BOSTON
PUBLIC
LIBRARY
BOSTON
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
Raymond L Flynn
Stephen Coyle
One Cil\ Hall Square Bostun. MA 112201 i617) 722-430U
/I .
|
GOVDOC |
|
•3«A |
|
l^^\ |
|
\/ |
PftOPERTVOFefiAllBRARy
July 6, 1989
^
'm
Dear Kingston/Bedford Reviewers:
Attached is the Draft Project Impact Report (DPIR) submission for One Lincoln Street. This document is required as part of the ArtTcle^31 process.
Comments are due by August 7, 1989 and should be submitted, to my attention. If you have any questions please call me at 722-4300 ext. 4226.
Sincerely,
/^^ ix^^/^/k^^
Pamela Wessling
T^
\y
W'
Boston Redevelopment Authority is an Equal Opportunity- Af/irmative Action Employer • Equal Housing i}pportunity
1=J
Pr«p»rty Ut BOSTON REte/aOPfAENT AUlHUKiU Ukary '
DRAFT PROJECT IMPACT REPORT JUNE 29, 1989 ONE LINCOLN STREET
A. General Information and Description of the Project
Pursuant to Article 31 of the Boston Zoning Code (the "Code"l, Kingston Bedford Joint Venture ( the "Developer " ) hereby submits to the Boston Redevelopment Author ity -( the "Authority") this Draft Project Impact Report. The Developer intends to develop a mixed-use facility ("One Lincol^; Street" ) on the Kingston-Bedford-Essex site in downtown Boston. The Developer is a Massachusetts general partnership, consisting of Metropolitan Structures, an Illinois general partnership, Columbia Plaza Associates, a Massachusetts general par tnershitp, and Metropolitan/ Columbia Plaza Venture, a Massachusetts general partnership, its successors and assigns. The Developer's address and telephone number, together with the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the attorneys representing the Developer and those of the consultants working with the Developer, are listed in the Application for Planned Development Area Designation Based on Approval of a PDA Development Plan/Development Impact Project Plan dated June 1-9, 1989 (the "Application"), previously submitted to and on file?>with the Authority and incorporated herein by reference. One Lincoln Street will be located within the parcel of land in Boston bounded by- Kingston Street, Bedford Street, Essex Street, the John F. Fitzgerald Expressway and'Lincoln Street (other than the port ion of rs-aid land occupi-jsd by 38 Kingston Street, 105 Bedford Street and tha^portion of Columbia Steeet adjacent to 105 Bedford Street ):i5[3--raor^'pacfe.icularly described in the Application ( the "Projiscfc Area");.
One Lincoln Street consists of 'the demolition T^f "'ehe :exia|:,ing parkiiiq 'parage 'id office building, and the. construction of a"" mixeci use development consisting of an- office buii.di.ng with both a tower corud a low-rise, element- ,<^ dt-sn£w-und«i;ground parking garag^ej and lov?r floor retail, sub ject "■■t2>^;aesign", environmental and other de^09\Lcrj!qent review by .the Author itgt^ in accordance with Article; 31 ofi nth -i Code and the Authotity^'-s Development Review Procedures dait^d, 198c' , revised 1986. Jdore specific information regarding the Developer and he design, ilses, d^tisity, open space and public benefits of One Lincoln Street is fcohtained in the Application.
e" /rbis submittal, togeth'fer- withy the Applicat ioneand the Draft Envirorynental Impact Report -dated' March , 1989, submitted April, 1985.e and pEepared by the Author ity' ( the "DEIR" ) , is intended to
satisfy the submission requirements for a draft impact project report pursuant to the Scoping Determination, Kingston-Bedford/ Essex Project, issued January 30, 1989 by the Authority in accordance with Article 31 of the Code, and attached hereto as Appendix 1 and incorporated herein.
B. Historic Impacts
The impact of One Lincoln Street on historic resources is described in the following documents: (1) Kingston/Bedford/Essex Street Development, Historic Resources, Environmental Impact As- sessment dated June, 1989 and prepared by Leslie Larson and Fannin/Lehner (the "Larson Report"), attached hereto as Appendix 2 and incorporated herein, and (2) the Report dated June 27, 1989 from Lang Associates to Metropolitan/Columbia Plaza Venture re: the Evaluation of Historic Resources and Impacts (the "Lang Report"), attached hereto as Appendix 3 and incorporated herein.
The Larson Report recommends that the low-rise element of One Lincoln Street's office tower should integrate the facade of the existing building located at 80-86 Kingston Street to preserve the historic fabric of the area. The Lang Report, however, finds that the design of One Lincoln Street integrates positively into the architectural character of the Essex Textile District without the need to preserve the facade of the 80-86 Kingston Street bui^Lding. One Lincoln Street's low-rise element, as noted in the Lang Report, relates well with nearby historic resources, and the placement of the setback tower element is most responsive to the visual impacts on historic resources in the area deriving from the tower's height, location, and scale. The Lang Report further finds that the proposed selection of exterior masonry materials enhances One Lincoln Street's overall compatibility with the character of the Essex Textile District.
C. Archaeology ~
.-» -^ 'TJhe..3%|;c!iaeological impacts of One Lincoln Street 'are to be ^r-set fo.if'th-^.fencthe Archaeological Reco:^na^s;sance Survey on th^ . v^ .Ki:ng&feprt/:^^d£Qrr.d Parcel currently being prepared by The P.ublic , - ,i^Echa0..®'lo^<5al Laboratory, Inc. (the "Archaeological-.. Survey" ) to
be submi4:";^?^-fco the Authority '" \ ; -/'.'!''"' ^:iif^ ' ' ■ fit>, >i.i>fasffing and Shadow
%>-•{. .'tjt3M5Sa?n?lp' analyses comparing various massing alternatives for % b«j$ ii^jscah'-'Street (the "Massing Comparisons") are contained in /^tpp©i\di X 9>^f..the Application previously submitted to the
"iv^
-2-
ns-:
sen •
13 3 .
|
r?39 . |
|
;j s:: . • |
|
aEB' |
|
. O) i |
|
.j.-i 9rt:t |
|
;t-?oo- ■-'^ |
|
i;jSO ;"■ |
|
-s:^e:' |
|
iye:t--.. |
Lsrioftj.
The shadow analysis dated June 2, 1989 and prepared by Jung/ Brannen Associates, Inc. (the "Shadow Study"), attached hereto as Appendix 4 and incorporated herein, concludes that One Lincoln Street will create relatively little additional shadow given the locations of existing buildings surrounding the Project Area.
The results of wind level tests of One Lincoln Street are contained in the Interim Report, Pedestrian Level Wind Study, Kingston-Bedford-Essex Street Development, Alternative 7, Boston, Massachusetts dated May 31, 1989 and prepared by Ronan Williams Davies & Irwin, Inc. (the "Wind Report"), attached hereto as Ap- pendix 5 and incorporated herein. The Wind Report concludes that the construction of One Lincoln Street will not cause effective gust wind speeds to exceed the Authority's 31 miles per hour criteria in any area that does not currently exceed such criteria.
E. Environmental Component
1 . Hazardous Waste
The results of a site investigation of One Lincoln Street are contained in the Report on Oil and Hazardous Material Site Evaluation, One Lincoln Street Development, Boston, Massachusetts dated April, 1989 and prepared by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (the "Site Report"), previously submitted and on file with the Authority and incorporated herein by reference. The Site Report recommends, among other recommendations, that additional subsurface explorations and chemical testing be conducted to determine the extent of petroleum contamination at the One Lincoln Street site and to evaluate the extent of site remedial measures. The Site Report further recommends that a formal application for a Waiver of Approvals be submitted to the DEQE in accordance with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan to allow remediation of the site on a non-priority basis with no DEQE approvals required.
2. Rodent Control
One Lincoln Street's proposed rodent control program is attached hereto as Appendix 6 and incorporated herein.
3. Revised Developer's Alternative
Analyses of the Revised Developer's Alternative for One Lincoln Street with respect to wind, shadow and massing, historic resources, open space, and traffic are attached hereto as follows :
-3-
n xi7
3 IS'
;^I3f.
.TO.
(a) Wind
The results of wind level tests for the Revised Developer's Alternative of One Lincoln Street are contained in the Wind Report, attached hereto as Appendix 5.
(b) Massing and Shadow
The results of massing and shadow analyses for the Revised Developer's Alternative of One Lincoln Street are set forth in the Massing Comparisons contained in Appendix 9 of the Application, and in the Shadow Study, attached hereto as Appendix
4,
(c) Historic Resources
An analysis of the Revised Developer's Alternative with respect to historic resources is contained in the Larson Report, attached hereto as Appendix 2, and the Lang Report, attached hereto as Appendix 3. The archaeological impacts of One Lincoln Street are to be set forth in the Archaeological Survey to be submitted to the Authority.
(d) Open Space
A description of the open space contained in the Revised Developer's Alternative of One Lincoln Street is attached hereto as Appendix 7 and incorporated herein.
(e) Traffic Analyses
A comparison of transportation elements of the Revised Developer's Alternative of One Lincoln Street with the DEIR is contained in the Report dated June 27, 1989 from Howard/ Stein-Hudson Associates to Metropolitan/Columbia Plaza Venture re: Consistency of DPIR with DEIR, attached hereto as Appendix 8 and incorporated herein.
-4-
(
c
v^
>
3
n
((
>
z
m X
<
o m 3) en
r
\*
tJUD I UN
RFDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Raymond L. Flynn kStephenCoyle
One Cit\ Hal] Squire Boston MA 02201 1617) :22-4300
January 30, 1989
Mr. Robert Green
Metropolitan/ Columbia Plaza Venture
200 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Dear Mr. Green:
Enclosed is the scoping determination for the Kingston Bedford/Essex development project for which you submitted a Project Notification Form pursuant to Article 31 of the Boston Zoning Code. The scoping determination recognizes the need to coordinate the Authority's review with the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act requirements, as is authorized under Section 13 of Article 31. Hence, the MEPA scoping for the project will serve as the Authority's scoping, along with several additions. The Environmental Impact Reports should include the alternative presented in your Project Notification Form, along with alternatives as scoped by MEPA. In addition, the Authority requires the submission of certain design and financial information to accompany the environmental impact reports. These requirements are specified in the attached scoping.
Additional information may be required during the course of project review. If you have any questions concerning the scoping determination, please contact Pamela Wessling at 722-4300 extension 4226.
Sincere
Boston Redevtlopmfmt Autkonty is an Equal Oppcrtumh/A^rmatirt Artion Employer • Equal Houstnf Opportumtty
(si
^
BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SCOPING DETERMINATION KINGSTON-BEDFORD/ESSEX PROJECT
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR DRAFT PROJECT IMPACT REPORT
PROPOSED PROJECT: Kingston-Bedford/Essex Project
PROJECT LOCATION: Kingston, Bedford, Essex, and
Lincoln Streets
DEVELOPER: Metropolitan/Columbia Plaza Venture
PNF SUBMISSION DATE: November 21, 1988
This scoping determination is issued pursuant to Section 31-5 of the Boston Zoning Code. The scoping determination requests information required by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) for its review of the proposed project. • In accordance with Section 13 of Article 31, the requirements incorporate those issued by the Commonwealth in accordance with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) .
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to be studied include those requested in the MEPA scoping (Alternatives 1-4), the alternative as proposed in the Project Notification Form, and a revised developer's alternative which accommodates the Essex Street widening but does not include 88 Kingston Street. Building heights refer to the height of the last occupiable floor. The alternatives are as follows:
MEPA Scoping
Alternative 1: No-build
Alternative 2: 900,000 gross square feet in two towers, 400
feet and 250 feet. Site includes Garage and
Lincoln/Essex lot. Alternative 3: 725,000 gross square feet in two towers, 325
feet and 200 feet. Site as in alternative 2. Alternative 4: 580,000 gross square feet in two towers, 250
feet and 150 feet. Site as in alternative 2. Alternative 5: 730,000 gross square feet in two towers, 240
feet and 200 feet. Site includes Garage,
^
Lincoln/Essex lot, Columbia Street, three private parcels at Kingston and Essex Streets.
Developer's Alternative
990,000 gross square feet in one tower, 465 feet. Site as in alternative 5.
Revised Developer's Alternative
As above but 1) excluding the site at 88 Kingston Street and 2) allowing for the widening of Essex Street to accommodate five travel lanes.
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
MEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Appendix A outlines the scope of information requested in accordance with MEPA. The scope includes comments and suggestions of public agencies, private interest groups, and the Chinatown community where a public hearing was held to discuss the scope. The BRA is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact- Report (DEIR) in response to that scoping as part of the BRA's responsibilities for the implementation of Parcel-to-Parcel Linkage Project I, a joint undertaking of the City and Commonwealth to promote economic development in neighborhoods and to create opportunities for minority groups to participate in real estate development. The DEIR will include alternatives as scoped by MEPA, along with the developer's alternative. Summarized below are the components to be studied. Some of the components addressed in response to the MEPA scope, including those which deal with transportation and infrastructure, are adequate to satisfy components required under Article 31, For some other components which come under the jurisdiction of Article 31, additional submission materials are requested. These include urban design, historic resources, and some environmental protection components, as outlined in this scoping determination.
I. Essex Street Widening
The Boston Transportation is interested in widening Essex Street as part of traffic planning for the Mid-town Cultural District, and the impacts of the project on the Essex Street widening are included in the DEIR.
II. Open Space
The impacts of the project on open space, including interior public space, are included in the DEIR.
c
r
III. Traffic Impacts
The traffic study encompasses key roadways and intersections in the area, with analyses coordinated with those for other projects proposed in the vicinity. The traffic section also examines the parking, pedestrian, and public transportation impacts.
IV. Air Quality
The air quality analysis is being coordinated with the traffic studies, and the impacts are being modeled in accordance with the requirements of the State' Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.
V. Historic Impacts
The DEIR includes a study of the historical impacts and an explanation of the applicable local, state, and federal review of historic issues. In addition, the developer is requested to provide some additional studies indicating the impacts on the Essex Textile District, as requested by the Boston Landmarks Commission staff. The design studies will be prepared as part of the design submission to the BRA, which is presented in addition to the MEPA report. The additional requirements are listed in subsequent sections of this scoping determination.
VI. Archaeology
The DEIR will include a preliminary discussion of archaeological impacts, with a more detailed report to be included in the Final Environmental Impact Report, as requested by the Boston Landmarks Commission.
VII. Sewerage
The DEIR will include an assessment of the impacts on the sewerage system.
VIII. utilities
The DEIR will include an assessment of the impacts on the utilities system.
IX. Construction Impacts
The DEIR will include an assessment of the construction impacts, including the impacts of additional projects in the vicinity.
r
(
i
X. Massing and Shadow
The DEIR will include massing, wind and shadow studies to determine the impacts on surrounding areas. in addition to the studies requested in the MEPA scope, the BRA requires design studies which explain the massing impacts, as outlined in the Urban Design section of the scoping determination.
XI. Housing/Growth Impacts
The DEIR will include an analysis of the socio-economic impacts of the project.
r
c
(
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Applicant Information
A. Development Team
1. Names
a. Developer (including description of development entity)
b. Attorney
c. Project consultants
2. Business address and telephone number for each
3. Designated contact for each
4. Description of current or formerly-owned developments in Boston
B. Legal Information
1. Legal judgments or actions pending concerning the Proposed Project
2. History of tax arrears on property owned in Boston by development team
3. Evidence of site control over the project area, including current ownership and purchase options of all parcels in the Proposed Project, all restrictive covenants and contractual restrictions affecting the Applicant's right or ability to accomplish the Proposed Project and the nature of the agreements for securing parcels not owned by the Applicant.
2 . Financial Information
A. Full disclosure of names and addresses of all financially involved participants and bank references
B. Development Pro Forma
C. Fifteen Year Operating Pro Forma
5
r
(
(
3. Project Area
A. Description of metes and bounds of project area
4. Public Benefits
A. Description of Development Impact Project Contribution and Jobs Contribution Grant specifying amount of housing linkage and jobs linkage contributions and method of housing linkage contribution (housing payment or housing creation)
B. Increase in tax revenues, specifying existing and estimated future annual property taxes
C. Description of other public benefits to be provided.
5. Employment
A. Anticipated employment levels including the following:
1. Estimated number of construction jobs
2. Estimated number of permanent jobs
6. Regulatory Controls and Permits
A. Existing zoning requirements, zoning computations, and any anticipated requests for zoning relief
B. Anticipated permits required from other local, state, and federal entities with a proposed application schedule
7 . Community Groups
A. Names and addresses of project area owners, displacees, abutters, and also any community groups which, in the opinion of the Applicant, may be substantially interested in or affected by the Proposed Project
B. Description of community review process
II. URBAN DESIGN COMPONENT
In order to determine that the Proposed Project is (a)
6
r
(
(
architecturally compatible with surrounding structures; (b) exhibits an architectural concept that enhances the urban design features of the subdistrict in which it is located;
(c) augments the quality of the pedestrian environment; and
(d) is consistent with the established design guidelines that exist for the area, the BRA requests design materials listed below. The project proponent submitted the information for the Developer's Alternative in January of 1989. In addition, the following items must be submitted for the Developer's Revised Alternative:
A. Written description of program elements and space allocation for each element
B. Plan for the surrounding area and district and sections at an appropriate scale (1" =50' or larger) showing relationships of the Proposed Project to the surrounding area's and district's:
o Massing
o Building height
o Scaling elements
o Public space/open space
o Major topographic features
o Pedestrian and vehicular circulation
o Land use
C. Black and white 8" x 10" photographs of the site and neighborhood
D. Sketches, diagrams, and photographs where relevant, to clarify design issues and massing options
E. Eye-level perspective(s) (reproducible line drawings) showing the proposal in the context of the surrounding area
F. Aerial views of the project
G. Site sections at 1" =20' or larger showing relationships to adjacent buildings and spaces
H. Site plan at an appropriate scale (1" = 20' or larger) showing:
o General relationships of proposed and
existing adjacent buildings and open space
o Open spaces defined by buildings on adjacent parcels and across streets
<
o General location of pedestrianways,
driveways, parking, service areas, streets,
and major landscape features o Pedestrian, handicapped, vehicular and
service access and flow through the parcel
and to adjacent areas o Survey information, such as existing
elevations, benchmarks, and utilities o Phasing possibilities o Construction limits
Proposed schedule for development of project
Massing model at 1" = 40' for use in the BRA ' s downtown base model and a study model of 1" = 16' showing facade design
Drawings at an appropriate scale (1" = 8' or larger) describing architectural massing, facade design and proposed materials including:
o Building and site improvement plans
o Elevations in the context of the surrounding
area o Sections showing organization of functions-
and spaces o Preliminary building plans showing ground
floor and typical upper floor(s)
III. HISTORIC RESOURCES COMPONENT
In addition to the historic analyses requested by the MEPA scoping, the developer should prepare an analysis of the impacts of the on the Essex Textile District, as requested by the Boston Landmarks Commission (Appendix B) .
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENT
1. Hazardous Waste
The presence of any contaminated soil or groundwater must be identified, and measures that will be employed to ensure their safe removal and disposal must be described. A copy of the Chapter 21E Site Investigation report must be submitted to the BRA.
2 . Rodent Control
An analysis of the impact of project construction on rodent populations, a proposed rodent control program, and
8
r
(
(
compliance with applicable City and State regulatory requirements pertaining to rodent control are required.
3. Revis.ed Developer's Alternative
The DEIR examines the impacts of a number of alternatives which, for traffic, air quality, sewerage, utilities, construction, and housing/growth components, will have similar impacts because of common characteristics, such as project size and construction methods. Impacts of the Revised Developer's Alternative will most likely vary from the impacts of some other alternatives with respec*: to wind, massing and shadow, historic resources, and open space. In' preparing an analysis of the Revised Developer •=; Alternative, the project proponent should examir.*^ how i c would affect wind, shadow and massina. historic resources - and open space. I- addition, the study should indicate how *-hc alfc<=!rnative compares with traffic analyses included in the DEIR.
APPENDICES
10
APPENDIX A
^'CHACL 9. DUKAKIS <3ovC)*NOll
-AMES S -O-^TS
CAT2 0? THE SECRITA-Y 07 LWIHOKMlNTAi Ar?A:?.S
ON THE
SNviRONMSNTAi. f*oT:?:cAr:ow FORi- - ^~ ■ -
PROJECT NAME
PsojiCT locat:om
EOEA NUMBER
PROJECT PROPONI NT
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR
: a«dford Klngston/Es««x D.v.lopa.nr
: 3o«ton : 6X32
: 3o«toa R«d«v«lopa«nt Authority : July 9, 1986
tn.t th« abov* sroj.et -wi^r.. rh- IT '°-'""- • n.r.oy d.t.r«in»
?roj«ct will b« -•tu—^.** M<,— ,T • aajor aowntown
Howiv.r. thi moAI^; of rJ! «:;/'' ^a« cominunlty .f-.ct.d."
that l« euitup»Ilv and hT-^^-T V? •listing uro»p. backdroo
::z.:Jt ft'
•OEA #6132 £NF C«rti*icai:« Auyust 3. 1986
to analyz* en* impacts of a d«v«Iop«d project plan in graarar datail. 3asaa on tna scoping sassion, tr.a following issuas snould oa covarad in tha £IH:. traffic, paricing, historical , arcnaaology, opan spaca, altarnativas , saw«raga, utilitias, wir.d, shadow, construction, air .quality, grpwtn, community/ housing «r.d tna auilt anv-ironnant . -
As an aslda, it should '09 notad that this offica raviaw«d a proposal thraa yaars ago, which mcludad tha raloeation of tna Pagoda Parle in tha araa of tha Kingston-Badford/Ssaax Straat sita. Whila tna status of this park was unclaar at tha tima of this scoping, it is tha opinion of this offica that tha proposad projact could hava significant impacts or. tnat paric, and tnay hava 'om*n idantifiad throughout tha scopa. Purthar, sinca tha park itsalf is in tha spirit of what tna City is trying to achiava in tarms of thair linkaga program, it is hopad that tha park raloeation can mova forward now at a paca that will mutually banafit both projacta.
S C 0 P 2
Tha SIR shall follow tha organization sat forth in tha mIPA ra^ulations. and ineluda a copy of this acopa. It should ba guidad oy public and agancy cocaants on tha £N? and it should raflact tha spacific concarns raisad in tha following cartif icata.
Altarnativas
Tha 3RA has idantifiad xhT»m pralisinary altarnativas that vary tha naight and massing for tha mixad usa davalopmant:
1. 250 foot naight and 450,000 squara faat,
2. 325 foot haight and 575,000 squara faat,
3. 400 foot haight and 700,000 squara faat.
A fourth altarnativa, which calls for mora sita covaraga but lowar halghts was suggaatad at tha scoping sassion. Wharaas such an altarnativa may ba mora in character with tha historic district and tha Chinatown neighborhood, it would ba useful to evaluate and compare this option with tha three alternatives identified by the City. In any case, tna environmental impact assessments of the alternatives snould be compared with the Ho 3uild alternative.
iOSA #6132 £N? C«rtiflc«t« Augxisr 3. :93S
Sv«n though rh« draft EIS will b« bas*d on conceptual plans, • report must o« rigorous m its analysis of ths impacts ralatlng to tns altarnativss. Ths rsport should bs claar in its asssssmsnts of tns dstriiaants and bansfits to tna anvironoant. "^thar aconomlc advantages and disadvantages snouid also oe noted.
^ *
Essex Street Widening
The option of widening Essex Street has been suggested as an alternative In the EN7 and elaewnere. It should be evaluated, wherever relevant within the text of the EIR.
Ooen Soaee
The ENF has stated that the project will provide public areas and open space in the form of public plazas, lobbies, arcades and streetscape improvements.
The EIR should assess the area's needs with respect to urban open space and demonstrate how alternative development design concepts can satisfy tnose needs. To approacn the open space Issue the report should consider what people are presently doing, day to day. In tne area to Infer how the new open space areas could be utilized.
The alternative and proposed open space and urban design concepts for the project snould be described and evaluated m terms of "openness" and the quality of the human experience available in those public areas. The report should clearly show that the design will be Inviting to the public and par- .rularly the neighboring areas. There should also be an explanation of the range of potential public activities and the freedom with which tne public can cnoose among those activities.
The approach leading to the public areas and the access points will b« key factors in linking the community to the public areas. Thsrefore, urban access design and its relationship to offslte public areas, such as the relocated ?agoda ?ark should also be thoughtfully investigated in the SIR.
« Traffic Impacts
The traffic study area should encompass the key roadways and intersections within the Kneeland Street, Washington Street, Summer Street and Central Artery Corridor. Dally traffic counts.
lOIA Jtaia: £NF C«rtiiiC«t« Aug-^st S, 1355
TSKcn for a miniaxia of four cor.a«cutiv« days and turning aovem«nT counts snouid b« mads for roadways and mtsrssctions wirnin tr.s study arsa, including bur not limitsd to ths following mtsrssctions wnicn wsrs idsntifisd in t^.s Boston Traffic and ParKlng coounsnc:
o Bedford/Kingston
o Bsdford/Coluabia
o Bsdford/Lincoln
o Bsdford/Chauncy
o £ss«x/Harrison
o Zsssx/Klngston
o Surfacs Artsry/Ssssx/Lincoln
o Summer/ Lincoln/ Bedford
o Summsr/High
o Harrlson/Bsach.
Growth trands and satlmatss of fucura arsa growth shouJLd bs prssantsd in tha £IR. Project specific grotrch In the area should be identified and factored into the future growth, including the following: Lafayette Place II, 99 and 123 Summer Street, 101 Arch Street, and the Dewey Square Transportation System Management Plan.
The potential traffic generation from the mixed use development alternatives should be calculatad for daily, weekday AM and ?M peaks and Saturday afternoon traffic. The directional split of traffic to and from tne sits should be sxplained and diagrammed.
The intersections and roadways should be assessed in terms of traffic levels of service and volume capacity ratios for no build and ail other build alternatives. This analysis should also include the proposed pariclng garage driveway(s).
The potential effects of proposed roadway improvement projects within the area should oe explained and considered in tne traffic lmp«ct analysis. Those roadway projects include: the potential widening of Essex Street, a possible westbound artery to Tremont Street using the Essex Street Corridor, tne Central Artary depression and the Third, Harbor Tunnel.
Intersection problems and significant increases in local strset traffic attributable to the Kingaton-Bedford/Essex Street project snouid be identified in tne report.
IQZA »6132 SNT Carti^icat* AuyiiSt 3, 1936
rr.« rrmfJic .iiitigaclon section of th« rtport should consider aass Transit options as w«li as opsration and assign asasurss to reducs traffic lapacts. This section should svaiuats existing suoway, coiaautsr rail and ous ssrvics to tns arsa. Th* capacity of ths public transportation systsa should b« ssclaatsd. Sacicgrouna rrowtn and ths projsct gsnsratsd ridsrsnip should os dstsrminsd for ths rang* of altsrnativss. Ths £IR should analyze wnsthsr tnsrs will o* adscuats capacity in ths transit system to nandls ths ridsrshlp increases prsdlctsd.
Par'King
Ths proposed developasnt will dlsplaes avallabls public pariclng. It is not clear how tns snort tera loss of parKlng during construction will b« absoroed, nor is it clsar ths ths pariclng providsd by ths project will ultlaatsly rsplacs ths sxlstlng puollc pariclng. In addition to aaetlng th« pariclng dsaands created by the project Itself.
Ths SIR should sxplore the pariclng Issue fully. Existing pariclng on site should b« quantlflsd. the shortfall during construction should b« sxplalned, and th« displacsd ussrs should gsnsrally be identified. Pariclng alternatives during the mteria period should be discussed.
The public and private parking deaand created by the project should be estiaatsd. Will the proposed garage have the capacity available to aceoaaodate the existing public pariclng deaand in addition to t.ie project generated deasnd? If not, the report should evaluate off^slte parxlng availability and aanagement stratsglss to sase deaand.
Air Quality
Ths Stars lapleasntatlon Plan (SI?) recognizes the Essex Strset arss as a Carbon Monoxide Hotspot, having dstsctsd vlolatloaa of ths Katlo'nal Aablsnt Air Quality Standards for CO. Therefor*. It Is essential that tne proposed dsvelopaent contrlbuts to ths laproveasnt of ths air quality and not to its deterioration.
The air quality analysis should co'incids with ths traffic analysis, in teras of analysis years and dsvelopaent alternatives. Ths analysis should ineluds all Intsrssctlons and roadways in the project affected area where the level of service has dstsriorated to D and the project causss a 10 percent traffic increase or
EOEA *6132 S.V? C«rrificatt Auguar S, :3S5
wh«r« th« final lOS £/? and rha projacr conrributas zo zh9 raduction m lOS. It anou-d axaair.a, Out not sa iimitad to tna
following:
o parking garaga
o Esaax/Klngston
o Zaaax/Columbla
o Sumnar/Lj.ncoln/3adford
o Maahlngton/Eaaax
o £aaax/Harrlaon Ava. £xt . /Chauncy
o Saaax/Surfaca Artary
o Hlgh/Svucaar
o 0 t Is /Kings ton/ Summar.
7ha air quality disparsion aodals to ba uaad ara Mobila-3 and CaIina-3. Tha DEQE must ba consultad to dataraina ths applicabla sodal paraaatars and to idantify sansitiva racaptors. Tha analysis should ba baaad on worst caaa traffic conditions and ahould prasant 1-hour and a-hour CO concantration lavals. ~
Glvan that CO axcaadancaa of atata and fadaral standards ara axpactad, tha £IR snould prasant a complata sitigation program and ahoM tha af factivanass of that program :,n raducing air
impacts .
Historic Impacts
7ha draft and final £I!l will b» axpaetad to praaant quita diffarant lavala of analysis with raspact to tha potantial af facts of tha projaet on tha araa's historic propartiaa.
Tha 0£IR should axplain tha applicabla Stata and Fadaral raviaw, tha dasign guldalinas for this sita which wara astablishad in conjunction with a program for radavalopmant of tha Coaaarelal Palaea District, and any othar applicaola historic policias or plans for this araa.
Th« draft should avaluata tha massing and haight altamaclvas propoaad to show how tha naw davalopmant options could ba compatibla with and rainforca tha charactar of tha historic district, particularly tha Proctor Building, tha Sacford Building and tha Church Graan Building. It should also bm dasonstratad tnat building- massing and scala can prasarva tha intagrity of significant public spacas, sucn as tha Church Grean araa and ralocatad Pagoda ParK.
£0£A #6132 iNF C«rti*:c«t« Auyust 3. 1986
rh« final SIR snouid oulid on tn« historic a««««sm«nt in rh« draft. r9fin:.n7 tna analysis as ouiiding nassss and cas:.7n eiemsnts crystaiiisa. It should ba danonatratad that tna sita dev«iopmant can raspact tna urban dasign cnaractaristics and traditional archltactura of tha historic district in its usa of .Tiatarials, seals and ouiiding dasign. If tha davalopiaant is m contrast with tha historic surrotindings , conaidaration snouid be givan to tna af facts on tna district. Tha raport should also prasant a thoughtful discussion of tha traatmant of tha parimater "adgas" of tha sita in relation to tna historic district.
Archaaoloqv
Tha Masaachusatts Historical Comalssion conaant has raquastad tnat an archaeological reconnaissanca survey ba conducted and reported on in tha SIR. Such a study is warranted baaed upon tha sita location which was part of tha colonial waterfront, Icnown as tha Shawmut ?anlnaula.
Tha MHC haa racosuBended that. "Tha raconnaiaanea should include a bacicground study of tha historic davalopmant of tha parcels and an assasafflant of subaurfaea conditions, in order to determine whather significant archaeological properties will be affected by tha proposal." Tha MHC should oa consulted for assistance with deteralng tha parameters of tha archaeological survey. Further, in the event significant resources are identified, tha SIR should explain tha propoaed altigation strategy.
Sawaraga
Tha SIR should deaeriba tha existing sewerage system between the project site and tha waatewatar treatment plant. Identify and explain any capacity shortfalls within that system for average dally and peak aawaraga flowa. Any CSO overflow problems should b« dlacuaaad and. tha frequency of these eventa explained.
Avarmga and peak increaaas in bacicground sewerage flowa should b« aatlaatad. baaed on known projecta propoaed for development during tha same timeframe as tha Klngston- 3adford/£ssax project and within tha saaa infrastructure service area.
Tha EIR should estimate the average dally and peak sewerage flowa generated by the project. Furtner, the report should analyze the adequacy of tha system to handle tha increaaa
lOEA #6132 iNF C^rtificatt August 3, :93S
bacieground sew«rmg« flows plu« th« flows from th« Klngston- 3«df ord/ £ss«x oroj«ct.
As dssmsd nscsssary, ths rsport snould idsntify remedial :nsasur«s to iaprovs tns sswsrags systsoi. Th:.* rsport snouid os clssr ss to whsthsr ths City or ths dsvsiopsr would bs rssponsibls for icpxsmsnta,ng thoss improvsmsnts and whsn tr.oss asasurss would bs complstsd in rsistion to ths projsct build out.
Utility Impacts
This ssction of ths rsport should considsr ths adsquacy of ths sxlsting watsr supply and powsr supply to ossc tns nsscs of ths propossd dsvslopmsnr and othsr projscts within ths arsa that will on lins at about ths saras tiras as ths Kingston-Bsdford/Zsssx projsct. Any dslivsry systsa problsms or inadsquaciss should bs discusssd with a eisar stratsgy for rsmsdial action.
Construction Impacts
A dsBolition and projsct construction schsduls should bs prsssntsd for ths major projsct componsnts. Dsmolition and construction msthods that will contributs to noiss and dust impacts in ths arsa should bs discusssd and mitigation msasures recommsndsd to comply with DEQE rsgulations 310 CMR 7.09 and 7.1.:. Any asosstos rsmoval should bs inaccordancs with 310 CM? 7.15.
Equipmsnt, matsrial and construction worksr routing through ths arsa to ths projsct sits should os mappsc out. Explain tr.s on and off sits storags of squipmsnt and matsrlals staging areas, and vshicls parking. It should bs dsmonstratsd that ths transportation routing plan and ths on and off sits staging and parking will minimally disrupt ths arsa's daily activities.
Th« tin should idsntify othsr projscts in ths arsa that will bs in coostruetion at ths sams tims as ths Kingston Bsdford/ Essex projsct. Tbs coabinsd impacts of ovsr lapping construction should bs assssssd. and rscomasndations mads to manimizs tns disruptions during ths dsvslopmsnt phass.
Massing and Shadow Impacts
Graphic rsprsssntations of ths massing options and resulting shadow sffscts of ths propossd projsct and altsrnativss snould be prsssntsd. Ths shadow sffscts on icsy ssnsitivs rscsptors in ths
a
£0£A »6:32 i.VF C^rri'icatt August a. 1386
area, e.g. open-space areas, relocated Pagoda Paric. the historic district and areas heavily used oy pedestrians snouxd o« analyzed during tne .-norning, midday and afternoon hours over a discrete range of season variations.
Wind lapacts
The draft SIH should include a qualitative wind analysis to determine the potential effects of the proposed developments on the ground wind environment in and around the project site. This preliminary analysis should consider tne three project alternatives identified by the 3RA,no build and an optional less dense, lower height alternative.
The final SIR will be expected to present more detailed quantitative wind tunnel testing and ainalysis when building designs and plans for open space areas becoae available.
In toto, the wind studies in both reports should take into account existing wind condition*, possible induced wind effects, probable impacts on ground wind velocities from mid and hignrise building masses with consideration given to building locations and form, and design measures to mitigate for increased wind velocities, particularly around open space areas such as Pagoda Park and building entryways.
Housing/ Growth Impacts
Of apparent concern to the Chinese comaunltv are the inevitable impacts of tnis mixed-use development on the housing marxet in Chinatown, one of Boston's oldest neighborhoods accordingly to the SNT. This section of the SIR should carefully evaluate the range of potential effects on the area's housing created by this project, taking into account the potential for induced deaand on housing generated by the development which will drive up rents and property values.
The socio-economic study should define the neighborhoods most likely to be affected, based on proximity to the project. The housing stock within the defined area should be quantified and described. Historical and current trends with regard to the area's housing demand should be discussed. Also, changes in property values on several streets within the impact area should be analyzed over the past 10 years. The coincidental changes in
iOiA »6:32 £N7 CtrtiJicar* August s. :336
demographics, eaploymsnt growth »nd •mploymsnt data should oc coepar«d witr. tns City oJ 3c- -op., as a wr.ois, ovsr tas sacs ttn ysar psrioa.
Ths SIS should consider tns factors afftctmg cnar.gss m housing dsmand ar.d property vaiuss. Furtr.sr, tr.s report sr.ould orsdlct ths significance of tne Kingston-3edford ana £ssex street projects as a factor contributing to ths cn^nges in housing demand. The likely impacts on nousing demand, rents and property values should oe estimated in tne SI!l. Innovative programs and mitigation measures to moderate those effects should be specifically identified witn a proposal for implementation that will respond in anticipation of tne increased nousing demand.
Miscellaneous
According to the Massachusetts Aeronautics Comfflission the project site is within the flight path of helicopters. Consideration should be given to the potential conflicts of use of the air rights over this site. The £IX should recomaend a reasonable approach and solution to tne potential conflict.
Distribution
To ensure the maxlaua participation of the Chinese community m the review of the Invironaental Impact Report, it is highly recommended that a suoaary document be prepared in Chinese and circulated witn clear ir^tructions for its timely review and comment.
Since the BRA Is fostering a high level of public participation in the £IR review process, it is expected that an adequate nuaoer of copies of the EIR, and executive sximmary, translated Into Chinese will be made available to the public. Copies should bs sent to agencies which have submitted comments on the SHT, la addition to tne required M2?A distribution list. Copies of ths report should also be sent to the Physical Plant at Tufts University (ATTN.: Lawrence 3all) and the New £ngland Msdlcal Center Hospitals (ATTN.: Jerome H. Grossman. M.O.).
August 8, 1986
DATS rsH/N3/bk
10
S. flUSSSLL SYLVA
Comm,5,.on.r ^^ J^^^^ j^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^
■■tZMCRANDL'M
ro:
ATTN 0k7Z
pr:rc\\f\=i}
ixtcutl7« orric* or invlronm«ntal Arrairs U — ^' >- ' ' :iancy 3ak«r, MS?A Onit JUtS * '^''^ Mlciaa«l 3cii«rtr, 'division or Air Quality Cont^^l^- ;-,;£ c:.;-.rr''" -" July 21, 1933 ^
jUaJiCT: iOSA :io. 5132 - Kingston - 3«dropd/2aaax
3t. Dav«lopm*nt, 3oston; Raviav or Invironffl«ntal rJotirisation ?ora iZHT)
Ths D«parta«nt or Snvironaantal Quality Enginaaring (DEQZ) Has racaivad and raviavad t.la ZN7 ror tha abova rararancad projact suboittad by tha Boston Radavalopoant Authority. Tha projaot davalopaant vlll consist or ona or tAraa oiassing options or a not yet spaciriad oix or orrica, ratail, hotal and rasidantial davalopinant. Tha davalopmant vill ba containad in aithar ona or two buildings v/itn a coobinad total gross rootaga not to axcaad 900,000 s.Z, 3asad upon a raviav by starr rroa tna Division or Air Quality Control, OSQZ orrers tha rolloving conuaants:
1. Tha projact is catagorically included undar 301 CMR 10.32 ror several categories including trarric, thereby requiring the preparation or an environfflental iapact report (IIR).
Due to the sensitivity or the project area, the aagnitude of tne project itseir, and ror the aroreoentioned reasons, D£QZ racofifflands that tna £IR include an air quality analysis. The proponent should consult with DEQZ in order to identiry actual receptors as vail as inputs to be used in tha Mobile-3 and Caline-3 aodels.
2. DEQ2 recognizes the City or Boston's policy in requiring a detailed project Access Plan. In addition, the proponent aust include in the SIR, a trarric analysis incorporating all necessary roadway and intersection iaproveoents.
Z. :Zonz.)
All ?r3j«ct-arr«ct«i rcadvays and Int^rsactians itgradtd :c
a •«v«l-or-3«rvtc«(L03) 3 Inclaaivt, or rfors« ,-nust 3« addrtssad. Of particular soncarn art tfta accass/agresa points or tht proposad parking Tacility and tna rollo-/:.-.^ intarsactions :
0 i3sex/:<ingston
0 rssax/Oolaabia
0 juamar/Lincoln/Sadf ord
0 lisnLngzan/Zsa^x.
0 iSsax/Harrlson Ava. Zxt./Chauncy -(Pnlllips Squara)
o Issax/SurTaca Artary
0 Hign/3aaaar
0 3wis/;<ingston/3aaiiaar
Zsa*x jtraat is raputad for axeaptlonally poor L03 and is officially racognizad in tna 3tata laplamantation Plan (31?) as a Carbon .'lonoxida Hotspot. This daaignation was .lada tiiroagn pravious DS52 approvad monitoring and .nodaling of t.la araa viiicii datactad violationfof tha llational AiSbian? Air Quality Standards for Carbon ;tonoxida ( tvo axcaadancas in ona yaar aqual ona violation). For tAis raason DZ^2 is aspacially cautious about futura Sasax St. davalopoant and strongly racoauaanda substantially affactlva aitigating .-naasuras. Tha racoounandad Traffic Analysis naads to contain a datailad dascription of tha proposad £ssax 3t. Vidaning.
3. 32QE axpacta tha proponant to includa in the Accass Plan; Reasonabla Availabla Control Maasurss (RACM's) sucn as car- pooling, vanpooling, public transit-usa incantivas and flaxibla wor^ schadulas to raduca pealc hour daaands. RACM'3 sucn as tnasa ara an intagral part* of trta SI? and ara dasignad to raduca Ozena and Carbon Monoxida.
i.
Cha proponant should suggast aaasuras to allaviata dust and noisa nuisanca conditions v/hicA oay occur during and aftar construction. Such aaasuras aust coaply vith OcQ£ regulations 310 ZliR 7.09 and 7.10. This is particularly important dua to tha fact t.nat tna proponant intands to damolisn axiating structures. Also, in accordanca witn JTO ZliR 7.15» tha DZ3£ [Jortnaast Offica in Woburn aust ba notifiad tvanty. days in writing, prior to initiation of any on-sita asbastos raaoval operation.
Tha proponant aust submit foraal plans to tna Oapartaant f:: approval for any fossil fual burning faciliry wit.n a capacity graatar than 3 mn 3TU or any incinerator proposed for this development subject to DE5S regulation 310 CMR 7.02. Such approval aust be granted prior to t.he construction of tne faciliry.
- 3 -
ir /oa .a»v« ^ny question regarding t.iia lafaorandua, p Jerom* 3r»rt oT tn« Division oZ Air Quality Tontral a
.aas« -on^a: : 292-5":3.
r3/sn
sc: Miict :iart«r, DSgS :iortJi«ast R«gion Donald Squirts, DAQC Ricnard Mar tana, BRA
.% BOVTO.VIA /,
l«30
JUL22 B& Usi
Boston
Landmarks
Commission
C 1 1 \' If Bnxuin The EnvifDnmene- Department
" - H.. .^ - • •
Jul/ :7, :9a6
I'.r. Sccpbta Coyl*
Soseon ^d«v«Lopa«ac Auehorlcy
3ai£o«'Cl.C7 ^11.
3oscoa, nx 02201
at::!: Ricarlo >till«:r
3««r !^. CoyU:
Th^nk 70U for eh* riquaac co csoaaae oa zf •^fr !or :.-.t :<iafseeu'-&«dford £sfl«z Sc. dav«lopa«ae proj«cs 4ad th* Hrctl 13 csaplcx la Roxbury. Ih« projtec se«l4 4r« lAudlcocy. Iht ILZ acj coacaca :l« poetaelal iapaeea oa hiscor.c
09'
scaij
rtsourets.
^a<«coa-3«diard Zsfx ??oj«et
A.
Th» £2(7 aa«d4 aiaoc ccchalCAl oorrtcsioaj ia Saesioa HI. 3.1. TbM 3«dford Suildia« Is lljctd iadlviduaUy la cl« MacIouI Rtfljcar lad MAJS«cau4«ccj Rifijctc, 4ad zhm •aeic* CaaaArsial PalAc* Oiserlee hAs b««a dtcsraiaad tlijlbL* for lijcla< la :nt ^'4CioaAl EL«tisc«r. Zh* Proceor lad Churca Cc««a Bulldlais Art d«flifaAC*d 4s Soscoa LianiMrka. Oa ziM och«r slda of Im%x Sertte li*a c^ £js«x Ttzclla Olsertcc uaica has b*«a Idaaeifltd a« =«rlsla< S& liiclat. ^ad cat Laac^r Dljcrlc? llta co :nt soue^'^aje of cha propoaad projacc Is llscad. I^a 12^ doas aoc dlscuaa caasa Laecar alaaaaea.
rha 2(7 ia J. I « 2 Aaac^adca praiaacs coasradlczory izd. obfuacacory seacaaaaea. A ssraigacforward prtsaasacioa la •xpaeead hara. Tha curraae dovncova pLaaalag doc-uatacs •aeount** *■ ^^th. rlaa zoaa aloaf c:iia corridor. Suildlsg halfhu la cisa aaxiaus 220 ftae co 400 faae raaga canaoc :uv« 'aaaaias [civae] vill raflacs c^ proporcioaa aaa diaaaaioaa of haa surreuadiac araa, parclcuiariy ::iaa« la Cilaacova. ' ^'oay of c^a Giiatcowa scruceuraa ara la cha 3 co 6 scory cacagory and vill ba b« dvarfad by cha projacc. 3y aay daflaicioa c.'-.t quaaeloa la III J. 2. suae oa aaavarad -/ta, aa cr.art la lacoapaelbllicy of slza, payalcal proportioa, aad acala.
ZhM lapace of chia projacc oa hiacorlc raaourcaa aay bt aicigaead by cixa gaaaral dovavard ravialoa of halgbc liaica la c^ raac of cha dovaeowa. a full £3 viii trpLora chia. TMa i:(T aaaadad la c!:aaa araaa praaaac faccual sacartal, loc vagua, urbaa daalga jargoa.
'3r:tL .3
~-.t pra.tct .s s:i:td ac;uri:«:/ :u: zst ::23.«:«L/ .z S«c:.:i
::: 3. :. T^.* ?.ox3ury ?Tij«rv4:::3 jarvty zi .:-30 .:es:-.;.i- :n« Kugg.as 5c. 3apc'.sc Churcr., .i9 vjg2i«s S:. isa ->.i:::«r i:.
-:«»i:ii Ctacir 4J atriclag :.ir:r.tr scud/ far ;:sj«r'a:;:-
4c:loa. The scudy will ':• r8«v»iuac*d '.z :.-.• fill zz nis.z^
rtcoaatccACisaa.
I2 Stccioa J. I. i 2, :.'• ispAccs 4S pr3j«c:td «rt s:i:«c
faccoaiiy vichouc obfuJC*ctoa. la J. 3., :."• sctaic /'.sra :3vard« Roxoury Hlgofort oc ioxbursr Sc*ad7t?« (M.il.) :$ a-t ld«actil«d. Thl* vtc:3r'.*a •'t.ttt ?tp« sai 4 proalaaac sUct :a :n« iaxbury s<yLia«. ^'.•Asurifl saouid 3« d«ctcalatd '.a izt full III :o ?rij«rv« i.:i ataguUrtty oa :iu skyllaa lad c.^i* vtjcij :oward< ie iron a&jor &ad sort ?«d««crt4a caorau(ai«;ti.
Arehnology
3och projtcts idaacify cha aatd far irehAto log leal sur/«y. T^.i full lis,' 9 iar socti prajtees saould Ldaacify eiu txctac o:
survey proj«e:ad.
Slactrtly,
Juditti B. McDoaougix Izaeuclvt 01 races r
Boacoa Laadaarka Coaalasloa lavlroaaaae Oapaceaaae
ce: L. M. Oowaay
7. Talaaga. >lflC
doe.
iv —
i» -
lUistoii
Raymond L Flynn, Mayor .—er^r- c'
July 22. 1986 t:;^V.:C" — '-
scccttary Jaffloa S. Hoyca Sxacutiva offiea of Eaviconaoncal Affaica Accn: MZPA Uaic -ijDOCaji&tldga St. -■flOtftoAT MA 02202
Daar Saeratary Hoyta:
Tha Oapactaanc of Tcanapoccacion ia la cacaipc of tba Envlconaaatal Nocifieacion Poca for t&a Xia9atoa-Badf ocd/Sssaz St. Davalopaant pcopoaad by taa Boaton Badavalopaant Authority Our coaearna ara suaaacizad h»s%. Tha followiag itaaa should ba addraaaad in tna Dcafc Envicoaaantal lapaet Rapoct (DCIR).
T&a pcojaec will gaaacata traffic which will affaet aany
intarsaetiona in tha iaaadiata araa. At a ainiaua, wa would lika to saa thaaa intacaactiona analyzad in taraa of aziating and futuza turning aovaaant voluaaa and lavala of aarvica:
Badf ord/Kiogtton
Badf ord/Coluabia
Badf ord/Lineoln
Badf ord/Chauney
Saaax/Harrison
Esaaz/Kingaton
Surfaca Artary/Caaaz/Lineoln
Suaaar/Lincoln/Badf ord
Suaaar/High
Harriaon/Baach
Thara ara a nuahar of aajor planning and davalopaant Initiativaa undarway in tha araa which tha davalopars should taka into account in praparing tha DEXR. Thaaa includa tha Oaway Squara Ttanaportation syataa Managaaant Plan, tha propoaad davalopaant of Lafayatta Placa II and ralatad avalaatioa of daaign altarnativaa for tha craation of a wastb««ad artarial to Traaont St. uaing tha Essaz St. corridor. tha vidaalng of Eaaaz St.. tha 125 Suaaar St. davalopaant. and tha Caacrai Artary/Third Harbor Tunnal projact. Boston Transportation Oapartaant staff ara availabla for consultatioa in salacting scanarios of potantial* background davalopaant.
Richard A. Olmino. Commlaaionar, IVaffle and Parking City of Boaton/Oty Hall Squara/Boaton, MA 022O1
ParXin? will also bt an issue. Th« proposed dav«Iopa«nc csplacci a 750-car gacag* and a 78-car parking lot. Tlit SNF, ;; stacin9. tnat "public pacKin? for an ascifflatad 600-aso cars would b« provided on cne sitas." is unclaar as to now cofflpati::' damand for parking by usars of tAa naw buildings and by cna users of existing public parking would be reconciled. This question must be clearly addressed in the OEIR.
In addition to exaaining tne capacity of the street systea and parking supply, we would like to see a careful and realistic
analysis of tne capacity of the public transportation systea t: handle the added patronage wnicb this project would generate. Sucb aa analysis sbould begin by snowing tne relation of capacity to volume on the systea (specifically, the Red Line. Green Line. Orange Line and bus services) under present conditions.
Thank you for the opportunity to eomaenc on this project, we look forward to reviewing the DEIR when it is ready.
"*- ^ -"^<» i-ianning Council
ILMAPC
Sfz-v/ng /O/ C'f'*> & To
wnj ,n Vferrooor.fjn 8osmn
rr-
•-•• • •• /•'
July 24, 1986-
The Honorable James S. Hoyte. Secretary Mtpfunu °''''' '' cnvirJnmenwl75?aTr, 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202
P^ject Identlffgatinn
ProjKt Propon.„t: Boston RM«.,op„,.„t Authority Loe«t1on: Boston Owr Stcrttary Ho/tt:
above and offer, the foHowJng c^J^JL?'* ^"^^'^™*"t*l Notification F^onS lde„tif s^^ulir Ji;:?^:^^"^- ^«- -^•^-t.; no Envlror^ental I^act Report
^^p'acl «.-'r?Tio"u*?^°;."^^t -^«,,^,-^^ "ot an Environmental
on ) probable tnv1rorw»7SMTOac?j ^T , .-17?^'°" ''"''^^ ^* 0^^^^«^ and/or ( ) ^.sures proposed toZuV.iti UlT.'V^Vczl' '^'"•' *=-°"'
c0EA#: 5132 f^APCl: ENF.86.163
1. 2.
3. 4.
X X
'4,urr:,"™"""' '"•'« '"- ( ) "CUM .. .,,„,..,. ,„ ,, ,,„,,,,^,,
1 ■/
Additional conntnta are attached.
Sincerely,
^1 8. Sard
Acting Executive Director
JS3/0F/mlm
'''' RiVhfrd M^"^"°' T*^ '^^P" Boston «icnard Mertens, BRA
Marc Webb, 8RA Daniel Fortier, MAPC
•2-
Additional Cammntt
The proposed K1ngston-BedfQpd/Ps«»* ^f»..*«. n ,
public parking spaces w'?h an „ J^ n'^t^r oVll?T' ""''' '*"^^« 313 impact report should cover traffic and air oLull^^ '''J'"; '^« snv^rcnrren-a of the existing parking facilities as Jn l< r^^ ''"" °^ ^^« "sers strategies to ^immlze such an Jpa" " T^'-ansportation Systems Managerr^en-
The Commonwealth of Massachusens
Office of the Secretary of State Michael Joseph Connolly. Secretary
MasMchuMtu Historical Commution
Val«n« A. Talmtft
£jtecutiv« Dirtetor
Siau HUtone ^e},r^<u,on Offictr PFCE^^^FD
July 25, 1986
S«-rttarv Jm»« ? w«w*- CfTICc C* THE $£Crri"V OF
E«^tiCI Off?-. ;*^^^J , c:.vir.ot:t':i.T/.i. Af FA.;a
inS^!_! .: ;• "' Environmental Affafrs 100 CaiAridpt Str««t BosttJO, MA 02202
ATTENTIOM: M£PA UnU
RE: Klngston-Stdford/Esstx St. Oevtlop^nt. Boston 0«ir S«cr«t*ry Hoyt«:
Stiff of tht Missacfiusttti His tori -al ttmmK**\^ *.
S.ct1or 106 of tn. N«t?on. HUttM-^.^ I>« i-tvuwd 1n swoHlnc, ,nn O. 9. SS. 26-27C(350«»7n »"««.""" *-'' '" ="«<»■ "-S-l..
ano 1. t«1«W 1, «,. St,t, «.0,ur o) mi;M2 p?J,'f "" "•'^'"'•. 80 Boyljton Street, Boston. Massachusetu 021 16 (617) 7274470
aoston Thus, trtt orojtct «rM, Irlu^ll J T^'f* "' Colon1,i ' aoston. Pr^utori: Indian oCnJo.tlS s^i,*; v'!?/"^"^" '•ttl.-nf,t of
-•outsts that an *rcn.io1 Jgi-,, ;!1,"1?:»*«'^<1 ^« tn. SIR. mh? ,1' of j^lcn Should ^, DrSJnJTd'Ji thfciJ S^ '* conducttd. th, r^J ?s '"clud. a background study of tnrMftoH-^* 7'«"'«^"*c« shoulT
significant -rcna^io^r.r,;^,;;-';, f Sr:?f%.1\*-:;- "•"-
PnjJtct aooHcanta win probably fin<i i*
Prw.rvatlon Act r»v1.^ in coordlnatli !<JI -S?*'*^ Historic
to und.rtaic. a t1».ly. .ffUi^t «!d o^du^SvVilJ?'*'' ''•"'•*^' "^ <''<^^
*-"^» '^•vltw DrocMs. If you navt any auctions conctmlna fh— « -«
Sf-on or Maurwn Cavanaughltlh?, o%5lS! '°'^"^' "^"^ contact Srona Sinctrtly,
\iaua
Valtrlt A. Talmigt Extcutlvt Wrtctor
Stat. Historic Prtstrvatlon Offl-tr M«sachus.tts Historical Co^IssTJ;!
VT/sac
xc: ACHP
mcD
Judy »feOono«<m. Boston Lan^arlt, Co-risslon
sSSU^i?"^!- ?'^" ««<livt1oo««nt Authority SusM P»ic. Boston Pr„,rvat1on AlllancJ ^
^K,
./ ^^.^U
COMtMUMMW
James S. Hoyte. Secretary ^^^Z^^^^^^i^
inrr''r*-S^^^=' «^ Environmental Af f a^-Ji'^''''"*''' "^ 100 Cambridge Street, *2000 «iairs
Boston, MA 02202
Attn: MEPA Unit
Re: EOEA #6132, Boston Dear Secretary Hoyte:
oi«^hl5%?n*ai155''f."r!bfvr „!!"" sporting h.llcopt.r, passe.
Second, we need to ensure c heliport site selection
participant.
RX:ek
nr«?Jr?'^""?''^^^ '^« jointly sponsored project for this area, in which the BRA is
Lncerely,
Arnold^. Stymeiit Executive Secretary
xc: B. Rakoff, E5K L. Fabian, BRA M. A. Jan, rAA (ANE-6101 NEHPA ^
BOSTON PRESERVATION ALLIANCE
July 31 . 1936
S«crttary Jamts S. Hoytt
Extcuclvt Office of Envlronotntal Affairs
100 CaoOrids* Strt«t
Soaton, MA 02202
Attantion: MEPA Unit
Ra: Kingston-Badford/Essaz St. Otvalopmant
Dtar Sacrttary Hoytat
aE'^EI^'r3
■:)■•.•■
Tha Boston Prasarvation Allianea would lika to coomant on tha seopa of tha MEPA raviaw for tha pareal rafarrad to as "Klngston-Badford/Essax St."
Ou« to tha pareal's proziaity to a nuabar of historic propartias includinf tha Badford Building, Church Graan, tha Proctor Building and tha Coaa«rcial Palaoa District, a caraful and thorough assassacnt of tha projaot's iapaots on tha historic fabric is raquirad. Tha Saetion 106 Raviaw conducted by tha Massachusetts Historical Coamission should provide the inforaation necessary to develop sound guidelines for new developaent on the site.
In addition, an archeologieal survey should be conducted to deteraine if archeologieal data is avail- able on the site and, if so, a future coarse of action. As you are aware, the site is located on the original land configuration of Boston, known as the Shawaut Peninsula.
Due to the ooaplezity of the site, and the need to respond to tho historical, eoaaunity and environaental aoncerna» careful evaluations are warranted to insure sensitlTO ooatextural design and urban planning.
If you have any questions, please contact
office at 367-2458.
our
Sincerel
Old City Hail, 45 School Street. Boston. Massachusetts 02108
Telephoneol7 367-2458
Boston
Landmarks
Commission
Gty Hall. Botton MasBcfausetn 02201 (617)722-4400
December 14, 1988
Pam Wessling
Boston Redevelopment Authority^
9th Floor
Boston, MA 02201
Dear Ms. Wessling:
In response to the MEPA scoplag ea the Kingston/Bedford project, I would like to iterate ay previouf coments on the Kingston Street structuresv There has been no analysis of the impacts from either the pfoposed development or ttm Essex Street widening on the Bseez/Teztile Olstriot i. identified as meeting NR criteri4 in the WbC Draft Sumary of Findings of 1980. Thi» environmental analysis must address the impact on the propoeed district not the individual structure at 88->100 Kingston Building.
Sincerely, * ^
Wv
diidith ^. RcDonough Executtve I>i rector Boston Landliark* Cowtission The EnviromvMit Department
cc:
- - '«f>'
2305E
I' I
$^
-1
Kingston/Bedford/Essex Street
Development Historic Resources Environmental Impact Assessment
June 1989
Prepared for Metropolitan/Columbia Plaza Venture
200 State Street Boston, MA. 02109
Prepared By:
Leslie Larson 6 Joy Street Boston, MA. 02108
Fannin/Lehner
271 Lexington Road
Concord, MA. 01742
All historic phctogrsphs used in this report are courtesy of the Photographic Collections of the Eostonian Society Library/Old State House and the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities.
Kingston/Bedford/Essex Street
Development Historic Resources
Table of Contents
Introduction: Historical Analysis of the Development of Central Boston
Historical Analysis of the Development of the Project Site and the Project Impact Area
Project Area Structures
80-86 Kingston Street, 88-100 Kingston Street Proposed National Register Textile District
City, State and Federal Designations Affecting Historical Resources on the Project Site and in the Project Impact Area
General Impact of the Project on Historic Resources
Primary Impact of the Project:
80-85 Kingston Street, 88-100 Kingston Street Proposed National Register Textile District Commercial Palace District
Secondary Impact on the Project: South Station Headhouse
United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building National Register Leather District
Bibliography
Appendix A: Maps
Appendix B: Illustrations
HISTORia^ ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF CENTRAL BOSTON
The Shawitiut Peninsula that greeted the Rev. William Blaxton in about 1623 and John Winthrop with his ship-loads of Puritans in 1630 was by no means a Garden of Eden. While it had fresh water and a developable shoreline, many of its 783 acres were hilly or marshy, bare of trees and less than ideal for farming.
Early visitors to Boston provided informative descriptions of its topographical, architectural and urban aspects. William Wood's observations in 1634 are illuminating: "Their greatest wants be Wood, and Meadow-ground, which never were in that place; loeing constrayned to fetch their building-timber. . .from the Islands... It being a necke and bare of wood... The place being too small to containe nany (farms), and fittest for... Trade into England. . .being the chiefe place for shipping and merchandize." Thus, from the beginning, Boston was dependent on the sea for long distance trade as well as for construction timber from the harbor islands.
Urban planning and control of development began early. On August 4, 1636, it was ordered that "noe house at all be built. . .neere unto any of the streets or laynes therein, but with the advise and consent of the overseers of the Townes occasions for the avoyding of disorderly building to the inconvenience of streets and laynes, and for the more comely and Commodious ordering of them." Conditional land grants and building permits were in force during the first decade. Density was restricted by an order of October 12, 1636, that "not above one dwelling house shalbe built upon any one lott without the consent of the Townes overseers. "
It is likely that the handful of original streets began informally as footpaths connecting citizens' houses with the communal areas and the waterfront. By early 1636 the town began ordering streets and lanes of specified widths to be laid out along designated routes.
The street pattern which evolved during the seventeenth century responded well to the topography and the needs of the tcwn. It is not surprising that the town fathers chose not to inpose a grid on this undulating and irregular peninsula, since the English towns from which they migrated retained, as many do today, their late medieval plans, with streets characterized by warped and winding lengths and expanding and contracting widths. The medieval city took its irregular form from the vagaries of land allocation and from the interaction of public and private space, the two being defined according to their degree of penetrability. Streets were as narrow as possible while allowing for the transit of goods and passage of persons, widening occasionally for reasons of conmerce. Streets, rather than squares or plazas, were the public spaces of the medieval city. Boston's several "squares" that evolved during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, such as Church Green, were simply the expanded junctions of two or more streets.
Boston had developed considerably by 1654, with some masonry buildings in evidence, when Captain Edward Johnson wrote, "The chief e Ek3ifice of this City-like Towne is crowded on the Seabanks, and wharf ed out with great industry and cost, the buildings beautiful and large, some fairly set forth with Brick, Tile, Stone and Slate, and orderly placed with comely streets, whose continual inlargement presages some sunptuous City."
A somewhat different picture emerges from a French protestant refugee's statement in 1687 that "the Town is almost wholly built of wooden Houses; but since there have been some ravages by Fire, building of Wood is no longer allowed, so that at present writing very handsome Houses of Brick are going up."
Fire was the most persistent influence on the development of central Boston from 1653, the date of the first Great Fire until the really Great Fire of 1872. Following the August 8, 1679 fire, which destroyed eighty houses, seventy warehouses and several vessels near the Town dock, the General Court enacted the following law: "The Court... Do therefore order & enact that henceforth no dwelling house in Boston shall be erected & set up except of stone or brick, & covered with slate or Tyle." This was one of several largely unsuccessful attenpts over - the years to limit the spread of fires through legislation. Not only was the cost of masonry construction substantially more than wood, but suitable foundations were often difficult to lay down since so much of the land was marshy.
The town settled on the issuance of building permits, often with conditions, as a means of controlling the continued proliferation of wooden buildings. This gave rise to the "Book of Timber Buildings," a compilation of permits granted between 1709 and 1729, setting such conditions as brick ends, slated roof, rough cast, and maintaining distances between buildings.
On September 22, 1701, the Selectmen were ordered "to Assign & Fix Names, unto the several Streets and Lanes within this Town, which were previously nameless. This was acconplished in 1708, with the total adding up to 110, 64 of which were at least partially within the study area.
The late medieval character of the town is quite apparent in John Bonner's layout of streets and cartoons of buildings on his 1722 map of Boston. The older part around the Town Dock and King (State) Street contains many small, irregular blocks edged by long rows of one, two and three-story buildings along expanding and contracting lanes. Many of the blocks have the character of irregular quadrangles, with rows of buildings enclosing relatively open space. Beyond Cornhill (Washington), Water and Hanover Streets, the blocks enlarge and the density decreases. In the early years most of the open land was used for pasture. The larger blocks on Bonner's map suggest vestiges of these pastures behind the houses.
The process of widening and smoothing the edges of Boston's crooked and narrow streets as a deterrent to the spread of fire and to accommodate traffic, gained its inpetus in the late seventeenth century by an act of the General Court of June 8, 1692, concerning coitpensation for land takings which mentioned "where any desolation has happened to regulate and enlarge other narrow or Crooked Lanes of Passages."
The eighteenth century saw an increasing number of street widenings, although very conservatively by today's standards. Not only were Boston's early streets crooked and warped, but their edges were, in many cases, extremely irregular due to the jutting out of buildings. It was not uncommon for the town to grant individual property owners permission to intrude their houses and barns into the rights of way during the seventeenth century. For exanple, on October 2, 1644, Deacon Eliot was granted liberty "to sett out his barne six or eight foot into the street." While this made for a picturesque town with varied and surprising vistas, the town officials during the eighteenth century no doubt looked on streets more in terms of the flow of traffic than as fascinating gathering places. A number of new streets came into being during the 1700s and existing streets were extended, some of which subdivided larger blocks which still contained pasture land.
Prior to the post-Revolution Federal period, architects were almost unknown in Boston. Buildings were designed by those v^o constructed them, housewr ights , carpenters and masons, either from precedent and practicality or from pattern books. 1787 narked the beginning of a new era, both in architectural design and in urban planning. This was the year that Charles Bulfinch returned to Boston from a two-year stay in England and on the continent, fresh with new design ideas promoted by Robert Adam and the British classicists. He returned to a colonial town architecturally, with many of its buildings and their arrangement still exhibiting a medieval character. It was a town predominantly of wood when he arrived, and was rapidly becoming a city of brick when he departed for Washington thirty years later.
Bulfinch introduced a new standard of elegance in Boston architecture in his mansion houses, and in his public and institutional buildings, while at another level reordering vernacular architecture and town planning in a pragmatic and almost sinplistic fashion. Whereas colonial rows of buildings were often irregular in height and frontage, Bulfinch introduced the smooth-faced row of identical buildings, sinply but elegantly detailed in such instances as Bulfinch Row (1804) on Park Street and Colonnade Row (1811) on Tremont Street, and almost without detail in Broad and India Street warehouses. The row house and the range of shops or warehouses became the pattern of development through the first half of the nineteenth century. The influence of Bulfinch 's brick row house and warehouse row model spread rapidly during the first two decades of the nineteenth century, promoted by such merchant developers as Harrison Gray Otis and Uriah Getting.
It was Bulfinch's intention, as well as that of his clients, a new breed of old family merchant developers, to bring a more obvious order to the seemingly chaotic town. In laying out streets on newly reclaimed land, shown on his plans for the Broad Street Association in 1805 and 1808, and for the Mill Pond in 1808, he introduced the grid to Boston, carefully grafting it onto the old system of streets.
By 1822, when Boston became a city, the Federal period had ended and the Greek Revival era in architecture was beginning. Brick was giving way to granite as the preferred facade material for public and commercial fc)uildings, although it reireined the basic material for residential construction.
The 1850s and 1860s saw the beginnings of a return to the individualization of buildings. While in most cases they were not free-standing, they tended more and more toward elaborate detail which set them decoratively apart from their abutters. The strong vertical and horizontal sinplicity of the Greek Revival gave way to a variety of more picturesque styles. Granite continued the preferred facade material, but sandstone and cast-iron appeared as well.
By the time of Boston's worst fire on November 9, 1872, these picturesque styles were reaching their zenith. While the fire was nothing short of disastrous, it provided an opportunity for rebuilding "Conmercial Palaces" of even greater exhuberance in brick, various colored sandstones, granite and marble. The scale of the new buildings was, in general, not substantially greater than those built immediately before the fire, but the trend toward individualizing the designs continued .
Central Boston's medieval street pattern reireined relatively intact, subject to only minor widenings and straightenings until the 1950s, with two exceptions, both completed in 1872. Atlantic Avenue, straight as an arrow and 100' wide was imposed on the waterfront from Broad Street at Rowes Wharf to Commercial Street at Eastern Avenue, and Washington Street was extended, also in a straight line and very wide, from Cornhill to Haymarket Square, leaving innumerable buildings dismembered in its wake.
The 1950s and 1960s brought a sudden reversal of the three-hundred-year- old process of urban development in Boston: the pattern of crooked and narrow streets and many small blocks was overlaid in the Government Center, Charles River Park, and along the route of the Central Artery with the results of planning theories that completely ignored the character and quality of the existing city. In a decade or two the dozens of picturesque streets and thousands of historic buildings were replaced by mega blocks, mega buildings and wide, sweeping highways. In the 1970s and 1980s the continued destruction of the historic fabric took the form of individual high-rise office buildings springing up randomly without reference to the existing scale, pattern or texture of the city.
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT SITE AND THE PROJECT IMPACT AREA
For the purpose of analyzing the history of the development of the Project Site and the adjacent Project Iirpact Area, the site is considered to be conprised of the two blocks bounded by Kingston Street to the west, Bedford Street to the north, Lincoln Street to the east and Essex Street to the south, including the Bedford Building and 88-100 Kingston Street, both of which are outside the actual project area.
Any atteitpt at a statistical evaluation of the physical development of Boston is largely speculative for the period before 1722 when John Bonner issued his map of Boston which included buildings in cartoon fashion as well as streets, pastures, orchards and topographical features. The Inpact Area was traversed by only six streets in 1722, of which three longer east/west streets, Essex, Bedford (then Pond and Blind Lane) and Summer, were bisected by three short north/south streets, part of Kingston (then Short) , South and Sea Street (now part of Atlantic Avenue) . Between the streets were large areas of pasture, garden and orchard, with a scattering of houses, mostly along the streets. The Project Site was then bounded by Short Street, Blind Lane, Summer Street, South Street and Essex Street. Lincoln and Columbia Streets were not laid out until 1793 and 1807, respectively.
The intensity of urbanization of central Boston and the North End spread more slowly to the "South End" of the Shawmut Peninsula. The semi-rural character of the Church Green area, in contrast to the densely coitpact blocks of the State (King) Street/Dock Square area is clearly evident on Bonner's 1722 map of Boston. Surrounding small blocks, the irregular streets are lined with row houses and ranges of stores, while in the South End the blocks are large, with more trees than houses.
The Project Site was typical of the larger Project Impact Area in its develofxnent in terms of the size, density and types of buildings and their uses until the 1890s, when the first eight-story buildings appeared in the area. Buildings on the Project Site never rose above six stories until the advent of the presently existing parking garage.
By the 1650s there were about ten houses and gardens in the Project Inpact area, with the rest of the land being open field and pasture. Since Boston streets were not named until 1708, it is difficult to determine how many of those houses were on the Project Site. By 1722 the site held twelve buildings, with six being one-story and six rising to two stories. William Price's 1769 updating of Bonner's 1722 map shows no change in the number or height of the buildings. In 1798 an inventory of all buildings in the town prepared for the first U.S. Direct Tax, revealed fifteen lots with buildings plus one "lot of land intended for a dwelling house." There were twelve houses of wood, one house of brick and wood, one brick distill house and one wood carpenter shop, plus three stables, one barn and one woodhouse. Among the houses, four were one-story, six were two-story, and three were three-story.
5
Three of the hosues were "mansion houses" sited on spacious lots with the largest lot of 44,616 sq.ft. belonging to Moses Wallach, merchant, followed by the 11,340 sq.ft. lot of Samuel Bradlee, merchant, and a lot of 7,500 sq.ft. owned by Benjamin Fessenden, gentleman.
In 1798 the Project Impact Area was composed of 192 dwellings (131 wood, 23 brick and wood, 38 brick) ; 21 at one-story, 95 at two-story, 74 at three-story (some entries did not identify materials or stories) . There were six distill houses, fourteen stores or shops, one wood tobacco manufactury, one sugar house, ten wharves (two with stores) , one wood school house, one summer house, three wood barracks, nineteen barns, thirteen stables, 51 woodhouses or woodsheds, and three pastures. There were 93 lots 4,000 sq.ft. or over and 56 dwellings 1,200 sq.ft. or over.
John Hales' map of 1814, which includes buildings, materials and lots but does not specify numbers of stories or identify the divisions within rows of houses or ranges of stores, shows seventeen buildings on the Project Site, fourteen of wood and three of masonry, with most of the site still open land.
By 1852, when Henry Mclntyre issued his "Map of the City of Boston and Immediate Neighborhoods," the density of the site and Inpact Area had - increased substantially. Mclntyre 's relatively small-scaled map does not separate rows and ranges into units, but shows the spaces between these rows and ranges on the Project Site to be few and narrow. There were twelve of these buildings or groups, most with their lengths parallel with the streets, the exceptions being on Kingston Street, where three long, slightly separated buildings were perpendicular to the street.
The first insurance atlas of Boston, issued by D.A. Sanborn in 1868, recorded the Site and Iirpact Area in intimate detail with building heights, materials and uses specified. Street walls are shown as almost continuous, mostly divided into smaller units, the majority of which are residential. By this time the centers of the blocks have also been largely filled in. Sanborn records seventy buildings in the two blocks, plus innumerable extensions and sheds in the block interiors. This is the maximum horizontal density for the site in terms of number of units. Of the seventy, five are single-story, six are two-story, 32 are three story, 25 are four-story, and two are five-story. 53 are of brick, stone or iron and seventeen are of wood construction. 53 are residences of which five have ground-floor stores. There are also warehouses, a furniture factory, a machine shop, a carpenter's shop and two stables. Twelve are of unspecified uses.
The number of buildings on the project site in 1874 had dropped to 59 due in part to the replacement of some row houses with larger commercial or industrial structures, and in part to the existence of eight vacant lots remaining from the Great Fire of 1872, which fortunately only brushed the northern edge of the blocks. Of the 59 buildings, 37 were rowhouses. Most of the rest accommodated commercial or industrial uses including four owned by Jordan Marsh and Company, two Columbia
6
buildings, and Nathaniel Whiting's machine shop. Hopkins' atlas does not specify materials or building height, but it does list property owners.
The number of buildings had fallen to 28 in Bromley's 1883 atlas due to the completion of three large structures: The Jordan Marsh and Conpany/ New England Shoe and Leather Association Building (on the site of the present garage) , the Bedford Building (still standing) and the Sargent Block, which abutted the Bedford Building on Lincoln Street. (The Sargent Block turned out to be a range of seven stores rather than a single building in the 1890 atlas, thus bringing the number of buildings in 1883 to 35.) Building heights are not indicated, and by this time all but one street-wall building are of masonry. Bromley's 1890 atlas identifies thirty buildings of which sixteen are row houses. The number of stories is not specified.
By 1898 the trend toward larger buildings on the Project Site had reached its peak with the total number reduced to nineteen, of which nine were four-story, eight were five-story (including the presently surviving 88-100 Kingston Street) , and two were six-story. The only change from 1898 in the 1902 atlas was the replacement of Whiting's Building with the presently surviving red brick and white terra cotta - structure at 80-86 Kingston Street. 1917, 1928 and 1938 atlases show the Project Site as unchanged from 1898.
This situation held until 1947 when the City of Boston demolished the five-story brick Taylor Building at 140-144 Essex Street. By 1949, 14 and 16 Columbia Street, plus the range of seven stores at 19-59 Lincoln Street had been leveled for a 380-car open-air parking garage. In 1957 the six-story Jordan Marsh building on Kingston, Bedford and Columbia Streets was demolished and replaced by the presently existing ten-story parking garage. The remaining four buildings on the west side of Columbia Street had been leveled by 1972 for a parking lot, leaving only the current four buildings standing on the two blocks, of which two (the parking garage and 80-86 Kingston Street) are on the Project Site. Of these two, only 80-86 Kingston Street are, of course, historically and architecturally significant as well, but they are technically not on the Project Site.
The largest building on the Project Site prior to its demolition in 1957 for the parking garage was the Jordan Marsh Building. In 1869 Eben D. Jordan and Charles Marsh, "co-partners doing business under the firm and style of Jordan Marsh and Company," began acquiring the Kingston- Bedford-Columbia blockfront with the purchase of two parcels of land with brick dwelling hosues thereon on the west side of Columbia Street. By the end of 1881 and a total of nineteen real estate transactions, they had completed assemblage of the site for their new building, which was constructed in 1881-83. Built of stone and brick at a cost of $350,000, it "was one of the largest and handsomest of the many business blocks in the vicinity." Samuel J. F. Thayer was the architect and T. E. Stuart the builder. It was destroyed by fire on Thanksgiving Day, 1889. The successor building, completed in 1891 of granite and yellow
7
brick, was designed by Winslow and Wetherell and constructed by Woodbury and Leighton. Across Kingston Street at the corner of Bedford stood an H. H. Richardson-designed mercantile building built in 1882-84 for F. L. Ames, of which Norcross Brothers were the builders.
Some of the people involved in real estate transactions on the Project Site during the eighteenth century included Joseph and Samuel Sewall, Thomas Child, John Coffin, Edmund and Josiah Quincy, Moses Wallach, James and Thomas Perkins, plus a number of others.
In 1738 Joseph Sewall (1715-1770), clerk, son of the famous diarist, Samuel Sewall, conveyed to his son, also named Samuel, a large tract of land 101' wide that stretched across the block from Essex Street to Blind Lane (Bedford Street). The grantee, who was a merchant, married Elizabeth Quincy, daughter of Edmund Quincy, also a land owner on the Project Site. Samuel Sewall in turn sold most of the parcel to John Coffin, distiller, in 1769. In 1783, following the Revolutionary War, Coffin was declared an "absentee" from that war, and his property was confiscated by the Commonwealth, with the Sewall parcel being acquired by Moses VJallach, merchant, that same year. By 1798 Wallach was the largest land owner on the Project Site and eventually subdivided much o_f his land into residential lots in 1807 in connection with the opening of Columbia Street, wilfred Fisher was another absentee who lost his lot and buildings on Blind Lane, in this case to Phillip V-Jentworth, a truckman, in 1782.
There were at least three distillers in addition to John Coffin associated with the block during the eighteenth century: Thomas Child, John Haskins and Francis Tufts, the latter owning a house and lot on the present site of 88-100 Kingston Street and operating a distill house on the site of 80-86 Kingston for Thomas Perkins in the 1790s. Thorns Child owned several lots with at least one being acquired from Samuel Sewall in 1743. About 1734 Child built a house on Essex Street at the corner of the yet unthought-of Columbia Street, which became the headquarters of British General Lord Percy during the Revolutionary 'War.
Hugh Percy (1742-1817) , the second Duke of Northumberland, a military Iran, set sail for Boston in 1774, where he served under the command of General Gage. He was opposed to the war with America, but felt it was his duty to serve. On April 19, 1775, after the Battle of Lexington, he left Boston to command a brigade covering the retreat to Charlestown of the army that had been hemmed in at Concord. Percy, who was known as a fine and generous leader, was given the local rank of major general in July of 1775. After becoming involved in a feud with General Howe, he asked for and obtained leave to return to England in 1777, where he became active in politics and was awarded the Order of the Garter in 1788. Percy died July 10, 1817 and was buried in Westminster Abbey.
Edmund Quincy III, whose daughter, Dorothy, married John Hancock, owned a 45' x 80' lot on Short (Kingston) Street with a wooden tenement thereon. In 1772 the house, which was "daily decreasing in value and now standing in need of considerable repairs," was sold at auction by
the executors of Quincy's will to James Boies, who immediately conveyed it to Josiah Quincy, Jr., an ardent patriot who died three years later. His son, Josiah, president of Harvard, congressman, mayor of Boston (1823-28) , sold the property to Samuel Ludden, yoeman, in 1796.
James Perkins, merchant, purchased a parcel of land with a brick potash works thereon, fronting on Short Street (the present site of 80-85 Kingston Street) from Thomas Snow, shopkeeper, in 1769. In 1783 Perkins acquired the abutting parcel at the corner of Short and Essex Streets (now 88-100 Kingston) from Christopher Clark, merchant. James Perkins transferred both parcels, the first one by then with a distill house thereon, to his son Thones (called "Short Tom") , also a merchant, in 1787, six years before the father's death in 1803, at 85 years. In 1798 the distill house was owned by Perkins but operated by Francis Tufts, distiller, who had acquired the abutting lot (the east half of 88-100 Kingston) from Nathaniel and Colburn Barrell in 1791. Tufts eventually acquired the distill house and its lot as well.
Two large, particularly rural blocks occur on Bonner's 1722 map northwest of the Project Site across Short (Kingston) Street and Blind Lane (Bedford Street) . The block north of Pond (also Bedford) Street includes the town pond, later VJheeler's Pond following its purchase in" 1753 by David I'Jheeler, whose family had owned westerly abutting property since the middle of the seventeenth century. Across Pond Street to the southwest, "Coals" Garden was separated from surrounding pasture by a fence. In 1723 widow Mary Cole sold the garden to Zabdiel Boylston, "Practitioner in Physick and Surgery," who attained fame during the smallpox inoculation of 1736. The following year Dr. Boylston acquired the abutting pasture from John Lane, cordwainer, who had purchased it in 1713 from the estate of Isaac Vergoose, whose widow and executrix was Elizabeth Vergoose, the legendary (but unsubstantiated) Mother Goose. In 1767 Dr. Boylston 's son, John, conveyed the tract of pasture land to John Rowe, who three years earlier had purchased a parcel of land and flatts on the eastern shore, known today as Rowes VVharf. Rowe's pasture survived at least in part into the 1830s.
John Rowe (1715-1787) arrived in Boston from Exeter, England in 1736, beginning his rise to wealth with the purchase of a warehouse on Long Wharf. He became a warden of Trinity Church, a proprietor of Long Wharf, a selectnen and Grand Master of Masons of North America. The estate to the east of Wheeler's Pond, where Pond Street bent into Blind Lane (diagonally across from the present Bedford Street garage) , was sold to John Rowe in 1764. There he erected a substantial mansion house for his own occupancy. The land with "mansion, coach house and edifices" was sold for $12,500 in 1817 to the Honorable William Prescott, jurist and father of the distinguished historian, William Hickling Prescott. The house was taken down about 1845, at the time of Andrew Carney's subdivision of the land on the west side of Kingston Street.
Church Green is the only surviving seventeenth-century "square" in Boston and is therefore of the highest historical and visual
9
significance. It was formed by the convergence of Summer Street, then called "the broad street from the town towards the water," and Bedford Street, ordered laid out to the south windmill in 1643. The name first appeared in 1715 when the town voted to grant Henry Hill, Eliezur Darby and others "a Piece of Land commonly called Church Green" for a new meeting house. The 65' x 45' x 31' flat-roofed timber building with battlements was dedicated on January 8, 1716-17. The wooden structure was replaced in 1814 by an octagonal church built of white hammered granite, with a 190' steeple, designed by Charles Bulfinch. Among the proprietors of the new meeting house were Israel Thorndike, Benjamin Fessenden, John Welles and others, familiar names in the development of the area.
By 1868 the church had apparently outlived its usefulness in an area shifting from residential to commercial use, so the proprietors voted to divide the land into three lots to be sold for commercial development. Lot no. 1 at the junction of Bedford and Summer Streets was purchased by Jonathan Preston, a well-known architect and real-estate developer, who in turn conveyed half interest to Nathaniel Cummings, builder. The new building, sold to William Faxon and James Elmes in 1869, was presumably designed by Preston and constructed by Cummings. Its life was short, however, since it was consumed in the Great Fire of November 9, 1872, which leveled 776 buildings over 65 acres, and which started in the same block at 88 Summer Street, in a building designed by John Roulstone Hall. The present Church Green Building, a Boston Landmark, was conpleted ca. 1873-74.
The history of the physical development of central Boston in general, and of the Project Impact Area (including the Project Site) in particular, can be viewed in terms of increases (or decreases) in horizontal and vertical density, street pattern changes with resulting increase or decrease in block sizes and numbers, effects of government regulations, the influences of changes in use on building type and size, and extension of the shoreline.
Through the early eighteenth century, the Project Impact Area remained predominantly rural, with large blocks, few streets and scattered detached houses, gradually increasing in horizontal density to a kind of suburban status by the end of that century. The first example of urban horizontal density cams in 1793 in the form of Charles Bulfinch 's brick rowhouse complex, the Tontine Crescent in Franklin Place, at the northern edge of the Project Impact Area in what is now the ComiiErcial Palace District. By 1814 there were as yet only a few hints of the extension of this planning theory into the rest of the area. One of these related to the laying out of Columbia Street in 1807 as "a passage way of thirtyfcet wide leading from Pond Street or Blind Lane (Bedford Street) aforesaid through to Essex Street... which passage way shall be forever kept open...", to service Moses Wallach's subdivision of lots on both sides of the street, formerly part of VJallach's garden. Lot no. 1, at the east corner of Pond and Columbia, was sold to Thomas Jackson, merchant, on May 1st of that year. About 23 additional lots were sold in short order to housewrights, bricklayers, merchants, etc. Eldad
10
Brown and Milton Hale, housewrights, for exairple, purchased lots, built houses and resided in them until 1810. Rowhouse development continued on the Project Site until by 1868 all blockfronts except Kingston were dominated by rowhouse groups.
This residential expansion spread throughout the Project Impact Area from the 1820s through the 1840s. On October 13, 1821, Gorham Parsons conveyed to George Bond, merchant, an irregular, 86,228-sq.ft. parcel across Summer Street to the northwest from the new octagonal church at Church Green. Bond had come up with a subdivision plan of twenty lots grouped around a new street called Winthrop Place, which dead-ended into Summer Street. Winthrop Place eventually tsecame the southern end of Devonshire Street after Winthrop Square connected the two segments in 1861.
On October 29th, Israel Thorndike, merchant, purchased lot no. 1, which adjoined property he already owned at the corner of Otis Place and Summer Street. Winthrop Place eventually became the southern end of Devonshire Street after Winthrop Square connected the two segments in 1861.
Israel Thorndike (1755-1832) was one of Boston's most successful merchants and real-estate developers during the first three decades of the nineteenth century. He was a privateer commander during the Revolutionary VJar, had an extensive West and East Indian trading operation, was involved in a South American venture with David Sears and was active in the expansion of the Western Reserve in Ohio. He invested early in railroads, canals and bridge building, as well as in Francis Cabot Lowell's cotton industry and the mills and locks in Lowell. President Monroe was entertained by Thorndike in 1817. He was living on Summer Street between Washington and Hawley when, in 1825, Daniel Webster, then a tenant of Thorndike 's next door, held a reception for General Lafayette. Webster cut a doorway between the two houses for the occasion.
Daniel Webster (1782-1852), one of the foremost public men of his time, was born in New Hanpshire, which state he represented in the U.S. Congress before moving to Boston in 1816. He returned to Congress, representing Boston, from 1823 to 1827, after which he moved to the Senate, where he represented Massachusetts for nineteen years. He also served as Secretary of State under Presidents Harrison, Tyler and Fillmore, in addition to unsuccessfully seeking the presidency three times.
Following his tenancy in Thorndike's house, Webster moved to a large three-story brick house on the arc of Summer and High Streets at the eastern end of Church Green. In 1831 he acquired a triangular parcel across High Street which he divided into three lots. An 1833 deed for the sale of two of the lots with dwelling houses "built or building" mentions the larger central lot with the "house now built or building for said Webster." Thus he apparently resided at three different addresses on Summer Street.
11
Wendell Phillips (1811-1884), the abolitionist crusader, lawyer and brilliant orator, acquired one half of a three-story, two-family brick house at 50 Essex Street, adjoining Caledonian Hall, from Eloses Clark in 1843. During his 39 years of occupancy he worked with William Lloyd Garrison in the akxslitionist movement, succeeding Garrison as president of the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1865. After the Civil War he devoted himself to tenperence, women's rights and universal suffrage before selling the house to Lewis W. Tappan in 1882. The site of his house in the Textile District, at the junction of Harrison Avenue, Essex and Chauncy Streets, is presently occupied by the Wendell Phillips Office Building, named in his honor.
Other examples of rowhouse development within the Project Impact Area included a 53-lot project at the junction of Harrison Avenue, Beach and Essex Streets, and including Oxford Street and Oxford Place, in 1843; the east side of South Street between Kneeland and Beach Streets (twelve lots) in 1845, and a group of six bowfronts (72-82 Essex Street) designed by Salmon Washburn, housewright turned architect, also in 1845.
Beginning in the seventeenth century, a portion of what is now Kingston Street ran from the Cove to what is now Bedford Street. It was named ~ Short Street in 1708. In 1800 John L. Sullivan petitioned the town to accept an extension of the street from Bedford (then Pond Street) through to Summer Street. The 35-foot-wide new street was narrowed to thirty feet as it passed John Rowe's brick mansion house at the corner of Pond. By 1814 there was one row of buildings on the southeastern side of the new street. In 1843 Andrew Carney, gentleman, purchased the northwestern side of the new street and divided it into eighteen lots, erecting brick rowhouses thereon. House and lot no. 5, for exairple, was sold to Benjamin Howard, merchant, in 1844, for $16,000. Four of the bowfronts were still standing in 1874, having survived the 1872 fire, but the entire row was eventually demolished.
Andrew Carney (d. 1864) emigrated from Ireland to America in 1816 with "nothing but health and labor to rely on." He learned the tailors' trade in Ireland and continued as a tailor here in Boston, before joining with the clothier Jacob Sleeper, in forming the highly regarded firm of Carney & Sleeper. The partners had many real estate interests in Central Boston in addition to the property on Kingston and Sumner Streets. Carney died a wealthy man, and in his will continued the philanthropy he practiced throughout his life. He left money or property to numerous institutions including the Church of the Immaculate Conception, an institution he had assisted since its founding, the Home for Destitute Catholic Children and the Carney Hospital.
Most of the Project Impact Area was still residential in 1868, but commercial and industrial uses were making serious inroads, particularly on Summer Street and to the north and east. The Tontine Crescent had been leveled, replaced by five-story granite warehouses, and this trend was spreading southward. The 1872 fire destroyed all buildings north of, and including, the southern edge of Summer Street, which led to the
12
new era of "Commercial Palaces."
At the same time that commercial development was moving southward from the financial centers of State Street and the counting rooms on Long, Central and India Wharves, a counter commercial and industrial movement was forming to the south of Essex Street, with historical justification.
In the 1640s, when the Book of Possessions was compiled as a listing of the real-estate holdings of all Boston citizens, Essex Street reached only as far east as Kingston Street, with the estates below that extending from Bedford Street to the Cove. In 1678 Essex Street was laid out eastward to Windmill Point. The area south of Essex naturally developed into trading and commercial use as wharves were extended into the cove. In 1722 there were but four wharves south of Essex, a number which increased to ten by 1769, with four accommodating "still houses." One of these was Child's I'Jharf, operated by Thomas Child, distiller, a major land owner on the Project Site during the 1730s and 1740s, including the Essex Street house which became Lord Percy's headquarters during the Revolutionary War. By 1814 additional land had been filled south of Essex Street, and Sea Street (now Atlantic Avenue) had been extended southward in a wharf-like rranner from its 1769 terminus at Windmill Point. At this date there were eleven wharves in the cove and" fourteen new wharves jutting out in easterly and westerly directions from Sea Street. One of the wharves off Essex, just west of South Street, with a distill house thereon, was sold by Thomas Hill, distiller, to Thomas Haskins, distiller, in 1809, both of whom had owned property on the Project Site.
In 1805 Harrison Gray Otis, Francis Cabot Lowell, James Lloyd, Jr., and Uriah Cotting had formed the Broad Street Association, which began the transformation of Boston's waterfront from a rundown and haphazard collection of warehouses, shanties and wharves into a well-ordered comnunity of commerce consisting of broad streets edged by blocks of handsome brick warehouses extending out on such spacious piers as India and Central Wharves. Members of this group wasted little time in moving southward and focusing their efforts on the extension of Sea Street and accompanying inprovements. On November 4, 1807, Cotting, Lowell and Lloyd, along with Isaac P. Davis, entered into an agreement with property owner Jabez Hatch, merchant, to extend Sea Street southward over land they severally owned. By 1811 the land through which the road progressed had been divided into 27 lots and seventeen of these distributed.
In 1813 Isaac P. Davis and others filed a petition with the town to be granted "The lands and flatts lying about the shores of the bay west of Boston Neck" for the construction of a mill dam, which eventually led to the filling in and development of the Back Bay. Uriah Cotting was the guiding force in this operation until his death in 1821.
James Lloyd, Jr. (1769-1831) was the son of a distinguished Boston physician who counted among his patients British General Howe and Lord Percy, the latter also serving as a British General with headquarters
13
located at the corner of Essex and Columbia on the Project Site. James Jr., a merchant, served twice in the U.S. Senate, from 1808 to 1813 and 1822 to 1826, replacing John Quincy Adams the first time and Harrison Gray Otis the second. In 1826 he sold his 36,342-sq.ft, wharf with four ranges of stores, located on Sea Street, to Prentiss Hobbs, lumber merchant, for $16,000.
Francis Cabot Lowell (1775-1817) introduced cotton manufacturing into the United States, founding the Boston Manufacturing Company in Waltham in 1812 along with his brother-in-law, Patrick Tracy Jackson (who later developed Pemberton Square in Boston) and Nathan Appleton. After his death the city of Lowell was named in his honor.
In 1833 the South Cove Corporation was granted a charter by the Coimonwealth to fill the Cove, with the work beginning the following year. By 1837, 77 acres had been reclaimed and the Worcester Railroad Depot was in place on the new land at the corner of Beach and Lincoln Streets (Beach having been extended southward over the newly filled land). Soon thereafter the United States Hotel, the largest in the nation at the time, was erected across Beach Street from the depot. With the railroad and the handsome new wharves lining Sea Street, it is not surprising that commerce and industry began to move into the Project Inpact Area's residential blocks.
While buildings on the Project Site never rose above six stories until 1957, there was a scattering of higher buildings in the Project Inpact Area beginning in the 1890s. Two eight-story structures appear in the 1898 atlas, a number that increased to seven by 1902, plus the eleven-story Hotel Essex. In 1917 there were three structures at eleven stories and nine at eight stories, and by 1928 there were one each at fourteen and twelve stories, five at eleven stories, one at ten stories, two at nine stories and ten at eight stories. In 1930 United Shoe Machinery Building stepped up to 24 stories, its height mitigated by its setbacks.
It was not until 1975 that high-rise fever touched the Church Green area when Welton Beckett's black rretal and glass tower was inappropriately set on the northern side of that historic place. By 1977 the second intrusive tower. Fiduciary Trust by The Architects Collaborative, a strangely cantilevered polygon, was deposited on the former site of three houses built by D.aniel Webster at 175 Federal Street. Hugh Stubbins' shiny metal Federal Reserve Bank was completed a year later, followed by the 45-story tower named One Financial Center, by Jung/ Brannen, isolated in name and appearance, in 1985. Goody Clancy's granite 99 Summer Street, the only recent tower to take its environment seriously, was carefully grafted into the Church Green Block in 1986. In 1988 United Shoe acquired an uneasy addition in the form of a mirror- glass tower designed by Hugh Stubbins. Kohn, Pedersen & Fox's neo- neoclassical 22-story granite and precast concrete building at 125 Summer Street is currently under construction.
14
While the area exhibited virtually no vertical density prior to 1975, highly vulnerable Church Green is today heavily impacted by high-rise construction.
15
PROJECT AREA STRUCTURES
The Kingston/Bedford/Essex Street Development area consists of one parking garage at the north end and two nineteenth-century commercial structures at the southwest end of a 1-3/4 acre site bounded by Kingston, Bedford, Lincoln and Essex Streets. The project is adjacent to but does not include the National Register Bedford Building, 89-103 Bedford Street. The project also does not currently include 88-100 Kingston Street, but because this structure has such a close relationship to 80-86 Kingston Street, it is included in this section. The rest of the site is vacant land, nrainly utilized for parking. Buildings that currently stand within the project are the following:
BEDFORD STREET MECHANICAL GARAGE, 71-85 BEDFORD STREET, ENCOMPASSING 1-13 COLUMBIA STREET AND 62-78 KINGSTON STRECT, S. S. EISENBERG, 1958
This ten-story yellow brick and concrete 750-car mechanical garage was erected for the City of Boston in 1958. A freestanding building, with facades on three streets, it was designed by 3. S. Eisenberg and built by the Wexler Construction Co. Inc. of Newton Highlands.
80-86 KINGSTON STREET, KENDALL, TAYLOR & STEVENS, 1899
The 80-86 Kingston Street site has been associated with the textile industry for a century and a quarter as it was acquired by Nathaniel Whiting, a dealer in ruffles and trimmings, in 1864. Located in what was, by the 1870s, the heart of the wholesale textile and wool trade, the five-story, five-bay Classical Revival brick and terra cotta mercantile building was finished in 1899. A cartouche with a scroll- like "W" tops the arch of each entrance, no doubt standing for v>/hiting.
Although 80-86 Kingston Street is not considered sufficiently distinguished to warrant inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places on an individual basis, this structure clearly possesses strong architectural, historical and functional ties to the small group of intact late-nineteenth-century brick loft buildings along Kingston, Essex and Chauncy Streets which are representative of Boston's textile center and comprise the proposed National Register Textile District.
The property has an interesting early history with a brick potash works on the premises in 1769 and a distillery on the site from at least 1787 to 1791. It was also owned by Willard Sears, a Boston Housewright, from 1844 to 1854. Three fires heavily daireged the property, occurring in 1872 and 1089 with the 1893 fire leveling the American Tool and Machine Conpany building then functioning on the site. It is no accident that the present 80-86 Kingston Street building has been called "a fine example of late 19th century fire-proof commercial construction."
16
One of the early occupants of the handsorre new building, in 1902, was John C. Meyer & Co. This thread-iranufacturing enterprise was founded c. 1880 and began selling its product to harness, shoe, dress, carriage, awning and tent makers. Outgrowing several factories, the company moved to Lowell and in 1930 employed 125 opeatives. Other early occupants were Brown & Co., neckware; Watson & McWiggin, dry goods commission merchants and the well-known Cluett, Peabody & Co. (Arrow Shirts) . By 1930 the building was still in solid textile use, housing such firms as H. T. Johnson Co., underwear manufacturers. Eastern Manufacturing Co., dry goods, the Bay State Cloth Steaming Co., Inc., and two dress manufacturers, the Sedlis Manufacturing Co., and G. A. Taylor Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Distinctive for its classically-inspired elaborate detail, 80-86 Kingston Street is architecturally significant as the work of a well-known firm, Kendall, Taylor & Stevens. It also exhibits the distinguished workmanship of one of Boston's most respected building firms, Woodbury & Leighton.
This Classical Revival style five-story red brick building features terra cotta ornament and a classically-inspired cast-iron storefront. The main entry is flanked by two round-arched entries, each with a keystoned cartouche, inscribed "W". The eye is drawn to the middle three bays at floors two to four, which are enclosed by white terra cotta blocks. The white terra cotta provides a pleasing contrast to the rich red brick. The fifth floor is separated by a white terra cotta cornice and features seven round-arched windows which march across the front of the building. Terra cotta medallions are located in the spandrels between these windows. Terra cotta pilasters and a terra cotta modillion block cornice serve to enclose the fifth floor, setting it off from the lower floors.
The Kendall, Taylor & Stevens architectural firm, in existence from 1898 to 1907, was conprised of Henry Hubbard Kendall (1855-1943), an M.I.T. graduate who continued his training with William Gibbons Preston and served as Assistant to the Supervising Architect of the Treasury Department in Washington from 1879 to 1889, Edward F. Stevens, and Bertrand E. Taylor (1885-1909), another M.I.T. graduate who continued his training with Ober & Rand. Other Kendall, Taylor & Stevens-designed buildings in the environs are the Oliver Ditson Building (1900-1902) at 449-451 Washington Street and the building at 190-192 High Street.
Charles S. Damrell, in A HALF CENTURY OF BOSTON'S BUILDIcrc (1895), has this to say about Woodbury & Leighton, the builders of 80-86 Kingston Street: "The erection of many of the largest and handsomest of the public buildings, as well as many of the great office and mercantile structures in this section, has been most satisfactorily accomplished by the firm of Woodbury & Leighton, who are without doubt one of the largest and most successful firms of contractors in New England." (p. 376) . Besides building the Eben D. Jordan building (1890-1891) , which stood on the site of the present Bedford Street Mechanical Garage, and the nearby Auchmuty Building at 104-122 Kingston Street, Woodbury &
17
Leighton also erected such major buildings as the Boston Public Library, the Boylston Market Association Building, the Carter Building, the Bowdoin Street Theatre and the Hollis Street Church.
88-100 KINGSTON STREET, VJINSLCW & WETHERELL, 1893
Forming a strong anchor to the proposed National Register Textile District at the corner of Kingston and Essex Streets, the five-story red brick loft building at 88-100 Kingston Street was built in 1893 and immediately occupied by Blodgett, Crdway & Webber. This well-known firm of dry goods commission merchants had roots going back to 1832, with the elegant John R. Ordway's firm of Ordway, Blodgett & Co. being the immediate predecessor.
Similar to the adjacent building at 80-86 Kingston Street, 88-100 Kingston Street is located in what was by the 1870s the heart of Boston's wool and textile trade. In 1930 the building was still entirely occupied by textile enterprises including two clothing manufacturers, the Central Clothing Co. and the Waldfogel-Abrams Co., an apron manufacturer, the Silin Manufacturing Co., and a dry goods commission merchant, Charles E. Katz & Co. Visible from several blocks to the west up Essex Street, this prominent building is by architecture", history and function an integral conponent in the proposed National Register Textile District.
This five-story red brick Second Renaissance Revival style building, with a two-story cast-iron storefront, is currently being restored. An egg-and-dart string course (of metal?) separates the storefronts from the third-to-fifth-floor brick portion of the building. The windows on floors three to five are grouped 3-1-3 by the brownstone sills and metal lintels. Brick dentils are located below windows of the fourth floor, and above and below the fifth floor. The corners of the building are brick-quoined, of the same color brick, a subtle touch. The fifth floor is capped by a round brownstone molding, egg-and-dart molding, nine paterae and a denticulated frieze. The slightly overhanding cornice is banded by copper. A particularly interesting ground floor feature is the freestanding column located at the corner entry, decorated with fleur-de-lis. The buildings form a handsome pair, of the same height and similar mass.
In an eight-year span, from 1889 to 1897, the inportant architectural firm of Winslow & Wetherell designed four buildings, all on the east side of Kingston Street. The Romanesque Revival Auchmuty Building (104-122 Kingston Street) , just across Essex Street from the Project site, was built in 1889, and the massive Eben B. Jordan Building which stood on the present site of the Bedford Street Mechanical Garage was erected in 1891. The firm next designed the Late Renaissance Revival 88-100 Kingston Street in 1893, followed by the gem-like National Register Proctor Building at 100-106 Bedford Street in 1897, executed in the rare Spanish Renaissance Style. All four buildings, of which three remain, are testimony to the versatility of this large nineteenth- century architectural firm which was particularly known for its large-
18
scale downtown commercial buildings. Prolific architects in the textile and leather districts, Winslow & Wetherell also designed 134-136 and 138-144 Lincoln Street in 1889, 146-154 Lincoln Street in 1892, and 106-112 Beach Street in 1898, all in the Roiranesque Revival Style.
The Winslow & Wetherell firm also designed many notable works in Boston's Central Business District. These included the Jeweler's Building (371-379 Washington Street), the former Shreve, Cramp & Low Building (147 Tremont Street), the Walker Building (114-166 Boylston Street) and the Steinert Building (162 Boylston Street). Both Vtalter T. Winslow (1843-1909) and George H. Wetherell (1854-1930) were trained at the Ecole des Beaux Arts with Wetherell also studying at MIT. Winslow entered the office of distinguished architect Nathaniel J. Bradlee first as a student, later forming the Bradlee and Winslow partnership which Wetherell joined in the early 1880s. '.•fhen Bradlee died in 1888, Winslow and Wetherell formed a new partnership and inherited Bradlee 's large clientele.
PROPOSED NATIONAL REGISTER TEXTILE DISTRICT
GENERAL OVERVIEW
The proposed Textile District is representative of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century period when Boston was "the principal trading city for the mills of New England following the Civil War" and the city's dry goods district "was the most active in the northeastern United States." (Boston Landmarks Commission, Proctor Building) In the 1830s, the dry goods merchants were mostly located at the lower part of old Washington Street, later moving to State and Kilby Street, all to be devastated in the 1872 fire. In the 1890s, the textile district was located in Boston's main commercial area, along VJashington and Summer Streets. The expansion of the retail trade in this sector, however, forced the offices and warehouses of the wholesale merchants southward and the wholesale wool merchants settled on Chauncy Street and the textile wholesalers and ready-made clothing manufacturers close by along Essex and Kingston Street. This shift southward of the textile industry can be easily traced by studying the original use of the buildings of the proposed Commercial Palace District, in the heart of the central business district. (Refer to map entitled "Existing Buildings in Project Area According to Original Use.") It was found that over thirty of the existing Commercial Palace Buildings were originally used for the textile industry.
The Textile District is probably more unified through building use within the proposed district than by its architecture, although there are many shared characteristics. Construed largely during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Textile District buildings generally display Romanesque and Classical Revival styles or classically-inspired detailing. Materials are commonly brick, with granite, sandstone and bra^mstone ornament. The buildings in the Textile District are generally of high quality craftsmanship and design,
19
and several represent the work of prcsninent architects.
Located south and west of Boston's central financial and retail area, the Textile District is in an area that contained rowhouses until the end of the nineteenth century. Conpactly massed between Chauncy and Kingston Street, connected by Essex Street, the District is cortprised of approxinately fifteen structures. The Project Site buildings, 80-86 Kingston Street and 88-100 Kingston Street, the anchor for the eastern part of the District, are described above; other buildings included in the proposed Textile District are discussed below.
INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS IN TEXTILE DISTRICT:
AUCHMUTY BUILDING, 104-122 KINGSTON STREET. WINSLOW & VJETHERILL, 1889-90
This 5x4-bay, six-story Romanesque Revival mercantile building, located across Essex Street from the Project Site and built by Woodbury and Leighton, features a massive free-standing brcwnstone column at its corner entrance. (See photo of Barown Durrell Store from 1930s) Large display windows are separated by rusticated brownstone piers, and the sixth floor features round-arched windows and an arcaded, corbelled cornice. (See above sections on 88-100 Kingston St. and the Proctor Building for information on Winslow & Wetherell)
Architecturally and historically significant, the Auchmuty Building has been evaluated a "Category Three" structure by the Boston Landmarks Commission. Always associated with the wholesaling of clothing, it was long occupied by Brown, Durrell & Co., established in 1872, a prestigious inporting and manufacturing firm of hosiery and underwear, which also had buildings in Chicago and New York. In 1989 such textile firms as Kingston Textile and United Curtain Co. are still in residence, and the building is well-known for its large "Dainty Dot Hosiery" sign. Essex Street, which was named in 1708, was also called Auchmuty's Lane, honoring a distinguished family of barristers and judges.
121-127 KINGSTON STREET, WILLIAM RANDOLPH EMERSON, 1889 129-131 KINGSTON STREET, THEODORE MINOT CLARK, 1889
Designed by William Randolph Emerson in 1889 in the Late Renaissance Revival Style, 121-127 Kingston Street originally housed textile-related firms, including DeL. Sheplie & Co., a bonnet frome manufacturer. Adjacent to this building is 129-131 Kingston Street, also built in 1889, but designed by Theodore Minot Clark in the Romanesque Revival _ Style. The building's original occupants are unknown, but two curtain conpanies were on the premises in 1930.
11-13 EDINBORO STREET, CHARLES G. PARK, 1900
20
Built according to the plans of Charles G. Park, this building had an early use of the "business of working upon cotton goods."
Many of the Essex Street buildings included in the proposed Textile District are still occupied by textile-related firms.
73-79 ESSEX, ALLEU & COLLENS, 1907
A Classical Revival style structure, designed by the architects of Emnanuel Church's Leslie Lindsey Chapel and numerous college and hospital buildings throughout New England, 73-79 Essex is an eight-story building with a two-floor granite and cast-iron base. An original tenant for this building was Joy, Langdon & Co., agents for some of Lowell's woolen mills. In 1989 Charmil Sportswear and the A & L Pleating Co. appeared to be still on the premises.
81-83 ESSEX, THE PELHAM BUILDING, 1900, STEPHEN CODMAN
A Steel frame, granite and brick structure with vertical emphasis, the Pelham Building has been remodeled so that its original intent has been_ masked. If one compares this building to Codman's 166-174 Portland Street, conpleted a year earlier, the more sinuous, almost Art Nouveau quality is evident. Originally the top floor featured four classically-derived figure busts between the spandrels, with eagles at either corner. This has been replaced by a yellow-brick addition which does retain similar iressing. Codman (1867-1944) was the solo architect for several noted commercial buildings, as well as the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital and the Berkeley Building, completed in partnership with Desire Despradelle (1862-1912) . The Pelham Building housed Hawley Folsom Co., established in 1835 and Boston's oldest wholesale dealer in men's furnishings.
85-91 ESSEX, THE EDINBORO BUILDING, GEO. POPE, 1890
The Edinboro Building is a dignified 6xl0-bay brick and sandstone conroercial structure with a cast-iron storefront and some classical detailing. Pope designed a number of commercial structures and residences during the late nineteenth century. From 1901-1910 the Boston Dry Goods Co., "the leading dress and silk house of New England," was on the premises; an old sign for the "Progressive Clothing Co." is still on the building.
105-107 ESSEX, KINGSTON BUILDING, FREDERICK POPE, 1888
The work of a prolific late-nineteenth-century architect, Frederick Pc^3e, the Kingston Building is a Classical Revival style building of brownstone and brick with cast-iron storefronts and free-standing columns at the corner entrances. The earliest known occupant was A. J.
Pierce & Co., dealers in linens and lining dry goods; signs still on the building advertise various textile concerns, including "Cape Cod
21
Classic."
62-72 ESSEX, WINSLCW, ;7ETHERELL & BIGELaW, 1899
Located on a prominent corner site, this eight-story 14xl4-bay mercantile structure of brick and limestone features some classically inspired detail. Henry Forbes Bigelow (1867-1929) studied at M.I.T. and in Paris before joining V'Jinslow & Wetherell in 1898. (See above for information on Winslow & Wetherell) The building was formerly occupied by wool merchants.
76-78 ESSEX, BLACKALL, CLAPP & WHITTI^DRE, 1922
A six-story building, two bays wide, of cast stone, which still in 1989 houses Gelles Neckware Ltd.
89-99 CHAUNCY STREET, THE TEXTILE BUILDING, GEO. W. HARVEY, 1917
This eleven-story steel fraire skyscraper was designed by George W. Harvey, who also built 105-111 and 115-117 Chauncy Street, in 1917. Above the two-story base are Chicago-style windows. A projecting stone cornice and copper parapet cap this comtiercial building. Chauncy Street was by 1906 central to the wool jobbing trade, and the Textile Building has a sign proclaiming the building to be "Home of Nationally Famous Firms in the Textile and Associated Industries." It is still a viable textile building, occupied by such firms as Baxter Costume, Boston Curtain and Puritan Sportswear.
105-111 CHAUNCY, THE FROST BUILDING, J. MERRILL BRCV/N, 1902
This is an eight-story, six-bay Classical Revival/Romanesque structure with a thrse-story cast-iron base. It was primarily occupied by wool merchants. Although it now houses mainly professional tenants, Winmill Fabrics is still located there.
115-117 CHAUNCY, THE VffiNDELL PHILLIPS OFFICE BUILDING/CHAUNCY HOUSE, CLINTON J. WARREN, 1921
Located on the site of Wendell Phillips House, 50 Essex Street, this twelve-story Classical Revival style gray terra-cotta-clad steel-frame skyscraper was designed by Chicago architect Clinton J. Warren. Warren also designed the filigreed white terra cotta building at 745 Boylston Street, as well as several other office buildings in the Central Business District. Originally occupied by clothing wholesalers such as "The Belle Waist Co." as well as dry goods and woolen goods merchants, the upper floors of the building were converted to apartments in 1974, although there are still fabric stores on the street level.
90-100 CHAUNCY STREET, THE WElNlTV?DRrH BUILDING, FEHMER & PAGE, 1893
22
Also designed in the Classical Revival Style, the Wentworth Building held four wool merchants as well as two wholesale dry goods companies and a dry goods commission merchant in 1896. Although it is unclear whether any textile firms are still in residence, many signs such as "Hub Formal Wear Co. 5th Floor" still adorn the building.
After a building-by-building examination of each structure in the proposed National Register Textile District, it seems clear that both 80-86 Kingston Street and 88-100 Kingston Street on the Project Site are an integral part both historically and architecturally of the District. The two Project Site buildings share with the other structures their original function as buildings housing textile enterprises as well as being representative of the textile industry so crucial to Boston and New England's nineteenth-century economy. In addition, the Project Site buildings share not only the sane general scale and massing of the other District buildings but even share, in several cases, the same architect, builder or style.
23
CITY, STATE AND FEDERAL DESIGNATIONS AFFECTING HISTORICAL RESOURCES ON OR IN THE ENVIRONS OF THE KINGSTON/BEDFORD/ESSEX STREET DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF BOSTON
DOWNTOWN ZONING: INTERIM PIANNING OVERLAY DISTRICT
Relation to Height Restrictions on the Project Site: The Kingston/ Bedford/Essex Street Development (Project Site) is included in the Interim Planning Overlay District (IPOD) of the Boston Zoning Code, dated September 25, 1987, which will remain in effect until September 25, 1989. The site is in "South Station/Bedford-Essex, Subdistrict 0" which is called an "Economic Development Area Subdistrict" and allows an "As-of -Right Height/FAR" (Floor Area Ratio Standard) of 300'/13 or an "Enhanced Height/FAR" of 400 V15. The Board of Appeal may grant such enhanced building heights and FARs if (a) the project is consistent with the planning objectives stated in Sections 27D-4 and 27D-11 [see below] and the design review provisions of Section 31-8 [see below] ; (b) a family care center is included in the project and (c) the public benefits of the project outweigh any burdens iiiposed. (Section 27D-7) The Project Site is in neither a "Housing Priority" area nor a "Planned Develc^Mnent Area."
"Economic Development Area Subdistricts" are "characterized by the presence of underutilized and developable land. New development may occur in these areas without threatening historically or architecturally inportant buildings, districts, open space, or infrastructure capacity." (Section 27D-4) The purposes of Economic Development Area Subdistricts are "to achieve orderly redevelopment; to channel mixed-use development toward underutilized sites; to provide development opportunities at lower land costs; to utilize existing transit centers; to improve traffic access and circulation; to expand the financial district; and to create an active pedestrian and street life." (Section 27D-11)
Reference: Boston Redevelopment Authority: "Text Amendment Application No. 123: Downtown Zoning: Interim Planning Overlay District and Related Amendments," effective September 25, 1987 and "Map Amendment Application No. 265: Downtown Interim Planning Overlay District Subdistricts, area permitting Planned Development Areas, Housing Priority Areas," effective September 25, 1987.
PROPOSED DOWNTCWN ZONING - NORTH AND SOUTH STATIOI ECONOIIC DEVELOPMENT AREAS
This recently (May 1989) proposed anendment to the Boston Zoning Code would succeed the regulations for the South Station Economic Developnent Area as set forth in the Downtown Interim Planning Overlay District (IPOD) above.
24
Relation to Project Site: In this new amendment, the Bedford/Kingston/ Essex Development Site, referred to as the "Parcel-to-Parcel Linkage Development Area," has a special zone with an allowed as-of -right height of 465' and FAR of 14. This document does not address the issue of whether this height and FAR may be "enhanced" as outlined for the IPOD above. As the city's first Parcel-to-Parcel Linkage project, the Bedford/Kingston/Essex Development project would also be entitled to a "Streamlined Approval Process."
The proposed amendment would also affect the Project's design, particularly in regard to street wall height which cannot exceed 70 feet along Essex and Lincoln Streets and 80 feet along Bedford and Kingston Street. Further design guidelines regulate street wall continuity and setback requirements. It should be noted that no off-street parking appears to be required for the Project.
Reference: "Article 40: South Station Economic Development Area," May 1989. A proposed amendment to the Boston Zoning Code, as established under Chapter 665 of the Acts of 1956 as amended.
DOWNTOWN ZONING - MIDTCWN CULTURAL DISTRICT
Relation to Project Site: The Kingston/Bedford/Essex Street Development is included in the Midtown Cultural District Special Study Area but not in the Midtown Cultural District itself. The relevant boundaries for the Study Area from the intersection of Summer and Hawley Streets are: "southerly along Summer Street for approximately 350 feet; westerly in a straight line for approximtely 500 feet until the centerline of Bedford Street; southeasterly along the centerline of Bedford Street until the intersection of Bedford, Summer, High and South Streets; westerly in a straight line for approximately 458 feet until the intersection of Essex Street and Lincoln Street; northwesterly along the centerline of Essex Street until the intersection of Essex Street and Chauncy Street."
Despite not being included within its actual perimeter, the Kingston/ Bedford/Essex Street Development has close ties to the Midtown Cultural District as Kingston Street, between Bedford and Essex Street, forms both part of the eastern boundary of the District and the western boundary of the Project Site. It is clearly included in the urban design section of the Midtown Cultural District Plan which states: "A spine of mid-rise towers should follow the Essex/Bedford Street economic development area from South Station to Washington Street to define the southern edge of the Financial District and form a transition to the low-rise Chinatown neighborhood." ("District Plan," p. 118).
The Midtown Cultural District Plan specifically cites the Kingston/ Bedford/Essex Street Development as a model for development programs in this area of the city. This Parcel-to-Parcel 1 Project links the construction of a major building on a city-owned site in the Midtown Cultural District at Kingston, Bedford and Essex Streets with the development of Parcel 18 at Tremont and Ruggles Streets in Roxbury. This program is a joint venture of a major developer and a partnership
25
of businessmen frcxn Boston's communities of color. The joint partnership has set a goal of enploying minority- and women-owned business enterprises for 30 percent of the work on the project and has agreed to set aside affordable space in the project for minority- and women-owned businesses. The Project is further cited for strengthening conmunity-based development organizations in Chinatown by means of "the establishment of an $18.6 million community development fund, capitalized by the developnent of the Kingston- Bedford parking garage site and Parcel 18 in Roxbury." ("District Plan," p. 51, 83)
The Kingston/Bedford/Essex Street Development should be consistent with current goals of the Midtown Cultural District Plan. Two of these goals are to "Protect the district's historic scale and character through land use and urban design guidelines that ensure that new development is in character with the district" and to enhance "Boston's historic character by establishing policies that will protect and encourage the restoration of historic buildings and maintain the states that "Developers of large projects on certain, carefully- selected sites, can receive height and density bonuses if they renovate certain historic buildings." ("District Plan," p. 110)
The Midtown Cultural District Plan has several provisions that particularly relate to the design of the Kingston/Bedford/Essex Development in terms of scale and street patterns. It specifically states: "... the redevelopnent of the city-owned Kingston/Bedford parking garage in the Bedford/Essex corridor will be appropriately scaled." ("District Plan," p. 152) The Plan also stresses the importance of street patterns both for pedestrian and vehicular use in the District and encourages new developments: "To maintain the district's historic street pattern, which developed before the Revolutionary War and was expanded through 19th century landfilling, the preservation of existing streets and alleys and their rejuvenation and use as pedestrian-oriented ways ... while continuing to allow vehicular access on minor streets." ("District Plan," p. 114-115).
Reference: Boston Redevelopment Authority: "Text Amendment Application No. 123: Downtown Zoning: Interim Planning Overlay District and Related Amendments," Appendices G and H, effective September 25, 1987; "Downtown Zoning: Midtown Cultural District Plan," February 1989; and "Midtown Cultural District Plan," February 1989.
DCWNTOWN ZONING - ARTICLE 31 - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUIREMENTS - ENACTED
The particularly relevant portion of this article for the Kingston/ Bedford/Essex Street Development is Section 31-10, the "Historic Resources Coirponent" which reads: "In its Seeping Determination, the Boston Redevelopment Authority shall require the ^^licant to submit an analysis which sets forth measures to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate any potential adverse effect which the Proposed Project may have on the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural resources of any district, site, building, structure, or object listed in the State Register of Historic Places. After its own review of such analysis, the
26
Boston Redevelopment Authority may forward the Historic Resources Conponent to appropriate governmental agencies for their review, cCTiiment, and recommendations, including but not limited to, a statement as to whether the Proposed Project satisfies any regulatory requirements of such governmental agencies."
Reference: Boston Redevelopment Authority: "Downtown Zoning: Interim Planning Overlay District and Related Amendments: A Plan to Manage Growth," Section 31-10, April 9, 1987.
DOWNTOWN ZONING - ARTICLE 32 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION - PROPOSED
Section 32-4, "Registration of Historic Buildings," explains the Zoning Commission "may register any structure or building as a Category One, Category Two, Category Three, or Category Four Historic Building in light of the qualities of history, architecture, an urban design it exhibits." The Boston Landmarks Commission may petition the Zoning Commission to register as an Historic Building any building or structure which complies with the provision of Section 32-4.
Relation to Project Site: There are two historic buildings on the Kingston/Bedford/Essex Development site: 80-86 Kingston Street and 88-100 Kingston Street. Both are Category Four buildings which are defined as "of importance as an integral element of a visually cohesive streetscape of major historical or architectural significance; as buildings with some individual architectural distinction, whether because of their scale, materials, craftsmanship or detailing, which provide a context for buildings historically and architecturally more significant when viewed as a whole; or as buildings which, when observed together, provide a scale which is an appropriate context for Category One, Category Two, or Category Three structures." Note: this last provision is especially relevant to the Kingston/Bedford/Essex Development Site as 80-86 Kingston Street and 88-100 Kingston Street provide an appropriate scale and contect for the Auchmuty Building at 104-122 Kingston Street, a Category Three structure located across Essex Street.
Regulations from the proposed Artical 32, which would affect the historic buildings, 80-86 Kingston Street and 88-100 Kingston Street, are as follows:
(1) Integral Features of an Historic Building shall be preserved whenever possible.
(2) Deteriorated material or Integral Features of an Historic Building shall be repaired, whenever possible, rather than replaced or removed.
(3) New additions or alterations shall not disrupt the essential form and integrity of any Historic Building and should be coitpatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the Historic Building.
27
Reference: Boston Redevelopment Authority: "Downtown Zoning: Interim Planning Overlay District and Related Amendments: A Plan to Manage Growth," Section 32, April 9, 1987.
COMMERCIAL PLACE DISTRICT - "Kingston Garage Area"
The Commercial Place District Report identifies the Kingston/Bedford/ Essex Street Development Site as a "Significant Inpact Area" and expresses concern about the relationship of any new development to the Bedford Building and Bedford Street. With the goal of reinforcing the historic character of the district, the Report offers the following design suggestions:
(1) Restrict the cornice height of any new building to six floors along Bedford Street and that portion of Lincoln Street alongside the Bedford Building, although a higher building set back 25 feet would be acceptable.
(2) The full width of Lincoln Street should be maintained as open space even if the street, as such, is discontinued to preserve the setting for the Bedford Building.
(3) Alignment along the street edge is desirable along Bedford and Kingston Streets, although not essential.
(4) It is critical that the material of the new construction blend with the predominant masonry materials traditional to the area. This will require careful coloring and scaling of materials to prevent abrasive contrast such as that of the tower at 100 Summer Street.
Reference: Boston Redevelopment Authority: "Downtown Zoning: Interim Planning Overlay District and Related Amendments: A Plan to Manage Growth," Section 32, April 9, 1987.
BOSTON LANDMARKS COMMISSION DESIGNATIONS:
Local Landmarks: Church Green Buildings, 101-113 Summer Street
Relation to Project Site: Across Bedford Street and
slightly west
Proctor Building
Corner of Bedford and Kingston Streets
Relation to Project Site: Across Bedford Street
United Shoe Machinery Corp. Building 138-164 Federal Street, 38-66 High Street Relation to Project Site: Environs
28
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
All the properties listed under Local Landmarks and the National Register of Historic Places including individual properties, districts and determination of eligibility are listed in the State Register of Historic Places.
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION - PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR A NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES TEXTILE DISTRICT
The proposed Textile District includes: properties on Chauncy Street, Nos. 89-99, 90-100, 105-111, 115-117; Edinboro Street, No. 11-13; Essex Street, Nos. 62-68, 73-79, 81-83, 85-91, 105-107; and Kingston Street, Nos. 80-86, 88-100, 104-122, 121-127, 129-131.
Relation to Project Site: Both 80-86 Kingston Street and 88-100 Kingston Street are contributing structures in the proposed Textile District and are located on the Project Site.
Reference: Letter from Kathryn Kubie of the Massachusetts Historical Commission to Moritz Bergmeyer of Chauncy-Harrison Associates, May 2, 1984.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - NATICNAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES - INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY
Bedford Building, 89-103 Bedford Street Relation to Project Site: Adjacent
South Station Headhouse, Atlantic Avenue and Summer Street Relation to Project Site: Environs
United Shoe Machinery Corp. Building 138-164 Federal Street, 38-66 High Street Relation to Project Site: Environs
NATIC*JAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES - DISTRICT
Leather District, roughly bounded by Atlantic Ave., Surface Artery,
and Massachusetts Turnpike
Relation to Project Site: Across the Surface Artery
29
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PIACES - DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY (This includes "properties of local, state or national significance determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places by the Secretary of the Interior during the course of a federal undertaking. Determinations of Eligibility also occur if a property owner objects to listing, or if a majority of property owners in a district object to listing.")
Commercial Palace Historic District, roughly bounded by Bedford, Summer, Franklin, Hawley and Chauncy Streets. Relation to Project Site: Adjacent
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PIACES - PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY
Textile District (for description of included properties, please refer to "Massachusetts Historical Commission - Preliminary Determination of Eligibility" above)
Relation to Project Site: Both 80-86 Kingston Street and 88-100 Kingston Street are contributing structures in the proposed Textile District and are located on the Project Site.
Reference: Letter from Myra F. Harrison, Assistant Regional Director, National Park Service, Philadelphia. Received at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, September 17, 1984.
30
COMMERCIAL PALACE DISTRICT
The Boston Landitarks Commission and the Boston Redevelopment Authority, in a collaborative effort, prepared a thorough study of the Commercial Palace District which was concluded in July of 1983. The introduction to this report relates the following concerning the significance of the District:
"This area is the largest surviving portion of Boston's late 19th century commercial district. Devastated during the Great Fire of 1872, the area was rebuilt quickly to serve the dry goods and clothing industries which dominated Boston's economy during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Reflecting Boston's wealth and confidence in this period, the area is characterized by masonry buildings with a consistent cornice height and richly articulated facades."
The report also observes that two very different trends are occur ing with in the District: on the one hand, sensitive rehabilitations, and on the other, large-scale buidings of inappropriate style.
Once a fashionable residential district, the Commercial Palace District began a gradual transition in the 1830s to commercial, mercantile interests. It could be said that the turning point (or last hold-out?) was the demolition of the elegant houses and gardens of Franklin Place and Bulfinch's famed Tontine Crescent in 1857 to make way for new commercial buildings. Tontine Crescent was Charles Bulfinch's 1793 proposal for a grand row of sixteen connected brick houses. The three- story houses extended in a gentle curve, and in the center of this block an arch cut through toward Summer Street, hence the name Arch Street. The space above the arch was reserved for the Massachusetts Historical Society and the Boston Library Society. The project eventually caused Bulfinch's bankruptcy, although it was completed. This grand scheme for what was then known as Franklin Place gave way to commercial interests in the 1850s. An account in the Boston Almanac in 1859 states the following concerning the development:
"The past year has given us an instance of this mighty change, as remarkable and as conplete as any which the history of our city can show. "Franklin Place," once the residence of the wealthy and fashionable of the city, is now no more. It has given place since our last issue to "Franklin Street" - a street composed on either side of stores and warehouses as stately and inposing as any of which the busiest marts of commerce can boast."
Architects chosen for this project included such notables as Gridley J. F. Bryant and Hammatt Billings. These grand, largely granite structures were destroyed in the Great Fire of 1872, and today's "commercial palaces" rose in their place. Today the gentle curve of Franklin Street pays homage to the vanished houses.
31
The detailing and proportions of elements within the overall building are good. The negative impact of the Project on individual historic resources in particular and on the historic fabric of Boston in general, derives from the tower's height and bulk and from inappropriate materials such as aluminum curtain wall and pre-cast concrete in relation to the historic masonry environment. The tower will be most intrusive when viewed from a distance along Essex Street and from the Leather District. The closing of Columbia Street is totally negative.
The effects can be mitigated by reducing the overall density, by dividing the Project into two separate lower elements on either side of a retained Columbia Street (which might be treated as a glass-covered arcade) , and by replacing the pre-cast and curtain wall materials with granite.
Although not within the Development's control, the widening of Essex Street, resulting in the demolition of 88-100 Kingston Street, would be disastrous.
33
IMPACT OF PPQJECT: PRIMARY
lOTRODUCTION: THE POSSIBLE WIDENINX3 OF ESSEX STREET
Evaluating the inpact of the Bedford/Kingston/Essex Street Development Project on the historic buildings on the site is difficult, as there is an unfunded proposal to widen Essex Street. If this widening should take place, it appears to require the demolition, either partial or entire, of 88-100 Kingston Street. The widening will have a negative impact on the proposed Textile District by eliminating the strong eastern anchor of the district, 88-100 Kingston Street, by weakening the position of the adjacent 80-86 Kingston Street, and by destroying the streetscape formed by 80-86, 88-100, and 104-122 Kingston Street.
BEDFORD STREET MECHANICAL GARAGE
71-85 Bedford Street, encompassing 1-13 Columbia Street and 62-78
Kingston Street.
All alternatives for the Kingston/Bedford/Essex Street Development call for demolishing the Bedford Street Mechanical Garage. As this garage has always had a negative impact on the historic buildings on the site and in the environs, demolishing the garage can only be viewed as a positive impact of the Project.
80-86 KINGSTON STREET
Several of the alternative building schemes of the Project call for demolishing 80-86 Kingston Stareet. As this building is a contributing structure in the proposed National Register Textile District, this will have a negative inpact on the Textile District. ,
As a Category Four building, 80-86 Kingston Street, with 88-100 Kingston Street, is part of a major streetscape which furnishes appropriate scale and context for the Category Three Auchmuty Building across the street from the Project site at 104-122 Kingston Street. This streetscape is easily viewed from the west side of Kingston Street and is a major view coming up Essex Street from the west.
It might appear that if 88-100 Kingston Street has to be demolished due to the widening of Essex Street that the remaining 80-86 Kingston Street would become a fragment hopelessly out of the scale with the Project. This would not be the case, because the adjoining new buildings are limited to an 80' street wall height along Kingston Street which is actually lower than the Category Three Auchmuty Building across the street.
The best possible scenario would be to retain 80-86 Kingston Street as a separate building and site the proposed parking garage ramp in an alternate area. As has been abundantly proved in Montreal, it is perfectly feasible to have a parking garage under an existing building. If saving the building is impossible, at least the entire facade should
34
be retained with the proposed parking rainp relocated elsewhere. Although facades are generally not recommended, 80-86 Kingston Street is sited mid-block, and this mitigating measure would help maintain the architectural integrity of the Textile District.
88-100 KINGSTON STREET
It is not anticipated that 88-100 Kingston Street will be acquired as part of the Project site. However, the various Project building alternatives will have dramatically different impacts on the structure. If the widening of Essex Street takes place, the proposed National Register Textile District will lose a major contributing building.
A prominently sited corner building, 88-100 Kingston Street provides a strong visual conclusion to the Textile District at its eastern end. In addition, both 80-86 and 88-100 Kingston Street are Category Four buildings and furnish appropriate scale and context for the Category Three Auchmuty Building across Essex Street at 104-122 Kingston Street.
If 80-86 Kingston Street is allowed to remain in place, the low-rise portion of the Project will have a positive inpact on 88-100 Kingston Street, as the new Project building certainly will create a better environment than the present Bedford Street Mechanical Garage. On the other hand, if 80-86 Kingston Street is demolished, the Project will have a distinctively negative inpact on 88-100 Kingston Street, as the two buildings together create a distinctive architectural facade, further linked together by historical use.
PROPOSED NATIONAL REGISTER TEXTILE DISTRICT
If 80-86 Kingston Street and 80-100 Kingston Street are allowed to remain intact, the Project, with its proposed eighty-foot street wall height along Kingston Street, would have a beneficial inpact on the proposed Textile District.
If 80-86 Kingston Street is demolished by the Project and 80-100 Kingston Street is lost in the process of widening Essex Street, both occurrences will have a negative impact on the Textile District, as both buildings are highly visible, as one comes up Essex Street from the west, and the streetscape, which includes the Auchmuty Building at 104-122 Kingston Street, would be lost.
If 80-86 Kingston Street is demolished by the Project and 88-100 Kingston Street remains, this will negatively impact the Textile Distarict by eliminating a historically and architecturally significant building and weakening the ending streetscape of the District which includes the two Project Site buildings and the Auchmuty Building at 104-122 Kingston Street. A mitigating measure would be to retain a full facade for 80-86 Kingston Street so at least its architectural significance could be partially preserved.
35
COMMERCIAL PALACE DISTRICT
The Boston Landmarks Conmission and the Boston Redevelopment Authority, in a collaborative effort, prepared a thorough study of the Commercial Palace District which was concluded in July of 1983. The introduction to this report relates the following concerning the significance of the District:
"This area is the largest surviving portion of Boston's late 19th century commercial district. Devastated during the Great Fire of 1872, the area was rebuilt quickly to serve the dry goods and clothing industries which dominated Boston's economy during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Reflecting Boston's wealth and confidence in this period, the area is characterized by nasonry buildings with a consistent cornice height and richly articulated facades."
The report also observes that two very different trends are occuring with in the District: on the one hand, sensitive rehabilitations, and on the other, large-scale buidings of inappropriate style.
Once a fashionable residential district, the Commercial Palace District began a gradual transition in the 1830s to commercial, mercantile interests. It could be said that the turning point (or last hold-out?) was the demolition of the elegant houses and gardens of Franklin Place and Bulf inch's famed Tontine Crescent in 1857 to make way for new commercial buildings. Tontine Crescent was Charles Bulfinch's 1793 prcposal for a grand row of sixteen connected brick houses. The three- story houses extended in a gentle curve, and in the center of this block an arch cut through toward Sumner Street, hence the nane Arch Street. The space above the arch was reserved for the Massachusetts Historical Society and the Boston Library Society. The project eventually caused Bulfinch's bankruptcy, although it was completed. This grand scheme for what was then known as Franklin Place gave way to commercial interests in the 1850s. An account in the Boston Almanac in 1859 states the following concerning the development:
"The past year has given us an instance of this mighty change, as remarkable and as conplete as any which the history of our city can show. "Franklin Place," once the residence of the wealthy and fashionable of the city, is now no more. It has given place since our last issue to "Franklin Street" - a street composed on either side of stores and warehouses as stately and inposing as any of which the busiest marts of commerce can boast."
Architects chosen for this project included such notables as Gridley J. F. Bryant and Hammatt Billings. These grand, largely granite structures were destroyed in the Great Fire of 1872, and today's "commercial palaces" rose in their place. Today the gentle curve of Franklin Street pays homage to the vanished houses.
36
Following the Civil War, Boston becaiie the principal trading city for the mills of New England, becoming the leader in the textile, dry goods, shoe and leather industries. Because of the area's prominence, the merchants were able to rebuild quickly after the fire. The "commercial palaces", reflect their optimism.
The 26-building Commercial Palace District is generally located from Hawley Street to Devonshire Street on either side of Summer, and from Bedford to Franklin. Several significant buildings will be directly affected by the Project, including the National Register Bedford Building, abutting the Project; the Church Green Building and 101-103 SuiTiner Street, both Boston Landmarks; and the Proctor Building, also a Boston Landmark. The Project has been sensitive to these historic neighbors with large set-backs from the brick street walls on Bedford and Kingston Street. However, the problem of the negative impact of the tower's height and inappropriate materials on these buildings and other structures in the district remains.
BUILDINGS OF MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE IN THE COMMERCIAL PALACE DISTRICT:
THE BEDFORD BUILDING, 89-103 BEDFORD STREET CUMMINGS & SEARS, 1874 NATIONAL REGISTER
Located within the suggested ComriErcial Palace District, the post-fire Bedford Building is significant as "the best exanple of the remaining five or six Ruskinian Gothic style commercial buildings in Boston's central business district." (National Register Nomination Form) The four-story, plus mansard, Bedford Building features lively polychromatic facades of New Brunswick (St. George) red granite, white Vermont marble, red brick and terra cotta. The rusticated red granite ground level is followed on upper floors with white marble, ornamented with bands of terra cotta, red brick and granite. The corner tower is very successful, calling attention to the prominent siting of the building. Further, the Bedford Building is significant for its articulation of three distinct facades; its association with the shoe and leather and dry goods trade; and as one of only two known remaining downtown buildings by the noted Boston architectural firm, Cunmings and Sears. (The other is 72-74 Franklin Street.)
Charles A. Cummings (1833-1906) and Willard T. Sears (1837-1920) were partners from 1870-1889. Several of their noted projects include: New Old South Church (1874) and the Cyclorama (1884), 541 Tremont Street. (See also information under the Lincoln Building)
As a property listed on the National Register, and due to its proximity to the Project, the Bedford Building will be severely impacted by the Project. The large set-back and brick street v;all of the Project's Bedford Street elevation mitigates the Project's impact on the Bedford Building. It would be desirable to have a larger set-back on the Project's Lincoln Street elevation which also abuts the Bedford
37
Building. Unfortunately, this historic building is still negatively impacted by the height and materials of the Project's tower.
105-113 SUMMER STREET, CHURCH GREEN BUILDIt^IG, CIRCA 1873-74 101-103 SUMMER STREETT, CIRCA 1873-77 BOSTON LANDMARKS
The significance of these two contiguous structures is essentially twofold: firstly, through their association with the important shoe and leather trades, and secondly, as distinctive exanples of an important Boston building type designed by noted Boston architects.
Erected by William Faxon and Charles Elm after the great fire of 1872, the building takes its name from its predecessor on the site, Charles Bulfinch's famous octagonal New South Meeting House. (1814, razed in 1868) The Commercial Palace District report of 1983 sinply states: "The Church Green Building is one of the finest granite, post-fire buildings remaining downtown. Its significance is enhanced by siting on an entire block near the eastern entrance to the Summer Street corridor of 'commercial palaces'." The Church Green Building is also significant as the headquarters of the powerful and influential New England Shoe and Leather Manufacturers' and Dealers' Association from 1877-1883.
The Church Green building provides a fine example of the French academic architectural principles which influenced Boston architects during the 1870s and 1880s. Also evident are "Neo Grec" details, found in the abstraction of the building's classical details. The main facades of the building are of granite, while the rear facades are brick.
The architect for the Church Green Building has never been definitively named, although several likely candidates have been suggested. Originally felt to be the work of Jonathan Preston, it has also been suggested that it was the work of his son, v;illiam Gibbons. The younger Preston had recently returned from study at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris, and he undoubtedly was fully versed in the principles of French Academic architecture. A third possibility arises in the name of William Ralph Emerson, who was working in the Preston office during this time. Several of the design elements found in the Church Green Building appear very similar to three structures at the intersection of Kingston and Summer Sts. which have been attributed to Emerson. Emerson worked in Preston's office in the 1860s.
101-103 SUMMER STREET is also granite clad with ItalianateA^eo-Grec detailing, designed by prominent Boston architect Nathaniel J. Bradlee (see Proctor Bldg.), circa 1073-77. The building features a cast-iron base and a top floor of pressed galvanized iron made to resemble stone. The tenants of 101-103 Summer Street have also been connected to the shoe and leather or dry goods trade.
38
As Boston LandiiBrks, as well as conponents of the suggested Commercial Palace District, the Church Green Suilding and 101-103 Sumner Street will be impacted by the Project. The large set-back of the brick street wall of the Project's Bedford Street elevation helps to mitigate the Project's inpact on the Church Green Buildings. These historic buildings are still negatively irtpacted by the height and materials of the Project's tower.
THE PRXTOR BUILDI^rc, 100-106 BEDFORD STREET, WINSLa-J AND t^rtlTHERELL,
1897 BLC LANDMARK - JULY 1983 INCLUDED ALSO IN COMMERCIAL PALACE DISTRICT
Significant historically not only through its association with Boston's important shoe and leather industry, but also architecturally through its uncommon style and use of materials, the Proctor Building features a design which is "...unusually bold and elaborate for a commercial structure and is intact and in excellent condition above the first story." (BLC Study Report, 1983)
The small, flat-roofed, 3-story commercial building was designed by Winslow and VJetherell in 1897. Distinctive for its use of Spanish Renaissance motifs, which are rendered in high relief, tawny-colored terra cotta, the Proctor Building also displays high-quality craftsmanship and can be said to display the most elaborate and elegant display terra cotta on a snail scale commercial building in Boston. Each window is surmounted by a decorative lintel, pediment or arch. Second-floor pilasters are surmounted by third-floor finnials. The elaborate frieze and cornice is crowned by copper cresting. The oft-made comparison of this building to a jewel or gem is apt.
Walter T. Winslow (1843-1909), the senior partner, entered the firm of prominent architect, Nathaniel J. Bradlee while a student. He later studied at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris, becoming the junior partner of Bradlee and VJinslow. George H. Wetherell (1854-1930) studied at M.I.T. and at the Ecole, becoming a principal at Bradlee and Winslow. Winslow and V^etherell remained in partnership after Bradlee 's death and took over his many projects. Primarily known for their large-scale commercial buildings, some of their most noteworthy projects include the Steinert Building at 162 Boylston Street; the Jewelers Building at 371 VJashington Street; and the Auchmuty Building at 104-122 Kingston Street, which is part of the proposed textile district.
This building, n.amed for Thomas Proctor, a prominent leather nvanufacturer and dealer, was constructed several years after his death by his trustees. The building originally housed the Boston offices of the Goodyear Shoe Machinery Corp., one of the nation's largest manufacturers and distributors of shoe-making machinery at this time. In 1899, Goodyear merged with two other shoe machinery firms to form the United Shoe Machinery Corporation, which had its offices in the Albany Building (see Leather District). After Goodyear 's departure, the
39
Proctor Building continued to house office or manufacturing interests on the top two floors with small shops on the ground floor.
As a Boston Landmark, and also included in the proposed Cominercial Palace District, the Proctor Building will be inpacted by the Project.
Additional buildings of importance in the vicinity of the Project, but of secondary impact, are listed below. The large set-back of the brick street walls of the Project's Bedford and Kingston Street elevations help to mitigate the Project's iirpact on the Proctor Building. The scale and massing of this small historic building, however, will be negatively inpacted by the height and naterials of the Project's tower.
SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS IN THE CO'lt'ERCIAL PALACE DISTRICT
KEMJEDY'S DEPARTMENT STORE, 26-38 SUMMER STREET, 84-88 HAWLEY, EMERSON & FEHMER, 1873-74
Today nothing more than a slight facade, the former Kennedy's Department Store, now 101 Arch Street, was one of the downtown's most elaborate exanples of the panel brick style. A post-fire building, the former Kennedy's was the western anchor to a row of post-fire commercial structures along Summer Street. From its construction, tenants of the building have been predominantly from the clothing and dry goods trade.
William Ralph Emerson (1833-1918) and Carl Fehmer (b. 1835) were responsible for many significant Boston buildings including several in the Comirercial Palace District, most notably One Winthrop Square. A trio of buildings on Summer Street, 62-54, 66-72, and 33-87, are also attributed to Emerson & Fehmer.
Larc'S JB'ffiLERS, 40-46 SUMMER STREET, CHARLES KIRBY, 1873-74
Another building erected imnediately after the fire of 1872, 40-46 Summer Street is distinctive as one of the handful of cast-iron front buildings in Boston. The popular Italianate style, with its columns and round arched windows, was easily articulated in cast-iron. The fact that it was pre-fabricated and could be quickly and easily assembled on site was a strong selling point. The use of cast-iron facades was never as popular in Boston as in New York. The High Victorian Italianate style is illustrated by 40-46 Summer Street. Early tenants were manufacturers in textile- and clothing-related industries.
62-64, 66-72 SUMMER STREET, FAXON STORES, ATTRIBUTED TO EMERSON &
FEHMER, CIRCA 1873-74 83-87 SUMMER STREET, EMERSON & FEHMER, 1877-78
All three buildings are Neo-Grec in style and form a handsome ensemble at this intersection. 62-64 Sunnier and 66-72 Summer are clad in
40
granite, while 83-87 Sunimer is faced with marble. (See Kennedy's, above, for information on Emerson & Fehmer.)
72-74 FRANKLIN STREET, CUMMINGS & SEARS, 1874
Architects of another outstanding post-fire "commercial palace," the Ruskinian Gothic Bedford Building (see above information) , here the architects used a combination of Renaissance Revival and Neo Grec detailing, rendered in rough granite. The gentle curve of Franklin Street, evident in buildings such as 72-74 Franklin Street, is all that remains of the once-fashionable residential area of Franklin Place and the Tontine Crescent. (See Bedford Bldg. information for Cummings & Sears)
WIGGLESTORTH BLDG., 89-93 FRAt^LIN STREET, NATHANIEL J. BRADLEE, 1873
The Wigglesworth Building, a bit like a sausage with its curved front and rounded end, features a lively use of the panel-brick style. The facade is banded with brick, and light gray granite and sandstone. The top floor is set back above the cornice and features round arched windows (conpare with King's drawing in 1878 which does not have the fifth floor). (See previous information on Bradlee)
1 WINTHROP SQUARE, BEEBE-WELD BUILDING, EMERSOI & FEHMER, 1873
An interesting exanple of the transition from the French Second Empire to the Neo-Grec style, 1 Winthrop Square was commissioned by James M. Beebe, a dry goods merchant, and William F. Weld, a shipping merchant, after their previous mercantile block burned in 1872. The home of the BOSTON RECORD ATERICAN from 1924-1972, the granite building faces onto a pleasant recently-created park. (See above information on Emerson & Fehmer)
Additionally, the nineteenth-century commercial buildings at 115-141 Summer Street are now but facades with 125 Summer Street rising behind.
41
IMPACT OF PROJECT: SECONDARY
SOUTH STATim HEADHOUSE, 620-690 ATLANTIC AVENUE
SHEPLEY, ROTAN & COOLIDGE, 1898 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
The five-story curved head house, faced with granite, is significant as Boston's first and only remaining monuinental public exairple of the Neo- classical Revival style. The two-story base supports a three-story colonnade with full columns stej^ing forward. The columns are surmounted by an architrave and cornice with balustrade above. The wings extending from the curved main entrance shielded the train shed and tracks from view. Several innovations in railroad-station planning are evident in the South Station, including a technologically advanced train shed which featured a 570-foot span. The engineer-designer, J. VJorcester, adapted the 1891-1894 St. Louis Union Station's inverted arch truss system for the shed, which unfortunately was weakened by pollutants within the train shed and taken down in 1930.
Designed by the irrportant firm, Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge, H. H. Richardson's successor firm. South Station remains as a testimony to the once-great era of railroad travel.
The inpact of the Project on the South Station Headhouse will be confined to the limited visibility of the tower from the Headhouse due to intervening buildings. It will be slightly negative in terms of inappropriate materials and height.
UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION, 138-164 FEDERAL ST., 38-66 HIGH ST. PARKER, THOMAS & RICE, HENRY BAILEY ALDEN, ASSOC. ARCHITECT, 1929. BOSTON LANDMARK - 1980
The United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building is highly significant for three reasons: as a structure with strong ties to economic and social history of the city, the state and the New England region, through its one-time role as the leading shoe nechinery business in the United States; as Boston's "most intact and refined example of the Art Deco skyscraper" (BLC Study Report) which retains its ornate interior lobby; and as a work by the noted architectural firm of Parker, Thomas & Rice.
The success of the shoe industry was due to the fact that many of the labor-saving machinery needed for working in the leather- and shoe- iiBking industries were developed in Massachusetts. By 1899, the bulk of the rights to the iranufacture and distribution of these important inventions were controlled by three companies: the Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company (headquartered in the Boston Landmark Proctor Building) ; the McKay Lastong Machine Company; and the McKay Shoe Machinery Company. In 1928, USMC began purchasing property on High and Federal Streets, (see photo) As noted in the BLC Study Report, "The office building which was commissioned for this site was an expressive
42
nonument to the power of USMC. As such it represents the impact of the development of industry on the growth of the downtown business district."
An historical aside: The birthplace of Phillips Brooks, the enigmatic rector of Trinity Church, stood on the site of USMC.
A 24-story predominantly brick building, USMC was the first Boston building to make full use of the height and massing provisions of the 1928 amendment to the 1924 Boston Zoning Law. The result is the stepped-back , ziggurat nassing one associates with Art IDeco skyscrapers not only in Boston, but in many American cities, although Boston's Art Deco skyscrapers are not of the more flamboyant New York variety. USMC Building features not only the massing often associated with Art Deco buildings but also the motifs popular at this time: stylized flowers and figures, geanetric shapes, fountains and the ever popular eagle. USMC Building rises in four stages, to a tiled, pyramid-shaped roof, itself a highly visible landmark on the Boston skyline.
The storefronts and rich lobby interior combined give USMC Building the cohesion missing in many other surviving structures from Boston's Art Deco period.
J. Harleston Parker, Douglas H. Thomas and Arthur Wallace Rice were responsible for the State Street Trust Co. (1926) , John Hancock Building (1923), R. H. Stearns Co. Building (1909) and Women's Educational and Industrial Union (1906) , to list a few examples.
The inpact of the Project on the United Shoe Machinery Company Building will be confined to the limited visibility of the tower from the Building due to intervening structures. It will be slightly negative in terms of inappropriate materials and height.
NATIONAL REGISTER LEATHER DISTRICT
The Leather District lies across the Surface Artery to the immediate south of the Project site in an area bounded by Essex Street, Atlantic Avenue, Kneeland Street and the Surface Artery. The National Register nomination for the area states: "The Leather District is outstanding as Boston's most intact and homogeneous district of late nineteenth century vernacular commercial structures, as well as one of only a few in New England."
ARCHITECTURAL OVERVIEW OF THE LEATHER DISTRICT
As a result of the devastation of the Great Fire of 1872, Boston's Central Business District was rebuilt with emphasis on safety rather than on the use of new technology and materials. Conservatism and stringent building regulations set the tone for Central Business District and therefore the Leather District. For exairple, the building
43
heights were directly related to the width of the streets and party and fire-wall regulations restricted roof form and building types. Although the regulations made it difficult for Boston to expand vertically at this time (as Chicago did, for exanple) , the codes created the intact, homogeneous late-nineteenth-century commercial district known as Boston's leather district.
Although conservative in nature due to the effects of the fire, the newly erected buildings were not provincial. As noted in the National Register Nomination Firm, "...that although these buildings were constructed for general use rather than for a specific client, they were not speculatively built. Rather than sinply hire contractors to erect strictly utilitarian structures, there was a real concern for architectural expression whereby architects were hired as designers." The architects chosen to design the new houses of commerce and the new office, retail and warehouse buildings were adept at designing in all the current Victorian modes - Gothic, Italinate, Queen Anne, Romanesque and Neo-Grec - and they made use of granite, brick, brownstone, sandstone, marble and cast-iron.
The Leather District is characterized by five- and six-story red brick warehouses and wholesale houses. The prevailing style is Richardson Romanesque, with multi-level arcades. Brownstone ornament and cast-iron storefronts abound. Primarily constructed during the 1880s and 1890s, the Leather District is largely coftposed of flat-roofed, red brick buildings set back from the street. Continuous floor levels and cornice lines add to the cohesion of the district.
Later, turn-of-the-century buildings, such as the Albany Building by Peabody and Stearns (1899) (see discussion below) , made use of new steel framing, although the Albany Building is one of only three Leather District buildings to use steel framing prior to 1900. There was also a trend toward the use of lighter-colored building materials, such as white brick, as in the Albany Building.
Architecturally, the Leather District displays the high quality of design and use of materials that one would expect to find in the city that was once recognized as the world's leading center of the shoe and leather trades.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE LEATHER DISTRICT
Boston became a major marketing center for the shoe and leather industry during the mid-nineteenth century and by 1916 was recognized as the leading center of the world in the shoe and leather trades. Starting in the 1830s, the trade began to cluster around the American House (built 1835) on Hanover Street with the business center on Fulton Street. In the late 1840s, the trade moved to the Pearl and High Street area which was devastated by the great fire of 1872. Although the district was rebuilt, the wholesale shoe and leather trades and related dealers and iianufacturers, following the lead of the New England Shoe and Leather
44
Dealer Association (incorporated 1871) , began to gravitate to "Church Green," the intersection of Suiraner, Bedford and Lincoln Streets, located across from the Project Site. With the turn of the century, another shift occurred, with the industry nraving to the Lincoln and South Street area, the present Leather District.
Therefore, although the Project Site and the Leather District are physically separated by the Surface Artery, they actually have very close historical ties. (Refer to map entitled "Existing Buildings in Project Area According to Original Use.") The Proctor Building, a Boston Landirark located at 100-106 Bedford Street across from the Project Site, was named for Thomas E. Proctor, president of the United States Leather Co. and was first leased to the Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. The National Register Bedford Building (1874-1876) , 89-103 Bedford Street, located on the Project Site, listed such early tenants as the Friedman Brothers, makers of boots and shoes. Across Lincoln Street from the Project, the four buildings at 115-117, 119-121, 131-135, and 137-139 Summer Street, of which only the facades remain, were originally built for the boot and shoe trade. The Boston Landmark Church Green Building at 105-113 Summer Street, across Bedford Street from the Project, housed over two dozen wholesale boot and shoe dealers as well as the headquarters of the New England Shoe and Leather Manufacturers' " and Dealers' Association from 1877 to 1883. By 1929 the recognized leader of the shoe and leatherworking industries, the United Shoe Machinery Corporation (formed 1899) , considered the Project area still sufficiently viable in the leather trades to construct its landmark building at 138-164 Federal Streets and 38-66 High Street.
INDIVIDUAL LEATHER DISTRICT BUILDINGS
Without question four important Leather District buildings located along Essex and Lincoln Streets are highly visible from the Project, and each possesses an uninterrupted view of the Project. These structures include the following:
THE LINCOUa BUILDING, 66-86 LINCOLN STREET AT THE CORNERS OF ESSEX AND TUFTS STS., 1894.
The Lincoln Building was designed by noted Boston architect Willard T. Sears (1837-1920) in 1894. This six-story flat-roofed building is of red brick with Indiana limestone trim, in the Second Renaissance Revival style, and relates well in height and material to surrounding Leather District structures, despite its large scale. Sears skillfully used Renaissance details to break up the mass of the building. Along Lincoln Street, the stone base (ground floor) of the building contains the two main arched entries. Floors two to four feature clusters of triple- window bays with keystoned arches, while the fifth floor features round arched windows. On the sixth floor. Sears used rusticated stone. While using the same window configuration as on lower floors, here he sinplifies them and introduces a new element, two oval windows, which are located directly above the ground-floor entries. The Lincoln
45
Building was built on the site of an earlier commercial building, which was destroyed in an 1888 fire.
Sears was in partnership with Charles C. Cummings (1833-1906), forming the successful firm of Cummings and Sears, from 1870 to 1889. Several of their noted projects include: New Old South Church (1874); the Cyclorama (1884), 541 Tremont Street; and, important for this study, the National Register-listed Bedford Building at 89-105 Bedford Street (1874) , also included in the proposed Commercial Palace District. Sears designed several notable solo structures around the time of his work on the Lincoln Building, including the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, at the Fenway, which was completed circa 1902 from earlier designs.
The Commonwealth Shoe and Leather Company, manufacturer of the famed "Bostonian" shoes, which cost $4 a pair in 1906, was an original occupant of the Lincoln building.
116-128 LINCOLN STREET, 1888.
This building was designed by architect Franklin E. Kidder and constructed by Woodbury & Leighton, the largest and most successful New England contractors of that period. Although little is currently known" about the work of Franklin E. Kidder, his design for 116-128 Lincoln Street displays a skilled use of the Richardsonian Romanesque Style for a commercial building. Author Donlyn Lyndon comments: "The middle building at No. 116 is a thoroughly splendid Richardsonian Romanesque structure nearly as good as the Hartwell & Richardson building at No. 5 Causeway Street." (THE CITY OBSERVED: BOSTON. New York: Vintage Books, 1982) The second floor is composed of rusticated ashlar brownstone, while three-story arches enclose the middle three floors. The capitals of the piers supporting the arches feature a variety of Ronenesque motifs. The whole is surmounted by an arcaded, corbelled cornice. The combination of red brick and brownstone is compatible with materials found throughout the Leather District, as is the use of the Richardsonian Ronanesque Style.
THE ALBANY BUILDING, 2-32 ALBANY STREET, 1899.
Designed by the prestigious Boston firm, Peabody and Stearns, the Beaux- Arts Albany Building, which occupies the entire block at 2-32 Albany Street, demonstrates their ability to design successfully in a number of architectural styles. Of white brick and limestone, with cast stone and cast-iron detail, the Albany Building offers a pleasing contrast in material and spirit from earlier more Victorian Leather District structures. The two-story base features round arched stone entries, while floors three to five are of white brick. The cast-iron piers are embellished with shoes, slippers, alligator hide and similar motifs relating to the shoe and leather business, all in an Adamesque style. The United Shoe Machinery Corporation (see above) was located here from 1901 to 1929 before moving to the new Art Deco skyscraper on Federal Street in 1929. Elaborate capitals, cartouches inscribed "AB" and an
elaborate cornice conplete this building.
46
According to the National Register Nomination form for the Leather District, the Albany Building "...was one of the last major buildings to be erected in the District, and also uses the more modern steel frame construction techniques."
Among Peabody and Stearns' more noteworthy designs are: the Custom House Tower (1913) ; the Boston Stock Exchange (1889-91) , now Exchange Place; and the Ames-Webster House (1872) .
THE ESSEX HOTEL, 687-695 ATLANTIC AVENUE, 1899.
Located at the corners of Essex and East Streets, the Essex Hotel is a Beaux-Arts steel fraiie skyscraper, built to the design of Arthur H. Bowditch. The main facade features a rusticated white brick base with a decorative central entrance. A round arched window, above the entry, is flanked by stone cartouches and surmounted by a balcony. The white brick arcade of the third through fifth floors of the central bay provides a major decorative element as do the white brick quoins of the projecting end pavillions.
Arthur H. Bowditch, a skilled turn-of-the-century architect, kept up with current architectural trends and made use of steel framing and terra cotta facings. To illustrate this, one need only compare his Old South Building (1902-1904) or Washington Building (1904) with his later Blake Building (1912) . While the earlier structures use terra cotta for ornamentation, the Blake Building is all white glazed terra cotta, glass and vertical emphasis.
Formerly one of Boston's most prestigious hotels, the Essex Hotel was erected to accommodate the flow of passengers from the new South Station, the largest passenger station in the country, which publicly opened in January, 1899.
IMPACT OF PROJECT ON LEATHER DISTRICT
If the prcposed zoning guidelines for the South Station Economic Development Area (May 1989) are approved, the street wall height of the Project may not exceed seventy feet along both Essex and Lincoln Streets. Unfortunately the setback between street wall and tower in this case is only three feet, which qualifies as facadism and does not reflect the intent of the zoning guidelines. The impact will therefore be negative in terms of height, bulk and quality of materials. The new tower would also block the view of 99 Summer Street, an agreeable addition to the skyline. A substantial setback would help to mitigate the tower/street wall relationship.
47
Bibliography
"The Apparel Retailer," vol. VII, no . 6 .
Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, vol. Ill, 1888.
Bonner, John, "Map of Boston," 1722.
Boston Board of Trade, 2 9th Annual Report, by Edward J. Howard.
Boston, 1883. Boston Directories .
Boston Landmarks Commission: Individual "Building Information Forms" and: Central Business District Preservation Study, Part II - Summary of Findings, " prepared by Pamela W. Fox and Michail Koch, September, 1980; evaluation of 80-86 Kingston Street by Building Conservation Technology, July 1979; " The Church Green Buildings (101-103 and 105-113 Summer Street)," October 2, 1979; "United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building (138-164 Federal Street, 38-66 High Street) , 1980; "The Proctor Building (100-106 Bedford Street)," 1983;
Boston Landmarks Commission and Boston Redevelopment Authority: "Commercial Palace District" and Appendix, July, 1983.
"Boston Office Buildings in the Retail and Financial District," W.H. Ballard & Co., July 1, 1923.
Boston Public Library. Architects and Buildings File, Fine Arts Reference Department .
Boston Redevelopment Authority: " Downtown Zoning: Interim Planning Overlay District and Related Amendments: A Plan to Manage Growth," April 9, 1987; "Downtown Zoning, Midtown Cultural District Plan: Plan to Manage Growth," February 1989; "Midtown Cultural District Plan: Plan to Manage Growth," February 1989; "North Station/South Station," May 1989.
-1-
Bibliography
Boston Redevelopment Authority: "Text Amendment Application No. 123: Downtown Interim Planning Overlay District," effective September 25, 1987; "Map Amendment Application No. 255: Downtown Interim Planning Overlay District Subdistricts, area permitting Planned Development Areas, Housing Priority Areas," effective September 25, 1987.
Boston Selectman's Minutes.
Boston Tercentenary Committee, Subcommitte on Memorial History. Fifty Years of Boston: A Memorial Volume. Boston:1930.
Boston Town Records.
Brenan, Gerald, A History of the House of Percy. 2 vols., London: Freemantle & Co., 1902.
Bromley, G.W., Insurance Atlas of Boston. New York, 1868.
Cash, Phillip, Medical Men at the Sieae of Boston. 1775-1776, Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1973.
Coles Directory for Boston Central. 1989.
Commercial and Financial New England. Boston: The Boston Herald, 1906.
Crawford, Mary Caroline^ Famous Families of Massachusetts. 2 vols., Boston: Little Brown & Co . , 1930.
Damrell, Charles S. A Half Century of Boston's Rnildina. Boston: Louis P. Hager, 1895.
Diary of Samuel Sewall. 2 vols.. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 1973.
-2-
Bibliography
Dictionary of American Biography.
Drake, Samuel Adams. Old Landmarks and Historic Personages of Boston ■ Boston: James R.Osgood and Company, 1873.
"The Frost Building, 105-111 Chauncy Street, Boston, MA." Part I Historic Preservation Certification Application to the National Park Service, April 2, 1984.
Hales, John, "Map of Boston," 1814.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc. "Report on Oil and Hazardous Site Evaluation: One Lincoln Street Development, Boston, Massachusetts," March 1989.
Herndon, Richard, Boston of To-Day: A Glance at its History and Characteristics . Boston: Post Publihing Co, 1885.
Hopkins, G.M., Insurance Atlas of Boston. 1874.
King's Handbook of Boston, Cambridge: Moses King, 1878.
Leading Manufacturers and Merchants of the City of Boston. Boston: International Publishing Co., 1885.
Mclntyre, Henry, "Map of the City of Boston and Immediate Neighborhoods," 1852.
Massachusetts Historical Commission: National Register of Historic Places- Nomination Forms: "The Bedford Building (89-103 Bedford Street)," 1978; "Leather District," 1980; "South Station Headhouse (Atlantic Avenue and Summer Street)," 1974. Also: Historic and Archaeological Resources of the Boston Area. 1982.
-3-
Bibliography
Merrill, Gilbert R., Alfred R. Macormac and Herbert R. Mauersberger . American Cotton Handbook. 2nd revised edition. New York: Textile Book Publishers, Inc., 1949.
Price, William, "Map of Boston," 1769.
A Record of the Streets. Alleys. Places. Etc. in the Citv of Boston, Boston: Municipal Printing Office, 1902.
A Report of the Record Commissioners of the City of Boston
Containing the Statistics of the United States Direct Tax of 1798. as Assessed on Boston and the Names of the Inhabitants of Boston in 1790. as Collected for the First National Census, Boston: Rockwell & Churchill, City Printers, 1890.
Sanborn, D.A. Insurance Atlas of Boston. New York, 1868.
Shurtleff, Nathaniel B., A Topographical and Historical Description of Boston. Boston: Noyes, Holmes & Co., 1872.
Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities (SPNEA) , 141 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA. Photgraphic collection. Trade bill and Trade card collection.
Suffolk County Registry of Deeds, Boston, MA.
Thwing, Annie Haven, The Crooked and Narrow Streets of the Town of Boston 1630-1822. Boston: Marshall Jones Co., 1920.
Tyler, John W., Smugglers + Patriots: Boston Merchants and the Advent of the American Revolution. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1986.
Ward, David. "The Industrial Revolution and the Emergence pf
Boston's Central Business District." Economic Ceoaraphv. vol. 42, April, 1966.
-4-
Bibliography
Whitehill, Walter Muir. Boston: A Topographical History. 2nd edition, enlarged. Cambridge: Belknap Press, Harvard University, 1968.
-5-
APPENDIX
MAPS
/
X
Project Impact Area Project Site Excluded Buildings
i
EXISTING BUCLDING
IN
PROJECT AREA
ACCORDING TO
ORIGINAL USE
Bonner's Map, 1722
Bonner/Price Map, 1769
John Hale's Map, 1814
Bond to Thomdi]c«
r \
PI a H rf Fiis t a t CjS orr i^iimme)' Street
irin i bvofj ri a c e
' vn conn re f L en rritli
lI'.P. Pu/Jfr, surrn-er. UCflfe 50 J'( It nn /nt'/i
0.!.., n„ . d^/^/S^..^,,^-''*^... -f^..^^.
APPENDIX B: ILLUSTRATIONS
Lord Percy's Headquarters, Columbia Street, circa 1734. (Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities)
Wendell Phillips House, 50 Essex Street. (W. Phillips on step) (Bostonian Society/Old State House)
Goddard Mansion, Essex Street
1894 photo
,^:i..'^
Rowe/Prescott House, Bedford Street. Demolished 1845
Kingston Street, 1875 photo.
Nk
im
■B:
■i»^.t•l
»WX.I)l.|{|!i:i.l.&CO.]{W00NSCCKET RUBBER CCj
i!iiilii)IJii!lli!ll!iiiii!ii!imiiinii;!niiii^
'^.i*'-
i 'I '\y\r
S£jr'
Corner of Kingston and Bedford Streets.
Summer Street between Arch and Otis Streets. 1912 Phot(
^immm-
,§mf^[^m
mm^f^m^.
|
it |
|
|
■•Ffri |
|
|
* * u'' 1 |
J |
*,^:
rr 1-
^71"
t-
|
€1 |
|
n |
|
■ i |
Detail, Ames Building, Bedford Street
itMii>
Daniel Webster House, Summer Street. (Bostonian Society/Old State House )
\Vm. Claflin, Coburn & Co.
[EiiahltsheJ li2l.\ MAMfA Tl KKK^i AND WHOLESALE DtALER> IN
BOOTS AND LEATHER
136 AND 138 SUMMER STREET,
fUn ihe sue of P-inicl Wcbsicr^ Hume.)
William Claflin. N. r. Cor*LRN. Ta<;. a. Wnni cnv \V ri<:»cf Cl-*' t in. W'm F r.Ri . .n(;v.
BOSTON,
Tannery at Becket, Mass Factories at Hopkinton, Mass.
^/f.
Y/.-..r
Site of Wetstet s Home, Summer Street.
Suffolk Deed 373:185, October 26, 1833-Webster to Colb'
New South Meeting House, Church Green. Charles Bulfinch, 1814. (Society for the Preservation of N.E. Antiquities)
Church Green Building. (1977 Photo)
^!fiM
103-109 Summer Street. 1912 Photo
m'£jm.'-
mmjs.^-Ju^^m..
01*1 -
jTnWL-Jt
Bedford Building From Church Green. (1977 Photo)
- 1.. -J-
VIEW OF rrnNKUN BTHFET, BOSTON.
Tontine Crescent, 1855 - Ballou's Pictorial (Bostonian Society/Old State House)
5?
- A
.rracj-: ■.. ^^yiliy TfyjBBWttJKi
Plan and Elevation Tontine Crescent, Charles Bulfinch, 1794
iiyliJili;!:
South Side of Franklin Street, 1871
f
f
138 Federal Street, Site of United Shoe Machinery Corp ing (Bostonian Society/Old State House)
Build-
United Shoe Machinery Corp., Federal Street
|
m |
1 |
'^'tV^^I |
|
|
^^M |
w |
E^ |
»nP |
|
1 ^^^^^^^^^^^r^ ^^!i!:£t^ - ^^^^KS |
E |
»^.
- I U i
>' 1 U'
^^&
B^RP
rCl^l-4^
|
lESTMIIMT "" |
- xnwicpkf |
|
|
■ |
■ -1 |
It
United Shoe Machinery Corp. Building, Federal Street
l^aJtiff^ifimi*- ntig--*'-ife
Chauncy Street Looking North, 185i
I
J!
1=^
I
•a I
Chauncy Hall, Chauncy Place
60, 68 Chauncy Street, corner Bedford and Chauncy Streets
^.S\\'?. 5^V.<\^^V\»^.c.\\^ ^^^\^^*5^.
The Proctor Building, 100 - 106 Bedford Street
\^^^.v<y!ii
Proctor Building, Corner of Bedford and Kingston; Looking Northeast on Kingston to Custom House Tower
104 Kingston Street, Brown and Durrell Co. Store. 1930's photo
n _
mFi"^
,, III!'
^ ^ #A.' I
107 - 129 Kingston Street (Textile District)
121 - 127 Kingston Street, Detail (Textile District)
h
Crystal Palace, Lincoln Street, the Lincoln Building.
Demolished, 1885. Replaced by
Looking West Toward Church Green Along Summer Street From East of Atlantic Avenue
|
1 a 1 |
M i |
|
|
i^-e., |
||
|
ff^ |
||
|
1 1 |
m 23
L>*»>/.
it- ''■:■'
^
^. «.,« !-ii*^.
It;
One Financial Center Et Al , Looking East Along Essex Street
fl"
ft!-:
m^'-—
|
¥^ |
1 |
• 1 ►' 1 |
|
|
I i |
1 |
||
|
i: |
1 |
||
|
1 1 |
|||
|
1 ' |
|||
|
■1 C 1 |
L- |
|
''■■'■J \}_ |
luui .. ;• |
■m m |
|
ffiQ ti -^^^ |
■ 1 |
|
|
m ^S^^^r^ |
...'- '■iA.r-L |
^ |
|
™'3 IJ'm |
1 : 1 |
1 |
:m^^m
^.TA^i
80 - 86, 88 - 100 Kingston Street With 125 Summer Street Above; Looking East From Harrison and Essex Streets
iO - 86, ine East
100 Kingston Street, 125 Summer Street Above; Look-
|
^^^^j^^^^Vv "^ ■ |
||||
|
B^^I^K*" v^^v |
||||
|
vl';dv |
||||
|
BgW |
||||
|
^■Br^ 1 |
i |
/ |
||
|
^^^f |
1^ |
/^ |
||
|
^^^1 II |
E |
a^TFT 1 |
^,1111 |
|
|
S- |
1 |
II 1 |
9 |
|
|
^ipi |
ffM |
'~a |
•' |
h-BEDFORDSlM
> TAKE UNCOLN ST EXH - kl 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Hl-
1^1
|
Hilllia |
! — ^? |
|
ijffi |
|
|
rli |
Kingston Street Looking North
JM-*"
100, 104 -122 Kingston Street
80 - 86 Kingston Street, Floors 3, 4, 5
80 - 86 Kingston Street; Window and Terra-Cotta Detail,
4th Floor
80 - 86 Kingston Street: Terra Cotta Detail, 5th Floor and Cornice
125 Summer Street Over Bedford Building and Garage; Looking East on Bedford Street
Project Site, Looking Northwest From Surface Artery and Essex Street
Ill] II III liiiiir
Columbia Street Looking North Toward 99 Summer Street
^■' ^,
liisii^iiiiyif
( '^0 ^01
Columbia Street Looking South From Bedford Street
All historic ohctographs used in this report are courtesy of the Photoqraphic Collections of the Eostonian Society Library/Old State House and the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities.
130 LINCOLH STREET. BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02111 617-423-3807
27 June 1989
Metropolitan/Columbia Plaza Venture c/o Metropolitan Structures, Inc.
200 State Street. Twelfth Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Attention of Paul H. Chan
Subject: Evaluation of Historic Resources and Impacts
Proposed Development at Kingston/Bedford/Essei Streets
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In accordance with Mr. Chan's letter authorization of 20 June 1989, we have completed an independent evaluation of historic resources on and nearby to your proposed development. This letter is intended to present our findings to you and the agencies responsible for the review of the final Environ- mental Impact Report for the project.
Scope of Opinion
You have asked us to offer an independent professional opinion concerning the significance of the existing buildings located on the project site and the anticipated impacts of the project upon nearby historic resources.
Sources
As background, you have furnished us with copies of the following materials:
Historic Resources Component Report, by Fannin/Lehner and Leslie Larson, 6/6/89, as amended;
Draft E.I.R. for iCingston/Bedford/Essei Street Development, by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, 4/89;
(Continued)
Letter to Metropolitan/Columbia Venture: Bvaluation Report
27 June 1989 Page Two
(Sources. Continued)
Schematic Design Submission, by Jung/Brannen/Brannen Associates. Inc.. 12/23/88;
Revised Developer's Alternative for One Lincoln Street (Supplement to Schematic Design Submission, by Jung/Brannen/Brannen Associates. Inc., 6/1/89;
In addition, you have also furnished us with several research memoranda prepared by your attorneys, Hale and Dorr.
Other discussions were also helpful in reaching our conclusions: numerous telephone conferences with Mr. Chan, concerning the overall social and economic benefits of the project as well as the proponent's outreach and communications efforts with the preservation community; and, a briefing by the project architect. Axel Kauffman, on 22 June 1989. concerning the project goals, technical constraints and Jung/Brannen Associates' design responses.
Prior Research
We have read with keen interest the aforementioned Fannin/Lehner and Larson report. It is our impression that their overall historical research is accurate and thorough. Please note that in the interests of time and economy, we have not re-visited their primary sources. We acknowledge our reUance upon their research in making this evaluation.
However, we noted one apparent error in the prior research, concerning the Boston Landmarks Commission's ranking of the significance of the existing structure at 80-86 Kingston Street. It is our understanding that the Commission regards the structure as a Group III resource ( "Significant "). This ranking, confirmed in discussion with the Commission's Executive Director on 19 June 1989, is at variance with the attributions in the Draft E.I.R. as well as the Fannin/Lehner and Larson report; both incorrectly ranked the structure in Group IV ( "Notable ").
(Continued)
Letter to Metropolitan/Columbia Venture: Evaluation Report
27 June 1989 Page Three
Enclosures
During the brief time available, we have also gathered the following supplemental materials from the Boston Landmarks Commission, copies of which are enclosed:
Structures On or Abutting the Project Site:
BLC Inventory Sheet for 80-86 Kingston Street (5 pages);
BLC Inventory Sheet for 88-100 Kingston Street and 1 12-120 Essex Street (2 pages); and,
BLC Inventory Sheet for the Bedford Street Mechanical Garage at 71-85 Bedford Street. 1-13 Columbia Street and 62-78 Kingston Street (2 pages).
Other Designs by KendaU. Taylor & Stevens:
BLC Inventory Sheet for the Oliver Ditson Building. 449-451 Washington Street (2 pages); and.
BLC Inventory Sheet for 190-192 High Street (2 pages).
Other Construction by Woodbury & Leiphton:
BLC Inventory Sheet for the Auchmuty Building. 104-122 Kingston Street (3 pages).
Proposed Textile District:
Copy of Letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to Chauncy- Harrison Associates, dated May 2. 1984 (1 page); and.
Map of Proposed District, undated ( 1 page). (Continued)
Letter to Metropolitan/Columbia Venture: Evaluation Report
27 June 1989 Page Four
Potential Impacts: Project Area Structures
The developer's ailernalive schematic design proposal of 6/1/89 entails the removal of two existing structures within the project area:
The Bedford Street Mechanical Garage (19^8) 71-85 Bedford Street and 62-78 Kingston Street by: S. S. Eisenberg, Architect, and
Wexler Construction Company. Builders
80-86 Kingston Street (1899) by: Kendall. Taylor & Stevens. Architects, and Woodbury & Leighton. Builders
In our professional opinion, the removal of the Bedfc«-d Street Mechanical Garage poses no adverse impact upon historic resources, as it has been deemed a "visual intrusion, incompatible with the surrounding urban fabric" by the Boston Landmarks Commission, which ranked the structure as Group VI ( "Non-contributing) in its 1980 Central Business Distria survey.
However, the proposed removal of 80-86 Kingston Street does pose an adversity, as the Boston Landmarks Commission has ranked the structure as a Group III resource ("Significant"). In addition, although the structure has been determined to be not eligible for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the Massachusetts Historical Commission deems it to be contributory to a proposed National Register District, the Textile District, located along an Essex St. spine from Harrison Ave. to Kingston St,
The proposed removal of a Group III resource is a matter for careful consideration, as such resources are "considered eligible for individual or district listing in the National Register of Historic Places" and "some may meet the criteria for designation as a Boston Landmark", according to the Boston Landmarks Commission's explanation of its significance ranking system.
This impact and its possible mitigation will be considered in detail later in this evaluation, after discussing other nearby resources and site features.
(Continued)
Letter to Metropolitan/Columbia Venture: Evaluation Report
27 June 1989 Page Five
Potential Impacts: Nearby Resources
The project area abuts an individually-listed National Register property aand city Landmark, the Bedford Building, as well as a Group IV structure at 88- 100 Kingston Street which is deemed eligible for and contributory to the proposed Textile District. Other nearby historic resources of major significance include: the Auchmuty Building, at 104-122 Kingston Street; the Church Green Building, at 105-1 13 Summer Street; the Proctor Building, at 100-106 Bedford Street; and. across the surface artery, the Lincoln Building anchoring the near corner of the Leather District at 66-86 Lincoln Street. Within several blocks of the project site are other noteworthy historic resources, including: the South Station Headhouse. at 620-690 Atlantic Avenue; the United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building, at Federal and High Streets; and, the Beebe-Weld Building at One Winthrop Square.
From a historic preservation standpoint, the impact of the proposal upon nearby historic resources is primarily a visual one. deriving from the height, location, scale and materials of the tower portion. While considerably taller than its newly -constructed neighbors and much moreso than nearby historic buildings, the visual impact of the tower portion cannot significantly be altered by sizeable height adjustments.
It is our professional opinion that the developers alternative schematic design sites the setback tower in a manner most responsive to the visual impacts on its neighbors and that the proposed palette of eiterior masonry materials enhances its overall compatibility. The proposal forms a handsome edge to the neighborhood and its base block relates well to nearby resources.
Potential Impacts: Site Features
The development also effects Columbia Street, a public way devoid of note- worthy historic elements or apparent historical significance. The proposed partial closure does not alter the setting of the adjacent Bedford Building, engages a common party wall of 88-100 Kingston Street at equivalent height, and effects no distinctive detail. We do not view the proposed closing of a portion of Columbia Street as adverse to historic resources.
(Continued)
Letter to Ifetropolitan/Columbia Venture: Evaluation Report
27 June 1989 Page Eight
(Mitigation, Cootinued)
We do recommend two steps prior to the removal of the structure. First, we suggest that you seek out and assist any party willing to receive and reuse the facade, in its entirety, or architectural fragments from the facade. Second, we urge that you undertake a comprehensive program of historic preservation recordation. The resulting photographs, drawings and architectural fragments should be entrusted to a suitable archive and copies made available to interested local collections.
In our professional opinion, the benefits of the proposed development far outweigh the adversity created by the removal of 80-86 Kingston Street. These benefits include:
• The removal of an intrusive and unsightly garage from the distria;
• The architectural integration of the block, with a well-scaled base which respects both the Bedford Building and 88-100 Kingston, as well as a setback masonry tower forming a handsome ensemble which acts as a gateway to the Leather District from the north and to the Textile and Commercial Palace Districts from the south;
• The direct parcel-to-parcei linkage which assures catalytic economic development of Parcel 18 in Roxbury. an city neighborhood long overdue for revitalization;
• The realization of an extensive social agenda for the nearby Chinese community, occasioned by contributions from this development; and,
• The sizeable linkage funds, job generation and economic activity created by the project.
Finally, let us mention another attribute of the proposed project. It concerns the adjacent structure at 88-100 Kingston Street, which is neither owned nor controlled by your development entity. The developer's revised alternative design successfully integrates the structure into a gateway ensemble of enduring effect as part of the overall design for the block. This is important urban design objective is successfully accomplished.
(Continued)
Letter to lietropoiitan/Coiumbia Venture: Evaluation Report
27 June 1989 Page Seven
(Removal of 80-86 Kingston Street, Continued)
The building s owner, Nathaniel Whiting, and its early occupants were associated with the textile industry industry. There is no available evidence of any particularly distinguishing characteristics of associational significance; the owner and occupants were typical of those throughout the once- flourishing Textile District.
In our professional opinion. 80-86 Kingston Street is of modest associational and minor architectural significance by a competent architect and prolific builder. It is neither an inherently valuable resource nor an outstanding example to be prized for further study.
With regard to its setting. Kingston Street lies at the periphery of the proposed Textile District. In the block from Essex to Bedford Street, the Kingston Street setting is predominantly comprised of mid- to late- twentieth century construction. Thus, while it recalls an earlier era, 80-86 Kingston Street serves more to punctuate the streetscape than to define it.
Mitigation
It is incumbent upon a proponent for change entailing loss of significant resources to suggest mitigatory measures for the consideration of approving authorities. In this instance, in our opinion, the proposed removal of 80-86 Kingston Street occasions this procedure.
We have considered the possible retention or adaptation of the facade and discussed this eventuality with your architects. Traffic considerations for the proposed project require a Kingston Street access for both underground parking and an elevated off-street loading area. This program, combined with the topographic conditions of a sloping site and the disparate floor elevations of the existing building, understandably led to planning for new construction. If retained or reconstructed, the alterations to the facade of 80-86 Kingston Street necessary to accommodate this program would be disfiguring and the overall ensemble of the project and its setting would not be enhanced. We do not recommend its retention.
(Continued)
Letter to Metropolitan/Columbia Venture: Evaluation Report
27 June 1989 Page Sii
Removal of 80-86 Kingston Street
In our judgetnent, the major historic preservation issue posed by the proposed Kingslon/Bedford/Essei development involves the removal of 80-86 Kingston Street from the project site. This action, of fundamental importance to the project, constitutes an adverse impact upon historic resources of concern to both the Boston Landmarks Commission and the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Accordingly, in this section of our evaluation, we will consider this issue in more detail.
In evaluating this matter, the criteria of the Boston Landmarks Commission concerning the significance of resources offer useful guidance. Factors of concern to the Commission in its ranking assessments include the significance of the resource, its integrity, intactness, associational history, setting, contribution to its street or area and the degree to which it is valued as an eiample the work of Boston architect or of a particular style, building type or workmanship.
We recently have inspected both the interior and eiterior of 80-86 Kingston Street. The interior is utilitarian in character, has been much-altered and exhibits no surviving detail of historic or architectural significance. The visible portions of the common brick masonry sides and rear also lack any distinction. In our professional opinion, the architectural significance of the structure derives solely from its classical Kingston Street facade, of brick and terra cotta in fair condition, surmounting a cast iron storefront which is substantially intact. The overall stylistic expression is a vigorous and embelhshed one, an architectural celebration of commerce, as is typical of many other buildings of its period in the area.
Its architects, Kendall, Taylor & Stevens, were accomplished hospital designers who practiced in Boston from 1898 to 1907. In addition to 80-86 Kingston Street, two other commercial works of the firm remain in Boston: a ten-story music store and offices of elaborate terra cotta, the Oliver Ditson Building, ca. 1900-1902. at 449-451 Washington Street (BLC ranking Group IV); and a less embellished mid-block commercial structure of 1898 at 190- 192 High Street (BLC ranking Group V). Therefore, their work at 80-86 Kingston Street appears to be their most significant surviving example of their limited commercial design practice.
(Continued)
Letter to Metropolitan/Columbia Venture: Evaluation Report
27 June 1989 Page Nine
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is our professional opinion that the removal of 80-86 Kingston Street will be deemed an adverse impact upon historic resources by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. We respectfully suggest that this adversity is mitigated by the overall benefits and attributes of the proposed project.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance regarding the future of a project which w© believe can be a positive force in striking a balance between the old and new in our city.
Very truly yours,
e^PL
RogegP. Lang,
LANG ASSOCIATM. Iflchitects & Consultants
RPL:rl
End. as noted
VIA COURIER
^
BOSTON LAKDtlASSS CCilillSSION Buildiag liioraatioa r
OCT loca No. A-rea G3D
ADDRESS BD-"/ K^nfT^i,.^ stC^R .
HAtE
presaat
HAP Ho. ?/iN/1^E
or:.g:_sai
SUB .^RIA Whn1p.;p.lP
DAIZ 1699 permit6-6-l89Q (also on building)
source
ARGillZCT Kendall. Tpvlor & StRV>'n.^ y>prm^*
soorcs
RnTTTiEH Woodbury & Leiehton • permit
sovircs Nathaniel Whiting Estate, OWNZH J. FranKlin Fuller. Trs.
n T" g- n a i prSSCaC
PHOTOGRAPHS "^J.^!^ ''rO '
Caoc- r ea ideaiiajj
double row mercantile
2-fam.
:-deci uin.
aT3C.
■f-ivp qlnrf^-
HC. or STORHS Clsc co cor=ice)_
five
pi'.lS_
KCQI
fJHt
ciooia
coraers
aspoaii asbestos aiua/'9~-=7- Lroa/ s w£ei/ iium .
detailed cas
Mji,-rrpT^r.g (Trsme) clipboards saiagies suicco
COth.er)(rbrici) rTicae") white terra ccacreca
cotta 3PJII DESCIIPTICN 5 bay aassical Revival structure featuring basically intact classicall: t iron storefront with round-arched recessed entries in end bays, cartouches with
cast on them forming keystones. Levels 2-4 unified at 5 central bays by Gibb^an-type terracotta window surrounds, with panelled terra cotta soandrels between floors, terminating m segmental arched heads i console keystones. At 5th level, 7 round- ^
arched windows alternating withjLerra-cotte medallions in soandrels, L flanked at building s edge: E^TZniOS. ALUBATTCN (^-.ar^'> oooerate crast.-: ■^,. i^.^,„^^*4^ ^-v.r^c-rr nrr r -^ nf, by
CONDmCNi^od y:air ?oor_
LOT AFJ
cornice below windows &. capoed dv ^^-- " — -t.c.
7?16
HOTTx'ORTHi Sin charactiiiist:
Trapezoidal plan- Inr.ate^^ ^riipnpTnt to
modillion block cornice.
parkinr garage.
)
SIGinJICANCI (ccct'd cc rsverse] Structure architecturally significant as work of popular Boston arcnitectural firm (St as possessing handsome facade, notable for its classically-inspired k elaborate architectural detail. Also significant as element in small group of intact late 19th c. brick loft buildings, representative of structures which once comprised Boston's textile center, & which are still at' least partially occupied by textile-related firms.
Henrv H.' Kendall (1895-1945), senior member of firm
m) \ro ^^^
\ \ \\ \/ /. ic.
iloved; dzzs if known
■Tlieaes (check as manv as aptilicable)
Aboriginal Agridi rural Arciii tacraral Tlic krts Ccmaerce Cooanunicacioc ComTTnini zj/ develaumen.C
Conservatioa
Iducatioa Ezploracioii/ secrleaiftac
Indus cry tliiitary Political
Secreatioa
Religion
Science/
invention Social/
tumani ta ri an TransTJo nation
Sjcm-fficancs (include eralanation of r&eaes checked above)
of Kendall, Taylor, &■ Stevens, gractuated from MIT and cotinued his training with >Villiain G. Preston. He served as Assistant to the Supervising Architect of the Treasury Dept. in Washington from 1879-1889, after which he returned to oractice in Boston, joining in partnership with Edward F. Stevens. Bertrand E. Taylor (188^-1909) studied at MIT and continued his architectural training with Ober &, Rand, eventually becoming junior partner. The firms of Kendall St Stevens, Rand Ic Taylor, joined briefly in the late 1890s, becoming Kendall, Taylor &. Stevens c. 1898-1899. C. 1900, Kendall and Taylor joined forces in a partnership, particularly specializing in Hospital architecture. Other examples of Kendall, Taylor &■ Stevens' designs in the C3D are the Oliver Ditson Building and the building at 190-192 High St. ,'~^
80-86 Kingston street is located in what was the heart of the wholesale textiles &, wsol trade. The property was purchased in 186A by Nathaniel Whiting, a dealer in ruffles &. trimmings, cc controlled by J. Franklin Faxon, trustee of ''hiting's estate after the latter's death in 1898. The "W" over the door probably stands for Whiting. Located in a fire-prone area, fires in both 1889 &- 1895, as well as In 1872, destroyed property on the site. Once a residential district, by 1872 the area was already undergoing a transitio from residential to wholesale. Among the early occupants of this structure was Brown &, Cheever, manufaotures of men's neckware, and located here in 1901.
Preservation Consideration (accessibility, re-use possiiriliries , capacity :cr puaiic use anc enjoyaent, protection, utilities, context)
Recommended for National Register as part of Essex/Kingston Textile District.
Bibliography and/ or references (such as local histories, deec^ , assessor's
recoras, ear." naps, etc.j
1. ''ithey, Henrj' F. ic Elsie Raybum, Biographical Dictionary of American Architects (Deceased)", 19^6, 2. Boston Directories. 5. Building Dept. Records. 4. "Request for Determination of E_ligibility to the National Register of Historic ?1
Boston Federal Complex." Report prepared for the G.S.A. by Building Conservati Technology, July 1979. Copy at B.L.C.
aces.
on
1. Name
Historic: 80 Kingston Street Common : " "
2. Location
80 Kingston Street
Boston, Massachusetts (Suffolk County)
3. Classification
Category: Building
Ownership: Private
Status: Occupied
Accessible: Restricted
Present Use: Industrial
4. Owner of Property
Roxanne Realty Trust
5. Location of Legal Description
Registry of Deeds Suffolk County Courthouse Pemberton Square Boston, Massachusetts
6. Representation in Existing Surveys
None
7. Description
This building is a five-story loft structure with a basement, stone found- ation, brick bearing walls, steel framing and a flat roof and has a trapezoidal plan. The front or east facade, divided into five bays, is ornamented with red brick, v^ite-glazed terra cotta trim and a cast iron storefront with classi- cal details setting off the first floor. It stands 82 feet and 10 inches high and 55 feet across. \/ The rear or west facade is entirely red brick with granite sills and is divided into eight bays with fire escapes attached across the three northernmost bays. This facade is wider than the front, measuring 70 feet across. The side walls, which were party walls, consist of red brick with the southern wall abutting 88 Kingston Street and measure approximately 115 feet in length. Originally at the eastern end of the north side wall, 78 Kingston Street, which was a small commercial structure, shared a party wall toward the western end or the rear of the north wall, three bays of windows
/J9
covered by iron fire shutters were located. The gross squaxe footage is approxmately 7216.
On the first floor, the cast iron storefront is divided into bays by cast iron panelled Doric pilasters which have three low relief circles decorating each capital. This motif echoes the bulls-eye terra cotta insets in the span- drels between the fifth floor windows. In the end bays of the first floor, arched doorways flank a 3-bay wood and glass storefront. Cartouches with "W" ' s cast on them form the keystones over the doorways. The northernmost doorway has a recessed entry approached by stairs with panelled risers. At the southernmost doorway, a 6-panelled transom fills the arched head of the opening and below the transom, a loading dock with a steel retractable gate opens onto the sidewalk and street- At the top of the storefront, a fluted cornice defines the first from the second floor.
The second through the fovirth floors are unified by the Gibbs-form white glazed terra cotta window surrounds and panelled terra cotta spandrels between each floor located in the three center bays. The fourth floor windows terminate the surround motif with their segmental arched heads and foliated keystones. In the end bays, the windows are accented by terra cotta flat arched lintels with keystones and terra cotta sills. These windows are wooden and consist of a transom atop one-over-one double hung sash. The center windows are also wooden but have a slightly different configiiration. They are divided into three sections with transoms in each section above one-over-one double hung sash.
A terra cotta cornice with foliated modillions and dentils , seven semi- circular arched windows alternating with terra cotta bulls-eye insets in the spandrels, and another terra cotta cornice below the windows separate and set off the fifth floor from the lower floors. At both ends of the facade, diamond panelled terra cotta pilasters mark the edges of the building. Each window at this level has a terra cotta Gibb's-form surround. They are wooden and consist of a transom above one-over-one double hung sash.
The rear elevation is articulated by segmental arched head wood windows with triple header brick course lintels and rough finish rectangular granite sills. The windows have two-over-two double hung sash and also double case- ment iron fire shutters attached to many of them.
8. Significance
The 80 Kingston Street structure stands in the commercial area which was once the center of the wholesale dry goods trade in America, including the wood, paper, crockery, hardware, fur, hides, shoe and leather industries. \/ Even after the fire of 1872, the wholesale trade continued to operate from the area, though still by nature prone to fire. On Thanksgiving Day in 1888, another fire erupted at the comer of Bedford and Essex Streets and destroyed S6 million worth of buildings. 2/ Only three years later, on March 10, 1893, a third conflagration caused an additional 54 million damage.
Prior to the last fire, the American Tool and Machine Company occupied a building on the site. 3/ The land had been pvirchased in 1864 by Nathaniel
Vs<^
Whiting, a dealer in ruffles and trimmings, and was controlled by J. Franklin Fuller, trustee of Whiting's estate, after the former's death in 1898. V That same year, an agreement was made with the owner of the building to the north over the use of a party wall, establishing the date of construction for the present structure. 5/ The "W" cast into the cartouches over the entryways may have stood for Nathaniel Whiting.
The architects for the loft building were Kendall, Taylor and Stevens. Henry Hubbard Kendall was educated at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and later studied under William Gibbons Preston. In 1879, Kendall was appointed first assistant to the Super- vising Architect of the Treasury in Washington, and from 1887 to 1889 he en- gaged in private practice in the District of Columbia. After this he returned to Boston, joining Edward F. Stevens in the 1890' s. 6/ Bertrand E. taylor studied architecture at MIT and worked with Ober and Rand before joining Kendall and Stevens in the 1890' s. 1/ The firm's principal work involved the design of large, modern hospitals and other institutional or municipal buildings. Major commissions of the firm include the Boston City Hospital, Corey Hill Hospital and the Massachusetts State Hospital. 0/
A fine example of late 19th century fire-proof commercial construction, 80 Kingston Street is notable for its classically-inspired and elaborate architectural detail. Though not distinguished enough in terms of architec- ture, technology or historical association to warrant inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places on an individual basis, the building possesses strong visual, functional and historical ties to the blocks of loft buildings along Essex Street from Harrison Avenue to Lincoln Street which make up Boston's wholesale dry goods center.
Notes
1/ Suffolk County Courthouse, Lib. 2613, Fol. 305.
2/ Kinc's HgndboQk of Bnston . p. 80.
2/ Whiting, p. 115.
V Suffolk County Courthouse, Lib. 846, Fol. 155; Lib. 2613, Fol. 305.
V Suffolk County Courthouse, Lib. 2613, Fol. 305.
W National Cyclopedia of Biography, Vol. 32, p. 289.
1/ AIA Quarterly Bulletin, p. 224.
£/ Withey, p. 340.
<5/
i
<
"^ BOSTON LANDMAaXS C2121I2SI0N Building liforsacioa -ora Iota Ho. kna. -^an
?
ADDEISS 88-100 Kinston StCOR. llP-120 Essex Si
K
SAtE
present. HAP No. ?iiN/1^F
anginal _S'u3 ■■^lREA W^^r1p.3°1p
PAH 18Q^
permit P-10-189''
source
sourc:
BUII3ES L. P. Soule IX Son
source
L OWHZH Trc. nr wm n^ Mrs. SptpH E. Lawrence
original PHOTOGSAPES * 2H^4
present
Ti?E (residenzial) single double row. 2- fan. 2-declt (noa-residential) storee (drygoods)
:en
auc
HO. or storhs cist
ROOT f^f,i
to csm:.ce) five
?lus_
r^T301£
dorae:
* ilA-'IRIAlS (Trame) cianboards saiagies scucca aspoalt asbestos alum/TiJiyl
Coh3A^)(^^rtc^ t^staoe) brownstone caacrete Lroa,' steel/ alum.
• 5^ay 2nd^i^i88ance Revival structure with 2 story cast iron base 3FJU DISC?J?TION covered at 1st level with modem veneers, <Sc featuring freestanding
recessed bays comprised of 5 windows, necxanguiar i^ ^ ^ ^_^__ ^^ ^^^ i„^^T. coined comer
With bri^^2b¥'l:^^CN'"J^ ''' '°''' "
"tF -lor ) aoderate q: storefront veneer
ar fenestration with brownstone siiib a.^xxwv,^.», , both above & below at ^th level. Quoined comer rasri: ^^^^.i<;^^^^V.M^r^^^^te.d cornice with egg
i, dart molQing, ^ oaterae in frieze. 7087 sq. feet
COKDiriQN/gooT) fair soo
ifOTZVCRTZT SITI r?ARArT?.:STICS Comer site. Essex St. facade Firnilar to wain facade.
Qusdranpilnr in -ilan.
-^
I
SIQnjICiNCI (cant'd oc reverse)
Structure architecturally significant as design of prominent Boston firm and as handsome example of the subdued version of 2nd Renaissance Revival style characteristic of a mercantile structure. Also sig- ■ nificant as element in small group of intact late 19th c. brick loft buildings, representative of structures which once comprised Boston's textile center, & which are still at least partially occuTDied by textile-related firms. Reflects growth of Boston as major manufacturing center during latter half of
) KRD/C I'HK 6/80
iioved; dare if Imown
•Tlieaes (checis as many as aPTalicable)
Aboriginal Agricnlmral Ar c±i tficcaral Tlie krzs Commercs CammuiLi carion Connnunicj/ developmenr.
Conserration Zducacioa Ezpio ration/ secrlaaenc
tliiitary Poiirical ■
Recrtacioa
Religioa
Science/
invtntion Social/
hrrnnn--' - 3 — ' an
Trr^nTDo nation
Sig^-Jiicancs (include ersl^riacion of th.eaes checked above) 19th c.
Walter T. Winslow (I8A5-I909) entered office of Nathaniel Bradlee as student. After the Civil War, he completed his studies in Paris, later becoming junior partner in Bradlee' 6 office. George H. Wetherell (185A-1950) studied at MIT and Ecole des Beaux Arte. Ca. 1885, he became nrinciule in firm of Bradlee &. Winslow. Winslow & IVetherell
succeeded to Bradlee' 8 practice upon the latter's death, and maintained a pertnershi-'?^
until I898. Other notable examples of their worlc in the wholesale district are the - '' AiLchmuty iluilding on Kingston St., and the building at 1A6-'5A Lincoln St.
This structure is located in what was heart of wholesale textiles &, -wool trade. Once a residintial district, by the time of the 1872 fire, the area was already undergoing transition from residential to commercial use. The earliest know occupant was in 1907 when Blodgett, Ordway &. Webber, woolen goods, were located here.
Preser^ration Consideratioc (accsssibilitr, rs-use possibiiiries, capaciry for puoiic use ana enjoyneai, procection, arilities , conraxc)
Recommended for National Register District as part of Essex/Kingston Textile District.
3ibliograohv and/ or r*fsrsac;s (such, as local distones, deed^ , assessor's rscoras, eariy naps, tzz. ;
1. Boston Landmarks Commission Architects File.
2. Building Dept. Records. 5. Boston directories.
4. "Request for Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Place: Boston Federal Complex." Report prepared for tne G.S.A. by Building Conservation Technology, July 1979. Copy at 3.L.C.
BOSTON LANIilARZS C2i21ISSI0if Buildiag IsiarnaCioa Fora ~o=i Ho._
G3D
1-15 Columbia St. AEUFZSS Tl-?"^ Bedford St. COR. 62-76 Kineston
^TAJIE Bedford Street yechanical Garap-e
iiAP Ho. ?^N/1^E
STB .^lRIA Whole gele
|
DAH 1058 |
Bldp. |
Dermit 2- |
■12- |
-195& |
|
soiirc= |
||||
|
AHCHlTrCr |
S. S, Eisenber? " |
. |
||
|
soarc= |
||||
|
BUIIDE?. Wer |
1f>r Gnnstrij |
ctinr. Go. Inc. |
n |
|
|
Newton Highlan |
ds source |
|||
|
OWNER n^*„ |
rsf ?,nfr-Y nr\ , |
R^nl Orr,r,f.rtv |
1>' |
-,1. |
|
0 |
r-.giiai |
prised |
||
|
PHOTOGRAPHS |
*^^f4 |
TTPI (rssideacial) siagle double row. Caoc-r£3ideatial) Parking facility
:2m. 3-deci:
acL.
NO. Or STCRHS ilsz to comics) ten
RCOr flat ^cjpoia
aiiis
Goraers
iLkTIBlALS (Traae) clapboards saiigies srj.cc= aspcali assescas al-jai/vvzyl (Ocher)(^ric^yellQwS^aPg (cfacri^ — oc/scael/al-jm.
BRIZr DESCPJrTION Multi-level parking garage of concrete and yellow brick, decorated with aaua metal uanals.
SZTZRIOR -■illZRATION (^^^ry moderacs crasi.ic_
CONDITION good /:air~}ooor
LOT ARIA
27426
sa. :eeL
NOTTwCRTZT SITI CHARACTZRISTICS freestandinr buildinr with facedes on three
streets, located across the street frorr the Bedford B\n1d-'np.
SIGnriCANC (ccal'd oc r=verse) Detracts from Streetscape in scale, materials, and design.
iloved; dat4 if Icaown
■Theaes (chec± as tnanv as airolicable)
Aboriginal Agridlnixal Arcaitacciiral Tlie krzs Cammerc: Communi carioa Connnuiii cy/
Couaervatica iducacioa Iz?ioratz.oa/ sectleaenc Indus cry Milirary ' Poiirical
Secreatioa
Religxoa
Sciea.ce/
invention Social/
humanitarian TranrT:onacion
Siznificancs (include esDlanation of theaes cnecked above)
Preservarion Consideracion (accessihiliry for piiaiic use ana enjoynent, pracectton,
r--ase possibilities, capacity utiLittes , contert)
Bibliogrannv and/or references (sucn as local histories, d&t recorcs, eariy naps, etc.;
1^ , assessor' s
!• Buildings DcDartment records
2. "RequeBt for Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places,
Boston Federal Complex." Report prepared for the G.S.A. by Building Conservation
Technology, July 1979. Copy at B.L.C.
BOSTON LAiCKASZS COKHISSICN Bulldiag Laiornatioti lora Fom No. Arsa
CBD
ADDRESS Washington St. COR.
HAKE
Oliver Ditson Building
present HAP No. 2-^/1 2F PAH 1900-1902
origioai _SII3 .AREA Rpt.Rii
Building -permit 2/9/1900 source
ARUilI-z.CT Kendall. T?^v1-nr- ^ F^tPVPn^. fpor^i t )
source
BIIIL2ER Wm. Pray (permit) •
source
OWNER Hh^f^. H.nitc^nn/
originiii prsseac
PHOTOGRAPHS 9 / 3 ^ ;2^^l t ''j^ % ' SO
TI?E (residential) siicgle double row 2-faai. 3-deck tea apt.
Caoc-reaideatial) music store & offices for music company
NO. or STORHS (Ist to coraice)
10
pins
ROOT
flat
rjT30j.a
aorae:
BURIALS (Trame) clapboards sr.-.ngies stiicco aspoait asbestos alua/v^ayl
fOtler) 6ric!dtan (g^ooel c.pi9^t concrete irsa/ steel/ aiun.
i^erra cgtta] (Sto.ot fVrs^
BRUT DESCRIPTION "^fj-^ay pier & spandral commercial bldg. with classical .ac- cents, 1st fl. modernized; single wide 2nd story bay w/ center cartoucne on spandral above; 3^d f 1 . windows separated by Ionic 3/4 round columns suppor^ ing entablature & dentil cornice. Shajft (levels 4-8) w/ tan brick piers & spandrals in same plane, terra cotta surrounds. Plaque above 4. Elaborate terra cotta upper 2 stories w/ terra cotta bracketed cornice & shell crestir
E2TZRIQR -DURATION n^Jior aoderate erast^c (storefront modernized)
CONDITION good
:ai.
3oor
NOTTWORTZI SITE CHARACTERISTICS
LOT AP£A
1 Qf ?
so.
£>«r
P^(^Onc^\^%o')N(^D(C
SIGNUIC^NCE (;
:at'l on.. reverse)
The Oliver Ditson^is Very important to the Washington streetscape because of its compatible scale, style & materials and is notable for its terra cotta upper stories and historical associations with two leading Boston firms.
Sr.archixect Henry KendalK 1855-1943) gradua- ted from M.I.T. and worked for several years under Wm. G . Preston before serving for a -Hra'
i
iioved; azzi if taiown
•Tlicaes (check as many as aii-olicablel
Aboriginal Agricai rural
A-rrH-' r.j><-mral
Tlie Arcs Commercs C 0 amuiii ca ri 0 n Communicy/ deveioTjmeit
Conserracion
Sducation Lsploratioa/ sefdeaeac ladxiscry tlilicary Polirical
Sizniiicanca (include eral?nacion of ciieaes checked abo^e) as Assistant to the Supervising Arcnitect of the Treasury Dept^ from 1879-89. He later practiced in Boston under the names Lord & Kendall and Kendall & Stevens before forming the partnership which also included Bertram Taylor. The firm designed a number of large area hospitals and, in the CBD, commercial buildings at 190-192 High St and 80-86 Kingston St.
4^9-451 Washington was constructed for the Oliver Ditson Co, which was established in I835 and was by 1930 "the oldest music publishing house in America." The company occupied a succession of buildings on Washington St. before erecting the present 10-story building on the site of an earlier 5-story building previously erected by the same firm. The company expanded so .—•
Rapidly that it outgrew the building in just two years and moved to 150 fremont St. (see form) in January, 1904. The company sold musical instruments, sheet music and "Victor Talking Machines" and also published musical literature.
From 1907 to 1913 "the building was occupied by Wm. Filene & Sons, women's clothing store, which had expanded from the adjacent building at 153-163 all the way to 445 Washington St. before moving to their present handsome store.
I
Preservation Coa^ideratioa (accsssibiliry, re-use possiailicies , capaciry for puisxic -dse anc enjoyiaeat., proceccion, utilities, concert)
Part of suggested "Pre-Fire Mercantile" National Register Distrid
1. 2,
i
Bib
.ioerancT and/or references (such as local histories, deec^
assessor s
recoras, sar.y aacs , etc., Geo. D. Hall Co, "Official Program of the City of Boston Tercentenary Celebration" Boston ,' 1930 , p. 48-49.
Good photograph in Boston Public Library Print Dept. (T.E. Marr Photograp 'View of Washington & Summer St.) Photo, Bostonian Society, Washington St. file. (#5Al)
BOSTON LAiffitlASZS C2i21ISSICN Building Laioraation lora ?ora Mo. km
:3D
AnnBF.'iS Tor_io- u^ ^v- pt. COR. L^-x^n ^lece NAilE
preaenL KAP No. ySN/l^E
original _SIIB .^aZA 3ustorr House jjfli/bf'
|
UATZ 1 "no |
ne'-^-it L-7-IP.OB |
|
soorca |
|
|
ARCZLTZCT vv.no 1^ |
7^.,Vn»- ^,- c + „^„^^ Dermit- |
|
sourcs |
|
|
BULlTEH not cited |
|
|
sourcE |
|
|
OWNER :;hii^l«- '._^ v_D |
re c- |
|
ongis^i |
pr=sea.c |
|
PHOTOGRAPH£ "* ^ t - f^ |
-<^o ■ |
TT?I (rgaideatial) s^gle (noa- res ideacxaT)
double row 2-fam. -tore &. cto'-ptrp 1 r-'^T g
3-deci: Cia. aut.
NO. or STORHS (Isc to ccraics) ^^
ROOT flat cjoola
pius
corae:
il'lTZPZALS (Traae) clapboards saiflgies stucco aspaait asbestos aluai/'^-iyl (Otiiar)Cl?ricpyellov<j_toaa)iirT,petop'' coacrate irca/sts-i/alun. common w Flemish variation trim
BRIZT DESCRIrTIGN ^ bay Classical Revival structure, retaining original cast iron storefront with entries in 1st & "^th bays. Fenestration at levels 2-^ arranged vie 5 wide windows flanked on either side by a narrow window. 6th floor fenestration expands into 7 rectangular windows. All have flat guaged arches excepting 5 central windows of 2nd level which have molded enf ramements. Metal modillion block cornice
with scrolled brackets o]i£r^pilasters flanking 1st k 7th windows of 6th level.
moderate crastic ^ + ^,.^fy.^^* ^^^^t|
ETZRIOR AITZRATION CONDITION ^^od) fair .?oor_
LOT ARIA 2i^^
sa.
.N'OTT-ORTHI SITE CHARACTERISTICS
V.;pTr rorwr^^ Lnr. - ^P*!! ^. "t '^1')cf (^n rrip 1
ndip-cent tc Ch^dwjck Lesd ''crks. Faces ex-nress-
SIGNUICANCE (ccat'd on reverse) Structure not significant exannle of its tjnje, but does contribute in scale & massing to archi- tecture of street scane.
The earliest known occunsnt of the building was
StimDSon a:^ Co., naner bags & twine, located
here in 1950 after many years at 6A-n Chatham St.
Henry H. Kendall (18=^^-19^5)5 senior member of the firm of Kendall, Taylor, ii Stevens, graduated from MIT and continued his training with ''illiam
^ S/Q
'UD\n / 1 u_v- r.lc-n
iloved; dat* if laown
■'Dieaes (check as manv as ao-plicable)
Aboriginal Agrica-L rural Arciiitecraral Tiue Arzs Conmerce Cdmmuiii cation Connnunirj/ dcTTsioumeox
ConaerTation
Education Ezploration/ settleaeat Indus trr Hilitary Political
Recreation
Religion
Science/
invention Social/
hmnani ta ri an Transportation
Sign-'' -gjcance (include eial^Tiaciog of rhf^es caecked abov*)
G. Prest(^. He served as Assistant to the Supen/ising /.rchitect of the Treasury Dep' in rt'ashii^on from 1879-1839, after which he returned to oractice in Boston,** Bertrand E. Taylor (188^-1909) began his architectural training with Ober Sc Rand, eventually becoming junior partner. The firms of Kendall <5g Stevens, Rand &. Taylor, joined briefly in the late 1890s, becoming Kendall, Taylor &, Stevens c. 1898- 1899. C. 1900, Kendall and Taylor joined forces in e partnership, oarticularly specializing in hospital architecture. Other examples of Kendall, Taylor &, Stevens' designs in the C3D are the Oliver Ditson Building and the building at 80-86 Kingston St.
joining in partnership with Edward F. Stevens.
Preservation Consideration (accessibility, re— ise possibilities, capactr7 for punlic use ana enjoyncnt, protection, utilities, contest)
Located within the National Register Custom House District.
Biblioerauhv and/o:
if-rences (such, as local htstartss , deec^ , assessor's
lores, izx.
nass, •';
1. Bostonian- Society ^noto File, "Fort Hill Snuare," excellent photo c. 1950s.
2. Withey, Henry F. cc Elsie Rayburn, Biographical Dictionary of American /.r-chitects (Deceased) , 19^6.
5. Boston Directories.
4. Building Dept,. Records.
i
i
BOSTON LANEHAiaS CCr^T.'SSION 3ir Itiing Iiior=aciou Fom lora No. .\r=a -BD
A£I3EZ£5 10^12? Kingston StUR. ll'^-125 Essex St. SAtiE Auchmuty Building
preser.L tlAP No. ?ijN/-|^E
SU3 .-JiRlA Wholesale
|
OAIi TP,ao RlHr. nPr^it ^- |
??-l8Bo |
|
sotirc= |
|
|
AKUil^iCT Winslow i //etherell " |
• |
|
source BULlDE3 'fina^bur^r & Leicrhtnn " |
|
|
source |
|
|
ongi^ai or=sea.c PHOTOGRAPHS '^ ,li^(^ -^O 3^ ^A" |
^^i(. |
TT?E (rssidenciaL) single doable row. CHoi^"-e3iQe"^^'^l") mercantile
2-faa.
2-ceci: Lin atjt.
NO. or STORIIS ilsz zz C3r=ic=)_ flat
SIX
oliis
Rcor
r-iT:oia
Goraer^
ilA'-lJilALS (Trame) ciaoboards sr;^ nzies scucca aspaaiz asbestos aiua/Tmyl (Otiier)C&rrcS*-Dres3e^oae.^ provmstone caacrac^ Lrcn/sieei/alua.
trim BRUJ E'£5C?J?nON 5 X ^ bay Romanesaue Revival mercantile building featuring comer entrance with massive free-standing brovmstone column, &■ formal entrance incorcorated into bay 9. Large show windows separated by rusticated niers of vermiculated
brownstone ashlar, suDporting iron lintel with brownstone cornice. Upper level fenes- tration organized via five triple-window grouTDings, with varying decorative treatments, & separaxedat levels y-^ by Drojecting brick Diers. Round-arched windows at 6th level,
ZnZSIOR AirZRATION 2:1^0 r moderaLs CcraVt^ f, R^-r-oHpr mrh^TlpH. f^rrr.i^^p .
'loss of 3 original Days
CONDITIOK (Kool
:air ooor
LOT ARIA U,A65
so.
feet
NCTZVORTZT SITZ CSARAL..:JIISTICS Responds to prominent comer site with curved
comer. Now backs onto excressway, i is out of harmony witn triangular site
°nf' pgrt^inr 1 nt <^ prrund ^t
SISmiCANG: (ccni'd oc reverse)
Architecturally significant as major work by nrominent Boston architectural firm, as well as exarr-^le of continuing influence of H. H. Richardson in Boston. Also, is notable examnle of ty^e of building wiich once occuDied area. Historically significant as home of a major textile firm, reflecting evolution of aree after 1872 fire from a Greek Revival residential aree to a major textiles wholesale area.
[ r r\r-. \ jis (,,11, r \ r,^-
i
i
o
C"
^1 CD
iioved; dzzi Lz !ciown_
Tienes ( czeck as manv as airolicable)
Couaervacioa
laucntioa
L2i3iorac:.oii/
Indus cry ililicary PoiiiLical
Recr=acioa
Reiig2.on
Scie2.cs/
Social/
hiiman"' ::^rian. Trans^Q r"ia.Lion.
AbortLg^jal
Agricnilrural ■
Tli£ Arcs
Ccmmercs
Con3nuinj.cacioa _____ ConTrmiT rj/ devtiopmes.!.
S-zai-'icancs (include e:r::laiiiirion of theses checked above)
-^ The Auchmuty Building was owned by BoBton Reol Estate Trust, which was fonred by agreen>ent on May 1, 1886, with five trustees & son.e ^ subscri) ers, be e specu- lative scheme for growth & tierDetuation of family wealth as handed dovm frorr. fath er to eldest son {c heir. Original trustees were: John Quincy Adams of Quincy, Robert Codman, Abbott Lawemce, Samael Wells, and William Minot. Brown & Durrell Co. were the princiDle tenants, their building at corner of Bedford &. Kingston having burned down lete in 1889. In 19^-7, main floor show room remodeled bv offices of Archie RiBkin for Dsinty Dot Hosiery, continuing its textile related interest. In 19^5, State of Mass. took Drooerty for exuressway, Ic razed the «5 rightmost- bays.
Walter T. Winslow (18^5-1909) entered office of Nathdniel Bradlee as student. After Civil War, he comcleted his studies in Paris, later becoming junior partner in^_ Bradlee -9 office. George H. .vetherell (l8'^A-1950) studied at M.I.T. &, Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Ca . 1885, he became princicle in firm of Bradlee <5c Winslow. Other notable exemcles of their work in the wnolesale district are at 154-5-^ Lincoln St.
" ^^'"'I'ss^feelV which was named in 1708, was also called Aucbn,uty ' s Lane for the family so distinguished in the history of the old Suffolk Bar."'* Robert Auchmuty was a barrister under Belcher & Shirley, and his son was a ludge of the 2°^^l.^,^,^
of Admiralty, as his father had been, at -the beginning oftne nevolution. Tne building name undoubtedly derived from the Auchmuty family. ^-se-variccConsider^rica (accsssibilirr, r=-<ise uossi-oiliries , capac-.ry
for cuoiic ose aaa
eijoyracai., procficiioa, urilities, csati
Recommended for National Register as part of Essex/Kingston Textile District.
|
4 ^ |
B |
|
|
3 c |
■^ |
|
|
<, ti |
- |
|
|
c |
1. |
|
|
— 0 |
||
|
<it vO |
'^. |
|
|
D ^ |
||
|
n |
5. |
|
|
0 |
A. |
|
|
^ ^ |
c |
>. |
|
p", ^ |
c |
ibiioeraT,hvazdZorr^f=r^5C=s (sucz as local histories, aeec, , assesso:
■X),
6.
-cores, eariy aaps , etcj
Paper for Prof. Sekler on file at Carpenter Center, Harvard U. Damreir, Charles S.." A Half Centurv of Boston's Buildings, 1895, illus. odd. p ic D. SO. American Architect and Building News, v. 25, May 18, 1889, t>. 2^h & d1. 699. Brickbuilaer, v. 2, Feb. 1895, t)L. 10-11; Mar. 1895, d. 17 illus.
V. 6, July 1887, D. 1^ arch, rendering. Boston Picture File et Boston Public Library, architects' rendering and adv. for Richardson, Kowe <S^ Lovejoy, mfg. of v^-raDDers, ladies cotxon underwear, etc, occuoants of bldg. BP^L PrintDeDt. - "Commercial Bldgs. #A, Misc. A-B, Bedford St." Shows bide, in orizinal form.
Photo: Brown Durrell & Co,
i
^1
13:'
i
i
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Office of the Secretary of State
\/lASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
23A Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 617-727-8470
Nnv
19Sm
MICHAEL JOSEPH CONNOLLY Secretary, of State
ENVtROt^WEKT
RE&'D MAY 2 2 1989
Mr. Moricz Bergmeyer Chauncv-Harrisson Associates 118 South Street Boston, M^\ 02111
Dear Mr. Bergmeyer:
This letter will confirn that it is the opinion of the Massachusetts Historical Commission staff tiiat the proposed Textile District in Boston meets National Register criteria A,B and C as a well freserved area of late 19th and early 20th century comir.ercial buildings important historically for its association vith the textile industry and architecturally for containing fine and intact examples of Romanesque Revival, Renaissance Revival and Beaux Arts style buildings.
Part I of the Historic Preservation Certification Application for the Frost Building, 105-111 Cnauncy Street, Boston, located in the proposed Textile Dis- trict was sent to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office of the National Park Service on May 1 , 198A.
If you have anv additional questions regarding Kational Register listing for the Textile District or concerns about the certification application for the Frost Buildin;;, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincere ly ,
Kathryn Kubie Preservation Planner
KK/vh
cc
Eria:. Pfoiffer
I
i
I
JUNG/BRA.\NEN ASSOCIATES, INC. v.uect.^pw.
One Lincoln Street
Klngston/Bedford/Essex Street Development June 2, 1989 J/B 88024. 3C
Shadows
The shadow analysis which follows compares the shadow impact of the proposed Revised Developer's Alternative Scheme to shadows which are currently cast by existing buildings in the area of the project site. In this comparison, the shadows produced by the new building are considered in conjunction with shadows produced by the existing structures in the area. Each of the accompanying diagrams shows the outline of the shadows produced by the building, and within the area of shadow differentiates between existing shadows (light grey shading) and net new shadows (darker grey shading). Consistent with established practice, the ground plane shadows focus on conditions at the street levels, and are not intended to address shadows which fall upon the sides of buildings. The shadow effect on streets and areas surrounding the project site can be summarized as follows:
Bedford Street
Some net new shadow is added, primarily during the summer months. The portions to the east and west of the existing Garage receive the most new summer shadows (when shadows are most desirable); the far western part of Bedford Street will also be in shadow during the September morning hours.
Columbia Street
Some new noontime shadows are added to the northern half. At other times, this portion is already in shadow from both the existing Garage and the Bedford Building.
Lincoln Street
The southern half will have new shadow impacts during the afternoon al year. The northern half 1s currently shaded by the Bedford Building. The street will remain sunny at noontime.
Summer Street
No new shadow impact.
Church Green
The area will be affected by net new shadows in the afternoon during the spring and fall. During the winter, it is already fully in shadow in the afternoon from existing buildings.
One Lincoln Street J/B 88024
Shadows
Page 2
Dewey Square
Unaffected by the proposed project.
Downtown Crossing
Unaffected by the proposed project.
Boston Common
On winter mornings only, some new net shadow is added across a section of Common lawn and walkways. No new shadow is produced at other times.
Kingston Street
Unaffected by the proposed project, except in a small area on summer mornings.
Essex Street
Unaffected by the proposed project.
Summary and Mitigation Measures
As detailed above, the proposed project will affect several pedestrian areas during different times of the year by introducing a net increase in shadows. However, due to the intensely built-up character of the blocks surrounding the project site, existing shadows already cover much of the area and relatively little additional shadow will be created by the project, except along Bedford and Columbia Streets. Some additional winter morning shadow will fall on the Boston Common.
The tower location at the southeastern portion of the site causes the least new shadow on the Common, and the new shadows on Bedford and Columbia Street would remain the same even if the tower location were shifted.
AK/ks
88024. 3C 1207M.P
March 21 9am-Alt. 7
t!" VtW" Mi
Existing Shadows
Net New Shadows
y/^ / Outline ot Proiect Shadow
-' 1 Shadow Studv Area
Kingston Bedford Essex Street Project
ONE LINCOLN STREET
Ground Plane Shadow Studies
Proposed Building Footprint
Shadow Studies Alternative 7
(Marcii 21,9AM)
March 21 Noon-Alt. 7
Existing Shadows
Net New Shadows
/ ^ Outline of Proiect Shadow
.'"' /\ Shadow Study Area
Kingston Bedford Essex Street Project
Ground Plane Shadow Studies r^ ^
Proposed Building Footprint
Shadow Studies Alternative 7
(March 2 1, Noon)
i
i
March 21 3pm-Alt. 7 Existing Shadows
Kingston Bedford Essex Street Project
ONE LINCOLN STREET
Ground Plane Shadow Studies
Net New Shadows
/ y Outline oi' Project Shadow
'' ,-'] Shadow Study Area
Proposed Building Footprint
Shadow S t ud i e s A 1 1 e r n a t i V e 7
(March 2 1,3PM)
une 22 9am-Alt. 7 Existing Shadows
Net New Shadows /^ yi Outline Of Project Shadow [■■' .■'] Shadow Study Area ^^H Proposed Building Footprint
Kingston Bedford Bsex Street Project
ONE LINCOLN STREET
Ground Plane Shadow Studies
Shadow Studies Alternative 7
(June 2 2,9 AM)
une 22 Noon-Alt. 7
Existing Shadows
Net New Shadows
/ y Outline 01 Project Shadow [-'' .A Shadow Study Area ^^H Proposed Building Footprint
Kingston Bedford Essex Street Project
ONE LINCOLN STREET
Ground Plane Shadow Studies
Shadow Studies Alternative 7
(June 22, Noon)
i
une 22 3pm-Alt. 7
Kingston Bedford Essex Street Project
ONE LINCOLN STREET
Existing Shadows
Net New Shadows
Ground Plane Shadow Studies
©
/ yn Outline of Project Shadow Shadow Studv Area
Proposed Building Footprint
Shadow Studies Alternative 7
(June 2 2,3PM)
September 21 9am-Alt. 7
Existing Shadows
Net New Shadows
Kingston Bedford Essex Street Project
ONE LINCOLN STREET
Ground Plane Shadow Studies
Y jA Outline Of Project Shadow
'1 Shadow Studv Area
Proposed Building Footprint
Shadow Studies Alternative 7
(September 21,9AM)
September 21 Noon-Alt. 7
Existing Shadows
Net New Shadows L^ yi Outline Of Project Shadow I** .♦•] Shadow Study Area
Proposed Building Footprint
Kingston Bedford Essex Street Project
ONE LINCOLN STREET
Ground Plane Shadow Studies
m
Shadow Studies Alternative 7
(September 21, Noon)
<
September 21 3 p m - A I t . 7
Existine Shadows
Kingston Bedford Essex Street Project
ONE LINCOLN STREET
Ground Plane Shadow Studies
Net New Shadows
/ y Outline ot Protect Shadow
Shadow Studv Area
Proposed Building Footprint
Shadow Studies Alternative 7
(September 2 1,3PM)
December 22 9am-Alt. 7 Existing Shadows
Kingston Bedford Essex Street Project
ONE LINCOLN STREET
Ground Plane Shadow Studies
Net Nev\' Shadows / / Outline ot Project Shadow
A Shadow Study Area
Proposed Building Footprint
Shadow Studies Alternative 7
(December 22,9AM)
i
December 22 Noon-Alt. 7 Existing Shadows
Net New Shadows
/ y Outline 01 Project Shadow
Shadow Studv Area
Proposed Building Footprint
Kingston Bedford Essex Street Project
ONE LINCOLN STREET
Ground Plane Shadow Studies
®
Shadow Studies Alternative 7
(December 22, Noon)
I
December 22 3 p m - A 1 1 . 7
Existing Shadows
Kingston Bedford Essex Street Project
ONE LINCOLN STREET
Ground Plane Shadow Studies
Net New Shadows / y Outline 01 Project Shadow Shadow Study Area Proposed Building Footprint
©
Shadow Studies Alternative 7
(December 22,3PM)
<
Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc.
May 31, 1989
Mr. Paul K. Chan
Metropolitan Structures
200 State Street
12th Hoor
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
U.S.A.
Re: Interim Report
Pedestrian Level Wind Study Kingston-Bedford-Essex Street Development Alternative 7 Boston, Massachusetts
Dear Mr, Chan:
We submit herein a summary of the results of the preliminary pedestrian level wind simulation tests conducted on the above referenced project. These tests were undertaken to assess the impact that construction of Alternative 7 would have on the existing wind conditions in the area.
In order to assess the pedestrian level wind environment around the proposed development, wind simulation tests were carried out using a 1:400 scale model of the proposed development in RWDI's boundary layer wind tunnel. The following test configurations were examined:
(A) No Build (Existing Site Conditions) (B) Design Alternative 7
In the Boston area, the winds which most commonly affect pedestrian level conditions originate from the southwest through northwest and north-northeast through east-northeast directions. For the present tests, wind speeds were measured at 50 locations both on and off the study site for 16 wind directions tested at 22.5° increments starting from true north (0°). The location of the wind speed sensors are shown on the attached Figure 1.
The wind tunnel test data are combined with the long term meteorological data for the Boston area to predict the wind speeds which will be exceeded for certain frequencies of occurrence for each measurement location. These wind speeds
650 Woodlawn Road West. Guelph, Ontano NIK 1B8 . Fax i,519) 823-1516, Tel. 1.519) 823-1311
I
i
- 2 -
were assessed in relation to other test configurations as well as to wind speeds considered acceptable for various pedestrian activities. The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) has established two standards for assessing the relative wind comfort of pedestrians. First, the BRA wind design guidance criteria states that an effective gust velocity (mean hourly wind speed plus 1.5 times the root-mean- square) exceeded 1% of the time should be less than or equal to 31 mph. The second set of criteria used by the BRA to determine die acceptability of specific locations is best known as Melbourne's criteria These internationally accepted criteria are used to determine the relative level of pedestrian wind comfort based on activities such as walking, standing or sitting. These criteria, which are presented in the attached tables, are as follows:
Mean Wind Speed (mph) for a 1% Probability
Dangerous Conditions >27
Uncomfortable for Walking >19 but <27
Comfortable for Walking >15 but <19
Comfortable for Standing >12 but <15
Comfortable for Sitting <12
The remainder of this report provides a brief overview of the wind climate which presentiy exists at the site and discusses how the proposed development will affect those winds. These discussions will center around areas with significant changes in wind speed. The predicted MEAN wind speeds for each test location are given in Tables 1 through 3 which include the anticipated level of pedestrian comfort. A comparison of the EFFECTIVE GUST speeds to the BRA 31 mph design criteria is presented in Tables 4 through 6. For Uiis report, the information has been presented for the annual wind data only. An assessment based on seasonal wind data (spring, summer, fall and winter) will be included in the final report.
ASSESSMENT OF MEAN WIND SPEEDS (Tables 1 to 3)
Essex Street (Location 4)
Wind speeds reductions are predicted to occur in this localized area of the Essex Street sidewalk. The construction of Alternative 7 will block winds from the northeast quadrant which presentiy flow relative uninterrupted across the existing parking lots. Wind conditions currently suitable for walking activities will be improved to a level suitable for standing activities.
Lincoln Street (Locations 6 to 10, 43 and 49)
The construction of Alternative 7 will increase the wind speeds along this street. These wind speed increases are primarily the result of upper level winds from the northwesterly and southerly directions deflecting down the north and south facades of the proposed building and accelerating at the pedestrian level on Lincoln Street. The resulting wind climate will be uncomfortable for walking at Locations 6, 7, 8, 43 and 49 while Locations 9 and 10 will be comfortable for walking.
It should be noted that the wind speed increases at Locations 6 and 49 are
relatively small. The change in the wind comfort rating is the result of wind
speeds being at the upper limits of one category moving into the lower limits of the next category.
Since Locations 43 and 49 are situated off-site, changes in the details of the study building or Uie addition of on-site landscaping is unlikely to have an impact on the wind conditions in these areas. Major changes to the building's mass (ie. stepping the building facade back from the property line) would be necessary to reduce the impact of the winds in these off-site areas. However, the addition of landscaping or a canopy along the south and east facades of the building could improve the wind conditions in on-site areas at Locations 6 through 10. As an alternative, recessing the proposed entrances along Lincoln Street will provide localized areas at the entrance doors which will be protected from the wind. These solution alternatives can be examined in further detail during additional wind simulation tests.
Kingston Street (Locations 1, 19 and 28)
The construction of Alternative 7 will slightiy increase the speed of northwest quadrant winds on Kingston Street and result in wind conditions which are suitable for walking. These wind conditions are acceptable for a sidewalk area and therefore should not require mitigative measures.
Surface Artery (Locations 21 and 50)
The downwash of northwest quadrant winds off the low-rise section of the development and the backwash of southerly winds off the south facade of the proposed building will increase the wind speeds in these areas. Wind conditions which are suitable for sitting activities will be increased to a level that is comfortable for walking at Location 50. In the vicinity of Location 21, the wind speed increases are small and wind conditions will remain comfortable for sitting activities. Again, wind speeds of this magnitude are acceptable for city sidewalks and therefore should not require solution development.
Essex Street/Delafayette Avenue (Locations 22, 23 and 27)
Wind conditions comfortable for sitting are predicted to be found in this area both before and after the construction of Alternative 7 The small variations in the mean wind speed for the two site conditions are therefore considered negligible.
Bedford Street and Entrance Area (Locations 11, 12, 14, 15 and 35)
The proposed building shields most winds in the vicinity of Locations 14 and 15. Wind conditions presently suitable for standing activities at Location 14 will be improved to a level comfortable for sitting after Alternative 7 is constructed. At Location 15, wind conditions which are presently uncomfortable for walking will be improved to a level comfortable for standing.
The wind speeds at Location 35 are slightly higher than those which presently exist due to southwesterly winds being locally drawn down to the street level. Wind conditions suitable for walking and appropriate for a sidewalk area are predicted after Alternative 7 is added to the site.
At Locations 11 and 12, the changes in mean wind speeds are relatively small and do not affect pedestrian wind comfort levels. Wind conditions in each of these area will remain comfortable for walking.
Kingston Street (Location 32 and 34)
The addition of the proposed development is predicted to reduced the speed of northwesterly winds by blocking winds that presently flow in a southerly direction along Kingston Street. This wind activity will improve wind conditions to a level that is suitable for standing activities at both locations. For existing site conditions, wind conditions comfortable for walking activities are present.
Summer Street (Locations 37 and 38)
The existing wind conditions at Locations 37 and 38 are classified as uncomfortable for walking. This area is affected by winds from the northwest and southwest quadrant which interact with the 100 Summer Street building. Alternative 7 will block winds from the south through southwest and improve wind conditions in this area. With the proposed development in place, the pedestrian level wind conditions at Location 37 will be improved to a level suitable for walking. At Location 38, wind conditions are also predicted to be slightly better than existing conditions, but the wind climate will remain uncomfortable for walking.
- 5
ASSESSMENT BASED ON EFFECTIVE GUST WI (Tables 4 to 6)
As previously stated, the effective gust wind speeds e each location have been assessed using annual wind d on seasonal data, the effective gust velocities will flu wind speeds listed in the tables. The following discu; are predicted to have wind speeds at or close to the Bi
Existing Site Conditions
For the no build case, the effective gust speeds on S' and 38) and in isolated areas of the Surface Artery a acceptance criteria. In additions to these locations, t: both on and off the development site where the effe 1% of the time are between 28 mph and 31 mph. occur in the following areas; Summer Street (Location; Street (Locations 11, 15 and 31); and The Surface Ar. 49 and 50).
Alternative 7
SPEEDS
eded 1% of the time at For assessments based ce above and below the 1 is limited to areas that 31 mph design criteria.
ner Street (Locations 37 U or above the 31 mph
are a number of areas e gust speeds exceeded nd speeds in this range
and 39 to 40), Bedford (Locations 6, 7, 46, 48,
The construction of Alternative 7 will not cause eff exceed the BRA 31 mph criteria in any area that do criteria.
The construction of Alternative 7 is predicted to mar gust wind speeds on Summer Street (Location 37 and will be reduced to level at or below the 31 mph thre^ locations. On Bedford Street (Location 15), an existir of 29 mph will be reduce to 21 mph by Alternative 7.
Effective gust wind speeds will be increased by Alter 28 mph and 31 mph on Lincoln Street (Locations 7, Artery (Locations 49 and 50). At Locations 7 and 4 over those that currentiy exist are relatively small (3 n:
We trust that this information brings you up-to-da quantitative pedestrian level wind study. Once we rec above suggested remedial solutions, we will proceed w
ve gust wind speeds to lot currentiy exceed the
ally reduce the effective ). Effective gust speeds i speed at each of these ffective gust wind speed
ve 7 to a level between md 43) and the Surface he wind speed increases
on the progress of the a your comments on the the necessary testing to
6-
complete the solution development phase of the study. At the completion of the test program a final report will be issued to document all test results.
Yours very truly,
ROWAN WILLIAMS DA VIES & IRWIN Inc.
Mark A. Hunter CET Project Co-ordinator
Michael J. Soligo, M.A.Sc, P.Eng. Project Engineer
MAH/jc 88-320-1
SUGGESTED MEAN
yiND spelPS for
(«PH.>
MEAN
LOCATION TEST PERCENTAGE SPEED 5 CONDITION CHANGE (MPH) :
12 15 19
SITTING I STANDING I WALKING ! UNCOtlFORTAPLE FDR
i I I WALKING -
i I I
10 15 20 2"^+
: J t It :
|
^---f- |
A |
14 |
******************* |
- + |
|
|
B |
+ 35 |
19 |
***************************** |
||
|
|
-j 1 |
- + |
|||
|
9 |
A |
14 |
;(c:(c:t;3((:tc:((4::tc4r;tc:K4:^4c4:4c4:^4c |
||
|
B |
14 |
**********}»:******** |
- + |
||
|
3 |
A |
12 |
*************** |
||
|
B |
13 |
***************** |
- + |
||
|
4 |
A |
17 |
************************* |
||
|
B |
-17 |
14 |
_*******************_^ |
- + |
|
|
5 |
A |
1? |
***************************** |
||
|
B |
19 |
***************************** |
|||
|
|
1 1 |
- + |
|||
|
6 |
A |
18 |
*************************** |
||
|
B |
+ 11 |
20 |
******************************* |
||
|
|
1. ) |
- + |
|||
|
7 |
A |
18 |
*************************** |
||
|
P |
+ 27 |
23 |
************************************* |
||
|
|
J. ^ |
- + |
|||
|
S |
A |
17 |
************************* |
||
|
B |
+ 35 |
23 |
************************************* |
||
|
|
1 1 |
- + |
|||
|
9 |
A |
16 |
*********************** |
||
|
P |
+ 18 |
19 |
***************************** |
||
|
|
1 J |
- + |
|||
|
10 |
A |
14 |
******************* |
||
|
B |
+ 21 |
17 |
************************* |
- + |
|
|
11 |
A |
18 |
*************************** |
||
|
6 |
-11 |
16 |
*********************** |
- + |
|
|
12 |
A |
16 |
*********************** |
||
|
B |
+ 12 |
18 |
*************************** |
||
|
y-jr |
+ + |
- + |
|||
|
A |
15 |
********************* |
|||
|
B |
15 |
********************* |
- + |
||
|
14 |
A |
15 |
********************* |
||
|
B |
-26 |
11 |
************* |
- + |
|
|
15 |
A |
20 |
******************************* |
||
|
B |
-30 |
14 |
^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ |
- + |
|
|
16 |
A |
18 |
*************************** |
||
|
B |
IS |
*************************** |
- + |
mote; 1^ Finel ? = teri = k denotes c2te3ory of P9dest-ri = n =ctivity for which the predicted winds ere suitable.
2) % ChsnSe grester then 10% besed on compenson with Test Cu^ndition A.
3) Wind speeds are for 8 17. probability.
TEST CONDITION
A B
NO BUILD (EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS) ALIERNATIME 7
TABLE 1 MEAN WIND SPEED EXCEEDED 1 % OF THE TIME
ANNUAL
S'JGGESTEP MEAN WIND SPEEDS FOR
(«FH)
SITTING
MEAN LOCATION TEST PERCENTAGE SPEED 5 CONDITION CHANGE (MFH) T
10
i: 15
I STANDING i I I I i 15 I t
WLKING
1"?
» 'JNIOMFOPTAFLE HR
I TALKING
I^OTE; 1) Final c = teri = k denotes cste^ory of pedestrian sctivit^ for which the predicted winds are suitable.
2) y. Chanse greater then 10/i based on comparison with Test Condition Ai
3) Wind speeds are for a 1% probability.
25+
|
) 1^ |
A |
15 |
« 4: 3tc 4c :<( « 4c 4c 4t 4t 4: ^r 4e }»: }tc 4: 4c ^ 4( 4: 4: |
- + |
|
|
P |
16 |
)»: 4c 4: }|c 4c 4: :tc Jtc 4: ^ 4t 4: 4: 3»: :(c 4: 4t }(C)r 4c :(( ♦ « |
- + |
||
|
IS |
A |
15 |
4c4:4t*4:*4:4:*4:4f4t4:*4r4:**4:4:* |
||
|
P |
16 |
4: )*: 4: 4: 4: 4: 4: 4c 4: 4r 4( 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4: 4^ 4c 4c |
_ 4. |
||
|
19 |
A |
14 |
*4c4:*4c4c4c4c4:4c4c4c4c4:4c4:4c4c* |
||
|
P |
+ 21 |
17 |
4c4c4c4:4c4t4:4c4c4c***4c*4c4c4t4:*4c4c*4:4f |
_l. |
|
|
20 |
A |
10 |
4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C |
||
|
B |
10 |
*4:*4c4c*4:4c4c4c4: |
- + |
||
|
"1 |
A |
9 |
4t 4c 4:4c* 4:4c 4:4c |
||
|
P |
+ 22 |
11 |
4c4:4c4c4c4c4c4:4c*4c4:4c |
4. |
|
|
22 |
A |
12 |
4c 4: 4c 4c * 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c » 4t 4c * 4c |
||
|
B |
-16 |
10 |
4c4c4c4c4:4c4c4c4c4c4c |
4. |
|
|
"^3 |
A |
13 |
4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4: 4( |
||
|
R |
+ 15 |
15 |
4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c + + |
4- |
|
|
24 |
A |
10 |
4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C |
||
|
R |
10 |
4:4c4c4c4:4c4c4c4c4c4c |
-1- |
||
|
''S |
A |
14 |
4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4C 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4C |
||
|
P |
13 |
'r- ^N ^h ^n ^- ^^ ^^ ^^ ^- ^N ^^ ^n ^^ ^- T- ^- ^- |
-+ |
||
|
26 |
A |
15 |
4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c |
||
|
B |
16 |
4c4c4t4t4c**4c4c4t*4c4c4c4f4f4c4t4c4:4f4c4c |
-+ ^ |
||
|
-\ -I |
A |
10 |
4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C |
||
|
P |
+ 10 |
11 |
4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c |
-+ |
|
|
28 |
A |
14 |
4t 4: * 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c * 4c 4C |
||
|
\ |
B |
+ 14 |
16 |
4c 4c 4c 4: 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4: 4c 4: 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: |
-+ |
|
29 |
A |
15 |
4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4^ |
||
|
B |
16 |
4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4; 4c 4c |
-+ |
||
|
30 |
A |
17 |
4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4t 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c |
||
|
B |
+ 11 |
1? |
4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c |
||
|
1 -J |
-+ |
||||
|
31 |
A |
19 |
4t4c4c4c4c4c**4c4c4f4c4c4c4c4c4c4c4c4c4c4:4c4c*4c4c4c4c |
||
|
R |
19 |
4:4c4c4c*4c4c4c4c4c*4c4:4c4c4c4c4c4c*4c4c4c4c4c*4c4c4c |
|||
|
|
j 1 |
-+ |
|||
|
32 |
A |
19 |
4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c |
||
|
B |
-26 |
14 |
4e 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c |
||
|
33 |
A |
IS |
4c4:4:4c4c4c4c4c4:4c*4c4:*4:*4c4c4c4c4c4f4c4c4c4c4c |
||
|
P |
|
17 |
■^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^r' ^^ ^^ '^ ^P" 'r' 'r •^ ^r" "^ "r- ^T* ^^ '^ 'W' ■F'" ^^ ^^ ^^ "F" 'r |
-+ |
TEST CONDITION
A B
NO BUILB ^EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS) ALTEF:NATr;E 7
TABLE 2 MEAN WIND SPEED EXCEEDED 1 % OF THE TIME
ANNUAL
SiJGGESTEi; MEAN WIND SPEEPS FOR
(MPH)
SITTING
LOCATION TEST
CONDITION
MEAN
PERCENTAGE SPEEP
CHANGE (MPH)
10
12 15 1?
! STANDING I TALKING I 'JNCOMFOPTAPLE Pnp
I I I iJALMNG :>
i I I
15 20 25+
It I : :
|
)"r |
A B |
-12 |
16 14 |
+ + + *********************** « JK 3fc 4: :(( 4c 4c )r 4c :(( ]fc )(( }tc )(()(( 4c Xe )»: Xc . . ._ , J. _ , _. _ X - . - 1 .- .. .. |
|
35 |
A |
+ 28 |
14 18 |
)(c 4; ]|c 4: ifc :*; }|c ;|c )|c 3(c :f: Jtc ^cfcfc :f; :(( 4c 4r *************************** + + + }(c 4: )K ](c ]tc 4: ]); ](c 2(c 4c 4c ^ :)( 4c 4; 4: 4c 4^ 4t 4: 4c :(c 4^ ifr :(r ;tc 4; ]f; :f; 4c*4c**********4:***4t***4t**4f**4f4t4t4f**4t4f 4t4c*4:*4:4:*4:****4:*4c4:******4f4f***4: 4c 4c 4: 4: 4c 4c 4: 4: 4: 4c :tc )fc 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4: 4( 4c 4c 4c 4r 4^ 4r 4e 4: 4: ^ 4^ 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4( 4^ + 4c4t4c*4c4c4c4c4c4c4c*4c4c4c4c*4c4c4c**4c4t*4c4c4c4c4c4c4c4t4c4f 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c4c4c4c4c4:4:4c4c4c4c4c4c**4c4c4c4c4c4c4c4c4:4f4c4c 4c4:4c4:4c4:**4c4c4c4c4c4c4c4c4c4c4c****4c4r + + + 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4f 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4f 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4f 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4f 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4f 4c 4c 4c 4C 4C 4c 4C 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4f 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4r 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c * 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4f + + + 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c * 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c * 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4f 4c 4c * 4c 4c 4c 4f 4? 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4f 4c 4c 4c 4f 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4: 4c * 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c * 4c 4c 4c 4c 4f 4c 4c 4: 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c |
|
36 |
A P |
19 18 |
||
|
37 |
A B |
-13 |
19 |
|
|
33 |
A P |
-12 |
no |
|
|
3? |
A B |
17 17 |
||
|
40 |
A B |
18 17 |
||
|
41 |
A B |
22 |
||
|
42 |
A P |
19 20 |
||
|
43 |
A B |
+50 |
14 21 |
|
|
44 |
A P |
23 TO |
||
|
) " |
A B |
17 18 |
||
|
46 |
A B |
20 19 |
||
|
47 |
A P |
23 nn |
||
|
48 |
A B |
1<? 20 |
||
|
49 |
A B |
+ 15 |
19 22 |
|
|
50 |
A B |
+ 58 |
12 19 |
NOTEJ 1) Finsl ssterisK denotes csteaory of pedestnen activity for which the predicted winds ere suitsblet
2) 7. Chense 3reeter then 10% besed on coropenson Mith Test Condition A.
3) Wind speeds ere for e 17. probebi 1 i ty ►
TEST CONDITION
A B
NO BUILD (EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS) ALTERNATIVE 7
TABLE 3 MEAN WIND SPEED EXCEEDED 1 % OF THE TIME
ANNUAL
FIGURE 1
LOCATION OF WIND SPEED S :ORS APPROX. SCALE r=160
.-T~j,j*^
|
< ACTEPTAFLE > 1 -: UNACCEPTAtLi: ■- — ;- GUST LOCATION TEST PERCENTAGE SPEED 10 20 30 40 50+ CONDITION CHANGE (HFH) : ; *, ; t 1 ; ; ; |
|
\ 1 A 21 ************ / B +23 26 ***************** |
|
2 A 22 ************* B 2? ************* |
|
3 A 19 ********** B 1? ********** 4 A 24 *************** F 23 ************** |
|
B 26 ***************** |
|
6 A 28 ******************* B 2? ******************** |
|
7 A 23 ******************* B +10 31 ********************** |
|
S A 26 ***************** B +1? 31 ********************** |
|
<? A "5 **************** B 27 ****************** |
|
10 A 23 ************** F 24 *************** |
|
11 A 28 ******************* B 26 ***************** |
|
12 A 25 **************** 1 F 25 **************** 13 A 24 *************** B 23 ************** |
|
14 A 23 ************** P -26 17 ******** |
|
15 A "9 ******************** B -27 21 ************ 16 A 27 ****************** F 27 ****************** |
|
NOTEJ '■'. Chsn3e sreeter then 10% bssed on s comPcnson with T5.-;t (.''..ndilion A: |
TEST CONDITION
A
B
NO FUILD ^EXISTING SITL CONDITIONS.) ALTERNATI'.'E 7
TABLE 4 EFFECTIVE GUST SPEEDS EXCEEDED 1 71 OF THE TIME
ANNUAL
ACCEPTABLE
IJNACCEPTAHLE
LOCATION TEST
CONDITION
GUST PERCENTAGE SPEEP CHANGE (HPH)
10
20
■xn
jn
50+
|
T 17 A 24 *************** Q O CT •>Af ^f tAf ^f ^U ^U ^U ^f ^U ^^ t^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^U ^^ ^ j^ ta' ^^ ^^ ^^ •»^ •^ ^^ ^^ 'r' ^T" 'r' ^T" 'r' 'r' ^T- 'r •^ |
|
18 A 2;; ************* p 24 *************** |
|
19 A 22 ************* |
|
20 A 17 ******** B 17 ******** |
|
21 A 16 ******* |
|
22 A 18 ********* B 17 ******** |
|
23 A 19 ********** B +15 22 ************* |
|
24 A 17 ******** B 16 ******* |
|
^ 1.* n jL ^ T^ 'T^ 'F^ f^ ^^ ^^ '^ '^ T^ ^- ^T- 'T' ^- ^^ " x. A Jft Jft jfC Jft 3fC ifC j|C j|t «ft <f( )fC jft |
|
26 A 24 *************** B 25 **************** |
|
27 A 19 ********** t* lb Jft 3|C ift jft jft jfC 3fC 3|t jft |
|
2S A 20 *********** j B +15 23 ************** |
|
29 A 23 ************** B 24 *************** 30 A 23 ************** B +13 26 ***************** |
|
31 A "8 ******************* B 28 ******************* |
|
32 A 26 ***************** B -15 22 ************* |
|
33 A 25 **************** |
note; y. Chen^e Sreeter thsn 10% bBsed on s ccmpsnson with Te^t Condition A
rEST CONDITION
A B
NO BUILD (EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS) ALTERNATIVE 7
D
TABLE 5 EFFECTIVE GUST SPEEDS EXCEEDED 1
ANNUAL
OF THE TIME
%
TiJ.
.ACCEPTABLE --
-— UNACCEPTABLE
GUST LOCATION TEST PERCENTAGE SFEEP
CONDITION CHANGE (HPH)
10
20
40
50+
A B
■12
25
fl?
36
J7
A F
38
A
B
31 :4c:(c)fc:tC]ic4t4c^^^>k4^4r4;4;^>k^)^>i^^4r
19
^1
42 43 44
4S
46
47 48 4? 50
30 )tc:|c:fc)(c4;:|c4c4:4^}#:3f:4:4^>t^i(c^4:4:4ci((}|(
A P
29 29
P I ^ / ^ Q ^t 4f ^k 4f ^Af ^f 4r ^f ^f ^^ 4f 4f ^f 4f ^f ^^ ^^ ^> ^^ ^f
A F
3? :t;:|(:tc;t:^}t(>f:^4^^^4:4:^^^:^^4:4^^4^i|r
28
30 4:]t:>ic:ic:ic3fc)t(:^]ii::f;4;)f;:i(:t^.:i;}ir]ir;(c:ir)tr)Ji'.
+ 10
A 20 ***********
F +45 2? ********************
Chsn^e srester than 10% b?sed on e comFsrison with T5:
rndition Ai
TEST CONDITION
A B
NO BUILD (EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS) ALfEF.'NATIVE 7
TABLE S EFFECTIVE GUST SPEEDS EXCEEDED 1 % OF THE TIME
ANNUAL
^^9.
FIGURE 1
LOCATION OF WIND SPEED SENSORS APPROX. SCALE T'=160'
Rodent Control
The City of Boston has determined that the infestation of rodents in the city is a serious problem to be contended with. In order to control this infestation, the City has established requirements under the Massachusetts State Sanitary Code, Chapter n, 105 CMR 410.550 and the State Building Code. Section 108.6. Policy Number 87-4 establishes that extermination of rodents shall be required for issuance of permits for demolitioa, excavation, foundation, and basement rehabilitation.
The project proponent will have contracted with a licensed exterminator prior to beginning any work on the project. A rodent extermination certificate will be filed with the building permit application to the City. Rodent inspection, monitoring, and treatment will be carried out before, during, and at the completion of all foundation work for -the proposed project, in compliance with the City's requirements. Rodent extermination prior to work start-up will consist of treatment of the entire project area, including all. alleyways, surrounding building exteriors, and building interiors. This treatment will consist of two service visits. During the construction process, bi-monthly service visits will be made in order to maintain effective rodent control levels.
JUNG/BRANNEN ASSOCIATES, INC A«hiu.ct. * planners
One Lincoln Street
OPEN SPACE The focal point of the open exterior space Incorporated Into the project Is a 3,000 sf public plaza between tne Low Rise portion of One Lincoln Street and the Bedford Building. Entered from Bedford Street through an Inviting custom- designed gate crafted In wrought Iron and large enough to allow a fire-truck to pass through It, the Plaza will be paved In brick, with a brick and granite feature pattern at Its end. Seat-helaht granite and brick planters for trees and seasonal planting, and smaller granite seating blocks, are Interspersed between a row of acorn light poles at each side of the Plaza - a wind- and sun-protected outdoor gathering place for those who wish to escape from the surrounding streets and buildings during those times of the year when comfortable temperatures Invite such use.
At such time as Essex Street Is widened, that portion of the existing building at 88 Kingston Street which Is within the new property line would be replaced with a 4,000 sf park whose design would give recognition to the proximity of the Chinese community by Incorporating oriental motifs Into Its paving and landscaping, and a welcoming Moongate Into the Colonnade which surrounds It. Within the park, a protected outdoor seating area encourages Individual and community use.
The Interior public areas of One Lincoln Street are a progression of ground floor lobbies (tower and low-rise building), passages, and public spaces, retail-lined wherever possible and flowing Into a main north-south spine from Bedford to Essex Streets from which a grand stair leads to the second level atrium floor. An oriental waterfall, surrounded by greenery In stepped planters, gives visual articulation to the transition between levels. The atrium extends upward four stories to a skylight which brings diffused daylight to the Interior areas. At street level, retail shops and their display windows line the Interior, richly-finished passages which provide enclosed spaces for circulation and shopping.
June 27, 1989
Mr. Paul K. Chan
Metropolitan/Columbia Plaza Venture 200 State Street, 12th Floor Boston, MA 02109
Subject: Consistency nf DPIR with DEIR
ASSOCIATES
Jane Howard Kathleen E. Stem-Hudson
38 Chouncy Street Boston, Massachusetts 02111
(617) 482-7080
Dear Mr. Chan:
Since the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR) for the Kingston/Bedford Development (One Lincoln Street), some modifications have been made to the developer's proposal, related to a large extent to the exclusion of the building at 88 Kingston Street from the development site area. The question has been raised as to whether the impacts identified in the DEIR are relevant for Draft Project Impact Report (DPIR) purposes, as the DPIR embodies the project changes. We, as transportation consultants to the project, have reviewed the revisions and wish to report via this letter that since the changes in the development program are very small, the transportation related impacts of the DEIR are still directly applicable to the DPIR.
The modifications adopted embody other minor changes from an urban design perspective, i.e. appearance, nature of some amenities, cer- tain construction practicalities, etc., which have no significant effect on transportation aspects. The programmatic changes which could effect trip generation are too small, however, to materially affect trip making, as can be see from the following table.
Active Buildino Use
Office Retail
Total
Parking Spaces
Alternative Gross Leasable Area
DEIR Developer's Revised
Proposal Proposal % Difference
(Sq.Ft.)
892,000 54,000
946,000
900
|
(Sq.Ft.) |
|
|
902,000 |
+ 1.1% |
|
50,000 |
-0.7% |
|
952,000 |
+ 0.6% |
|
920 |
+ 2.2% |
'K e'' ■ «"• ;'16> "uofi Jsf.r 26'r".' ..': eo
^!D-
,.....,,.^,
.■=•>.. ■;■».-
. ?fr-'ivj,V' .■'i'?,'
.^ . - >■;- >-e ■• -ir-
> X ^
a.
j;
^:r '-»
^j-'-noinDc.
Estimated trips generated by various modes of the revised project would change approximately in accordance with the differences in the ac- tivity percentages. As far as peak hour vehicle trips are concerned, the dif- ference would amount to no more than 4 trips per hour, or about one car •every fifteen minutes at the most. For analytical purposes this level of dif- ference is insignificant. The same applies to parking supply and demand. In addition, the scale and management of parking will be shortly subject to detailed scrutiny in the Access Plan and Parking Freeze processes.
For pedestrians, the revised location of sidewalk entrances are ample and close enough to the former locations so that the functional dis- tribution of pedestrian trips will not be altered significantly.
Although the current unavailability of 88 Kingston Street does not permit an early widening of Essex Street, the design of the project on the current site anticipates and allows for such widening. In the interim, a pick-up and drop-off lane is proposed on the north side of one-way Essex.
Please let us know if you require any further clarification of- the above.
Sincerely,
Alfred R. Howard, P.E. Senior Project Engineer
-2
PROPERTY OF BRA LIBRARY
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 06315 443 7