odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District
- Thread starter vanshnookenraggen
- Start date
Here we go again. Another piece of Boston chipped away. Why?
How is the park they propose an improvement? It seems to me a generic gesture to the tower under construction, and a snub to the building that fronts the park.
Ok, Millenium paid a steep cost and won the competition. (It wasn't their design that won the day.) Ok, they've been good citizens in many regards (though I still rue the loss of the Filene's building). Yes, they have vested interests in our city. I bet some even have children going to schools here. I even venture they have good intentions. Why then - if you're one of us - why do this? What are you thinking? It seems like such low-hanging fruit to preserve this small slice of what once was - especially as you have been allowed to so alter and change a piece of our city.
What is the BPDA thinking?
A lovely little park - modest, yes, but still worthy - gone.
I know, I'm a broken record. I offer my apologies. But I am deeply concerned that no one is minding the store.
Golden is a politician. He needs to be replaced. He's a nice guy but he needs to go. We need a design czar. However, I'm beginning to wonder, if the greater issue here is not Golden - but Walsh!
How is the park they propose an improvement? It seems to me a generic gesture to the tower under construction, and a snub to the building that fronts the park.
Ok, Millenium paid a steep cost and won the competition. (It wasn't their design that won the day.) Ok, they've been good citizens in many regards (though I still rue the loss of the Filene's building). Yes, they have vested interests in our city. I bet some even have children going to schools here. I even venture they have good intentions. Why then - if you're one of us - why do this? What are you thinking? It seems like such low-hanging fruit to preserve this small slice of what once was - especially as you have been allowed to so alter and change a piece of our city.
What is the BPDA thinking?
A lovely little park - modest, yes, but still worthy - gone.
I know, I'm a broken record. I offer my apologies. But I am deeply concerned that no one is minding the store.
Golden is a politician. He needs to be replaced. He's a nice guy but he needs to go. We need a design czar. However, I'm beginning to wonder, if the greater issue here is not Golden - but Walsh!
This certainly comes as news to the giant, 100,000+ sq. ft. department store (Primark), giant, 40,000+ sq. ft. supermarket (Roche Bros.), and the giant, 200,000 sq. ft.+ advertising conglomerate (Arnold) that have all been tenants of said Filene's building for many many years...
do you know what was there 80 years ago? can you predict how people will feel about the new park in another 80 years?
take a breath, read a book, have some prunes.
nm88 was referring to the 1905 facade that was supposed to be preserved.
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2013/07/demolition-this-weekend-on-filenes.html
I’m not sure what’s going on with you and your sharp attacks lately (qv response to kjdonovan the other day), but this is a completely ad hominem and insulting response to a poster articulating legitimate concern about an urban space that is having its character completely changed. I dont associate your posts with that level of discourse at all so perhaps this is an error in tone and you didn’t mean it that way? Regardless, I’m actually genuinely confused why you would come to a forum that discusses architecture and urbanism and imply (if I read your post correctly) that only someone uptight or constipated would get upset about a major event such as the one being discussed. Moreover, I am also genuinely confused at the suggestion that nothing matters because in 80 years everything will be different. If that’s the case, why bother discussing anything?
truly apologize if/that my attempt at humor fell flat. what i was getting at is that a small park replaced by another small park isn't necessarily a terrible thing. for all any of us know this new space will actually be *better* (sure, it could be worse, too).
in no way meaning to be a grouch or unkind/intollerant.
fwiw i'm not a 100% giant fan of the winthrop tower, myself.
you make a good point and i'll try to not be so reactionary. this is a fun and informative forum and i absolutely don't mean to add to the sometimes-vitriolic nature that can overtake it.
in no way meaning to be a grouch or unkind/intollerant.
fwiw i'm not a 100% giant fan of the winthrop tower, myself.
you make a good point and i'll try to not be so reactionary. this is a fun and informative forum and i absolutely don't mean to add to the sometimes-vitriolic nature that can overtake it.
Right, like when you needlessly mocked my use of a word when I posted a question to the forum about a building:
[Your post in response to my question]: "I can’t stand the word naïveté. Why use a French word when there’s an English one already (that for some reason is almost never seen or used), and, moreover, it’s not even a unique word form, but a....
Forum: Development Projects 06-17-2019, 07:22 PM.
40 Trinity Place | 426 Stuart Street | Back Bay
Fair enough, if someone's upset that that building wasn't kept, I respect that. That said, that was NOT the Filene's building (as the article notes); it was the 1905 Jones McDuffe & Stratton Co. building.
Daniel Burnham played no role in its design/execution (as far as I'm aware) and it showed: it was a blatantly more modest/pedestrian structure than the majestic Filene's building/10 Summer.
So, to label it "The Filene's Building" isn't just totally misleading--it actually endows it with the Burnham aura, when it was completely undeserving of it.
<end nitpick>
Padre Mike
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 681
- Reaction score
- 1
To put the area in context: The grand old building to which you refer was the A.T Steward Department store and then the Record American newspaper. Trucks would line up on Otis Street to be filled with daily deliveries. The whole area was basically industrial by the 20th c, and rather run down. The first new building to be built was St. Anthony's Shrine, the rear of which cuddled up to Otis St. and all those parked delivery trucks. My Italian cobbler cousin Tony shared a nearby basement storefront in the building nearby with an Arabic tailor. We thought his was a quite exotic arrangement since we kids knew no one from the middle east. The building is magnificent for its era. There had been no park in front until the 80s and the statue was added even later, having been removed from its original spot on the Fenway. Nonetheless the loss of this intimate area is truly sad. It was a respite at lunchtime for nearby office workers.
Call me crazy but I think the removal of the trees is an enhancement to the adjacent historic building. I've been through there dozens of times and I literally never noticed that building. On reading the discussion above I took a streetview drive around to take a look and it is quite impressive. Opening up that space a bit will likely enhance the views.
Just another opinion...
Just another opinion...
I stand corrected. My mistake. No insult to Burnham intended.
However, the building I mean was also preserved for a time. (Remember the gap?) It also had Filenes signs on it. (If I recall, you entered the basement here. Am I wrong? Maybe?) The previous owner, Vornado (believe it was them), hoped to tear it down as well and save only the Burnham building, but Menino said no. When they sold, MP go the go-ahead. I believe this is what happened. I'm more than willing to be corrected.
Last edited:
Are any of you genuinely familiar with this "park"? You make it sound like it was some beautiful place where children frolicked and ladies enjoyed summer picnics...
I work here. Right here. I'm across the street now. This park was mainly frequented by homeless people, skateboarders and drug users. It's also a really small space. Y'all livin' in La La Land.
I work here. Right here. I'm across the street now. This park was mainly frequented by homeless people, skateboarders and drug users. It's also a really small space. Y'all livin' in La La Land.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,963
- Reaction score
- 3,884
I agree with you. I never really spent any time in Winthrop Square, other than passing through on my way to somewhere else, but it always struck me as dark and unwelcoming. I like the idea of something that is more open.
I often wonder if the people complaining about the "changes" to the neighborhood actually spend any time there? I've walked by that park every work day for over a decade. While its a decent little pocket park, it is primarily used by pot smokers. If office people are hanging out there, its to get a contact high. Now I'm not here to debate the merits or drawbacks of that, but really once the statue is moved back to its rightful place in the Fens there's little remarkable about the place. The old building that fronts it is quite nice to look at however. A fountain in front of it would be nice.
Whoaaa. You have it 100% backwards, my friend. Take another look at what I wrote: I was not mocking what you said at all but expressing appreciation for your use of “naivety” rather than “naïveté”. Ok? I remember seeing the reactions of you and a couple other posters that seemed to have interpreted what I had written as sarcasm (why, i have no idea, other than this being another example of misinterpretation of tone that is all too easy when dealing with only the written word), and I had meant to correct those views, but looks like I did not get a chance to do so. Anyway, apologies for not clarifying that then, but look again and it should be obvious...
I can only speak for myself, but what I like about the space is that it is a very quiet and secluded spot in an otherwise very busy area. The overall feeling of the place, whether it’s a new park or an old one, is of a very old space in a very old part of the city. Even the name - Winthrop - makes it so... and of course it’s close to Winthrop Lane, an ancient vestige of the older city. I haven’t visited this particular square as frequently in the last few years, but it used to be a point I would intentionally pass through on bike rides that included downtown. Most, but not all of those, were on the weekends and I never saw any homeless people there... perhaps it’s different on the weekdays and also perhaps given that the scourge of opioid users has become much more visibly prevalent in the las lot few years in downtown Boston. Anyway, nobody is being hyperbolic here; they’re simply expressing concern over something they like that’s being changed, so not sure why there’s this attitude about those of us who feel a certain way... you’re free to have your own opinion of course, and others will have theirs.
Last edited:
BosDevelop
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,500
- Reaction score
- 334
Likely another year before this thing gets above ground. Ugh.
I think you are confused, but I suspect you also partly have the story right. Try this:
The Burnham Building/10 Summer St. (aka Filene's, the magnificent Beaux-Arts masterpiece): 100% preserved/restored
The Jones McDuffee Stratton Bldg. at the corner of Hawley & Franklin: Vornado may have intended to tear it down as part of its proposal and Menino probably did block that, as you state. When MP Boston took over, they got permission to tear it down. In my opinion it was nowhere near a historically significant building--especially considering the embarrassment of riches surrounding it in the immediate vicinity. But that's just me.
The Filene's Basement annex at the corner of Washington & Franklin: A soulless 1970s-era monstrosity. Literally a bunker complex--completely hulking and military-like in appearance. Demolished right at the start of the Vornado project, leading to the "Filene's hole" of 2008-2013 when Vornado's construction loans went bust during the 2008 crisis. Anyway, good riddance to an utter abomination.
Right?
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,601
- Reaction score
- 3,259