How Boston City Hall was born

Post by tptacek » Sun, Dec 22, 2024, 4:50 AM UTC

dugmartin wrote: post #120

jasonfarnon wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. A lot of US cities experienced that upswing in the 90s, so I'm not sure why I would attribute it to the central artery project.

I think partially it was because it was so cheap. In the late 90s I had an apartment a block from the lake in the Lakeview neighborhood in the Chicago north side and it cost $400 a month. Before that I lived out in the Chicago suburbs and my apartment was $800 a month.

That was a steal. I lived in Lakeview from 1995 to 2000 (with a brief detour in San Francisco) and every place we rented was north of $1500, nowhere near the lake.

Post by blacksmythe » Sun, Dec 22, 2024, 8:59 PM UTC

ocschwar wrote: post #17

oceanplexian wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, it's a 50 year old structure.. I don’t personally see this a good reason at all. The US had a good run building neoclassical government buildings in the spitting image of the Romans and Greeks, and we already know that when properly done the aesthetic will stand the test of time for thousands of years. As far as the improved materials argument that’s up for debate too. Will Boston City Hall be standing in 2,0…

It will not. I guarantee it. The vehicle emissions worming into the bare concrete are acidic. The water from rain and from the humid air slowly degrades it. The salt air doesn't help. At some point, sooner than you think, the corrosion will reach the rebars inside the concrete. All this could be prevented with sacrificial applications of stucco, but brutalist architects insist on keeping the concrete bare. It takes a…

Sounds like one solution would be to apply a sealant that looks like bare concrete.

Re: How Boston City Hall was born

Re: How Boston City Hall was born