an attempt to uncover the truth about September 11th 2001

M.I.T., Rotch Visual Collections

1.4 THE GOVERNMENT STEPS IN

A few Boston area professionals started to voice such objections to the Sixty State project. Rather belatedly, the Boston Landmarks Commission began to actively oppose the Breuer design in the Spring of 1971. Although the Commission was then only an advisory body to the BRA, their concern prompted government agencies at the city, state and federal levels to commence a closer examination of the project and its environmental consequences.

Two recently enacted federal statutes made government intervention possible. In the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Congress established the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (NACHP) to advise federal agencies in historical matters and to evaluate the effects of proposed federal or federally-assisted developments adjacent to National Historic Register properties. Due to Sixty State's location in a federally funded urban renewal area, and to the proximity of the Historic Register properties, Faneuil Hall and Quincy Market, the project fell under NACHP's jurisdiction.

A second piece of environmental legislation would also have significance for the Sixty State project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 required all federal agencies to evaluate the impact of their "major" actions which "substantially affected the environment" with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This legislation was broad and far-reaching. The Council on Environmental Quality and the judiciary encountered difficulty in defining the powers and limits of the Act. The EIS was an undefined document, and the necessity of its preparation unclear.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), responsible for the administration of the urban renewal program, reviewed its participation in the Sixty State project for possible grounds requiring an EIS. Most of its actions had occurred prior to the enactment of NEPA: the urban renewal plans had been prepared and approved, and federal funds had been appropriated for land assembly and site improvements. To accommodate an office building on the site, the BRA Board had amended the urban renewal plans on December 20, 1970, after NEPA became effective. These changes would require HUD review and approval if they were deemed "major," and this action would require an EIS. HUD, uncertain if the amendments were major or minor in nature, postponed a decision and sought advice.

Attempting to resolve the question of Sixty State's impact on neighboring historic sites, HUD requested the opinions of the Federal Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation and of the Massachusetts Historical Commission. [11] After meetings in the early summer of 1971 with the BRA and HUD, the Massachusetts Historic Commission concluded that the proposed Government Center and Waterfront Plan changes would have no adverse effects; in fact, they claimed the development would be an economic asset to the Quincy Market area. The Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation disagreed. In two letters of October 5, 1971 and December l4, 1971, they opined that Sixty State's shadows and size would adversely impact Faneuil Hall and Quincy Market. [18] To resolve these conflicting opinions, HUD ordered an NACHP review.

In the midst of these actions, CCF hired an architect to replace Marcel Breuer and Associates. Pietro Belluschi, former head of MIT's Department of Architecture, joined the project. As 1971 ended, Belluschi developed a series of alternatives for review.

The NACHP public hearings on February 2nd and 3rd, 1972, were populated by a variety of government officials and advisory groups. The BRA testified in favor of the requested plan changes, as did the Massachusetts Historical Commission and Walter Muir Whitehill, a well known chronicler of Boston's history.

CCF presented Pietro Belluschi's new design. Similar to the Breuer design in general massing, the new concept differed in some important aspects. Instead of a building "L"-shaped in elevation, Belluschi's was a square tower with raised corner posts and a penthouse (see figure 1.10). He proposed a brick exterior rather than Breuer's exposed concrete. The overall massing was not unlike Belluschi's Boston Company Building. Another significant change from Breuer's design concerned a low, simply detailed element projecting into Dock Square. The block mass contained a six-story parking garage facing Faneuil Hall.

The reaction of the NACHP was predictable. Repulsed by the thought of four wheeled smoke burners towering over the late 18th century Federalism in their charge, the Council abandoned the BRA urban design position. But opponents were unable to convince the Council to reject intensive development of the site. The NACHP recommended that HUD approve the urban renewal plan changes to permit the construction of a highrise office building. But their report demanded that:

Further efforts toward an acceptable amendment should include such design considerations as (l) a substantial setback provision facing Faneuil Hall, (2) no facade height limitation, (3) additional height in order to reduce bulk, and (4) the elimination of parking facilities in accordance with national policy enunciated by the National Environmental Protection Agency to reduce air pollution in large urban areas by 1975. [19]

The NACHP guideline of February 28, 1972 effectively compromised Pietro Belluschi's design, and the Spring of 1972 found CCF searching for a new direction.

Home Page