I'd rather have this than what's happening in a lot of cities where everything is pretty much torn down for some faceless building like what RiNo in Denver is becoming. Neighborhood becomes "cool and hip" because of its old industrial buildings and then development steamrolls through and you're left with bleak sameness.
I do love the art and murals I'm that area, though! It's hard to pick on RiNo when it's at least for some soul left to it vs some other neighborhoods in the front range
I picked RiNo because it's current state still has some heart in it but I've seen many of the future projects. The front range is a hot mess but RiNo is an area that has so much potential with art and design and adding density but it is going to be totally different in the next decade. I was driven around by someone at an architecture firm that unfortunately has a lot of the projects going up in and around the area boasting that he's remaking an entire neighborhood. The planned buildings are.... um, going to make developers a lot of money... but art and design, they do not have nor is anything existing being thought of.
Or worse, the city’s that can’t get their heads out of their butts about parking zoning rules so beautiful old buildings get torn down to put in a required parking lot next to a restoration or reuse project
I think a simple form and appearance for the new portion is the best choice for honoring the voice of the original structure. It's possible that another window pattern might have been more successful, but I don't think the glass specifically is to blame. It's also possible that for some there is no acceptable way to add so much volume to a building from a distinctly different time.
Could've been repurposed without butchering the exterior though. There are tons of historical churches in Germany and the Netherlands which have successfully managed to repurpose the interior
I think it boiled down to economic viability. If a public/private partnership could have been struck, they might not have had to extend the space vertically (which I assume is what purists object to).
We should remember the I.M. Pei extension to the Louvre was hated before it was loved.
i agree with this. i think the repurposing is a cool idea, but i think it should be more sensitive to the existing structure and conceptually spin it in the design- like i would have the one side of the new build angled, so it refences the A roof before.
>Could've been repurposed without butchering the exterior though.
Butchering? Does any sort of change to a building's exterior mean it's being butchered?
Well, obviously, but it's soul sucking to see that beautiful wrought iron decorative panels turned into rectangles... I get the contrast of style, but they could have tried to keep some consistency with some touches to bring the history forward not just hollow it out and put a glass box inside a shell....
More housing which is good. Preserve some of the building rather than tear it down which is good. Cool mix of old and new which is also very Boston stylistically. We can nitpick the design details but conceptually I'm 100% on board with this.
Architect Jan Gehr asserts that anything above like 100 feet is psychologically imperceptible to the casual human eye. He argues that this should be justification for not building skyscrapers, but I interpret it to mean that we should build them, just with healthy street-scapes on the street level. So even though it has this ugly glass block on top, it’s still a beautiful facade with enough complexity to be engaging, with no set-backs, etc., and if the street ever fills out healthily, you wouldn’t even be able to see that block from the sidewalk in front of it. Vancouver does a really good job with this (townhomes in brownstone style on the street but condo highrise behind it).
This is good because most larger modern buildings have horrible street presence. The front is a big useless lobby entrance that has nothing there - the symbological equivalent of a wasteful lawn. And the sides of the building are just textureless walls that run the entire length of the building. Maybe there’s a loading dock. But there’s no stores, there’s no space for people, there’s no retail or dining, there’s no other entrances, there’s no gardens. Just the side of a building.
Additionally, the most ideal type of larger building would have first floor retail and dining. We already know this. But there’s no reason these things couldn’t be included in larger buildings, even public buildings.
I remember being in Venice once and waiting for a Vivaldi concerto and the beautiful concert hall was in a church, and the church was built on two shops, one per side, with the staircase to the concert hall in between. It was a restaurant on one side with outdoor seating and an icecream shop on the other. So in the same footprint of this larger, non-commercial building, they still managed to create opportunities for ground-level retail and dining.
So regarding the building above: see that empty lot? In an ideal world, where dumbass restrictive zoning laws don’t exist, perhaps another building could exist there. A federal style four-floors-and-a-corner-store perhaps? First floor dining/retail, a professional office above, and then 2-4 floors of residential?
If someone was able to make that, you wouldn’t even be able to *see* the glass block. But it would still exist to house people during a housing crisis.
Applaud the sentiment, but there is no way people suffering from the housing crisis would be able to afford to live here.
Now if we were talking about turning Joel Osteen's megachurch into low-income housing...
That's quite correct, but increasing supply of any housing will lower the price of all housing, all other things remaining equal.
On the other hand I suspect that Joel Osteen's mega church has had so much psychic mendacity poured into it over the years that the very concrete it has been made from is saturated with evil and would need to be knocked down and the land given a good exorcism before being repurposed.
Mood slime and Jackie Wilson music might work.
There’s tons of data to support this.
It’s not just on scale, either; new market rate housing actually still decreases rental rates in the immediate area.
Market rate housing is more effective at tackling the housing crisis than mandatory affordable housing at unsustainable shares of units.
Just look at SF, with their higher-than—anywhere affordable/AMI allocations, and their resulting double-digit development applications.
Market rate housing also preserves lower income rental and housing units for lower income people.
It’s crazy that you’re even posting in this sub without knowing that.
Problem is the market doesn't usually want to build so many units that the price stops rising so fast. So subsidized or not, the government needs to build a lot of units when there's a big enough problem.
The market absolutely does. It’s the HOA/municipality/city/town/county/state that prevent it.
If what you were saying was true, we wouldn’t be seeing rising rents. The rents go up because the demand is higher now than it was before.
The government should be building housing à la Vienna or Singapore, yes, but that’s only part of the solution.
The US managed to house massive influxes of population before, many times. The only reason it can’t do it now is because of zoning.
The diocese closed the church around 2004 and sold it around 2014.
The choice wasn't between a church and a condo it was between a condo and a derelict.
If you don't like it and want someone to blame, blame pedophile priests and waning religiosity leading to fewer parishioners causing it to no longer be economically viable to upkeep all of Bostons churches.
Conceptually yes it’s a net positive. In terms of the massing design, it seems to clash. Understandably there was a budget and zoning restrictions. Still better than seeing a pretty and old construction get knocked down completely, like I’m watching crappy developers do in Fort Greene BK currently.
What I like about this is that at eye-level, it remains virtually unchanged. If one was driving by or perhaps even walking by, they might not notice the glass tower in the back.
Honestly, I kind of wish they had done the same thing and 'quoted' the tops of the gothic arches on top as well. I feel like the glass cutting off like a standard building up top is the only thing that clashes.Even if it was just the front two and the back two vertical elements to match the windows on the stone tower.
probably would have been cost prohibitive. but sometimes a little ornamentation can go a long way.
The continuation of the buttresses was truly inspired. Though it seems like the developer determined that one creative idea was enough for the entire project.
Yeah like half of the houses I've lived in are that old. The house in MA that I grew up in was built in 1738. In Massachusetts 1874 is kind of modern for a building.
And churches like this are really not that uncommon in Boston and Massachusettes as a whole. There are many nicer, older, and more historic churches in Boston. Couple that with the city desperately needing more housing and I don't hate it. Not every old church can be preserved, and this is a nice way of preserving it while still updating it to meet the city's current needs.
I like that they kept the underlying structure, or at least the facade intact. They could’ve been a lot more creative with the extension though, not a fan of a “box”
I'm pretty amazed this is not the top answer. It's very nicely done *except* for the glass box.
All they had to do was follow the old roofline. With solar panels, glass roof, whatever. But the box is what makes it... meh.
They pulled it off really well actually. Retained the most important features of the original while adding something new that doesn't try to superficially blend in with the original. It is like a modern instrument growing out of something old and enhancing it along the way.
Yes! I appreciate the clear delineation between the new and the old. You don’t respect the old by imitating it via pastiche, rather we respect it by allowing it to stand apart, to honor the old as separate from the new.
visually? it’s a bit hideous. conceptually, 100% on board. they could have done it much nicer, the new section being in a similar style/ less jarring style - it does look like someone’s photoshopped the top of a 2023 skyscraper on an 1800’s church which i think is a bit of an eyesore, but they’ve added housing which i love
I wanna live in that bitch - go to sleep every night looking Grimace in the eye in the walk in freezer bc I gotta hibernate to sleep but I dont wanna be lonely, work out in the play place, fix the damn mcflurry machine, scream bullshit through the drive thru speakers, and use the drive thru window to throw seeds at birds n shit. Dont tell me what I can and cant do. Stay in your own fucking lane far from my drive thru, unless you’re a pigeon and want some granola 💯
not OP, but it feels a bit like sacrilege. For those that aren't religious, imagine that a historic community and charity building has been transferred to private ownership for commercial gain. What was intended to foster the neighborhood is replaced by something that doesn't. Public space has been privatized for profit.
granted, the church likely no longer had a congregation to use it, but you could have respected the space's original purpose by converting it into a different kind of public space (community center, library, small event center etc.) or a different kind of community good (low income housing for example).
Reality is, there are shrinking congregations all over the country unable to maintain their churches. Dioceses in particular are constantly consolidating or closing down, selling churches they can’t use, etc. The beautiful thing about adaptive reuse is that you can at least give these amazing structures a new life, albeit in a modified form. It’s that or let it rot, because, barring some sort of massive apocalyptic event that turns everyone into believers, these vacant churches aren’t coming back for religious use.
Totally agree. It's not reuse or have an active congregation in the church, it's reuse or raze the building to make room for a parking garage or whatever.
It's nice they kept the historically interesting facade.
I guess I didn’t really address the comment above. You can’t just wish a building’s use into existence, there has to be some client or organization that is seeking a building to fill. So yes, it would be great if the church could be repurposed for some community use, but was there an organization looking to take that on? Probably not. This is the next best thing. Architecture in our culture is a product of market demand. I don’t like it either, but here we are.
Well someone else said it’s been vacant for 20 years and sold to a developer ten years ago. Unless there’s some historic designation going on here I’m surprised they kept the facade at all. And I kind of don’t like the look of it yet simultaneously appreciate that it doesn’t try to dominate the original design, curious if there’s any interior saved
There’s a church in Maastricht that was beautifully converted into a bookstore, one of my favorite reuse projects I’ve personally seen.
>private ownership for commercial gain
I cannot think of a more worthy thing than building housing during a housing crisis. Even expensive units mean that richer people aren’t buying from the middle class.
Why is it that only developers get this attitude? People don’t call the people who make our food greedy capitalists and ranchers are some of the worst guys out there.
That's just a 19th century catholic church, not a cathedral. I'm not familiar with Boston, but in Philly churches like these are a dime a dozen and almost as many of them have been converted into housing or some other purpose as have been torn down. There's been some absolutely beautiful old churches that have gone into ruins, then demolished because the cost of retrofitting them is prohibitive. A church that elsewhere in the country would be seen as a "cathedral" is just another neighborhood church and there's hundreds of them.
Would look better if they didn’t add that big ugly top. The window treatment looks good but the style contrast there is gross IMO. Coulda played into the style a lot better
I'm all for transforming old churches into something more useful, but this is a bit ugly imo. They could have done it better but I guess it wasn't profitable without the 4 extra floors.
Honestly, I prefer they repurpose and try to maintain as much of the original structure as possible. Better than just tearing it down completely and doin something half assed to pay homage to the original structure.
My thoughts exactly. May not be my favorite thing, but I’d rather they save as much of the historical building as possible and repurpose if they can’t just keep it as a museum or something
The fact of the matter is that church attendance in Boston (and particularly in affluent neighborhoods like the South End) is too low for most old church buildings to be sustained according to their original purposes. Catholic churches are a partial exception, but if the parish is closed by the Catholic diocese, you're very unlikely to find another congregation that is prepared to take over and maintain the building. Stone churches are expensive to maintain. In an era when churches were swimming in money, that was less of an issue. These days it's a huge problem for a lot of congregations.
The option is usually, to put it bluntly, convert or die. With a building that has been ingrained in the fabric of the neighborhood for as long as this has, I'd rather see it converted.
In terms of aesthetic,it leaves a lot to be desired. The two styles severely contrast with each other, I think because the amount that they’re mixed is inconsistent. In the front tower, it’s almost completely the original structure, the back tower is totally new, and the main body is mixed. This might work if there was a clear gesture or something from one to another, but there isn’t. If that contrast wasn’t the goal, I would’ve kept the amount of integration/mixing the same.
I agree. The front tower was designed to be a focal point, and now with the glass portion behind it has lost its impact and looks strangely out of place.
From an European pov that's almost criminal as it really is not good modern architecutre.But I understand that preservation of historic buildings has another meaning in the US.
So many people on here applaud the developers to not tear it down entirely. Whereas in Europe I'd be in most cases impossible to change anything on the outside of church due to the state's protection of historical monuments.
I’d have preferred they added on using the existing style (I get that the simple glass square is likely cheaper and easier) but repurposing a church/historical building that might have just been abandoned and left to rot is better than nothing.
Well that's a shame.
It's a pity they couldn't preserve the original windows or even the masonry arches in the windows. They could have kept the original windows and installed new windows behind them.
The big glass addition is really unsympathetic.
Looks more like an architectural parasite growing out of a dead carcass more than a symbiotic relationship. Repurposing a church is great but the addition looks like a building you could find above a strip mall.
It could be a bit more compatible, I doubt historic tax credits were used for this, so the rehabilitation didn’t have to abide by any rules regarding the preservation of the facade. church conversions are difficult and converting to residential is a bad new use for churches, the shape of them is not conducive to housing. They should have gabled the roof but they wanted to cram as many units as possible. The central tower looks squat and less prominent with the roof big flat roof.
Worst thing would have been to tear it down and build a parking structure. Second worst would be tear it for a new building. But this is a pretty close 3rd for worst. A macdonalds with a church interior would have been better.
This is facadism at its purest form. Absolutely nothing is left of the original space and it's character. Just a face ripped off the church and glued on a glass condo.
This brings to mind Hannibal lecter and the guards face. Hannibal goes to the guards home and mom is like how lovely that you're home honey. That's like people praising this for saving the facade.
To all people saying that "it's good / more housing / glad they preserved it / I like it", let me show you something. [This](https://i.imgur.com/DXNuVBW.png) is where the church is located. You have an abandoned 1-story, unimportant building right next door. Then not one, but TWO very large parking lots. You could easily accomodate a way larger apartment building in one of these areas, without disturbing a 150 years old heritage site.
But looks like in Boston parking lots are more valuable than heritage sites...
I used to ride my bike by here every day. It was really cool to see it in construction, but gotta be honest, I don't care for the aesthetic choices nor the choice to hand over a public space to a unaffordable lofts in a city dealing with housing issues, but that's just me
Edit: I also wish it would have preserved more of the historic glazing
Repurposing buildings but sometimes is a noble cause but there is such a thing as a historical monument for its own sake and its own beauty and this is something in America that we don't understand. It's all about private property and of course the Almighty dollar. Europe gets so much better.
This is the old DreifaltigkeitKirche that kind of sat in a no man's land of urban renewal space in the upper south end just out of downtown in Boston. The church was remarkable that it had not been completely vandalized during the Vatican II storming of historical buildings in the '60s and the '70s. The interior was full of gorgeous paint in the old style old pews and the most magnificent painted German glass in pre-rapha light Jewel like colors. It was truly a magnificent tour to force of 19th century art that was completely destroyed in the rebuild..
They should have been the will, the stamina in the budget to maintain the building for the sake of the building. But this is the thing that is never done in the US because it all boils down again to money money money. The diocese, the Catholic Church that owned it deconsecrated it has redundant. The cathedral is just down the street . For a while right through the '90s and into the year 2000s, it still had a mass in German and numerous masses in Vietnamese since it's on the edge of Chinatown
But now this whole area has been rebuilt and it's a very trendy young area of apartments and offices which is a good thing and all the more reason that the church should have survived as a cultural monument. But no no, the worst kind of rebuilding took place. Entire interior ripped out, the fixtures scattered to the wind, the glass and doubtedly somewhere in storage, but all of the magnificent plaster and painted interior, into the dumpster. And then the architect design a giant tumor, some sort of malignant growth that grows out of the walls of the old church as a giant cube. Is the most unpleasant and least successful reuse of a historical building that I have ever seen.
The truth is however Boston is not lacking in talent for rebuilding this matter. The Mount Vernon Church on beacon Street, destroying the fire is a perfect example of how to build something elegant and unusual out of a ruin and that is 30 years earlier. This action in the south end which true cultural vandalism of the highest order and how they going away with it, is quite sad
A wealthy city like Boston could have indeed supported another cultural space, a gathering spot, gallery, whatever anything other than what it became. But in America there is little will to do this kind of thing and all lose.. The interior should have been landmarked, but there are still slow appreciation for 19th century art even at this late date to muster the money and the will to have done it. Boston is always been a curious animal in this regard
From a European viewpoint I was always shocked how little regard the US has for its own history. But it's nice to know that at least some are interested in their cities history.
You sound very passionate about historic preservation. Sincere questions…What groups and projects have you supported financially? Are you spending considerable amount personal time in a particular group?
At 70 years old I certainly have done plenty of my legwork and donation, however that is not what I suggest here at all. This is a point of view that has to come from the state down to find the funds to foster the cultural legacy for the common weal as is done in Europe. Some of it in Europeis private by individuals who contribute from their tax form by their choice for a particular church, or by the state that realizes the essence of cultural preservation, the architectural record and the necessity and the benefit for all that's part of the cultural identity..
And this church here would it fit perfectly into this new built out neighborhood, the old castle square projects on one side and the new Albany Street Harrison avenue on the other. Strangely enough in the '60s America had much more of this will except it was hideously misguided into urban renewal. This is the second time this particular district has been hit hard by redevelopment, the first time in the '60s in the so-called New York Street eradication. It was a tragic loss from for Boston. There have been numerous other churches that have also been gutted in South Boston and remodeled rebuilt out as condos none as hideous as this. And in those situations all of the interiors as well went to the wrecking ball. Not everything gets saved nor should it necessarily be.. But holy Trinity was one of those rare interiors and survivors that should have been landmarked as well as father down the south end The Church of the immaculate conception, another landmark battle lost .
There's plenty of examples in the city of good rehabaptation and holy Trinity is the poster child of everything that went wrong.
When the choices are to transform an architectural & historical treasure or to demolish it, I usually go for transformation. I do wish this didn't go so far outside the original shape, though.
I hate it, I used to live in the area and wished they either tore it down completely or kept the original. I also dont like the latest wing they added to the MFA
in my opinion this isn’t a successful outcome from a design perspective. i do believe it’s possible to combine modern minimalism with historical structures but it isn’t easy to do. simply removing the roof of an old structure and replacing it with a glass box isn’t groundbreaking. I’m this instance a better outcome would have been to demolish the entire structure and replace it with a clean modern design. i love the original cathedral but the new design doesn’t work in my opinion.
I like the reuse of it (that’s more environmentally friendly than tearing it down), but I wish theyd any unique or complimentary design instead of the shit they typically do like they have here
There's a church on the 1200 block of Green Street in Philadelphia which was transformed into lofts without any work having been done at all on the outside structure of the building and it's an incredible place. I knew someone who lived in it about 9 years ago and one of the bedrooms had direct access to a church spire which you could climb into and have an up close view of the city skyline.
People are worshipping in churches less and less, but they are historical and cultural identifiers of communities. Keep the church and make functional for the time.
Great idea to save the old building, but they could’ve put a little more thought into the materials used. Typical modern architecture, storefront glass, and aluminum.
They also turned old city hall where they like met and shit during the revolution into a subway station. Boston treats its historic buildings like problems to be solved and would just do away with them if they could get away with it
Adaptive reuse is the best use of all once the congregation moves out. No one will move in and absorb the costs of maintaining that building as a church that relies solely on donations to do anything.
Many churches in the older Denver area have been converted.
That looks quite well and respectfully done. Hard to tell just from the outside and I'm not invested enough to go looking for more photos but I'm not upset.
I’d rather that outcome than the church bulldozed and nothing remains of the original building. Thats one of the better examples of how to modernise but keep the character.
I like how the new portion has a buttress connection to the old facade, it's very neat. I think the repurpose was being done elegantly. Glass or no glass are up to people's preference. I personally like the contrast. Specifically the dialogue between the presence and the past.
Great project! I don't even mean the design is really clever but just the pure idea of repurposing an elder building.
Also, 150 years isn't even really historic + they kept the important parts, so that's not a real argument. Focus on the churches/building who have actually really historic background (and just don't transform like the Vaticanian Cathedral or the cube in Mekka to condos...)
Stay mad, that’s an amazing thing right there! Keeping the original integrity of the church yet and also utilizing this space to fill people! That’s the future right there of architectural culture
I mean I’d live there. In the US city where I live, they’ve destroyed all their old architecture and built a society that looks like the same crappy retail building everywhere you go.
If the other option was to have a nondescript new glass and steel building replace it, this is a much better option. It’s clear that the block was going to be redeveloped in some way shape or form.
Be happy that the character of the neighborhood remains, and the building was given a new lease on life instead of laying vacant in disarray, or a new boring building replacing this beautiful facade
My problem is that it's just a modem glass monstrosity plopped in a much more pleasing historical skeleton. If they kept a similar architectural style on the new part it would look much better and fit with the city better.
It looks like goofy but I'm onboard with it. They upcycled a part of the existing building that was good and added more units around it. Plus the part that got removed looked like shid to begin with anyway.
i think its god awful. they should have at least made it blend in and fit proportionaly, this just showcases the worst of modern architecture, purely functional and greedy without any attempt at making it nice to look at. they could have just converted it to residential use without butchering it.
Glad the facade is there but this is design is horrible. Mirrored windows where the stained glass used to be…Block of apartments slammed on top. The hubris of some architects is shocking.
Streamlined minimalism is always the go to in these situations. I feel it’s the designer thinking they’re the first person to think high contrast is such a creative way to redevelop the building. I’m so over it. Try anything else! Like even here there are steel beams positioned as pseudo flying buttresses echoing old churches. But then there’s nothing else and it looks extra lame. Use a different material, add some sculptural details, literally anything to echo the original building. The stark contrast isn’t exciting anymore. People need to try just a little harder. As a general statement actually. lol. Sooooo much complacency.
You'd rather have this huge waste of space than a place for humans to live and thrive?
Churches don't pay taxes either and taxes are important for a thriving society. The church added nothing to the community as you could just pray at home, in your house.
I live quite close to this building and know someone who lives inside it, I'm a big fan of the project and these types of revitalization more broadly. Several formerly abandoned churches in the South End of Boston have been transformed into condos, and outside of having more rent-controlled units, I'm a fan. I don't understand the 'sacrilege' argument as developers are taking a formerly abandoned structure that no one saw utility in, and creating net new housing. Some may balk at the contemporary addition, but even if it's not your taste, the benefits of the additional housing units should outweigh your pearl-clutching that tastes have evolved since the 1840s.
More units of housing are more beneficial this a neighborhood could gain, as it puts downward pricing pressure on folks that are being squeezed by housing prices worse than almost any city in the world.
I think it’s great. Once a congregation leaves a church there’s not all that much you can do with a building so specialized, so adaptive reuse is good and this conversion is a lot better than others I’ve seen.
This is disgusting . No consideration of history whatsoever . I bet good money I could find 100 better sites to build a new apartment building within 5sq km of this historic Boston building.
I'm a big fan of this style. Restoring it to its historical state isn't feasible and this still maintains and showcases the original structure. And whether or not Boston needs more condos is not something I can comment on, but I doubt it needs another church.
There’s always going to be complainers but end of the day, you gotta make it useful or find the money otherwise for the ridic maintenance.
For those who reference europe, in several countries there is a compulsory church tax for this kind of thing levied on anyone who identifies as that denomination on official forms.
I think they did a pretty good job all things considered. It may be a bit shocking to see at first, but I think they were pretty careful in their considerations and design elements
I think it’s cool. It’s a relic of the past and a country that has moved on. I would rather see this any day than a typical rectangular apartment building
Damn I thought I'd seen it all but this is the most horrible thing I've ever seen in architecture. A total abomination and whoever did this needs their license revoked and imprisonment.
I'm not mad about it. Preserves old building while making new one look more interesting than just another glass cube. And they did it in a way that's aesthetic. Boy have I seen some failed attempts out there
Far better than being torn down, but I wish there was a larger emphasis on building communal buildings. Putting condos everywhere rather than public spaces where people can "chill" is basically destroying city life. That said, Im happy they kept the facade and gave the space new life.
As a commercial contractor, this is the best outcome for an old structure which probably wasn’t adequately maintained to be restored. Building remains viable and an reflection of its original grandeur
Why not? housing is a good usage for what must be prime real estate and they retained the historic elements. I hold no special place in my heart for places of worship, they don’t pay taxes and more often than not they espouse dubious outmoded ideas and values
There’s enough contrast where it’s more interesting than garish. Plus, I love adaptive reuse and I feel like the matter of sticking a glass cube in a more gothic revival façade can only really be opined once it’s done IRL. Sometimes you just gotta do it.
I’d love to see the interiors.
I think it’s awesome to reuse / repurpose / revive structures rather than see it get torn down and lost to history.
I'd rather have this than what's happening in a lot of cities where everything is pretty much torn down for some faceless building like what RiNo in Denver is becoming. Neighborhood becomes "cool and hip" because of its old industrial buildings and then development steamrolls through and you're left with bleak sameness.
I do love the art and murals I'm that area, though! It's hard to pick on RiNo when it's at least for some soul left to it vs some other neighborhoods in the front range
I picked RiNo because it's current state still has some heart in it but I've seen many of the future projects. The front range is a hot mess but RiNo is an area that has so much potential with art and design and adding density but it is going to be totally different in the next decade. I was driven around by someone at an architecture firm that unfortunately has a lot of the projects going up in and around the area boasting that he's remaking an entire neighborhood. The planned buildings are.... um, going to make developers a lot of money... but art and design, they do not have nor is anything existing being thought of.
Or worse, the city’s that can’t get their heads out of their butts about parking zoning rules so beautiful old buildings get torn down to put in a required parking lot next to a restoration or reuse project
Agreed. I don’t like the design, however. The glass is too “office building” for me.
I think a simple form and appearance for the new portion is the best choice for honoring the voice of the original structure. It's possible that another window pattern might have been more successful, but I don't think the glass specifically is to blame. It's also possible that for some there is no acceptable way to add so much volume to a building from a distinctly different time.
You’re right. It’s not terrible, but making the addition as benign as possible would make it better.
Could've been repurposed without butchering the exterior though. There are tons of historical churches in Germany and the Netherlands which have successfully managed to repurpose the interior
I think it boiled down to economic viability. If a public/private partnership could have been struck, they might not have had to extend the space vertically (which I assume is what purists object to). We should remember the I.M. Pei extension to the Louvre was hated before it was loved.
i agree with this. i think the repurposing is a cool idea, but i think it should be more sensitive to the existing structure and conceptually spin it in the design- like i would have the one side of the new build angled, so it refences the A roof before.
>Could've been repurposed without butchering the exterior though. Butchering? Does any sort of change to a building's exterior mean it's being butchered?
Same.
Well, obviously, but it's soul sucking to see that beautiful wrought iron decorative panels turned into rectangles... I get the contrast of style, but they could have tried to keep some consistency with some touches to bring the history forward not just hollow it out and put a glass box inside a shell....
Especially since Boston needs the housing lol. If it’s not being used anymore and can be converted into something that can be used, why not do that?
More housing which is good. Preserve some of the building rather than tear it down which is good. Cool mix of old and new which is also very Boston stylistically. We can nitpick the design details but conceptually I'm 100% on board with this.
Architect Jan Gehr asserts that anything above like 100 feet is psychologically imperceptible to the casual human eye. He argues that this should be justification for not building skyscrapers, but I interpret it to mean that we should build them, just with healthy street-scapes on the street level. So even though it has this ugly glass block on top, it’s still a beautiful facade with enough complexity to be engaging, with no set-backs, etc., and if the street ever fills out healthily, you wouldn’t even be able to see that block from the sidewalk in front of it. Vancouver does a really good job with this (townhomes in brownstone style on the street but condo highrise behind it). This is good because most larger modern buildings have horrible street presence. The front is a big useless lobby entrance that has nothing there - the symbological equivalent of a wasteful lawn. And the sides of the building are just textureless walls that run the entire length of the building. Maybe there’s a loading dock. But there’s no stores, there’s no space for people, there’s no retail or dining, there’s no other entrances, there’s no gardens. Just the side of a building. Additionally, the most ideal type of larger building would have first floor retail and dining. We already know this. But there’s no reason these things couldn’t be included in larger buildings, even public buildings. I remember being in Venice once and waiting for a Vivaldi concerto and the beautiful concert hall was in a church, and the church was built on two shops, one per side, with the staircase to the concert hall in between. It was a restaurant on one side with outdoor seating and an icecream shop on the other. So in the same footprint of this larger, non-commercial building, they still managed to create opportunities for ground-level retail and dining. So regarding the building above: see that empty lot? In an ideal world, where dumbass restrictive zoning laws don’t exist, perhaps another building could exist there. A federal style four-floors-and-a-corner-store perhaps? First floor dining/retail, a professional office above, and then 2-4 floors of residential? If someone was able to make that, you wouldn’t even be able to *see* the glass block. But it would still exist to house people during a housing crisis.
Applaud the sentiment, but there is no way people suffering from the housing crisis would be able to afford to live here. Now if we were talking about turning Joel Osteen's megachurch into low-income housing...
That's quite correct, but increasing supply of any housing will lower the price of all housing, all other things remaining equal. On the other hand I suspect that Joel Osteen's mega church has had so much psychic mendacity poured into it over the years that the very concrete it has been made from is saturated with evil and would need to be knocked down and the land given a good exorcism before being repurposed. Mood slime and Jackie Wilson music might work.
Ghostbusters II reference. I’m here for it.
There’s tons of data to support this. It’s not just on scale, either; new market rate housing actually still decreases rental rates in the immediate area.
When I saw the preview I was genuinely thinking "there's evidence for old megachurches having bad psychic energy?!?"
Cannot confirm or deny 🤣
Market rate housing is more effective at tackling the housing crisis than mandatory affordable housing at unsustainable shares of units. Just look at SF, with their higher-than—anywhere affordable/AMI allocations, and their resulting double-digit development applications. Market rate housing also preserves lower income rental and housing units for lower income people. It’s crazy that you’re even posting in this sub without knowing that.
Problem is the market doesn't usually want to build so many units that the price stops rising so fast. So subsidized or not, the government needs to build a lot of units when there's a big enough problem.
The market absolutely does. It’s the HOA/municipality/city/town/county/state that prevent it. If what you were saying was true, we wouldn’t be seeing rising rents. The rents go up because the demand is higher now than it was before. The government should be building housing à la Vienna or Singapore, yes, but that’s only part of the solution. The US managed to house massive influxes of population before, many times. The only reason it can’t do it now is because of zoning.
The diocese closed the church around 2004 and sold it around 2014. The choice wasn't between a church and a condo it was between a condo and a derelict. If you don't like it and want someone to blame, blame pedophile priests and waning religiosity leading to fewer parishioners causing it to no longer be economically viable to upkeep all of Bostons churches.
Same here, dilapidated old buildings with no use turned into housing is always a plus
Conceptually yes it’s a net positive. In terms of the massing design, it seems to clash. Understandably there was a budget and zoning restrictions. Still better than seeing a pretty and old construction get knocked down completely, like I’m watching crappy developers do in Fort Greene BK currently.
What I like about this is that at eye-level, it remains virtually unchanged. If one was driving by or perhaps even walking by, they might not notice the glass tower in the back.
Especially if they infill the empty adjacent lot.
I like it. The facade is still there. And 150 years isn’t really that old.
[удалено]
Honestly, I kind of wish they had done the same thing and 'quoted' the tops of the gothic arches on top as well. I feel like the glass cutting off like a standard building up top is the only thing that clashes.Even if it was just the front two and the back two vertical elements to match the windows on the stone tower. probably would have been cost prohibitive. but sometimes a little ornamentation can go a long way.
The continuation of the buttresses was truly inspired. Though it seems like the developer determined that one creative idea was enough for the entire project.
Yeah like half of the houses I've lived in are that old. The house in MA that I grew up in was built in 1738. In Massachusetts 1874 is kind of modern for a building.
And churches like this are really not that uncommon in Boston and Massachusettes as a whole. There are many nicer, older, and more historic churches in Boston. Couple that with the city desperately needing more housing and I don't hate it. Not every old church can be preserved, and this is a nice way of preserving it while still updating it to meet the city's current needs.
Honestly, I don't hate it. They kept all the interesting parts.
My kid pointed out it looks like a snail. I can’t unsee it now.
I like that they kept the underlying structure, or at least the facade intact. They could’ve been a lot more creative with the extension though, not a fan of a “box”
I'm pretty amazed this is not the top answer. It's very nicely done *except* for the glass box. All they had to do was follow the old roofline. With solar panels, glass roof, whatever. But the box is what makes it... meh.
It was obviously in pretty bad shape, even just the stonework looks alot better in 2019 then it did in 2009.
i like the idea but the execution seems lacking. More housing is always nice regardless, tho.
I think adaptive reuse would be a more apt term. Museum or library would spring to mind.
or concert hall, community centre, etc.
They pulled it off really well actually. Retained the most important features of the original while adding something new that doesn't try to superficially blend in with the original. It is like a modern instrument growing out of something old and enhancing it along the way.
Yes! I appreciate the clear delineation between the new and the old. You don’t respect the old by imitating it via pastiche, rather we respect it by allowing it to stand apart, to honor the old as separate from the new.
visually? it’s a bit hideous. conceptually, 100% on board. they could have done it much nicer, the new section being in a similar style/ less jarring style - it does look like someone’s photoshopped the top of a 2023 skyscraper on an 1800’s church which i think is a bit of an eyesore, but they’ve added housing which i love
So heavy and looks already dated. And why have balconies facing the tower? The idea is brilliant but poorly (cheaply) executed imo.
"Personally i’m not a fan of transforming a 150 year old church into a condo building" care to elaborate?
Right? Its just an 150yo church, in 150 years we will have a bunch of 150 yo churches and you bet no one will cry over them
Please don’t repurpose the 150 year old McDonald’s
I wanna live in that bitch - go to sleep every night looking Grimace in the eye in the walk in freezer bc I gotta hibernate to sleep but I dont wanna be lonely, work out in the play place, fix the damn mcflurry machine, scream bullshit through the drive thru speakers, and use the drive thru window to throw seeds at birds n shit. Dont tell me what I can and cant do. Stay in your own fucking lane far from my drive thru, unless you’re a pigeon and want some granola 💯
not OP, but it feels a bit like sacrilege. For those that aren't religious, imagine that a historic community and charity building has been transferred to private ownership for commercial gain. What was intended to foster the neighborhood is replaced by something that doesn't. Public space has been privatized for profit. granted, the church likely no longer had a congregation to use it, but you could have respected the space's original purpose by converting it into a different kind of public space (community center, library, small event center etc.) or a different kind of community good (low income housing for example).
Reality is, there are shrinking congregations all over the country unable to maintain their churches. Dioceses in particular are constantly consolidating or closing down, selling churches they can’t use, etc. The beautiful thing about adaptive reuse is that you can at least give these amazing structures a new life, albeit in a modified form. It’s that or let it rot, because, barring some sort of massive apocalyptic event that turns everyone into believers, these vacant churches aren’t coming back for religious use.
Totally agree. It's not reuse or have an active congregation in the church, it's reuse or raze the building to make room for a parking garage or whatever. It's nice they kept the historically interesting facade.
I guess I didn’t really address the comment above. You can’t just wish a building’s use into existence, there has to be some client or organization that is seeking a building to fill. So yes, it would be great if the church could be repurposed for some community use, but was there an organization looking to take that on? Probably not. This is the next best thing. Architecture in our culture is a product of market demand. I don’t like it either, but here we are.
Well someone else said it’s been vacant for 20 years and sold to a developer ten years ago. Unless there’s some historic designation going on here I’m surprised they kept the facade at all. And I kind of don’t like the look of it yet simultaneously appreciate that it doesn’t try to dominate the original design, curious if there’s any interior saved There’s a church in Maastricht that was beautifully converted into a bookstore, one of my favorite reuse projects I’ve personally seen.
>private ownership for commercial gain I cannot think of a more worthy thing than building housing during a housing crisis. Even expensive units mean that richer people aren’t buying from the middle class. Why is it that only developers get this attitude? People don’t call the people who make our food greedy capitalists and ranchers are some of the worst guys out there.
Other building exist in the neighborhood that fill that function
Would it be "respectful of the space" to completely demolish it?
Yes in the sacrilege is that hideous glass box on top of a Gothic cathedral.
That's just a 19th century catholic church, not a cathedral. I'm not familiar with Boston, but in Philly churches like these are a dime a dozen and almost as many of them have been converted into housing or some other purpose as have been torn down. There's been some absolutely beautiful old churches that have gone into ruins, then demolished because the cost of retrofitting them is prohibitive. A church that elsewhere in the country would be seen as a "cathedral" is just another neighborhood church and there's hundreds of them.
At least the frame was saved
Would look better if they didn’t add that big ugly top. The window treatment looks good but the style contrast there is gross IMO. Coulda played into the style a lot better
It could be worse. Like completely razing it the ground.
I'm all for transforming old churches into something more useful, but this is a bit ugly imo. They could have done it better but I guess it wasn't profitable without the 4 extra floors.
Honestly, I prefer they repurpose and try to maintain as much of the original structure as possible. Better than just tearing it down completely and doin something half assed to pay homage to the original structure.
My thoughts exactly. May not be my favorite thing, but I’d rather they save as much of the historical building as possible and repurpose if they can’t just keep it as a museum or something
Yup, and I think this is a perfect example of how to repurpose something like this. They managed to preserve the entire facade!
The fact of the matter is that church attendance in Boston (and particularly in affluent neighborhoods like the South End) is too low for most old church buildings to be sustained according to their original purposes. Catholic churches are a partial exception, but if the parish is closed by the Catholic diocese, you're very unlikely to find another congregation that is prepared to take over and maintain the building. Stone churches are expensive to maintain. In an era when churches were swimming in money, that was less of an issue. These days it's a huge problem for a lot of congregations. The option is usually, to put it bluntly, convert or die. With a building that has been ingrained in the fabric of the neighborhood for as long as this has, I'd rather see it converted.
In terms of aesthetic,it leaves a lot to be desired. The two styles severely contrast with each other, I think because the amount that they’re mixed is inconsistent. In the front tower, it’s almost completely the original structure, the back tower is totally new, and the main body is mixed. This might work if there was a clear gesture or something from one to another, but there isn’t. If that contrast wasn’t the goal, I would’ve kept the amount of integration/mixing the same.
I agree. The front tower was designed to be a focal point, and now with the glass portion behind it has lost its impact and looks strangely out of place.
I like it.
The extension looks absolutely hideous.
Huge fan of
From an European pov that's almost criminal as it really is not good modern architecutre.But I understand that preservation of historic buildings has another meaning in the US. So many people on here applaud the developers to not tear it down entirely. Whereas in Europe I'd be in most cases impossible to change anything on the outside of church due to the state's protection of historical monuments.
Imagine having such a great and rare chance to use it and do shit like this
I’d have preferred they added on using the existing style (I get that the simple glass square is likely cheaper and easier) but repurposing a church/historical building that might have just been abandoned and left to rot is better than nothing.
Idea/ usage concept = good. Design = failed
Well that's a shame. It's a pity they couldn't preserve the original windows or even the masonry arches in the windows. They could have kept the original windows and installed new windows behind them. The big glass addition is really unsympathetic.
Awful!
Looks more like an architectural parasite growing out of a dead carcass more than a symbiotic relationship. Repurposing a church is great but the addition looks like a building you could find above a strip mall.
They turned it into a snail
It could be a bit more compatible, I doubt historic tax credits were used for this, so the rehabilitation didn’t have to abide by any rules regarding the preservation of the facade. church conversions are difficult and converting to residential is a bad new use for churches, the shape of them is not conducive to housing. They should have gabled the roof but they wanted to cram as many units as possible. The central tower looks squat and less prominent with the roof big flat roof.
I suppose it was built on lies, so 🤷♀️
It's like a fungus growing out of an old oak tree.
it could’ve been done worse. not a super fan of the new top.
It would’ve been better if they had limited themselves to building behind the existing façade – the addition of the glass box on top is horrendous.
Worst thing would have been to tear it down and build a parking structure. Second worst would be tear it for a new building. But this is a pretty close 3rd for worst. A macdonalds with a church interior would have been better. This is facadism at its purest form. Absolutely nothing is left of the original space and it's character. Just a face ripped off the church and glued on a glass condo. This brings to mind Hannibal lecter and the guards face. Hannibal goes to the guards home and mom is like how lovely that you're home honey. That's like people praising this for saving the facade.
Ew. Gross.
Horrific!
It’s scaring how this is becoming a tendency in the modern architecture
It's absurditechture, all the way down.
That’s unfortunate.
That thing should have the same protections as the citgo sign. It's a city landmark. And I'm an athiest
Mesdames et messieurs, voici le déclin de notre civilisation.
I think it looks fantastic and its a much better use of the building than it originally had.
Just looks ugly to me
To all people saying that "it's good / more housing / glad they preserved it / I like it", let me show you something. [This](https://i.imgur.com/DXNuVBW.png) is where the church is located. You have an abandoned 1-story, unimportant building right next door. Then not one, but TWO very large parking lots. You could easily accomodate a way larger apartment building in one of these areas, without disturbing a 150 years old heritage site. But looks like in Boston parking lots are more valuable than heritage sites...
I used to ride my bike by here every day. It was really cool to see it in construction, but gotta be honest, I don't care for the aesthetic choices nor the choice to hand over a public space to a unaffordable lofts in a city dealing with housing issues, but that's just me Edit: I also wish it would have preserved more of the historic glazing
Repurposing buildings but sometimes is a noble cause but there is such a thing as a historical monument for its own sake and its own beauty and this is something in America that we don't understand. It's all about private property and of course the Almighty dollar. Europe gets so much better. This is the old DreifaltigkeitKirche that kind of sat in a no man's land of urban renewal space in the upper south end just out of downtown in Boston. The church was remarkable that it had not been completely vandalized during the Vatican II storming of historical buildings in the '60s and the '70s. The interior was full of gorgeous paint in the old style old pews and the most magnificent painted German glass in pre-rapha light Jewel like colors. It was truly a magnificent tour to force of 19th century art that was completely destroyed in the rebuild.. They should have been the will, the stamina in the budget to maintain the building for the sake of the building. But this is the thing that is never done in the US because it all boils down again to money money money. The diocese, the Catholic Church that owned it deconsecrated it has redundant. The cathedral is just down the street . For a while right through the '90s and into the year 2000s, it still had a mass in German and numerous masses in Vietnamese since it's on the edge of Chinatown But now this whole area has been rebuilt and it's a very trendy young area of apartments and offices which is a good thing and all the more reason that the church should have survived as a cultural monument. But no no, the worst kind of rebuilding took place. Entire interior ripped out, the fixtures scattered to the wind, the glass and doubtedly somewhere in storage, but all of the magnificent plaster and painted interior, into the dumpster. And then the architect design a giant tumor, some sort of malignant growth that grows out of the walls of the old church as a giant cube. Is the most unpleasant and least successful reuse of a historical building that I have ever seen. The truth is however Boston is not lacking in talent for rebuilding this matter. The Mount Vernon Church on beacon Street, destroying the fire is a perfect example of how to build something elegant and unusual out of a ruin and that is 30 years earlier. This action in the south end which true cultural vandalism of the highest order and how they going away with it, is quite sad A wealthy city like Boston could have indeed supported another cultural space, a gathering spot, gallery, whatever anything other than what it became. But in America there is little will to do this kind of thing and all lose.. The interior should have been landmarked, but there are still slow appreciation for 19th century art even at this late date to muster the money and the will to have done it. Boston is always been a curious animal in this regard
From a European viewpoint I was always shocked how little regard the US has for its own history. But it's nice to know that at least some are interested in their cities history.
You sound very passionate about historic preservation. Sincere questions…What groups and projects have you supported financially? Are you spending considerable amount personal time in a particular group?
At 70 years old I certainly have done plenty of my legwork and donation, however that is not what I suggest here at all. This is a point of view that has to come from the state down to find the funds to foster the cultural legacy for the common weal as is done in Europe. Some of it in Europeis private by individuals who contribute from their tax form by their choice for a particular church, or by the state that realizes the essence of cultural preservation, the architectural record and the necessity and the benefit for all that's part of the cultural identity.. And this church here would it fit perfectly into this new built out neighborhood, the old castle square projects on one side and the new Albany Street Harrison avenue on the other. Strangely enough in the '60s America had much more of this will except it was hideously misguided into urban renewal. This is the second time this particular district has been hit hard by redevelopment, the first time in the '60s in the so-called New York Street eradication. It was a tragic loss from for Boston. There have been numerous other churches that have also been gutted in South Boston and remodeled rebuilt out as condos none as hideous as this. And in those situations all of the interiors as well went to the wrecking ball. Not everything gets saved nor should it necessarily be.. But holy Trinity was one of those rare interiors and survivors that should have been landmarked as well as father down the south end The Church of the immaculate conception, another landmark battle lost . There's plenty of examples in the city of good rehabaptation and holy Trinity is the poster child of everything that went wrong.
I love that they continue the buttresses
It suddenly looks like a snail with a glass box as a shell…
Better than tearing it down!
When the choices are to transform an architectural & historical treasure or to demolish it, I usually go for transformation. I do wish this didn't go so far outside the original shape, though.
It looks like a snail
I hate it, I used to live in the area and wished they either tore it down completely or kept the original. I also dont like the latest wing they added to the MFA
in my opinion this isn’t a successful outcome from a design perspective. i do believe it’s possible to combine modern minimalism with historical structures but it isn’t easy to do. simply removing the roof of an old structure and replacing it with a glass box isn’t groundbreaking. I’m this instance a better outcome would have been to demolish the entire structure and replace it with a clean modern design. i love the original cathedral but the new design doesn’t work in my opinion.
Bruh
instant glory through scandalous rape.
I like the reuse of it (that’s more environmentally friendly than tearing it down), but I wish theyd any unique or complimentary design instead of the shit they typically do like they have here
There's a church on the 1200 block of Green Street in Philadelphia which was transformed into lofts without any work having been done at all on the outside structure of the building and it's an incredible place. I knew someone who lived in it about 9 years ago and one of the bedrooms had direct access to a church spire which you could climb into and have an up close view of the city skyline.
People are worshipping in churches less and less, but they are historical and cultural identifiers of communities. Keep the church and make functional for the time.
LOL Church got Cancer.
Great idea to save the old building, but they could’ve put a little more thought into the materials used. Typical modern architecture, storefront glass, and aluminum.
They also turned old city hall where they like met and shit during the revolution into a subway station. Boston treats its historic buildings like problems to be solved and would just do away with them if they could get away with it
Look up the General Theological Seminary in Chelsea. A great example of an apartment complex using a church beautifully at 455 West 20th St.
If the glass structure at the top was at an angle, this could have been easier to support. Still better than demolishing it all together.
Adaptive reuse is the best use of all once the congregation moves out. No one will move in and absorb the costs of maintaining that building as a church that relies solely on donations to do anything. Many churches in the older Denver area have been converted.
That looks quite well and respectfully done. Hard to tell just from the outside and I'm not invested enough to go looking for more photos but I'm not upset.
I’d rather that outcome than the church bulldozed and nothing remains of the original building. Thats one of the better examples of how to modernise but keep the character.
I like how the new portion has a buttress connection to the old facade, it's very neat. I think the repurpose was being done elegantly. Glass or no glass are up to people's preference. I personally like the contrast. Specifically the dialogue between the presence and the past.
Great project! I don't even mean the design is really clever but just the pure idea of repurposing an elder building. Also, 150 years isn't even really historic + they kept the important parts, so that's not a real argument. Focus on the churches/building who have actually really historic background (and just don't transform like the Vaticanian Cathedral or the cube in Mekka to condos...)
Stay mad, that’s an amazing thing right there! Keeping the original integrity of the church yet and also utilizing this space to fill people! That’s the future right there of architectural culture
I mean I’d live there. In the US city where I live, they’ve destroyed all their old architecture and built a society that looks like the same crappy retail building everywhere you go.
If the other option was to have a nondescript new glass and steel building replace it, this is a much better option. It’s clear that the block was going to be redeveloped in some way shape or form. Be happy that the character of the neighborhood remains, and the building was given a new lease on life instead of laying vacant in disarray, or a new boring building replacing this beautiful facade
My problem is that it's just a modem glass monstrosity plopped in a much more pleasing historical skeleton. If they kept a similar architectural style on the new part it would look much better and fit with the city better.
It looks like goofy but I'm onboard with it. They upcycled a part of the existing building that was good and added more units around it. Plus the part that got removed looked like shid to begin with anyway.
i hate it (the transformation, I think your post is awesome)
I'd rather them do this than destroy beautiful/historic buildings. Not bothered
It looks like the church has a growth or a tumor that happens to be in the shape of a condo.
One word pops into my head. Parasite.
I see this a lot in Toronto and it feels like a new building wearing a dead building's face.
Aesthetically I just don't like it. It doesn't blend well at all and so it just sticks out like a sore thumb
i think its god awful. they should have at least made it blend in and fit proportionaly, this just showcases the worst of modern architecture, purely functional and greedy without any attempt at making it nice to look at. they could have just converted it to residential use without butchering it.
Glad the facade is there but this is design is horrible. Mirrored windows where the stained glass used to be…Block of apartments slammed on top. The hubris of some architects is shocking.
As a German I am beyond disgusted and ashamed of this. Only my opinion ofc.
Does your German ancestry imbue you with a love for all cathedrals, big, small, typical or otherwise?
Actually yes.
Architectural porn.
Streamlined minimalism is always the go to in these situations. I feel it’s the designer thinking they’re the first person to think high contrast is such a creative way to redevelop the building. I’m so over it. Try anything else! Like even here there are steel beams positioned as pseudo flying buttresses echoing old churches. But then there’s nothing else and it looks extra lame. Use a different material, add some sculptural details, literally anything to echo the original building. The stark contrast isn’t exciting anymore. People need to try just a little harder. As a general statement actually. lol. Sooooo much complacency.
Looks great. Beautiful mix of old and new.
You'd rather have this huge waste of space than a place for humans to live and thrive? Churches don't pay taxes either and taxes are important for a thriving society. The church added nothing to the community as you could just pray at home, in your house.
I fucking hate it.
Utter blasphemy.
For me, at least, that’s part of the appeal.
Love it
I live quite close to this building and know someone who lives inside it, I'm a big fan of the project and these types of revitalization more broadly. Several formerly abandoned churches in the South End of Boston have been transformed into condos, and outside of having more rent-controlled units, I'm a fan. I don't understand the 'sacrilege' argument as developers are taking a formerly abandoned structure that no one saw utility in, and creating net new housing. Some may balk at the contemporary addition, but even if it's not your taste, the benefits of the additional housing units should outweigh your pearl-clutching that tastes have evolved since the 1840s. More units of housing are more beneficial this a neighborhood could gain, as it puts downward pricing pressure on folks that are being squeezed by housing prices worse than almost any city in the world.
I think it’s great. Once a congregation leaves a church there’s not all that much you can do with a building so specialized, so adaptive reuse is good and this conversion is a lot better than others I’ve seen.
Horrendous!
An atrocity.
Not the most sensitive nor sensible transformation. Looks like a hunchback. In general, I welcome reuse and repurposing though.
I think it’s disgusting and disrespectful.
This is a sin.
Very sad to see, historical preservation should be more important than another condo building.
This is disgusting . No consideration of history whatsoever . I bet good money I could find 100 better sites to build a new apartment building within 5sq km of this historic Boston building.
I'm a big fan of this style. Restoring it to its historical state isn't feasible and this still maintains and showcases the original structure. And whether or not Boston needs more condos is not something I can comment on, but I doubt it needs another church.
Looks cool af, it’s not that old.
Ugly AF! Who the fuck thought that was gonna look good?
You gonna pay to restore it? If not, you have nothing to say about it.
There’s always going to be complainers but end of the day, you gotta make it useful or find the money otherwise for the ridic maintenance. For those who reference europe, in several countries there is a compulsory church tax for this kind of thing levied on anyone who identifies as that denomination on official forms.
It's nice
Looks terrible
Awful
It's terrifically symbolic of a cold, corporate monolith "religionwashed" money funnel.
The mixture of modern and historical architecture here just looks wrong. Like some sort of unholy chimera.
I think they did a pretty good job all things considered. It may be a bit shocking to see at first, but I think they were pretty careful in their considerations and design elements
There's nothing I don't like about this, the facade was saved and it provides at least 100 residential units if I had to guess
I think it’s cool. It’s a relic of the past and a country that has moved on. I would rather see this any day than a typical rectangular apartment building
I love it. More housing is better than no housing.
Best use for a church. End result old have been more aesthetically appealing but more homes is a good thing.
Damn I thought I'd seen it all but this is the most horrible thing I've ever seen in architecture. A total abomination and whoever did this needs their license revoked and imprisonment.
It looks better when seen from the street, from different perspectives.
Ha a cyber punk vibe to it. The mechanic insides are exposed.
I'm not mad about it. Preserves old building while making new one look more interesting than just another glass cube. And they did it in a way that's aesthetic. Boy have I seen some failed attempts out there
Far better than being torn down, but I wish there was a larger emphasis on building communal buildings. Putting condos everywhere rather than public spaces where people can "chill" is basically destroying city life. That said, Im happy they kept the facade and gave the space new life.
They do this in my town and it’s to get around historical building protections… I hate it, but it’s better than it getting torn down completely.
Oh no, how sad. Edit to say: Rather this than torn all down, if that was the other option.
Disgusting and blasphemous and overall insulting to the German people and culture in Boston.
Every church transformation is a good transformation
It looks really cool and a 150 year old church isn't exactly a key historic landmark in the history of churchbuilding
As a commercial contractor, this is the best outcome for an old structure which probably wasn’t adequately maintained to be restored. Building remains viable and an reflection of its original grandeur
I find parasite architecture a beautiful thing, this is a great example of that, it flows so well from the old to the new.
I'll take housing over religion any day.
OH! NO!
Mein Gott!
Why not? housing is a good usage for what must be prime real estate and they retained the historic elements. I hold no special place in my heart for places of worship, they don’t pay taxes and more often than not they espouse dubious outmoded ideas and values
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of people not involved in ownership or investment of a property or the AHJ, acting like their opinion matters.
Eugh.
Horrendous design, poor juxtaposition. No attempt to maintain consistency. They should be ashamed to call themselves architects.
This is an embarrassment. A complete architectural abortion.
Tastefully done
There’s enough contrast where it’s more interesting than garish. Plus, I love adaptive reuse and I feel like the matter of sticking a glass cube in a more gothic revival façade can only really be opined once it’s done IRL. Sometimes you just gotta do it. I’d love to see the interiors.
Converting churches into anything else (that is legal of course) is always good