Hey, there! Log in / Register
Peek-a-boo, I see through you
By adamg on Wed, 06/29/2016 - 1:03pm
What's left of the building that used to house the Littlest Bar are a couple of walls being propped up until the developer putting up luxury housing on the site can fill it in with more modern construction.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
my dad's office
...was in that building and the formerly-attached next door for 30+ years, most recently in the second floor windows in your pic.
Can't say I like this...sure,
Can't say I like this...sure, they're saving the facade, but surely the whole building was considered historic? I though they were saving the interior as well. What a shame.
What was historic about it?
It wasn't a historical landmark or it wouldn't have been knocked down. A shame that a old, dirty 2 story building in the heart of the city was knocked down to be replaced with a bigger, more modern building? Can't say I agree.
Two buildings are involved; one wasn't historic
The larger building that housed the Times, yeah, just some oldish building that could be torn down and nobody would shed a tear. But the smaller Littlest Bar building was designed by ol' Bulfinch in 1805, so the developers agreed to keep at least its shell:
Sounds great to me
I love old buildings, but also love progress. Seems like the builders are embracing both.
But at the expense
of a decent bar (two if you count what the owners of the Times ultimately did to Barney Fannings), which that area kind of lacks.
What changed at Barney Fannings?
They replaced high-tops with some booths, and the menu changed a bit, but is essentially the same bar fare.
The booths
Were honestly pretty offputting. It used to be a great open space and easy to throw tables together for larger groups. Kind of an "if it isn't broken" situation in my eyes. To each their own I suppose.
Progress doesn't have to mean
Progress doesn't have to mean taking away old interesting buildings that could have been updated.
Both buildings were pretty
Both buildings were pretty cool old pre-war construction and load bearing masonry that will never, ever be built again (due to costs/materials/etc). Furthermore, the Littlest building was designed by a little known architect who went by the name of Charles Bulfinch. To tear both down for a shit cheap pre-clad 'modern' building is pretty rough. I am all for build baby, build, but there are other spots and better buildings that to be built over. I guess I appreciate their attempt to save 2 walls of the Bulfinch facade, if you check out many other photos of it right now (or just go over there), you can see there has been a ton of damage done to the facade itself. If I were prone to conspiracies, I might thing that the developer might be hoping it all 'accidentally' falls down and thus they don't have to preserve anything.
Either way, this and the new Emerson dorm being constructed in the alley over by the transportation building are pretty rough and shouldn't have been approved.
Original architecture can add
Original architecture can add value to neighborhoods and can be updated and is more interesting than some of the buildings being put up today.
Just because a building isn't
Just because a building isn't designated historic doesn't mean it isn't architecturally interesting enough to be preserved and updated.
The older building was worth
The older building was worth saving and updating rather than some of the newer style building being put up that don't add as much interesting architecture to the area.
the wood beams are being salvaged by these folks...
Jarmak Wood
In a grand irony, my dad (who is an architect) got the sales email touting the wood from his old office.
There's a huge market for old
There's a huge market for old good condition moldings, mantles, doors and other hardware. Lots of woodcraft you just don't find any longer in newer construction.
The 'new' Littlest Bar
The 'new' Littlest Bar location on Broad St, not the old one on Province St right?
Right. Broad Street.
Right. Broad Street.
so sad that visitors to this
so sad that visitors to this now demolished Littlest Bar may not have visited or be aware of the original Littlest Bar on Province street which indeed was so small that more than six people felt like a crowd. wonder how many occupants could legally fit in the the place. For me, a night that started or ended at the Littlest usually meant party time and possible beer googles....ahhh memories....