They Fixed Downtown Too

ablarc

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
3,524
Reaction score
2
THEY FIXED DOWNTOWN TOO.

My mom didn?t drive. We lived a couple of blocks up the hill from the end of the Boston College Green Line.

Every week she took the trolley downtown to go shopping. There was a cornucopia of department stores: Jordan?s, Filene?s with that great Basement, Gilchrist?s, Kennedy?s, Stearn?s, White?s, Raymond?s, several others?

Each store targeted a market in the spectrum of class from elite to poor folk.

My mom came back on the trolley bulging with bargains. It was the best and easiest shopping in the world. It wasn?t pretty, there was no climate control, but it was compact and practical, the selection was comprehensive, the bargains were real. And you could get there without driving.

Some of the department stores opened branches in suburban malls.

Then gradually the department stores started closing or changing. The landmark event came when Jordan-Marsh tore down its big old emporium and replaced it with a low-slung, featureless brick box that belonged at a mall. Suburbia had started to invade Downtown with its vapid but scientific building types.

Raymond?s, the low-class department store, closed and got torn down. The crowds grew a little thinner. They stopped using mounted police to keep folks on the sidewalk at Christmastime.

After a time, they built an ugly plastic canopy over the sidewalk of some of the stores, obscuring them with good intentions. The idea was to keep rain off customers? heads --sort of like in a mall.

And a second idea was to actually brand Downtown as a mall. Everyone knew these always succeeded. So they re-branded it ?Downtown Crossing.? They even tried building an indoor mall, Lafayette Place, but though they hired a big-name architect, it was an epic failure: wrong location, wrong configuration, wrong look.

They paved the street in brick and banned cars --leaving the roadway for emergency vehicles to hang around and create a state of ? well, emergency. Permanent emergency. Because they were clearly anticipating something, the place started to look dangerous.

As a mall it wasn?t much good --cold in the winter, hot in the summer, increasingly dirty, infested with punks, police cars and delivery vans. Every year or so, a department store closed. Folks on the sidewalk gradually grew lower class. Parking lots began to proliferate.

After a while a no-man?s-land opened up between what had been a shrinking Downtown shopping district and the contracting Combat Zone. What shops this transition area contained seemed aimed at dealers, pimps and their admirers.

Sack?s first-run movie emporiums closed. Some started showing porn, others just stayed empty or were converted to restaurants. After a while, the porno theaters started to close, together with the strip joints --hounded by the ladies of Chinatown, because their hubbies had become habitu?s.

We all know what happened in 2008-09: big plans gone awry, a soured economy.

Place resembling a war zone.



* * *


Then they figured out how to fix it.

A bright newcomer named John A. Keith came out of nowhere to defeat Menino. Keith fired the entire BRA, then personally selected a small brain-trust of like-minded free-thinkers --free, that is, from the stifling effects of unexamined book knowledge and academic norms. When they talked, these folks sounded much like some members of ArchBoston.

They went to work to fix Downtown.

First they threw out the absurd moniker, ?Downtown Crossing.? This put everyone on notice that the Washington Street area would be knitted back into the city as an integral part.

But however glorious its past might have been, Downtown came back in an all-new guise. Its newfound success was based not on targeting the working class of Dorchester and Eastie --these folks had long defected to Wal-Mart in their cars-- nor, for that matter, on demographic considerations at all.

Though --like customers of Copley Place, Harvard Square or Newbury Street-- they were from the entire metropolitan region-- customers of the revived Downtown arrived mostly by subway. Most city-dwellers started their shopping trips on transit, while suburbanites switched at new-built transit-stop garages on all four lines.

And they crossed all boundaries of class, these metropolitan Bostonians, because they were all attracted by a new trait that Downtown had never traded on, because it had never possessed the trait. And because much of Downtown was missing, this trait was so extravagantly slathered on in new construction that they all found it even more magnetic than Copley, Harvard and Newbury.

The new Downtown is urban, but really it always was, along with its three leading competitors. But because so much of it is newly purpose-built, it blows the others away with something they couldn?t match without extensive rebuilding. For the one thing John A. Keith and his cohorts demanded of all new construction in Downtown was that it had to be ? BEAUTIFUL!

0040.jpg


It made people feel special to go there.

Mid-block passageways were developed:

0080.jpg


And numerous of Downtown?s tiny alleys were upgraded, such as City Hall Avenue:

0120.jpg


Shopfronts entice with slick design:

0160.jpg


Arcades connect to subway entrances:

0200.jpg


It makes people feel special to go there. They want to hang around a while:

0240.jpg



Though Downtown?s building stock is good, it?s not always cheerful. Dabs of color can enliven drab streetscape:

0280.jpg


Amazing what can be accomplished with a well-executed mural and a few flowers:

0320.jpg


The criterion for hokeyness was excellence of execution. If the execution was excellent, it wasn?t hokey:

0360.jpg


Shops were encouraged to stay open evenings and were plentifully laced with pubs:

0400.jpg


A little streetcar line ran the length of Washington Street from City Hall Plaza to Tufts:

0440.jpg


Arcades and alleys abound in the new Downtown?

0480.jpg


0520.jpg


0560.jpg


0600.jpg


But at the center of it all, lies the mother of all arcades:

0640.jpg


John Keith?s men figured out how to finance and implement all this. Their specialty is politics.

0680.jpg



Photos from SSC.

.
 
Last edited:
I hate to admit it but I am completely ignorant of Lafayette Place. Could someone gimme a history of that?

btw who wrote the first part?
 
It was the BRA's moronic love child with the misguided mission of trying to bring shoppers lost to suburban malls back into the city by building a crummy mall with underground parking.

Several through streets crossing Washington Street were eliminated. The Annex Building to Jordan Marsh along with the old Woolworths, the RH white Department Store, and a few others along Chauncy Street were demolished. All the fabric was replaced with a single superblock development consisting of a mall with a circular circulation path and a Swiss Hotel. The mall was an immediate failure and eventually the space was gutted for the current awkward office/retail setup.

Blocking off the cross streets helped expedite the death of retail on Washington's side streets and isolated a chunk of downtown both pedestrian and automotive traffic from Tremont and Washington Streets. Demolition wiped out the historic street wall along Washington Street between Summer and Avery Streets and left us with the Hayward Place lot.

Now some dolt wants to add two towers over the joke. The whole blight deserves to be leveled and redeveloped along the old street configuration.
 
It was the BRA's moronic love child with the misguided mission of trying to bring shoppers lost to suburban malls back into the city by building a crummy mall with underground parking.
"Crummy" is one of the operative words to explain Lafayette Place's grand belly-flop. Designed by Giurgola in ascetic but uninspired Brutalism, it was anything but beautiful.

You can do a successful mall in the city; Copley Place is evidence of that.

But you have to get the circulation right; it needs to be a shortcut from one place to another that people frequently feel the need to link on foot.

And you have to make it look good by prevailing standards.
 
Copley Place isn't exactly attractive on the outside, though. All of the design was (and is) focused inwards.
 
Why does it have to be indoors? I don't like the indoor pictures, no matter how pretty. Downtown shouldn't be a froofy luxury district, that's Newbury Streets territory. It should hold the same purpose your mom used it for-the people! Not everyone can afford what's on Newbury St., nor do they need it. They do need a supermarket, a department store, and a ton of specialty boutiques and services, all accessed by the subway.

Sure, it can be beautiful. Elegant even. But extravagant on the scale of some of those pictures? Not at all. Not at all!

Open up the streets, renovate the subway station, finish the projects on hold, and start some major infill with middle-class housing and necessary retail/services. This is what the middle class needs to live in the city, this is what they want. No city can survive without a strong middle class.

What person would want to live in the suburbs when they can have it all in the city? A supermarket, right down the elevator. A laundromat next door. A wonderful take-out pizza shop run by the neighbors across the street. The Boston Common, the most spectacular backyard anyone could ask for!

Why the hell do we need a fancy-shmancy shopping mall with gilded door handles to fix Downtown? All those alleys and pubs can exist without exorbitant wealth. In fact, they're better without it!
 
The content of the post was that whatever they do Downtown, it should be BEAUTIFUL (which that area presently is not). That's all.

I said nothing about luxury. My contention was simply that if they made it beautiful, people would come. People travel to beautiful places to experience them. I'm sure you do too.
 
I do. Most of those places, are places that people only visit-not live. Downtown can be a beautiful place for people to live in, not to visit. Vegas is beautiful on the outside, but to people on the inside, those that live there, it's quite ugly.

Perhaps if people visit, then they'll want to live there. I'm saying the intention should be to create a healthy neighborhood, not a beautiful one.
 
I'm saying the intention should be to create a healthy neighborhood, not a beautiful one.
...because the two are, of course, mutually exclusive! ;)


(It's why Back Bay is so unlivable.)


:)
 
This is heading toward a chicken-and-egg argument. Which comes first, the beauty or the livability?
 
Rarity is the most common denominator of beauty. Make downtown too unique, make downtown too rare, make downtown too desirable, and it will be the new Newbury Street of the mayah's dreams.

Maybe if the whole city were "beautiful"...maybe if all cities, plural, were beautiful, we wouldn't have this problem. But they're not, they won't be, and we do.

But what does it matter if we're giving up on urban life for these losers anyway:

Its newfound success was based not on targeting the working class of Dorchester and Eastie --these folks had long defected to Wal-Mart in their cars

It's hard to read this thread and not think of class. Practically none of the European street scenes depicted in the first post are remotely affordable places. And the dream is to attract "metropolitan Boston" - those fled suburbanites who would only ever consider a trip to the city to wet their feet on Boylston, Newbury, and their malls (I guess some malls are successful, somehow).
 
I like most of what is written here but I disagree with roofing over blocks of streets to create a giant arcade or galleria. Streets should usually be outdoors.
 
This is heading toward a chicken-and-egg argument. Which comes first, the beauty or the livability?
Not sure I understand the question. It's not either/or, and it's not 'which came first'.

Beacon Hill is beautiful and livable. Back Bay is beautiful and livable. South End is beautiful and livable.

South End in 1969 was only livable if you could tolerate crime, rats, and dirty, abandoned, run-down, formerly-beautiful buildings. If you could see past these things, you could recognize it was potentially beautiful. That potential was realized by gentrification and development of vacant lots.

Like the South End, most potentially beautiful places have been gentrified.

Some would say East Boston is kinda livable, though it's not beautiful.

Can you think of any place that's beautiful but not livable?

Not sure there's much relationship between beauty and livability beyond the obvious fact that all other things being equal, people would rather live in a beautiful place than an ugly place. So if a place has potential to be beautiful, folks with money tend to improve it.

Beautiful places built from scratch are rare these days. That's what makes Seaside so special.

We're talking about residential districts. A somewhat beautiful, relatively recent shopping district is Beverly Hills.

No reason you can't build to be beautiful.
 
Point taken.

I'm just saying, building for beauty certainly won't guarantee livability. It's a lot more likely to end up with a beautiful result if you build for livability. My subdivision is beautiful, not livable. IMO, Seaside is ugly as hell. No better than this.
 

Back
Top