For context, it may be useful to look at the overall plan of Boston’s Government Center area, which was laid out by I.M. Pei. There are several prominent buildings in the area, which were all built as part of the development of this center. The large rectangular building (near the center of this drawing) is the Boston City Hall (by Kalllmann, McKinnell & Knowles). The large, gently curving building to its left is Center Plaza (built as offices and ground-floor retail) designed by Welton Becket. Rudolph’s Government Service Center follows the perimeter of the triangular site at the map’s upper-left. About equidistant between the City Hall and the Government Service Canter are the two towers (shown as offset rectangles) of the John F. Kennedy Federal Building by Walter Gropius and The Architects Collaborative. Quincy Market, the celebrated food marketplace, is the long, horizontal, dark rectangle at the far right. It was designed by Alexander Parris and built in the early 19th Century.
Here’s a satellite view of the same area as shown in the drawing at the top of this post (and shown at approximately the same scale.) If you look at the drawing above, the entire site for Government Service Center was to be utilized for its building (plus the outdoor plazas, also designed by Rudolph)—and there was to be a tower in the center. In the photo above, one can see that the tower was not built, and the right-hand side of the site is now occupied by a wedge-shaped structure which was constructed later: it’s a municipal courthouse building, designed by another firm. Image courtesy of Google: Imagery ©2019 Google, Imagery
As we mentioned in our last update on this developing story, the State of Massachusetts’ Division of Capital Asset Management & Maintenance has issued a power point deck about the redevelopment proposal. In our last posting, we looked at their first slide: “Hurley Building at a Crossroads” (which was about the current condition and challenges of the building)—and offered our sincere questions and concerns.
Now it’s time to go a bit deeper into the deck, and consider the state’s further assertions and proposals. Let’s look at the next two:
REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
Following each of the slide’s points, we offer responses/questions:
Ground-lease entire Hurley Building site to redevelopment partner, who will lead planning, financing, and construction.
Shouldn’t there be a wider array of input from the beginning, to achieve good, public-spirited design? That would be lost if the development process is walled-off at its beginning—only soliciting public input later, (after the parameters seem to have been set). Without getting public input early it, it can lead to less-than-optimal results for the state and its citizens.
Redevelopment partner will build office space for both private use and state use.
It would be useful to know how the ratio determined?
State to control office space for its own use over long term.
It is important that the definition of “long term” be made explicit. If there’s a termination date to that agreement, then—at that end-date—how are disruptions to be avoided? Conversely: the state already owns the site—so, as long as they are their own tenant, there’s no need to worry about end-dates.
Partnership will be competitively procured through a request for proposals (RFP), request for qualifications (RFQ), or similar
It’s important to keep in mind that the overall proposal requires turning public space and buildings over to private use. Occasionally this can be done as a win-win situation, but it depends on many factors—and one of them is the quality and track-record of the development partner. So a key question is: Will the qualifications examine whether the developer has a real record of tangibly “giving back” (through the quality of what they build/plan)?
Similar to approach used to renovate Saltonstall building 20 years ago.
It would clarify things if we were told by what set of standards that success was judged—and how that was measured, and how far the project went to fulfill that.
Commonwealth will consider both qualitative and quantitative information from potential partners, in order to maximize value for the Commonwealth.
It would be useful to all parties if the above terms could be clarified—particularly the qualitative aspect.
This is the most cost-effective way to meet the state’s downtown office needs while improving the site for all users and the City of Boston generally.
Much is condensed into this one sentence. Implicit are assertions about: cost-effectiveness, state needs, the nature of the improvements, and who the users are. These would each need careful definition and review.
Lets consider the next slide:
EXPECTED BENEFITS
Following each of this slide’s points, we offer our responses/questions:
New, modern office space for state employees for same or less cost than comparable space elsewhere.
Renovation can usually yield modernization as comparable/less cost---if done efficiently. Moreover, renovation is almost always the greener alternative.
Long-term cost stability for both capital and operating budgets.
It would be good to know what this is this being compared to.
Improved public realm across 8-acre block. Increased site utilization and activation.
There’s abundant knowledge, from today’s public space designers, about making plazas and public spaces more alive and used—and many good case-studies of success. Don’t destroy what we have—but, instead, use that knowledge to make these unique spaces more alive to the public.
Economic benefits from large-scale development (jobs, tax revenue, etc.).
What’s often missing from balance-sheet are the costs of over-(“large scale”) development: especially overburdening the already under-pressure transit system and city services. Jobs will also be created through the modernization of the existing building.
NEXT STEPS
We’ll continue to respectfully review the state’s proposals—and raise questions when items need review an clarification.
If you have information or resources to contribute to preserving this important building by Paul Rudolph, please let us know at:
office@paulrudolphheritagefoundation.org
The overall design for the Boston Government Service Center. Although it is the work of a team of archiects, the design leader was Paul Rudolph-and it is truly his conception. This axonometric drawing shows his original full design for the complex—including public plazas in the center and at the three corners. In the middle was to be a tower with a “pinwheel”-shaped plan (in this drawing only the first few floors of it are shown.) © The Paul Rudolph estate, Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation.