Take a look at this photo:
This is 862 Beacon Street, currently a Boston University dormitory, and revered on message boards like “Ugly Boston” for its… flavorful design.
Now check out this picture:
This is 461-459 Park Drive, not too far from 862 Beacon. It’s another legacy brick residential building with a newer (and thankfully in this case, nicer) addition on the left side. It does a much better job respecting architectural history while adding square footage.
Considering the stylistic contrast between these buildings only one block apart, I wanted to know exactly when 459 and 862 got their additions. Are they products of the same period of housing expansion? Or did shoddy work on 862 lead to more restrictive building approval by the time 459 got its makeover?
Let’s start with 459 Park Drive.
The earliest Google street view shows that the 459 addition still existed in 2007, but was very run-down:
I did some more digging and found that the property was bought by Pine Street Inn, local housing non-profit, in 2006. It was purchased at the start of their long-term housing program, supplementing their homelessness support services. This picture is likely the beginning of their renovation stage.
But it doesn’t answer my question of when the left side of the property was added.
According to the Boston Fire Historical Society, 461-459 Park Drive was the site of a major fire in 2002. The way I saw it, the addition existed prior to 2002, and the damage we see in 2007 is a result of the previous owner neglecting repair since the 2002 fire.
Then I found this image:
If you look closely, 459 is standing, relatively unharmed by the flames, and its next-door neighbor, a similarly styled, brick 461 is completely engulfed. According to a website run by the Society of Architectural Historians, 461-459 was built in 1900 by British architect Benjamin Fox, and 461 was demolished in 2003.
So, at some point between ‘03 and ‘06, the new addition was constructed, then renovated by Pine Street in ‘07.
But what about 862 Beacon?
The oldest Google street view of the building reveals the addition already existed in 2007. Unsurprising.
Diving into old message boards, I found a photo of the building uploaded to flickr with a hilarious caption calling the building addition a “stroke of genius.” According to the user Peter Radunzel, the photo was taken in 2003.
Then I hit a research wall. I couldn’t find anything about the building’s construction, other than 1893 as the date for the original brownstone base. I revisited the same message boards and websites hoping to find some new piece of information. Then, I found it.
862 Beacon is currently used by Boston University as apartment dorms for graduate students, but if you view floor plans for this Basement-Plus-Six-Story building, apartments are only offered on floor 2, 3, and 5. No reference to the top floor of that two-story addition.
I narrowed my search to BU’s historical use of this building. I found a 200 page master’s thesis from a pair of MIT researchers. I skimmed the whole thing.1
On page 60, the authors reference 862 beacon street and its two-story addition. The only problem is there is no specific date mentioned. Here’s the only quote:
856, 858, 860, 862 Beacon Street:
These four buildings were originally similar to most of the other buildings in the neighborhood: four floors above partially below grade basements. Prior to their acquisition by B.U., however, a two story addition was constructed on top of these buildings, so they are now effectively a package.
“Prior to their acquisition by B.U.” That’s all we get.
The thesis paper was published in 1986, so I could end my search there, conclude the extension was before 459 Park Drive, and make my point that the uglier building addition lead to a more stringent zoning approval process.
But I’d gone too far down the rabbit hole. I wasn’t stopping until I knew the exact date this monstrosity was made.
My last resort was to pour through the archives of Boston inspection permits. There are 67 recorded permit documents attached to the history of 862 Beacon Street. One of them, approved on October 15, 1971, contains the following proposal:
So there’s my answer. Proposed on March 30, 1970, and approved in October of 1971, the wildest building addition in Boston. A two-story addition with an estimated cost of only $30,000 (about $225,000 today), the developer knew from the start they weren’t exactly building the Sistine Chapel of apartment extensions. There’s still one unanswered question, though.
Why did the city approve something so hideous?
While I can only speculate, its possible the board of approvals was extra flexible with developers due to economic uncertainty. Between the 1960 and 1980s, Boston, like many U.S. cities, was losing population by the tens of thousands. Its possible city officials were eager to approve any level of new taxable development, given the overall downward trend of new construction.
Another possible explanation is the developer knew a zoning official and got the approval through corrupt means. There are many examples across the country of city officials being bribed to expedite the permit process. We also know the extension didn’t adhere honestly to this document; the proposal describes a mansard front and rear, rather than the blocky eyesore that exists today.
Whatever the case may be, I’m glad to know the full history of this bizarre building on the edge of Boston’s Fenway. I’ll leave you with my favorite quote about 832 Beacon, from the Ugly Boston message board.
It's creative, it's interesting, and it screams "density." I smile whenever I see it. When people want to live in a neighborhood so badly that they're willing to throw shipping containers on top of a brownstone - that's energy, that's urban.
If you find that level of effort impressive, or perhaps delusional, please consider subscribing to Heartland. It’s free!
Another possible explanation for it being permitted: the sharpness of the teeth in zoning and building regulation has varied over the decades. I know in Urbana there have been periods when regulation was much less stringent and when violators weren't seriously pursued or penalized.
Sources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xRhKQegvRyivKzKDTBYWG4tvCN9gENzXR46iS4roMtQ/edit?usp=sharing