Talk:John Hancock Tower/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Until I get this all straightened out, I've put a draft version in John Hancock Tower/temp.

Relying rather uncritically on a book,

Lyndon, Donlyn, (1982), The City Observed: Boston, A Guide to the Architecture of the Hub, Vintage Books.

I wrote that there were three John Hancock buildings in Boston. I still think that's probably right, but Keith Tyler called me on it and there is a bit of puzzle about the buildings' addresses and identities. Either Lyndon messed up, or the addresses have changed rather drastically. My supposition is:

• The 1922 building WAS at 200 Clarendon and is now called the Steven Brown building and IS at 197 Clarendon
• The 1947 building with the weather-forecasting beacon WAS at 175 Berkeley and IS NOW at 200 Berkeley
• The 1975 big glass tower WAS at Hancock Place and IS NOW at 200 Clarendon

Does this seem possible?

The following is a direct quote from Lyndon, P. 193, IV A 7

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company Buildings

200 Clarendon Street

between St. James Avenue and Stuart Street

Parker, Thomas & Rice, 1922

175 Berkeley Street

between St. James avenue and Stuart Street

Cram & Ferguson, 1947

Hancock Place

between St. James avenue and Stuart Street, west of Clarendon Street

I. M. Pei & Partners, 1975

Notice that the address given for the big glass tower, "Hancock Place," matches that in the old article above. But, as of 2004, the address of the big glass tower is always given as 200 Clarendon Street."

Lyndon says specifically "If you stand on the corner of Clarendon Street and St. James Avenue and look directly into the mirrored surface of the third Hancock, you will see reflected there the first two, aligned hierarchically in an ethereal family portrait." So when he wrote it, all three of them existed at the same time.

Lyndon's map, opposite p. 189, is perfectly clear. There are three locations labelled with a 7 in a circle. Once is in the block bounded by St. James, Trinity Pl, Stuart, and Clarendon. One is at the Clarendon Street end of the block bounded by St. James, Berkeley, Stuart, and Clarendon. One is at the Berkeley Street end of that same block. The text describes the "first building" as being "on Clarendon street" and refers to viewing it from the observation floor of the "third John Hancock" and saying "the earlier tower remains walled up inside the additions" suggesting an almost-vertical view. From his map it looks as if the first and third building would almost face each other across Clarendon Street, and from his description it sounds as if you could look almost vertically down at the first building from the observation floor of the third.

Now, a Boston Globe article says (archives free online to print subscribers, in case you're wondering whether my house is stacked full of old newspapers)

HANCOCK SEEKS BUYER FOR TOWER COMPLEX

Author: By Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff Date: 11/27/2002 Page: E3 Section: Business

It's official: The John Hancock Tower is for sale.

The 60-story tower in Boston's Back Bay, perhaps the city's most distinctive office building, is being put on the market along with two nearby company-owned buildings. Hancock officials would not say how much they will be asking for the properties, which include 197 Clarendon St. and 200 Berkeley St. as well as the mirrored glass tower. Nor would they say how much they expect to get.

This would all make perfect sense IF

• 197 Clarendon = the first, 1922 building;
• 200 Berkeley = the "old" tower with the colored beacon
• 200 Clarendon = the new big glass tower A.K.A. the Plywood Palace...

Googling on 197 Clarendon reveals that as of 2004 there is a building at that address, it is known as the "Steven Brown building," and it contains many John Hancock offices.

Any help on this would be welcome. My current residence and commute do not take me into Boston regularly, so I can't ascertain "ground truth" in the obvious way. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

John Hancock public relations confirms that there is a building at 197 Clarendon that was owned by John Hancock. She thought 1922 "sounded right" for the age. My contact (whose name I cleverly forgot to get) says that it is currently known as the "Steven Brown building," after the (former?) chairman of John Hancock; the name change was recent, "within the last couple of years" but she doesn't know exactly when; and that it was previously known as "The Clarendon Building." This sounds like Lyndon's "first building." I'd bet a nickel that it was known as "The Clarendon Building" following construction of the 1947 Berkeley Street building. She says that "Hancock Place" is not an actual street address but was used as a mailing address for the big tower. Will say more when and if I find out more. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, you're gonna love this. The Structurae picture of what is supposed to be Cram and Ferguson's 1947 building at 175 Berkeley, at [1], is actually a picture of 500 Boylston Street, which as far as I know has no relation to John Hancock (it's main tenant if not owner was Houghton Mifflin). Also Structurae claims that 175 Berkely is a 26 story building; BRA's Boston Atlas reports that 175 Berkeley is only 11 stories (and 500 Boylston is 18). So even architecture sites (like this one, which has otherwise served me very well for Brutalism) appear to be unreliable. However, they link to Emporis, which has both the address (200 Berkeley) and picture correct ([2]). For some reason, though, the BRA Boston Atlas identifies the building as "90 St. James".

26 stories sounds to me like the correct height of the "old John Hancock," i.e. 200 Berkeley. Oddly enough the Lyndon book and the first umpteen places I Googled don't happen to give the number of stories...

Sigh, I wish I were on the ground out there still. But to be fair, I never heard anyone ever mention a third "Hancock building" -- "the old John Hancock building" always refers to the one with the weather signal at the top.

Check out this: [3] -- it refers to a joint contract for janitorial services for all three of the buildings you list above in your "This would make sense if" paragraph. I think you were right on there. As for Lyndon, well, he at least seems to have gotten the map right. I didn't realize Boston's downtown architectural history was so complicated. And I used to work immediately near or regularly visit quite a lot of these buildings. - KeithTyler 18:53, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

---

Hey, people with Massachusetts library cards can get access to some databases at home, courtesy of the local library network and/or the BPL! Kewl! Now I can search the Herald, too:

Boston Herald (MA)

August 28, 1992

Smoke gives Hancock employees eerie deja vu

Edition: 01

Section: NEWS

Page: 014

Article Text:

Employees at the John Hancock building got an unwelcome feeling of deja vu yesterday when they saw clouds of thick black smoke billowing across their office windows. There was no fire at the building, located at 197 Clarendon St., and no injuries resulted from the malfunction of a basement generator. The problem was corrected in 10 minutes.

A four-alarm fire forced the evacuation of 3,000 people from the 62-story John Hancock Tower across the street Aug. 11.

Fire and Hancock officials said the smoke from yesterday's 12:20 p.m. incident escaped through a seventh-floor diesel exhaust and never entered the building.

A Hancock spokesman said there had been no previous problems with the building's three diesel generators...

So, here's a citation of a building at 197 Clarendon Street that's across from the Tower, and the report calls it "the John Hancock building." Although probably only in a generic sense.

Also: Boston Herald, October 28, 2002 "Overall, Hancock has roughly 2.8 million square feet of space on the market, including its signature 60-story Clarendon Street tower and its old 30-story tower at 200 Berkeley St., as well as a 12-story building at 197 Clarendon." November 27, 2002: "A collection of Boston landmarks officially went on the auction block yesteday. Hub corporate giant John Hancock Financial Services Inc. said it is selling its towering glass-skinned Copley Square headquarters as well as its former home, the hulking Berkeley Building, which sports a weather-signaling spire seen for miles, and a third building. In all, the 3 million square feet of Back Bay office space Hancock put up for sale could fetch close to $1 billion, observers said yesterday....Hancock also said it would sell a third big Back Bay office building, at 197 Clarendon St., for a package that could bring $900 million, observers say."

So, I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that from 1975 to 2002, the John Hancock Financial Mumble Whatever Corporation owned three big buildings, that the correct addresses are 197 Clarendon, 200 Berkeley, and 200 Clarendon, and that they were probably built on the dates and architects mentioned by Lyndon. What I'm not at all clear on is what names which buildings had at what times.

(By the way, for the record, I'm not an architectural maven. Ignoramus would be closer to the mark. I simply hated Boston City Hall when it was built. I had arguments with people when I insisted that, at the time, all the newspapers and architects were simply gushing over this obvious monstrosity. No ordinary layperson believes that anybody in their right mind could have thought that was a good idea. Amazingly enough there was a column in the Globe just the other day explaining that not only did architects love it then, they still love it now. Keith, nice article on Brutalism. If you're one of the people who thinks raw concrete and huge plazas made of solid brick are great, we will just have to agree to disagree. I assume you've actually tried to walk across that awful flat expanse on a cold winter day with the wind blowing, and a surface that has been very imperfectly cleared of snow and ice.....) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't declare myself an architectural expert either, but I do admire the stuff. I can get lost staring into a floor plan. I've learned a fair amount about the Modernist style and its offspring though through research on this art and on Brutalism. And no, despite having walked up the stairs on the south side of the building probably a hundred times, I've never walked into the building or into the inner court, since I've never had business in city hall. But I loved looking up at the building, shouting its intention and purpose with its very shape over the uniquely empty plaza. Which reminds me, I need to put Boston City Hall on my todo list. - KeithTyler 17:17, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

---

The properties include the John Hancock Tower, an iconic glass structure at 200 Clarendon St., as well as the Stephen L. Brown Building at 197 Clarendon St. and the Berkeley Building at 200 Berkeley St. Together, the buildings known as the Tower Complex comprise 2.9 million square feet of office space. IREI News Archives... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:50, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Aha! The references to the "Steven Brown" buildings are misspelled. It is the Stephen L. Brown building.

John Hancock Chairman Stephen L. Brown to Retire in May. PR Newswire, Feb 5, 2001 John Hancock Financial Services, Inc. today announced that its chairman, Stephen L. Brown, will retire May 14.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:50, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copied from Hancock Place (which is now a redirect to this page). If anyone finds anything useful to merge into this article, feel free.

Hancock Place on Copley Square is the tallest building in Boston

Ever since Mies Van Der Rohe's proposed glass skyscraper for Berlin, modern architecture has been working toward the vision of the tall, skinny, glass box.

A few modern architects tried for that vision, and we have Lever House and the Seagram buildings in New York by Gordon Bunschaft and Mies himself, respectively, as well as the Johnson Wax Research Tower by Frank Lloyd Wright, but nobody got that glass wall down to almost invisible, the Holy Grail of modernism. There was always too much mullion, or too much structure showing.

In 1972, Ieoh Ming Pei finally managed to pull it off with the Hancock Tower in Boston.

Pei wrapped up the modern movement and tied it up with a bow in that building. Each bay of each floor is a single pane of glass; there are no spandrels between the floors and the mullions are minimal. In a stroke of genius, Pei took the rectangular floor plan and made it into a parallelogram, so that from the most common views, the corners of the tower were even sharper. You expect the corners of a skyscraper to be square and those acute angles make it seem like it's standing on point shoes. The reflective glass is tinted blue, so on a bright day it's just a bit of transplanted sky, a giant slab of Magritte in the Boston skyline. For a final touch, he added a pin-stripe of geometry to the shorter sides so they would always reflect a different piece of the sky, emphasizing the vertical lines.

As far as engineering goes, the building was a nightmare. Most people know about how the windows started blowing out shortly after it was built, something that nearly ended Pei's career. Inventing a way to use that lovely blue mirror glass in a steel tower came at a high price. But even that's relatively minor: one entire floor is dedicated to a large metal counterweight, added after the fact, that counterbalances harmonic vibrations in high winds. And there are sump-pumps in the basement that constantly pump water away from its foundation. They pump it back into the ground a few feet away, since Trinity Church, just across the street, was built on wooden pilings that can't be allowed to dry out because if they did they'd begin to rot.

There really wasn't anything left for modern architects to do with skyscrapers after that, and the profession moved on to other things. An entire school of architectural theory was presented with the ultimate example of its craft. Architects turned to post-modernism, and began to re-examine ornament. Ornament is back in now. Form doesn't necessarily follow function anymore. A chapter of architectural theory was closed with the ultimate building of its style.

• I assume someone has noticed by now that that's a copyvio from a website mentioned in one of the external links, namely: http://www.well.com/user/arturner/hancock.html ? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • Yep, and I invite you visit the history of Hancock Place, the predecessor to this article, and compare the username of the first contributor to that URL. - KeithTyler 17:18, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

...Let's posit that there is a building at 197 Clarendon, and let's posit that it was built in 1922, and owned by the John Hancock Whatever The Last Part Of The Corporate Name Is from 1922 until about 2002, and known as "The Clarendon Building" in recent years up to about 2003, and is now known as "The Stephen L. Brown Building."

The big question is: what was this building called? (Officially and/or unofficially).

If there was a period of time when that building was generally called "the John Hancock Building..." maybe from 1922 until 1947 when the second building was built... then... there are three John Hancock buildings in Boston, and that's a faintly interesting trivia point which should go in the article.

If, on the other hand, all that can be said is that there are two John Hancock buildings (the "old John Hancock building" and "the John Hancock Tower") and that the company also owned a third building in Boston with some random name that was never closely identified with the company, that doesn't really seem to be worthy of note. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, here are some examples that might help. this map shows the big tower and the old weathervane tower. The dotted lines go right past the "if you stand..." spot. this photo is a bit back from there (looks like Boylston and Clarendon) but it gives you the right idea. I think the original Hancock building is between the weathervane and the tower right at the corner of Clarendon and St. James. No idea if it was ever called the Hancock, though. --SFoskett 01:44, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Boston Globe archives go back over a hundred years. I wonder if you could narrow down the date of construction, groundbreaking, or occupation, if it would be possible for someone in the area to head to a library and see if they can find anything. It sounds like JH PR won't probably know the answer. The only way then would be to go back in time, ask an older person, or look at some historic record (like the newspapers). Shrug. - KeithTyler 02:11, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Sure. The Lyndon book has a date (1922). And this page says, rather confusingly, "1922, after World War II brought shortages, change and improvisation. Barely 20 years old, the home office was bursting at the seams and the company dispersed its operations wherever space was available. Women were recruited as agents -- and as prospects for insurance." No doubt they meant to say World War I. It sound as if they were leading up to saying something about a new building, but... they don't.

Furthermore if I go to my public library in person, they have a computer service that searches the Globe for a hundred years back. So I'm only a five minute drive and a half-hour of time from taking another nibble at this, which I will do at the next convenient opportunity. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note also that that page says that "the iron fence around the clarendon building was consigned to the scrap metal drive" under the 1918 entry, a full four years before all other sources state the building as being constructed. (I suppose the fence could have been erected four years before the building was finished....) - KeithTyler 23:58, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Look here [4] for the real version of the material you found. - KeithTyler

I'll be in Boston tomorrow morning, so I'll go by Clarendon St. and take some photos of the three buildings. --SFoskett 15:26, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Assuming you mean that you plan to add them to the article... that would be great! As long as you're there... could you look to see whether any names of the building appear on them anywhere, either in the form of actual signs on the buildings themselves or in the directory or anything like that. BTW how does "John Hancock Hall" at "180 Berklee Street" factor into this? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd also recommend trying to find the date that 197 Clarendon was rededicated the "Stephen L. Brown Building". As for John Hancock Hall, that is within the Berkeley Building structure. You pass by the doors to the hall within the lobby when going into the main building. (It's very nostalgic Art Deco looking -- with the hall's name in back-lighted silvery steel block letters over the doors. (Or maybe it's back-lighted etched glass, I can't quite remember. So if you're looking for more picture subjects while you're there, Sfoskett... :) )) - KeithTyler 18:50, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, of course... 180 Berklee is a misspelling of 180 Berkeley. Duh. (Strike heel of palm sharply against forehead). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

P. S. (Re the date of the rededication. As I noted in an HTML comment, Brown retired on May 14th, 2001, and I will be quite surprised if the date of the name change isn't sometime in 2001, but yes, it would be nice to pin it down).

Well, I was wrong—the database at the public library doesn't have 100 years of the Globe, but it does have 100 years of the New York Times, and:

New York Times, May 6, 1930, pg. 36:

J. Harleston Parker
-----
Senior Partner of Boston Firm of Architects Dies at 57.
Special to The New York Times.
BOSTON, May 5.—J. Harleston Parker senior member of the Boston architectural firm of Parker, Thomas & Rice, died today after a brief illness... Some of the principal buildings in Boston were built from designs by his firm. These include the United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building, the Chamber of Commerce Building, the John Hancock Life Insurance Building and the structures occupied by the Boston Consolidated Gas Company and the Boston Five Cents Savings Bank.... A graduate of Nobel and Greenough School and Harvard in 1892 with an honorary degree in the fine arts, he also attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and studied for four years at the Beaux Arts in Paris.

and

New York Times; March 26, 1938

ARTHUR W. RICE
-----
Retired Architect Had Designed Many Boston Buildings
-----
Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
BOSTON, March 25.—Arthur Wallace Rice, retired architect and member of the firm of Parker, Thomas & Rice, which built the Chamber of Commerce Building, died today at his home in Milton.

Among the prominent Boston structures designed by him were the Boston Consolidated Gas Company, The Boston Five Cent Savings Bank, R. H. Stearns Company and John Hancock Life Insurance Buildings.

Born in Roxbury in 1870, son of George W. and Adelaide Walker Rice, he attended the Roxbury Latin School and was graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1891.

So, that's good enough for me. In the 1930s for sure, the building at 197 Clarendon was known as "The John Hancock Life Insurance Building."

Ergo, there have been three "John Hancock buildings" in Boston. Q. E. D. I'll put that last paragraph back sometime. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was there this morning! Here's the situation: The old 1922 building's address is 197 Clarendon. It sits between the new tower at 200 Clarendon and is connected to/part of the middle tower at 200 Berkeley! I'll upload a photo of all three soon.

The 1922 building is a low-rise building (not a tower) of about 9 floors. The facade reads "Stephen L Brown Building", has the date "MDCCCCXXII", and lists the street address as "197 Clarendon". There is no plaque outside or in the lobby that says "John Hancock" anymore, but there are marks where such a plaque probably was. Also, you can see where the fence used to be! The "Stephen L Brown Building" markers are old, but clearly not original. They don't match. The "197" numbers ARE original (to my eyes).

The 1947 building is marked "John Hancock" on a plaque in front. The Hancock Hall is part of the building with its own entrance on the street and another inside the lobby. The lobby has a nice mural of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and the building has lots of nice art deco touches! It is clearly marked "TWO HUNDRED BERKELEY" on the Berkeley side, and the markers look original.

I have a number of photos. I'll upload some, and you all can decide which go with the article:

• Image:Three John Hancock Buildings.jpg
• Image:John Hancock Building, 197 Clarendon.jpg
• Image:John Hancock Tower, 200 Berkeley.jpg
• Image:John Hancock Tower, 200 Clarendon.jpg

Enjoy! --SFoskett 17:33, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oooooooooh! Aaaaaaaaaah! Those are fantastic!

I'm thinking probably the Image:John Hancock Tower, 200 Clarendon.jpg next to the first and biggest section of the article, since it's really the I. M. Pei glass structure that the article is about and which people are interested in.

Then the Image:Three John Hancock Buildings.jpg image for the other two, because it's so kewllllll and it's a very handsome picture and it shows the Berkeley tower clearly enough to be recognized. And I'm going to push for it because I spotted the Donlyn Lyndon passage and decided that the "there-are-three-buildings" factoid ought to be in the article. Also to my way of thinking it actually shows the "old John Hancock Building" in a more characteristic and iconic view than craned-neck view from street level.

I found some old John Hancock ads in the public library's New York Times database that show line drawings of the building--one is actually one that was put in by the builder, boasting about John Hancock had chosen them for its magnificent new structure. Too bad they're not out of copyright. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:02, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A picture of 200 Berkeley that shows the top spire well would also be nice to include, which is why I would also include the 200 Berkeley picture on its own, or maybe a detail of the tower part. - KeithTyler 18:17, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I like the 200 Berkeley and Three Buildings photos and think they should be included. (I would put the Three Buildings shot near the bottom of the page, perhaps with the 197 Clarendon entry.) As for the 200 Clarendon photo... I have to say that the existing image reflects the traditional 80's Boston urban-industrial view of the tower, and shows the building as part of the skyline, and doesn't suffer from vertical perspective like SFoskett's does. However, SFoskett's shows off the reflectivity of the tower in a very pretty way (are you sure you wanted to GFDL this? :) ), as well as it's towering height from the ground. Furthermore, SFoskett's is explictly GFDL'ed by him, wherease the current photo's info is annoyingly inconsistent about its nature (it may be PD, it may be FU). Since GFDL is naturally preferred over FU, SFoskett's wins -- but IMO the current picture reflects more how I've always thought of the tower and its position in Boston's landscape. Ideally I wish I could combine the pretty reflectivity of SFoskett's photo with the monolithic skyline view of the current pic. - KeithTyler 18:13, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you all like the shots! I almost got arrested, methinks, taking them. The building's security guards were tailing me talking on their talkies (something about a guy taking pictures of buildings). Aah, the post 9/11 world... I love those shots - they really came out well! But yeah, they're completely free. Use 'em and enjoy 'em! I've got the full-res originals on my laptop! *grin* Anyone care to see the mural? I got a photo of it, too... My pictures now RULE the page! --SFoskett 19:13, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

The article looks great now.

Re the two pictures of the tower: no contest, the old picture is boooorrring. Almost silhouetted. Not much sense of shape. The new one "looks like" the tower to me. It's a much better picture in every respect. I'm not particularly a fan of the building, but this one does show that it has a certain amount of character and charm. Who cares about the "big tall monolith?" In fact, the more I think about it, I think people who do like the building like it more for the way it looks when you're close to it than they way it looks when you're at a distance, which is sort of unusual for skyscrapers.

I think any decent picture of 200 Berkeley is better than none, so keep this one in place. But as I said I actually think the reflected image in the third picture looks more "like" the building to me.

Mural? Sure, upload it at least.

Security guards? That's sick. It's suspicious to be photographing the most famous building in Boston? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, by the way... the Donlyn Lyndon book does not have any photo of the 1922 building, let alone the simultaneous view of the two older buildings reflected in the third. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This just in: Two more Hancock buildings exist: Albuquerque, New Mexico and Austin, Texas... --SFoskett 02:45, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of the John Hancock Tower as referring primarily to "the" John Hancock building, AKA Hancock Place, in Boston. But unless too many others turn up, I'd be in favor of making the John Hancock Tower an omnium-gatherum for all of the big and little Hancock buildings of the world. Keep John Hancock Center for the Chicago colossus as its own article, of course; John Hancock Tower already links to it.

If we do this, though, I'm thinking that the article that is currently called John Hancock Tower should probably be moved to John Hancock Building (instead of the other way around), with suitable introductory text.

The Albuquerque building doesn't look like much: http://www.realtymtg.com/default.cfm?page=LoansResult&DisplayInvestor=15

I wasn't able to find a picture of the Austin building in thirty seconds of trying. You'd expect Texans to have big Hancocks, but Austin isn't that large a city, so this is probably a topic for a section on "other John Hancock buildings" with brief mentions.

We'd probably better find out just now many non-Chicagoan-non-Bostonian Hancock building there are before we go too far on this...

I wonder how long Manulife will observe a decent interval before exercising corporate ego and stamping their identity onto all the big and little Hancock buildings? Judging from typical corporate behavior (e.g. Macy's, Fleet, etc.) these will be "Manulife buildings" well before the end of the decade. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here, apparently, comes John Hancock Building Number Four.

Boston Herald, April 29, 2004, "Hancock signs off independence"... Layoffs, blah blah, many in Boston area "probably" spared, blah blah, synergy, blah blah, critic says merger was "travesty that didn't need to happen," blah blah blah, and... this...

David D'Alessandro, former chief executive of John Hancock Financial Services Inc. and now head of Manulife's local operations, said yesterday that Manulife plans to keep its space at the Hancock Tower, its landmark Back Bay skyscraper, and the new Manulife building in South Boston's Seaport area. Proving that Manulife intends to keep and promote the famous John Hancock brand name, D'Alessandro said Manulife's Southie tower will be renamed the "John Hancock Building." [Emphasis supplied].

(No doubt this will be a great comfort to the laid-off workers). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's the location: Governor, Mayor, And Local Officials Join Manulife Financial In Celebrating Construction Of New U.S. Headquarters; Unique Curtain Wall Design Unveiled During Event

MARCH 20, 2003

Celebrating their entry into the South Boston neighborhood and recognizing those officials who helped to make that entry possible, Manulife Financial hosted a reception today at the World Trade Center, overlooking the construction site of the Company's new U.S. Headquarters located at 601 Congress Street. This event coincided with the installation of the building's unique double-skin curtain wall and the 100th anniversary of Manulife's entrance into the United States. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(I bet it never happens, though. Remember which officials of both Bay Bank and Bank of Boston stated flatly that the bank formed by their merger would be "Bay Bank of Boston," unveiled a logo, etc. Strangely enough, it ended up being called "Bank of Boston." And, despite insistance that the merged Bank of Boston and Fleet would be "Fleet Boston," after a very short interval it came simply "Fleet." More likely the 200 Clarendon Place building will get renamed Manulife.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bay Bank and Bank of Boston became "BankBoston", right? I never heard of this Southie tower. Seems an odd place for a new headquarters tower... Especially when the company already HAS the tallest building in Boston! --SFoskett 17:12, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't yet found a picture of what the building and it's "unique double-skin curtain wall" look like, so I don't know if it's a tower... apparently Manulife decided to build a Manulife trophy building before they decide to acquire John Hancock. Actually, I just wondered whether it's going to be a twofer: my cynical guesswork is that maybe they're going to name the 601 Congress Street building "The John Hancock Building" in order to soften the blow of naming the big tower something else. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Boston Globe, September 29, 2003 BOTH COMPANIES SHARE PRIDE IN HIGH-PROFILE BUILDINGS

...Manulife Centre in Toronto, one of its investment holdings, is a 51-floor tower that was built in 1974 and a more recently completed 18-story building .In Boston, Manulife is already making another architectural mark.

The company is in the process of consolidating its local operations and is on the brink of locating what will be the US headquarters in a new 14-story glass structure on Congress Street in South Boston.

Manulife has said it plans to move 750 Boston-area employees, most from 500 Boylston St. and 73 Tremont St., plus an additional 750 workers from elsewhere to 601 Congress St. early next year. The Congress Street building was designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP of Chicago, the architectural firm that also designed the John Hancock Center and the Sears Tower in Chicago.

Found a picture: Image of the Manulife building at 601 Congress Street

The 1947 Hancock tower tied the Custom House Tower in height. I'm sure this was intentional... The Pru topped both. --SFoskett 20:59, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Shame on me for putting in misinformation. I'm sure you're right and I've gotta find some convenient place where I can look at Globe back issues to see if I can dig up any background. Don't hold your breathing waiting for me to do it, though. I'd love to know whether that was just modesty on their part or whether it was part of some complicated deal... were there any rules in place as there are in many cities (e.g. in Madison, WI, no building can be higher than the Capitol...) Isn't the John Hancock Building on higher ground? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, aviewoncities says the Custom House tower is a foot taller (496 feet versus 495 for the Hancock). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:31, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/li/?id=101045&bt=2&ht=2&sro=1 gives 'em both as 151 meters but ranks the Custom House 20th, and the "John Hancock Building" [sic] 21st. Aha... click on the link... John Hancock Building 151 m 495 ft Floors 26, Custom House Tower 151 m 496 ft Floors 32. It's probably not a tie... it's probably roundoff error.(But can you really measure the height of a building to the precision of one foot anyway?) If other sources concur in the 496-vs-495 foot measurements I'm going to mention it in the article... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In response to a query, I received a telephone reply from Tina Acranis, Assistant Vice President, Marketing & Communications, Real Estate Division, Manulife Financial, Toronto. She says the building will be known simply as "601 Congress" but will have conspicous signs "all over it" and in the lobby, with the John Hancock logo. It will house the John Hancock Wealth Management group. I've revised the article accordingly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this building deserves a separate article. Also, see http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/gbtf/documents/Pres-ManulifeBuilding03-09-18.pdf . Solarapex (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do they really take up the whole floor? Sites linked to as further reading say that two 300 ton masses occupy opposite corners of the floor, and 300 tons of lead isn't really all that big. Is the rest of the floor used for anything or is it left entirely unoccupied? —Morven 16:16, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to say I put that in on the basis of memory. I actually tried to confirm it when I wrote it, but I actually got the impression that John Hancock is actually reticent about spelling out the details. If I can't confirm it I'll try to weasel-word it... probably by quoting the Robert Campbell article. As he states, the masses are not just rigidly attached to the floor. In order to do any good, they have to move relative to the floor, or the floor moves relative to the masses, or something. I don't know how much wiggle room they need. Will try to find out more this weekend. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I telephoned LeMessurier Consultants and (rather to my surprise) was quickly put in touch with a Richard Hennig, who told me the details I've now put in the article. They do not take up the whole floor, I was wrong, wrong, wrong. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I understood it, the shifting and subsequent damage to surrounding buildings was mostly a result of inadequate precautions during the original excavation. Is there a citation for this "drilling" business (or is it hiding in one of the existing refs)? --iMb~Meow 06:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Not my language. I think it's of some informal and IMHO rather POV text from someone who obviously dislikes the building. Since I happen to dislike the building myself (I upchuck whenever I read an architecture maven suggesting that it doesn't dwarf Trinity Church) I didn't really pay attention to it. I think you're right, it's probably a factual error, but I don't know enough about it to rewrite it. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Okay, that's kind of what I guessed, I hadn't seen anything to back up the idea that there was major ground movement after construction. The information about groundwater around Copley needs help too, happily there seem to be some great sources about that. --iMb~Meow 20:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • What you have now looks like an enormous improvement. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Each bay of each floor is a single pane of glass; This is wrong. A bay is one column span, and that would mean that each vertical line on the tower is a column. This is incorrect.

there are no spandrels between the floors, Spandrel panels not only define floors, but sometimes the HVAC cavity.

As a final modernist touch, a pinstripe crevice on each of the shorter sides breaks this light contrast, emphasizing the vertical lines. Re-worded this part. The terms "crevice" and "pinstripe" seem dimunitive compared to how big the notches on the sides actually are.--Gary Joseph 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How many floors is the Hancock Tower? 60 or 62? I've heard both.--Chaz 23:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people say 60,61,and 62:

This is why: The 2nd Floor is considered the mezzanine. There is a small amount of office space on the 2nd floor, mechanical areas, and this is where people access the upper deck of the double decker elevators. So most people do not count the 2nd floor/ mezzanine as a floor.

There really isn't an 8th floor. The 7th floor is all mechanical space but the floor is the actual height of 2 floors.

Floor 60 is the last floor with office space.

Floors 61 and 62 are all mechanical space.

(Boston02109 03:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

I'm removing

A new line was added to the poem accordingly:

Flashing Blue and Red, when The Curse of the Bambino is dead!

as it's been unsourced for a very long time. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On further thought, and on searching the Boston Globe and Boston Herald archives online, I'm also removing

In October of 2004, the beacon flashed red and blue to commemorate the Boston Red Sox World Series victory. This was the first time the color scheme changed since the beacon was lit in 1950.

as I can't find any reference to it. Furthermore, the Boston Globe published a story in 2003 about the man who controls the light: Swidey, Neal (2003): "On Top Of Boston's Weather - Controlling The Weather Beacon On The Old Hancock Building Might Be Routine, But This Operator Knows Its Importance To The City." The Boston Globe, November 23, 2003, magazine, p. 8. The interview contains this exchange:

"There are three switches: one for power, one for red or blue, and one for flashing or steady."

That's all it takes to control the beacon that rises 490 feet above the street and is such a famous part of the Boston skyline?

Yep. People think my job is a big, important thing, and i'm like, "It's just a switch, you know."

That would seem to rule out flashing red and blue. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, it goes back, I found a sort of reference: "Atop the old Hancock tower on Berkeley Street, the old weather beacon that always flashed red will now flash . . . red and blue, in honor of you know who." What I can't find, searching on innumerable combinations of "red," "blue," "hancock," and "sox," is an unambiguous statement that the lights actually did flash red and blue. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't rule out possibility of the colors changing, just the possibility of it being done automatically. If Neal were sufficiently possessed with joy, he could run up and start flicking the red/blue switch. Not to mention, the source that suggests it is impossible predates the event. They could have rigged up a new timed switch in the meantime. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 09:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

When the Red Sox were in the World Series a special gel/film was specially made and a courier hand delivered it from NY. The red gel/film was placed on the inside of half the glass panels on the Beacon. This allowed the Beacon to flash red and blue at the same time.Boston02109 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This article should be about only the main tower, not the other John Hancock 'buildings.'Ryoung122 00:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead of this article is very inadequate. It does a poor job of summarizing the article, and doesn't meet WP:LEAD standards. Since a huge majority of the article is about the tall, 60-story John Hancock Tower, I suggest the lead be rewritten to make it solely a summary of that building. For example, it could start of with: Hancock Place, often referred to as the John Hancock Tower, is a skyscraper located in Boston, Massachusetts ..... The other buildings were never known as John Hancock Tower, but rather John Hancock Building, so they don't really have to be mentioned in the lead. As long as there are sub-sections (which all should be placed under a new heading entitled "Other buildings of the same name" or something along those lines) mentioning the other, former John Hancock buildings, I don't see why half of the lead has to be taken up saying that more than one existed. If there are no objections, I'll rewrite the lead along those lines and also create the new heading. Raime 02:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should just change the name to Hancock Place. Blue Laser (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• • That would not be in line with Wikipedia's naming policies (article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize), as the common name is certainly "John Hancock Tower" and not "Hancock Place." -- Rai-me 17:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps each of the other buildings could be given its own page, and at the top of this page we could have a "For other uses, see . . ." tag that links to a disambig page for "John Hancock Building"Fredwerner (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For now I'm removing the part about Hancock being "forced to purchase the Copley Hotel" (actually the Copley Plaza Hotel, not to be confused with the other 5,000 hotels named Copley in the area) because I can't confirm it. Currently it's owned by Fairmont Hotels and Resorts [5] and Alwaleed bin Talal, who first invested in the property in the 1996. [6] Alwaleed/Fairmont (Alwaleed owns half of Fairmont as well) in turn bought it from Copley Plaza Hotel Limited Partnership, which apparently was a part of Harvard's endowment. Now where Harvard picked up the property, I don't know, but it's pretty clear that if Hancock did ever hold the property, it wasn't because it had become a white elephant.

I have found two stories about this: The hotel may have been damaged when the tower foundation pit bowed in; and/or sunlight reflected from the completed tower may have overwhelmed the hotel's air conditioning and Hancock supposedly bought the property as part of the settlement. Unfortunately, the sources I've found so far are themselves uncertain about whether any of these things actually happened.

On a more cheerful note, this exercise has unearthed enough to do something soon about our sad Copley Plaza Hotel stub.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by IMeowbot (talk • contribs) 04:06, 10 April 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know the reuse rights of the BWSC's aerial photos (that you can get on the BRA Boston Atlas)? I've tried emailing and calling them and no one will respond to me. Anyone care to visit them and ask for Joe McGekrin (sp?) for me? :) The Manulife aerial photo has been put on WP:PUI. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA]

A few more things about the hancock buildings: 197 Clarendon was originally just 3 or 4 stories, it was renovated and the additional stories were installed. The lobbies and basements of 197 Clarendon and 200 Berkeley are attatched. There is a tunnel that attatches 200 Clarendon to 197 Clarendon John Hancock Life used to own several more buildings in the area. The windows in the Tower still break(thankfully they don't fall out). There is a sensor on EVERY window in the tower(all 10,000+) so they can tell when a window breaks. Some people say the Hancock is 62 stories. The 61st and 62nd floors are all mechanical floors. The 7th floor is all mechanical space and there is no 8th floor, although the 7th floor has enough height to include and 8th floor. The 2nd floor (or mezzanine)includes: elevators(double decker), a small amount of office space, and mechanical space. So if you ask me the Hancock Tower is 61 stories, minus the 8th floor.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.74.46 (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I keep meaning to get over there and look, but haven't had a chance. Images from Google Image Search fail to show any conspicuous John Hancock signage. As our article notes, on April 28, 2004, the then-head of Manulife's Boston operations announced that the building would be renamed the "John Hancock Building." When I queried Manulife I was told verbally that the building would bear conspicuous "John Hancock" exterior and interior signage featuring the John Hancock logo. I suspect that has not come to pass. Does anyone know? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know the reuse rights of the BWSC's aerial photos (that you can get on the BRA Boston Atlas)? I've tried emailing and calling them and no one will respond to me. Anyone care to visit them and ask for Joe McGekrin (sp?) for me? :) The Manulife aerial photo has been put on WP:PUI. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA]

A few more things about the hancock buildings: 197 Clarendon was originally just 3 or 4 stories, it was renovated and the additional stories were installed. The lobbies and basements of 197 Clarendon and 200 Berkeley are attatched. There is a tunnel that attatches 200 Clarendon to 197 Clarendon John Hancock Life used to own several more buildings in the area. The windows in the Tower still break(thankfully they don't fall out). There is a sensor on EVERY window in the tower(all 10,000+) so they can tell when a window breaks. Some people say the Hancock is 62 stories. The 61st and 62nd floors are all mechanical floors. The 7th floor is all mechanical space and there is no 8th floor, although the 7th floor has enough height to include and 8th floor. The 2nd floor (or mezzanine)includes: elevators(double decker), a small amount of office space, and mechanical space. So if you ask me the Hancock Tower is 61 stories, minus the 8th floor.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.74.46 (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I keep meaning to get over there and look, but haven't had a chance. Images from Google Image Search fail to show any conspicuous John Hancock signage. As our article notes, on April 28, 2004, the then-head of Manulife's Boston operations announced that the building would be renamed the "John Hancock Building." When I queried Manulife I was told verbally that the building would bear conspicuous "John Hancock" exterior and interior signage featuring the John Hancock logo. I suspect that has not come to pass. Does anyone know? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A reference cites a telephone conversation (I guess by an editor) with someone from LeMessurier Consultants: "Location and size of mass dampers: telephone conversation with Richard Henige". Material was deleted as it was original research and not appropriate according to Wikipedia guidelines. Articles are supposed to rely on valid third-party published sources.--Parkwells (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Recently inserted. I'm moving it here. No source is cited even for the bare fact of credit cards not being accepted, let alone any indication that anyone but one Wikipedia editor regards this as the building's predominant fault, or even a matter of any importance.

Material removed follows: Dpbsmith (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

By far its most predominant fault, this ultra modern $175 million building does not accept credit cards in it's cafe.

- First off "its", and the Blue Glass Cafe, located on the first floor, does accept credit cards. The old cafeteria in the basement did not accept credit cards. However, the basement cafeteria has been closed for months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.98.16 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have recently read about the millions of birds crashing into windows because they see the reflections instead of the glass. I would expect that with such a huge building consisting almost purely of glass, this must be a huge problem, and I was curious if anyone knows of any statistics or any research that may have been done on this.
Or have there been any precautions taken to prevent having hundreds of dead birds on the pavement every day?
In case there is reliable information, this might be an interesting detail to add to the article. --84.190.88.6 (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For non-American readers, this article should include a link to the person the building was named for. Americans may all know who John Hancock was, but he is far less well known outside the U.S. -- Imladros (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The article lede mentions John Hancock Insurance, and anybody wanting to know about the name of the company can click the Wikilink. The lede of the company article says it was named after John Hancock, and one can click on that to find out who he was. It can be argued that the building was or was not directly named after the person, but it isn't worth belaboring the point at length. Anybody interested in the topic can follow the Wikilinks and references, and decide for oneself. Reify-tech (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a legitimate request. After all, the tower is not named "John Hancock Insurance Tower" but "John Hancock Tower", quite obviously honoring the person and not the insurance company. Or are we so short of space here that we might not include a few words and a direct link? --84.190.88.6 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, the building's official name is no longer John Hancock Tower but 200 Clarendon. Wouldn't it make sense to use that as a title of this article and not just have a redirect from 200 Clarendon leading here? --84.190.84.220 (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

A perfectly valid suggestion, but I think that WP:RECOGNIZABLE might be the guiding principle in keeping the title of this article as it is. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, that makes sense, especially in combination with Wikipedia:Official names.

But this does raise the question once more of how to explain the building's name in the article (see above), and who it is really named after. The Boston Globe article cited in the text speaks of the insurance as if it were the person: "John Hancock owns it", "the name was tied to John Hancock’s tenancy", etc.. Is that how it is used? Would people say "John Hancock" and think of the company, or would they think of the 18th century person?

Also, according to that Boston globe article, there is no more John Hancock tenancy in the building (obviously, since that was the reason for the name change). So this article would need to be updated on that too as soon as someone gets around to doing it. --84.190.84.220 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, source, and second of all, I've never heard anyone call it that. They called it "the JH." - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)