PAUL RUDOLPH’S BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER: PAST, PRESENT—AND A POSSIBLE FUTURE
The cover of the recently issued OFFEREING MEMORANDUM: an extensive booklet which gives an overview of the Boston Government Service Center’s HURLEY BUILDING site as a development opportunity.
The BGSC — the BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER — is Paul Rudolph’s large, civic building in Boston—and one of the largest projects in his long and prolific career. The building—really, several buildings in one—is a composition of plazas, interiors, offices, public spaces, forms, textures, and seating, was designed to serve many functions. It contains facilities for education, health (including mental health), welfare, unemployment, parking, and other state government offices.
The HURLEY BUILDING is a large part of this complex. Paul Rudolph’s aerial view of the complex, as he originally envisioned it, is at the top of this article—and the oval encloses the Hurley Building section. At right is an aerial photo of the complex—and Hurley is the building at the lower center with the white roof.
The HURLEY BUILDING is under threat—and the following is an update on the developing situation.
THE PLAN UNFOLDS…
In 2019, Boston Globe reporter John Chesto reported:
“The [Massachusetts state government] administration. . . .unveiled plans to redevelop the state-owned Charles F. Hurley Building, at the edge of the old West End and Government Center, to open up a prime 3.25-acre site on the corner of Staniford and Cambridge streets. The deal could, at a minimum, fetch the state tens of millions of dollars.
“The state would issue a ground lease to a development partner that would oversee the design, planning, and construction of a new office complex, with the likelihood of new ground-floor retail and restaurant spaces as well. The administration said it expects to identify a redeveloper within the next 18 to 24 months after putting the project out to bid.’
STUDIES, MEETINGS, TESTIMONY—AND MAYBE MOVEMENT:
The threat to the building—a strong implication of the above announcement—got the full attention of the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation, as well as Boston/Massachusetts-area preservation organizations and a series of “stakeholder” meetings were held to learn about the project and get input. Studies were commissioned by the state (and made available for review), and further input/pushback was given. The opinions of state agencies were also part of the discourse.
At the end of this, we did learn of one positive development, from a report the state issued last February. It said that the state:
”. . . .intends to express a preference. . . .for redevelopment schemes that pursue adaptive reuse of the existing building – that is, schemes that retain some or all of the existing building. . . .”
It seemed that activism had moved the state to a more positive, adaptive reuse preference—one which we and others had been advocating. But we also pointed-out the elastic nature of the language used in the state’s report, with no clear and strong commitment to actually acting on the recommendations of those focused on the preservation of our cultural-historical heritage.
The OFFERING MEMORANDUM’s Executive Summary uses impressive photographs of the Hurley Building.
THE LATEST DEVELOPMENT
The state is moving ahead with the project. They’ve now issued an “OFFERING MEMORANDUM”—-a 60 page booklet on the development potential of the site. It’s an invitation to developers to engage in this “EXCEPTIONAL PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY” and “PREMIERE DEVELOPENT OPPORTUNITY”.
The booklet offers statistics and facts about the neighborhood & region (highlighting the nearby concentration of medically-oriented companies and institutions, showing local transportation facilities, sharing economic and demographic factors, identifying major employers in the area, showing plans and data for the existing building and site, and defining parameters & goals of the project—-and it uses some of the best photographs of the building we’ve seen in a long time.
The OFFERING MEMORANDUM is a model of how to make a project attractive, and it is worth studying for the way it piles-up evidence that this is a prime opportunity for a developer.
For Example: Below are two spreads from the booklet highlighting the site:
Key players at the creation of the Boston Government Service Center. In the foreground is a model of the complex, with the Hurley Building closest to the front of the picture (the model also includes the unbuilt office tower.) In the background are architectural drawings of the complex: an elevation and numerous floor plans. Among the people assembled for the photo are Edward Logue and Paul Rudolph (who is standing at far right.)
WHAT’S IN THERE—
The state’s goals are explicit:
'“[The state] is seeking to establish a long-term ground lease with a development partner. . . .for the redevelopment of the Hurley Building. It has identified three primary goals for the project:
• Cost-effectively address capital renewal needs of an outdated state asset
• Consolidate state office space into assets under long-term control
• Transform an imposing “super-block” into a pedestrian-friendly, 24/7 neighborhood asset
[The state} anticipates anchoring the project via a long-term lease or leasehold condominium interest for up to 350,000 gross square feet of space in the redeveloped property.”
There is also a section outlining what interested developers will be required to submit: requirements for qualifying to participate, and the features that each proposal must address.
The OFFEERING MEMORANDUM devotes a page to “Stakeholder Engagement”—which outlines both neighborhood considerations as well as preservation & design factors—and there’s another page on “Design Guidelines” (with sub-sections on Urban, Building, and Sustainable design).
And, elsewhere in the booklet, there’s information about the building's history, which identifies several of its key architectural characteristics. There’s language about “HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSIDERATIONS” including:
“The Massachusetts Historical Commission and other preservation advocates have been and will continue to be integral in the redevelopment of the Hurley Building. . . .
The BGSC is eligible for listing on the state and federal registers of historic places.
[The state] engaged Stantec Architecture to establish design guidelines for the Hurley Building redevelopment. These guidelines, which have been reviewed by the project’s various stakeholders, include design principles categorized into three sections:
• Urban Design — Encourage significant, creative, dynamic urban interventions that complement, celebrate and improve the Hurley Building, its site and the entire urban block
• Building Design — Seek a solution that leads the nation in addressing a common challenge of adapting and adding to assets in ways that respect the Hurley and Lindemann [the other art of the BGSC] Buildings’ unique architecture
• Sustainable Design — Anticipate that the project will be a showcase of sustainable redevelopment strategies for similar buildings of its era in the Commonwealth and the nation.”
The Design Guidelines page from the OFFERING MEMORANDUM for the Hurley Building.
The “DESIGN GUIDELINES” state:
“BUILDING DESIGN
Goal
Seek a solution that leads the nation in addressing a common challenge of adapting and adding to assets in ways that respect the Hurley and Lindemann Buildings’ unique architecture.
Design Principles
• Prioritize adaptive reuse/rehabilitation
• Develop an innovative and complementary new composition of massing at various scales
• Create a signature new renovation and addition(s) to complement the existing Hurley/Lindemann/Courthouse block”
Moreover, elsewhere in the document, there’s a further statement that potential developers’ proposals will be expected to show “Integration of design excellence and historic preservation considerations”.
The Boston Preservation Alliance is a major organization that “protects and improves the quality of Boston’s architectural heritage. Through advocacy and education, we bring people and organizations together to influence the future of Boston’s historic buildings, landscapes, and communities.”
A POSITIVE ASSURANCE
The Boston Preservation Alliance is an important player in seeking to preserve the BGSC building, and said of the complex:
“The Government Services Center is historically significant for its team of architects, especially Paul Rudolph, its design, materiality, and architectural statement. Still today, the concrete complex stands in sharp contrast to common curtain-wall construction and the standard glass and metal we see throughout the city. The Alliance feels that the original buildings play a critical role in the landscape of Boston, telling an important story about the evolution of American design. The buildings could embrace a new life if properly upgraded. . . [They] urge the redevelopment program for the Hurley Building to preserve as much of the building as possible. Creative, sensitive modifications to keep the site functional relevant to contemporary needs are attainable without wholesale demolition, and there is a great desire in the community to preserve the integrity of this complex. . . .”
And, according to their July 22nd entry of their activity log for the Hurley Building, they have also been assured by the state:
“. . . .[That] Alliance staff that we will continue to be a part of the process, and have expressed clearly and with appreciation that our efforts to date altered their perspective from an offering which directed interested parties to focus on complete demolition to one that acknowledges the historic and architectural significance and opportunities for a creative redevelopment and adaptation of the existing buildings. We have been told that proposals that propose full demolition will not be considered competitive or viable.”
This is good to hear—and we hope that what the state has assured will be fulfilled.
WHAT’S NOT IN THERE (THE LACK OF SPECIFICS)—
But, reading the OFFERING MEMORANDUM, we are still concerned—
What is NOT clearly stated, by the state, is vital/specific information about how the project will proceed - factors which have consequences for how much weight will be given to preservation and adaptive reuse:
How is the success and thoroughness of the developer’s proposals to be judged?
What is the process by which the review/judgement will be performed?
Who will do the judging?
What opportunities will there be—and at what junctures—for stakeholder input (including from preservation agencies and advocacy groups)?
Will there be opportunities for reviewing (and commenting on) proposals submitted during the process, including proposals initially submitted by developers —and— the proposals of the finalists —and— the proposal of the winner?
Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation is carefully watching this process—and will seek to participate in positive ways for attaining the maximum respect for this landmark work of architecture.
P.S. — THE LOGIC OF RUDOLPH’S PLANS
The OFFERING MEMORANDUM includes something not often seen in publications about the Boston Government Service Center: a full set of the floor plans of the affected structure (the HURLEY BULDING). We reproduce, from the report, those plans—-which include all levels from the Basement -to- the Sixth Floor.
Worth noting about these plans are:
The columns are laid-out in a logical grid, and spaced-out with sufficient distance to allow for flexible arrangements.
Exit stairs are well placed at the ends of the building, and at the mid-point.
Among the most expressive features of the exterior are the curved towers. They are used to enclose exit stairs, so their unusual shape does not impinge on the more conventionally-formed office spaces.
The elevator cluster is placed centrally, making users close to it from both sides of the building.
Bathrooms and other facilities are distributed within the grid, providing service to both sides of the building.
There’s a balance of straightforward rectilinear spaces —and— of “shaped” spaces (at the entry halls, the elevator cluster, a top-floor meeting room, and the end of one wing); the latter type giving the interior experience of the building a memorable character.
As the building rises, it steps-back on the courtyard side (which would be at the top-left of each plan)—gradually reducing its mass, and opening more of the courtyard to the sky and sun.
The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation believes the HURLEY is perfect for ADAPTIVE REUSE. The logical layout of the Hurley Building’s floor plans show that it is a prime candidate for such a planning approach.
ABOVE: Hurley Building BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
ABOVE: Hurley Building FIRST FLOOR PLAN
ABOVE: Hurley Building SECOND FLOOR PLAN
ABOVE: Hurley Building THIRD FLOOR PLAN
ABOVE: Hurley Building FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
ABOVE: Hurley Building FIFTH FLOOR PLAN
ABOVE: Hurley Building SIXTH FLOOR PLAN
IMAGE CREDITS
NOTES:
The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation gratefully thanks all the individuals and organizations whose images are used in this non-profit scholarly and educational project.
The credits are shown when known to us, and are to the best of our knowledge, but the origin and connected rights of many images (especially vintage photos and other vintage materials) are often difficult determine. In all cases the materials are used in-good faith, and in fair use, in our non-profit, scholarly, and educational efforts. If any use, credits, or rights need to be amended or changed, please let us know.
When/If Wikimedia Commons links are provided, they are linked to the information page for that particular image. Information about the rights for the use of each of those images, as well as technical information on the images, can be found on those individual pages.
CREDITS:
Axonometric view of the overall design of Boston Government Service Center: drawing by Paul Rudolph, © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation; Photograph of BGSC model, surrounded by key players in the development of the project (with Rudolph included at right: vintage news photo: all other images are from the “OFFERING MEMORANDUM”, created for this project of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with the offering being administered by Newmark.