| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| You can landmark the building and cause redevelopment to take a few months longer, or you can refuse to landmark it and allow the developer to wreck the facade. I know which one I'd choose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dudeursistershot
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 715
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ron Newman wrote: | | You can landmark the building and cause redevelopment to take a few months longer, or you can refuse to landmark it and allow the developer to wreck the facade. I know which one I'd choose. |
Give me a break. First of all, there's a million other layers of approval to go through and there's no way any plan that destroyed the facade would get through even a single one of those ridiculous layers. Second of all, it's just dumb to think that they would even want to destroy it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
statler
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 825
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dudeursistershot wrote: | | Give me a break. First of all, there's a million other layers of approval to go through and there's no way any plan that destroyed the facade would get through even a single one of those ridiculous layers. Second of all, it's just dumb to think that they would even want to destroy it. |
A. The Gaiety had to go through the same process. It didn't help.
B. If it is cost prohibitive to save the facade the developer will raze it without a moments hesitation. The only reason the would save the facade is for the PR. If the goodwill < cost of restoration then we can say goodbye.
It will be strictly a business decision. There is no altruism in the development world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patrick0000
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 2570
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| statler wrote: | | There is no altruism in the development world. |
true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Gaiety didn't have a historic facade -- it was the interior that was significant.
Filene's is the exact opposite case. Nothing worth saving inside, but a beloved and historic exterior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
statler
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 825
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ron Newman wrote: | The Gaiety didn't have a historic facade -- it was the interior that was significant.
Filene's is the exact opposite case. Nothing worth saving inside, but a beloved and historic exterior. |
Well, yeah. And to be honest, the Gaiety wasn't exactly 'beloved' by a lot people except for a few theater buffs, but it was the most recent example of a building being razed without any real consideration for it's historic value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarkFenX
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1111
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Filene?s buyer faces cleanup: Asbestos removal costs may be in millions
By Scott Van Voorhis
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Congratulations to the future owner of the Downtown Crossing Filene?s building, a Hub landmark.
Now for Vornado Realty Trust, the hard work of redeveloping the historic 1912 building and the high-profile Downtown Crossing block it sits on begins.
As it looks to put a new shine on the aging Filene?s building - and possibly build a high-rise complex next to it - the major New York property player could find that it has opened a beehive of thorny challenges, real estate executives say.
A looming asbestos cleanup project may be one of the more expensive challenges Vornado faces.
One bidder brought in an environmental firm to look over the building. An inspection found millions in potential cleanup costs to remove the old-fashioned flame retardant, now believed to be a carcinogen, executives said.
Owner of a nationwide property portfolio that includes Chicago?s Merchandise Mart, Vornado is now wrapping up its purchase of the Filene?s building from Federated Department Stores, which is selling the building after pulling the plug on the venerable Filene?s chain. Matthew Kiefer, a lawyer for Vornado, confirmed the firm has a purchase and sale agreement.
?These are very sophisticated developers and have an excellent track record,? said David Begelfer, head of the local chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties.
One of Vornado?s first moves may be filling the now mostly empty Filene?s building with a new magnet. Discounter Target is a likely candidate.
Cleaning out the old building may be easy compared to cutting a deal with its remaining tenant, Filene?s Basement.
While there is a potential to build a new high-rise complex by demolishing modern additions to the historic building, Vornado will first have to win over Filene?s Basement, which will want as little disruption as possible.
Finally, Vornado will have to cut a deal with City Hall, which will have final say over any renovation, as well as over any proposal for new construction.
That effort appeared to get off to a good start yesterday. Federated and Vornado requested an extension until May 9 of a landmark commission vote to make the Filene?s block a historic landmark.
It appears that request will be granted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarkFenX
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1111
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moo-la law: Familiar names land development billings
By Scott Van Voorhis
Thursday, April 13, 2006 - Updated: 12:40 AM EST
Some of Boston?s best-connected lawyers are poised to make a killing on the sale and redevelopment of the landmark Filene?s building and a key downtown block that it sits on.
James Greene, a top development lawyer with Rubin and Rudman, is going to bat for Federated Department Stores, which is selling the historic Washington Street building after pulling the plug on the venerable chain. Greene?s firm has close ties to City Hall and the mayor.
Meanwhile, Matt Kiefer, a rising star among Boston real estate lawyers, will push the interests of the big New York firm - Vornado Realty Trust - with a deal to buy the Filene?s complex.
Only insiders in the city?s hardball development and political world need apply.
?We see the same players over and over,? said Andrew Glincher, head of the Boston office of Nixon Peabody. ?You really have to navigate and know your way ?round the city, and it helps to be known by the mayor and the agencies.?
For the two lawyers and their firms, winning work on the high-profile Filene?s deal is a home run in Boston?s competitive legal industry.
While a long and complicated sale is nearing the finish line, an epic redevelopment project that could take years looms ahead. All of which means a gold mine of billable hours, with top Boston development lawyers earning $500 to $600 an hour.
?It?s pretty complicated. The entire process will take some time. That is where an attorney can do well,? said one local developer.
The two lawyers are the right fit for a highly complex and politically sensitive deal, observers say.
Greene comes with a background of working out sensitive tax breaks for downtown developers. His wife, Marylou, has worked as a key Menino fund-raiser.
Kiefer recently guided Kensington Place, a controversial downtown apartment and condo tower, through a hotly contested review process that included the demolition of an historic theater. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
user_198
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| what is the height restriction in this area |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
statler
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 825
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Globe wrote: | Flagship Filene's life gets extended
Store to remain open to sell selected items from closed locations
By Jenn Abelson, Globe Staff | April 19, 2006
The flagship Filene's in Downtown Crossing will stay open for several months longer than expected, selling fine jewelry, furs, and rugs that have been unloaded from other department stores.
Macy's owner, Federated Department Stores Inc., is using the Boston site to sell merchandise mainly from stores it is closing as part of its $17 billion takeover last year of Filene's and other regional chains. Earlier this year, the company said it planned to shutter nearly 80 stores this spring and convert the remaining regional chains into Macy's by the fall.
''In the case of Boston, we wanted to make productive use of the space through the divestiture process as a way to support retail traffic in the downtown business district," said Jim Sluzewski, a Federated spokesman. ''This benefits all retailers in the area, including the Macy's store across the street."
The new merchandise at Downtown Crossing will continue to be discounted, but not at the 60 to 80 percent sales currently being offered.
City officials are pleased with the plan, saying it is important to keep the area inside and outside the store active for as long as possible. The Downtown Crossing retail district is struggling as it confronts one of the most dramatic changes in decades.
The closing of the historic Filene's building is looming as Vornado Realty Trust finalizes its deal to purchase the complex, which occupies an entire city block.
Vornado executives met yesterday for the second time in two weeks with city officials, talking about their initial plans, which could include multiple levels of retail space, possibly a supermarket, along with a residential tower.
Mayor Thomas M. Menino has expressed interest in also having a hotel on the property and support for anchor stores such as the popular discounter Target.
Meanwhile, the Boston Landmarks Commission is expected to rule early next month whether to declare the entire block along Washington Street between Summer and Franklin streets as a protected area. Designation as a landmark could complicate Vornado's plans for building, demolition, or remodeling.
Vornado's senior vice president, Rockie Gajwani, said, ''We're very early in the project" and declined to comment further after attending a forum yesterday on the city's Downtown Crossing Economic Improvement Initiatives.
At the meeting, Menino called on businesses to commit more than $350,000 to help spruce up the Downtown Crossing shopping district. The city has earmarked about $500,000 in public funds to enhance the area, but has only raised about $90,000 of its target $450,000 in private money.
''Now it's time to step up to the plate," Menino said.
Officials from the Boston Redevelopment Authority laid out short- and long-term plans for the district that include new bathrooms, police patrolling the area on horses, and better signs for stores like Filene's Basement, a separate company that has a long-term lease on the lower levels in the Filene's building.
Aside from physical improvements, city officials are planning to hire consultants this summer to develop a marketing campaign and determine the viability of Downtown Crossing as a pedestrian mall. Delivery trucks compete with pedestrians for space on the streets because there are no alleys for merchants to receive packages.
''A lot of cities are abandoning pedestrian malls, and we need to figure out if it can still work successfully in Boston," said Randi Lathrop, the BRA's deputy director of community planning. ''We need to come up with something. Right now cars are going down there all the time even though it's supposed to be a pedestrian mall."
Jenn Abelson can be reached at abelson@globe.com.
Link |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheBostonian
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 617
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Why is the city so interested in Target? I'd still love to see Jordan's Furniture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Police horses do not belong in Downtown Crossing, as they will make a mess on the walkways. Police cars do not need to be there either. The area should be patrolled strictly on foot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
statler
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 825
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Globe wrote: | City makes Filene's site a landmark
Two of 4 buildings must be preserved
By Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff | May 10, 2006
The Boston Landmarks Commission last night unanimously voted to give protected status to a Downtown Crossing block of buildings housing Filene's department store, meaning two of the four buildings in the complex must be substantially preserved.
The commission voted on a petition filed in the 1980s but moved to the top of its priority list because Federated Department Stores Inc., which last year bought the parent company of Filene's, is closing the store and selling the buildings.
Designation of landmark status means the facades of the two buildings must be largely retained, and the prospective new owner, Vornado Realty Trust of New York, will have to work with the panel as it redevelops the site.
Although the guidelines that were approved applied to the whole block, from Washington to Hawley streets, and Franklin to Summer streets, only the main 1912 Filene's store building and a 1905 former glassware and china seller's building on an opposite corner must be retained.
The 1912 building was one of the last designed by famed Chicago architect Daniel Burnham, and one of only three in New England.
Two newer buildings on the remaining two sides, built in 1951 and 1973, are expected to be demolished, and one or more towers are likely to be proposed. Vornado executives have a policy of declining to comment publicly, and neither they nor their lawyer would comment yesterday.
But the lawyer, Matthew J. Kiefer of Goulston & Storrs PC, said Vornado's substantial deposit on the property is scheduled to be no longer refundable after today, the end of the buyer's ''due diligence" period to study the site. Kiefer opposed a suggestion to delay the commission's vote for two weeks, and the members agreed.
After Vornado closes on the purchase, it is expected to file redevelopment plans with the city. No price has been disclosed, though real estate specialists estimate the deal at around $90 million.
The Filene's building is 125 feet high, and the block is zoned for a maximum of 155 feet. But any new redevelopment -- which will involve retail stores but could also include some combination of hotel, residential, and office space -- is expected to be considerably taller, if approved by city officials.
Filene's Basement, which is owned by a separate company, will remain in the building.
In a letter, one area resident urged the commission not to require that the clock and carillon on the building -- which chimes and plays music -- be restored to service. It formerly played songs like ''Hey, Look Me Over" repeatedly, the resident wrote, and, ''I feel tortured by them."
The commission staff had done a historical analysis of the block and held a public hearing. City officials had indicated they wanted a substantial portion of the block, if not all of it, protected.
Federated, the Cincinnati-based owner of Macy's department stores, bought the parent company of Filene's last year. It is closing the Boston store, now having a clearance sale, and department stores it purchased in several other regions. The historic Filene's building is one of dozens that Federated put on the market last year.
Filene's Basement, owned by a separate company, occupies the floors below street level. It has a long lease for the space and will be a significant player in any changes that are made on the block -- demolition, construction, or remodeling.
The 1912 main building is considered the most valuable of the four Boston structures. A group of Boston residents who petitioned for landmark status, one of whom attended last evening's meeting, called it ''one of the best examples of early 20th century Monumental Beaux Arts commercial architecture in Boston."
The eight-story structure is already on the National Register of Historic Places.
Eighty Boston buildings are designated individually as landmarks, in addition to whole districts, such as Beacon Hill. In all, Boston has about 7,700 buildings that are considered historic.
The Legislature created the Boston Landmarks Commission in 1975, after complaints over a Victorian building that housed the Jordan Marsh department store was torn down. Macy's is now in that location in a modern building.
Thomas C. Palmer Jr. can be reached at tpalmer@globe.com. |
Link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Good. Sounds like the sensible decision most of us wanted to see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
statler
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 825
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^^ Actually, Ron, I was thinking you and I would be the only ones happy about this. I think most people on this board see this as yet another layer of bureaucracy that stands in the way of the developer's utopian vision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ckb
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 126
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm happy about it too. And I'm pretty sure other readers of the board are as well. Demolishing the two newer, insignificant buildings will certainly provide space for a structure of sufficient height to make the whole development worthwhile. The city should take care not to impose further resitrictions, though -- fortunately there doesn't appear to be space to demand a "pocket park" or other such nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
quadratdackel
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ I'm a little torn, but for the most part I'm happy too. The qualm is that I like my cities dense and transit-oriented, so I'd like to see Downtown Crossing (and other centrally located places) built up as much as possible. Sometimes I get pissed off because we effectively live in a museum and can't make some otherwise important changes. However, I'm coming to understand (not from here originally) that this historic preservation is part of Boston's identity and plays an important role in this country which for the most part isn't built to last and isn't worth preserving anyways, even if it means we have to stifle some great new development. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| there's already a small 'pocket park' on the Franklin Street side -- I think it's even named after Filene. And preserving these two fa?ades doesn't necessarily preclude adding more floors on top of them, though these should probably be set back from the street. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dudeursistershot
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 715
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ron Newman wrote: | | Good. Sounds like the sensible decision most of us wanted to see. |
no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dude: perhaps you'd rather live here ?
Everyone else: this page has links to Boston Landmarks Commission reports about Filene's. (All of the first four links on that page.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
statler
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 825
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sort of Off-Topic:
There is now a Sleepy's Discount Mattress store at the corner of Franklin & Hawley St where Buck-A-Book used to be.
So if anyone is looking for cheap jewelry or mattresses, Downtown Crossing is the place to go.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not exactly a worthy successor to Lauriat's -- but then, neither was Buck-a-Book.
(Several other former Buck-A-Book stores remain vacant today -- on Hanover Street in the North End, Davis Square, and Arilngton Center.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject: city's are more that just skylines |
|
|
| Quote: | Ron Newman wrote:
Good. Sounds like the sensible decision most of us wanted to see. |
Sometimes I think that some of the people on this forum have never been in Boston but look at the skyline from a distance. I also think they have no idea what a city is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My hope is that whatever the developer proposes, they do it soon. Downtown will suffer every day that first floor is vacant.
Perhaps the Basement can be allowed to temporarily expand upward while we're waiting?
The Landmarks Commission Report is nuanced, recognizing what is important to keep and what isn't. The Commission explicitly notes that dividing the building into multiple stores may require new entrances, and new diferentiating elements to identify each store. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lexicon506
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I knew that they wouldn't let anything happen to the Filene's building. And I'm happy about it too. Boston's image of "preserving history" would have been forever changed if they tore down such a beautiful building. The towers are probably going to be short and uninspiring anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarkFenX
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1111
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm happy that this will become a landmark. Unlike the Gaiety which was virtually useless, the Filenes building can still be used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 10:39 pm Post subject: huh! |
|
|
| DarkFenX wrote: | | I'm happy that this will become a landmark. Unlike the Gaiety which was virtually useless, the Filenes building can still be used. |
Using that logic I would have to say Fenway Park is useless. Since I don't go there it should be torn down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BOSDevelopment
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 293
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: Re: huh! |
|
|
| PaulC wrote: | | DarkFenX wrote: | | I'm happy that this will become a landmark. Unlike the Gaiety which was virtually useless, the Filenes building can still be used. |
Using that logic I would have to say Fenway Park is useless. Since I don't go there it should be torn down. |
I agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarkFenX
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1111
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:53 am Post subject: Re: huh! |
|
|
| PaulC wrote: | | DarkFenX wrote: | | I'm happy that this will become a landmark. Unlike the Gaiety which was virtually useless, the Filenes building can still be used. |
Using that logic I would have to say Fenway Park is useless. Since I don't go there it should be torn down. |
Um what? How does this logic work? People still use Fenway whereas no one was using the Gaiety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nobody has used the Paramount since about 1977, but most people would be appalled if a developer or the city wanted to pull it down instead of fixing it up.
What this really illustrates is the importance of a fa?ade in historic preservation efforts. The Gaiety didn't have one of any significance, and it's a lot harder to get people interested in preserving an interior, especially one that's been closed for so long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dudeursistershot
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 715
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ron Newman wrote: | | My hope is that whatever the developer proposes, they do it soon. Downtown will suffer every day that first floor is vacant. |
If you wanted it to be done quickly, supporting the added useless layer of ridiculous bureaucracy of making it a landmark was not the right thing to do. Remember, it's most certainly never the devloper that ever holds anything up, it's the city.
| lexicon506 wrote: | | I knew that they wouldn't let anything happen to the Filene's building. And I'm happy about it too. Boston's image of "preserving history" would have been forever changed if they tore down such a beautiful building. The towers are probably going to be short and uninspiring anyway. |
Give me a break. It would have been preserved no matter what. Even if there was no BRA at all, neighborhood outcry would have forced them to preserve it (this is how the market works - if enough people want it, it would be in the developer's best interests to keep it). But regardless, there is a BRA, and there is a ridiculous review process to go through in which the BRA would only have to say "preserve the facade" and it would have been done. But this is Boston, so let's screw the developer over some more and add another layer of BS.
*sighs* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tocoto
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Since two of the builings can be demolished, and those remaining can be used for office, condo...whatever, we will see positive things happen there over the long run. Hopefully it's not too long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
statler
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 825
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dudeursistershot wrote: | It would have been preserved no matter what. Even if there was no BRA at all, neighborhood outcry would have forced them to preserve it (this is how the market works - if enough people want it, it would be in the developer's best interests to keep it).
|
Right. Except that...
| Quote: | | The Legislature created the Boston Landmarks Commission in 1975, after complaints over a Victorian building that housed the Jordan Marsh department store was torn down. Macy's is now in that location in a modern building. |
The Landmark Commission is the outcome of the neighborhood outcry. The system is working just fine.
Plus, the Jordan's Marsh/Macy's pile of bricks is the perfect example of why not to just let developers do whatever is in their best interest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also, keep in mind that this is downtown and therefore not really anyone's "neighborhood". (yes, there are residential buildings scattered around, but not enough to make a real neighborhood yet.)
"Neighborhood outcry" doesn't do much good unless there is some defined process to take it into account. The Landmarks Commission is such a process, and I think it works pretty well most of the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZenZen
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In addition, the free-market's best interests are to maximize the value of the dollar - even if it means tearing down the Filene's building and putting something else up. We need these protections, because the free market won't always do what is right or what ought to be done.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The report says that six older buildings were torn down to create the 1973 addition. Those must have been really small buildings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bowwest
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 616
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| statler wrote: | | dudeursistershot wrote: | It would have been preserved no matter what. Even if there was no BRA at all, neighborhood outcry would have forced them to preserve it (this is how the market works - if enough people want it, it would be in the developer's best interests to keep it).
|
Right. Except that...
| Quote: | | The Legislature created the Boston Landmarks Commission in 1975, after complaints over a Victorian building that housed the Jordan Marsh department store was torn down. Macy's is now in that location in a modern building. |
The Landmark Commission is the outcome of the neighborhood outcry. The system is working just fine.
Plus, the Jordan's Marsh/Macy's pile of bricks is the perfect example of why not to just let developers do whatever is in their best interest. |
I know this is a little off topic but this made me think of the large brick box buildings along Columbus Ave in the South End. Can someone please explain to me how it was possible for the original housing stock to be torn down and be replaced with those pieces of crap? I don't really know anything about urban planning but when I walk in that area I feel like those buildings have a detrimental effect on the whole urban landscape there, even if its a subconscious one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This map shows the Filene's block as it was in 1928. (Scroll over to the lower right corner.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:46 pm Post subject: Re: huh! |
|
|
| DarkFenX wrote: | | PaulC wrote: | | DarkFenX wrote: | | I'm happy that this will become a landmark. Unlike the Gaiety which was virtually useless, the Filenes building can still be used. |
Using that logic I would have to say Fenway Park is useless. Since I don't go there it should be torn down. |
Um what? How does this logic work? People still use Fenway whereas no one was using the Gaiety. |
The Opera house was empty for years. I was able to tour it twice after it closed and it was in terrible condition. There was talk of tearing the Wang Center down.
Whether anyone is currently using the building is not a criteria to be used in whether it should be saved or not. This is an argument I would expect from a developers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
statler
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 825
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ron Newman wrote: | | This map shows the Filene's block as it was in 1928. (Scroll over to the lower right corner.) |
Wow. What a great map. Thanks Ron! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| replying to the off-topic message: I suspect the buildings had run down so badly that the planners of the time thought it made more sense to replace them with something 'modern'. Remember that the South End was not at all fashionable in the 1960s and 70s. When I arrived here in 1975, much of Columbus Avenue was boarded up or abandoned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And rather than having a pointless argument about whether the landmark process is a good idea, how about taking a look at the reports and discussing their proposed guidelines and rules? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Statler: if you liked that map, check out the rest of the Community Heritage Maps site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roxxma
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 170
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I love Bromley Maps. They are one of the best resources to see what was where.
If you ever get the chance, visit the Land Court's map room. It has atlases, mostly Bromley atlases like the one linked above, for almost all cities and towns in Massachusetts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarkFenX
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1111
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: Re: huh! |
|
|
| PaulC wrote: | | DarkFenX wrote: | | PaulC wrote: | | DarkFenX wrote: | | I'm happy that this will become a landmark. Unlike the Gaiety which was virtually useless, the Filenes building can still be used. |
Using that logic I would have to say Fenway Park is useless. Since I don't go there it should be torn down. |
Um what? How does this logic work? People still use Fenway whereas no one was using the Gaiety. |
The Opera house was empty for years. I was able to tour it twice after it closed and it was in terrible condition. There was talk of tearing the Wang Center down.
Whether anyone is currently using the building is not a criteria to be used in whether it should be saved or not. This is an argument I would expect from a developers. |
I agree but I am saying that it was better that Filene's reach landmark status than the Gaiety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garbribre
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 459
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Gaiety was a lost cause and forgotten, for the reason mentioned earlier--no defining ediface. The Paramount is fortunate that it now has Emerson as a champion and a highly visible physical profile. Plus it has sustained interest since the time I was on a committee in the late 70s/early 80s to revive it.
I was wandering the SoEnd during my visit and was staring at those same ugly apartment blocks and explaining the same thing to somebody. Ghastly.
As for Filene's, it was sad to be inside. My mom couldn't handle it and had to walk out. (She was a fit and runway model in Boston department stores in the 50s.)
And Boston could be getting its tallest apartment/hotel building to date on that Filene's site. You heard it first.  (Winthrop Square--fahgetabowdit.) If only it gets through the EIR...shadows and wind and all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
statler
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 825
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garbribre wrote: | | As for Filene's, it was sad to be inside. My mom couldn't handle it and had to walk out. |
Here's an odd thing. I've been walking around Filene's for the last few months and watched it slowly degrade to a cheap flea market and yet I had very little emotional response to it. It's not I don't care, I still think this is a bad very thing for Boston, but in a rational way, not emotional. The actual closing of the store doesn't really bother nearly as much as I thought it would have.
I thought about it for a while and realized it's mostly because, as someone famously put it, there was no there there, if that makes sense. Pretty much every thing worth saving we lost years ago. Almost the entire interior had be 'updated' to the point where it looked like just another mall store. There is very little grandness to the place. The only thing that remains are the giant pillars in the main floorspace. (You can also see them in the opening day photo in the BRA report.) Aside from that you would never know you were in a former grand dame department store. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Newman
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 1007
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is the grand old interior still there, hidden behind all of the modern stuff? I can't really tell.
When did the restaurant on the top floor close? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
statler
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 825
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BRA's 'The Filene's Complex-Study Report' wrote: | The upper floors are clad with light gray terra cotta which imitates granite at the second story, corner piers, and top story. The light grey terra cotta frames dark green terra cotta pier and spandrel window grids that encompass the third through
the seventh stories. The dark green terra cotta imitates cast metal, with engaged columns of ornamental banded colonettes extend ing the full five story height, and embellished spandrels featuring lion heads and rosettes. These decorative spandrels also appear between the glazed openings in the corner piers on the fourth through the seventh floors. |
Terra cotta, huh. I always thought it was all real granite. Does anbody know if this is common on the 'granite' buildings around town?
Thanks for the link Ron. I wish I had time to go to the library and look at the source material. Looks like there is a treasure trove of info. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shiz02130
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bowesst, the book "Common Ground" gives some information about how the Methunion Manor apartments came about. It's by J. Anthony Lukas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
