Case Studies: Negotiating Adjacencies

N E G O T I A T I N G A D J A C E N C I E S RESOLVING THE INTRICACIES OF A MULTIFACETED PROGRAM

Credits Northeastern University School of Architecture 360 Huntington Ave. Boston, MA 02144 2009 Spring Semester http://www.architecture.neu.edu

Northestern Student Team: David Swetz Justin DiCristofalo Case Study Advisor: Daniel Hewitt

Special Thanks To: Ron Druker, The Druker Company Jordan Warshaw, The Davis Companies Frederick A. Kramer, AIA, ADD inc.

Susan Hartnett David Hacin, AIA, Hacin and Associates inc.

Max Moore, Associate, Machado and Silvetti Associates Calderwood Pavilion Staff

INTRODUCTION mission statement learning objective

6 8

A B S T R A C T mixed-use defined mixed use precedents project brief

12 14 18

COMPLEXITIES site competition team planning

22 26 32 36

REFLECTIONS negotiating adjacencies role of architect

46 48

INTRODUCTION mission statement learning objective

6 8

6

INTRODUCTION mission statement

As a central pillar of the professional practice course at Northeastern University’s Graduate School of Architecture, students were given the task of analyzing a project through the scope of a specific learning objective. This learning objective was crafted through the evaluation and examination of a complex problem that architects faced in their own professional experiences.

Specifically, the case study below engages the adjacencies of a mixed-use project which were investigated through interviews, research of publications, and trusted and honest opinions from the individuals involved.

This particular case study is an investigation of complex issue that both young designers as well as experienced professionals will face at some point throughout their career. The intention is to identify that premise and allow the designer to gain an understanding of the strategies used to navigate the issue throughout the lifetime of a project. The obstacles a designer is required to overcome are abundant and seemingly endless, though by understanding what has been done in the past, potential problems can be avoided.

7

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

8

INTRODUCTION learning objective

In today’s urban setting there is a demand to satisfy a wide range of needs, necessitating the combination of multiple programs within a single building type. The need to combine programs within a single building type is supported by the lack of available land as well as the cost of available land. Each program has its own unique criteria that need to be satisfied, and resolving the adjacencies between programs is a complex, yet necessary undertaking.

Outside influences such as a schedule and budget, make it especially hard for an architect to successfully balance every program component. In most cases, one specific user takes priority over the rest, detracting from the ultimate objective of a mixed use project. Success of these projects depends heavily on equally integrating every program component.

9

So how can architects negotiate the complex adjacencies of a mixed use development while successfully achieving individual user expectations?

10

11

A B S T R A C T mixed-use defined mixed use precedents project brief

12 14 18

12

ABSTRACT mixed-use defined

What is Mixed-Use?

A mixed-use development is

is used. The classic office building is a

Obstacles

There are several obstacles that

a complex intertwining of multiple

good example of this scenario; where

need to be addressed when assuming a

distinct programs into a singular

the building is inhabited from 9:00-5:00

mixed-use development. These include

cohesive means

development. combining

Often

this

on weekdays, but lies vacant all other

appropriate siting, balancing program,

typologies

that

hours.

resolving adjacencies, designing with

normally exist independently into a

budget in mind, and trusting the project

singular building, or at the very least

A mixed-use development creates

team. The most difficult and often the

a singular site. The most common

density within an urban context. The

most important is placing your trust in

combination is retail, residential, and

combination of typologies activates

another team members hands, though

office programs; though the integration

a specific area, thus revitalizing a

it is essential to collaboration.

of hotel, entertainment, civic, and

neighborhood. This strategy deters a

cultural institutions is also common.

sprawling landscape, where a city is

Striking a balance between the five

Benefits

divided into a commercial, residential,

obstacles is essential to a successful

The benefits of a mixed-use

and industrial sectors. It establishes a

mixed

project over a primary-use project are

level of convenience, where residents

illustrates

numerous and expansive. A primary-use

are allowed to live, work, and play in a

challenges.

project is restrictive in how the property

single area.

(

use

project. the

The

details

diagram of

these

)

A mixed-use development is the appropriate combination of multiple typological programs within a single structure or site.

13

This diagram illustrates the five components that are essential to a mixed-use project along with the details imbedded within each obstacle.

14

ABSTRACT mixed-use miscues

Crosstown Center

Crosstown Center in Roxbury, MA is a mixed-use development that was completed in 2008. The purpose of the development was to revitalize the area and attract near-by residents.

The strategy employed was to include various program elements that could supplement each other. The placement of parking garage, hotel, and office are intelligent arrangements coupled with public retail establishments.

The miscue here was the siting strategy.

An overall lack of pedestrian density as well as a general lack of interest in retail has detracted from a otherwise sound project.

(

name

crosstown center

program

hotel, retail, parking garage, office space

site

roxbury, ma

project brief first part of new master plan in developing area main issue

lack of appropriate density

)

15

One Franklin Place

One Franklin Tower located in

Downtown Crossing in the heart

of Boston, MA was slated to be a condominium and hotel development with several floors of retail.

The goal of the project was to revitalize the feeble neighborhood of Downtown Crossing. The hope was that the 166 planned condos as well as a hotel would infuse much needed activity after business hours.

The miscue here was an unfortunate credit collapse, thus rendering the developer unable to secure funding.

(

The project looks to remain on halt for

name

one franklin tower

program

condominiums, hotel, retail

site

downtown crossing, boston, ma

project brief revitalization of neighborhood through mixed-use main issue

)

the for seeable future.

financial instability/lack of funders

16

ABSTRACT mixed-use miscues

Lafayette Place

Lafayette Place located just two blocks down Washington Street from One Franklin Tower was an attempt to bring a suburban shopping mall to the downtown area of Boston.

The

curious

design

is

strangely

uninviting for a shopping mall, which is a primary reason it has remained vacant for nearly a decade. The fact that an outdoor retail district exists just outside does not help the project.

Several attempts to resurrect the project by changing its program to first multi-screen cinemas and then offices have failed. The vacant building now lowers adjacent property values.

(

name

lafayette place

program

shopping mall, hotel, parking garage

site

downtown crossing, boston, ma

)

project brief an indoor mall in the heart of downtown crossing main issue

poor design

17

Waterside Place

Waterside Place is a proposed development for the Fort Point district known as the Core Block. The block is located directly adjacent to the World Trade Center.

The proposed development includes a 19 story luxury condo building, a 300room hotel, big box retail, parking, and street level shops. The cost estimate was initially pegged at $600 million.

The developer then adjusted the budget to almost $800 million. The overruns were so outrageous that investment

(

partners are now suing the developer,

name

waterside place

program

luxury condominiums, hotel, retail, parking

site

fort point, boston, ma

project brief new development in growing neighborhood main issue

)

potentially derailing the project.

lack of trust within project team

18

ABSTRACT project brief

Brief

Many

mixed

use

projects

order to understand how each obstacle

exist around the Boston metropolitan

was handled. The project selected

area as a result of sparse buildable

is an example of a successful mixed

land. With land and buildable space

use development; however there were

at a premium, the need to develop a

many intricacies that were faced during

successful mixed use project becomes

conception, design and construction.

all the more important. Unfortunately, The previous four examples of built

The following section will illustrate,

work

in detail, the specific challenges and

demonstrate

the

common

miscues associated with a mixed

complexities

confronted

use project. Therefore it is important

completion of Parcel 8 and Atelier 505.

to understand the challenges and

Through detailed analysis, interviews,

obstacles associated with a project

and

consisting of multiple programs.

understanding of the project can be

perspectives,

a

with

the

complete

achieved. From these conclusions, we This case study will look at a project that

can realize how important the value of

includes many levels of complexities in

trust is to the level of success.

19

Overview

The development of Parcel 8

strike

was a multi-leveled, highly intricate

economics, program, and design.

the

right

balance

between

system. The project had to negotiate the complexities of a brownfield site,

By digging beneath the surface of

the subsidy of a cultural arts facility,

Atelier|505

the relocation of existing parking, the

Pavilion, the realization of the project

defense and preservation of a registered

can be understood. What role does

historical building, addition of luxury

the architect play in a highly complex,

condos into a close-knit community,

mixed-use project? What is the nature

and the economic revitalization of an

of a public-private relationship? How

area.

is budget handled? Who manages

and

the

Calderwood

scheduling?

These are only some of the issues that the project team was faced with

These are the issues this case study

throughout the development. These

seeks

issues are all site specific, though

complexities section analyzes these

mixed-use projects always have to

issues in detail.

to

unlock.

The

following

20

21

COMPLEXITIES site competition team planning

22 26 32 36

22

COMPLEXITIES site

Demographics

Ever since the filling of Boston’s

has maintained its racial and ethnic

Back Bay in 1870, the South End neigh-

diversity by incorporating many subsi-

borhood has been home to a diverse

dized low-income housing. Such proj-

array of people. The first tenants were

ects include Villa Victoria, Cathedral

immigrants from overseas, comprising

Housing and Methunion Manor. These

of Irish, Lebanese and Greek decent.

large contemporary urban projects are

The neighborhood was also home to

surrounded by historical row-houses

fairly wealthy residents, including busi-

dating back to the mid nineteenth cen-

ness owners, bankers and industrial-

tury. The Uniform five story, red-brick,

ists. During the mid 20th century peo-

mixed use structures line a majority of

ple of African American and Hispanic

streets in the South End.

decent moved into the area.

With real estate in the area at a premium, there has been a push to maintain

In addition to a diverse ethnic popu-

cultural identity of the South End. In or-

lation, homosexual men and woman

der to accomplish this, affordable live-

also called the South End home dur-

work housing including artist lofts and

ing the early twentieth century. A large

studio spaces have been developed.

number of single homosexuals moved

In addition, mixed use projects have

into the area due to the availability of

been proposed, incorporating residen-

single sex rooming houses.

tial housing with cultural centers. Par-

Architecture The neighborhood of the South End

cel 8 is one site in which a mixed-use cultural landmark was to be proposed.

24

COMPLEXITIES site

Contaminated Site

Beyond just being a BCA

to spread the price tag around to

reserved plot, Parcel 8 was a formerly

include the future developer as well as

contaminated

the BCA.

site.

It’s

long

and

complex history as a filling and repair station left areas of the site with over

At one point the BRA tried to take

2.5 inches of VOC’s (volatile organic

advantage of the BCA’s lack of formal

compounds).

understanding about site conditions,

Brownfield Remediation

offering to sell the parcel to them for

One of the first hurdles to

$1. The deal was never taken seriously,

overcome was the clean-up of the

and language was put into the RFP

valuable property, and who would be

that would ensure that the developer

responsible. With early cost estimations

chosen would help the BRA split the

exceeding several hundred thousand

cost for a clean-up program.

dollars, no party was interested in being the primary funder.

An EPA fund known as the Brownfield Revolving Clean-Up Loan was also

images by the Bostonian Society

At the time of discovery, the BRA

used as a supplement to the cost. This

(Boston

Authority)

program awards the city of Boston a

held the deed to the land, and so was

loan at 0% interest for 5 years with only

legally responsible. Not surprisingly,

a single payment due at the end of

Mayor Menino was not interested in

those 5 years. The final cost of clean-

picking up the entire tab, and wanted

up was tagged at $2.8 million.

Redevelopment

25

Parcel 8

Parcel 8 was part of a master-

theatre spaces to take its place.

planning initiative by the BRA to reserve the site for cultural institutions.

Subsequently, the BCA and BRA who

Immediately adjacent to the site was,

held the title to the site, collaborated to

and still is, the celebrated Cyclorama

create an RFP (Request for Proposal) to

and other Boston Center for the Arts

be sent out to Boston area developers.

institutions.

The criteria for potential developers was long and detailed, and is outlined

The earliest and most important siting

on the sidebar of this page.

challenge that needed to be negotiated was the complete preservation of

While the priority for Parcel 8 was

these

while

always the theatre spaces, the strategy

Depiction of various BRA owned parcels and

simultaneously adding new facilities

of outlining additional programs into

planned, proposed, and built developments

immediately adjacent. In order to

levels of priority was a weak strategy.

accomplish this, the existing National

This led to the future exclusion of nearly

Theatre, a 4,200 seat performance

every program that was received a

theatre that succumbed to fire, had to

“LOWER PRIORITY� designation.

existing

institutions,

be safely demolished in 1997.

A developer’s primary concern is always Mayor Menino gave the go ahead

maximizing revenues, and creating

to the BCA to demolish the structure

such a weak RFP often lets that person

and begin the planning phase for new

cut out a lot of the program.

26

COMPLEXITIES competition

Competition Conception

As was previously mentioned,

BCA Concerns

The Boston Center for the Art’s

Parcel 8 in the South End was a BCA

was the primary beneficiary for the

reserved site owned by the city. In

development. The land had long been

order for a development to proceed

dedicated to the development of a

on this site, several departments and

cultural arts facility, and the BCA was

permits would have to be negotiated.

looking to turn heads with its property.

The City formed a panel consisting of

Susan Hartnett, the director of the BCA

key members of the BRA, BCA, BLC,

at the time, was looking for facilities to

This diagram illustrates the panel responsible

and a Task Force assembled by the

enhance the programming capacity for

for Parcel 8 as well as the subsequent judging

Mayor.

visual, performing, literary, and media

of competition entries. Community involvement

BRA Concerns

arts. The BCA was also looking for the

was encouraged through public meetings.

The department responsible

development to produce a significant

for the oversight of the property was

subsidy from the sale or lease of units

the Boston Redevelopment Authority

on-site.

headed by assistant director James

BLC Concerns

Kostaras. The BRA’s primary concern

The Boston Landmarks Commission, headed by executive director Ellen Lipsey, was responsible for ensuring the overall design and proposal was something that could comfortably nestle within the historical context of the South End. A significant challenge for the BLC was responding

BRA task force BCA

BLA community

before handing over the property to a potential developer was the remediation of the site as well as an economic revitalization of the South End.

27

to the re-zoning of the site to allow

Competition Brief

The Task Force

for proposals to exceed 10 stories. A

integrally with Susan Hartnett, James

strategy that was implemented was to

Kostaras, and Mayor Menino developed

make Parcel 8 an Article-80 site.

a Request For Proposal released in

working

October of 1996. This RFP was based Article-80 comprises of development

on a tiered system of priorities including

review

highest priority, medium priority, and

and

addressing

approval. issues

transportation, environment,

urban

Specifically relating

to

lower priority. The benefit of this was

planning,

flexibility it offered potential developers,

infrastructure,

and

leading to a variety of submissions.

historical aspects of a proposal. If a

HIGHEST PRIORITY theatres medium size formal theatre (400-500 seats) large “black box� theatre (200 seats) adequate loading, backstage, support facilities functional enhancements sufficient parking to replace existing parking access elevator to Cyclorama

proposal was approved, this permit

All of the submissions were to be

would ensure a developable solution

submitted by Boston based developers

for the South End.

only. Additionally, all submissions had

rehearsal spaces (750-2250 sq. ft.)

Task Force Concerns

to have a team in place consisting of

ADA studios (300 sq. ft.)

The Task Force appointed by the Mayor was a diverse group whose purpose was to review submissions based on design, feasibility, financing, as well as examining alternative options as they relate to both the parcel and the neighborhood beyond. Essentially

developer - architect - contractor. The

classrooms (2 to 3 @ 350-800 sq. ft.)

an unbiased jury to judge proposals.

members to collaborate.

full loading dock for entire complex

MEDIUM PRIORITY

benefit of this being two-fold. First, a level of trust will have already been established by the time a team is chosen. Secondly, it relieves the client from the stress of hiring individual team

LOWER PRIORITY exhibition gallery (1-2 spaces @ 1500-200 sq. ft.) one or more residential studios @ 1200 sq. ft. set shop arts related tenants retail space managed by BCA

28

COMPLEXITIES competition

Proposals

BRA task force BCA + huntington

to elderly living spaces, the program

BLA

community

theatre

druker

machado and silvetti turner

boylston properties elkus|manfredi shawmut

south gate partners architect contractor keen development architect contractor renaissance properties architect contractor

South Gate Partners

consisted of 82 rental units and 35

The South Gate Partners proposal

townhouses.

included a 63,500 Square foot space for

with interconnected stages, and arts

The Massachusetts Communications

facilities would encompass 23,000

College. This for-profit institution is self

square feet of space.

sustainable, therefore would not need

takes up a bulk of parcel 8, with 54,000

to generate money from the residential

square feet allotted to restaurants and

program. Retail space, located on the

medium-sized retail. Total cost was

ground level, would take up 20,000

projected at 55.7 million dollars.

Two theatre spaces,

Retail space

square feet. Two theatres and other program relating to the BCA’s needs

Keen Development Corporation

comprised of a 14,000 square feet

Keen Developments 44 million dollar

space. Total project cost was estimated

proposal had the least amount of

at 41.5 million dollars.

retail space, with 10,000 square feet designated. However, Keen proposed

Renaissance Properties

200 thousand square feet of residential

The driving element of the Renaissance

space, including an array of apartment

Properties proposal was the inclusion

layouts. 30,000 square feet of space

of assisted and independent living for

was to be used for two theatres and

seniors, specifically marketed to the

other BCA program.

gay and lesbian community. In addition

29

Short list End’s historical district.

On December 9, 1997 two developers were chosen out of a group of five

Boylston’s proposal was the strongest

by the appointed task force.

Each

of the five and seven first place votes

developer was voted on the proposals

was the most received by any team.

benefits to the BCA, compatibility with

The developer and architect also had

the neighborhood and developers

the most experience out of the five.

experience. Boylston Properties and

Previous projects relating to Parcel 8

The Druker Company received a

include the Longwood Galleria, The

majority of first place votes and the two

Trilogy, and The Longwood Research

proposals were clearly most popular

Center.

+

design captures the “essence of the BCA” feels integrated into the BCA’s purpose developer has indicated willingness to work with BCA

-

Significant portion of revenue must be paid up-front

COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD

+

successful massing and creation of plaza real feel for the South End

among the BRA, BCA, Community and Boston Landmarks Commission.

BENEFITS TO THE BCA

Boylston’s financial proposal was the

-

only element criticized by the task

Warren Avenue side needed more attention

Boylston Properties

force, who felt that financial resources

impact of billboard will be negative to residents

Boylston’s 400 thousand square foot

appeared limited. Apartments were the

housing is completely dedicated to rental

proposal included two theatre spaces,

main source of income and would not

residential space, retails space and a

generate as much money as condos.

+

parking garage. a majority of space

Elkis Manfredi also proposed expensive

all parties have experience

would comprise of rentable apartments.

architectural elements, including glass

Walk-up residences located on the

facades and a plaza.

Warren Street side reflected the South

DEVELOPERS EXPERIENCE

-

first market rate housing project financial resources appear limited

30

COMPLEXITIES competition

Short list each facade reflected its surroundings.

BENEFITS TO THE BCA

+

2 million dollar payment up-front shows solid revenue

-

condo fees present concern overall square footage of BCA facilities is limited plans for sharing freight elevator will not work

COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD

+

Druker Company

The Warren Street side stepped down

The Druker proposal called for 150

in size to relate to the five story walk-

thousand square feet of high-end

ups. The Tremont Street side increases

residential condo space. The income

in height while also including a plaza

from up-front condo fee’s benefited the

for the community, making it the only

BCA.

project to do so.

Large retail spaces, including

letters of commitment from retail tenants, were proposed for the site.

Drukers up-front payment of 2 million

Tenants

Auction

dollars was the most striking difference

a real landmark for the South End and Boston

House, which would take up 42

from other proposals. This generous

speaks to the creativity of artists

thousand square feet.

payment illustrated the teams financial

-

included

Skinner

stability and dedication to the project.

tilting of glass walls was “too dramatic”

Drukers proposal received five first

proposed retail use was too large and “high end”

place votes, placing it second behind

Questions

Boylston Properties. However it was

proposal to instill condo fee’s was a

Machado and Silvetti’s contemporary

concern for the Task Force. This would

massing and Drukers financial stability

limit the BCA’s income, therefore

that set it apart from the rest.

making it hard to succeed as a non-

DEVELOPERS EXPERIENCE

+

financial stability, overall financial scope is the largest

profit organization.

good track record in developing market rate housing

-

questions concerning developers experience at Castle Square

concerning

The massing of the proposed project related to existing site conditions and

Drukers

image by Machado and Silvetti Associates

Winning proposal The Druker Company’s proposal was

million dollars up-front. The Financial

any of the other four schemes. The

stability of the Druker project team,

contemporary massing provided by

chosen by the Task Force mainly

including Machado and Silvetti with

Machado and Silvetti also related more

because of Drukers contribution of two

Turner Construction was greater than

to the South End.

32

COMPLEXITIES team

The Evolution Of A Team

After the selection of Ron

one of the most respected architectural

Druker and his collaborators as the

firms in Boston. Their designs are

winning selection, the team found it

always captivating and interesting,

necessary to expand and evolve. With

though at that point in their careers

Machado and Silvetti were already in-

(1998), Machado and Silvetti had

place as the principle architect with

completed only small cultural works.

Turner Construction on board as the

Never had they attempted a project to

contractors the team was in a good

the scale and magnitude of the Parcel

position to begin the early phases of

8 project.

design.

Enter ADD Inc. Machado’s massing and skin was in place, and the Druker Company had

The first and most significant evolution

secured funding for both the BCA

of the Druker team was the addition of

theatres as well as the rest of his

a second architectural firm; ADD Inc.

proposed development. The “Who?”

ADD Inc. was contracted by Ron Druker

“What?” “Where?” and “When?” were

to be the Architect Of Record, to which

established, and the biggest challenge

Machado and Silvetti subcontracted

facing the team at that point was the

to. Naturally, this had the potential to

“How?”.

disrupt the chemistry and trust that was established between the Druker

Machado and Silvetti was, and still is,

Company and Machado and Silvetti.

33

Transfer Of Trust

ADD Inc.’s title was officially

and budgeting they allowed the team

designated Architect Of Record, but

to function at an extremely high level.

they were responsible for much more than producing technical drawings.

As the Architect of Record Add Inc.

They were attractive to the Druker

was responsible for the execution and

Company because of their reputation

realization of Machado and Silvetti’s

as

organizers.

initial design, technical and detailed

Machado and Silvetti lacked those

drawings of interior conditions and

intangibles necessary in realizing such

adjacencies,

a large and complex development.

consultants and contractors, as well

collaborators

and

collaboration

with

as budgeting and scheduling. It would ADD Inc. initially worked hard to earn

be nearly impossible for a firm such as

the trust of new team members by

Machado and Silvetti to execute all of

not altering Machado and Silvetti’s

these tasks and still generate such a

initial massing and skin design, and

compelling design motif. The addition

allowing them to progress their own

of Add Inc. freed them of these

design. By focusing their attention

responsibilities, allowing the design

strictly on collaboration, scheduling,

architect to focus strictly on design.

“

”

Machado and Silvetti designed an ingenious urban scheme and we just made it work.

-Fred Kramer AIA, ADD Inc.

34

COMPLEXITIES team

BRA community

BLA BCA wilson butler

huntington theatre

druker turner

ADD Inc

Evolving Project Team

Beyond changes taking place

Wilson Butler was contracted through

in the developers team, forces were

the Huntington Theatre, meaning that

shaping the dynamic of other project

ADD Inc. and Machado and Silvetti

collaborators. The necessity of funding

had little control over the design

for the arts facilities beyond what the

of the interior of the theatres and

Druker

accompanying spaces.

Company

could

subsidize

meant that another beneficiary had

Wilson Butler Effect

to be added. The BCA was aware of

this throughout the process, but had

firm who specialized in cruise ship

not settled on a partner for the theater

design was a difficult pill to swallow

spaces until the Huntington Theatre

for the Druker team. In order to avoid

allotted over $18 million. Naturally, there

tension and detriment amongst team

financial contribution coupled with

members, it was ADD Inc. who acted

their reputation made them a mutually

as a facilitator between groups. By

beneficial partner for the BCA.

bridging the gap between various

machado and silvetti

Trusting

a

young

design

designers and clients ADD Inc. freed The addition of the Huntington had

Wilson Butler to achieve a high quality

a resounding effect on the project.

design without affecting the overall

Their expertise in performance spaces

proposal. Clear communication and

coupled with the BCA’s desire for

efficient

innovative spaces led to the hiring of a

essential to avoid a design competition

third architect, Wilson Butler Architects.

between Machado and Wilson Butler.

collaboration

again

were

35

Diagram illustrating chain of decision making, with priority on Druker, ADD Inc, and the BCA.

Competing Interests

Architects were not the only

ideas and so these considerations had

it was ADD Inc’s responsibility once

professionals that had staked a claim

to be negotiated.

again to address this issue. Naturally

in the design of the project, all parties

Fred Kramer could not outright choose

were deeply involved. Ron Druker

The tension came to fruition during the

one solution, and was tasked with the

prides himself on his commitment

discussion of the location of a loading

challenge of playing the middle man. It

to design, and with buildings such

dock serving the property. Ron Druker

was essential to clearly communicate

as the Colonadde Residences and

had his opinion, and Susan had hers,

to each party in order to avoid a

Longwood Galleria on his resume, that

both with their own benefits and

messy situation. Ultimately the issue

commitment is clear. On the opposite

shortcomings. On a project with two

was never completely resolved, but

end, Susan Hartnett of the BCA was also

clients such as Atelier|505 there is no

ADD Inc. negotiated a tight rope of

invested in the design, and had her own

correct answer, and negotiation is the

trust between the two thus allowing

design considerations in mind. These

only means to an end. As an architect,

the project and parties to continue

ideas were often contradicting of Ron’s

and as a facilitator of communication,

functioning effectively.

36

COMPLEXITIES planning

Contextual Massing

The development of Parcel

a high facade encroaching over the

located on the Tremont Side as well as

8 had to contend with a variety of

street and impeding views out to the

a plaza where people can socialize and

external

with

city. Therefore Machado and Silvetti

interact with each other. Off the plaza

negotiating issues within the project

planned for a structure that would act

are retail shops and restaurants.

team, the team had to contend with

as a walk-up, adding continuity to the

the surrounding context and existing

street.

The Druker teams scheme underwent

buildings.

Silvetti’s

The BRA re-zoned parcel 8 in order

little community opposition during

massing for Atelier 505 directly relates

to incorporate a tower, therefore its

the review process because of an

to the surrounding neighborhood. Their

placement became very crucial within

ingenious massing that breaks down,

design elegantly utilizes the parcel 8

the massing.

reacting to each particular elevation.

lot, with every programmatic element

opted to position the tower at the

being expressed uniquely.

intersection of Warren

At

the

complexities.

Machado

Warren

Along

and

Street

side,

the

structure steps down and reacts

Machado and Silvetti and Tremont

Understanding the complexities of

Streets. The tower allows for additional

the site, as well as program, enabled

condos while also becoming a gateway

Machado and Silvetti to develop a

into Boston’s South End.

successful massing that could be

to the surrounding five story walk ups.

“

The community was afraid of

The Calderwood Pavilion entrance is

further enhanced throughout design and construction.

”

You can take a large structure and make it smaller by breaking it into an aggregation of four buildings

-Rodolfo Machado, AIA

37

images by ADD inc.

38

COMPLEXITIES planning

Early Tension

Before demolition

of

the

to negotiate this tension and create a

National Theatre, a loading dock and

solution for both the loading dock and

fly loft were located on Warren Avenue.

fly loft.

Warren Avenue residents disliked the

Fly Loft

loading dock because trucks would

The fly loft was a major concern

line up on the street, blocking vehicles

for the BCA. They felt that it was a

and making noise.

Also located on

necessary part of the theatre however

the street was a seventy foot high fly

the Residents of Warren Avenue and

loft. A fly loft is a large opening above

the Druker team both opposed it. A

a theatre that allows a system of

debate between Susan Hartnett and

ropes and pulleys to quickly move set

Ron Druker pursued, with the Druker

pieces, lights and microphones off the

team coming out on top. A seventy

stage. The blank wall was an eye sore,

foot high blank wall, interrupting the

restricting views and blocking light.

Warren Avenue Facade as well as the proposed condo’s above, would have

These two issues created tension

been too detrimental to the project. A

between the residents of Warren

solution was devised, however damage

Avenue and the BCA

was done to the relationship between

before the

project competition for parcel 8 even began.

Residents did not trust the

BCA and their way of managing the site. Therefore the Druker team had image by Wilson Butler Architects

Susan Hartnett and Ron Druker.

39

Loading Dock

Tension between Susan

continued,

and

Ron

and

Druker team disagreed, feeling that it

differences

would ruin the Calderwood Pavilion

between placement of a loading dock

entrance and plaza space.

Tension

nearly scrapped the project entirely.

became so significant that Mayor

The Druker team proposed to combine

Menino held a meeting in order to

two loading docks into one, satisfying

resolve the issue.

both Atelier 505 and the Calderwood Pavilion. Initial placement of the dock

The solution to the problem was to

was in a alley abutting the Cyclorama,

divide the loading dock. A loading dock

located off of Warren Avenue. Susan

located on Warren Avenue, embedded

Hartnett did not agree with this

into the massing, would satisfy Atelier

placement and felt that the alley way

505.

would not compliment the historic

on Tremont Street, utilizing a service

Cyclorama.

elevator inside the Cyclorama, would

Another loading zone located

satisfy the Calderwood Pavilion.

The Residents of Warren Avenue were not opposed to the loading docks

The sub-par solution to the loading

placement, however Susan Hartnett

dock illustrated a lack of trust between

would not budge, feeling the Druker

Susan Hartnett and Ron Druker. Susan

team was not cooperating with the

felt that Ron had ulterior motives and

BCA. Susan wanted the loading dock

was not willing to compromise with the

to be placed on Tremont Street but the

BCA.

image by Google Earth

40

COMPLEXITIES planning

Adjacencies

With a project scope consisting

Acoustics On the other hand, High end residential

of retail, theatre space, residential

condos were being designed above

and parking, the need to resolve

the theatre spaces and other programs

adjacencies becomes essential. The

outlined by David Hacin.

BCA required their own program which

resolving issues such as acoustics

was incorporated into the residential

becomes indispensable.

design of Atelier 505.

Therefore,

In order to

accomplish this, a clear understanding

In

order

to

accomplish

this,

an

between developer, architect and client

acoustical consultant was brought

was established.

onto the team.

The consultant, in

collaboration with ADD Inc., developed During the competition phase of parcel

an innovative solution that eliminates

8, Task Force member and practicing

noise transfer from theatre to residential

architect, David Hacin, developed a

condo.

program diagram for BCA facilities.

cavities and floors of condos that were

David Hacin was capable of creating

located directly above or adjacent to

such document and did so as a favor

the Calderwood Pavilion. In this case,

to the BCA and Task Force members,

team members worked innovatively in

the diagram illustrates what types of

order to reach a solution to a problem

programs were needed, including

that easily could have resulted in an

typical

unsuccessful mixed-use project.

dimensions

importance. image by Hacin and Associates Inc.

and

level

of

Sand was poured into wall

41

Program Adjacencies Retail Performance Residential Parking

Condo Condo Temont St.

Rehersal

Main Theatre

Black Box

Warren Ave.

42

COMPLEXITIES planning

Bordering Cyclorama

Along with neighborhood

Ron Druker and Fred Kramer of ADD

considerations, the team also had

Inc. to negotiate the multifaceted

to contend with an existing historic

adjacencies. The issue was four-fold,

structure. The Cyclorama is designated

with theatres, restaurant space, the

as a historic structure, and therefore by

Cyclorama, and luxury condos above

law had to be protected. Of course, the

all adjoining one another.

team working with the BCA sought to protect a supplement the existing arts

Structurally and acoustically all team

facility with new ones.

members were required to collaborate deeply on such a unique dilemma.

The Calderwood Pavilion as well as

Again, ADD Inc. was best suited for the

Atelier|505 both directly engage the

leadership role in this position. Their

Cyclorama. This presented structural as

unique skill set as project delivery

well as integration challenges that had

experts allowed them to successfully

to be addressed. On the lower levels,

cross-pollinate

the BCA desired a means to access

strategies to devise the best solution.

multiple

ideas

and

the Cyclorama from inside the new

plan by Wilson Butler Architects

development, but also had to consider

The collaboration of team members

how the theatres integrated with the

helped to completely preserve a

neighboring arts facility. Wilson Butler

historically

Architects working with the Huntington

minimizing the effects on necessary

and the BCA had to collaborate with

interventions.

valuable

building,

with

43

Cyclorama

(

Restaurant Calderwood Pavilion

Atelier|505

)

The Cyclorama, a large rotunda meant to house panoramic

paintings was originally built in 1884 by Charles Cummings and Willard Sears and included large turrets resembling a castle.

image by Machado and Silvetti

44

45

REFLECTIONS negotiating adjacencies role of architect

46 48

46

REFLECTIONS negotiating adjacencies

Developer - Ron Druker develop a successful residential condominium that could simultaneously subsidize a cultural arts center while also generating revenue. revitalize neighborhood of the South End, creating a landmark for the area.

Client - Boston Center for the Arts Creating a new cultural arts center for the South End and Boston.

Inclusion of all program outlined during competition.

A space that can satisfy the needs of the BCA

Architect - Machado and Silvetti Wanted a successful building that reacted to the neighborhood and site.

Satisfy the needs of the developer, as well as the client

47

Negotiating adjacencies

Complex adjacencies located

who was concerned with the Condos

within the mixed use development of

and Atelier 505, satisfied her needs as

Atelier 505 and the Calderwood pavilion

well.

illustrate how

architects, developer

and client each achieved individual

The two parties disagreed at times,

expectations. Team members worked

specifically with issues such as the

together in order to successfully

loading dock and fly wall.

achieve this goal.

However, the

to resolve these issues, each team

success of Atelier 505 did not come

member set aside individual user

without opposition and disagreement.

expectations in order to reach a

In order

common ground. A common ground Susan Hartnett and Ron Druker clashed

used to develop a successful mixed

at times because their expectations

use building. The architect moderated

differed. Susan’s state of mind was

the two groups and in the end each

geared toward the BCA and a new

individual user need including architect,

cultural center. Therefore she wanted

developer, and client was incorporated

to make sure the developer Ron Druker,

into the finished product.

(

)

so how can architects negotiate the complex adjacencies of a mixed use development while successfully achieving individual user expectations?

48

REFLECTIONS conclusion

Role of Architect of Record

The role of the architect is the outcome. Though a successful constantly evolving to keep up with

developer is usually not concerned

the building industry. With so many

with peoples feelings. A developer is

aspects to the planning, design, and

a highly motivated personality, who is

execution of a project, team dynamics

concerned primarily with the monetary

can become clouded.

success of their project. This is not to say that a developer’s only concern is

In order for a project team to function as

asset procurement, though generally

effectively as possible, it is absolutely

they are not the type to ensure that

necessary for each member to place

trust transferred throughout the project

trust in each other. In some cases,

team.

trust may already be established from a prior relationship. This was the case

Simultaneously, a client on a project

with Ron Druker and Rodolfo Machado,

such as Susan’s position at the BCA,

as they both had worked at Harvard

is an intimidating one to be in. It

University.

is natural to feel threatened by the scale of a developer’s propositions,

More often then not, trust has to be

and that a client’s desires may be

earned. It could be said that Ron

overshadowed.

Druker never quite earned the trust of the BCA’s Susan Hartnett despite

It becomes apparent that in order

the fact that both were pleased with

to instill confidence in other team

49

members, that an architect possesses the best skillset. Beyond that though, and specifically in this project, two distinct types of architects were hired; one to handle design and another to tackle delivery.

ADD Inc. is a firm that specializes in project delivery. This is something that they have devoted so much effort to, that it has become marketable for them.

In today’s building industry, the level of complexity is so high, that an architect who can specialize in team dynamics, organization,

and

scheduling

has

become invaluable.

Not always will the title of this position be Architect Of Record, and it does not necessarily have to be an architect, but the addition of someone who can focus on the intangibles is crucial.