Rising architect were particularly receptive to the early twentieth-century concrete warehouses and to the possibilities of pre-packadeg, prefabricaded technology and the opportunity to weave pre- and site-cast concrete with the existing brick and stone texture of Cambridge and Boston. Concrete was poured in abundance over the old city as the Modern Movement was imported from Europe, producing Le Corbusiers Carpenter Center at Harvard (1961-63; Fig. 56) and I. M. Peis Earth Sciences Building at MIT (1962-64). José-Luis Sert, when dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Design, grafted a Mediterranean aesthetic onto the new brutalism In the high rises that he built on the banks of the Charles River-from Peabody Terrace (1963), which provided housing for harvards married student, to the Boston University law and education tower (1964; Fig. 57)-before moving inland to construct the enormous Undergraduate Science Center (1970-73) at Harvard. Concrete even penetrated the brick- lined Back Bay when the Boston Architectural Center (Ashley, Myer & Associates) opened on Newbury Street in 1967 (Fig. 58), thereby giving new life to an old institution created to train architects.
Not until 1957 had the building boom then sweeping the nation finally arrived in Boston. It all began in the West End, whose center, Scollay Square, was infamous for the Old Howard and other burlesque houses, long the destination of merchant seamen, traveling salesmen, and Harvard students. An area of speculative building was reclassified as tenement housing, and shortly thereafter scheduled for renewal. The Boston Redevelopment Authority presented a plan for the 48-acre tract, whereupon much of the West End was brutally demolished and its inhabitants displaced (Fig. 59). But Mayor John Collins (1959-67) and Edward Logue, chairman of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, were determined to rebuild Boston by fostering an architecture that would emphasize beautiful civic design. To this end, they enlisted the aid of the Chamber of Commerce in rebuilding the waterfront area so that it would once more become Bostons window on the world. In 1960, I. M. Pei & Partners were chosen to draw up the master plan to delineate each disposition parcel and establish controls which would limit height, bulk, and setback, and establish a pattern of relationships between each building. Kallmann, McKinnell & Knowless award-winning design for the New City Hall competition produced a monument that became the keystone of the complex and, more, of the entire downtown area (Fig. 60). Here five principal districts of the city converge-the West and North Ends, waterfront, financial center, and Beacon Hill. Concern for the pedestrian and a public space belonging to the people set City Hall apart from all other structures of the new Boston. Various types of interaction between citizens and government and among the people themselves occur inside and outside this rugged concrete and brick building, designed to express a celebration of government. Unlike the varied shapes of city Hall, which subtly convey their different purposes, the two connecting towers of the John F. Kennedy Federal Building (The Architects Collaborative, 1966) all too clearly bespeak their bureaucratic functions. The JFK Building epitomizes that corporate architecture which began to proliferate in downtown areas throughout the western world in the fifties and sixties, of the old building in the area bordering the plaza of Government Center, only Sears Crescent (1848) and the adjoining Sears Block (1845) were saved. The convex façade of One Center Plaza, the office building opposite, acts as a perfect foil to the older brick building of Sears Crescent by repeating its shape, albeit it on a larger scale; at the same time, it screens the Suffolk County court House, and serves as a propylaeum to Beacon Hill (Figs. 61,62).
While the parcels that constitute the Government Center complex remain separate entities, the strikingly handsome State Services Building amalgamates the departments of health, education and welfare in one megastructure (1970; Figs. 63. 64). Labyrinthine passageways and scenographic stairways lead to the cavernous center, which once harbored a chapel for mental health patients, whereas mounds of striated concrete flow down in wavelike motion to metaphorically return the city to the sea. In the words of architect Paul Rudolph: I wanted to hollow out a concavity at the bottom of Beacon Hill, a spiraling space like a conch in negative relation to the convex dome of the State Capitol on top of the hill. All lines merge in the nucleus, which was to be crowned by a central tower until the money ran out, and weeds now scramble oven one of the few vacant lots in town. Dazzled by formal and symbolic brilliance, the observer may well question the appropriateness of the structure to its contents. Because user-needs do not appear to have been a fundamental consideration in the formulation of the program, the State Services Building has served as an object lesson to the succeeding generation of architects and planners.
In 1964, a move to further stimulate the economy resulted in the replacement of the 1924 zoning regulations by a system of floor area ratios and planned development areas. These revised codes acted as incentives for the construction of new and taller banking establishments, government offices, and commercial buildings-those structures that have crested the downtown corporate skyline (Fig. 63). At the same time, greater attention was given to light-filled interiors, to public spaces, and to communal aspects of design. Witness especially the open plaza before Serts mixed-use Holyoke Center in Cambridge (1965; Fig. 65), which owes much of its free-wheeling oratorical and performance spaces to the students activism of the late sixties. In a similar spirit, the corner before the Boston Five Cent Savings Bank (Kallmann, McKinnell & Knowles, 1972; Fig. 66) can be seen as a public space belonging to the city. Actually, this plaza derived from a competition requirement to cope with a site whose distorted and curtailed form is the by-product of a traffic adjustment.
Activity throughout the city accelerated in the sixties and seventies. In addition to the high-rise corporate structure, a move was underway to prevent the disintegration of downtown Boston as a lively shopping area. While the malling of American cities was proceeding with unprecedented speed from coast to coast, a committee was formed to preserve the Central Business District. Victor Gruen Associates drew up proposals to revitalize the city by improving public transportation and renewing the business and theatre districts. Today, the traffic-free Downtown Crossing, with the pedestrian once more in control, is a testimony to their efforts, although the prognosis for the general vitality of the areas remains uncertain.
Renewal of the Back Bay began with plans for the multi-use Prudential Center in 1959 (Charles Luckman & Associates and Hoyle, Doran & Berry; Figs. 67, 68) on the site of old railroad tracks. Dominated by the 52-story office tower, the complex which includes housing, shopping, entertainment and hotel, never became the predicted design success. Exaggerated concern for parking and security prevented access at ground level, This violation of an urban precept together with decidedly undistinguished architecture contributed to the Prudentials failure as a lively entity. For al the design defects, the buildings tower, visible throughout the region, soon became the beacon of Boston. Not until the mid-eighties, however, did Boylston Street, which the Prudential fronts, begin to show signs of renewal. One monumental exception was Philip Johnsons addition to the Boston Public Library in 1971 (Gig. 71). Despite a somewhat forbidding exterior, the building was praised for its harmonious relationship with the adjoining Boylston Street façade of the McKim, Mead & White masterpiece (as also the engineering innovation by the LeMessurieur Associates on the interior). Twenty years later, the same architect is being censured for his New England Life addition 500 Boylston Street precisely because of insensitivity to scale and context.
At the southwest apex of the Back Bay, radical change came with the rebuilding and expansion of the Christian Science complex in 1968-73 (Fig.69, 70). Displacing older housing along Massachusetts Avenue, the church built a new office tower, Sunday School, and administrative center on the banks of a long reflecting pool over underground parking. I. M. Pei, whit Cossuta & Ponte, gave maximum visibility to the Mother Church, whose modern concrete aesthetic was unusual in the Back Bay, however, they tempered reminiscences of Le Corbusiers Chandigarh with the language of classicism in the admirably carved Corinthian portico that frames a convex glass-enclosed space on the Massachusetts Avenue facade of the church. Like many of Peis designs, the abstract geometric layout of its site plan is dazzling, especially when viewed from above. But the most important aspect of the Christian Science center is that it paved the way for a connection between the Back Bay and the South End, a link recently fortified by the creation of the Southwest Corridor Park.
No transformation in the city has proven to be more dramatic that the waterfront project initiated by the Boston Redevelopment Authority in the late sixties. Derelict wharves and warehouses have been demolished (including the beautifully proportioned India Wharf by Bulfinch, Fig. 72) or converted to luxury housing. Urbanization began with the new aquarium at Central Wharf (Cambridge Seven, 1969) and Harbor Towers, a pair of high-rise residential buildings designed by I. M. Pei in 1971. Towards the harbor, Faneuil Hall Marketplace stands at the beginning of the new Boston. Architect Benjamin Thompson (hitherto largely known locally as the creator of Design Research in Cambridge) seeking to bridge the new Government Center and the new waterfront set forth his proposal for the renovation of Quincy Market: In looks at the past. It looks at the Boston Redevelopment Authority Master Plan. It looks at existing conditions. To create new, life for an old place.
OLD AS NEW: ADAPTIVE RE-USE IN BOSTON
I shall enter no encomium upon Massachusetts; she needs none. There is her history; the world knows it by heart. The past at least is secure.
Daniel Webster, Second Speech on Footes Resolution, 26 January 1830
In Boston, as throughout the country, the recycling of older buildings for new uses has been a major component of architectural development during the past two decades. Possessing an especially rich heritage of historic structures, Boston has taken the lead in these activities. Not only has the city rehabilitated its own buildings, but it has become a center for architectural firms, developers, and consultants for rehabilitation projects nationwide. The extended use of older buildings and the more traditional restoration activities of the preservation movement have affected general trends in architecture and the position of architects in relation to their clients and to the public at large.
The reaction to the demolition and new construction mentality of the post-World War II urban renewal are set the pendulum swinging. After the virtual elimination of the old West End in the late 1950s, neighborhood activists, urban pioneers, and preservationists began to counterattack in the early sixties. Focusing o neighborhoods like the South End and the waterfront and individual complexes such as Quincy Market, the new enthusiasts for historic buildings began to question and oppose the citys renewal programs. The subsequent story, however, is not one of logical development or unchallenged success for the physical environment to Boston.
Locally and nationally, the political, racial, and social unrest of the mid-1960s focused on urban centers. The election of Kevin White as mayor of Boston in 1968 ushered in a sixteen-year period that might easily have been given oven to indiscriminate development. However, the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 had finally established a comprehensive federal program for the protection of historic buildings. Using private and public capital, local architects and preservationists demonstrated the value of preserving varied types of older structures and, more importantly, the appropriateness of changing the function of a building to meet specific modern needs and opportunities. Architects Tim Anderson and George Notter established significant models for rehabilitation, first in the North Ends Prince Building, a warehouse converted for residential purposes, and I 1969 in Old City Hall, a surplus government building recast for offices and retail. The concept of adaptive re-use, long practiced in European cities, thus emerged as an exciting and rational alternative to the demolition of noteworthy buildings.
New interest in conversions came with the serious recession caused by the oil embargo 1973. Arguing that adaptive re-use was labor intensive and energy conserving, and thus appropriate to the times, the preservationists set out to fight City Hall. New architects joined the cause, such as Childs, Bertram & Tseckares, who produced two exemplary rehabilitations: the Ames-Webster Mansion (Peabody & Stearns, 1872; enlarged by John H. Sturgis, 1882) on Commonwealth Avenue was restored and converted to offices in 1969, and the Record-American Building, a marble-fronted commercial palace (Fehmer & Emerson, 1872) was transformed into offices as One Winthrop Square in 1974. Most early rehabilitation projects retained modernist biases in the frequent elimination of detailing, the exposed interior materials, and the windows of single sheets of glass. Preservationists, delighted with their victories, did not immediately question the propriety of such architectural license.
The mid-1970s witnessed some accommodations between the White administrations development stance and the possibilities of adaptive re-use. In 1973, White appointed Robert T. Kenney as the new director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority. Two large projects soon came under his control. He selected Benjamin Thompson as architect-developer for the rehabilitation of Quincy Market. With marketing and financial expertise from James Rouse, Thompson turned the impressive, but gritty granite and brick produce markets into a successful district of chic eateries, fashionable shops and, not least, open, park-like spaces. Perhaps no other project was as important in changing the way Bostonians, and Americans at large, thought about old buildings and the possibilities that lay within blighted urban cores.
The second major initiative from the Boston Redevelopment Authority under Kenney was the rehabilitation of 110 acres and scores of historic industrial structures at the U. S. Navy in Charlestown. Declared surplus in 1974, the Navy Yard was transferred to the city and to the National Park Service. A new residential quarter with associated amenities has since been created. The adaptive re-use of large industrial structures and the building of attractive new elements have capitalized upon the Charlestown waterfront, with is spectacular views of the Boston harbor and skyline.
The legitimacy of these projects was significantly bolstered by the concurrence of events in 1976. The city at last established the Boston Landmarks Commission as the municipal agency for preservation planning, though its power were restricted to the designation of individual buildings, not districts. Of greater significance, the United States Congress passed the Reform Act of 1976, which removed the tax-code bias against old buildings and introduced substantial tax incentives for the appropriate rehabilitation of historic structures. <president Carter increased federal funding for preservation from a level of $17.5 million in 1975 to $200 million by 1979. In 1975, the American institute of Architect established the extended use category as a new division for their annual Gold Medal Awards. In 1978, eight of the fifteen AIA awards were given for such projects, two in Boston-Quincy Market and the Institute of Contemporary Art. With some architectural critics proclaiming the death of modernism, and with new financial, legal and bureaucratic tools at hand, the preservationists and their design and financial partners seemed to have entered the mainstream.
At the same time, however, cracks appeared in the preservationist mirror. Emblematic of the underlying problems was the proposal to demolish the 1889 Stock Exchange Building at State and Congress streets and construct a faceted glass tower, a scheme backed by Mayor White. Unsure of its political clout, the fledgling Landmarks Commission feared that the denial of the demolition permit would result in a veto from the mayor. Hoping to avoid confrontation, the commission proposed the retention of two facades of the building with the glass tower behind. Effectively labeled prosthetic architecture by Robert Campbell, architecture critic for the Boston globe, the Exchange building was soon seen as a design compromise of disastrous proportions. One important result of this fiasco was the establishment in 1978 of the Boston Preservation Alliance, a coordinating committee for score of likeminded organizations throughout the city.
What did Boston learn from the Exchange Building debacle? Evidently very little. In fact, gutted older structures have frequently been the launching pads for historicizing skyscrapers, as a string of recent buildings on Summer Street demonstrates .Despite the Reagan administrations annual attempt to eliminate preservation funding from the federal budget, tax incentives remained. As amended in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and subsequent tax law modifications. Thus, the rehabilitation market continued to flourish in Boston throughout the 1980s The ability of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the Landmarks Commission, or the Preservation Alliance to realize the dream of effective preservation planning is however still elusive. The absence of a comprehensive preservation plan has permitted incremental, ad hoc decisions on preservation and adaptive re-use versus demolition and new construction. During the eighties, the pressure of development caused the balance to shift towards intensive new construction.
It would be naively pessimistic to see the twilight of preservation and adaptive re-use as we enter the 1990s, In fact, the recent, drastic reversals in the Boston economy create a favorable climate for the preservation ethic. Whatever the future may hold, it is evident that adaptation-and the attendant political and financial framework-has shaped the character of Boston during the past two decades. The issue of contextualism, a watchword for recent urban planning and new architecture, is related to new uses for old buildings and the preservation spirit of the recent past. The expanded role of developers in shaping the character of the built environment has partially emerged from the partnership of preservationists, architects, and moneymen. And because the concerned public makes its voice heard in neighborhood organizations and preservation commissions, it is often the case that designs have to be approved by a committee before a building can be erected. Greater public participation in design decisions has not always produced better buildings, and has party been responsible for the tendency of the tendency of architects to become lobbyists and diplomats, attempting to please varied special interests. Still, the architect must be ever mindful that the purpose of his art is to accommodate and to ease the stress of life, and to so by creating an architecture in harmony with nature and in the service of humanity.
1. A Plan of Boston in New England with its environs. Copperplate engraving by Henry Pelham, London 1777
2. Paul Revere House (after restoration), ca. 1680.
3. First Town House, 1657-1711. Reconstruction drawing by Charles A. Lawernce, 1930.
4. The Town of Boston in New England. Map by Captain John Bonner, 1722.
5. The Town of Boston in New England, with revisions and additions. Map by Captain John Bonner, 1769.
6. Panorama Whit Long Wharf. A view of part of the town of Boston in New England and British ships of was landing their troops. Engraving by Paul Revere, 1768.
7. William Price: Old North Church, 1723. Engraving
8. Joshua Blanchard: Old South Meeting House, 1729. From photograph ca. 1895.
9. Thomas Crease House: Old Corner Bookstore, ca. 171. Engraving.
10. Peter Harrison: Kings Chapel, 1750. Engraving
11. John Smibert: Faneuil Hall, 1740-42. Copper engraving by S. Hill, The Massachusetts Magazine, 1789.
12. The Boston Massacre. Engraving by Paul Revere, 1770. Old State House, 1712; rebuilt 1748, 1830 (Isaiah Rogers), 1882 (George A. Clough)
13. Charles Bulfinch: State House, 1795-98. Front elevation and plan.
14. Charles River Bridge to Charlestown,1786. Copper engraving bu John Scoles, The Massachusetts Magazine, 1789.
15. Charles Bulfinch: Tontine Crescent, 1793-94. Elevation and plan, The Massachusetts Magazine, 1794.
16. Charles Bulfinch: Second Harrison Gray Otis House, 1800.
17. Peter Banner: Park Street Church, 1809. One Beacon Street (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, 1972) rises behind the churh.
18. Alexander Parris: Quincy Market, 1825. View from waterfront.
19. India and Central Wharves in 1857.
20. Isaiah Rogers: Tremont House, 1822-29. Photograph, 1870.
21. Solomon Willard: Bunker Hill Monument, 1825-43.
22. Edward C. Cabot: The Boston Athenaeum, 1847. Second floor reading room.
23. Map of the City of Boston and Suburbs, 1878
24. Blackstone Square. From Gleasons pictorial Drawing Room Companion, 15 November 1851.
25. Commonwealth Avenue. Engraving by James S. Conant, 1882
26. Boylston Arlington Streets: View of Arlington Streets: View of Arlington Street from the Public Garden in the early 1860s.
27. William Gibbons Preston: Museum of Natural History 1862 (right), and Rogers Buirding,1863 (left).
28. Ruins of Pearl Street after the Fire of 1872.
29. Arthur Gilman and Gridley J. Fox Bryant: Old City Hall, 1862-65
30. Henry Hobson Richardson: New Brattle Square Church, 1872. Tower.
31. Henry Hobson Richardson: trinity Church, 1872-77.
32. Trinity Church. Interior.
33. Frederick Law Olmsted: Muddy River Parkway. Under construction, near Longwood Avenue, 1892.
34. Muddy River Parkway, near Longwood Avenue, 1902.
35. Comparative maps showing public parkland in 1892 and 1902 (before and after the establishment of the Boston Metropolitan Park System).
36. McKim, Mead & White: Boston public Library, 1888-95.
37. Park Street subway station Aerial view of construction, 1895.
38. Charles F. McKim: Proposal for Copley for Copley Square, 1888. Aerial view.
39. Left: Willard Sears: Isabella Steward Gardner Museum, 1902. View of courtyard.
40. Sturgis & Brigham: Museum of Fine Arts, 1870-76
41. William Gibbons Preston: Massachusetts Mechanics Charitable Association, 1876-79.
42. Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge: Harvard Medical School, 1906.
43. Arthur Little House, 1890.
44. Shepley Rutan & Coolidge: South Station, 1899.
45. Tremont Street, opposite the Old Granary Burying Ground, 1895. At left, old Horticultural Hall (Gridley J. Fox Bryant, 1865).
46. Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge: Ames Building, 1892.
47. Summer Street and Downtown Crossing, with Filenes department store (Daniel Burnham & Co., 1912), and 101 Arch Street (Background).
48. Peabody & Stearns: Custom House Tower, 1913-15. At right, and Flour Exchange Building (Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge, 1891-93).
49. Cram & Ferguson with James A. Wetmore: John D. McCormack Federal Building and Post Office, 1929-31.
50. Coolodge, Shepley, Bulfinch & Abbott: BB Chemical Building (now Polaroid), 1973.
51. Aerial view of Boston from above Longan Airport, ca. 1960.
52. Alvar Aalto (with Perry, Shaw & Hepburn): Baked House, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1947-49.
53. Whalter Gropius: Harknees Commons/Graduate center, Harvard University, 1950.
54. Eero Saarinen: Krege Auditorium and Chapel, Massachusetts Institute of Technolgy, 1953-55. In background, MacLaurin and Rogers buildings.
55. Kresge Auditorium and hapel.
56. Le Corbusier: Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts, Harvard University, 1961-63.
57. Sert, Jackson & Gourley: Law School and Student Union, Boston University, 1964. At left, Chapel and Schools of Liberal Arts and Theology (Cram & Ferguson, 1947.
58. Ashley, Myer & Associates: Boston Architectural Center, 1967.
59. Government center area. Aerial view from north, ca. 1960
60. Kallmann, McKinnell & Knowles: City Hall, 1968.
61. I. M. Pei & Partners: Government Center. Site plan, 1961. Below: axonometric view of City Hall and Plaza.
62. Government Center Aerial view towards west.
63. Paul Rudolph: State Services center (Health,Education and Welfare), 1970. Perspective drawing of Mental Health Building; tower (unbuilt).
64. State Services center Plan.
65. Sert, Jackson & Gourley: Holyoke Center, Harvard University, 1965. Café as seen from Harvard Square subway station plaza.
66. Kallmann & McKinnell: Boston Five Cent Savings Bank, 1972.
67. Charles Luckman & Associates and Hoyle, Doran & Berry: Prudential center Complex, 1959-68. View of Prudential Tower from Copley Square, ca. 1970. Boston Public Library and New Old South church in foreground.
68. Prudential Center Complex. Site plan.
69. I: M: Pei & Partners, Cossuta & Ponte, and Sasaki, Dawson & DcMay (landscaping): Christian Science World Headquarters, 1968-73. Site plan.
70. Christian Science World Headquarters. View of administrative tower towards Sunday School. Church center, and original Mother Church.
71. Philip Johnson: Boston Public Library addition, 1971. In background, Boston Public Library, John Hancock Tower, and New England Life addition 500 Boylston Street.
72. Charles Bulfinch: India Wharf, 1805. Photograph from the 1970s.
|
