{"id":734,"date":"2023-03-07T10:46:34","date_gmt":"2023-03-07T15:46:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/?p=734"},"modified":"2023-03-09T11:54:14","modified_gmt":"2023-03-09T16:54:14","slug":"genna-kane-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/2023\/03\/07\/genna-kane-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Genevieve (Genna) Kane"},"content":{"rendered":"

Genna Kane<\/strong> is currently a PhD Student at Boston University in the American & New England Studies Program. Genna researches twentieth century urban development, historic preservation, and public history. Her work emphasizes how historic preservation influenced urban planning, and the development of neighborhood identities through the built environment. Genna draws upon a background of public history and nonprofit management, which inspired her interest in the establishment and operation of historic sites. Genna plans to build off her research about historic sites as public history institutions to examine Boston\u2019s built environment.<\/em><\/p>\n

Retaining Maritime Life: The ICA\u2019s Adaptive Reuse and Preservation of Industrial Heritage in East Boston<\/strong><\/p>\n

On July 4th 2018, the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) in Boston opened their second exhibition space, called the \u201cWatershed,\u201d in Jeffries Point, East Boston. Instead of investing in a new building near their primary location in the Seaport district, the ICA decided to rehabilitate a condemned copper pipe warehouse in the middle of the East Boston marina. In a 2018 article about the project in the New York Times<\/em>, reporter Hilarie Sheets wrote that ICA Executive Director Jill Medvedow \u201cwas describing the [East Boston] neighborhood when a young man interjected. \u2018Maritime life is going away with everything coming into the shipyard,\u2019 he said, somewhat confrontationally. The director quickly introduced herself \u2014 \u2018I\u2019m Jill from the ICA\u2019 \u2014 and shook the hand of the man, who said his name was Dan. \u2018I\u2019m literally next door,\u2019 he said. \u2018Just thinking about my job, that\u2019s all.\u2019\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a> Dan\u2019s concerns about the ICA in the marina highlight a ubiquitous fear that institutions such as art museums gentrify neighborhoods. Dan recognized that many parts of cities lose their character because real estate developers, institutions, or anyone with power will replace \u201cunproductive\u201d areas with buildings and structures that generate wealth.<\/p>\n

Despite Dan\u2019s concerns about the loss of maritime life, much of the East Boston marina already faced significant decay and lack of use. A creative strategy to rehabilitate decayed and unused structures is \u201cadaptive reuse\u201d \u2013 or altering historic buildings and\/or infrastructure for new purposes. The former copper pipe warehouse necessitated significant rehabilitation, which the ICA achieved through combinations of reconstructing the decayed fabric, highlighting the historic fabric, and embracing the building\u2019s historic program. The architects used newer industrial materials to blend the building into the existing marina. The strategy of adaptive reuse challenges the dominant narratives about real estate development and valuable history. Before the ICA\u2019s project, historic preservation was not a viable option for the marina because the buildings decayed and the industrial history seemed unworthy of interpretation. Therefore, replacement or neglect were the only options for the marina\u2019s buildings. However, the ICA\u2019s investment in adaptive reuse broke the cycle of neglect in the East Boston marina while creatively interpreting the site\u2019s industrial history. By closely examining the ICA\u2019s vision and changes to the Watershed, this paper argues that the adaptive reuse of the copper pipe warehouse fought against the grain of trends in historical commemoration and against the grain of the process of architectural decay.<\/p>\n

What do we do with former industrial sites?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The former copper pipe warehouse was established in the context of a productive shipping and industrial site in the East Boston harbor. The East Boston harbor thrived as a railroad depot and shipping port in the mid nineteenth century. Due to the success of the railroad industry, developers invested in land making to increase the size of the harbor.[2]<\/sup><\/a> As early as 1892, the Boston, Revere Beach and Lynn Railroad established a depot near the current location of the Watershed.[3]<\/sup><\/a> During World War II, ship production increased in demand, so the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Company established a dry dock near the Boston, Revere Beach and Lynn Railroad depots.[4]<\/sup><\/a> In 1955, the shipbuilding company constructed the copper pipe warehouse that would eventually become the Watershed. The warehouse functioned as an assembly and storage space for copper pipes and other materials used for constructing ships, which was the marina\u2019s primary purpose in the mid twentieth century. The rest of the marina also resonated as a place of work. Ship builders and mariners may have lived in East Boston, but most of the marina\u2019s surrounding neighborhood remained zoned for industry and business.[5]<\/sup><\/a> Historians characterized the marina as a place of constant movement \u2013 many migrants came to Boston through Jeffries Point, workers assembled and loaded ships the docks, but at the height of its productivity, few resided in Jeffries Point for long.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The East Boston waterfront\u2019s productive industry declined by the 1960s. Like many American cities, Boston\u2019s deindustrialization rendered industrial sites obsolete. In Boston, government officials embraced urban renewal to replace the former railroads and industrial infrastructure in the center of the city with updated highways and luxury apartment complexes.[7]<\/sup><\/a> However, the East Boston waterfront remained relatively untouched in the 1960s and 70s, neither renewed nor maintained. By 1985, the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) obtained the East Boston harbor to aid the declining ship production on the waterfront. Instead of revitalizing the shipping industry however, Massport failed to make any improvements to the land.[8]<\/sup><\/a> Most of their resources remained invested in the neighboring Logan Airport, and the harbor in East Boston was not as \u201cproductive\u201d as Massport anticipated.[9]<\/sup><\/a> By the late 1980s, Massport evicted boatmen from the East Boston piers.[10]<\/sup><\/a> However, Massport did not allow private developers to build on this land.[11]<\/sup><\/a> Instead, Massport held onto the marina until the City of Boston\u2019s Housing Authority (BHA) developed part of the land on the waterfront for affordable apartments and middle-income condominiums in 2021.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Both the general neglect of the harbor and Massport\u2019s retention of the land resulted in gradual decay of the buildings at the waterfront. In addition to the rotting and condemned condition of the copper pipe warehouse before the ICA arrived, one prominent example of a building lost to decay in the neighborhood was the East Boston Immigration station. Sometimes referred to as \u201cBoston\u2019s Ellis Island,\u201d the Immigration Station opened in 1920 and functioned as a processing facility for incoming immigrants until 1959. In 2010, the City of Boston Landmark Commission discussed whether the building warranted landmark status. The commission agreed that the history of immigration was essential to preserve, but they emphasized that \u201cdue to the deteriorated condition of the building, its lack of architectural integrity … the staff withholds recommendation to designate the East Boston Immigration Station as a Landmark.\u201d[13]<\/sup><\/a> Due to Massport\u2019s retention of the land and their unwillingness to maintain the waterfront, buildings like the Immigration Station rotted. The former copper pipe warehouse could have suffered a similar fate.<\/p>\n

Perhaps earlier efforts for historic preservation could have reinvigorated the Immigration Station and its neighbors. Since the 1960s, the National Register of Historic Places recognizes thousands of historic buildings, and inscription on this list grants these buildings new purpose and vitality as museums or sites of historical interpretation.[14]<\/sup><\/a> However, the industrial buildings in the East Boston marina are unlikely to be considered landmarks because many buildings in the East Boston harbor are significantly decayed. As the Immigration Station demonstrates, if buildings lack integrity or the ability to demonstrate their historical significance, few preservation authorities will invest in them.[15]<\/sup><\/a> Unlike the Immigration Station however, the other buildings in the marina do not fit neatly into narratives of history that typically result in preservation. Many preserve buildings associated with historic heroes or significant chapters of history, such as historic house museums or birthplaces of significant historical figures. However, industrial history rarely has attributes that offer straightforward interpretation. As historians Marcus Binney, Ken Powell, and Francis Machin argue, \u201cEnthusiasm for industrial architecture is a new phenomenon. Until very recently people have tended to judge industrial buildings by what they represent, rather than what they are. They have seemed to be unacceptable relics of oppressive working conditions and poor living standards.\u201d[16]<\/sup><\/a> The combination of decayed buildings and lack of attention to industrial history suggests that typical historic preservation of the East Boston marina is unlikely.<\/p>\n

Because preservation poses a challenge, the marina\u2019s obsolete infrastructure seemed to pose two unappealing options: neglecting the buildings until dereliction, or replacing them with new facilities. These two avenues exemplify a narrative of architectural history that embraces progress. This narrative of progress contends that if there is no need for the industrial East Boston harbor, then it should be ignored until it can be replaced with new buildings. Architectural history students will recognize this narrative of history that emerged with the rise of modernism at the turn of the twentieth century. For example, architect Le Corbusier argued in 1923 that architecture should evolve. He wrote that \u201cCivilizations advance\u2026 culture is the flowering of the effort to selection. Selection means rejection, pruning, cleansing; the clear and naked emergence of the Essential.\u201d [17]<\/a><\/sup> Modernist thinking, and subsequently narratives of history as progress, suggest that architecture advances with civilization. In other words, buildings from the past with no contemporary use have no place in the built environment. Even though the destruction or replacement of historic buildings is by no means a new phenomenon, East Boston\u2019s marina especially poses a challenge for heritage preservation. Embracing the narrative of progress for history not only praises certain stories over others, but this narrative also risks the loss of the buildings that contained a significant chapter of Boston\u2019s history.<\/p>\n

The ICA\u2019s Vision for the Watershed<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"
Figure 1: The rendering shows the historic fabric compared to the adaptive reuse changes. The pink represents the adaptive reuse changes in 2018, and the green represents the historic fabric. The pink shapes with pink dots indicate new features, such as restrooms and exhibit walls. The rendering indicates how much of the historic fabric was too rotted to preserve. Rendering by Genevieve Kane based on Anmahian Winton Architects\u2019 designs. Anmahian Winton Architects, \u201cICA\/Boston Watershed.\u201d<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The ICA\u2019s rehabilitation and adaptation of the copper pipe warehouse represents an underutilized option to encourage historic preservation of decaying industrial buildings. The ICA embarked on their adaptive reuse of the condemned warehouse in 2017. The ICA leased the Watershed building from Massport in 2017 and hired the Cambridge firm Anmahian Winton Architects to design the adaptive reuse. The ICA completed rehabilitation of the building in 2018 and opened to the public on July 4th as a summer seasonal exhibition space.[18]<\/sup><\/a> The adaptive reuse of the condemned building necessitated significant changes and new structural elements, especially because much of the historic fabric was rotting or filled with asbestos (Figure 1).\u00a0The building was 15,000 square feet total – the inside space was 50 feet wide and the building had a 25 foot tall ceiling.[19]<\/sup><\/a> After the adaptive reuse, the ICA had 9,400 square feet of gallery space and 3,400 square feet for educational projects within the building.[20]<\/sup><\/a> (Figure 2) The adaptive reuse project cost about $10 million, which was significantly less expensive than the construction of the ICA\u2019s primary location, which cost $41 million to build in 2006.[21]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"
Figure 2: The 2021 summer exhibition inside the ICA Watershed was Firelei Ba\u0301ez\u2019s work in 2021. The exhibit was designed for the Watershed site specifically. The exhibit referenced the East Boston harbor\u2019s history as well, which demonstrated how the art exhibits can further connect to the history of the building. Genevieve Kane, September 2021.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The ICA\u2019s goals for the Watershed focused on interpreting the industrial history, functioning and a community asset, and establishing a water taxi service across the harbor. The ICA prioritized the building\u2019s changes to interpret the history of Boston\u2019s industry on the waterfront. According to their press release, \u201cthe intent was to preserve much of the essential industrial and historic character while also creating a new architectural expression that makes the building a compelling space for large-scale contemporary art.\u201d[22]<\/sup><\/a> The ICA also envisioned the Watershed as a community asset. The ICA created the Watershed as a free exhibition space, so visitors did not have to purchase an admission ticket in either East Boston or the Seaport District to see the exhibitions at the Watershed.[23]<\/sup><\/a> The community outreach also extended beyond the art museum\u2019s programmatic mission. According to The Boston Banner,<\/em> ICA executive director Jill Medvedow \u201cconducted vigorous outreach in East Boston and began building collaborative partnerships with local schools and nonprofits of all kinds.\u201d[24]<\/sup><\/a> The ICA staff connected to the community resources in East Boston to develop the Watershed as an asset.[25]<\/sup><\/a> The ICA additionally explained that East Boston worked well for their secondary location because they envisioned a water taxi service. The ICA offered the water taxi service from Fort Point to the East Boston Piers Park as part of visitors\u2019 admission when they visited the Seaport location.[26]<\/sup><\/a> The ICA\u2019s water taxi service transported visitors across the harbor in either direction in a few minutes. The water taxi service emphasized that visitors could experience both ends of the Boston harbor without driving, but also invited the visitors to explore East Boston through the harborside walk from Piers Park to the Watershed.<\/p>\n

Methods of Adaptive Reuse<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"
Figure 3: The image shows the reconstructed roof in the Watershed. The roof\u2019s condition before the adaptive reuse was too derelict to preserve, and it contained asbestos. The architects and the ICA replaced the old roof with a new roof that blends into the appearance of the warehouse, and almost appears like it could be original. The reconstructed roof further contributes to the \u201cspirit of the place\u201d as an example of industrial history. Genevieve Kane, September 2021.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The ICA rehabilitated the former warehouse by embracing the building\u2019s industrial history, through both the preservation of the historic fabric and by illuminating the \u201cspirit\u201d of the industrial past. The ICA replaced much of the building\u2019s original fabric due to the decay and asbestos. However, they reconstructed a new roof with an industrial appearance (Figure 3). In addition to recreating a non-surviving feature to emphasize the industrial history, the ICA also preserved some of the historic fabric. The museum retained a surviving concrete and cinder block wall, and they emphasized that the \u201cconcrete and cinder block wall at one time supported the loading and unloading of rail cars that ran through the building and brought supplies to the facility.\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a> (Figure 4). In addition, the ICA preserved three original metal columns, crane and monorail hoists, and railroad tracks near the front entrance (Figure 5 and 6). The space overall retained the historic fabric in a way that emphasizes the genius loci, or the \u201cspirit of the place\u201d as an industrial facility.[28]<\/sup><\/a> To further communicate the significance of the industrial history, the ICA developed a small gallery space that visually interpreted the history of East Boston and the adaptive reuse of the copper pipe warehouse (Figure 7). The \u201cShipyard Gallery\u201d played a video on repeat that emphasized East Boston\u2019s industrial and immigration history, as well as the Watershed\u2019s adaptive reuse story.[29]<\/sup><\/a> The ICA retained the historic character and the story of the building by retaining a large portion of the original fabric and by interpreting the industrial past.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Figure 4: The image shows the western wall, which was the original concrete and cinderblock wall. The ICA also noted that they preserved the steel gantry cranes. The wall as historic fabric was the most prominent feature inside the Watershed, and followed the visitor throughout the space to the rear of the Watershed. Genevieve Kane, September 2021.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
Figure 5: The image shows the view towards the back of the Watershed. In this section, the ICA preserved one metal column and the crane and monorail hoist. There are three metal columns total in the Watershed total. The metal columns contrast the new structures, especially the white walls, which the museum had no choice but to install. The crane and monorail hoists were likely used to transfer materials from one end of the warehouse to the other. The preservation of these materials, or the retention of the historic artifacts, contributed to the genius loci of the museum space. While the use was not obvious to most visitors, the historic materials referenced how the warehouse space was used before the ICA arrived. Genevieve Kane, September 2021.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
Figure 6: The ICA preserved the railroad tracks in the ground near the front door. The tracks referenced the history of the railroad depot that used to occupy this plot of land. Genevieve Kane, September 2021.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
Figure 7: The shipyard gallery near the front door interpreted the history of East Boston and the Watershed. The wall on the right displayed the original landscape of Boston before the nineteenth and twentieth-century land making projects. The video in the center highlighted interviews with architect Nick Winton and ICA Director Jill Medvedow about their decision to rehabilitate the building into the ICA, and the conditions of the building before their changes. The exhibit space connected the history of industry and East Boston to the ICA\u2019s mission. Genevieve Kane, September 2021.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In addition to interpreting the industrial past, the ICA attempted to improve from the original both aesthetically and functionally. The existing conditions inspired some design changes that further rehabilitated the inside of the building. Nick Winton noted that \u201cthere were a lot of beautiful things about [the original building] that we noticed right away, one of those was the light that was piercing through that corus roof, giving a beautiful impression of what the light might be like.\u201d[30]<\/sup><\/a> The original conditions inspired Winton to develop a 250 foot long skylight, and this skylight highlighted the concrete and cinder block wall (Figure 8). In addition, the architects constructed new doors that illuminated the inside of the building with natural light, and even when closed, the translucent polycarbonate material of the doors allowed natural light in the space (Figure 9). Because the copper pipe warehouse developed in the middle of two neighboring warehouses, the shorter elevations remained one of the few opportunities for natural light. The architect\u2019s choice to prioritize natural light and use that light to illuminate the historic fabric significantly surpassed the original condition of the copper pipe warehouse. The Watershed improved upon the original while highlighting the industrial history.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Figure 8: Light from the skylight poured into the museum space. Nick Winton drew inspiration from the light infiltrating the open museum space before the adaptive reuse. Therefore, the skylight design improved upon the original conditions. The skylight was 250 feet long, as it ran along the historic concrete and cinder block wall from the front pedestrian entrance to the rear of the building. The skylight not only highlighted the historic fabric, but also prioritized natural light for the art museum visitor. Genevieve Kane, September 2021.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
Figure 9: The image shows the garage door at the front pedestrian entrance, from the inside of the Watershed. Both the door and the front elevation were constructed from translucent polycarbonate. The material allowed more natural light inside the museum space, and the material looks similar to the other industrial warehouses in the neighborhood. Genevieve Kane, September 2021.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The architects developed the art museum within the existing large space, which perpetuated the building\u2019s historic program as a warehouse. Except for adding necessary facilities like updated plumbing, restrooms, and locker rooms, the architects made few changes to the large warehouse space. Instead, the large space allowed the ICA to install temporary exhibits that purposefully worked within the open capacity of the building (Figure 10). The architects argued that the project shows \u201cbreaking with the customary \u2018white room \/ black box\u2019 gallery paradigm, [and] daylight plays a seminal role in the space, illuminating a major wall and highlighting both ends of the building.\u201d[31]<\/sup><\/a> Because the Watershed utilized the large warehouse space, the new program of the building also respected the historical use of the large warehouse. Few historical records prove exactly how the space was used, but the museum could emulate the feeling of the large warehouse by encouraging and prioritizing large art exhibits suited for the warehouse space.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Figure 10: The art exhibitions blended into the Watershed\u2019s space. As Firelei Ba\u0301ez\u2019s 2021 exhibition about the theoretical ruins of the Sans-Souci Palace in Haiti appearing in East Boston\u2019s shore, the art exhibitions worked seamlessly with the warehouse space. The Watershed\u2019s use of the warehouse referenced the use as a copper pipe warehouse and warehouse because the exhibits continued to use the large space. The impression of the warehouse\u2019s historic space could have been lost if the architects fed into the temptation to pare down the space and develop smaller exhibits. Very few institutions could develop a programmatic purpose for the former copper pipe warehouse in the way that the ICA utilized the space. Genevieve Kane, September 2021.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
Figure 11: The image shows the pedestrian entrance of the Watershed from Marginal Street. The garage door differentiated the building from its neighboring structures, especially in comparison to the previous outside conditions where the copper pipe warehouse was an extension of the building on the right. However, the design abstractly referenced the building on the right with the black roofline and the new industrial materials. Genevieve Kane, September 2021.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Due to significant deterioration, the architects had no choice but to design something new for the building\u2019s exterior. When tasked with adding onto historic buildings, architects can recreate the original or develop a design that looks completely different.[32]<\/sup><\/a> The Watershed\u2019s architects stated that their \u201cdesign synthesizes the retained infrastructure with equally powerful, new industrial materials\u201d \u2013 in other words, using the language of the original to create something new.[33]<\/sup><\/a> (Figure 11). The Watershed\u2019s exterior respected the neighboring warehouses because the elevation remained in alignment with the surrounding structures and the new roof also mimicked the black roof line of the neighboring buildings (Figure 12). The translucent polycarbonate doors, which the architects described as the \u201cnew industrial\u201d material, blended the structure in with its neighbors. [34]<\/a><\/sup> However, the garage doors offered a much wider entrance space, which functioned to welcome large groups of people. (Figure 13). The back elevation utilized the \u201cnew industrial\u201d polycarbonate, but the appearance mimicked the surrounding industrial environment more so than the front. The back included a similar garage door and included a terrace space for visitors. However, when the museum was closed, the back door remained closed. From the perspective of the harbor, the building further blended into the surrounding conditions (Figure 14). The back elevation spoke the architectural language of the surrounding industrial environment.[35]<\/sup><\/a> Even though the architects updated the exterior, the design overall expressed restraint and respect for the existing conditions of its surrounding environment.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Figure 12: The Watershed utilized updated industrial materials for the elevations. This image shows the elevation from the front pedestrian entrance. The polycarbonate material appeared to match the industrial feeling of the neighboring buildings. While the building on the left painted over the original facade, the impression of the neighboring space beforehand was mostly of industrial character. When the museum was closed, the garage door closed as well, and there was less differentiation because the Watershed\u2019s elevation aligned with the building on the right. Genevieve Kane, September 2021.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
Figure 13: The updated design for the garage doors and ICA label differentiated the Watershed from its neighbors. Especially when the door was open, the Watershed broke the impression of a unified elevation with its neighbor on the right. However, the choice for a garage door aligned with the definition of \u201cabstract reference\u201d because it recognized the history of the industrial space and the building\u2019s use as a warehouse, but also developed a unique approach to distinguish the design from the previous conditions. In addition, the design for the door improved the original and met the needs of an art museum to allow access to large groups. Genevieve Kane, September 2021.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
Figure 14 – Figure 25: The back elevation aligned with invention within a style, because the ICA was hard to identify when the back doors were closed. This is the view from the perspective of the harbor. Genevieve Kane, September 2021.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Hilarie Sheet\u2019s article about the Watershed in 2018, East Boston resident Dan believed that \u201cMaritime life is going away with everything coming into the shipyard.\u201d However, the ICA\u2019s Watershed instead presented an approach that conserved the marina\u2019s character. The building\u2019s history as a warehouse and copper pipe factory for ship production is evident from the retention of the historic fabric, such as the railroad tracks and the monorail hoists. The industrial spirit and feeling of the space remains through the skylight and reconstructed roof. In addition, the museum interpreted East Boston\u2019s maritime history in the Shipyard Gallery. The museum\u2019s program of showcasing large exhibits builds upon the historic program as a large warehouse facility. Overall, the museum\u2019s design suggests that the building respected the existing use as a marina. The exterior design differentiated the additions but used new industrial materials to blend into the harbor\u2019s existing appearance. The Watershed did not encourage maritime life to go away, but instead celebrated and embraced the existing use as a marina.<\/p>\n

Dan\u2019s comment that \u201cmaritime life is going away\u201d also reflects the narrative of progressive architecture. According to Dan, the East Boston harbor\u2019s character will be lost because it will be replaced with something new. However, the Watershed exemplifies that a building can be updated for a new use and be preserved at the same time. By retaining the heritage associated with the building, the Watershed demonstrates that obsolete environments are not fated to dereliction or replacement. In addition, the adaptive reuse of the Watershed suggested that the industrial history warranted preservation and interpretation. Because the industrial past is not dictated by famous heroes of history and is often associated with grueling labor conditions, it receives less interpretation. However, the ICA decided to illuminate this history through rehabilitating the industrial fabric and by interpreting the stories of the shipyard in an exhibit. Overall, the ICA\u2019s adaptive reuse of the Watershed fought against the grain of architectural decay and showcases how important yet unrecognized chapters of history can be interpreted.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

End Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/span><\/a> Hilarie M. Sheets, \u201cIn an East Boston Shipyard, a Watershed Idea for Art,\u201d New York Times<\/em>, 22 June 2018.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/span><\/a> Nancy Seasholes, \u201cAddition of Land\u201d in The Atlas of Boston History<\/em>, ed. Nancy Seasholes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019), 72.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/span><\/a> George Washington Bromley, Atlas of the city of Boston: East Boston, Mass: Volume Nine<\/em> (Philadelphia : G.W. Bromley & Co, 1892), 4.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/span><\/a> Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Boston Massachusett<\/em>s (New York: Sanborn Map Company, 1957).<\/p>\n

[5]<\/span><\/a> East Boston Urban Renewal Area R-44, 1965, Folio 63, no 10, Boston Redevelopment Authority, Leventhal Map Center, Boston, Massachusetts.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/span><\/a> Michael Kenney details the history of immigrant residents in East Boston, and what remains at Jeffries Poitn today. Michael Kenney, \u201cThe Hidden East Boston Offers a Waterfront Without Crowds,\u201d Boston Globe<\/em>; 24 June 2000: F.1.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/span><\/a> For more about Boston\u2019s postwar urban renewal, see Lawrence W. Kennedy, Planning the City upon a Hill: Boston Since 1630 <\/em>(Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992).<\/p>\n

[8]<\/span><\/a> Bruce Mohl, \u201cMassport serious about waterfront,\u201d Boston Globe<\/em>, 14 Nov 1985: 81.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/span><\/a> Charles Radlin, \u201cMassport, BRA disagree on pier use: East Boston land valued for housing or industry,\u201d Boston Globe,<\/em> 09 Aug 1986: 17.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/span><\/a> Charles Radlin, \u201cMassport, BRA disagree on pier use: East Boston land valued for housing or industry,\u201d Boston Globe,<\/em> 09 Aug 1986: 17.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/span><\/a> William Coughlin, \u201cMassport evicts more boatmen from its piers in East Boston,\u201d Boston Globe<\/em>, 01 Dec 1988: 27.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/span><\/a> City of Boston, \u201cGrand Opening of New Mixed-Income Housing on East Boston Waterfront Celebrated,\u201d July 13 2021. Accessed December 2021. https:\/\/www.boston.gov\/news\/grand-opening-new-mixed-income-housing-east-boston-waterfront-celebrated<\/p>\n

[13]<\/span><\/a> East Boston Immigration Station: A Study Report.<\/em> Boston Landmarks Commission, 2010.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/span><\/a> National Park Service, \u201cNational Register of Historic Places,\u201d accessed January 2023, https:\/\/www.nps.gov\/subjects\/nationalregister\/index.htm<\/p>\n

[15]<\/span><\/a> Pamela Jerome, \u201cAn Introduction to Authenticity in Preservation.\u201d APT Bulletin<\/em> 39 (2008 2\/3): 3-8.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/span><\/a> Marcus Binney, Ken Powell, and Francis Machin, \u201cDecline and Revival\u201d In Bright future: the re-use of industrial buildings<\/em> (London: SAVE Britain’s Heritage, 1990), 9.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/span><\/a> Le Corbusier, Toward a New Architecture <\/em>(New York: Dover Publications, 1923), 138.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/span><\/a> Institute of Contemporary Art Boston, \u201cThe ICA Watershed.\u201d Accessed December 2021, https:\/\/www.icaboston.org\/ica-watershed<\/p>\n

[19]<\/span><\/a>\u00a0Institute of Contemporary Art Boston, \u201cThe ICA Watershed Architectural Fact Sheet,\u201d June 21, 2018.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/span><\/a>\u00a0Institute of Contemporary Art Boston, \u201cThe ICA Watershed Architectural Fact Sheet,\u201d June 21, 2018.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/span><\/a>\u00a0Robert Campbell, \u201cNew ICA building emerges into the light,\u201d Boston Globe,<\/em> November 30 2006.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/span><\/a>\u00a0Institute of Contemporary Art Boston, \u201cThe ICA Watershed Architectural Fact Sheet,\u201d June 21, 2018.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/span><\/a>\u00a0Institute of Contemporary Art Boston, \u201cThe ICA Watershed.\u201d Accessed December 2021,\u00a0https:\/\/www.icaboston.org\/ica-watershed<\/p>\n

[24]<\/span><\/a>\u00a0Susan Saccoccia, \u201cICA expands across the harbor,\u201d The Boston Banner<\/em>, 28 June 2018: 15, 23.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/span><\/a> Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the ICA utilized the Watershed as an emergency food distribution space as well. Institute of Contemporary Art Boston, \u201cThe ICA Watershed.\u201d Accessed December 2021, https:\/\/www.icaboston.org\/ica-watershed<\/p>\n

[26]<\/span><\/a>\u00a0Institute of Contemporary Art Boston, \u201cWatershed Shuttle Schedule.\u201d Accessed in October 2021.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.icaboston.org\/sites\/default\/files\/PDFs\/watershed_shuttle_schedule%5B1%5D.pdf<\/p>\n

[27]<\/span><\/a> Institute of Contemporary Art Boston, \u201cThe ICA Watershed Architectural Fact Sheet.\u201d June 21, 2018.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/span><\/a> Bie Plevoets and Koenraad Van Cleempoel, \u201cChapter 2: Intervention\u201d in Adaptive Reuse of the Built Heritage: Concepts and Cases of an Emerging Discipline<\/em> (London: Routledge, 2019), 31.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/span><\/a> Institute of Contemporary Art Boston, \u201cThe ICA Watershed: From Condemned to Contemporary Art Space,\u201d June 27, 2018. Accessed via Youtube, https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=3Yn5XN31IcM&list=PLgK0CYNpzjV1eRY8HFjLG8hbT8FwHG1Jm&index=5<\/p>\n

[30]<\/span><\/a> Institute of Contemporary Art Boston, \u201cThe ICA Watershed: From Condemned to Contemporary Art Space,\u201d June 27, 2018. Accessed via Youtube, https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=3Yn5XN31IcM&list=PLgK0CYNpzjV1eRY8HFjLG8hbT8FwHG1Jm&index=5<\/p>\n

[31]<\/span><\/a> Anmahian Winton Architects, \u201cICA\/Boston Watershed.\u201d Accessed October 2021. https:\/\/www.aw-arch.com\/ica-watershed<\/p>\n

[32]<\/span><\/a> Steven W. Semes, \u201c\u2018Differentiated\u2019 and \u2018Compatible\u2019: Four Strategies for Additions to Historic Settings,\u201d Forum Journal Vol. 21 No. 4 (Summer 2007), 19.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/span><\/a> Anmahian Winton Architects, \u201cICA\/Boston Watershed.\u201d Accessed October 2021. https:\/\/www.aw-arch.com\/ica-watershed<\/p>\n

[34]<\/span><\/a> The alterations align with Stephen Semes\u2019 definition of \u201cabstract reference.\u201d Abstract reference attempts to differentiate the addition from the original, but \u201cmakes reference to the historic setting while consciously avoiding literal resemblance or working in a historic style. Steven W. Semes, \u201c\u2018Differentiated\u2019 and \u2018Compatible\u2019: Four Strategies for Additions to Historic Settings,\u201d Forum Journal<\/em> Vol. 21 No. 4 (Summer 2007), 19.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/span><\/a> The back of the museum mimicked the surrounding environment, so it aligned closer with Semes\u2019 definition of \u201cInvention within a Style.\u201d Semes argues that \u201cthis strategy, while not replicating the original design, adds new elements in either the same or a closely related style, sustaining a sense of continuity in architectural language.\u201d Semes, \u201c\u2018Differentiated\u2019 and \u2018Compatible,\u2019\u201d 18.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Genna Kane is currently a PhD Student at Boston University in the American & New England Studies Program. Genna researches twentieth century urban development, historic preservation, and public history. Her work emphasizes how historic preservation influenced urban planning, and the development of neighborhood identities through the built environment. Genna draws upon a background of public […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20372,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[16],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/734"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20372"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=734"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/734\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":840,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/734\/revisions\/840"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=734"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=734"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=734"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}