. is this thing really orange?

i wish there was a way they could age it ...or soften the blow.
 
Last edited:
Not orange. Copper.

And don't get me started on the "we've lost all the craft of the past" thing. There is not a thing on that original building facade that was not the cheapest, quickest, get-it-done technique for building a building at its time. If this forum existed at the time that building was being designed we would have crucified it for being lazy, and probably for being too short (just kidding about that one).l
 
We get that it's all relative, but it's hard to deny that even the cheapest buildings of the era required more craftsmanship and sturdier materials than most modern buildings. Even if was simply out of necessity.

Building modern buildings requires a different set of skills (CNC design, working at tremendous heights, wielding complex machinery, etc) all of which is impressive, difficult and in a lot of cases still dangerous. But it is not the same as a hand-laid brick masonry bearing wall or a hand hewn post and beam structure. That particular type of craftsmanship is very rarely seen in modern construction (for good reason) so it becomes more and more important that we preserve the examples we have.
This is a hill I will die on.
 
statler said:
We get that it's all relative, but it's hard to deny that even the cheapest buildings of the era required more craftsmanship and sturdier materials than most modern buildings. Even if was simply out of necessity.

Building modern buildings requires a different set of skills (CNC design, working at tremendous heights, wielding complex machinery, etc) all of which is impressive, difficult and in a lot of cases still dangerous. But it is not the same as a hand-laid brick masonry bearing wall or a hand hewn post and beam structure. That particular type of craftsmanship is very rarely seen in modern construction (for good reason) so it becomes more and more important that we preserve the examples we have.
This is a hill I will die on.
Click to expand...

Thank you. +1

Though I will add that while we're not going to see any brick masonry bearing walls, hand-laid brick facades are not unheard of, and in the few recent local examples they have made a tremendous difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top