an attempt to uncover the truth about September 11th 2001

M.I.T., Rotch Visual Collections

1.3 EARLY DEVELOPMENT

Within this philosophy, the BRA set renewal guidelines for the future Sixty State site, first in the Government Center Plan (1963), and later in the Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan (1964). These guidelines stipulated renovation and new infill construction, conforming in character, bulk and height to the block's existing structures. The BRA invited Bertram A. Drucker, owner of several parcels on the site, to submit proposals for its redevelopment. Little new construction was then contemplated in the financial district. "One of the fears of the planners was that there might be a shift of office development from the historical downtown financial district to the Prudential area... [The BRA wanted] to make sure there would be new offices developed in the historical, downtown district." [6]

Although given three six-month extensions, Bertram Drucker made no proposals to the BRA. -- "The undistinguished architecture and advanced age of most of the buildings in the block made rehabilitation unappealing. . ."[7] to say nothing of their irregular shape, obsolescent mechanical equipment, and poor service facilities. The Massachusetts Building Trust, owner of the Sixty State Street property, was given the opportunity to develop. Its plans fell apart, but the Trust's principal tenants at 60 State Street, Cabot, Cabot and Forbes (CCF) became interested. [8]

CCF had become a prime mover in Boston's rebirth. A pioneer in the 1950's industrial park development, CCF decided to enter the commercial office building market. As the result of negotiations between BRA Director Logue and CCF Executive Director Gerald Blakeley, a development package including New England Merchants Bank and the Boston Company Building had been worked out. They also discussed the development of the Sixty State block. Housed in antiquated offices on the site, CCF planned to move to the New England Merchants Bank. But the opportunity to build their own corporate headquarters initiated CCF's decade-long, and as yet unfinished, struggle to build a new home at the northeast corner of Congress and State.

The BRA recognized as unrealistic its original plans for a renovation of the Sixty State block. CCF and the BRA became interested instead in a whole block redevelopment. This would not be an easy undertaking. The design controls for the Government Center portion of the block were established separately from the controls for the Waterfront portion of the block, and taken together, would substantially complicate development.[9] Nevertheless, an architect was retained by CCF to sketch out a concept for discussion. The BRA encouraged a very large office tower covering the entire block and promised to change the urban renewal plans to allow its construction. Going beyond the height and bulk of new architecture in Boston, the architect proposed a rectangular, metal-skinned tower rising above a three-story base (see figure 13). A total floor area of 2.5 million square feet would have made it the largest office building in New England, half a million square feet larger than either the Prudential Company Tower or the then proposed John Hancock Building.

CCF contracted Haley and Aldrich (H&A), geotechnical consultants from Cambridge, to make soil borings and recommend excavation and foundation systems. As early as 1965, H&A had performed exploratory studies of the bearing strata in the area for other developers.

CCF concurrently began land assembly. The BRA controlled approximately one-third of the block. Their holdings consisted of alleyways (Corn Court and Change Ave.) and property acquired by their power of eminent domain for the Government Center and Waterfront urban renewal projects (see figure 1.4). The BRA, CCF and Hale and Dorr, CCF's attorneys, began discussion of a Land Disposition Agreement for the transfer of the publicly-owned land. The BRA had the opportunity to establish design controls for future development of these public lands through restrictive covenants included in the proposed document.

The first development proposal was not acceptable to the BRA, which had begun to formulate some definitive guidelines. These included a reduction of height and bulk to a building more in scale with the two neighboring skyscrapers; a masonry rather than metal facade to relate to the historic character of the environment; and a site plan to accommodate the BRA's pedestrian bridge linking City Hall Plaza with the Waterfront area. They also required that the tower be set back from Faneuil Hall, with a low element along Faneuil Square expressing the continuity of massing from the market area. Another implicit requirement was to hire a "name" architect to produce a design that was worthy of this choice site, described by some as the "hottest corner in town." [10]

Determined to move their project from the talking stage to the design stage, CCF retained Marcel Breuer and Associates, architects. By late 1967, Breuer responded with a 60-story building covering the whole block and enclosing 1.75 million square feet (see figure 1.6). The BRA Design Advisory Committee, made up of Boston area architects Josep Lluis Sert, Lawrence B. Anderson, Hugh Stubbins, Nelson Aldrich, and Pietro Belluschi, reviewed and rejected this proposal as too massive for the site, although it conformed to the other BRA guidelines.

CCF encountered difficulties in their efforts to assemble the entire block. The development firm was unable to convince Bertram Drucker to sell his properties, but did negotiate a long-term lease agreement for 50 State Street and 25 Faneuil Hall Square. [11] CCF acquired the 60 State ad 70 State properties in early 1968. Nathan Miller proved unwilling to sell his 84 State Street property at a price CCF wanted to pay, and there were insufficient funds for public acquisition (see figure 1.4). The Waterfront Urban Renewal Project (1964) gained momentum within the BRA, and city planners questioned the wisdom of tearing down the Sanborn Building (see figure 1.4). An example of granite load-bearing construction, it contributed significantly to the historic character of the area. The BRA decided to save the building, and prohibited its inclusion in any new development. CCF was now restricted to a 56,331 square foot site, not quite 80% of the original block. But site irregularities reduced potential building area to less than 75%. Financial Vice President, Mortimer Zuckerman, and Chief of Commercial Development, Edward Linde, architects of CCF's adventure into commercial office buildings, assessed the reduced development opportunity in 1969, and decided to continue with the Sixty State Project on the diminished site.

The BRA added new restrictions to their development guidelines. Pointing out that Change Ave. and Corn Court had historically connected State Street with Faneuil Hall Square, they recommended a mid-block arcade next to 84 State Street to improve pedestrian access to the Quincy Markets. The bulk of the proposed development, and the increased population it would shelter, suggested a covered direct entrance to the State Street MBTA station.

Marcel Breuer responded to these new inputs with a 1.25-million-square-foot tower, similar to his earlier design, but less extensive. The BRA Design Advisory Committee reviewed these plans and models in 1969 ad again rejected the CCF proposal. The developer was advised to further reduce the bulk and height of the building.

1970 promised to be a favorable year for CCF. Their proposed office building had been rejected three times by the BRA, but CCF had a friend in Boston's Mayor, Kevin White. White was anxious to spur economic growth and to encourage new office building construction. The State Street Bank and the New England Merchants Bank had been recently completed. Buildings such as the First National Bank and the Boston Company, though begun after Sixty State, were underway. Others, including the Shawmut Bank Building, and the Federal Reserve Bank Building, were in the planning stage. Sixty State, already four years in planning, was still far from being at the forefront of new construction. CCF hoped that continued growth would ensure the economic viability of their project. Having already poured millions into the project, they had to push on and attempt to recoup funds lost to real estate taxes and development costs.

Marcel Breuer developed his plans a third time, conforming to all BRA guidelines and proposing a 46-story, 657-foot-tall structure containing 950,000 square feet (see figure 1.7). The building was now more refined and carefully scaled. A steel frame design, Breuer wished to clad it with a precast concrete panel system containing deeply recessed windows. Non-office areas were to be sheathed in plain concrete. A five-story mass projected to Faneuil Hall Square, covering an entrance arcade and framing a series of steps descending to Dock Square. The City Hall Plaza Bridge across Congress Street was redesigned to accommodate the infringement of Sixty State on the bridge's former right of way (see figure 1.8).

CCF began the approval process with Breuer's preliminary design. On August 20, 1970, Mayor White held a press conference with Gerald Blakeley announcing the City's approval of the Sixty State Project. White praised the design and the increased tax revenues to be generated by the new structure. "This building is another indication of the business community's faith in our City's economic future... We now have what CCF and the BRA's Design Advisory Committee consider to be the best solution for the site." [13]

The Land Disposition Agreement between the BRA and CCF was defined and elaborated, with tentative accord reached on the terms of sale. On December 2, 1970, the BRA Board approved Breuer's design and authorized changes in the Waterfront and Government Center Urban Renewal Plans to accommodate the new building. The urban renewal guidelines were amended to allow construction of a building whose gross area was 18.5 times its total property area (FAR = Floor Area Ratio = 18.5), with a maximum height limit of 657 feet. Mayor White, BRA, Director John D. Warner, and CCF officials participated in ceremonies beginning building demolition on the Sixty State Site on December 14, 1970. [14] These actions closed a positive year for Cabot, Cabot and Forbes, and Marcel Breuer's firm progressed into working drawings.

CCF brought Aberthaw Construction Company, its wholly-owned subsidiary, onto the project to develop detailed pricing estimates. The estimates Aberthaw generated by the summer of 1971 indicated that the building would be well over the budget CCF had proposed. Faced with Breuer's strong stand for his design, the investment already made in over four years of work, but with the expectation of a building much more costly than they could afford, CCF made a tough decision. On August 31, 1971, the Sixty State application for building permit was withdrawn. CCF terminated Marcel Breuer's services shortly thereafter. The now cleared site of Sixty State awaited a new design.

Home Page