Hi Scott - great question. It's no clear yet how much of both buildings the developer will be required to keep. That said, this is far from a teardown/rebuild. At least the facade, and probably more, will have to be preserved based on the architectural/historic value, which, of course, is hotly debated. Will add that to the story.
Can you please elaborate on this? Why does the 1970s history of the architect/ developer make the future design “tricky”? Are they keeping the skeletons of fhe buildings, rather than a full tear down?
Thanks
SM
>>>>>>Still, redeveloping the pair of bunker-like, concrete buildings is likely to prove tricky, with the whole site having been originally planned - and the Lindemann building designed - by renowned architect Paul Rudolph back in the early 1970s.
As a result, the developer the state picks to redevelop the downtown Boston block will likely have to incorporate significant elements of both Brutalist-era buildings into their plans.
Hi Scott - great question. It's no clear yet how much of both buildings the developer will be required to keep. That said, this is far from a teardown/rebuild. At least the facade, and probably more, will have to be preserved based on the architectural/historic value, which, of course, is hotly debated. Will add that to the story.
"Tricky" would be an understatement.
Can you please elaborate on this? Why does the 1970s history of the architect/ developer make the future design “tricky”? Are they keeping the skeletons of fhe buildings, rather than a full tear down?
Thanks
SM
>>>>>>Still, redeveloping the pair of bunker-like, concrete buildings is likely to prove tricky, with the whole site having been originally planned - and the Lindemann building designed - by renowned architect Paul Rudolph back in the early 1970s.
As a result, the developer the state picks to redevelop the downtown Boston block will likely have to incorporate significant elements of both Brutalist-era buildings into their plans.