What advantages do local architects bring to the realization of monumental buildings?
A Case Study of 111 Huntington Avenue
Chris Godfrey & Edgar Veliz Professor Hewett
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
Contents
A case study by
Introduction Learning Objective
Abstract Project Teams Time line Precedents Before and After Property & Interests maps Perspectives Project Orientation The Developer The Architect The Planning Board Collaboration
Analysis Initial Master Planning Urban Planning Tower Design Floor Plans Site Cohesiveness Site Map
Introduction
Often, a “big name architect� is selected to design a building of grand scale. The legacy of the success of these buildings is often carried by the name of the architect who designed it, blinding our ability to truly judge it without bias. True success is based on a whole other set of criteria, such as local acceptance, understanding of the buildings use by the local population, recognition by its peers, and public perception. This case study takes a look at what happens when a local firm is instead chosen, and in what ways it more successfully addresses this set of criteria. This is a case study to uncover and understand how good architects see their designs realized. There are, after all, thousands of great designers in the field of architecture. Only a small percentage of these architects, however, actually see their designs translated from paper into reality.
What advantages do local architects bring to the realization of monumental architecture?
Abstract
Project Time Line Precedents Property and Interests Map Before Property and Interests Map After
Abstract
Carter Administration Mass. Governor Edward King Boston Mayor Kevin White Cold War
Reagan Administration
Bush Senior’s Administration Mass. Governor William Weld Mass. Governor Michael Dukakis Boston Mayor Ray Flynn - Responsible for improving cities and parks and adding an uprecedented number of public housing projects
Mass. Governor Paul Cellucci
Boston Mayor Thomas Manino
Construction Completed all Space is Leased
CBT Continues Work and Construction Begins
Boston Properties Aquires Land and Plans
Family and Medical Leave Act
Filed Due to Economy
Original Design Presented
Highway Revenue Act 1982
Tax Reform Act
Economic Recovery Tax Act
nt R ate
ag er Av eI e
om nc
Nati o Une nal mpl oym e
l na ex
d ce In
r Pri sume
Con
1981
e)
ng
ha
ll c
ua
nn
Pa
GD y( om
on Ec US
MAX
Bill Clinton’s Administration
Gulf War
Recession Periods
tio Na
Project Time Line
GDP in Trillions
National Dept in Trillions
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1980
MIN
Abstract
Precedents
Successful Skyscrapers by Big Name Architects
The John Hancock Tower
Location: Boston, MA Architect: Pei, Cobb, Freed & Partners John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. brought in Cobb to design their new tower in Copley Square, Boston. One of the biggest challenges, which the architect successfully maneuvered, was to respect the existing centerpiece of the site, H.H. Richardson’s Trinity Church. To do so, Cobb used a completely minimalist strategy, and a reflective facade.
The Chrysler Building
Location: New York, NY Architect: William Van Alen During the 1920’s in New York, there was an obsessively competitive culture to build the tallest building in the world. The original developer even sold the plans after the building’s tall design was too costly. Chrysler and Van Alen overcame these obstacles, and created the worlds tallest building, even if for only a few weeks.
The Petronas Towers
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Architect: Cesar Pelli Pelli’s design answered the developer’s call to express the ‘culture and heritage of Malaysia’ by evoking Islamic arabesques. The original plan did not call for the world’s tallest building, but it did aspire to construct a monument announcing Kuala Lumpur’s prominence as a commercial and cultural capital.
The Citigroup Center
Location: New York, NY Architect: Stubbins Assoc. A church that occupied the corner of the building’s site allowed Citigroup to demolish their church, with the promise that a new one would be constructed on the same site, with no connections to the new building. This created extremely difficult structural problems, which were eventually solved using stacked braces, in the form of chevrons.
Finding Success with Local Architects
Taipei 101
Location: Taipei, China Architect: C.Y. Lee & Partners Standing 101 floors tall, Taipei 101 was designed to withstand typhoons and earthquakes. It has been dubbed one of the Seven Wonders of Engineering, which was illustrated during construction when a 6.8 magnitude earthquake left the building with no structural damage upon inspection.
The Cahill Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics at Caltech Location: Pasadena, CA Architect: Morphosis Morphosis’ familiarity with Caltech’s campus and history allowed them to create a building that is as practical as it is technically appropriate. The building connects the campus both symbolically and physically, as well as providing an occupiable telescope, a stair core that connects earth to heaven.
US Federal Courthouse Location: Miami, FL Architect: Arquitectonica The urban location of this courthouse in downtown Miami had urban design implications beyond the judicial campus in which the building sits. The architects were able to respect the symbolism and imagery of a traditional courthouse, while integrating the look and feel of the more modern Miami. The building also addresses issues of sustainability and security.
Digital Beijin Location: Beijing, China Architect: Studio Pei-Zhu With a site within view of such iconic buildings as the so called bird’s nest and water cube, Zhu decided to design his building as a foil for the other Olympic buildings, rather than attempting to echo them. He wanted to design a building that got to the truth of what China has become. The building is inspired and organized by the logic of a motherboard and its circuitry.
The Boston Children’s Museum Expansion Location: Boston, MA Architect: Cambridge Seven Associates, Inc. This building’s renovation transforms an existing 19th century brick warehouse into a colorful geometric structure that embraces its dramatic waterfront site. Cambridge Seven has considerable experience with museums and environmentally focused institutions. This restoration was awarded a LEED gold rating.
The Gary Comer Youth Center Location: Chicago, IL Architect: John Ronan Architects Ronan’s youth center sits as a beacon of hope, among its context of urban decay. His out of the box thinking landed him the commission from Comer, a philanthropist who grew up just blocks from the site. One of the building’s core values is convertibility, as the gym converts into a stage and auditorium.
Abstract
Back Bay Neighborhood Association Neighborhood Committee
Property & Interests Map
1988
Mayor
City Government
Land Owned by Boston Properties
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Land Owned by Prudential Properties
*Parties working together contained within site, with the more integral parties accentuated with a larger text. **Parties which presented opposition to development with the more influential parties accentuated with a larger text.
BRA
Planning Board
Transportation & Environmental Consultants
Carr, Lynch and Sandell, Inc. Landscape Architects
Stubman Associates
The Architect’s Collaborative Architects, Master Planners
Architects, Master Planners
Le Messurier Consultants Structural Engineers
Sikes, Jenner, Keller, & Brewer
Prudential Properties
Architects
Initial Owner/ Developer
PruPac
Neighborhood Committee
Abstract
Back Bay Neighborhood Association Neighborhood Committee
Property & Interests Map
1998
Mayor
City Government
Land Owned by Boston Properties Land Newly Acquired by Boston Properties
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Transportation & Environmental Consultants
111 Huntington Acquired by Boston Properties
*Parties working together contained within site, with the more integral parties accentuated with a larger text. **Parties which presented opposition to development with the more influential parties accentuated with a larger text.
BRA
Planning Board
Mc Namara Salvia Structural Engineers
The Halvorson Company Landscape Architects
Ken Lewandowski CM, Project Manager
CBT Architects Architects
Boston Properties New Owner/ Developer
PruPac
Neighborhood Committee
Perspectives
Project Orientation The Developer The Architect The Planning Board Collaboration
Perspectives
Project Orientation
By looking at the architect’s process, rather than his product, we can gain a greater understanding of what crucial decisions were made, and their consequences on the final building. Specifically, we are interested in learning exactly what an architect can do to improve his chances of getting his designs built, rather than remain on paper, as a design. Using 111 Huntington Avenue, which was the Boston’s first skyscraper in over 13 years, we will look at how a team of local architects did just this. In order to understand the implications of this project, it is important to consider the fact that such a substantial building was built in a time and a place that was uncommon to see such projects proposed, nevermind completed. Although Boston is among one of the US’ major cities, it has relatively few skyscrapers, compared to other large cities around the country. Additionally, the building’s site, nestled between Boston’s historic Back Bay and the South End, is not traditionally where skyscrapers are constructed. At the time of construction,
and still today, the only other skyscrapers in the area, and in fact the only skyscrapers outside of Boston’s downtown, are the neighboring Prudential Tower and the John Hancock Building, located at Copley Square. Additionally, the time that the land was acquired from Prudential Insurance Company, by Boston Properties, who developed the project, the economy was in a substantial slump, which was one of the reasons Prudential Insurance abandoned its original plans to construct the same tower. In fact, they had gone so far as to have the building designed and obtained construction permits from the city. These factors gave Prudential leverage to sell the property for a higher price, since it came bound with architectural plans and construction permits, which can be a hindering bureaucratic process. After the purchase of the land, Boston Properties commissioned Childs, Bertman, & Tseckares Architects to design the majority of the building’s interiors, facades, and of course the building’s iconic dome, which was encouraged by mayor White, and inspired by other such
building crowns in other major cities. CBT was chosen because of their past relationship with Boston Properties, their familiarity with the project and site, and their locality. More so, there was a level of trust which Boston Properties invested in CBT, which was grounded in their belief that the local architects were familiar and sensitive towards both the PruPAC’s and the Back Bay Neighborhood Association’s needs and concerns. Unlike many typical neighborhood committees, these had legislative authority, as well as a conservative agenda, that often did not like to see change.
Perspectives
The Developer
Boston Properties Occupancy by Region
As of December 2007 Boston 93% Washington 99% New York 100% San Francisco 91% Princeton 83%
Income Distribution by Region
As of September 30, 2008 Income Distribution by Region As of September 2008 Boston
San Francisco
23% 39%
New York
13% 22%
3%
Washington, D.C.
Princeton
Boston Properties, a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust, is one of the largest owners, managers, and developers of first-class office properties in the United States, with a significant presence in four core markets: Boston, Washington, D.C., Midtown Manhattan and San Francisco. The Company was founded in 1970 by Mortimer B. Zuckerman and Edward H. Linde in Boston, where it maintains its headquarters. Boston Properties became a public company in June 1997. The Company acquires, develops, and manages its properties through full-service regional offices in Boston, New York City, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Princeton New Jersey. Its property portfolio is comprised primarily of first-class office space and also includes one hotel. Boston Properties is well-known for its in-house building management expertise and responsiveness to tenants’ needs. The Company has a superior track record in developing Class-A, Central Business District
office buildings, suburban office centers and build-to-suit projects for the U.S. Government and a diverse array of high-credit tenants. Boston Properties acquired the site for the Prudential Center from Prudential Properties in 1998, just as the economy was coming out of a relatively long slump. BP took a gamble, and hedged their bets with the assumption that the economy would continue to improve, which it did. Boston Properties hired a number of architecture firms to conduct master planning studies on the site, including Stubman Associates and The Architect’s Collaborative. The proposed plans were so aggressive, however, that local residents and community committees went up in arms with outrage. As a result, Mayor White appointed a committee which still exists today, called PruPAC. This committee consisted of local residents, business owners, and state representatives, and was given the authority to set guidelines by which developers must
adhere to. Located on a 23-acre site between Boylston Street and Huntington Avenue in the heart of Boston’s Back Bay, adjacent to the Hynes Convention Center, major hotels, shopping and residential areas, the Prudential Center is a 3.2 million square foot urban center, comprised of 2.6 million square feet of office space and 620,000 square feet of retail space. The complex provides direct access to the Massachusetts Turnpike and on-site access to the MBTA Green Line, as well as the largest parking garage in New England, with space for 3,660 cars. The Prudential Center is the 2007 “Building of the Year” winner in the Over One Million Square Foot Category of BOMA’s Mid-Atlantic Region. This 36-story Class A office tower features spectacular views of Boston, Cambridge, and the surrounding areas, a dramatic lobby waterfall, and a rooftop crown which has quickly become an icon on the Boston skyline.
Interview: Dan Shanahan
In a small city such as Boston, there are only a handful of reputable architects, engineers, etc. which are used for projects of such grand scale.
Dan Shanahan is the property manager of 111 Huntington Avenue, the building at the center of our investigation. Speaking to him, as well as his associate, and senior property manager Andrew Mauck, was enlightening in terms of the leasing and hiring process which brought the building into existence. Attracted by the Prudential complex’s all-inclusive offerings, which provide most any product and service catering to a business crowd, the tower at 111 Huntington was fully leased before construction commenced, which makes things easier for both the developer and the architect. As for the selection of CBT as the architects to design the building, Dan informed us that in a small city such as Boston, there are only a handful of reputable architects, engineers, etc. which are used for projects of such grand scale. CBT had established a reputation with Boston Properties, gaining their trust and fostering a familiar and comfortable working relationship.
Perspectives
The Architect
Childs Bertman Tseckares, Inc.
CBT Architects were originally hired by the Prudential Properties Company, as part of their redevelopment in the early 1980’s. The CBTdesigned expansion of the 27 acre Prudential Center, among the largest development projects in Boston, introduced 1.8 million square feet to Boston’s Back Bay, revitalizing the role of the landmark complex in the neighborhood and in the city. CBT’s design integrates the original complex, built in the 1960’s, with the surrounding city at various levels. By introducing retail along the street edge in pedestrian scaled forms, a more welcoming transition is created between the sidewalk and the towers. The improved circulation also connects with the pedestrian network and subway system outside the Center. The Project Manager at CBT for 111 Huntington Ave, Ken Lewandowski, was actually working on site,
doing construction administration for the retail corridor, which was an earlier phase of the redevelopment plan. Ken met and became familiar with the CBT architects who would come on site, and when the time came to begin designing the tower, Ken was brought on to help design it, knowing that he was familiar with the site and its workings. This transfer of trust was a crucial and wise decision by CBT, knowing that having an experienced member on the team would certainly help in maneuvering PruPAC’s resistance. CBT had also proven their trustworthiness in their ability to archive the original redevelopment plans from Prudential Properties in the 1980’s, only to pick up right where they left off 8 years later. Their organizational skills and local knowledge make them a top choice for developers time and time again.
“Our philosophy drives a design process that values exploration and the contributions of multiple voices because we believe that the best design solutions are the result of thoughtful collaboration.”
Interview: Ken Lewandowski
At first, the idea of a $10 million decorative hat seemed frivolous and superfluous, but it soon became a fun and unique challenge that the entire office quickly joined.
Ken Lewandowski was the project manager of 111 Huntington, as well as the former construction administrator for the retail corridor of the redevelopment. We spoke to Ken about the buildings design, CBT’s role in the scope of the master planning, and interaction with the PruPAC. Although there was pressure from PruPAC to ensure that the communities needs would be met, there was also pressure coming from city hall, specifically Mayor Menino, who refused to see Boston’s skyline be defined by another flattopped skyscraper. Hence, the crown was born. At first, the idea of a $10 million decorative hat seemed frivolous and superfluous, but it soon became a fun and unique challenge that the entire office quickly joined. In terms of the building’s proportions, in hindsight, many agree that the building is a bit girthy, and in the end, wants to be taller. The crown, however, is liked by most, even if it was received with skepticism initially.
Perspectives
The Planning Board
PruPAC
PruPAC is a 22-member residential and business group that currently serves an advisory role in the development of the Boston Street Mixed Use Project (BSMUP). PruPAC was formed in 1986 to provide guidance to the BRA and the City in the redevelopment of the Prudential Center, after an initial master plan proposed by Boston Properties was deemed too aggressive by the locals. The group is composed of local residents, business owners, and city representatives, 7 of whom have been member since the group’s inception in 1986. Since the group was appointed by the Mayor, it has more power than a typical community group. Developers must not only listen to the group’s input; they must obey, or at least find a common ground somewhere in between. Weekly meetings were held between members of PruPAC, the architects, developers, master planners, engineers, etc. to help shape the highly influential development. Back Bay Neighborhood Association, who’s jurisdiction lies north
of the site, also attended meetings, and were often far more conservative, and therefore difficult to deal with. The Back Bay, is, however, a far more historical neighborhood, which is why they are a bit more protective over its development. The PruPAC’s main concerns were that the new development would connect the South End with the Back Bay, improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation, replace the demolished grocery store, provide on site day care, and that the construction occur in 6 phases, over an 8 year period. Most of these requirements were met with a few minor changes. The phases ended up being completed over a longer range of years, due to unforeseen market conditions which delayed construction for a number of years. This didn’t cause much uproar, as there was no disruption during the down time. As for the day care, it did not make it into the development, but instead was outsourced to nearby sites. There seems to be a misconception that these neighborhood groups were
PruPAC as always maintained that the site needed redevelopment. They just wanted to be sure that the local residents would be treated fairly, and create a situation in which all parties can benefit.
out to restrict all new construction and limit the heights of all new buildings. The height restrictions, in reality, are determined by the city, not the PruPAC. As for the redevelopment of the Prudential Center, the PruPAC as always maintained that the site needed redevelopment. They just wanted to be sure that the local residents would be treated fairly, and create a situation in which all parties can benefit.
Interview: Betsy Johnson
The PruPAC suggested constructing one story of retail over the turnpike, to eliminate the costs of the heavy infrastructure necessary to span the weight of the
tower over the highway.
Betsy Johnson is the chair of the PruPAC, and has been a member since the group was founded in 1986. She informed us of the crucial issues which concerned the community and the city at the time. One of the major changes which was heavily influenced by the PruPAC was to move the tower so that it was not positioned over the turnpike. The PruPAC suggested constructing one story of retail over the turnpike, to eliminate the costs of the heavy infrastructure necessary to span the weight of the tower over the highway. These negotiations pushed construction back, so that by the time the designs were completed, the economy had gone into a slump and construction was put on hold. There was a running joke that the PruPAC actually saved Prudential Properties money, by forcing them to avoid the financial catastrophe which would have resulted from such heavy and complicated construction during an ailing economy.
Perspectives
Collaboration
Rethinking the Role of the Community
“
“
At the early meetings, there was a lot of distrust. Everyone felt under pressure, because we all realized that the Pru could be a catalyst for our communities. The question was how.
-Marrianne Abrams, veteran member of the PruPAC
The team rethought the entire public meeting process. Instead of meeting at 8p.m., when members were already at home eating dinner, and therefore less likely to attend unless there was a major decision to be made, the group scheduled meetings at the end of the work day and provided food.
”
“
“
-The Politics of Development
”
The group invited a facilitator, who kept the dialogue open, and helped to create a process that has since proved to be applicable to other development approvals.
”
-The Politics of Development
The vision for the project that is just being realized is a direct result of the managed dialogue of hundreds of meetings. Public process decreases misinformation and helps citizens make intelligent decisions about their community.
”
-Gary Hack, dean of fine arts at U. of Penn, head of planning
Analysis
Initial Master Planning Urban Planning Tower Design Floor Plans Site Cohesiveness Site Map
Analysis
Initial Master Planning
Public Opposition
What began in 1986 as an angry protest over the Prudential Development’s ambitious plan to expand the program on the site has become an example of public/private cooperation in the city. -The Politics of Development When the plan was announced, the size and potential impact on neighborhood life outraged members of the adjacent communities. Kevin White, Boston’s mayor at the time and champion of the neighborhoods, scrapped the plan and recommended a fresh approach that included the participation of 22 neighborhood, business, and civic groups to assist in the development of a new plan and its review. This approach empowered the PruPAC to establish guidelines, evaluate design concepts, and assess the overall project mitigation impacts as physical planning got underway. -The Politics of Development The developers also took the opportunity to reconstitute their team, seeking planners and architects recognized for their inclusive design processes. -The Politics of Development
Analysis
Master Planning
Initial Studies
Sikes, Jenner, Kelly, and Brewer, a local architecture based out of Boston, were initially hired by Prudential Properties to do a number of urban planning studies, concerning weather patterns, pedestrian circulation, vehicular circulation, transportation station locations, and density, in order to shape the proposal for the Prudential Center Redevelopment. Although Sikes was later let go from the project by the new developer, Boston Properties, their initial studies certainly played a role in defining what would be built in the future. In this preliminary sketch, you can see that emphasis was placed on connecting the pedestrian flow from the South End to the retail corridor along Boylston St in the Back Bay, as well as vehicular access to the site from both Huntington Avenue and the Massachusetts Turnpike.
Analysis
Urban Planning
Initial Studies
In accordance with the the main concerns was agreement made between the neighboring residents Boston Properties and Pru- looking down upon an ugly PAC, the overall redeveloproof of the new grocery ment of the Prudential Censtore. Meetings were held, ter was broken down into and eventually the solution 7 phases, over a period of which fulfilled all parties what was initially agreed to requests was to put a rock be 7 years. This was done garden on top, which can do reduce disruption among be used by the residents. the streets and neighbor- Another issue of contention hoods during construction. was how the truck deliverPhase 1 involved enclosing ies would be made without the retail arcade, which was bothering neighbors. Initialpreviously a harsh, cold, ly, a turntable was designed and windy environment. to spin the trucks around Phase 2 was the construc- to exit, but a better solution tion of the tower, at 111 was eventually reached. The Huntington Avenue. Phase recently constructed Man3 consisted of moving the darin Towers, located in existing grocery store on Phase 5, contain the housBoylston St. so that an office ing which was required by tower could take its place, the PruPAC as part of the as well as constructing a overall development. new grocery store along Huntington Ave, where a Shaw’s moved in. One of
Analysis
Tower Design
Schematics
Initial Schemes showed the tower being shorter and longer. The impetus to avoid a flat topped structure, however, was evident even from the early sketches. As the building’s design progressed, the building grew in height, and became more and more round. Its stepped up top became more and more developed, but the more elegant idea of the crown did not appear until Mayor Menino insisted upon it. CBT designers actually traveled to other cities around the country for inspiration. A major change in the design from what is seen in these sketches is a simpler and lower front facade, which more closely relates to the scale of the pedestrian, inviting passer bys to enter and engage the building.
Analysis
Floor Plans Typical Floor
Typical Upper Floor
Ground Floor
Lobby
Analysis
Site Cohesiveness
Another reason CBT Architects were chosen for the design of the tower was their familiarity of the site. Boston Properties wanted the entire redevelopment to have a sense of cohesivity and uniformity, which is why CBT was involved in every building in the development. In the end, they were very successful in creating this feeling, as the spaces in the site flow into one another seamlessly, both spatially and through circulation. By using CBT consistently, the buildings can all relate to one another aesthetically, while at the same time respecting the scale and style of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Analysis
Site Map
The map to the right shows the interior pedestrian circulation, which can take you from the Christian Science Center on Huntington Avenue to Boylston St, or to Copley Square. The wide range of tenants throughout the complex makes it a highly desirable location for businesses. This fact has only been exacerbated by the technological communication innovations, which has allowed companies such as law firms and stock brokerages to migrate from downtown. The Prudential Center has become one of the highest earners per square foot for commercial space in Boston. At 859,053 rentable square feet, this project can be deemed a huge success any way you slice it.