Nomination for United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building

From the form

The catalogue entry the section above was filed under.

FHR-8-300 (11-78) United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries - complete applicable sections 1. Name For HCRS use only ... received JUN 3 1980 date entered AUG | 9 1980 historic United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building and/or common 2. Location same street & number 138-164 Federal Street city, town Boston - vicinity of congressional district Massachusetts 025 Suffolk state 3. Classification Category Ownership district - public x building(s) x private - structure - both site Public Acquisition object .

in process being considered code county Status - occupied - unoccupied - work in progress Accessible - yes: restricted x yes: unrestricted - no Present Use _ agriculture X commercial educational - entertainment government - industrial military 4. Owner of Property name Merideth and Grew, Inc; Herbert W. Vaughn and Thomas Horan street & number 125 High Street city, town Boston - vicinity of 5. Location of Legal Description state courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Suffolk County Courthouse street & number Pemberton Square city, town Boston 6. Representation in Existing Surveys state - not for publication ninth code 025 museum park private residence religious scientific transportation other: Massachusetts Massachusetts title Inventory of Historic Assets of the has this property been determined elegible?

_yes X no dateCommonwealth February, 1980 federal X state county local depository for survey records Massachusetts Historical Commission city, town Boston state Massachusetts 7. Description Condition X excellent _ good fair deteriorated ruins unexposed Check one X unaltered altered Check one Xoriginal site _moved date Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance

Description of the property

The United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building is a twenty-four story Art Deco sky- scraper office building located in Boston's financial district. Its use today, as when built, is for offices and ground floor commercial establishments. The immediate area is characterized by a mix of four and five story commercial buildings, 8 to 15 story turn-of-the-century elevator office buildings, and modern, high-rise office towers. It is set on a trapezoidal lot, the sides of which curve slightly with the street lines The measurements are as follows: High Street - approximately 220 feet; Federal Street - approximately 198 feet; High Street Place - approximately 160 feet; and the side joining the building to 136 Federal Street at a party wall - approximately 123 feet.

The United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building is one of Boston's finest examples of the Art Deco skyscrapers characteristic of that architectural style popular between World War I and World War II. Constructed in 1929 and 1930 by architects Parker, Thomas and Rice of Boston and Baltimore, associate in charge Henry Bailey Alden, contractor George W. Fuller" Co.

of Beacon Street, Boston, the building incorporates a major list of the elements common to Art Deco style office buildings; ziggurat massing - a series of successively smaller vertical geometric blocks set one on top of the other, ascending dynamically to an ornamented, graduated geometric roofline; vertical window treatment - piers with recessed windows and spandrels moving the eye up continuously with speed; a facade which accents the inner steel structure; textural varieties - brick and stone, stone and metal, brick patterns created with creative coursing; major decorative elements at street level and roofline; standard Art Deco decorative motifs - geometric shapes and lines, stylized flowers, leaves, fruit, fountains, eagles, abstracted nude men and women, and machine parts; and finally theatricality - illustrated primarily in the building's essentially unaltered lobby, with dazzling bronze door and window treatments, gilded ceilings and spectacular suspended frosted glass light fixtures.

The United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building has a complicated ziggurat massing combined with a trapezoidal plan. The building appears to sit on a low limestone and black granite platform which serves the ground floor commercial establishments. The rest of the office building is composed of a major central shaft with flanking lateral masses, all sheathed in dark sand colored tapestry brick. The flanking masses rise directly from the platform, are set back at the eleventh and twelfth stories and terminate at the sixteenth floor. On the primary High Street facade, a major light court is created above the platform by the flanking masses. On axis at the Mathews Street party wall, a smaller light court is similarly created. Thecentral massissetback at the twenty-first, twenty-third, and twenty-fourthfloors.

It is capped by a two and a half story penthouse enclosed by a truncated hip roof covered with gold colored terra cotta tiles. Above the ground floor platform, the elevations are organized with the same fenestration system but with the number of bays differing on each facade. Essentially, each elevation has a symmetrical arrangement consisting of a pier, window spandrel grid configuration flanked by plain corner piers. The grid comprises uniformly sized windows that are separated vertically by and recessed behind brick piers.

The windows alternate with brick spandrels, which have decorative bond patterns on the High Street flanking masses FHR-8-300A (11/78) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTOR Y -- NOMINATION FORM FOR HCRS USE ONLY RECETVED JUN 3 DATE ENTERED 1990 AUG 1-9 1980 CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER 7 PAGE 1 Che tncereon etne corne magin rei and d an unm ro nion ca etce at ctci ey The windows are original with a few random exceptions. They are dark brown painted steel sash, double hung, three over three, with the lights divided by mullions. This configuration adds to the building's over-all vertical emphasis. The window sills are limestone. The lintels are a soldier course of brick, except at the top row on some of the set-backs, when the lintels combine with limestone spandrels.

The two lower and larger portions (second through eleventh floors) of the entire mass are nineteen bays across on the Federal Street elevation and eighteen bays across High Street including five bays on each of the flanking masses and eight bays across the light court. The High Street light court in this portion is four bays deep. Along High Street Place there are sixteen bays, and at the rear party wall (parallel to Mathews Street), where the elevation is visible above the eighth floor, there are eight bays including three each for the facades flanking the two bay wide light court which is three bays deep.

The highest portion of each of the flanking masses (twelfth through fifteenth floors) has fifteen bays across the Federal Street elevation, and sixteen bays across High Street including four bays each on the flanking mass and eight bays across the light court, which in this portion is two bays deep. Along High Street Place there are eleven . bays, and at the rear elevation, there are eight bays including three bays across each mass flanking the two bay wide light court which in this section is one bay deep. The central shaft of the United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building from the sixteenth through the twentieth story is nine bays across Federal Street, ten bays across High Street, six bays across High Street Place, and six bays wide on the rear wall.

The shaft reduces by two bays on each elevation in the portion from the twenty-first and twenty-second floors; it maintains the same bay count in the set back portion which is the twenty-third floor. The final set back portion, the twenty-fourth floor, also reduces in size by two bays on each elevation. At each set back, the elevation terminates with a special decorative treatment of the piers and spandrels combined with string courses at the corners and a beveled coping- In hierarchical fashion approaching the summit, the ornamentation becomes more intensified. Light colored limestone is uniformly used to contrast with the sandy brick tone; the limestone provides a visual termination to each mass as well as a subtle horizontal band around the interconnected ziggurat mass.

FHR-8-300A (11/78) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM FOR HCRS USE ONLY RECETVED JUN 3 DATE ENTERED AUG 1 9 50u 7990 CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER 7 PAGE 2 There are a variety of patterns used to decorate spandrels, pier "capitals" ratont einas rife als ae oca. aocone tl recd ecoreioly te tre pet ziggurat portions. Thick applied pilasters instead of the brick piers alternate with window bands. The United Shoe Machinery Building is unique among buildings of its age in Boston in having essentially unaltered ground floor store fronts and entrances. The ground floor platform is sheathed in limestone with a two foot high polished black granite watertable. The main entrance to the office building is centered on High Street with another off-center on Federal Street.

On High Street, pairs of storefronts of unequal length flank the entrace and each are divided into display windows and shop doors. On Federal Street, the entrace is set near the party wall corner and is flanked with window bays; the remainder of the level contains a long storefront divided into display windows and shop doors. The High Street Place ground floor is undressed and is used as a service alley. Although most shop doors on both major facades have been replaced, the store fronts retain an unaltered character because of their original bronze architraves. This ornamentation encloses the windows and upper fascia and has floral, fruit and abstract zig-zag line decoration on the vertical sections, rising to an abstracted fountain pattern. The decorated bronze rod shaped fixtures attached to either side of each storefront originally were associated with awning mechanisms.

The upper edge of the surround includes the decorative motifs of heads of cattle wearing headdresses (representing leather used in shoe making). Bunting and gar- lands are strung from the horns of each cattle head to a formal vase of fruit and flowers. The bronze door frames and doors of stores at 48 and 58 High Street are original, with floral, leaf and abstract zig-zag motifs, a transom above and Art Deco style number on the address. The doors are set in from the property line, with tiled entrance way floors from the sidewalk to the door. The limestone door surround of the High Street entrance is massive and monumental. It rises about four feet above the termination of the first floor limestone facade, up into the light court area.

The flat rectangular blocks of limestone forming the surround are carved to represent abstract classical forms of columns, terminating in carved "capitals" with spiral, floral, radiant motifs. Between the "capitals" is a three part spandrel. The middle section is an unornamented octagonal cartouche in relief from the rest of the surface. relief panels carved with stylized cornucopias. Set back slightly above this spandrel is a dentilated "entablature" with a small central "pediment".

Bevelled coping tops this, above which is a rectangular base for a flag pole which rises three stories FHR-8-300A (11/78) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTOR Y -- NOMINATION FORM FOR HCRS USE ONLY RECEIVED JUN 3 DATE ENTERED 1980 AUG(1 CONTI NUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER 7 PAGE and is topped dramatically with a golden eagle. The bronze High Street doorway is recessed and fitted with four equal sized doors. The bronze architrave contains figures of stylized nude men, some working with leather and hand tools for shoes. Above these images are the classical figures of two women resting on a piece of shoe machinery, representing the many inventions that brought the shoe industry up from an individual handcraft to the powerful economic success that commissioned this building.

Behind the women figures is an intricate, delicate and airy bronze screen that rises approxiamtely six feet to the underside of the limestone lintel. The screen is backed with glass. The Federal Street first story facade and entrance way is similar to that on High Street, in terms of limestone and granite facade, shop window surround ornamentation and the abstract classical form of the door surround. This door surround is two stories high. The spandrel is more ornate and detailed that on High Street, with a flying griffin motif and dentillated underside. The same men, women and machinery motifs are featured on the Federal Street door surround as on High Street, but the ornamentation is stretched with the addition of twelve glass lights between the door head and the panel of stylized figures. The bronze screen above is similar to that on High Street.

The four outer and inner doors in this entrance have been replaced with bronze colored annodized aluminum doors. Bronze Art Deco lettering signage announces the 140 Federal Street address on the right hand entrance "column" - Similar lettering on the left hand column reading "United Shoe Machinery Corporation" has been removed. On the ground floor interior, the lobby has an L-shaped plan with entrances from High and Federal Streets. One descends eight steps from the High Street entrance to the main level of the lobby. The walls are greenish gray marble, with a baseboard of polished black granite. The floors are white terrazo with geometric border patterns inlaid in black. The ceilings have gold painted ornament- al moulding and border patterns.

Among the outstanding decorative elements of the lobby are: the entrance foyers, with gold leaf ceilings; intricately ornamented bronze radiator screens; highly polished brass and bronze doors and a light fixture of sandblasted glass and bronze; the ten original bronze elevator doors and casings, exemplary of the extremely fine detailing of Art Deco metalwork, incised with stylized scenes of fountains, flower baskets and birds; and the original bronze elevator monitoring panels. FHR-8-300A (11/78) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE ATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLA CE!

NVENIORY -- NOMINAWION FORI FOR HCRS USEONLY RECEIVED JUN 3 1980 DATE ENTERED AUG 19 980 CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER PAGE 7 Also outstanding are: original signage for bronze door surrounds, doors, and ornamental screens leading to ancillary spaces and shops; original bronze mail shute and box; hanging light fixtures of bronze and white frosted glass. They are mounted to the ceiling by white metal star shaped attachments set in the middle of gold painted ornamental plaster rossettes. The lobby has recently been restored.

From the form

The catalogue entry the section above was filed under.

Significance Period prehistoric 1400-1499 1500-1599 1600-1699 1700-1799 1800-1899 1900 Areas of SignificanceCheck and justify below archeology-prehistoric community planning archeology-historic conservation agriculture economics architecture education art engineering x commerce exploration/settlement communications X industry invention landscape architecture law . literature military . music - philosophy - politics/government religion science . sculpture social/ humanitarian theater transportation - other (specify) Specific dates 1929 Statement of Significance

Statement of significance

(in one paragraph) Builder/Architect Parker, Thomas and Rice The United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building possesses integrity of location, design. materials and workmanship and significant associationswith the consolidation of a major industry in Boston. It was constructed in 1929 as the Boston headquarters of the U.S.M. Corporation, which had been formed in February 1899 to unify the efforts of independent shoe manufacturing companies. As such it represents the corporate growth of Massachusetts industry during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Also it is a major Boston example of the Art Deco style designed by the prominent firm of Parker, Thomas and Rice. Shoes have been made in Massachusetts since the first settlement period, and their manufacture became an important cottage industry in many towns düring the late-eighteenth to mid-nineteenth ccenturiés.

During this period shoes were usually made in small shops called "ten-footers" individual artisans to work on, then the finished product was sold back to the middlemen, who in turn sold to a larger market such as Boston. After mid-century, the invention of various types of shoe machinery allowed the establishment of consolidated factories in both the suburbs and Boston. Leatherworking continued as an important trade in Boston until the 1890's when most shoe manufacturers moved to the suburbs and Boston once again became almost solely a trade center. By 1909 approximately one half of the nation's shoe manufacturing establishments were located in Massachusetts and by 1916, Boston was rec- ognized as a leading world trade center. The success of the Massachusetts shoe industry resulted from the mechanization of the manufacturing process.

Some of the labor saving machinery and methods for leatherworking and shoe manufacturing developed in Massachusetts which led to this growth include: the sewing machine, invented in Cambridge by Elias Howe of Spencer, Mass. and further developed in Cambridge by Issac Merit Singer; a machine to sew shoe uppersto soles, patented in 1858 by Lyman Blake of South Abington, Mass; the rotary horn, invented by Robert H. Mathies of Massachusetts; the automatic clinching machine, the product of J.M. Estabrook, Milford, Mass; 'the pegging machine, the work of Benjamin F. Sturtevant of Boston; a nail making machine by D.C. Knowlton and O.R. Chapin of Boston, and the lasting machine, the invention of Jans Ernzt Matzeliger, resident of Lynn, Mass.

Scores of other shoe working devices were produced by Massachusetts inventors, all of which changed the shoe industry from a cottage hand industry to an urban and suburban factory manufacturing process. The rights to the manufacture and distribution of these inventions, by 1899, were primarily in the hands of three shoe machinery companies; the Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company, the Consolidated and McKay Lasting Machine Company and the McKay Shoe Machinery Company. In 1899, Sidney W. Winslow, a native of Brewster, Mass., and a man of broad industrial vísion, consolidated these companies to form the United Shoe Machinery Corporation. The purposes 9.

The rest of the file

Bibliography, boundary description, and the people who prepared and reviewed the nomination.

Major Bibliographical References Allen, J. Frederick. The Shoe Industry. Boston: The Vocation Bureau of Boston, 1916. Associated Industries of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Industry: Progress through Enterprise. Boston, 1965. 10. Geographical Data ACREAGE NOT VERIFIED Acreage of nominated property less than one acre Quadrangle name - Boston South UMT References UTM NOT VERIFIED A1,9/ 3/310/6,4,0 Zone Easting 4/6/910/9|1|0/ Northing Quadrangle scale - 1:24000 1LILu LIILLL Easting Northing LILLLLL D F H G Verbal boundary description and justification Please refer to athe attached map. List all states and counties for properties overlapping state or county boundaries state code county code state code county code 11.

Form Prepared By name/title Candace Jenkins, National Register Coordinator organization Massachusetts Historical Commission date March 1980 street & number 294 Washington Street telephone 617-727-8470 city or town Boston State Massachusetts 02108 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: _ national state local As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89- 665), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service.

State Historic Preservation Officer signature duatWesbwrke 5/27/80 title Executive Director, Massachusetts Historical Commission date For HCRS use only I hereby certify that this property is ingluded in the National Register Keeper ofhe National Register Attest: atrick Andrus date 8/19/88 date 8/19/80 GPO 938 835 FHR-8-300A (11/78) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM FOR HCRS USE ONLY RECEIVEGIUN 3 1980 DATE ENTERED AUG 19 1980 CONTINUATION SHEET significance ITEM NUMBER 8 PAGE 1 of this merger were to avoid confusion and duplication of efforts in shoe machinery manufacture, to halt patent litigation between the companies and to accumulate cap- ital and machinery design expertise in order to improve shoe production means.

The United Shoe Machinery Corporation, under Winslow's direction, grew rapidly to an extremely important position in the shoe machinery industry of the country. Within ten years of its formation, the U.S. M. Corp. controlled 98% of the shoe machinery business in the United States. By the late 1920's it had subsidiary companies throughout the world, in South America, Canada, England, Europe, Scandanavia, South Africa and Australia. Among its board of directors in 1912 were such prominent Bostonians as Louis D. Brandeis, William H. Coolidge, Gordon McKay and James J. Parker, Thomas and Rice, the architectural firm responsible for the design of the United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building, had offices in Boston and Baltimore and were recognized by contemporary critics as being among Boston's most skillfull de- signers in the nineteenth century. J.

Harleston Parker (1873-1930) F.A.I.A., a graduate of Harvard College, studied architecture at M.I.T. and the Ecole des Beaux Arts. On his return to Boston in 1900 he began architectural practice in partnership with Douglas H. Thomas (1872-1915), F.A.I.A., a Johns Hopkins graduate who also trained at M.I.T. and the Ecole des Beaux Arts. In 1907 (after design of the Fenway Studios, NR) Arthur Wallace Rice joined the firm, and it was under the name of Parker, Thomas and Rice that most of their well known commissions were executed. The firm's major Boston works include the R.H. Stearns Company Building (1909-potential NR), the Harvard Club, the Tennis and Raquet Club and the John Hancock Building (1923). The associate in charge of this particular commission was Henry Bailey Alden who had also studied at M.I.I. and was a fairly well known architect in his own right.

The United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building is the second of only five Art Deco style buildings constructed in Boston's Central Business District. All reflected v passage of a 1928 zoning law relating to set backs and building height limits. It is one of the first buildings in the city over one hundred and fifty-five feet in v height and is representative of the impact of regulatory legislation on architectural ~ styles and design. Its major elements include dramatically stepped back massing, geo- metric ornamentation on both exterior and interior, and emphasis on verticallity. The United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building is unique among buildings of its age Vin Boston in having essentially unaltered store fronts and entrances.

The decorative details of the doorway and shop windows contribute significantly to the building's FHR-8-300A (11/78) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM FOR HCRS USE ONLY RECETVED JUN 3 1980 DATE ENTERED AUG | 9 1980 CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER 8 PAGE 2 nature as an Art Deco monument to the industrial power of the United Shoe Machinery Corporation. This building is also unique in retaining an elaborate and essentially unaltered lobby.

Outstanding elements include the gold leafed ceiling of the entry, marble walls, intricately ornamented bronze radiator screens, geometric chandeliers of sandblasted glass and bronze, ten original bronze elevator doors and superbly detailed metalwork incised with such Art Deco motifs as stylized scenes of fountains, flower baskets and birds. FHR-8-300A (11/78) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM FOR HCRS USE ONLY RECEIVED JUN 3 1980AUG | 9 DATE ENTERED 1980 CONTI NUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER 9 PAGE Deed Records, Suffolk County Courthouse. Harvard Business School. Case Study on United Shoe Building. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard College, 1970. Ward, David. Economic Geography, "The Industrial Revolution and the Emergence of Boston's Central Business District." Vol. 42, No. 2, PP.

52-171. Worcester, Mass.: Clark University, April, 1966. -. STMAC- 47,738 10094 117551782185 2440 +35 PURCHASE S UM M E R 2ci44 4500 SULLIVAN PL SQUARE G-OASE DE RAI BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD BUILDING 19947 MIL'L" 12986 9605 HIGH 3521 1192 5 R EE CU 21,773 FIRST HIGH STREET ..- GARAGE STREET 632 4845 B91 193A1S SCT 32.545 MATTHEWS UNITED SH08 MACHINERY CORP siagl WESTEF HNION TE: TREET "C1-C V3957 1.3 United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building 138 - 164 Federal St. 38 - 66 High Street 4290 9380 ENTRANCE +- 4,530 PARKING ATLANTIC STREET 50 5394 PARKING - ENTRANCE EXP -PARKING AREA 17670 WAVERLY DARKING AREA 199> PLACE PDP: 1996 8720 ; 607 863 661 659 653 651 849 647 1428 1526 1405 3.e 675 671- SQUARE DEWEY SOUTH STATION SOUT- JUN 3 --. Property United Shee Mackinery corporation Buildeng re no 30000668 State ma TECHNICAL Suffollerking wurbe 6.

3.80.1455 CONTROL Photos Maps This building is sigrificant both foi its architectunal guality and because it represents an important trend in American busnieas at the end of the 19th/early 20th cent. - the consolidation &f independent, small companies into ane largecouporation. This bldg., buult in 1929, was the corporate H.Q. Ofa company that controlled g8% of the shoe macknen HISTORIAN accept Patrick Andrus 8/18/80 busniess in the U.5. anchitecturally, the brag.

wsa relatively lare example ofthe aut Deco Style in Baston' ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN Accept L.Rebe 8/18/80 ARCHEOLOGIST OTHER HAER Inventory Review REVIEW UNIT CHIEF BRANCH CHIEF KEEPER National Register Write-up Federal Register Entry 2.3.81 Send-back Re-submit Entered AUG | 9 1980 United States Department of the Interior - Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service 34mL PAINTS WALSH&SONS otal Coniractor United Shoe Machinery Corporation Bldg. Boston, Mass. William Finch Suffolkco. 1980 Mass. Historical Conmission AUG 1 9 1980 Boston, Mass. High Street elevation facing northwest AUG 1 1 1980 Photo #lof 2 United Shoe Machinery Corporation Bldg. Boston, Mass. suffalkce. William Finch 1980 Mass. Historical Conmission Boston, Mass.

AUG 1 9 1980 High Street Place elevation facing southwest Photo #2 of 2 AUG 1 1 1980 Boston United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building 138-164 Federal Street Boston Landmarks Commission 1977 Photo #1 of 1 View facing east JUN 3 1980 SUBJECT TECHNICAL DATA - DATE JUL 15 1980 HALE AND DORR COUNSELLORS AT LAW 60 STATE STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 TELEX 94-0472 TELECOPIER DOMESTIC (617) 367-6133 (617) 742-9108 INTERNATIONAL (617) 367-6180 TELEPHONE (617) 742-9100 CABLE ADDRESS HAFIS BSN April 8, 1980 Ms. Patricia L. Weslowski State Historical Preservation Officer Mass. Historical Commission 294 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Dear Ms. Weslowski: Herbert W.

Vaughan and Thomas Horan, as trustees of the property known as the United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building ("United Shoe Building") at 140 Federal Street in submits the following comments in opposition to the nomination of said property for the National Register. The opposition of the trustees to the National Register nomination of this building derives from the fact that this structure fails to qualify for National Register status under the criteria established in 36 CFR $60.6. To qualify for the National Register, a building must satisfy one of four condi- tions: A.

The building must be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or Although the building was constructed to be the head- quarters of the United Shoe Machinery Corporation, the design of the building expresses its role as an office building rather than the owner's relationship to the shoe industry. The building never served as a factory, in fact, not a single pair of shoes has ever been manufactured at 140 Federal Street. maintain, as the Massachusetts Historical Commission does, that a building's services as a corporate head- quarters is "associated with an event that has made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our his- tory" is to suggest that every headquarter for a major industry qualifies for the National Register.

It should be clear, therefore, that any National Register nomination of the United Shoe Building relying upon the building's relationship to the shoe industry would be a spurious - HALE AND DORR Ms. Patricia L. Weslowski State Historical Preservation Officer April 8, 1980 Page Iwo and il1-founded manipulation of the building's true place in history. B. Ihe building must be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or There has been no serious suggestion that the United Shoe Building is associated with the life of a signi- ficant historical personage. C. The building must embody the distinctive characteris- tics of a type, period, or method of construction, must represent the work of a master.

or must possess high artistic values, or must represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or The Art Deco style in Boston never achieved the high development of style associated with Art Deco in other cities. The Art Deco style itself has always been an eclectic artistic compromise between the waning victorian style and the waxing modern architecture. The conservative environs of Boston forced a further compromise in the very essence of the style by pre- senting a constrained manifestation of a style whose essence is exuberance and lack of restraint. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Art Deco skyscraper, indeed highrise building itself, did not gain great acceptance in Boston until the mid-sixties. Even in the Boston context, the United Shoe Building is not an exemplary Art Deco building.

Unlike famous Art Deco structures such as the Chrysler Building in New York and the Palmolive Building in Chicago, the United Shoe Building does not capture the dramatic theme of movement which epitomizes the style. The building is not even noted as a skyscraper of interest by national and international architectural professionals. Hence, under the criteria establishing eligibility for the National Register, the United Shoe Building does not qualify as a distinctively characteristic structure of its period. - HALE AND DORR Ms. Patricia I. Weslowski State Historical Preservation Officer April 8, 1980 Page Ihree D. The building must have yielded, or must be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The United Shoe Building has not yielded, nor is it likely to yiela, information significant in our pre- history or history.

It is apparent from the above review of the four criteria relevant to National Register nominations that the United Shoe Building does not qualify for the National Register. This con- clusion is buttressed by the other criteria considerations out- lined in 36 CFR $60.6. "Ordinarily * * * properties that have achieved significance within the past fifty years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify iI * * * they fall within the following categories: * * * G. A property achieving significance within the past fifty years if it is of exceptional impor- tance." Although the United Shoe Building was completed approximately fifty years ago, the building was not considered significant at that time.

Aside from being noted as a new skyscraper on the skyline, the United Shoe Building's design when constructed met with neither critical acclaim nor disclaim. If the United Shoe Building has achieved significance at all, that significance has been achieved in the past fifty years. Thus, the standard which must be met before considering the United Shoe Building for National Register nomination is whether the building is of excep- tional importance. For all the reasons expressed above, the United Shoe Building fails to meet this exceptional importance standard and the nomination for National Register must be rejected. Given the short time period provided for preparation in advance of the National Register nomination hearing, the trustees have not been able to include the various materials which support the statements made above.

Given more time, however, it would be pleased to provide whatever further documentation the Nomination - HALE AND DORR Ms. Patricia L. Weslowski State Historical Preservation Officer April 8, 1980 Page Four Review Board desires. Sincerely yours, J. Ower Todd, Counsel for the Trustees of 140 Federal Street JOT: mhf CC: Mr. Donald C. Moulton MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Office of the Secretary of State 294 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 617-727-8470 MICHAEL JOSEPH CONNOLLY Secretary of State May 19, 1980 RECEIVED JUN3 1980 NATIONAL REGISTER Ms. Carol Shull Acting Keeper Registration Branch Herigage Conservation and Recreation Service 440 G Street NW Washington, DC 20243 Dear Ms.

Shull: Enclosed you will find the following nomination forms: Boston: United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building (state) Cambridge: Sacred Heart Church, Rectory, School and Convent (local) Deerfield: Dedic Site. (state) All have been voted eligible by the State Review Board and have been signed by the State Historic Preservation Officer. Sincerely, Christine Boulding chustre Bouding Survey Director CB/mt encls. 30 May 1980 Mr. E1l1ot Lee Richardson 1100 Crest Lane Meloao, Virginla 22:01 Dear Mr. Richardaon: I very much enjoyed oux conversation on the plane fron Mlami to Boston on Monday. However, I must apologize for my not having recogaized you bafore you wera kind enough to introduce yourself!

I have long been an ardent adairer of yours, and have serloualy hoped that in the next natlonal election you ralght make the ultinate sacrifice and allow yourself to ba considered as a potentlal nominee for the Preaidency. I muat add that after our brlaf anonynous acquaintance, I am convinced that I was absolutely riglt in baving that hope! Inasmuch as you indicated that you would be interested in following the United Shoe case, I am enclosing a copy of the final report which I presented to the Boaton Landmarks Conmission. I firmly believe that the vrong decision 1n thio case wight hava a serious negative cffect on preservation efforts chroughout tha United States. I an also taking the 11berty of sending you soma Vizcaya naterlal aud hope that when you're next in Miamt you may want to pay us a visit. I hope your journey on the "tall ship" was as exciting as anticipated.

With best xogaxds, Youre alacerely, Cart J. Welnbardt, Jr. Director, Museun Diviaion -.Dade County Park & Recreatlon Department Enclosures To H. plesse hoak st OBSERVATIONS ON THE NOMINATION OF THE Tus, wlyour UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION BUILDING Sfaft, E theu DESIGNATION AS A LANDMARK BY THE BOSTON LANDMARKS COMMISSION I must ausue. ers I. With reference to the letters from Mr. Owen Todd of Hale and Dorr to Ms. Patricia L. Weslowski of April 8 and May 9, 1980: National Register Criteria A. "The building must be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history." Mr.

Todd's statement that the Commission's lengthy history of the development of the shoe manufacturing industry in Massachusetts in no way establishes that this building is "associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history" is entirely correct. The building is a respectable commercial office structure of its period which apart from its name, and a few very minor decorative details--''heads of cattle wearing headdresses (representing leather used in shoe making)" and " - stylized made men, some working with leather and hand tools for shoes" and'' classical figures of two women resting on a piece of shoe machinery These insignificant applied details have no particular intrinsic quality and are little more than a polite sop on the part of the designers to their principal corporate patron.

With a different assignment and two or three days' work by the designers, the building could just as well have been headquarters for a company that manufactured razors, radios, or radiators. In short, this large and pedestrian commercial structure is in no way a logical or fitting symbol of the importance of the shoe industry in the history of the Commonwealth. Indeed, one of the early shoe factories which might well have been on the site in the mid-19th century, or the birthplace of Phillips Brooks which was once on the site, would have had far more historical significance. (The Brooks plaque should, of course, be preserved and applied to the new building that may be erected there, and another could be added citing the fact that the U.S.M.Corp. Building had once stood there--for whatever that might be worth.) B.

"The building must enbody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction, or must represent the work of a master, or must possess high artistic values, or must represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual idistinction." Mr. Todd's refutation of the Commission's position on this criteria is in general equally convincing and valid. 1. "The building must embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction . - " This clause in itself is so -2- general as to be virtually meaningless. Almost any large building des igned by a large architectural firm for a large corporation will almost inevitably meet this standard. The U.S.M.Corp.

Building does indeed embody many of the characteristics of the style which has relatively recently (and probably temporarily) been assigned the name "Art Deco." However, no serious scholar or critic of the style originar, e novatusly that 7o5 could argue seriously that it does so in an historically significant, original, innovative, or aesthetically satisfactory manner. The ardent preservationists will, no doubt, try to dismiss the contention of the Stubbins' firm that "squat, massive character- istics of the building constitute an unconscious pardoy of Art Deco," as coming from a prejudiced source which has a financial interest in the demolition of the building.

However, as a reasonably objective architectural historian, | had written before seeing the Stubbins' report: "The structure has a stocky, unpleasantly heavy and 'non- soaring' quality due to the overall use of a relatively large site and the height limitations, which completely defeat its would be verticality." 2. ".. . or must represent the work of a master . . ." There can certainly be no serious attempt to justify landmark status on this score. Three quotes from the Commission's own report (section 3.2, p. 17 of 44) go a long way toward laying this hope to rest. a. ". - no one school or style dominated their work." b."... there have, of course been other architectural firms the volumn of whose work has been larger, but it is safe to say that there is none whose work has been more varied" (the Architectural Record, 1913). c.

"They worked with facility in a number of architectural styles and vocabularies." 3."..ormust possess high artistic values- .." "Facile" is indeed the word for their work (see "c" above). They pursued no philosophy or style with any genius or conviction, but rather produced numerous reasonably competent essays dictated by the fashions of the moment or the wishes of their clients. If the two happened to coincide so much the better, but the results were never the inspired "work of a master." 4. "... or must represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction." The building is indeed a "distinguishable entity" and its components for the most part "lack of individual distinction," but even by the most lenient standards it is not "significant." -3- c.

"Urdinarily properties that have achieved significance in the past fifty years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such building will qualify if..." (they are of) "exceptional importance." A half century's perspective has enabled us to recognize and define the Art Deco styles and begin to assess its importance. At this point in time it appears to have been an erratic, sometimes brilliant, often diverting but ultimately false attempt to create a complete new language or ornament suitable to the new era with its radically new building techniques, or the "machine age," and "the century of progress." Its application was often at once ludicrous and whimsical. Perfume flasks became mini soaring skyscrapers, and toasters and tie clasps, neither of which was going very far or very fast, were streamlined.

It was short-lived and its beginning and end were neatly defined by the two great wars--l and I|. Like its predecessor, Art Nouveau, with which there brief, and for our present nostalgia-ridden generations, fascinating hod for ur prasene nost are certain parallels, it died a natural death. It was a chapter in the history of our architecture. Its naive optimism and presumption have great appeal in our more troubled time. It will take much longer to determine whether it will rate more than a passing reference in the grand story of the history of the world's architecture. Whatever the ultimate judgement may be, the finest works of the period should certainly be preserved. The perspective we now have on the style makes it possible to distinguish the best from the mediocre and amateurish works in a definitive way.

The building has not achieved significance within the past 50 years because it is a poor example of the style, and could in no way be construed as having "exceptional importance." Placing it on the National Register and/or designating it as a landmark will in no way change this fundamental fact, and would be grossly misleading to the general public which deserves to expect that such designations signify that the structure is of true importance in our social history or an aesthetic acheivement of real.distinction. Il. Other Considerations A. The question must immediately be asked, 'is this the only large building of the Art Deco style in Boston, and as such, should its preservation be considered despite its mediocrity? The answer fortunately is "no". There are at least seven other "Deco Sky-scrapers" in the nearby downtown area.

Three of these are I believe of clearly superior quality, and a fourth is of considerable interest for a number of reasons. 75 Federal Street, the Batterymarch (Public Service Building), the Federal Courthouse and Post Office, and possibly the New England Telephone and Telegraph Building. These are all worthy of being carefully considered as candidates for both the National Register and Landmark designation. - -4- It is indeed unfortunate that all the time and efforts now being spent on the U.S.M.Corp. "case" , are not being directed to the far more worthy cause of preserving one or all of these buildings. The mere fact that a building is threatened can in no way alter the fundamental facts about it, but 1 am afraid that it can and often does alter one's perception of those facts. 1. the U.S.M.Corp. structure. Po.

sericture Thoas V ed era e tall, it possesses the soaring verticality in a natural and seeming es the soar ing ver tiatiey Though 75 Federal is smaller and not as effortless way, which the ponderous U.S.M Corp. building failed to achieve. Its overall properties are far finer and it is enhanced nrouat ly nitk pochenge ayr il en cora cho adtene U.S.M.Corp. building, but here is more clearly understood, far better executed and fully realized form. If one forgets the tenuous and unconvincing argument about socio-historic importance, and compares the two buildings on purely architectural grounds, 75 Federal Street would win the contest by acclamation. Furthermore it has the added advantage of higher visibility from the pedestrian level on three sides of its finer deco details - the elaborate floral stone ornament and large low relief bronze panels above the first floor.

The lobby too is more sophisticated and elegant in its decor. The elevator doors are at least worthy of mention in the company of their best counterparts in the great monu- nents of the style in New York The ceiling has unfortunately been "modernized" and the original light fixtures removed. This however could be rectified with a proper restoration program. One of the original elevator cabs remains by some happy accident. This is the first on the left (or north-east), as one enters from Franklin Street. The ground plan at the lobby being symmetrical is more satisfactory and suitable to deco principles than the rather ambiguous and unresolved L-shaped plan at the U.S.M.Corp. lobby with its unfortu- nate change of level - just inside the High Street entrance. 2.

The Batterymarch building is also of great interest, and is unusually original and innovative in its expression of the deco vocabulary. The subtle transition of color of the brick from reddish brown at the base through orange to yellow as it ascends to the top is both very unusual and beautiful. The handsome colored terra-cotta ornamental details, which occur frequently in important deco buildings in other cities, are used with particular effectiveness here. The arcaded screens which carry the plane of the street facade across the lower level of the light courts are both unusual and effective. The great "romanesque" brick arched entry though adapted to its "deco" setting may well have been a deliberate reference to Boston's great archi- tectural heritage in general - or even 233 Clarendon Street in-. particular. -5- 3.

The Federal Courthouse and Post Office is a truly monumental stone structure in the style, with a strong and memorable silhouette and skyline. It was designed by a major architectural firm, Cram & Ferguson, and due to its ownership and function will always have an excellent chance of being preserved. 4. The New England Telephone & Telegraph Building designed by the same firm, is of special interest because it is an unusual and major instance of the persistance of the style into the post-war years of 1946-47. The detailing here is more reserved and somber, and though the Commission report refers to it as "Art Modern", it is clearly an important example, in excellent condition of very late deco. The remaining three though characteristically "Deco" in concept, overall design, and detail are not in the same class as those mentioned above.

They are the Western Union Building, the New Suffolk County Courthduse and the Bowdoin Square New England Telephone Bowdoin Square Building. While less important they have the Deco characteristics, and like the U.S.M.Corp. building are interesting as period and study peices, but not of "Landmark" quality. B. Inasmuch as all the blueprints that | have studied date from 1928, and there are drawings dated '27, it is hard to accept the implications in the Commission's report that the building is a monument to corporate imagery which represents the hope "of a disillusioned economic period" or that it aspires "past the traumatic Depression".

However | do agree with the Commission's assessment of the merit of the bronze details of the ground floor of the building and would hope that these grills, chandeliers, elevator doors and other elements will be preserved should iosto he bultiea an e rs erit the building be demolished, be reused creatively in a new structure on this site or elsewhere. Il.Conclusion In summary,-speaking only as a preservationist, 1 feel strongly that the U.S.M.Corp building should not be placed on the Register or designated as a Landmark. To thus honor a structure, which is of highly questionable historic import and a second or third rate example of the style it repre- sents, would be a serious disservice to the preservation cause, not only in Boston but throughout the nation.

The fact that it is a very large economic white elephant is bound to dramatize and intensify the negative results of these actions. In closing I would like to respectfully urge the commission to exercise its l'option of not designating the building as a landmark." Carl J. Weinhardt, Jr. .. Boston, 25 May 1980 6/6) 80 Chris I Think this is reall, a potentiaely veviy. senous case which could hurt us all. If it were worth Nat. Pegister status it wauld be amother story. It isnt! What is your reaction?, best as ever. Cane 1. CALL To: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE TELEPHONE REPORT FROM (Name) DATE 7/3/80 TIME OF CALL AM PM 2. ADDRESS (Tel. No. if needed) Candy Venkins MASS. SHPOffie 3. SUBJECT, PROJECT NO., ETC.

United Shoe Machinery corporation B1d9 - Subfolh counts, DETAILS OF DISCUSSION Requested more photos- full sife outside shots interior - lobby shots. 8 /1/ - Photos arried IAME O R8ON PLACING Paticle Anduna FHR-8-227 June 1978 ING CALL TITLE OFFICE MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Office of the Secretary of State 294 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 617-727-8470 July 10, 1980 MICHAEL JOSEPH CONNOLLY Secretary of State 6> LELIN RECEIVED JUL 1 5 1980 NATIONAL REGISTER Carol Shull, Acting Keeper Department of the Interior HCRS, DOI, 434 440 G STreet Washington, DC 20243 Atten: Patrick Andrews Dear Ms. Shull: Enclosed is a contact sheet of the United Shoe Machinery Corp. Building in Boston. I hope that this additional photographic information will allow your staff to complete their review of this nomination with a favorable result.

The views are described below: 1-3 South elevation (High Street) 4-7 Southeast elevation (High Street) 8-9 East elevation 10-11 West elevation (Federal STreet) 12 Entry (Federal Street) 13 West elevation 14-20 Lobby showing chandeliers, elevators and door surrounds. Sincerely, Candace Jenkins Evaluation Director Candace enkins CJ/mt enc. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Office of the Secretary of State 294 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 617-727-8470 MICHAEL JOSEPH CONNOLLY Secretary of State July 31, 1980 Carol Shull, Acting Keeper National Register of Historic Places W434 Washington, D.C. 20243 Dear Mrs. Shull: Enclosed you will find 2 8x10 black and white photos of the United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building in Boston (Suffolk County). I hope that this will allow your staff to complete their review.

Sincerely, Candace Candace Jenkins Evaluation Director enhin RECEIVED CJ/1k AUG 1 1 1980 NATIONAL REGISTER 9 Url 42 :11680 OND THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES DATÉ R.D AUG | | 1980 ESPONSE (ATTACHED) MTERIAL SENT T.L HUNE CALL (ATTACHED) DATE ACTION TAKEN INITIALS ENTRIES IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER STATE MASSACHUSKTTS Date Entered AUG | 9 1980 Name United Shoe Machinery Corpozation Building Location Boston Sulfolk County Also Notified Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Honorable Paul Tsongas Honorable John J. Moakley State Historic Preservation Officer Mrs. Patrícia L. Weslowski Executive Director, Massachusetts Historical Commission 294 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 NR Byers/mjd 9/2/80 For further information, please call the National Register at (202)343-6401.

HALE AND DORR COUNSELLORS AT LAW 60 STATE STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 TELEX 94-0472 TELECOPIER DOMESTIC (617) 367-6133 (617) 742-9108 INTERNATIONAL (617)367-6180 TELEPHONE (617) 742-9100 CABLE ADDRESS HAFIS BSN September 29, 1980 Chris DelaPorte, Director Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Department of the Interior 1oth & c streets, N.W. Washington, DC 20240 Re: Appeal of National Register Designation of 140 Federal Street, Boston, Massachusetts Dear Mr. DelaPorte: As attorneys for Herbert W. Vaughan and Thomas Horan, Trustees (the "Trustees") of the property known as the United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building ("United Shoe Building") located at 140 Federal Street in Boston, Massachusetts, we are writing to contest your action in designating said building for the National Register.

The Trustees maintain, as they have since the date of nomination, that the United Shoe Building fails to qualify for the National Register under the criteria established by 36 CFR $60.6. The Massachusetts Historical Commission was apprised of this fact but nonetheless nominated the building for the National Register. Your recent designation of the United Shoe Building for the Register apparently also ignores the fact that this building fails to qualify under the legal criteria established by the regulations. We wish now to appeal what we believe to be your improper designation of the United Shoe Building. In reviewing the appropriate rules and regulations, however, we find no means by which we can assert an appeal.

As we would like to avoid an appeal by means of the courts, please advise us of any available and appropriate administrative appeal mechanism through which your designation decision can be reviewed. HALE AND DORR Chris DelaPorte, Director Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service September 29, 1980 Page Two We are seeking this appeal despite the fact that we received our only notice of designation through a brief mention in the Federal Register and a news item in the Boston Globe. No direct notice of designation has been received by the owners of ano eummetste that 140 Federal Street. We are surprised that you would make a designation without notifying the affected owners. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter and look forward to your response. Sincerely yours, J.lwentodd Counsel for the Trustees of 140 Federal Street Boston, Massachusetts JOT: mhf CC: Herbert W. Vaughan, Esq.

Mr. Donald C. Moulton THE NATIONAL REGIS DATE REC'DOCT INDIVID INFOR TELEPI ORIC PLACES 9 1980 BNTE ACTION INITIALS 5D) BASIC FILE RETAINED IN NR bcc: NR FHR:P Andrus:bjr:11/19/80:343-6401 Patück Enduus 12/2/50 436 DEC 2 Mr. J. Owen Todd Counsel Hale and Dorr Counsellors at Law 60 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Dear Mr. Todd: 1980 Thank you tor your letter of September 29, 1980, concerning the United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, listed in the National Register of Historic Places on August 19, 1980. The method for appealing the listing of properties in the National Register is to apply for a delisting pursuant to 36 CFR 1202.17. Properties can be removed from the National Register only under certain circunstances.

As outlined in the enclosed Federal regulations, properties nominated by the States or Federal agencies will be removed from the National Register only when they have ceased to meet the criteria for the National Register: when the qualities which caused them originally to be nominated have been lost or destroyed; upon proof that an error in professional judgment has been made; or, for failure to follow the procedures set forth in the Federal regulations. Information concerning the loss of integrity, error in judgment, or procedural error should be submitted through the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer to the Acting Keeper of the National Register. As you know, the State Historic Preservation Officer for Massachusetts is Mrs. Patricia Weslowski, Executive Director, Massachusetts Historical Conmission, 294 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108.

In addition to reviewing any material sent to the Acting Keeper of the National Register through the State Historic Preservation Officer, we would be happy to meet here in Washington, D.C., With you or your representative, to discuss the decision of the National Register to list the United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building. If you wish to arrange such a meeting please telephone Patrick Andrus of the National Register staff at 202-343-6401, to arrange a mutually convenient tine. Sincerely, Ronald M. Greenberg (Sgd.) TOT Jerry L. Rogers Acting Keeper of the National Enclosure Register cc: Mrs. Patricia Weslowski, SHPO, Massachusetts Padrick- pleaarcheike this tommatia re stanus, these conments, ete; get back to he 80 lar can ged back to Chi- Calal