Boston's Best Modern Urbanism

[ablarc]

BOSTON?S BEST MODERNIST URBANISM

With their powerfully jagged sculptural forms, I find modern buildings like Peabody Terrace and the BU Law Tower to be immensely gratifying to drive by on the riverbank roads ? but they don?t do much for the pedestrian.

And an urban building?s quality is best gauged by a person on foot.

Skyscrapers like the Federal Reserve Building and the Pru project a certain totemic presence that serves them well as sculpture or icon, and monuments like City Hall or the Hurley Building are also sculpturally arresting ? but none of them do much for the pedestrian.

An urban building is one you?re glad to walk by or through.

Boston has plenty of good urban buildings and plenty of good modern buildings, but it?s hard to even populate a poll with buildings that are both.

Here?s an attempt:

Holyoke Center (Sert, 1961-65)
Christian Science Center (Pei, 1968-73)
Five Cents Savings Bank [Borders] (Kallmann and McKinnell, 1972)
Hancock Tower (Pei, 1968-76)
Mandarin Oriental (CBT, 2005-08)
Apple Store (Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2008)
75 State Street (Gund, 1986-88)
Copley Place/Prudential Mall (TAC, 1980-84)
Design Research [Crate and Barrel] and rest of ?Architects? Corner? (Thompson et al., 1969ff)
Rowe?s Wharf (SOM, 1982-85)

Slim pickin?s for a city with such a distinguished past.

Vote for three (3).

[statler]

Borders
CSC
Rowes Wharf

Question:
Can City Hall be made pedestrian friendly without destroying its 'arresting' sculptural quality?

[Beton Brut]

Question:
Can City Hall be made pedestrian friendly without destroying its 'arresting' sculptural quality?

Of course! It will likely require "regime change." Once the numb-skulls have been sent packing, call Norman Foster, or Ken Yeang, or maybe Zaha Hadid.

...And ablarc -- smart survey. There are no "wrong" answers...

[vanshnookenraggen]

I voted Five Cents Savings Bank because it is more classically modern than Rowes Wharf, though I believe RW is the best Post-Modern building in Boston.

[Ron Newman]

I very reluctantly left out the Hancock Tower -- it would have gotten my fourth vote if I had been allowed one. I picked Borders (but only now with the bookstore use -- I wouldn't have voted for it as a bank), Rowes Wharf, and Design Research. I hope whoever next moves into DR knows how to use the building in the manner it was intended.

I don't like seeing Copley Place and Prudential combined into one 'building' because they are very different even though connected to each other. Prudential relates much better to the surrounding city than Copley Place does.

[Joe_Schmoe]

Copley Place is hands down the worst both urbanistically and architecturally. What a blight!

[czsz]

I'm with most on Borders and Thompson, but I think Holyoke Center deserves its due. It's a far more welcoming complex than Rowes Wharf - though, admittedly, this has more to do with a better location (and a less intimidating landlord).

I would have voted for the Christian Science center, but monumentality is much less of a challenge for most buildings of this period.

[garbribre]

What? No State Transportation Building in Park Square? :)

I have always been ga-ga over the Boston Five. It's the best modern urban building--a grand, classicist structure, imo.

Sadly, Boston has so few that fit these (your) criteria, ablarc.

I think you are forgetting one other potential choice in Boston, maybe two more in Cambridge that would fit the criteria. (I will not suggest them, just because... okay, to torture you--heheh.)

By default, I am also choosing Holyoke Center and Design Research--from the street/sidewalk side only.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Oh shi... I didn't see Design Research. Can I change my vote?

[ablarc]

Can City Hall be made pedestrian friendly without destroying its 'arresting' sculptural quality?
Shrink the plaza and install shops along Congress Street.

[ablarc]

I think you are forgetting one other potential choice in Boston, maybe two more in Cambridge that would fit the criteria. (I will not suggest them, just because... okay, to torture you--heheh.)
Gonna have to think about this.

[JSic]

Can someone please post a picture of the 5 Cents Savings Bank?

I was going to vote for the Christiab Science Center, but I'll withhold my vote until I know what the above is...

[JSic]

^Disregard, I know the Borders building (gotta read more caredully!).

I voted for the Christian Science Center.

[ablarc]

After 20 votes, the runaway winner is 5 Cents Savings (Borders). I think it's interesting that this building's architects are Kallmann and McKinnell, who also designed the much-hated City Hall.

The two runner-ups are Design Research (Crate & Barrel) and the Holyoke Center. Like the winner, these two are streetwall buildings, quite stylish, and unapologetically modern.

All three can be classified as Brutalist. Two out of three are in Cambridge.

What can we learn?

[cden4]

They all interact with the sidewalk and streetscape quite well. Maybe they didn't initially but they do now. It shows that even modern buildings can be adapted to have good urban form. Now if only we can activate the ground level(s) of City Hall!

[Beton Brut]

Holyoke Center would have been my 4th choice. I like the building; even more, I like how it's grown into its place as a focal point in the Square, a urbanistic role equal to the building's scale. The Mass Ave plaza is an active meeting-place and a great perch for people-watchers in warmer months; the Mt Auburn side is sunny and quieter -- book and coffee territory. Dunster Street has retail to engage the passerby, but (ironically) the Holyoke Street facade is a Chinese wall. This failing alone kept it off my list.

My picks:

With Kallmann McKinnell's little masterpiece, the scale elevates the building's stature. I also love the details that show the craft of the building's structure. The spirit of Kahn and Aalto are very strong here -- timeless and humane Modernism. Also consider the juxtaposition of the Winthrop Building across Washington Street; it's like a good piano recital, a little Bach, a little Shostakovitch.

Pei's CSC is another masterpiece. Corbu's sculpturalism, Kahn's timelessness, Chandigarh or Dhaka in miniature. Only the most sensitive intervention on this site should be allowed.

And Ben Thompson's concrete display case. It serves its purpose well as a retail store and an urban corner-anchor to one of Cambridge's most architecturally eclectic streets. It plays quietly and well with its neighbors. The mystery of the dark, compressed passageway to Mt Auburn Street, and the rewarding release of the small court yard you encounter, are hallmarks of smart design.

[Ron Newman]

Holyoke Center was hated until Au Bon Pain moved in. I don't remember what was there before, but it wasn't a high-traffic-generating use.

Boston Five Cents Savings Bank works because its current tenant is Borders which makes fine use of the extensive glass facade and the plaza outside. As a bank, this was not an interesting building and it didn't contribute much to street life.

Design Research was a cool building with its original tenant, and still is one with Crate & Barrel, but will whoever moves in next understand what to do with it?

[briv]

All three do pay special attention to the way they interact with the city at ground level. I think the Design Research building and 5 Cents Savings Bank, especially, are forerunners of whats been called today the New Brutalism, a more tempered, softer, open and glassy descendant of the old Brutalism.

Now if they'd only remove that gawd-awful Irish Famine Memorial from the plaza in front of the 5 Cents. That's gotta be the worst, most over-the-top piece of public art in Boston.

[ablarc]

Holyoke Center was hated until Au Bon Pain moved in. I don't remember what was there before, but it wasn't a high-traffic-generating use.
It was an upmarket men's clothing store, Ron. Wrong use for the space.

[ablarc]

What? No State Transportation Building in Park Square? :)
A lumbering hippo.

I have always been ga-ga over the Boston Five. It's the best modern urban building--a grand, classicist structure, imo.
Like a Gothic cathedral, it's all either structure or glass.

Sadly, Boston has so few that fit these (your) criteria, ablarc.
Yeah, how do you explain that? And much of the best stuff dates from the Sixties and Seventies, when architects weren't supposed to know how to design in cities.

I think you are forgetting one other potential choice in Boston...
Clue us in.

...maybe two more in Cambridge that would fit the criteria. (I will not suggest them, just because... okay, to torture you--heheh.)
Is one of them the Harvard building on Mt. Auburn Street that houses the Globe Corner Bookstore?

By default, I am also choosing Holyoke Center and Design Research--from the street/sidewalk side only.
Cambridge seems to be doing better than Boston.

[Beton Brut]

What? No State Transportation Building in Park Square?

Like a Helmut Jahn building, with a "frosting" of bricks to dress it up like MIT's Baker House. Boorish architecture. Only the atrium food court saves it.

Is one of them the Harvard building on Mt. Auburn Street that houses the Globe Corner Bookstore?

Not nearly good enough for this list. Hans Hollein's design was better in every way, a little brother to Holyoke Center.

If we're adding anything to this list, my pick is NikeTown. Handsome, contextual, Deco-inflected.

http://www.newbury-st.com/images/exterior_pics/999.jpg

Bonus: not brick & not insipid.

[Dan]

Christian Science Center
Rowe's Warf
Mandarin

While the Hancock is elegant, its impact is purely on the skyline.

Although I didn't vote for it, as an office building, 75 State isn't bad.

[bdurden]

I'm surprised the BU Law tower is not on this list.

[ablarc]

^ It's mentioned in the intro to this thread, and if you read between the lines, so is the reason it's not on the poll.

[statler]

The BU Law tower has the amazing ability to be anti-urban in a rather dense setting. It's almost impressive.

City Hall pulls off a similar feat but is assisted by the plaza.

[ablarc]

The BU Law tower has the amazing ability to be anti-urban in a rather dense setting. It's almost impressive.
Whaddya mean "almost"? It's great highway architecture.

It also makes a good, off-center campanile for the little plaza in front of the chapel.

[Beton Brut]

^^ The architecture succeeds where the ideology behind it fails. Sert was capable of greatness in the face of truly misguided urbanism. A tragic hero (building and architect).

[ablarc]

^ But the urbanism's pretty good at Holyoke Center, eh?

When it's not, why blame Sert --if you take into account that client and zoning precluded anything urban at both BU and Peabody Terrace? After all, if you can't put in stores and the zoning requires setbacks...




(Sert came from Spain, and they know about cities there --ideology or no.)

[Beton Brut]

Touche, ablarc.

I was throwing Corbu (and Robert Moses) under the bus more than Sert. The era, the culture, often foiled Sert's best laid plans. If allowed, both projects could have been made better. I like Sert as a craftsman; and I like the abrasive quality of his buildings. Totemic, to use your word.

[ablarc]

^ As a matter of fact, till somewhat recently there was a store in Peabody Terrace, and as I recall, it was due to Sert's persistence. To assuage the zoning and the community (which was afraid of increased traffic!), they might have cooked up some canard about limiting use of the store to Peabody Terrace residents --as though that could be enforced! That area is not well-served by convenience shopping. Banishing shops with suburban zoning only serves to encourage driving and the very traffic the community feared.

You can count on people to be fools about such things.

[bdurden]

^ It's mentioned in the intro to this thread, and if you read between the lines, so is the reason it's not on the poll.

You are right--though with a little Holyoke Center like treatment or something akin to the Meat Packing district plaza in front of the Apple Store, I could see a nice plaza developing in front of Sert's BU Law tower (there is already a non-functioning plaza there). When the landscape fails but the building does not, how is the building to blame?

[ablarc]

Now if they'd only remove that gawd-awful Irish Famine Memorial from the plaza in front of the 5 Cents. That's gotta be the worst, most over-the-top piece of public art in Boston.
A little mawkish, huh?

I think it should find a home on the barren Greenway, along with Partisans (http://www.viapolonia.net/thepartisans/).

[BarbaricManchurian]

Hancock Tower: has the most striking impact on the skyline, and is essentially the modern symbol of Boston. The street level isn't great, but these two factors more than make up for it.

Apple Store: strikingly modern when we haven't had much of it in recent years. Also activates the streetscape, is a high-traffic retail location, and helps Boylston's urbanity extend westward (once 888, hynes renovation, and the air rights are finished, the urbanity will be consistent all the way to the Fens)

Copley Place/ Prudential Mall - makes a huge area of Boston available to pedestrians, covers an ugly gash through the city, provides convenient indoor walkways in winter (and other seasons, but not as useful), and quite monumental when you look up and see the skyscrapers all around. Also provides a lot of street level retail, sometimes even more than in more conventional examples of urbanity.

[czsz]

That's gotta be the worst, most over-the-top piece of public art in Boston.

Can you believe there's a copy in Cambridge? I guess they were trying to cover the board and win "worst" in as many cities as possible.

[czsz]

^ As a matter of fact, till somewhat recently there was a store in Peabody Terrace, and as I recall, it was due to Sert's persistence. To assuage the zoning and the community (which was afraid of increased traffic!), they might have cooked up some canard about limiting use of the store to Peabody Terrace residents --as though that could be enforced! That area is not well-served by convenience shopping. Banishing shops with suburban zoning only serves to encourage driving and the very traffic the community feared.

There was also recently a small grocery in the Harvard apts. at 29 Garden St., closed, if I remember correctly, due to local noise complaints or somesuch.

[ablarc]

^ There used to be little, isolated storefronts scattered through Cambridgeport/Riverside and Beacon Hill. Most have been converted to residential use or realty offices.

[Ron Newman]

And in current economic conditions, I suspect some of those realty offices will close and be converted back to small stores.

[ablarc]

^ Zoning won't allow it. It's been amended to incorporate the "community's" concerns about noise, traffic and hoodlumism.

[Ron Newman]

Generally a retail use can replace a retail use, and a realty office is retail for that purpose.

[ablarc]

No, they have all kinds of categories ranging from adult entertainment through dry cleaning establishments, bars, all the way to realty offices.

Retail is generally classified by noxiousness.

[garbribre]

Oops. I forgot about this thread.

Mr. Brut got one of my Boston potentialities--NikeTown.

Also, if Copley Place is on this list of options, then The State Transportation Building should be, too. It my be a lumpen pile of brick but, skin treatment and landscraper aspirations aside, it's a most relevant example, fitting what we are discussing here, that grew from a firm who gained a notoriety for its short window of modernist, ummmm, style.

Also consider the former Knoll Building on Newbury.

As for Cambridge, I think Harvard and Central Squares both have additional examples, though not stellar, to fit your criteria. I'll let you brainstorm a bit more. Heheh

Aside--I was JUST commenting to somebody the other day about how many realty offices now have for lease signs on them all around the Bay Area. I'm finding that juxtaposition quite amusing. Not amused by all the other empty storefronts, though. And the abandoned buildings along Auto Rows throughout the Bay Area and in downtown Oakland. All about that in another thread on another day. It's not pretty out here, and the worst as we know it out here now is probably heading your way.

[ablarc]

As for Cambridge, I think Harvard and Central Squares both have additional examples, though not stellar, to fit your criteria. I'll let you brainstorm a bit more. Heheh
I give up.

[ablarc]

As for Cambridge, I think Harvard and Central Squares both have additional examples, though not stellar, to fit your criteria. I'll let you brainstorm a bit more. Heheh
Aren't you going to tell us?

[pelhamhall]

No, they have all kinds of categories ranging from adult entertainment through dry cleaning establishments, bars, all the way to realty offices.

Retail is generally classified by noxiousness.

And let's not forget Complete Idiot Mike Ross had a plan to throw out all the realty and insurance agencies from Charles Street so it could be more "lively" - in his perfect world, he would be able to dictate exactly which store can go where "I want a restaurant on this block, but not too pricey. The next building should have a florist shop - no, a florist shoppe! - because flowers are really pretty and smell nice. Next on the block I would want to see a cafe. A really expensive and top-quality cafe. But not a Starbucks, I won't allow that. Next I think a fancy wine shop - no, a wine shoppe - that only sells really expensive wine so homeless people don't start showing up..."

He acts as if government can decide things through more and more regulations that people have the inborn liberty to decide for themselves. His entire concept of governing is wrong.

He's make a great Minister of Lifestyle Choices in a communist regime, but as an American politician he is a true and perfect failure.

I wish somebody had the goodwill and charity to give Mikey a real job so he could enjoy earning a paycheck for once in his life, and seeing how the real world and business works.

[Ron Newman]

Those uses don't contribute anything positive to the streetscape. They deaden a commercial district. Since realty offices are already closing, it would be nice to replace them with retail or restaurants.

[garbribre]

^ Realty offices are useful for some people. However, many of them scattered along a few commercial blocks is kind of absurd, temporary supply and demand arguments aside. (Kind of like how I feel about Auto Rows. That argument is for another thread.)

Impatience ablarc? :confused: Must be really quiet in your world right now.

These choices will provoke discussion.

In Central Square:

University Park. I saw bits of this during construction. Haven't seen the completed project. It seems to be built out by now. I find this to be viable, modern, and it fits your criteria.

The new structure anchoring the corners of Mass and Western Aves, and River Street. I am not liking something about the way the wedge opening faces the intersection, though. I like the way it holds and defines the street and the height it adds for that corner, even on its back side, where they could have ignored details on Green Street. It provides mixed use. It creates a reasonable, human-scaled fenestration above, and at the street level. However, is the courtyard private? This may eliminate it from my list then.

In Harvard Square

Charles Square. Combined with the later infill projects on its flanks, it seems to do what it was meant to do--enliven that end of Brattle Square (which is an extension of Harvard Square, to me anyway, rather than its own identity).

One Brattle Square. Basic, streetwall forming, mix of uses, defines a previously bad corner better, though not optimally. That sidewalk is too wide. Therefore, not related to the structural form itself.

Many of you may ask, 'Why are these here?' I know that most of these examples are not stellar, unique, or 'wow!' aesthetically, but Copley Place is on the list. Yet the State Transportation Building was omitted. Curious, ablarc. Something against Goody Clancy? ;) Plus, you put the CSC, which just seems 180 degrees from the other, more commercially-oriented, public ventures. In retrospect, think CSC fails miserably along Huntington and Mass Aves. I welcome infill structures. However, I do feel, as others have said, that it should be carefully (respectfully?) done.

Personally, I think the criteria here are too varied for comparison for these building uses.

Therefore, for me, a few of Sert's buildings, already disavowed, should qualify as examples, their failings at ground level aside, compared with CSC's 'successes' at ground level, which aren't 100% either, or having the Hancock Tower as an example, which totally fails at the street and is as totemic as they come.


An additional thing I forgot about: The Gropius buildings, northern end of Harvard beyond the Kallmann structure you seem to admire, ablarc. What would you say about that grouping of structures? Too isolated and inward-facing to be considered urban, for this survey, I think. Pity it was somewhat of a blueprint for the kind of lame modernity that defines what is modern for the Boston/Cambridge environs during the 50s. It set a bad precedent, eh? How did it go from those few, immediate, post-war 'ooooo, this could all become so cool looking' examples at MIT to that bland mess at Harvard?! :( (I know you have the answer.)

[ablarc]

These choices will provoke discussion.

In Central Square:

University Park. I saw bits of this during construction. Haven't seen the completed project. It seems to be built out by now. I find this to be viable, modern, and it fits your criteria.

Tries hard, but misses by a mile. Not really connected, needs a subway entrance. Seems like it's surrounded by wasteland. Dull.

The new structure anchoring the corners of Mass and Western Aves, and River Street. I am not liking something about the way the wedge opening faces the intersection, though. I like the way it holds and defines the street and the height it adds for that corner, even on its back side, where they could have ignored details on Green Street. It provides mixed use. It creates a reasonable, human-scaled fenestration above, and at the street level. However, is the courtyard private? This may eliminate it from my list then.
So-so.

In Harvard Square

Charles Square. Combined with the later infill projects on its flanks, it seems to do what it was meant to do--enliven that end of Brattle Square (which is an extension of Harvard Square, to me anyway, rather than its own identity).

One Brattle Square. Basic, streetwall forming, mix of uses, defines a previously bad corner better, though not optimally. That sidewalk is too wide. Therefore, not related to the structural form itself.
So-so again. Corpulent.

Many of you may ask, 'Why are these here?' I know that most of these examples are not stellar, unique, or 'wow!' aesthetically, but Copley Place is on the list. Yet the State Transportation Building was omitted. Curious, ablarc. Something against Goody Clancy?
Yeah, they're hacks. And the Transportation building is clumsy, overbearing and symbolically out of control. Copley Place gives something to the city in spite of (or perhaps because of) being inward-looking. It scores remarkably high on the Best Shopping Area poll.

Plus, you put the CSC, which just seems 180 degrees from the other, more commercially-oriented, public ventures. In retrospect, think CSC fails miserably along Huntington and Mass Aves. I welcome infill structures.
Christian Science Center is a Monument. Monuments function according to rules that are the exact opposite of those for infill structures. Monuments should be free-standing, exhibitionistic, sculptural, precinctual, removed. Christian Science is all of those.

Therefore, for me, a few of Sert's buildings, already disavowed, should qualify as examples...
I like Sert too, but except for Holyoke Center his commissions don't have urban settings. Not his fault...

...the Hancock Tower as an example, which totally fails at the street and is as totemic as they come.
A fair assessment; Hancock too is a monument; that's its function in the city's context.

The Gropius buildings, northern end of Harvard ... What would you say about that grouping of structures? Too isolated and inward-facing to be considered urban, for this survey, I think. Pity it was somewhat of a blueprint for the kind of lame modernity that defines what is modern for the Boston/Cambridge environs during the 50s. It set a bad precedent, eh?
All true.

How did it go from those few, immediate, post-war 'ooooo, this could all become so cool looking' examples at MIT to that bland mess at Harvard?! :( (I know you have the answer.)
Gropius. Another hack. (Though I confess to a guilty infatuation with Harkness Commons as free-standing composition and form adrift in space. The recent renovation has ruined it as a leftist political statement by substituting conventional good taste for its former proletarian glitz.)

Sorry to take so long to respond.

[ablarc]

Holyoke Center would have been my 4th choice. I like the building; even more, I like how it's grown into its place as a focal point in the Square, a urbanistic role equal to the building's scale. The Mass Ave plaza is an active meeting-place and a great perch for people-watchers in warmer months; the Mt Auburn side is sunny and quieter -- book and coffee territory. Dunster Street has retail to engage the passerby, but (ironically) the Holyoke Street facade is a Chinese wall. This failing alone kept it off my list.
The price you pay for underground parking (thought to be a virtue).

With Kallmann McKinnell's little masterpiece, the scale elevates the building's stature. I also love the details that show the craft of the building's structure. The spirit of Kahn and Aalto are very strong here -- timeless and humane Modernism. Also consider the juxtaposition of the Winthrop Building across Washington Street; it's like a good piano recital, a little Bach, a little Shostakovitch.
Add Old South Meeting House, and Old City Hall, and you round out the recital with some Mozart and Brahms. Throw in the Globe Corner bookstore, and you have to send out for a virginal.

Pei's CSC is another masterpiece. Corbu's sculpturalism, Kahn's timelessness, Chandigarh or Dhaka in miniature. Only the most sensitive intervention on this site should be allowed.
Are they about to wreck it with redevelopment? Lincoln Center, a similar piece of modernist classicism is being butchered as we speak (by Diller and Scofidio, hacks who would be geniuses).

And Ben Thompson's concrete display case. It serves its purpose well as a retail store and an urban corner-anchor to one of Cambridge's most architecturally eclectic streets. It plays quietly and well with its neighbors. The mystery of the dark, compressed passageway to Mt Auburn Street, and the rewarding release of the small court yard you encounter, are hallmarks of smart design.
Ben used to own Harvest (quite good, very expensive), the restaurant on this passage; I believe it now belongs to the guy who developed New York's Time-Warner Center.

[Ron Newman]

there's no more Globe Corner Bookstore in downtown Boston. Hasn't been for several years. Now a junky jeweler ;-(

[ablarc]

The building's still there. Has been since the early 1700's.

Oh, and the building opposite it is no longer called the Five Cents Savings Bank. ;)

[czsz]

The building is officially known as the "Old Corner Bookstore", no matter the tenant on the ground floor. It held various bookstores for a little more than half its history (from 1835 to 2002), though it actually contained an apothecary when it was first built - in 1718.

[Ron Newman]

When I first encountered the building, it contained a small branch office of the Boston Globe. You could drop off classified ads or press releases there. The business that was called Old Corner Bookstore had moved a block over to Bromfield Street.

It later became the first Globe Corner Bookstore, selling travel books and maps. Globe Corner became a small local chain, but eventually closed this one and contracted back to a single store in Harvard Square. The Boston Globe Store replaced it, with similar merchandise, but that too closed. Ultra Diamonds is a very poor use of a space that has so much historic association with publishing and bookselling.

[ablarc]

It would make a great antiquarian bookstore, though it might be too easy to burglarize.

[czsz]

Judging from the antiquarian bookstore in the basement of the Old South Church (which puts its books up on the street) and from the Brattle (which fills an outdoor parking lot with them), these places aren't too worried about theft.

[ablarc]

The antiquarian bookstore I was thinking of sells priceless rarities and first editions.

[ablarc]

After 42 votes, Five Cents Savings Bank continues on this poll as Boston's best example of modern urbanism.

What can be concluded from that?

[Ron Newman]

It tells me that the right street-level use can redeem Brutalism. Would it have gotten so many votes if it were still a bank?

[ablarc]

^ Probably not.

Does that say that if you insert a bookstore you automatically have a winner?

[kennedy]

No, not only bookstores. Just stores that engage the customer AND the passerby.

[JohnAKeith]

Anyone by chance have photos of the Boston Five building when it was still a bank before it was Borders? A friend's looking.

[datadyne007]

Anyone by chance have photos of the Boston Five building when it was still a bank before it was Borders? A friend's looking.

Yes indeed! Kallmann McKinnell & Wood's website has a great one!!

http://www.kmwarch.com/portfolio_images/4-6608_i02z.jpg

http://www.kmwarch.com/project.aspx?cat=7&id=4

I've also been meaning to look up the article in Architectural Forum from 1973 about it.