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

[whighlander]

A few personal opinions about this debate:

1. Let's make sure we're asking the right questions when talking about preservation. "Preservation" is not - or shouldn't be - an end in and of itself. I see little point in preservation solely for aesthetic reasons, there's needs to be a functional component. If we want to retain the visual urban form (which in my opinion more than anything else, endows Boston with it's 'attitude' or 'Boston-ness'), then we need to make sure that these buildings can adapt to changing social and economic forces. That means warehouse conversions to office/residential space, interior work, energy efficient retrofitting, perhaps small alterations (very small) to street-level facades that allow for retail space.

...The question in my eyes then, is how do we instigate more of Russia Wharf and avoid 125 Summer. Instead of rebuilding or preserving, it's solely a question of how best to balance the two goals, because let's be honest we need both.


...The lesson I see in (my reading of) this period is that we can't talk in absolutes about the economic ineptitude of older building stock, much of conditions were created by human policy, social/cultural attitudes, not unchangeable "market forces" though they certainly played a substantial role

3. It's not just about Bulfinch and bricks. The building to be razed in this project is a latter-day, early 20th century commercial building. I don't see what context it contributes to honestly...

There's also a lot in Boston beyond Bulfinch and beyond 4-story brick commercial blocks. Boston has been constantly redeveloping and, if you ask me, the best buildings we have are from the 1875-1910 era that encompassed both technological changes in construction, Romanesque, high vic, and other historicists styles that I think are really striking. .....I think we forget that Boston is structurally, a late nineteenth-century city - one with a distinct environment in the US, but not as a Colonial city in regards to it's building stock, more of a 19th century city overlaid on colonial contours.

Cantab -- Excellent !

I would simplify the dense academicism to this:

Contrary to most impressions -- Boston is the most changed city in the Nation and up there on a Global Scale [over its 400 year existence]

But -- what makes Boston quintessentially Boston is that traces exist of the entire transformation process that provide a humanly and humanely familiarity that many of the planned cities lack.

We still have:

• Beacon Hill though its cut down
• Scotto's Alley still exists even though its inside of a building
• the streets named Causeway and Canal although water is long gone
• the Mill pond and town dock are gone -- but we have Dock Square
• Fort Hill is now flat, but streets curve around its former shape
• the damn that created the Back Bay is gone but the former sea wall is still there behind Beacon St. on Back Street
• the Province House is gone -- but the steps to the garden remain
• the original Long Wharf exists in State Street
• many many more examples

There have been some major misses such as the sale of John Hancock's Mansion for $250 in 1863 and its subsequent demolition

some "unforgivable losses" as as recently as 1922 when the remnants of the Province House was demolished

and MIT's Rogers' Building on Boylston St. that was leveled in 1938 to make way for an insurance companies HQ

and we had some near losses including the Old State House and Paul Revere's house in the late 19th and early 20th C

In the ultimate -- What needs to be kept in mind in the preservation versus change debate -- Boston is alive as city -- not a museum

All Living things change with time. However, as opposed to truly living things where the disposal of the old is as important as the creation of the new -- with a living city -- its nice to hold onto some of the familiar, and of course to preserve at all costs the truly Historic.

 

[whighlander]

^^^ Very thoughtful, but too complicated!!!

How about: "if you knock something down, what you put in its place has to be better looking".

On that simple measure, I judge this project to be a fail.

TobyJug -- that is far to simplistic -- as the definition of "better looking" is subject to great debate and changes with time

No the balance has to be n favor of the private property owner unless there is already established a significant historic pedigree [which could include architectural history under certain circumstances].

Thus if someone purchases a property -- not already "listed" -- and proposes to level or dramatically alter it -- then then they have the right, provided that the new work meets all the legal requirements [e.g. Zoning, MEPA, whatever]. Anyone who challenges that right to develop ["for simplicity e.g. a NIMBY or BANANA] -- has the burden of proof to research and convince the community that the old building is of historic significance, and worthy of preservation. Alternatively, the NIMBY can always make an offer to purchase the property.

Otherwise you will end up with a museum which not many people will appreciate for the historicity.

 

[odurandina]

Pardon. You guys are on a roll. But, it appears Boston is under-represented for the Art Deco period. Could this be due in part, to overlapping Boston's downward economic spiral of the mid-20th Century?

 

[CantabAmager]

Pardon. You guys are on a roll. But, it appears Boston is under-represented for the Art Deco period. Could this be due in part, to overlapping Boston's downward economic spiral of the mid-20th Century?

Yep, although there are some large pieces here and there like NE Telephone (65 Cambridge St), the Western Union (230 Congress), McCormack Building (5 Post Off. Sq) the Paramount Theatre, the Batterymarch Building:

United Shoe:

the demolished Hotel Manger (now the site of the O'Neil Federal Buildings):

The Old Hancock is arguably part of the same lineage, or at least a bridge between the two. Commercial construction tailed off significantly after the late 1920s, but you can still find a bunch of Art Deco in old garages, factories like Schraffts, and towards the western end of Comm. Ave.

 

[tobyjug]

TobyJug -- that is far to simplistic -- as the definition of "better looking" is subject to great debate and changes with time

No the balance has to be n favor of the private property owner unless there is already established a significant historic pedigree [which could include architectural history under certain circumstances].

Thus if someone purchases a property -- not already "listed" -- and proposes to level or dramatically alter it -- then then they have the right, provided that the new work meets all the legal requirements [e.g. Zoning, MEPA, whatever]. Anyone who challenges that right to develop ["for simplicity e.g. a NIMBY or BANANA] -- has the burden of proof to research and convince the community that the old building is of historic significance, and worthy of preservation. Alternatively, the NIMBY can always make an offer to purchase the property.

Otherwise you will end up with a museum which not many people will appreciate for the historicity.

Nah. Too faptastic. The old building looks good. The new one sucks. It really is that simple!

 

[statler]

Then there's 125 Summer St, which I think is a cautionary tale. It overpowers the environment created by the 19th century commercial blocks, rendering the whole area with some weirdo-disneyland vibe.

I don't really get that vibe at all. If they carried that POS POMO tower to it's base on Summer, that entire block of Summer would have been ruined. I think it's a great example of a facectomy.

Then again, I think I'm one of the few people on this board who doesn't walk around the city with my neck bent skyward. I almost never even see the transition unless I happen to be looking for it.

 

[dirtywater]

Nah. Too faptastic. The old building looks good. The new one sucks. It really is that simple!

I understand why people want the existing building preserved. There is a lot of merit in that. I don't understand, however, the hate on the new building. I think the design is well conceived and would be widely lauded if it did not result in the destruction of the existing building. I personally think it will still be a net plus, but I see and appreciate the argument for preservation.

 

[CantabAmager]

Then again, I think I'm one of the few people on this board who doesn't walk around the city with my neck bent skyward. I almost never even see the transition unless I happen to be looking for it.

That's exactly why I think it fails, you can't ignore the hulking tower. I appreciate the intention, best case scenario would be to retain the block as it was, but POMO + motley of Mansard/Second Empire is always going to be a tough ask. Too many things going on. I think they did a good with the restoration work though and obviously the Great Fire destroyed such a significant concentration of that style so it's good something is preserved. I like the intention, but the product could've been better.

 

[odurandina]

Nah. Too faptastic. The old building looks good. The new one sucks. It really is that simple!

'old building looks good.' if we're talking about the old red one that says, 'the Littlest Bar' cerca 1880, Yep; it sure does.

'the new one sucks' if we talking, the newer old one that says, THE TIMES/built cerca 1920? that one kinda looks good too.

Or are we talking the to-be/render? i think the to-be-built ensemble looks ok. The windows are too big. Great for those living on the inside. But, imo, they don't look very good in this part of Boston.

 

[DBM]

Yep, although there are some large pieces here and there like NE Telephone (65 Cambridge St), the Western Union (230 Congress), McCormack Building (5 Post Off. Sq) the Paramount Theatre, the Batterymarch Building:

United Shoe:

the demolished Hotel Manger (now the site of the O'Neil Federal Buildings):

The Old Hancock is arguably part of the same lineage, or at least a bridge between the two. Commercial construction tailed off significantly after the late 1920s, but you can still find a bunch of Art Deco in old garages, factories like Schraffts, and towards the western end of Comm. Ave.

CanTab--somehow you forgot Boston's masterpiece Art Deco exemplar: 75 Federal St., with its glorious bronze scrollwork mural wrapping at the corner of Franklin & Devonshire St., etc. Our answer to Rockefeller Center's Art Deco murals I suppose.

Which raises the question--which of the Winthrop Square proposals is "most respectful" of the extraordinary architectural richness of Winthrop Square? Consider:

--75 Federal St.: Art Deco gem (built 1929)
--20 Winthrop Sq.: Neo-Gothic gem (built 1873)
--1 Winthrop Sq.: built 1873...

MODERATOR: should this be switched to discussion of Winthrop Sq. proposals?

 

[davem]

I guess this is as good a place as any to put my soapbox.

“It’s tokenism at its worst, treating architecture in only two dimensions,” says Clem Cecil of Save Britain’s Heritage. “Facadism was condemned as the bastard child of conservation when it first emerged, but it clearly hasn’t gone away.”

Some front: the bad developments making a joke of historic buildings

"It's a fake, a slap in the face to history," complained Bill Lavicka, a structural engineer and historical preservationist who is far from reticent about expressing his feelings on the matter... "We have living history in Chicago, and we don't need to make it up," he said. "A facade-ectomy sounds like a cure for a disease, but it is really the disease itself."...The project, in which the facades will be catalogued and placed in storage, has been strongly criticized by preservationists, who deride the undertaking as creating a "Disneyland" effect.

Skinned Buildings: Saving Facades Seen As A Shell Of An Idea

"Façadism is NOT preservation,” insists Eugenia Woo, director of preservation for Historic Seattle, the non-profit that saves and manages unique heritage buildings, like the Good Shepherd Center and Washington Hall, and finds new uses for them. “It’s a design compromise between demolition and preservation that does not serve the original building or the new building behind the façade well. The result of façadism is often a strange hybrid building that does not meld the new and the old in a coherent manner.”

Seattle’s facadism fetish makes fools of history & progress

 

[FK4]

I guess this is as good a place as any to put my soapbox.


Some front: the bad developments making a joke of historic buildings



Skinned Buildings: Saving Facades Seen As A Shell Of An Idea



Seattle’s facadism fetish makes fools of history & progress

The first link conveniently shows exclusively very ridiculous examples of facade preservation. It isnt necessarily a very bad thing and can be done tastefully.

I'm not a fan of this particular project because it's consolidating smaller buildings and that ruins the organic feeling of one of the few areas of downtown that still has multiple little independent structures.

Edit - just to be clear, Im not arguing with you and agree that sometimes it can end up being nothing more than lip service being paid to history... I think we probably agree that an example like the Millennium project is pretty great.

 

[datadyne007]

The first link conveniently shows exclusively very ridiculous examples of facade preservation. It isnt necessarily a very bad thing and can be done tastefully.

I'm not a fan of this particular project because it's consolidating smaller buildings and that ruins the organic feeling of one of the few areas of downtown that still has multiple little independent structures.

Edit - just to be clear, Im not arguing with you and agree that sometimes it can end up being nothing more than lip service being paid to history... I think we probably agree that an example like the Millennium project is pretty great.

Agreed. They show really bad examples that first article.

Boston does facade preservation really well actually. Just look at Atlantic Wharf (facades preserved inside & outside) & 101 Arch St (which had the Bussey Place alley facades preserved inside the lobby that squeezed between them).

Bussey Place at 101 Arch St:

 

[odurandina]

What do you guys think of faux 100% authentic colonial or late-Victorian era replicas for all Public Market/Fanuil Hall/Haymarket do overs? My argument is; in 45 years almost everyone but the puritans and old timers have forgotten they're fake anyway. While some of you recoil in horror, i suggest the idea is appealing because the faux might actually look 'good...' blend well with surrounding buildings... then, after 100 years, not only has everyone forgotten, but the fugazi now look faux aged, and people embrace it as part of the historical community of buildings.

With the damage that's been done, if you're gonna tear this down, maybe there's merit to re-doing it 1820 or even 1880 style.

 

[stick n move]

Exchange place I think came out sort of weird, but its still better than demoing the old facade.

 

[datadyne007]

Exchange place I think came out sort of weird, but its still better than demoing the old facade.

And the lobby with the atrium & grand staircase is stunning.

 

[odurandina]

^^You guys talk about street level. i have a lot to learn about that stuff. i imagine not everyone likes facades.

But the street level is very good there... sure looks amazing to me.

until you turn your head to the Devonshire a couple blocks over...... just kidding. Actually, i like it's so '80s look. i've heard the 'D' isn't so good inside. But, it's the tallest looking 400'ish tower i've seen.

 

[chrisbrat]

And the lobby with the atrium & grand staircase is stunning.

exchange place has been my favorite Boston skyscraper (short) since it was built.

 

[Justin7]

One step closer to generic city 28b3l8h.

 

[Jouhou]

Back on topic, I think the render would be more appealing if they replaced the times with a similarly sized restaurant/bar. That building really wouldn't look that great once you strip it of the exterior decor of The Times. Replacing an inviting entrance with a blank wall with a map on a plaque? Why?