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
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11