Honors Experience
Jenny Renn Key
Architecture of
BOSTON Self-Guided Tour
with Sarah Mapel 2009
1.
1. Table of Contents / Introduction 2. Stata Center 3. MIT Chapel 4. Simmons Hall 5. Ray’s Studio 6. City Hall 7. Fanieul Hall / Quincy Market 8. Boston Public Gardens & Massachusetts State House 9. Boston Public Library 10. Trinity Church / John Hancock 11. Zakim Bridge 12. 44 Hull St. / Other Photographs 13. ICA 14. Natick Collection *Note - all research compiled by Sarah Mapel and Jenny Renn Key, photographs, sketches, and models taken from various sources listed in the index.
Relevant Theme:
RESEARCH & CREATIVE ARTS
Honors Experience
- to strengthen sketching skills on site
Introduction & Proposal
- to review courses from first year - learn more about well-known architects and structures in Boston and Cambridge
Design Intent & Description: Upon thinking about my future summer, the last one I will spend before graduation not enrolled in classes or away on co-op, I figured I should try to achieve acquiring some Honors Experiences. My roommate Sarah Mapel lives in Natick, Massachusetts, a short, fifteen-minute drive away from one of the most dynamic cities in the country, Boston. Naturally, if given the opportunity, I would definitely want to go visit her and this wonderful city and thus, we talked about it and she said she would be delighted if I stayed with her this summer. A couple weeks after all of this conversation, I had a thought that I could definitely turn my trip to Boston into an Honors Experience. Not long after did it occur to me that I could definitely connect my college, SAID (School of Architecture and Interior Design) into these two ideas. I am proposing the idea that an my roommate and I plan a ‘Boston Architectural Experience’ which will include a thorough understanding and familiarity of the significant buildings of Boston. This can include, but by no means is limited, to the buildings’ history, structures, materials, other aesthetics. Prior to visiting Boston, Sarah and I will put in roughly 20 hours of research throughout August. The research will be done at local libraries in our hometowns, on the internet, and correspondence or conversations with people who are familiar with the area. The key points we will try to look for when researching the buildings, or main attractions we choose to see, will be as following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
When was this building constructed and who was/were the architect(s)? What is the significant of the placement of building? (surrounding buildings, in the city, of facade) What are the significant historical facts of the structure? What is its purpose today? How do people use the structure? Are there any interesting facts, antidotes, or sights that make this building unique?
(Upon gathering this information, we will compile an informal essay that includes the information that we find and include it in the reflective report we turn in at the end.)
All research will be carried out equally between the two of us and then shared before the trip. However, if we find that we would like to know more about the building after the trip, of course more information can be found and added. When I fly to Boston, I will meet and greet with Sarah and we will provide a more detailed itinerary of what we will see and when we will go there. These details will be included in the final and formal proposal. {After talking to Debbie, she said that she will be able to help us, along with Jen, before we go forth and complete the research of selecting the buildings. This is initially to see if something of these sorts would even be possible. Granted that this does follow through, I am hoping to visit 5-8 key spots around the greater Boston area. Excitingly, we will either drive or take public transportation to the various sites. There, we will spend some time connecting our research to the site, taking advantage of tours if available (planning these ahead), and documenting the site, when we are allowed, with photography. Despite the rules if we are allowed to take photos or not, Sarah and I will be practicing our drawing skills on our trip as well. For each site, we will try to spend at least 15 - 30 minutes total sketching the site. Using our knowledge from Design Lab and Documentation Lab from first year, we will use gesture drawings to capture feeling of the site, perspective drawings for more accurate pictures of the site, and orthographic views to remember floor plans and elevations of the site. After my visit, we will spend some time through e-mails and phone calls, compiling our information and discussing how to compile everything into a cohesive report for evaluation.
- to compare the abundance of modern and colonial architecture
Initial Travel Iternary Day 1 – Arrive at Mapel residence Day 2 – MIT visit Day 3 – Structured architectural tour / 44 Hull Street / Boston City Hall Day 4 – Mass MoCA Day 5 – Natick Collection / Personal day Day 6 – Institute of Contemporary Art Day 7 – Fly home
Honors Experience
Introduction & Proposal A. Substantial Content and Quality Providing that this proposal goes through and the above content is adequate for a starting point, I will further investigate the possible buildings we will visit and polish off the quality of the project in addition to what I have thus far. B. Relevant Theme As explained above, this connects very closely to my major, incorporating design, architecture, and drawing all into the same experience. The research will be beneficial practice for future years at DAAP and at UC and the drawing will strengthen my skills as well as reviewing courses from this year. C. Initiative, Independence and Creativity A key characteristic in any designer is organization. Sarah and I will have to be very organized for this trip to be successful. We will have to be disciplined and independently push ourselves to get the research complete, square away travel arrangements, and set up accurate times for the visit. The creativity comes from the content of this experience, in the sense that we are exploring architects’ creative products spread out over the city of Boston. In my opinion, I think the collaboration of drawing, research, and documenting will be a way to spark our creativity during the summer.
Faculty/staff interview. Provide a summary of the conversation you had with the UC faculty/staff member connected with your project. How did you connect with the individual? What insight did you gain from the conversation to guide your project? How will you use the information obtained? My conversation with David Lee was very helpful. David is perfect as a guidance with this project not only because he is our professor for Design Lab and a licensed architect, but he studied at Harvard and original is from the greater Boston area. This is how I first connected with him and talked to him about what could be a focus for our trip. His main stress was how we could focus on the fact that there is so much history with Boston that collaborates with modern
D. Relevant Context- describe how the experience connects to your personal, professional and/or educational goals (general education competencies, major, or other academic area of interest) Once again, this is why my topic of choice is perfectly connected to my major and why it is a relevant topic.
architecture. Along with a now and then theme, we could look further into the
E. Reflection- provide your plan for reflection and the integration of this experience into your broader learning. Briefly stated before, Sarah and I will incorporate our research, drawings, photographs, and a detailed reflexive essay in a cohesive report that we be used for evaluation and a collective book to review. (A journal might be optimal for details that can’t be caught with the camera for the trip. If this is carried out, we will be including these pages in the report as well.)
cities. I was really excited to hear all of his plans and will look forward to when
F.
Dissemination: Between Sarah and I everything will be spread equally and evenly over the course of August.
people that inhabitant the spaces. So many wonderful universities surround the city and we could really look into the collaboration of generations across the we actually get into detail about what places Sarah and I want to visit.
2. The Ray and Maria
Stata Center Architect: Client: Date: Size: Associate Architect: Landscape Architect: MEP Engineers: Structural Engineers: Construction Manager:
Gehry Partners, LLP Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Opened March 16, 2004 720,000 gsf Cannon Design Olin Partnership R.G. Vanderweil Engineers, Inc. John A. Martin and Associates, Inc. Skanska USA Bldg Inc.
Cost:
$650 per square foot
Purpose:
Academic Complex
Houses the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS), and the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Design Intent & Description: Frank O. Gehry intended to cultivate thinking and academic learning on the historic site of the beloved Building 20, a timber-framed building that was constructed during World War II. The site previous to construction served as a source for many of MIT’s great ideas developed in the earlier half of the twentieth century. The surrounding buildings encompassed much of MIT’s power-house colleges including electrical engineering and computer science. Knowing the innovative and creative history created within these grounds, Gehry wanted to continue this spirit and energy in his creation. Like any successful architect, (and Gehry just received world-wide fame for his Bilbao Guggenheim design) Gehry transitions through a process. Since his success, he holds a high reputation for mastering complex spatial issues, limited budgets, and unconventional site conditions. In this case, he starts out with wooden blocks (massing models) and sketches. This leads his design crew to produce dozens of models, typically made from cardboard. These studies continue to focus on mass, but start flowing into issues of structure, meaning, purpose, and proportions. Gehry advances form through sketches from these studies. After further development, high-end renderings, in this case the program Catia, produce digital wonders that extremely test modern construction, perfecting structure and material matters. In this case, the ‘swooping’ shapes were particularly difficult to master from a construction standpoint. However unconventional the forms may have been, the programs allowed architects, designers, and contractors to ultimately design without limitations. The press of a button can send data through these programs to create a direction to build virtually
anything. The public sees this in the completed deconstructionist buildings around the world, and specifically in the Stata Center. Eventually, Gehry’s process led to a ground breaking in 2000 and was opened four years later in May. The Stata building expresses many design intents and architectural messages through a single deconstructive building. To describe this deconstructive building and to produce an accurate picture can be difficult to perfect. One needs to see it best in its visual form. The structure of ‘striking design’ combines tilting towers, angled walls, unusual shapes, and an overall eye-catching form is really what Gehry is all about. It seems that these structures are experiments in themselves, testing modern technology, challenging contractors, while still producing a functional campus facility. Some might agree with The Boston Globe architecture columnist Robert Campbell that that state will always look somewhat unfinished, or ready to collapse at a moment’s notice. Some will also agree this may be true for Gehry’s other structures. When looking at the materials, the “randomness” that is throughout the building does not breathe anymore clarity into the interiors. The textile components of the spaces change many times. Brick, mirror-surfaced steel, brushed aluminum, brightly colored paint, including reds, oranges, yellows, and greens, and corrugated metal can all be seen somewhere within this large complex. Some may think that this sporadic material change is due to budget cuts, or carelessness where as, in fact, it is the very point of Gehry’s design. Many sources will confirm that the Stata’s underlying message reads freedom. Free creativity for all experiments and thoughts that will carry on within the building is the main goal. Gehry states, “The idea is that the rugged individualists who are inhabiting the building are going to intervene; they’re going to bring in their stuff.”
“When the building opened in 2004, Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Robert Campbell wrote in the Boston Globe that the building is “a work of architecture that embodies serious thinking about how people live and work, and at the same time shouts the joy of invention.” Criticism: Like many subjective matters in the world of architecture and art, various opinions form about the contribution to the buildings of the MIT campus. When the building first opened, the design received vast amounts of attention from across the country, not to mention certain architectural awards granted in 2005. These would include the American Council of Engineering Companies National Engineering Excellence Grand Award, the American Council of Engineering Companies/MA Engineering Excellence Gold Award for Professional Design Excellence, and the Honor Award from the Build New England Awards all towards the Ray and Maria Stata Center at MIT. However, these awards were granted for the initial design and, four years later, problems exist. Many patrons and designers alike would agree that it takes time, after a building is completed to see if the main goals and issues are resolved and working within a space. It took time to come to the point of assessment to see if the Stata center actually met its mission to bring scientists and students closer together as a community within the many level- changing tower complex. All in all, Gehry successful managed to complete this goal. However, many of the criticism received for Gehry’s building comes from actual lawsuits held against his firm for the complex or from people who do not know the intentions behind the building. Here is an interesting excerpt from the Business Week article, “Does Gehry’s Stata Center Really Work?”
Functional attributes include flexible research facilities, classrooms, an auditorium, social lounges, fitness areas, Forbes Family Café and a childcare center.
The Stata is a building with lots of problems, inhabited by guys who love to solve problems. The MIT scientists would have been bored by a conventional building. Gehry gave them a building that needs to be solved. The floor plans are at first a mess, as noted. As you hunt down the person you’re there to see, you feel like a rat looking for the cheese in a maze. Except for the ground floor “Student Street,” there isn’t—at first—any apparent order to the circulation. But the scientists love the complexity. You just wander around till you get where you’re going. “You may run into people and projects you knew nothing of,” says one. Says another, joyful at the memory: “It took them a day to cut my furniture to fit the sloping and bending walls in my office.” That was a problem, and he found a solution. Another likens his office to living in a work by Richard Serra. These are guys who like challenges. They like having to figure things out. Life in the Stata can be a continual brain game. (Okay, it might not suit everyone.) “Nine out of 10 faculty would say they are really pleased,” notes one. Despite the controversy, the Stata Center will, without a doubt, turn heads, and call attention to the diverse architecture of MIT’s innovative campus.
3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Chapel Location: Date: Building Type: Size:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Building W15 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 1955 Religious 50 feet in diameter 30 feet high
Architect:
Eero Saarinen
Style: Owner/Client:
Mid-Century modern Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Accoustical Consultant: Bolt, Beraneck and Newman, 
 Landscape Artist: Eero Saarinen Materials:
brick, aluminum, concrete beams, concrete diaphragms, wide flange steel beams, plaster, timber
Description: A non-denominational chapel surrounded by birch trees and the nearby Auditorium also deigned by Eero Saarinen, this structure is one of Saarinen’s earlier buildings. It is noted for its acclaimed design which not only incorporates acoustical awareness, but also the manipulation of light to create a place of mystic quiet and spirituality that can be applied to any denomination. The chapel normally seats 115 people but extra folding chairs can be brought in to accommodate up to 160 people. Design: The chapel was built in the middle of the MIT campus with the intent to be a contrasting silhouette among the traditional buildings found on a conventional campus. Essentially a rectangular narthex connected to a cylindrical chapel, this structure is humble in both size and material. The narthex, or entry space, is a small corridor made of panes of cast glass of varying size, color, and transparency. The irregularities of the cast glass façade provide an irregular lighting pattern within the space, restricting the visibility of the exterior space and forming a smooth transition from the exterior towards the interior space of worship. It is intentionally tight so that one may feel a release when he or she enters into the 30-foot ceiling height of the chapel itself. This space also consists of working offices branching off of it. The cylinder is surrounded by a shallow concrete moat filled with water in an effort to symbolically separate the building from the urban landscape and denote the interior as a space of contemplation. The use of brick was chosen to contrast the concrete and steel auditorium nearby in addition to forming a connection with the surrounding brick dormitories. The bricks were left rough and purposefully imperfect to create a textured effect and are supported by a series of low arches of different radii, which rise out of the moat that reflects patterns of light onto the exterior wall of the chapel and evokes images of bridges spanning a river. In the interior, light enters an oculus at the peak of the tower that composes approximately 1/10th of the surface of the roof/floor plan of the worship space. Light is filtered through a honeycomb screen before entering the space, thus reducing the amount of daylight entering the space, and focuses it immediately on the blazingly white marble altar set in the center of the space. Intended to be the focal point of the chapel, the altar sits upon three circular plinths in an effort to relate to the shape of the room. Further light is reflected from the moat surrounding the chapel to reflect on the metal sculpture hanging from the ceiling directly above the altar. The walls, consisting of an undulating circular movement, are most successfully lit in this manner as well. The shape of the chapel is befitting to the act of praying, as the circular plan sets up an intimate relationship between the visitor and the altar and the undulating walls give the space a lack of sharp definition and an increasing sense of turning inward. The texture of the surface of the chamfered walls, combined with the shimmer of diffuse light throughout the day provides for a dynamic experience of movement within the space. This detail is designed such that this effect can be viewed at eye-level of a seated visitor. Unfortunately, the moat is often emptied of the water needed to provide the reflections into the worship space due in the winter due to freezing temperatures common in the northeast.
The predominance of the darkness achieved through the dark walls and other materials in the space add to the relationship between light and dark. Artificial lights are designed to mimic the effect of natural light by recessing the spotlights into the ceiling at randomly spaces measurements. The ceiling itself is painted black to further enhance the height of the space and to allow the light that is present to have a powerful presence. The tall ceiling height of the worship space allows these lights to provide a similar gentle and irregular lighting condition as that provided by the spotlight and reflections from the pool. The artificial lighting in the chapel is kept dim during the day, and often the skylight combined with the reflective sculpture provide adequate light for visitors to utilize the space for worship. Because the chapel was designed with the intent to be used for people of different faiths, Saarinen was careful not to invoke symbols or representations of any particular religion. Instead of using iconic representations, the building employs the languages of light and form to awaken spirituality and create a self-contained, inward-feeling environment, as was Saarinen’s vision. The artificial lighting in the chapel is kept dim during the day, and often the skylight combined with the reflective sculpture provide adequate light for visitors to utilize the space for worship.
Because the chapel was designed with the intent to be used for people of different faiths, Saarinen was careful not to invoke symbols or representations of any particular religion. Instead of using iconic representations, the building employs the languages of light and form to awaken spirituality and create a self-contained, inward-feeling environment, as was Saarinen’s vision. One of the more interesting concepts from the chapel is the effort to incorporate acoustic strategy into the design. Saarinen does this so well, in fact, that there is no seam to be found between what satisfies acoustic needs and what satisfies the design concept; they are one and the same. Similarly, the design strategies for concept, light, structure and material also take acoustics into account. Firstly, a solid brick wall reflects and resists the transmission of sound at low frequencies and is used in an exterior condition in the freestanding wall east of the chapel. The organ provided yet another acoustical opportunity. In traditional large cathedrals, organs had many hard, reflective surfaces to bounce the sound off of, giving the organ an echoed effect. To achieve the same effect, the upper area of the chapel where the organ is located was designed to reverberate. Rectangular swathes of open-brick-work line the interior of the chapel where the undulating interior wall separates from the exterior cylindrical wall. These grilles span the approximate height of a person when he or she is both sitting and standing, thus the lower half of the room serves the purpose of absorbing sound that could disturb a service, performance or meditative environment during unscheduled hours. The chapel is deceptive in its simple, formal design. Concept, aesthetics, structure, program and ephemeral effects materialize together in this building. In these aspects, Saarinen was able satisfy many needs without sacrificing his concept and the overall effect of his project.
Design Intent: To create a spiritual experience for people of all denominations that removes the visitor from the urban surrounds of the university campus as well as the business and noise of the nearby Massachusetts Avenue. Saarinen wanted to create a superiour acoustic space without sacrificing the intent of the original design and use the contrast of light and dark to create moments of emphasis and a general feeling of comfort. Criticism: The chapel, despite all of its good intentions, was not initially accepted by critics and was met with much negative criticism. Renowned architect Louis Khan stated that the building “has all the paraphernalia of a chapel, such as an altar and stained glass, without having any of the essential qualities of one.” Furthermore, as far as structure goes, the chapel had no waterproofing cavities, nor insulation. An alumnus from the class of 1928 complained to MIT President at the time, James Killian that the new addition to the campus was “so far from the classic architecture of the original buildings as to be approaching the bizarre.” After hearing the negative feedback, Saarinen chose to express his opinion and stated that looking back he would characterize the chapel “as being too egocentric. The shape of the building [is] closed. [It] do[es] not contribute anything toward creating unity within an area, which so badly needs unity.” Points of Interest THE ORGAN: An excellent organ, custom-designed for the space by Walter Holtkamp of the Holtkamp Organ Company in Cleveland, Ohio was instituted after the structure was completed. Holtkamp was a key member in the revival of organ building in the1950s. THE LANDSCAPE: The building is set inside a circular arrangement of birch trees surrounding the worship space with the intent to provide a uniform background for the chapel and isolate the site from the noise of buildings nearby. SPIRE AND BELL TOWER: The chapel’s curving spire and bell tower was designed by the sculptor Theodore Roszak and was added in 1956. The bell, also designed by Roszak, was cast at the MIT foundry, which was then located on the top floor of Building 35. METAL SCUPLTURE: Designed by Harry Bertoia, a decorative sculptor and furniture designer who studied at Cranbrook Academy and taught metal crafting there in the 1930s, his full-height metal sculpture composed of small gold rectangular metal “leaves” glitters like a cascade of light hanging from the oculus above the altar. Natural light filters upward from the shallow slits in the walls catching the reflected light from the moat and adding a new look to the sculpture, further enhancing a sense that the light emanates continually from unseen sources.
4. Simmons Hall Architect Firm: Location:
Steven Holl Architects 229 Vassar Street Massachusetts Institute of Technology Campus Cambridge, Massachusetts
Owner/Client: Houses 350 undergraduates, faculty housemasters, visiting scholars, and graduate assistants for MIT Design Architect: Project Architect: Interior designer: Date: Size:
Steven Holl, Timothy Bade Timothy Bade Steven Holl Architects Dedicated in 2002 195,00 sf, 382 feet long, 10 stories tall
Architectural style: Construction type:
Modernism Low-rise building
Cost:
$78.5 million (MIT’s most expensive dormitory built on campus)
Associate Architect / Architect-of-Record: Assistant Project Architects: Engineers Structural: Mechanical: Electrical: Design Structural: Project Engineer: Structural Engr. of Record: Partner: Design Team: Lighting: Precast Concrete Sub + Supplier: General Contractor/ Construction Manager: President: Senior Project Manager:
Perry Dean Rogers | Partners, Boston Ziad Jameleddine, Anderson Lee Yolles Partnership Ltd. Keen Engineering Co. Ltd, Ove Arup & Partners, New York and Cambridge Carinci Burt Rogers Inc. Guy Nordenson & Assoc. Christopher Diamond Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. James Parker Charles Rogers, Peter Ringenbach (Partners in Charge), Michael Waters (Project Architect), Jeff Fishbein, Samantha Pearson, Brent Stringfellow, Gerry Gutierrez, Brad Prestbo, Alejandro Soto, Mark Wintringer (Project Team) Fisher Marantz Stone Beton Bolduc, Inc. Quebec Daniel O’Connell’s Sons, Holyoke, MA Dennis Cavanaugh Alan Harwood
Materials: Exterior Cladding Concrete: Concrete Sub + Supplier, Beton Bolduc, Inc. Quebec Cast-in-place concrete: S&F Concrete Corporation, Hudson, MA Precast Concrete: Beton Bolduc, Ste-Marie, Quebec, Canada Concrete Supplier: Aggregate Industries Colored waterproofing membrane: Sarnafil, Inc., Canton, MA. Rebar: Harris Rebar Rebar Installer: Bart-Lund Windows Aluminum: Wausau Interior Finishes Cabinetwork and custom woodwork: Beaubois Furnishings Atrium Furniture: Produced by Schmidinger Modul Custom Designed Student Room Furniture: –Fabricated by Bludot
Part of M.I.T.’s ambition to impart unique contemporary architecture on their expanding campus. (Architectook) Design/Description: The building is a concrete block, perforated with approximately 5,550 square windows, each two feet on a side, average 9 to a room, each with a small curtain. Whether the window is reachable or not, every window is operable. The size and number of these windows creates wonders with scale, producing an optical illusion from a distance. Most would agree that the building appears larger than in actuality, dotted with dozens of two-foot by two-foot windows across all facades. Additionally, the floors are actually the same width as all the other structures, creating an equal balance among the building’s construction. From the exterior architecture, one can not glance and find a definite approach in telling how many floors there are, which subtracts scale altogether. Within the building, the interior consists of rooms, either for one or two people, some with private bathrooms, some with lounges without kitchens. Rooms are ‘roughly’ separated into A, B, and C towers. Students can also enjoy features including a dining hall, fitness center and a theater. Simmons Hall concept revolves around ‘porosity’, inspired by a sponge that architect Stephan Holl was bathing with one day. The façade of the dorm, dotted with twofoot wide windows, each eighteen inches in depth, slightly resembles holes of a sponge, giving the dormitory it’s proper nickname “The Sponge”. The deep setting of the windows are lined with color that coordinate to the pressure the building puts on that certain area. Holl continued his inspiration within the structure with openings that bring down natural light and move air up which roughly corresponds with the building’s five entrances. Holl thinks, “sea sponges have a very complex, organic structure that exhibits an incredible variety of spaces.” Propelling his inspiration even further, he made a series of ink drawings with the sponges, drawing floor plans and hard edges for the buildings’ plans.
Awards: ACEC Engineering Excellence Honor Award, USA, 2004 National AIA Design Award, USA, 2003 Best of Boston New Building Award, USA, 2003 Charles Harleston Parker Medal, Architecture Boston Annual Design Awards, USA, 2003 Association of General Contractors Build Massachusetts Award, USA, 2003 NY AIA Design Award, USA, 2002 Progressive Architecture Awards, USA, 2000
Conceptually, Holl tried to connect the urban feeling around the dorm into the interior and activities in the building. The one-hundred and twenty-five seat theater and night café are just two of the facilities that try to bring a community sense about the place. The house dining, located on street level pours out onto the street with outdoor tables, interacting the two worlds. One could argue that the actual dorm rooms are homes connecting to the street-like hallways. Criticism: Both positive and negative feedback about the building has been heard. On one hand, the structure has won various awards, but residents are skeptical of how much function can be obtained from the form. Steven Holl designed this building with great intentions, but did he really have the students in mind? “But it is true that the spaces the architect provided for us would have a major impact on the achievement of our social goals. It is also true that we spent most of our time working with the architects in an attempt-- in many ways a futile one-- to see that the design appropriately addressed our goals and concerns.” The intent of the eighteen inch wall depth was to allow low, winter sun rays to enter the rooms to provide warmth and light, while, later in the year, blocking out higher, summer rays to help keep the building cool. According to the residents, however, the design is yet to be proven and temperature of the building is often a problem. The light that flows from the windows at night is said to be ‘magical’ and ‘rhythmic’ from the outside. However, light that enters the room is sometimes far too dim to give the students proper natural studying light during the day. In contrast, students love the voids, known as the lounges, as they get to experience these spaces first hand, and live with them everyday. In addition to the functionality, the students also appreciate Holl’s intent to break down social groupings often made by each dorm floor. These lounges bridge floors together, bringing each characteristic of each floor closer together. Nevertheless, visitors or the more conservative critics have looked upon these spaces in a negative light, and call them ‘smoke puffs’ or seem to miss the purpose all together. Despite the numerous articles on complaints of the design, Simmons Hall won the 2003 American Institute of Architects Honor Away for Architecture, the 2004 Harleston Parker Medal, and is noted as Boston’s “most beautiful piece of architecture building, monument or structure”.
5. Blacksmith Studio
6. Boston City Hall Location: Date: Building Type: Size:
1 City Hall Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 1963 - 1968 Government 9 floors 138 ft tall
Style:
Brutalist Modern
Owner/Client: Architect Firm: Construction:
The City Of Boston Gerhard M. Kallmann, Noel M. McKinnell and Edward F. Knowles Boston Architects and Engineers for the Boston City Hall
Materials: brick, concrete, quarry tile, mahogany Construction System: Precast concrete
Description: Home of the municipal government of Boston, City Hall and the surrounding 8-acre plaza are the focal points of the ninety-acre Government Center urban renewal area. This area is most well known by the people of Boston as a political and ceremonial center for parades and rallies, most notably for the region’s championship sports teams, the Boston Celtics, Boston Bruins, New England Patriots and Boston Red Sox. Design:
The architects were inspired by Le Corbusier’s works, especially the monastery of Sainte Marie de La Tourette which boasts cantilevered upper floors and exposed concrete structure, and by Medieval and Renaissance Italian public spaces. Many of the elements in the design were abstractions of classical designs. The building is built on the same orthogonal orientation as Faneuil Hall, and as a whole is rectangular in plan, with an inverted pyramid when seen from elevation. It then divides into three sections both by aesthetics and by function. The lowest portion of the building, the brick-faced base, which is partially built into a hillside, consists of the departments of city government where the public has wide access. The brick extends over to the exterior of this section and other earth-toned materials such as quarry tile and exposed concrete join it. The use of earth tones such as brick was intended to emphasize the idea of public access in this building. The ground floor is the most public with open circulation linking the outdoor plaza and the building’s interior. The middle portion of City Hall houses the public officials including the Mayor, the City Council, and the Council Chamber. The grand scale and the protrusion of various interior spaces on the outside are symbolic of the ideal connection between these areas of city government and the public. These dramatic outcroppings severely contrast with the character of the other two portions of the building, which stick to a more regular pattern. They create an effect of a small city of concrete-sheltered
structures cantilevered above the plaza. Steel reinforced exterior columns spaced alternately at 14-foot-4-inch (4.4 m) and 28-foot-8-inch (8.7 m) support these cantilevers. The upper stories contain the city’s office space, used by bureaucratic agencies not visited frequently by the public, such as the administrative and planning departments. This bureaucratic nature is reflected in the standardized window patterns, which are of the typical modern office building style, showing a systematic organization high up. These floors surround an interior courtyard, which brings light to the lower floors. Huge concrete cantilevers become external shading devices for the exterior windows. City Hall was constructed using mainly cast-in-place and precast Portland cement. Roughly 22,000 separate components, or about half of the concrete used in the building was precast. The other half was poured-in-place concrete. All of the concrete used in the structure, excluding that of the columns, is mixed with a light, coarse rock. Design Intent: Kallmann, McKinnell and Knowles’ design intent revolved around the theme of creating a public and accessible area for the headquarters of the city’s government. The designers chose to illustrate this through the large and abundant public areas around and inside the building, the symbolic expression of the principal functions on the exterior, and the monumentality of the overall form. Their aim was to make it “a social and economic rebirth of Boston” in the 1960s and wanted it to be seen as a “symbol of progressive thinking and bold initiatives” raising Boston, in their minds, to a “world class” contemporary city.
Criticism:
Points of Interest:
This building has been a source of criticism from both ends of the spectrum. It has been called “a celebration of government” and after viewing the building for the first time, some Modernist architects, including Ada Louise Huxtable, praised it saying “What has been gained is a notable achievement in the creation and control of urban space, and in the uses of monumentality and humanity in the best pattern of great city building. Old and New Boston are joined through an act of urban design that relates directly to the quality of the city and its life.” Whitehill, a historian, similarly stated that it was “as fine a building for its time and place as Boston has ever produced.” Thereafter it was considered an excellent example of Brutalist architecture and is currently listed among the “Greatest Buildings” by Great Buildings Online, an affiliate of Architecture Week. In a 1976 poll of historians and architects sponsored by the American Institute of Architects, Boston City Hall was actually voted the sixth greatest building in American history.
Designed by world-renowned architect I.M. Pei, the windswept brick plaza rep resents a historically important effort to bring new energy to an American urban center. However, it has never been fully appreciated by Bostonians, especially because the surrounding area is not conducive to the intents that Pei had for this space. Plans for new landscape features, programmed cultural events, and more vendors allowed nearby may heighten the interest of the space, but discussion is still taking place on this topic.
Although critically acclaimed upon its completion, it is widely regarded by Bostonians as an ugly building. It has been dubbed nicknames such as “The Incredible Hulk” and “the crate that Faneuil Hall came in.” One expert commented that it is ““dark, gloomy, bleak…[and] oppressive as you walk through...Even the spaces that should be monumental in a public building are a real disappointment.” It has also been compared to a jail in its appearance. The Mayor at the time of its completion, John Collins, reportedly gasped as the design was first unveiled, and someone in the room blurted out, “What the hell is that?” Employees of City Hall see it as a dark and unfriendly eyesore and it is frequently the butt of jokes in local magazines.
Future Plans:
Despite the complaints of the surrounding residents, when plans were revealed to demolish the building, protests abounded. Said to be a building that “few can match in architecture daring and spirit,” Bostonians have realized that as much as it is an ugly structure, they have come to rely on its presence and many are proud of it not because its presence represents power for them, but because the presence represents a sort of pride that is especially inherent in Boston. The surrounding City Hall Plaza has long been cited as a failure in terms of design and urban planning. In 2004 the Project for Public Spaces identified it as the single worst public plaza worldwide, out of hundreds of contenders. Some efforts have been made to liven up City Hall Plaza, but these have been met with mixed reactions. However, in 2008, Boston City Hall gained some international notoriety when it was reported that editors from Virtual tourist voted it the ugliest building in the world. More practically, the structure’s complex interior spaces result in a confusing floor plan and many cavernous voids, making the building very expensive to heat. In addition, the way the building is situated creates a fierce wind tunnel in the surrounding plaza and is often covered with ice in the winter due to it being lower than the surrounding sites.
THE PLAZA
Menino explored a possible sale of City Hall in 1998 and has recently proposed a sale again as part of a plan that would bring an iconic, new City Hall structure to Drydock Four, the current site of the Bank of America Pavilion in South Boston. He claimed that the move would “open up prime real estate for facilities and open space that will galvanize the vitality of our downtown and strengthen Boston’s future.” In April of 2007, the Boston Landmarks Commission reviewed a petition backed by a group of architects and preservationists to grant the building special landmark status, much to the dismay of Mayor Menino. However, on July 10, 2008, the Landmarks Commission official said the petition had been recommended for study, but probably would not be considered by the panel unless a plan to demolish the structure was imminent. Members of the group Citizens for City Hall also opposed Mayor Menino’s plan to build a new City Hall on the South Boston waterfront because it would be a major inconvenience for tens of thousands of city residents due to the fact that the current location is near four subway lines. In December 2008, Menino suspended his plan to move city hall in 2011 due to the recession.
7. Quincy Hall Location:
340 Faneuil Hall Market Pl. Boston, MA 02109-1634
Architect:
Charles Bulfinch
Date:
1742, 1806
Building Type:
Market / Meeting Hall / Retail Marketplace
Construction System:
Brick Bearing Masonry
Style:
Georgian Neoclassical
Description:
Full of ethnic delicacies, street entertainers, souvenirs for the tourists, and great gifts at chain stores, Faneuil Hall Market Place entertains locals and travelers.
History to Present:
In 1742, a wealthy merchant named Peter Faneuil donated money towards the construction of Faneuil Hall. The original architect, John Smibert, mocked an English style county market with an open ground floor found beneath an assembly room on the top floor. The city chose to place this significant building next to today’s government center and near the harbor. Since the beginning, Faneuil Hall provided a place for some of the country’s best orators; George Washington even toasted the country’s first birthday here. Samuel Adams, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Susan B. Anthony began speaking passionate thoughts here. Speakers today, such as Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and the late Ted Kennedy follow their footsteps. Because of all of these speakers, there’s no surprise that John Adams dubbed the nickname ‘The Cradle of Liberty’ to this influential market. Atop Fanueil Hall as the weathervane, rests the symbol of Boston: the grasshopper. During colonial times, as the revolution occurred, the grasshopper, identified with Fanueil Hall, was the answer to ‘lie detector’ questions to suspected spies. If these suspicious detectives knew a grasshopper weathervane was above Fanueil Hall, they were set free, skipping convictions of being British spies. The weathervane resembles the grasshopper vane on top of the London Royal Exchange, bridging the older world of great finance, to the New World.
After the hall burned down in 1761, it was rebuilt in 1762. Then, in 1806, wealthy Charles Bulfinch expanded a great deal to the building. Specifically, the height and width of the building were doubled in size. A third floor was added and four new bays were introduced totaling seven in all. He also designed for the cupola to be moved to the opposite end of the building. Bulfinch also included Doric brick and Ionic pilasters, separated by the different floor levels. In 1826, Faneuil Hall Market Place expanded to include Quincy Market, a large granite building named after Boston’s May Josiah Quincy. Noncombustible materials were added right before the turn of the century. Throughout the 1800’s, the market flourished with merchants, businessmen, fishermen, and meat and produce vendors. However, the market felt a major decline in business by the mid-1900’s to the point where demolition was even considered. Due to a ‘committed group of Bostonians’ in the 1970’s, people pushed for Faneuil Hall to become preserved, renovated, and eventually revitalized. With the dedication and funds, the renovation was a success for the marketplace is still Boston’s central meeting place. Two hundred and sixty some years later, Faneuil Hall still contributes numerous shops, popular restaurants, and a vast array of entertainment to the people of Boston. It is truly a unique attraction in this country, bringing an estimated twenty million visitors annually to this urban destination. In addition to the rich history surrounding the building, it is also a National Historic Landmark, on the National Register of Historic Places, and the headquarters of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts. In addition to other significant buildings to Boston, it is located along the Freedom Trail. In 2008, Faneuil Hall ranked number four of America’s 25 Most Visited Tourist Sites by Forbes Traveler.
8. Boston Public Gardens & Massachusettes State House
9. Boston Public Library McKim Building Project: Location: Date: Building Type: Style: Construction System: Owner/Client: Architect Firm:
Boston Public Libary McKim Building 700 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 1887 - 1895 Educational Renaissance Revival, Beaux-Arts Bearing masonry The City of Boston McKim, Mead & White New York
A leading American architecture firm, founded by Charles McKim, William Mead, and Stanford White, that created memorable Beaux-Arts architecture in the United States, as well as a few other countries. Focusing primarily in the eastern United States, the success of the firm was due to the complementary nature of the three partners: McKim, the idealist, Mead, the pragmatist, and White, the sensualist. Materials:
pink and brown Knoxville marble, Levanto marble, Iowa sandstone, white Georgia marble, ivory gray Echaillon, mottled with fossil shells, Siena marble, plaster, oak, Istrian marble, red Verona marble
DESCRIPTION: The Boston Public Library McKim Building was the first publicly supported municipal library in the United States, the first large library open to the public, and the first public library to allow people to borrow books and other materials and take them home to read and use. All adult residents of the state are entitled to borrowing and research privileges, and the library receives state funding. The building contains 6.1 million books, and approximately 15 million items when considering all formats, making it one of the larger public libraries in the nation. The circulation is 15,458,022, which makes it one of the busiest public library systems in the nation and it is one of two libraries in the nation that is a member of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), a not-for-profit organization comprising the research libraries of North America.
HISTORY Several people were instrumental in the establishment of the Boston Public Library. George Ticknor, a Harvard professor, raised the possibility of establishing a public library in Boston beginning as early as 1826. However, at the time, Ticknor couldn’t generate enough interest. In 1841, Alexandre Vattemare, a Frenchman, suggested that all of Boston’s libraries combine themselves into one institution for the benefit of the public. This idea was presented to many Boston libraries, but most were uninterested in the idea so it fell to the wayside. However, Vattemare was not to be discouraged, and urged Paris to send gifts of books in 1843 and 1847 to assist in establishing a unified public library. Vattemare himself made yet another contribution of books in 1849. Josiah Quincy, Jr., Mayor of Boston, anonymously donated $5,000 to begin the funding of a new library. New York spurred the idea to establish a public library there, and because of the cultural and economic rivalry between Boston and New York, this plan prompted more discussion of establishing a public library in Boston. In 1848, a statute of the Great and General Court of Massachusetts enabled the creation of the library. The library was officially established in Boston by a city ordinance in 1852. Eager to support the library, Edward Everett collected documents from both houses of Congress, bound them at his own expense, and offered this collection to help establish the new library. At the time of Everett’s donation, George Ticknor became involved in the active planning for the new library. Another man, Joshua Bates, was born in 1788 in Weymouth, Massachusetts. As a youngster growing up in Boston, he spent as much time as the proprietors of the Hastings, Etheridge & Bliss’s bookstore would allow educating himself by reading books. On October 1, 1852, after reading the first Annual Report published by the Trustees of the Boston Public Library, he wrote a letter to the Mayor of the City of Boston offering to donate the sum of $50,000 for the purpose of purchasing books for the new library. The only condition was that “the building shall be such as to be an ornament to the City, that there shall be a room for one hundred to one hundred and fifty persons to sit at reading tables, and that it be perfectly free to all.”
The Boston City Council enthusiastically accepted the offer and thus Joshua Bates became the first major private contributor to the country’s first municipally supported library, establishing a tradition of public/private support for the Boston Public Library that continues to this day. After Bates’ gift was received, Ticknor made lists of what books to purchase. He traveled extensively to purchase books for the library, visit other libraries, and set up book agencies. To house the collection, a former schoolhouse located on Mason Street was selected as the library’s first home. On March 20, 1854, the Reading Room of the Boston Public Library officially opened to the public. The circulation department opened on May 2, 1854. The opening day collection of 16,000 volumes fit in the Mason Street building, but it quickly became obvious that its quarters were inadequate. So in December 1854, the library’s commissioners authorized the library to move to a new building on Boylston Street. Designed by Charles Kirk Kirby to hold 240,000 volumes, the imposing Italianate edifice opened in 1858. But eventually the library outgrew that building as well; in 1878, an examining committee recommended replacing it with a new one at another location. By 1880, the Massachusetts legislature authorized construction of an even grander library building. The site selected was in Back Bay on Copley Square: the prominent corner of Boylston Street and Dartmouth Street, opposite Richardson’s Trinity Church and near the first Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Originally, the design of the new structure was to be the result of a competition. However, the top two winning entries were merely poor copies of Richardson’s Trinity Church style across the street. Eventually, the job of creating the design fell into the lap of the city architect, whose design was not only inelegant, but also structurally infeasible. Finally, ten years later, the actual design was created by Mckim, Mead and White based on the Renaissance style, which at last met approval from the trustees of the library. Bates’s vision for the Boston Public Library was officially fulfilled in 1887 when construction began on the structure that still stands today. The Reading Room, also know as the Bates Room, named after the library’s primary benefactor, remains one of the most historically significant spaces of this National Historic Landmark. When it opened in 1895, the new Boston Public Library was proclaimed a “palace for the people.” The building included lavish decorations, a children’s room, which was the first in the nation, and a central courtyard surrounded Begun in September 1996, a restoration project with a focus on the Bates Room, was set forth as part of a $50-million, 10-year project that ultimately returned the National Historic Landmark to its original beauty. In 2001 the Boston Public Library received the Harleston Parker Medal, the Boston Society of Architects’ highest honor and the first ever awarded for a renovation project. DESIGN The Boston Public Library McKim Building was a major procreating force of the American Renaissance as well as the first public building that demonstrated the possibilities of collaborative art and “civic art.” It is most notable for its perfect proportions, its classic serenity and its modestly borne elegance. The exterior façade displays a sloping red tile roof with its green copper cresting, large arched windows and a triple-arched main entrance with a surrounding cluster of branching wrought-iron lanterns. The low, broad entrance hall, designed in the Roman style, is divided into three aisles by heavy piers. The ceiling is vaulted with domes in the side bays, and is covered with a marble mosaic. Connecting the entrance hall with the main staircase is a deep triumphal arch. On the second floor corridor is the Puvis de Chavannes Gallery, named after the French artist whose mural paintings decorate the corridor and the upper portion of the main stair hall. This gallery is separated from the main staircase by an arcade of five arches supported by graceful columns resting on the posts of a low parapet directly over the stairwell.
The lobbies at the two ends of the Chavannes Gallery sport two different decorative schemes. Pompeian red is the dominant note at the south end, and the decorative elements, including masks, torches, sea horses, a lyre and floral designs, suggest Pompeii. The Venetian Lobby at the other end, sporting sea green and sky blue as the chief colors, includes the domed central portion, the window alcove, and the entrance to the staircase to the Sargent Gallery. The block of stone over the entrance to the Study Room bears a carving of the traditional Lion of St. Mark and dates back to the sixteenth century, brought over from an ancient palace in Venice. The Abbey Room, entered from the south end of the Chavannes Gallery, measures 64 feet long by 33 feet wide and is notable for its heavy ornamental rafters. The Bates Room is named for the library’s first great benefactor, Joshua Bates. Occupying the whole front of the building on the second floor level and lighted by fifteen high arched windows, it is 218 feet long, 42 feet wide, and extends 50 feet upwards to the crown of its barrel-vaulted ceiling, and it does in fact contain room for “one hundred to one hundred and fifty persons to sit at reading tables,” just as Bates requested. This was the first example of a major public lending library, which made many design decisions difficult in light of the fact that the architects had few other examples from which to guide the program. Rearrangement of rooms after the shell had been constructed became one way to cope with hurdles that arose throughout the rest of the construction process. Although this was sometimes unsuccessful, the flexibility designed into the structural system by McKim, Mead and White made it possible for reconfiguration of spaces well into the next century. The floors were designed contrary to the typical method of book storage of the day, and this made flexibility an even more viable option. McKim’s design shows influence from a number of architectural precedents, drawing on the Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève in Paris for the general arrangement of the facade that fronts on Copley Square, and on of Leon Battista Alberti’s Tempio Malatestiano in Rimini for the front facade’s arcaded windows. In addition, the open-air courtyard at the center of the building is based closely on that of the sixteenth-century Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome. McKim also used up-to-date building technology, as the library represents one of the first major applications in the United States of thin tile vaults invented by Rafael Guastavino of Valencia. In fact, seven different types of Guastavino vaulting can be seen in the library.
DESIGN INTENT Situated amidst a myriad of styles and types of buildings within the context of Copley Square, the Boston Public Library was designed with a strong effort to fit in among its neighbors at the time of construction. The library building, with its light granite facade, abandoned the “Brown Decade,” seen in Trinity Church across the square, in favor of elaborateness of detail to create what McKim, Mead and White hoped was a timeless, well fitting building. POINTS OF INTEREST: INSCRIPTIONS On the buildings main three facades and on its interior there are many inscriptions that embody the spirit of the library. For example, on the south is inscribed “Founded through the munificence and public spirit of citizens,” on the east “Free to all,” and on a monument to the Lebanese-born poet and philosopher Kahlil Gibran who, as a young immigrant, educated himself in the Boston Public Library, it says, “it was in my heart to help a little, because I was helped much.” WORKS OF ART It was decided by the designers and the government of Boston at the time that the halls and facade of the library should be used to bring not only literary knowledge to the people, but also appreciation of the arts. For nearly the first time in American architecture, architects, painters, and sculptors worked closely together to decorate the interior and exterior of this civic monument. Murals by Sargent, de Chavannes, and Abbey grace many of the walls, while sculptors Pratt and Saint-Gaudens created both freestanding sculptures and wall panels for the entry façade. These sculptures reside within the structure, on the exterior, and within the interior courtyard. THE JOHNSON BUILDING Designed by Philip Johnson, a late modernist addition which somewhat anticipated postmodernist architecture, was built between 1967 and 1971, finally opening in 1972. The Johnson building reflects similar proportions, and is built of the same pink granite as the McKim building. However, critics have likened it to a mausoleum, citing the small percentage of windows relieving the massive walls in its exterior façade. Upon opening, the Johnson building became the home for the Boston Public Library’s main circulating collection, which includes works in many languages. It also serves as headquarters for the Boston Public Library’s 26 branch libraries. The McKim building houses now houses the Boston Public Library’s research collection.
10. Trinity Church & John Hancock
Project: Location: Date: Building Type: Construction System: Style: Owner/Client: Architect Firm:
Trinity Church 206 Clarendon Street Boston, Massachusetts 1872 - 1877 Religious Bearing masonry Richardsonian Romanesque Rector Phillips Brooks Henry Hobson Richardson New England
H. H. Richardson, a native of New Orleans and a graduate of Harvard University, was the first American architect to attract international attention. Trinity Church is the building that established his international reputation, and is considered his first major work. Materials:
Pink granite, red Longmeadow sandstone, clay roof tile
Description Well-known as a masterpiece of American architecture, this striking and contrasting place of worship has been on the architectural community’s “top ten” lists of significant buildings for over 100 years. It sits next to the ultramodern John Hancock building in Copley Square, across the street from the Boston Public Library. In front of the church is a park that serves as an active urban environment, making the church not only an important religious building, but also defining Copley Square as a cultural center for the city. The church continues its legacy by welcoming 100,000 visitors each year, balancing tourism with a dedicated Episcopalian congregation. History Trinity parish was founded in 1733 and originally worshipped in downtown Boston. In 1870, led by the charismatic Rector Phillips Brooks, the parish decided to build a new church and purchased a piece of land in Boston’s Back Bay neighborhood in January 1872, just in time because the old church burned down in the Great Fire of Boston in November of that same year. H.H. Richardson was chosen as the architect in June 1872, and construction began in 1873. First to be completed was the Chapel, or Parish House, in November 1874. Sunday school and lectures were held in the new building while construction continued on the main church. Final construction on the new Trinity Church building was completed in November 1876. With only the decoration and furnishings remaining, the consecration date was scheduled for February 9 of the following year. The master artist John La Farge and his assistants worked past midnight in the days before January 31, when they were due to finish the painting of the sanctuary. The dedication was held on February 9, 1877 and attended by prominent figures such as the Governor of Massachusetts, the Mayor of Boston, the Bishops of the Diocese of Massachusetts, clergymen from other denominations, and the architects, artists, and builders of the building itself. A procession of 107 clergymen began the dedication service, which was conducted by several clergymen from Boston and New England including the rector of Old North Church across the street proclaiming that the new church presented a bold, fresh face and feeling for ecclesiastical architecture in America. In 1885 architects voted Trinity the most important building in America. It is the only church in the United States, and the only building in Boston, that has been honored as one of the ten most significant buildings in the country by a national poll of architects. Over a hundred years later the American Institute of Architects still ranks Trinity Church among the Top Ten, the only building that remains from the original list. In 1971, Trinity Church was designated as a National Historic Landmark for “possessing exceptional value in commemorating and illustrating the history of the United States. In 2005, Trinity Church completed a $53 million preservation and expansion project that will protect this American landmark for future generations. In 2007, Trinity Church was ranked twenty-fifth on the American Institute of Architects 150 Favorite Architecture list.
Design Trinity Church is Richardson’s most famous church and is known as the birthplace of the archetype “Richardsonian Romanesque” architectural style. A clay roof tile, polychromy, or the use of several colors in architectural decoration, rough faced stone, heavy, rounded arches and massive towers all characterize Richardsonian Romanesque. Copied throughout America for the rest of the century, it was also the first American style to be widely imitated in Europe and Canada. Despite its origins in an ecclesiastical building, the Richardsonian Romanesque style soon became popular for use in structures serving all aspects of modern life, including railroad stations, libraries, and public utility buildings. Richardson’s design was inspired by the bold and fresh preaching of Trinity’s rector, a personal friend of the architect. Instead of the traditional English Gothic design he had initially sketched, Richardson decided on a Neo-Romanesque edifice with a central plan, welcoming porch and strong, dramatic towers. In keeping with the democratic spirit of American worship at the time, the design welcomed parishioners into the middle of the action rather than relegating them to the traditional role of observers. The floor plan of Trinity is a modified Greek cross, with four equal arms radiating from a central square known as the crossing. This plan is meant to evoke elements of the early Christian church and reflected Brooks’ emphasis on teaching, preaching, and direct interaction with the congregation and community as central to his ministry. The massive central square tower, 211 ft. (64m) tall, was inspired by the Cathedral of Salamanca. Inside, barrel vaults supports 63 ft. ceilings. The church facade, as originally built, had a flat facade and simpler front towers. After a visit to St. Trophime in Arles, France, Richardson designed a porch addition based on that Romanesque church. Both the porch addition and the side square towers were completed in the 1890s after his death. Trinity Church’s location in Back Bay was originally a tidal mud flat and great engineering feats were necessary to build a heavy stone church on this type of land. The initial plan for the church was to be much taller, but the soft soil of the site forced Richardson to revise his plans. Trinity Church now rests on 4,500 wooden piles, each one pounded through 30 feet of gravel fill, silt, and clay. A pumping system ensures that the wooden piles remain under water so that the wood does not rot. Design Intent Richardson’s design was inspired by the bold and fresh preaching of Trinity’s rector, a personal friend of the architect. Instead of the traditional English Gothic design he had initially sketched, Richardson decided on a Neo-Romanesque edifice with a central plan, welcoming porch and strong, dramatic towers. In keeping with the democratic spirit of American worship at the time, the design was intended to welcome parishioners into the middle of the action rather than relegating them to the traditional role of observers. Criticism: This building has been met with an overwhelmingly positive response. Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino has stated that “Trinity is Boston’s gift to the nation – an enduring symbol of the unique heritage of this city.” Furthermore, architect Robert Venturi has said, “It is a building I could visit every day, ever be inspired by, and learn from.” Pulitzer Prize winning historian and author David McCullough has even said that Trinity “isn’t just the work of an architect. [It] is the work of a civilization.”
Points of Interest: MURALS The interior decoration of Trinity Church was one of the most ambitions commissions in America, both in scale and scope, aiming to integrate art and architecture into a unified whole. The murals spanned 21,500 square feet and were executed solely by American artists. Richardson and Brooks decided that a richly colored interior was essential to the church’s aesthetic and thus chose John La Farge. Primarily an easel painter, he had never done a project of this scale, but accepted the commission nonetheless. Many of the designs are based on motifs found in Early Christian churches, while other elements evoke Byzantine and medieval motifs, as well as the art of the Renaissance. The paintings took five months to complete, during which time La Farge and his team had to wear gloves and coats in the unheated, unfurnished church during the winter months and had to frequently compete with masons and other workers for use of the scaffolding. STAINED GLASS WINDOWS The interior houses a varied collection of stained glass windows, made by both European and local artists. The oldest is the Baptism Window in the chancel designed by Clayton & Bell of London. This is the only stained glass window that was installed when the church was consecrated in 1877. The rest were clear glass. The remainder were individually donated and designed in the years that followed. Those commissioned in 1877 and 1878 were traditional in style, designed by the famous London workshops of Burlison & Grylls, Daniel Cottier & Co., Henry Holiday, and Clayton & Bell. Four windows installed in 1882 reflected the new English Arts & Crafts movement, with its delicate lines and decorative patterning. These windows, three of which are in the north transept, were designed by English Pre-Raphaelite painter Edward Burne-Jones and executed by William Morris & Co. In contrast, the south transept contains ornate, brightly-colored Catholic-style windows manufactured in France. The donors were living in Paris at the time. Beginning in 1883, John La Farge created multiple stained glass windows for the church, using his newly perfected technique of layering opalescent glass, known as plating. His beautiful contributions depict Christ in Majesty (three-panel clerestory window at the west end), The New Jerusalem, The Resurrection, and The Presentation of the Virgin. Finally, two windows were donated and designed by Sarah Wyman Whitman, a Boston artist, Bible Study teacher, and friend of Rector Phillips Brooks. These can be seen in the Angel Room of the Parish House. PROXIMITY TO THE NEARBY JOHN HANCOCK TOWER The John Hancock Tower next-door forms an extreme contrast between the short, red stoned church and the sixty story modernist, glass building designed by IM Pei. While many people have criticized the complete disregard in scale and style of the John Hancock Tower, many people find the glass structure quite complementary to the church. The reflections of the church on the glass tower are a particular favorite of photographers.
11. Zakim Bridge
12. 44 Hull Street Location:
44 Hull Street, Boston, Massachusetts
Neighborhood:
North End
Date:
Estimated 1874
Building Type:
Four-story house
Size:
964 square feet two bedrooms one full bathroom 0.01 acre lot size
Owners:
Since 2005, Spencer Wel- ton and Jennifer Simonic
Description: Said to balance the old, colonial feeling while staying up-to-date with a “modern day convenience”. Its widest part, the house spans 10.4 feet, but tapers to 9.25 towards the back, reaching a depth of 30 feet. In the smallest part of the interior of Boston’s narrowest house, at 6.2 feet wide, an adult can touch both walls at the same time. One of the interesting things about North End is the Skinny House. Privately owned by Spencer Welton and Jennifer Simonic, the Skinny House is so slim, the couple reported that during parties, or when more than a few people are over, friends have to move aside just to let one person go to the bathroom. In addition, when the two have guests spend the night, they simply just put a mattress down in the closet. Only five doors are located throughout the whole house. The second floor is wehere the living room and bathroom are located, one of the few spaces closed off by a door. The front door is located on the side of the home and entrance is accessible by a small alleyway. This paints a picture just how ‘skinny’ the home is. Since it is privately owned, but well known, the couple sometimes has problems with visitors coming on to their properties, marveling at the size of the home. The building is located at 44 Hull Street across from Copp’s Hill Burying Ground, Boston’s second oldest burying ground. Further down the street, the Old North Church can be seen, part of Boston’s historic Freedom Trail. Down the opposite side of the street, looking towards the buring ground, one can see a lovely view of the Boston Harbour, including the new and architecturally interesting Zakim Bridge According to the executive director of the Boston Landmarks Commission, “In a city where there are many narrow lots, this far exceeds the norm...As far as we know, it is the narrowest house in Boston.”
Legends: A variety of sources claim to know the legend behind this narrow home. It was originally built as a “spite house” which is where someone is purposely trying to annoy someone by obstructing light, views, and air to adjacent homes. Sometimes spite homes would even block access to neighboring buildings. Many of the sources do not know for certain the builder responsible for the house. Some say it was a man who wanted to spite a hostile neighbor with ‘whom he has a dispute’ shortly after the American Civil War. According to other sources, the legend’s story dips into a family’s history, taking the tale back to colonial times. Joseph Euestus and his brother inherited the land where the ‘Skinny House’ now stands from their father after his death. Joseph, supposedly off at war, was away for quite some time. When he returned, he found that his brother had built a grand house for himself, leaving only a little stretch of land for Joseph. The spite comes in to play when Joseph took the land, built the skinny house upon this narrow lot, and called this home his own, blocking out the best view from his brother’s grand home. (VRBO).
13. Institute of Contemporary Art History Boston chose this waterfront land in hopes of creating a space that would house the expanding field of modern art. In addition to drawing in visitors for the gallery space, they hoped to present a space for students and other contemporary art related programs.
Location:
100 Northern Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts
Architects:
Diller Scofidio + Renfro
Date: Founded in 1936, Groundbreaking in Sept. 2004, Opened on Dec. 10, 2006 Area: 65,000 square feet Cost: $41 million Design Intent/Purpose: “With the intent of building both “from the sky down” as a contemplative space for visitors to enjoy art, and “from the ground up” to provide dynamic public spaces.” Intended to be a leading facility of art in Boston.
Originally, the location was actually an old police station, characterized as “cramped and awkward” quarters. A onetime director of the ICA reports “I’m altogether impressed with what they’ve done here. During my time here in the ‘50s, the ICA was constantly moving and on the verge of bankruptcy. This is quite incredible.” Now, the museum brings light and development into this area. The ICA chose Diller Scofidio + Renfro as the key architects to perpetuate the designs for the upcoming buildings. As a firm, their advancements in “interdisciplinary practice” mix new technological advances with architecture and performance which landed them with the job. In almost one hundred years, a new art museum had not opened in Boston until, the official opening of the ICA on December 20, 2006. The ICA was rebuilt as an iconic building on the Boston’s waterfront in, signaling a new beginning for the museum – this project gave the museum triple the exhibition space and an expanded program of performance, talks, film, and youth and family programming
With the opening of the new museum, it presented for the first time a permanent collection to remain in the museum. This decision was spurned from a desire to provide visitors with broader and more lasting experiences of the art of our time. Description/Highlights: Exterior - This building excels at blending interior and exterior spaces by manipulating the views in and out of the rooms and using the waterfront almost as an optical illusion. One critic reports, “There’s probably never been a building more intensely involved with the sea.” Even by use of the materials, the two worlds are morphed together. For example, the wood of the public grandstand merges with Boston’s Harbor Walk and then continues inside the building as the floor and ceiling material of the theater. The wood, called Santa Maria, does this by curling upward towards the rear wall of the theater, then transforming into the ceiling, continuing outdoors. ing” in Greater Boston.
The large cantilever that extends towards the waterfront acts as one of the main attractions of the architecture of the building. Expanding eighty-feet towards the harbor, the cantilever provides a “sheltered open space where people can enjoy Boston Harbor”. Lobby and Galleries - When you first enter the building, one is greeted by a large wall that tapers down to the main circulation desk where the museum’s broachers and ticket information are held. Dedicated by Sandra and Gerald Fineberg, this “Art Wall” presents original work commissioned from a new artist each year. The front lobby provides views of Boston’s harbor and skyline on the west side. As one continues past the front desk choosing to either carry straight down to the museum’s gift shop, or take a right and ride in the very large (140-square-foot) elevator with a view out of the long side to give the visitor a wide view of the harbor. The “column-less” gallery, located across the fourth floor, features moveable walls and wide, open spaces, with ceilings 15 ½ feet high. Ample amounts of natural light enter the space through the glass walls and adjustable skylights. When lit at night, the upper, “glassbox” gallery creates a spectacular illumination on the harbor. Poss Family Mediatheque – One of the most unique aspects of the building resides in the stepped-out space underneath the main cantilever. This space houses the museum’s digital media center with computer stations filled with information about the museum, the architecture, the artists, and their works. When one walk into Another play on the eye occurs on the skin, which “blurs the distinction between walls, windows and doors” while keeping the intent of the interior spaces and the program effective. The exterior view features many large, vertical planks that change from translucent, to transparent glass, but also including sheets of opaque metal. this space, the view is completely water - absent of horizon and sky - as intended with the placement and angle of the viewfinder window.
The Barbara Lee Family Foundation Theater – Located on the entire second and third floors, the theater houses some of the most spectacular views out of the museum, where the visitor can see the entire harbor as a backdrop for the fifty-one foot stage. However, the glass walls can be filtered to become transparent, translucent, and then to completely opaque black. Here, the ICA holds performances, films, and talks while holding 325 seats. Other features include an Education Center, a Water Café and the Putnam Investments Plaza. Issues: Size – Even though the ICA triples gallery space for art, when compared to other contemporary art institutes across the globe, some are wondering if the building is big enough. Others say that the size is adequate for the collection at the moment, and in the future, if there is need, a new facility will need to be built. Location – Currently, the location of the ICA is not very developed and the plans for progress have not been put into action. However, Boston developer Joseph Fallon hopes to start building on Fan Pier in addition to developer Stephen Karp’s hopes to build hotels, condos, and office space next to the ICA. Awards: The design, revealed in 2002 was featured in NEXT: The Future of Architecture Recipient of the Harleston Parker Medal for the “most beautiful build
14. Natick Collection Location: 1245 Worcester St. Natick, Massachusetts Date: 2006 - Present Building Type: Commercial Size: 550,000 sq. ft. shopping expansion, 1.7-million square- foot renovation overall Owner/Client: General Growth Properties (GGP) Architect Firm: Beyer Blinder Belle (BBB) Architect & Planners New York City Beyer Blinder Belle, the desigers behind Rockefeller Center and Grand Central Terminal in New York, is known for its integrity in architectural design, historic preservation, interior design, urban planning, adaptive reuse and master planning.
Partner In Charge: Lead Design Architect: Project Manager: Project Architect: Interior Design Architect: Phase 1 Project Architect: Project Team: Construction Manager: M/E/P Engineer: Structural Engineer: Traffic & Civil Engineer: Lighting Designer: Residential Architect: Landscape Artist: Materials: Description:
Richard Blinder Stanley Wong Carlos Cardoso Jean Campbell Stefanie Ashton Mark Nussbaum Asli Aatov, Andrew Anderson, Claudia Bancalari, Joe Chen, Josie Choi, Erik Chu, Mei Chu, Bill Conway, Yetsuh Frank, Pedro Hernandez, Shehab Hossain, Bill Hovland, Mati Jacobi, Charlie Kramer, Orest Krawciw, Chris Lee, Karen Martin, Amanda McNally, Henry Miller, Rick Miller, Dai-Yi Ou, Edward Piatt, Erika Sandy, Mike Satow, Ivan Zurkiwskyj Dimeo Construction Co. R.G. Vanderweil Engineers McNamara/Salvia Vanasse Hangen Brustlin T. Kondos Associates ADD Martha Schwartz Massachusetts Firm Metal decking, structural steel framing, EIFS stucco, glass, ipe wood, aluminum panels, EPDM roofing, cherry veneer, acoustical ceiling tile, vinyl-clad ceiling tile, insulated metal ceiling panel, nylon carpet tile, stone, engineered wood flooring, epoxy terrazzo flooring, ceramic tile, porcelain tile, stainless steel tile, vinyl wall covering, glass mosaic tile, granite, Venetian plaster Encompassed by an area with an average yearly household income of $118,000 and situated near several major thoroughfares, including Route 9, Route 30, Interstate 95, and the Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90), The Natick Collection is the twelfth largest mall in the country, the fourth largest on the eastern coast and the largest in New England. It is a world-class retail and restaurant destination with 200 of the finest retail stores including luxury boutiques, four restaurants, two luxury condominium complexes, the first Nordstrom in Massachusetts, the area’s only suburban Neiman Marcus, along with JC Penney, Lord & Taylor, Macy’s, and Sears.
Dubbed “The Natick Collection,” the mall is intended to evoke the experience of going to a museum as readily as that of shopping. Featuring the largest skylight in New England, the location gets plenty of visitors and is often a place of novelty in addition to a high-end shopping center. History Originally the location was two separate stand-alone stores, Sears and Filene’s, separated by a parking lot. The first mall was constructed between the two locations beginning in 1964 and opened in 1965. This mall had one story, a large fountain/entertainment area, 25 stores and two smaller anchors, Woolworth’s and Boston Baby, located on the north side of the mall. At this time it was the second enclosed mall in the Boston metropolitan area and was one of the few enclosed shopping centers east of the Mississippi River. When the Boston Baby store closed in the early eighties, the structure was remodeled into a new retail wing with a dozen smaller stores, and a food court. The former York Steak House near Sears underwent a similar transformation in 1985 when the restaurant went out of business, becoming home to several new retailers. By 1990, the mall eventually housed over fifty stores and restaurants. Unfortunately, it was also undersized for the amount of business it received and was showing signs of age. Thus, the owners decided to expand the structure intending to add a third anchor location, Lord & Taylor, on the front of the mall off the main entrance in the center as well as a second floor. Construction began in 1991 with the citing of the footings for the new structure, but came to a halt in 1992 when the mall was sold to the Sears real estate division, Homart Development Company. Homart canceled the expansion plans and developed a new concept for individual larger-name stores with outside entrances rather than an enclosed mall. However, one of the major tenants, Filene’s, had completely remodeled and expanded its Natick location as part of the former Natick Mall expansion plans and was unwilling to spend more capital to change what it had just completed. In response, Homart revoked the second plan and reverted back to building a second story. In 1993 the mall was torn down and a new, modern two-story structure with over 200 stores was built and opened in late 1994. Due to its ideal location, the mall underwent a further, larger-scale renovation and expansion beginning in late 2006. The mall re-branded its image, beginning by attempting to change its name to “Natick”, but settling on the name “Natick Collection” after resistance from the town. The first phase of the renovation project was opened to the public on September 7, 2007, though not all stores were ready for business at the time. This phase of the expansion project included the renovation the original mall, an addition of approximately 100 new stores and two new anchors, Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus, in a new wing on the site of the former Wonder Bread\Hostess baking factory adjacent to the mall property on the northeast side. The southwestern section of the mall along Route 9 went through a second phase of expansion called The Promenade at Natick Collection, including a The Cheesecake Factory, a two story Crate & Barrel store, a relocated California Pizza Kitchen and the American Girl Boutique and Bistro that were all completed in the spring of 2009. The third phase, the construction of condominiums, finished construction during the spring of 2009. The final phase, the addition of a ten to twelve story luxury hotel adjacent to the new wing and across from J.C. Penney, is still in the planning phases with a projected start of 2011 at the earliest. Initial site work has been completed and is awaiting finished designs. However the financial difficulties of the mall’s owner company has put this construction into doubt.
HDesign General Growth Properties realized that the surrounding area of Natick had a strong potential to become a high-grossing, high-end retail center and decided to transform the Natick Mall into a suburban Newbury Street. Rather then expand upwards, the developers bought an adjacent plot of land to the north, which housed an old Wonder Bread factory. Beyer Blinder Belle, or BBB, was charged with designing a new structure that would more than double the retail capacity of the existing strip mall, or “Natick I,” as BBB liked to refer to it. Upon arrival, BBB design team members saw a post-modern typical mall space, and vowed they would not only design and build a new addition to the existing structure, but that they would renovate the old mall to comply with the new structure’s class and sophistication. As BBB’s first large-scale mall project, the design team partnered together with the office of Victor Gruen, the father of the modern shopping center, and chose to focus on one detail in particular: the meaning of the town’s name, Natick. In 1651 the Native Americans began farming the area and christened it “Natick,” meaning “place of the rolling hills.” BBB took this simple translation and used it to begin their design for what was to be a 1.7-millionsquare-foot renovation and expansion that would transform a typical suburban strip mall into a center of high fashion.The first challenge that the team of BBB had to cope with was the existing wetlands on the new site. However, Richard Blinder, as part of his master plan, made a curved T-shape for the addition that was informed by the swamps. The team’s rolling-hills concept took form as an undulating roof plane in the new wing with clerestory windows above the roofline, which added a lot of daylight in the space. In addition, the undulations of the ceiling allowed the designers to create moments of contrast, such as can be found in the elevator towers, which are very rigid in appearance. Stanley Wong, the lead design architect notes, “In the end the only things you can really design in a mall interior are the ceilings, the fascia, and the floor. When you reduce it to that, it seems pretty helpless, but we really pushed it.” By selecting a warm materials palette for Natick II and renovating the entrance from Natick I into the new addition via the Teardrop Court, the design team achieved upgrading the space, one of the main aims of GGP. In addition to these two endeavors, BBB also requested large-scale, stone-like porcelain tiles on the first floor and engineered wood floors on the upper level of Natick I. Glass handrails in both the old and new portions further increase the upscale aura and allow for transparency in the space.
The new wing took the idea of warm materials to a new level, using honed limestone and Jerusalem stone flooring, Venetian plaster on the exterior of the elevator shafts, and cherry wood ribs to line the light wells between the first and second levels. The flooring on the second level is modular carpet tile, a switch from the original intention to include the same style of hardwood flooring as in the old space. This switch was made for practical reasons, rather than aesthetic, because the wood floors got a lot of foot traffic and maintenance was difficult. However, the choice of carpet did not come without difficulties. The concern was that the carpet’s directional pattern would fight visually with the shapely surroundings of the curvy footprint and ceiling of the arcade. Instead, the pattern ended up providing a welcome linear contrast. Another benefit is that as the tiles wear out, the maintenance staff can replace them individually, which is a substantial benefit in a high-traffic space. By definition, a mall is a collection of retail tenants, each of which has its own branded identity and store image over which the architects of the larger space have no control. However, BBC and GGP wanted to keep the high level of design that they had established present, and thus made a new tenant criteria manual. This manual went over very well with the tenants because most of them recognized the benefits of being in a newly enhanced space in an area that gets lots of customers. Design Intent: The target audience of the newer addition was a more sophisticated, upscale group, tending towards either adults with a substantial income or teenagers whose parents are wealthy enough to give them a considerable amount of spending money. By creating an undulating, gently sloping ceiling, acoustic paneling and simulated birch groves filtering cascading natural light, the designers wanted the shopping experience to be relaxing and serene. This is enhanced with wider, expansive walkways, naturally lit areas, an abundance of seating, and a warm materials palette throughout. Points of Interest: NEIMAN MARCUS Designed by Boston-based Elkus Manfredi Architects, the undulating patterned stainless steel exterior that encompasses Neiman Marcus’s 100,000 square feet of shopping on two levels is intended to be “evocative of a silk scarf, or sophisticated fabrics from the Neiman Marcus couture line, billowing in the coastal breezes of New England.” It is also described as suggesting the luxurious folds of a women’s skirt. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE A softened streetscape with curved lines mimics the shape of the building and incorporates many aspects of the interior, bringing the feeling of serenity outside. The theme of the surrounding landscape includes elements of New England’s sea grass, stone walls and birch forests. In addition, the property will offer respite from the retail rush with a meandering bicycle path and public walkway. THE INFLUENCE OF NEW ENGLAND The mall’s interior also mirrors the use of birch surrounding the building’s exterior. A simulated birch grove with carefully placed tree trunks is topped with a suspended canopy of thousands of abstracted metal leaves, the idea of Martha Schwartz, the project’s landscape architect. In daylight, the leaves are intended to catch and refract natural light from the center’s skylights. At night, the illuminated leaves are intended to cast enchanting shadows. THE TEARDROP COURT The existing mall transitions to the expansion through a teardrop-shaped court featuring a spectacular mezzanine floating above an infinity-edge fountain and pool between the new and renovated space and feature a shallow pool that can be drained and transformed into a stage for events in the atrium. PARKING GARAGES The tight footprint of the site, bounded by Route 9 on the south, the Massachusetts Turnpike on the north, and local roads winding through the site, demanded a creative alternative to the conventional mall structure surrounded by a sea of parking. Six parking decks and valet parking on the property provide abundant spaces for easy entry and exit for visitors. Additional features of the indoor garages include bright sightlines, a spacious layout with distinctive auto lobbies and easy orientation through color (diamond, ruby and sapphire), textures, light and graphics to direct shoppers to stores and restaurants.
Works Cited – 44 Hull St. “Boston Edit This” ezguides 11 Oct 2008 <http://ezguides.today.com/> 27 Aug 2009. “Boston, Massachusetts vacation rental by owner: 2 bedroom Townhome rental that sleeps 5. Historic Townhouse (the “Skinny House”) on the Freedom Trail.” VRBO. Web. 18 Dec. 2009. <http://www.vrbo.com/247506>. “Home Facts for 44 Hull St” Trulia Real Estate Search 2009. <http://www.trulia.com/homes/Massachusetts/Boston/sold/1598209-44-Hull-Street-BostonMA-02113> 30 Aug 2009. “Weird Houses Around the World” 2007. <http://www.hemmy.net/2007/02/15/weird-houses-around-the-world/> 30 Aug 2009. “The Skinny House” Bostonhttp://www.wheretraveler.com/classic/us/ma/bst/4/CL0000004224.shtml> “Travel / Boston Visitors’ Guide / Boston’s Modern Must-Sees.” Boston.com. Web. 18 Dec. 2009. <http://www.boston.com/travel/boston/must_sees_1/>.
Works Cited: Trinity Church Trinity Church. 2006. Start Here Boston.com. 27 Aug 2009 <http://www.starthereboston.com/trinity-church.html>. Matthews, Kevin. Trinity Church. 2008. Autodesk. 27 Aug 2009 <http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Trinity_Church.html>. Sullivan, Mary Ann. Trinity Church, Copley Square. Bluffton University. 27 Aug 2009 <http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/bostonrich/bostonrich. html>. Art & Architecture. 2009. Trinity Church Boston. 27 Aug 2009 <http://www.trinitychurchboston.org/art/index.php>. Mizrahi, Adam. Trinity Church in Boston — Urban Monument and Church. 7 Aug 2009. Urban City Architecture. 27 Aug 2009 <http://www.urbancityarch.com/2009/08/trinity-church-in-boston/>. Hayes, Holly. Trinity Church, Boston. 2009. Sacred Destinations. 27 Aug 2009 <http://www.sacred-destinations.com/usa/boston-trinity-church>.
Works Cited: Simmons Hall Hill, John. “Simmons Hall, Cambridge, Massachusetts” A Weekly Dose of Architecture. <http://www.archidose.org/Oct02/101402a.html> 9 Aug 2009. Simmons Hall 2008. <http://simmons.mit.edu/> 9 Aug 2009. “Simmons Hall” Architectook | Architecture That I Really Love 24 May 2007. <http://architectook.net/simmons-hall/> 9 Aug 2009. “Simmons Hall” Emporis.com 2009. <http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&id=186392> 9 Aug 2009. “Simmons Hall” List of MIT Undergraduate Dormitories 7 Aug 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MIT_undergraduate_dormitories#Simmons_Hall> 9 Aug 2009. “Simmons Hall MIT Undergraduate Residence” Architectural Record 2009. <http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/portfolio/archives/0305MIT.asp> 9 Aug 2009. “Steven Holl, Simmons Hall at the MIT” Design Boom 2009. <http://www.designboom.com/portrait/holl_simmonshall.html> 9 Aug 2009.
Works Cited: Chapel Craven, Wayne. American Art: History and Culture, Revised First Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages, 2002: 533. “Eero Saarinen.” Scandinaviandesign.com. 23 Jul 2009 <http://www.scandinaviandesign.com/Eero_saarinen/>. Franklin, Kwayera. “Eero Saarinen and M.I.T. Chapel: A Case Study.” 2000. ARC 3713Y. 24 Jul 2009. <http://kubuildingtech.org/ sarcweb/Assemblages00/CaseFinals/assemblages%20%20Kwayera%20Franklin/assemblages3.htm>. Lau, Sophia. The MIT Chapel. 14 Mar 2008. GSD Materials Collection. 23 Jul 2009 <http://gsdmaterialscollection.blogspot.com/2008/03/introduction-architectural-acoustics.html>. “MIT Chapel, Cambridge, Massachusetts.” 2005. Galinsky.com. 23 Jul 2009 <http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/mitchapel/index.htm>. Roth, Leland M. American Architecture: A History. Boulder: Westview Press, 2003: 437. “MIT Chapel (W15).” MIT Campus Activities Complex & Student Activities Office. 23 July 2009 <http://web.mit.edu/eventguide/cacfacilities/mitchapel.html>. Vlado, Nicole. “Analysis of Daylight in the MIT Chapel.” 24 Jul 2008. <http://www.core.org.cn/NR/rdonlyres/Architecture/4-492Fall2004/55757E32-7ED8-4C88-A95E-E72CED31BAA8/0/nicolevlado6_7.pdf>. Wright, Sarah H. “Architectural wonders, chapel, Kresge turn 50.” MIT Tech Talk. 50, 5 (2008): 9. 19 Oct. 2005. <http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/chapel-1019.html>. “50th Anniversary of the Dedication of the Chapel and Kresge Auditorium, 1955.” Jul 2005. MIT Institute Archives & Special Collections. 24 Jul 2009. <http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/saarinen/>.
Works Cited: Stata Center Works Cited: Stata Center “CNN.com - Building innovation into the walls - Dec 1, 2004.” CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Web. 28 Aug. 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/11/30/stata.center/index.html “Does Gehry’s Stata Center Really Work?” BusinessWeek - Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. Web. 30 Aug. 2009. <http://www.businessweek. com/innovate/content/jun2007/id20070619_279669.htm>. “Facilities - In Development & Construction.” MIT. Web. 30 Aug. 2009. <http://web.mit.edu/facilities/construction/completed/stata.html>. “MIT sues Gehry, renowned architect of daring $300m Stata Center - The Boston Globe.” Boston.com. Web. 28 Aug. 2009. <http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/06/mit_sues_gehry_citing_leaks_in_300m_complex/>. Mitchell, William J. Imagining MIT Designing a Campus for the Twenty-First Century. New York: The MIT, 2007. Print. “News - Awards and Recognition Projects.” Nitsch Engineering. Web. 30 Dec. 2009. <http://www.nitscheng.com/news/awards-projects.html>. “On Campus: Sharing Space, Sharing Ideas.” BusinessWeek - Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. Web. 28 Aug. 2009. <http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/oct2006/id20061030_771902.htm>. “Wired 12.11: Frank Gehry for the Rest of Us.” Wired News. Web. 28 Aug. 2009. <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/gehry.html>.
Works Cited: ICA “5 Questions Still to Be Answered - The Boston Globe.” Boston.com. Web. 26 June 2010. <http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2006/12/06/ questions_still_to_be_answered/>. Campbell, Robert. “A Vision Fulfilled at Harbor’s Edge - The Boston Globe.” Boston.com. Web. 26 June 2010. <http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/ articles/2006/12/01/a_vision_fulfilled_at_harbors_edge/>. ICA Home | Welcome. Web. 26 June 2010. <http://www.icaboston.org/>. ICA Visitor Guide. The Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston: Mixed Sources FSC, 2009.
Works Cited: Fan. Hall “America’s Most Visited Tourist Attractions” Forbes Traveler 2009. <http://www.forbestraveler.com/best-lists/most-visited-attractions-us-2009-slide-4. html?thisSpeed=25000> 29 Aug 2009. “Boston Edit This” ezguides 12 Oct 2008 <http://ezguides.today.com/> 27 Aug 2009. “Faneuil Hall” 26 Aug 2009. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faneuil_Hall> 29 Aug 2009. “Faneuil Hall” 2009. <http://www.faneuilhall.com/listofstores.htm> 26 Aug 2009 “Faneuil Hall: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article.” AbsoluteAstronomy.com. Web. 21 Dec. 2009. <http://www.absoluteastronomy. com/topics/Faneuil_Hall>. “Faneuil Hall Gateway to the City” Faneuil Hall Marketplace <http://www.faneuilhallmarketplace.com/index.html > 26 Aug 2009. “Faneuil Hall Marketplace - Benjamin Thompson - Great Buildings Online.” Architecture Design Architectural Images History Models and More - ArchitectureWeek Great Buildings. Web. 19 Dec. 2009. <http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Faneuil_Hall_Marketplace.html>. Matthews, Kevin and Artific Inc. “Feneuil Hall” Great Buildings 2008. <http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Faneuil_Hall.html> 26 Aug 2009. “World Architecture Images- Boston- Faneuil Hall Marketplace.” American Architecture. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://www.american-architecture.info/ USA/USA-Boston/BO-002.htm>. Works Cited: Boston City Hall “A new leaf for Quincy Market.” The Boston Globe. 11.18(2008): 1. 27 Jul 2009. < http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/ articles/2008/11/18/a_new_leaf_for_quincy_market/>. Beam, Alex. “Wrecking balls tolls for City Hall.” The Boston Globe. 12.18(2006): 1. 27 Jul 2009. <http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2006/12/18/wrecking_ball_tolls_for_city_hall/>. “Boston City Hall.” 2006. Greenroofs Project Database. 27 Jul 2009. <http://www.greenroofs.com/projects/pview.php?id=301>. “Boston City Hall.” 2009. A View On Cities. 27 Jul 2009. <http://www.aviewoncities.com/buildings/boston/bostoncityhall.htm>. “Boston City Hall tops ugliest-building list.” The Boston Globe. 11.14(2008): 1. 27 Jul 2009. <http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_ news/2008/11/boston_city_hal_1.html>. “The civic heart of the city.” The Boston Globe. 12.13(2006): 1. 27 Jul 2009. <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/12/13/the_civic_heart_of_the_city/?p1=email_to_a_friend>. Drake, John C. “Embattled City Hall defenders change strategy.” The Boston Globe. 7.11(2008): 1. 27 Jul 2009. <http://www.boston.com/news/local/ articles/2008/07/11/embattled_city_hall_defenders_change_strategy/>. Matthews, Kevin. “Boston City Hall.” 2008. Artifice, Inc. 27 Jul 2009. <http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/Boston_City_Hall.html>. Palmer, Thomas C. and Chris Reidy. “Menino proposes selling City.” The Boston Globe. 12.12(2006): 1. 27 Jul 2009. <http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2006/12/menino_proposes.html>. Sadovi, Maura Webber. “Recession, It Seems, Can Fight City Hall; Relocation Is on Hold.” The Wall Street Journal. 12.17(2008): 1. 27 Jul 2009. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122947095983212173.html>. Shea, Christopher. “Preserve City Hall Plaza?” The Boston Globe. 3.11(2009): 1. 27 Jul 2009. <http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2009/03/preserve_city_h.html>. Thomas, Jack. “ ‘I wanted something that would last.’ ” The Boston Globe. 8.13(2004): 1. 27 Jul 2009. <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/ articles/2004/10/13/i_wanted_something_that_would_last/>. Viser, Matt. “Boston City Hall -- a Landmark?” The Boston Globe. 4.24(2007): 1. 27 Jul 2009. <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/04/boston_city_hal.html>.
WORKS CITED: Boston Public Library Boston Public Library. BPL. Web. 15 Dec. 2009. http://www.bpl.org/ “Boston Public Library, Renovation And Restoration.” Shepley Bulfinch. Shepley Bullfinch, 2009. Web. 15 Dec. 2009. <http://www.shepleybulfinch.com/ project/boston-public-library/He1/> Whitehill, Walter Muir. “The Making of an Architectural Masterpiece - The Boston Public Library.” The American Art Journal. JSTOR: Trusted archives for scholarship, 2009. Web. 15 Dec. 2009. <http://www.jstor.org/pss/1593895> Matthews, Kevin. “Boston Public Library.” 2009. Artifice, Inc. 15 Dec. 2009. <http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/Boston_Public_Library.html>. “Boston Public Library: History.” Design Integration Laboratory: Research and Education in Creative Spatial Design Integration with Digital Tools, Media, and Methods for Architecture and All Designers. Web. 15 Dec. 2009. <http://www.designlaboratory.com/courses/96.2/studios/a584.s96.matthews/library/ history.html Works Cited: MIT Chapel Craven, Wayne. American Art: History and Culture, Revised First Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages, 2002: 533. “Eero Saarinen.” Scandinaviandesign.com. 23 Jul 2009 <http://www.scandinaviandesign.com/Eero_saarinen/>. Franklin, Kwayera. “Eero Saarinen and M.I.T. Chapel: A Case Study.” 2000. ARC 3713Y. 24 Jul 2009. <http://kubuildingtech.org/sarcweb/Assemblages00/ CaseFinals/assemblages%20%20Kwayera%20Franklin/assemblages3.htm>. Lau, Sophia. The MIT Chapel. 14 Mar 2008. GSD Materials Collection. 23 Jul 2009 <http://gsdmaterialscollection.blogspot.com/2008/03/introductionarchitectural-acoustics.html>. “MIT Chapel, Cambridge, Massachusetts.” 2005. Galinsky.com. 23 Jul 2009 <http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/mitchapel/index.htm>. Roth, Leland M. American Architecture: A History. Boulder: Westview Press, 2003: 437. “MIT Chapel (W15).” MIT Campus Activities Complex & Student Activities Office. 23 July 2009 <http://web.mit.edu/eventguide/cacfacilities/mitchapel. html>. Vlado, Nicole. “Analysis of Daylight in the MIT Chapel.” 24 Jul 2008. <http://www.core.org.cn/NR/rdonlyres/Architecture/4-492Fall-2004/55757E327ED8-4C88-A95E-E72CED31BAA8/0/nicolevlado6_7.pdf>. Wright, Sarah H. “Architectural wonders, chapel, Kresge turn 50.” MIT Tech Talk. 50, 5 (2008): 9. 19 Oct. 2005. <http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/chapel-1019.html>. “50th Anniversary of the Dedication of the Chapel and Kresge Auditorium, 1955.” Jul 2005. MIT Institute Archives & Special Collections. 24 Jul 2009. <http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/saarinen/>. http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/saarinen/index1.html#chapel (PHOTO)
Works Cited: Craven, Wayne. American Art: History and Culture, Revised First Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages, 2002: 533. “Eero Saarinen.” Scandinaviandesign.com. 23 Jul 2009 <http://www.scandinaviandesign.com/Eero_saarinen/>. Franklin, Kwayera. “Eero Saarinen and M.I.T. Chapel: A Case Study.” 2000. ARC 3713Y. 24 Jul 2009. <http://kubuildingtech.org/ sarcweb/Assemblages00/CaseFinals/assemblages%20%20Kwayera%20Franklin/assemblages3.htm>. Lau, Sophia. The MIT Chapel. 14 Mar 2008. GSD Materials Collection. 23 Jul 2009 <http://gsdmaterialscollection.blogspot.com/2008/03/introduction-architectural-acoustics.html>. “MIT Chapel, Cambridge, Massachusetts.” 2005. Galinsky.com. 23 Jul 2009 <http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/mitchapel/index.htm>. Roth, Leland M. American Architecture: A History. Boulder: Westview Press, 2003: 437. “MIT Chapel (W15).” MIT Campus Activities Complex & Student Activities Office. 23 July 2009 <http://web.mit.edu/eventguide/cacfacilities/mitchapel.html>. Vlado, Nicole. “Analysis of Daylight in the MIT Chapel.” 24 Jul 2008. <http://www.core.org.cn/NR/rdonlyres/Architecture/4-492Fall2004/55757E32-7ED8-4C88-A95E-E72CED31BAA8/0/nicolevlado6_7.pdf>. Wright, Sarah H. “Architectural wonders, chapel, Kresge turn 50.” MIT Tech Talk. 50, 5 (2008): 9. 19 Oct. 2005. <http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/chapel-1019.html>. “50th Anniversary of the Dedication of the Chapel and Kresge Auditorium, 1955.” Jul 2005. MIT Institute Archives & Special Collections. 24 Jul 2009. <http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/saarinen/>. http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/saarinen/index1.html#chapel (PHOTO)