RESOLVING THE INTRICACIES OF A MULTIFACETED PROGRAM

N E G O T I A T I N G A D J A C E N C I E S

Northeastern University

School of Architecture

360 Huntington Ave.

Boston, MA 02144

2009 Spring Semester

http://www.architecture.neu.edu

Northestern Student Team:

David Swetz

Justin DiCristofalo

Case Study Advisor:

Daniel Hewitt

Special Thanks To:

Ron Druker, The Druker Company

Jordan Warshaw, The Davis Companies

Frederick A. Kramer, AIA, ADD inc.

Susan Hartnett

David Hacin, AIA, Hacin and Associates inc.

Max Moore, Associate, Machado and Silvetti Associates

Calderwood Pavilion Staff

Credits

INTRODUCTION

A B S T R A C T

mission statementlearning objective

mixed-use definedmixed use precedents

project brief

68

121418

22263236

sitecompetition

teamplanning

COMPLEXITIES

REFLECTIONSnegotiating adjacencies

role of architect4648

INTRODUCTIONmission statementlearning objective

68

66

INTRODUCTIONmission statement

As a central pillar of the professional practice course at Northeastern University’s Graduate

School of Architecture, students were given the task of analyzing a project through the scope

of a specific learning objective. This learning objective was crafted through the evaluation and

examination of a complex problem that architects faced in their own professional experiences.

Specifically, the case study below engages the adjacencies of a mixed-use project which were

investigated through interviews, research of publications, and trusted and honest opinions

from the individuals involved.

This particular case study is an investigation of complex issue that both young designers as

well as experienced professionals will face at some point throughout their career. The intention

is to identify that premise and allow the designer to gain an understanding of the strategies

used to navigate the issue throughout the lifetime of a project. The obstacles a designer is

required to overcome are abundant and seemingly endless, though by understanding what

has been done in the past, potential problems can be avoided.

77

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

88

INTRODUCTIONlearning objective

In today’s urban setting there is a demand to satisfy a wide range of needs, necessitating

the combination of multiple programs within a single building type. The need to combine

programs within a single building type is supported by the lack of available land as well as the

cost of available land. Each program has its own unique criteria that need to be satisfied, and

resolving the adjacencies between programs is a complex, yet necessary undertaking.

Outside influences such as a schedule and budget, make it especially hard for an architect

to successfully balance every program component. In most cases, one specific user takes

priority over the rest, detracting from the ultimate objective of a mixed use project. Success of

these projects depends heavily on equally integrating every program component.

99

So how can architects negotiate the complex adjacencies

of a mixed use development while successfully achieving

individual user expectations?

10

11

A B S T R A C Tmixed-use defined

mixed use precedentsproject brief

121418

12

ABSTRACTmixed-use defined

What is Mixed-Use? A mixed-use development is

a complex intertwining of multiple

distinct programs into a singular

cohesive development. Often this

means combining typologies that

normally exist independently into a

singular building, or at the very least

a singular site. The most common

combination is retail, residential, and

office programs; though the integration

of hotel, entertainment, civic, and

cultural institutions is also common.

The benefits of a mixed-use

project over a primary-use project are

numerous and expansive. A primary-use

project is restrictive in how the property

is used. The classic office building is a

good example of this scenario; where

the building is inhabited from 9:00-5:00

on weekdays, but lies vacant all other

hours.

A mixed-use development creates

density within an urban context. The

combination of typologies activates

a specific area, thus revitalizing a

neighborhood. This strategy deters a

sprawling landscape, where a city is

divided into a commercial, residential,

and industrial sectors. It establishes a

level of convenience, where residents

are allowed to live, work, and play in a

single area.

There are several obstacles that

need to be addressed when assuming a

mixed-use development. These include

appropriate siting, balancing program,

resolving adjacencies, designing with

budget in mind, and trusting the project

team. The most difficult and often the

most important is placing your trust in

another team members hands, though

it is essential to collaboration.

Striking a balance between the five

obstacles is essential to a successful

mixed use project. The diagram

illustrates the details of these

challenges.

( )A mixed-use development is the appropriate combination of

multiple typological programs within a single structure or site.

Benefits

Obstacles

13

This diagram illustrates the five components that

are essential to a mixed-use project along with

the details imbedded within each obstacle.

14

ABSTRACT

name crosstown center

program hotel, retail, parking garage, office space

site roxbury, ma

project brief first part of new master plan in developing area

main issue lack of appropriate density

Crosstown Center in Roxbury,

MA is a mixed-use development that

was completed in 2008. The purpose

of the development was to revitalize

the area and attract near-by residents.

The strategy employed was to include

various program elements that could

supplement each other. The placement

of parking garage, hotel, and office are

intelligent arrangements coupled with

public retail establishments.

The miscue here was the siting strategy.

An overall lack of pedestrian density

as well as a general lack of interest in

retail has detracted from a otherwise

sound project.

mixed-use miscues

( )

Crosstown Center

15

One Franklin Tower located

in Downtown Crossing in the heart

of Boston, MA was slated to be a

condominium and hotel development

with several floors of retail.

The goal of the project was to revitalize

the feeble neighborhood of Downtown

Crossing. The hope was that the 166

planned condos as well as a hotel

would infuse much needed activity

after business hours.

The miscue here was an unfortunate

credit collapse, thus rendering the

developer unable to secure funding.

The project looks to remain on halt for

the for seeable future.

name one franklin tower

program condominiums, hotel, retail

site downtown crossing, boston, ma

project brief revitalization of neighborhood through mixed-use

main issue financial instability/lack of funders( )

One Franklin Place

16

Lafayette Place located just two

blocks down Washington Street from

One Franklin Tower was an attempt to

bring a suburban shopping mall to the

downtown area of Boston.

The curious design is strangely

uninviting for a shopping mall, which

is a primary reason it has remained

vacant for nearly a decade. The fact

that an outdoor retail district exists just

outside does not help the project.

Several attempts to resurrect the

project by changing its program to first

multi-screen cinemas and then offices

have failed. The vacant building now

lowers adjacent property values.

name lafayette place

program shopping mall, hotel, parking garage

site downtown crossing, boston, ma

project brief an indoor mall in the heart of downtown crossing

main issue poor design

ABSTRACTmixed-use miscues

( )

Lafayette Place

17

Waterside Place is a proposed

development for the Fort Point district

known as the Core Block. The block is

located directly adjacent to the World

Trade Center.

The proposed development includes a

19 story luxury condo building, a 300-

room hotel, big box retail, parking, and

street level shops. The cost estimate

was initially pegged at $600 million.

The developer then adjusted the budget

to almost $800 million. The overruns

were so outrageous that investment

partners are now suing the developer,

potentially derailing the project.

)name waterside place

program luxury condominiums, hotel, retail, parking

site fort point, boston, ma

project brief new development in growing neighborhood

main issue lack of trust within project team(

Waterside Place

18

ABSTRACTproject brief

ABSTRACTproject brief

Many mixed use projects

exist around the Boston metropolitan

area as a result of sparse buildable

land. With land and buildable space

at a premium, the need to develop a

successful mixed use project becomes

all the more important. Unfortunately,

The previous four examples of built

work demonstrate the common

miscues associated with a mixed

use project. Therefore it is important

to understand the challenges and

obstacles associated with a project

consisting of multiple programs.

This case study will look at a project that

includes many levels of complexities in

order to understand how each obstacle

was handled. The project selected

is an example of a successful mixed

use development; however there were

many intricacies that were faced during

conception, design and construction.

The following section will illustrate,

in detail, the specific challenges and

complexities confronted with the

completion of Parcel 8 and Atelier 505.

Through detailed analysis, interviews,

and perspectives, a complete

understanding of the project can be

achieved. From these conclusions, we

can realize how important the value of

trust is to the level of success.

Brief

19

The development of Parcel 8

was a multi-leveled, highly intricate

system. The project had to negotiate

the complexities of a brownfield site,

the subsidy of a cultural arts facility,

the relocation of existing parking, the

defense and preservation of a registered

historical building, addition of luxury

condos into a close-knit community,

and the economic revitalization of an

area.

These are only some of the issues

that the project team was faced with

throughout the development. These

issues are all site specific, though

mixed-use projects always have to

strike the right balance between

economics, program, and design.

By digging beneath the surface of

Atelier|505 and the Calderwood

Pavilion, the realization of the project

can be understood. What role does

the architect play in a highly complex,

mixed-use project? What is the nature

of a public-private relationship? How

is budget handled? Who manages

scheduling?

These are the issues this case study

seeks to unlock. The following

complexities section analyzes these

issues in detail.

Overview

20

21

COMPLEXITIES 22

263236

sitecompetition

teamplanning

22

COMPLEXITIESsite

Ever since the filling of Boston’s

Back Bay in 1870, the South End neigh-

borhood has been home to a diverse

array of people. The first tenants were

immigrants from overseas, comprising

of Irish, Lebanese and Greek decent.

The neighborhood was also home to

fairly wealthy residents, including busi-

ness owners, bankers and industrial-

ists. During the mid 20th century peo-

ple of African American and Hispanic

decent moved into the area.

In addition to a diverse ethnic popu-

lation, homosexual men and woman

also called the South End home dur-

ing the early twentieth century. A large

number of single homosexuals moved

into the area due to the availability of

single sex rooming houses.

The neighborhood of the South End

has maintained its racial and ethnic

diversity by incorporating many subsi-

dized low-income housing. Such proj-

ects include Villa Victoria, Cathedral

Housing and Methunion Manor. These

large contemporary urban projects are

surrounded by historical row-houses

dating back to the mid nineteenth cen-

tury. The Uniform five story, red-brick,

mixed use structures line a majority of

streets in the South End.

With real estate in the area at a premi-

um, there has been a push to maintain

cultural identity of the South End. In or-

der to accomplish this, affordable live-

work housing including artist lofts and

studio spaces have been developed.

In addition, mixed use projects have

been proposed, incorporating residen-

tial housing with cultural centers. Par-

cel 8 is one site in which a mixed-use

cultural landmark was to be proposed.

Demographics

Architecture

24

COMPLEXITIESsite

Beyond just being a BCA

reserved plot, Parcel 8 was a formerly

contaminated site. It’s long and

complex history as a filling and repair

station left areas of the site with over

2.5 inches of VOC’s (volatile organic

compounds).

One of the first hurdles to

overcome was the clean-up of the

valuable property, and who would be

responsible. With early cost estimations

exceeding several hundred thousand

dollars, no party was interested in

being the primary funder.

At the time of discovery, the BRA

(Boston Redevelopment Authority)

held the deed to the land, and so was

legally responsible. Not surprisingly,

Mayor Menino was not interested in

picking up the entire tab, and wanted

to spread the price tag around to

include the future developer as well as

the BCA.

At one point the BRA tried to take

advantage of the BCA’s lack of formal

understanding about site conditions,

offering to sell the parcel to them for

$1. The deal was never taken seriously,

and language was put into the RFP

that would ensure that the developer

chosen would help the BRA split the

cost for a clean-up program.

An EPA fund known as the Brownfield

Revolving Clean-Up Loan was also

used as a supplement to the cost. This

program awards the city of Boston a

loan at 0% interest for 5 years with only

a single payment due at the end of

those 5 years. The final cost of clean-

up was tagged at $2.8 million.

Contaminated Site

Brownfield Remediation

images by the Bostonian Society

25

Parcel 8 was part of a master-

planning initiative by the BRA to

reserve the site for cultural institutions.

Immediately adjacent to the site was,

and still is, the celebrated Cyclorama

and other Boston Center for the Arts

institutions.

The earliest and most important siting

challenge that needed to be negotiated

was the complete preservation of

these existing institutions, while

simultaneously adding new facilities

immediately adjacent. In order to

accomplish this, the existing National

Theatre, a 4,200 seat performance

theatre that succumbed to fire, had to

be safely demolished in 1997.

Mayor Menino gave the go ahead

to the BCA to demolish the structure

and begin the planning phase for new

theatre spaces to take its place.

Subsequently, the BCA and BRA who

held the title to the site, collaborated to

create an RFP (Request for Proposal) to

be sent out to Boston area developers.

The criteria for potential developers

was long and detailed, and is outlined

on the sidebar of this page.

While the priority for Parcel 8 was

always the theatre spaces, the strategy

of outlining additional programs into

levels of priority was a weak strategy.

This led to the future exclusion of nearly

every program that was received a

“LOWER PRIORITY” designation.

A developer’s primary concern is always

maximizing revenues, and creating

such a weak RFP often lets that person

cut out a lot of the program.

Parcel 8

Depiction of various BRA owned parcels and

planned, proposed, and built developments

26

COMPLEXITIEScompetition

As was previously mentioned,

Parcel 8 in the South End was a BCA

reserved site owned by the city. In

order for a development to proceed

on this site, several departments and

permits would have to be negotiated.

The City formed a panel consisting of

key members of the BRA, BCA, BLC,

and a Task Force assembled by the

Mayor.

The department responsible

for the oversight of the property was

the Boston Redevelopment Authority

headed by assistant director James

Kostaras. The BRA’s primary concern

before handing over the property

to a potential developer was the

remediation of the site as well as an

economic revitalization of the South

End.

The Boston Center for the Art’s

was the primary beneficiary for the

development. The land had long been

dedicated to the development of a

cultural arts facility, and the BCA was

looking to turn heads with its property.

Susan Hartnett, the director of the BCA

at the time, was looking for facilities to

enhance the programming capacity for

visual, performing, literary, and media

arts. The BCA was also looking for the

development to produce a significant

subsidy from the sale or lease of units

on-site.

The Boston Landmarks Commission, headed by executive director Ellen Lipsey, was responsible for ensuring the overall design and proposal was something that could comfortably nestle within the historical context of the South End. A significant challenge for the BLC was responding

Competition Conception

BRA Concerns

BCA Concerns

BLC Concerns

BCA

BRAtask force

BLA

community

This diagram illustrates the panel responsible

for Parcel 8 as well as the subsequent judging

of competition entries. Community involvement

was encouraged through public meetings.

27

to the re-zoning of the site to allow

for proposals to exceed 10 stories. A

strategy that was implemented was to

make Parcel 8 an Article-80 site.

Article-80 comprises of development

review and approval. Specifically

addressing issues relating to

transportation, urban planning,

environment, infrastructure, and

historical aspects of a proposal. If a

proposal was approved, this permit

would ensure a developable solution

for the South End.

The Task Force appointed by the Mayor was a diverse group whose purpose was to review submissions based on design, feasibility, financing, as well as examining alternative options as they relate to both the parcel and the neighborhood beyond. Essentially

an unbiased jury to judge proposals.

Task Force Concerns

HIGHEST PRIORITYtheatres

medium size formal theatre (400-500 seats)

large “black box” theatre (200 seats)

adequate loading, backstage, support facilities

functional enhancements

sufficient parking to replace existing parking

access elevator to Cyclorama

full loading dock for entire complex

MEDIUM PRIORITYrehearsal spaces (750-2250 sq. ft.)

ADA studios (300 sq. ft.)

classrooms (2 to 3 @ 350-800 sq. ft.)

LOWER PRIORITYexhibition gallery (1-2 spaces @ 1500-200 sq. ft.)

one or more residential studios @ 1200 sq. ft.

set shop

arts related tenants retail space managed by BCA

Competition Brief The Task Force working

integrally with Susan Hartnett, James

Kostaras, and Mayor Menino developed

a Request For Proposal released in

October of 1996. This RFP was based

on a tiered system of priorities including

highest priority, medium priority, and

lower priority. The benefit of this was

flexibility it offered potential developers,

leading to a variety of submissions.

All of the submissions were to be

submitted by Boston based developers

only. Additionally, all submissions had

to have a team in place consisting of

developer - architect - contractor. The

benefit of this being two-fold. First, a

level of trust will have already been

established by the time a team is

chosen. Secondly, it relieves the client

from the stress of hiring individual team

members to collaborate.

28

COMPLEXITIEScompetition

COMPLEXITIES

Proposals

South Gate Partners

The South Gate Partners proposal

included a 63,500 Square foot space for

The Massachusetts Communications

College. This for-profit institution is self

sustainable, therefore would not need

to generate money from the residential

program. Retail space, located on the

ground level, would take up 20,000

square feet. Two theatres and other

program relating to the BCA’s needs

comprised of a 14,000 square feet

space. Total project cost was estimated

at 41.5 million dollars.

Renaissance Properties

The driving element of the Renaissance

Properties proposal was the inclusion

of assisted and independent living for

seniors, specifically marketed to the

gay and lesbian community. In addition

to elderly living spaces, the program

consisted of 82 rental units and 35

townhouses. Two theatre spaces,

with interconnected stages, and arts

facilities would encompass 23,000

square feet of space. Retail space

takes up a bulk of parcel 8, with 54,000

square feet allotted to restaurants and

medium-sized retail. Total cost was

projected at 55.7 million dollars.

Keen Development Corporation

Keen Developments 44 million dollar

proposal had the least amount of

retail space, with 10,000 square feet

designated. However, Keen proposed

200 thousand square feet of residential

space, including an array of apartment

layouts. 30,000 square feet of space

was to be used for two theatres and

other BCA program.

drukermachado and silvettiturner

boylston propertieselkus|manfredishawmut

south gate partnersarchitectcontractor

keen developmentarchitectcontractor

renaissance propertiesarchitectcontractor

BCA

BRAtask forceBLA

huntingtontheatre

community+

29

On December 9, 1997 two developers

were chosen out of a group of five

by the appointed task force. Each

developer was voted on the proposals

benefits to the BCA, compatibility with

the neighborhood and developers

experience. Boylston Properties and

The Druker Company received a

majority of first place votes and the two

proposals were clearly most popular

among the BRA, BCA, Community and

Boston Landmarks Commission.

Boylston Properties

Boylston’s 400 thousand square foot

proposal included two theatre spaces,

residential space, retails space and a

parking garage. a majority of space

would comprise of rentable apartments.

Walk-up residences located on the

Warren Street side reflected the South

End’s historical district.

Boylston’s proposal was the strongest

of the five and seven first place votes

was the most received by any team.

The developer and architect also had

the most experience out of the five.

Previous projects relating to Parcel 8

include the Longwood Galleria, The

Trilogy, and The Longwood Research

Center.

Boylston’s financial proposal was the

only element criticized by the task

force, who felt that financial resources

appeared limited. Apartments were the

main source of income and would not

generate as much money as condos.

Elkis Manfredi also proposed expensive

architectural elements, including glass

facades and a plaza.

Short list

BENEFITS TO THE BCA

+design captures the “essence of the BCA”

feels integrated into the BCA’s purpose

developer has indicated willingness to work with

BCA

-Significant portion of revenue must be paid up-frontCOMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD

+successful massing and creation of plaza

real feel for the South End

-Warren Avenue side needed more attention

impact of billboard will be negative to residents

housing is completely dedicated to rental

DEVELOPERS EXPERIENCE

+all parties have experience

-first market rate housing project

financial resources appear limited

30

COMPLEXITIEScompetition

BENEFITS TO THE BCA

+2 million dollar payment up-front shows solid rev-

enue

-condo fees present concern

overall square footage of BCA facilities is limited

plans for sharing freight elevator will not workCOMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD

+a real landmark for the South End and Boston

speaks to the creativity of artists

-tilting of glass walls was “too dramatic”

proposed retail use was too large and “high end”

DEVELOPERS EXPERIENCE

+financial stability, overall financial scope is the largest

good track record in developing market rate housing

-questions concerning developers experience at Castle Square

Druker Company

The Druker proposal called for 150

thousand square feet of high-end

residential condo space. The income

from up-front condo fee’s benefited the

BCA. Large retail spaces, including

letters of commitment from retail

tenants, were proposed for the site.

Tenants included Skinner Auction

House, which would take up 42

thousand square feet.

Drukers proposal received five first

place votes, placing it second behind

Boylston Properties. However it was

Machado and Silvetti’s contemporary

massing and Drukers financial stability

that set it apart from the rest.

The massing of the proposed project

related to existing site conditions and

each facade reflected its surroundings.

The Warren Street side stepped down

in size to relate to the five story walk-

ups. The Tremont Street side increases

in height while also including a plaza

for the community, making it the only

project to do so.

Drukers up-front payment of 2 million

dollars was the most striking difference

from other proposals. This generous

payment illustrated the teams financial

stability and dedication to the project.

Questions concerning Drukers

proposal to instill condo fee’s was a

concern for the Task Force. This would

limit the BCA’s income, therefore

making it hard to succeed as a non-

profit organization.

Short list

The Druker Company’s proposal was

chosen by the Task Force mainly

because of Drukers contribution of two

million dollars up-front. The Financial

stability of the Druker project team,

including Machado and Silvetti with

Turner Construction was greater than

any of the other four schemes. The

contemporary massing provided by

Machado and Silvetti also related more

to the South End.

Winning proposal

image by Machado and Silvetti Associates

32

After the selection of Ron

Druker and his collaborators as the

winning selection, the team found it

necessary to expand and evolve. With

Machado and Silvetti were already in-

place as the principle architect with

Turner Construction on board as the

contractors the team was in a good

position to begin the early phases of

design.

Machado’s massing and skin was in

place, and the Druker Company had

secured funding for both the BCA

theatres as well as the rest of his

proposed development. The “Who?”

“What?” “Where?” and “When?” were

established, and the biggest challenge

facing the team at that point was the

“How?”.

Machado and Silvetti was, and still is,

one of the most respected architectural

firms in Boston. Their designs are

always captivating and interesting,

though at that point in their careers

(1998), Machado and Silvetti had

completed only small cultural works.

Never had they attempted a project to

the scale and magnitude of the Parcel

8 project.

Enter ADD Inc.

The first and most significant evolution

of the Druker team was the addition of

a second architectural firm; ADD Inc.

ADD Inc. was contracted by Ron Druker

to be the Architect Of Record, to which

Machado and Silvetti subcontracted

to. Naturally, this had the potential to

disrupt the chemistry and trust that

was established between the Druker

Company and Machado and Silvetti.

The Evolution Of A Team

COMPLEXITIESteam

33

“ ”Machado and Silvetti designed an ingenious urban scheme and

we just made it work.

-Fred Kramer AIA, ADD Inc.

Transfer Of Trust ADD Inc.’s title was officially

designated Architect Of Record, but

they were responsible for much more

than producing technical drawings.

They were attractive to the Druker

Company because of their reputation

as collaborators and organizers.

Machado and Silvetti lacked those

intangibles necessary in realizing such

a large and complex development.

ADD Inc. initially worked hard to earn

the trust of new team members by

not altering Machado and Silvetti’s

initial massing and skin design, and

allowing them to progress their own

design. By focusing their attention

strictly on collaboration, scheduling,

and budgeting they allowed the team

to function at an extremely high level.

As the Architect of Record Add Inc.

was responsible for the execution and

realization of Machado and Silvetti’s

initial design, technical and detailed

drawings of interior conditions and

adjacencies, collaboration with

consultants and contractors, as well

as budgeting and scheduling. It would

be nearly impossible for a firm such as

Machado and Silvetti to execute all of

these tasks and still generate such a

compelling design motif. The addition

of Add Inc. freed them of these

responsibilities, allowing the design

architect to focus strictly on design.

34

BRA

BLA

drukerADD Inc

machado and silvetti

turner

BCAhuntingtontheatrewilson

butler

community

COMPLEXITIESteam

Beyond changes taking place

in the developers team, forces were

shaping the dynamic of other project

collaborators. The necessity of funding

for the arts facilities beyond what the

Druker Company could subsidize

meant that another beneficiary had

to be added. The BCA was aware of

this throughout the process, but had

not settled on a partner for the theater

spaces until the Huntington Theatre

allotted over $18 million. Naturally, there

financial contribution coupled with

their reputation made them a mutually

beneficial partner for the BCA.

The addition of the Huntington had

a resounding effect on the project.

Their expertise in performance spaces

coupled with the BCA’s desire for

innovative spaces led to the hiring of a

third architect, Wilson Butler Architects.

Wilson Butler was contracted through

the Huntington Theatre, meaning that

ADD Inc. and Machado and Silvetti

had little control over the design

of the interior of the theatres and

accompanying spaces.

Trusting a young design

firm who specialized in cruise ship

design was a difficult pill to swallow

for the Druker team. In order to avoid

tension and detriment amongst team

members, it was ADD Inc. who acted

as a facilitator between groups. By

bridging the gap between various

designers and clients ADD Inc. freed

Wilson Butler to achieve a high quality

design without affecting the overall

proposal. Clear communication and

efficient collaboration again were

essential to avoid a design competition

between Machado and Wilson Butler.

Evolving Project Team

Wilson Butler Effect

35

Architects were not the only

professionals that had staked a claim

in the design of the project, all parties

were deeply involved. Ron Druker

prides himself on his commitment

to design, and with buildings such

as the Colonadde Residences and

Longwood Galleria on his resume, that

commitment is clear. On the opposite

end, Susan Hartnett of the BCA was also

invested in the design, and had her own

design considerations in mind. These

ideas were often contradicting of Ron’s

ideas and so these considerations had

to be negotiated.

The tension came to fruition during the

discussion of the location of a loading

dock serving the property. Ron Druker

had his opinion, and Susan had hers,

both with their own benefits and

shortcomings. On a project with two

clients such as Atelier|505 there is no

correct answer, and negotiation is the

only means to an end. As an architect,

and as a facilitator of communication,

it was ADD Inc’s responsibility once

again to address this issue. Naturally

Fred Kramer could not outright choose

one solution, and was tasked with the

challenge of playing the middle man. It

was essential to clearly communicate

to each party in order to avoid a

messy situation. Ultimately the issue

was never completely resolved, but

ADD Inc. negotiated a tight rope of

trust between the two thus allowing

the project and parties to continue

functioning effectively.

Competing Interests

Diagram illustrating chain of decision making,

with priority on Druker, ADD Inc, and the BCA.

36

“ ”You can take a large structure and make it smaller by breaking

it into an aggregation of four buildings

-Rodolfo Machado, AIA

COMPLEXITIESplanning

The development of Parcel

8 had to contend with a variety of

external complexities. Along with

negotiating issues within the project

team, the team had to contend with

the surrounding context and existing

buildings. Machado and Silvetti’s

massing for Atelier 505 directly relates

to the surrounding neighborhood. Their

design elegantly utilizes the parcel 8

lot, with every programmatic element

being expressed uniquely.

At the Warren Street side, the

structure steps down and reacts

to the surrounding five story walk

ups. The community was afraid of

a high facade encroaching over the

street and impeding views out to the

city. Therefore Machado and Silvetti

planned for a structure that would act

as a walk-up, adding continuity to the

street.

The BRA re-zoned parcel 8 in order

to incorporate a tower, therefore its

placement became very crucial within

the massing. Machado and Silvetti

opted to position the tower at the

intersection of Warren and Tremont

Streets. The tower allows for additional

condos while also becoming a gateway

into Boston’s South End.

The Calderwood Pavilion entrance is

located on the Tremont Side as well as

a plaza where people can socialize and

interact with each other. Off the plaza

are retail shops and restaurants.

The Druker teams scheme underwent

little community opposition during

the review process because of an

ingenious massing that breaks down,

reacting to each particular elevation.

Understanding the complexities of

the site, as well as program, enabled

Machado and Silvetti to develop a

successful massing that could be

further enhanced throughout design

and construction.

Contextual Massing

37

images by ADD inc.

38

COMPLEXITIESplanning

Before demolition of the

National Theatre, a loading dock and

fly loft were located on Warren Avenue.

Warren Avenue residents disliked the

loading dock because trucks would

line up on the street, blocking vehicles

and making noise. Also located on

the street was a seventy foot high fly

loft. A fly loft is a large opening above

a theatre that allows a system of

ropes and pulleys to quickly move set

pieces, lights and microphones off the

stage. The blank wall was an eye sore,

restricting views and blocking light.

These two issues created tension

between the residents of Warren

Avenue and the BCA before the

project competition for parcel 8 even

began. Residents did not trust the

BCA and their way of managing the

site. Therefore the Druker team had

to negotiate this tension and create a

solution for both the loading dock and

fly loft.

The fly loft was a major concern

for the BCA. They felt that it was a

necessary part of the theatre however

the Residents of Warren Avenue and

the Druker team both opposed it. A

debate between Susan Hartnett and

Ron Druker pursued, with the Druker

team coming out on top. A seventy

foot high blank wall, interrupting the

Warren Avenue Facade as well as the

proposed condo’s above, would have

been too detrimental to the project. A

solution was devised, however damage

was done to the relationship between

Susan Hartnett and Ron Druker.

Early Tension

Fly Loft

image by Wilson Butler Architects

39

Tension between Ron and

Susan continued, and differences

between placement of a loading dock

nearly scrapped the project entirely.

The Druker team proposed to combine

two loading docks into one, satisfying

both Atelier 505 and the Calderwood

Pavilion. Initial placement of the dock

was in a alley abutting the Cyclorama,

located off of Warren Avenue. Susan

Hartnett did not agree with this

placement and felt that the alley way

would not compliment the historic

Cyclorama.

The Residents of Warren Avenue were

not opposed to the loading docks

placement, however Susan Hartnett

would not budge, feeling the Druker

team was not cooperating with the

BCA. Susan wanted the loading dock

to be placed on Tremont Street but the

Druker team disagreed, feeling that it

would ruin the Calderwood Pavilion

entrance and plaza space. Tension

became so significant that Mayor

Menino held a meeting in order to

resolve the issue.

The solution to the problem was to

divide the loading dock. A loading dock

located on Warren Avenue, embedded

into the massing, would satisfy Atelier

505. Another loading zone located

on Tremont Street, utilizing a service

elevator inside the Cyclorama, would

satisfy the Calderwood Pavilion.

The sub-par solution to the loading

dock illustrated a lack of trust between

Susan Hartnett and Ron Druker. Susan

felt that Ron had ulterior motives and

was not willing to compromise with the

BCA.

Loading Dock

image by Google Earth

40

COMPLEXITIESplanning

With a project scope consisting

of retail, theatre space, residential

and parking, the need to resolve

adjacencies becomes essential. The

BCA required their own program which

was incorporated into the residential

design of Atelier 505. In order to

accomplish this, a clear understanding

between developer, architect and client

was established.

During the competition phase of parcel

8, Task Force member and practicing

architect, David Hacin, developed a

program diagram for BCA facilities.

David Hacin was capable of creating

such document and did so as a favor

to the BCA and Task Force members,

the diagram illustrates what types of

programs were needed, including

typical dimensions and level of

importance.

On the other hand, High end residential

condos were being designed above

the theatre spaces and other programs

outlined by David Hacin. Therefore,

resolving issues such as acoustics

becomes indispensable.

In order to accomplish this, an

acoustical consultant was brought

onto the team. The consultant, in

collaboration with ADD Inc., developed

an innovative solution that eliminates

noise transfer from theatre to residential

condo. Sand was poured into wall

cavities and floors of condos that were

located directly above or adjacent to

the Calderwood Pavilion. In this case,

team members worked innovatively in

order to reach a solution to a problem

that easily could have resulted in an

unsuccessful mixed-use project.

Adjacencies Acoustics

image by Hacin and Associates Inc.

Temont St.

41

Retail

Performance

Residential

Parking

Program Adjacencies

Warren Ave.Black BoxMain TheatreRehersalTemont St.

Condo

Condo

42

COMPLEXITIESplanning

Along with neighborhood

considerations, the team also had

to contend with an existing historic

structure. The Cyclorama is designated

as a historic structure, and therefore by

law had to be protected. Of course, the

team working with the BCA sought to

protect a supplement the existing arts

facility with new ones.

The Calderwood Pavilion as well as

Atelier|505 both directly engage the

Cyclorama. This presented structural as

well as integration challenges that had

to be addressed. On the lower levels,

the BCA desired a means to access

the Cyclorama from inside the new

development, but also had to consider

how the theatres integrated with the

neighboring arts facility. Wilson Butler

Architects working with the Huntington

and the BCA had to collaborate with

Ron Druker and Fred Kramer of ADD

Inc. to negotiate the multifaceted

adjacencies. The issue was four-fold,

with theatres, restaurant space, the

Cyclorama, and luxury condos above

all adjoining one another.

Structurally and acoustically all team

members were required to collaborate

deeply on such a unique dilemma.

Again, ADD Inc. was best suited for the

leadership role in this position. Their

unique skill set as project delivery

experts allowed them to successfully

cross-pollinate multiple ideas and

strategies to devise the best solution.

The collaboration of team members

helped to completely preserve a

historically valuable building, with

minimizing the effects on necessary

interventions.

Bordering Cyclorama

plan by Wilson Butler Architects

43

)(Cyclorama

Calderwood Pavilion

Restaurant Atelier|505

The Cyclorama, a large rotunda meant to house panoramic

paintings was originally built in 1884 by Charles Cummings and

Willard Sears and included large turrets resembling a castle.

image by Machado and Silvetti

44

45

REFLECTIONSnegotiating adjacencies

role of architect4648

46

REFLECTIONSnegotiating adjacencies

Developer - Ron Drukerdevelop a successful residential condominium that

could simultaneously subsidize a cultural arts center

while also generating revenue.

revitalize neighborhood of the South End, creating a

landmark for the area.

Client - Boston Center for the ArtsCreating a new cultural arts center for the South End

and Boston.

Inclusion of all program outlined during competition.

A space that can satisfy the needs of the BCA

Architect - Machado and SilvettiWanted a successful building that reacted to the neigh-

borhood and site.

Satisfy the needs of the developer, as well as the client

47

so how can architects negotiate the complex adjacencies of a

mixed use development while successfully achieving individual

user expectations?( )

Negotiating adjacencies Complex adjacencies located

within the mixed use development of

Atelier 505 and the Calderwood pavilion

illustrate how architects, developer

and client each achieved individual

expectations. Team members worked

together in order to successfully

achieve this goal. However, the

success of Atelier 505 did not come

without opposition and disagreement.

Susan Hartnett and Ron Druker clashed

at times because their expectations

differed. Susan’s state of mind was

geared toward the BCA and a new

cultural center. Therefore she wanted

to make sure the developer Ron Druker,

who was concerned with the Condos

and Atelier 505, satisfied her needs as

well.

The two parties disagreed at times,

specifically with issues such as the

loading dock and fly wall. In order

to resolve these issues, each team

member set aside individual user

expectations in order to reach a

common ground. A common ground

used to develop a successful mixed

use building. The architect moderated

the two groups and in the end each

individual user need including architect,

developer, and client was incorporated

into the finished product.

48

REFLECTIONSconclusion

REFLECTIONS

Role of Architect of Record The role of the architect is

constantly evolving to keep up with

the building industry. With so many

aspects to the planning, design, and

execution of a project, team dynamics

can become clouded.

In order for a project team to function as

effectively as possible, it is absolutely

necessary for each member to place

trust in each other. In some cases,

trust may already be established from

a prior relationship. This was the case

with Ron Druker and Rodolfo Machado,

as they both had worked at Harvard

University.

More often then not, trust has to be

earned. It could be said that Ron

Druker never quite earned the trust

of the BCA’s Susan Hartnett despite

the fact that both were pleased with

the outcome. Though a successful

developer is usually not concerned

with peoples feelings. A developer is

a highly motivated personality, who is

concerned primarily with the monetary

success of their project. This is not to

say that a developer’s only concern is

asset procurement, though generally

they are not the type to ensure that

trust transferred throughout the project

team.

Simultaneously, a client on a project

such as Susan’s position at the BCA,

is an intimidating one to be in. It

is natural to feel threatened by the

scale of a developer’s propositions,

and that a client’s desires may be

overshadowed.

It becomes apparent that in order

to instill confidence in other team

49

members, that an architect possesses

the best skillset. Beyond that though,

and specifically in this project, two

distinct types of architects were hired;

one to handle design and another to

tackle delivery.

ADD Inc. is a firm that specializes in

project delivery. This is something that

they have devoted so much effort to,

that it has become marketable for them.

In today’s building industry, the level of

complexity is so high, that an architect

who can specialize in team dynamics,

organization, and scheduling has

become invaluable.

Not always will the title of this position

be Architect Of Record, and it does not

necessarily have to be an architect,

but the addition of someone who can

focus on the intangibles is crucial.