How Boston City Hall was born: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Frankenstein-film-by-Whale
How Boston City Hall was born
41–50 of 122 posts
Re: How Boston City Hall was born
#42> It was in this context that the city decided to demolish the neighborhood known as Scollay Square and build in its place what would come to be called Government Center. It’s interesting (and sad) to imagine what Boston could have been like without the damage of urban renewal. These neighborhoods could have easily become the quaint North Ends people love today. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_End,_Boston https:…
People who opposed demolishing the neighborhoods would be called NIMBYs today and would be blamed for the housing crisis. I'm not saying this to be snarky, just that there is a real push and pull there that I don't think is appreciated. There are some beautiful old neighborhoods near me which are at risk of being torn down and replaced with multi-unit dwellings. The residents say 'save our neighborhoods' and the activists cry 'greedy homeowners' and in the meantime the developers are rubbing their hands in anticipation of mountains of cash.
Re: How Boston City Hall was born
#43Its truly hideous. Old City Hall is beautiful. Why can't we build nice things anymore?
Because architects went from building monuments to God and creation to building monuments to their own narcissism. Notre Dame (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Notre-Dame-de-Paris) was meant to be pleasing to God. And by implication, to man, because man was created in the image of God. Boston City Hall wasn't meant to be pleasing to anyone. It's more important to "make a statement" than to make something that is beautiful and uplifting.
Re: How Boston City Hall was born
#44Its truly hideous. Old City Hall is beautiful. Why can't we build nice things anymore?
> Why can't we build nice things anymore? Well.. first start by defining "beautiful", we're waiting. Also, it's a 50 year old structure.. we stopped building "nice" things after WW2 mostly because costs were astronomical and new materials and engineering opened up all kinds of avenues for more modern construction. I've spent decent amount of time in and around Boston City Hall, the biggest problem with the building a…
> Well.. first start by defining "beautiful", we're waiting.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/No...
https://wmf.imgix.net/images/70_hero_image.jpg?auto=format,c...
Hundreds of years later, most people from completely disparate cultures find these buildings beautiful.
Re: How Boston City Hall was born
#45> It was in this context that the city decided to demolish the neighborhood known as Scollay Square and build in its place what would come to be called Government Center. It’s interesting (and sad) to imagine what Boston could have been like without the damage of urban renewal. These neighborhoods could have easily become the quaint North Ends people love today. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_End,_Boston https:…
People who opposed demolishing the neighborhoods would be called NIMBYs today and would be blamed for the housing crisis. I'm not saying this to be snarky, just that there is a real push and pull there that I don't think is appreciated. There are some beautiful old neighborhoods near me which are at risk of being torn down and replaced with multi-unit dwellings. The residents say 'save our neighborhoods' and the acti…
That particular urban renewal didn't create a lot of new housing. On the other hand, that whole general area of Boston was pretty crappy back in the day. (Not just what's now Government Center but all along Washington Street.) It mostly didn't result in more housing; I'm guessing less. But burying the central artery was almost certainly a lot more positive overall.
Re: How Boston City Hall was born
#46Earlier 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…
I work in the Watergate, and it's in terrible condition after just 60 years. The 1950s post-war mass produced house I grew up in is in better condition. Meanwhile, the Farley Post Office in Manhattan is so gorgeous 110 years later that they built the new Penn Station in it.
Re: How Boston City Hall was born
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who opposed demolishing the neighborhoods would be called NIMBYs today and would be blamed for the housing crisis. I'm not saying this to be snarky, just that there is a real push and pull there that I don't think is appreciated. There are some beautiful old neighborhoods near me which are at risk of being torn down and replaced with multi-unit dwellings. The residents say 'save our neighborhoods' and the acti…
That particular urban renewal didn't create a lot of new housing. On the other hand, that whole general area of Boston was pretty crappy back in the day. (Not just what's now Government Center but all along Washington Street.) It mostly didn't result in more housing; I'm guessing less. But burying the central artery was almost certainly a lot more positive overall.
According to the West End Museum site, the project created more housing units, but also led to a population decrease, most likely due to the decrease in the number of people living in each unit.
This document is a fascinating read: https://archive.org/details/westendprojectre00bost/page/n79/...
Comparing what they proposed vs what resulted is very interesting.
Re: How Boston City Hall was born
#48When you walk across the plaza in front of the building, you do get the sense that this is a building with a message. And that message is: We will crush you.
It’s truly a building (and plaza) that has to be experienced in person to appreciate it. It certainly provokes emotion. An amazing place I’m glad to have experienced. But I’m also glad that most of the world is not like it.
Speaking as a resident of Boston and the neighborhoods near city hall, that plaza is such a contrast from the rest of the area. Everywhere around it has shops, alleys, and interesting things to see, whereas that plaza was an endless sea of bricks. They've dressed it up better now, but it still feels more like a missed opportunity than a useful civic space.
Re: How Boston City Hall was born
#49> In the 50 years since, architects worldwide have declared Kallmann and McKinnell’s City Hall one of the greatest buildings of the 20th century I despise architecture as a field. This is widely reviled building. I work in a similar building that is extremely user hostile but beloved by architects; every single day, multiple times per day, we run into stupid limitations of the building. And it's particularly nasty fo…
> That these two people see this as a work of art, instead of a practical thing that humans need to interface with
As a Boston resident that has had to conduct business at City Hall many times, I couldn't agree with this more. The lower level interior spaces are dark and somehow cavernous and confining at the same time, while the upstairs spaces are more of a warren of rooms and hallways. Nothing about walking in the front door makes you feel welcomed into the space. Either the actual use of the building was totally disregarded in its design, our our standards for how we expect to interact with buildings have dramatically changed since its construction.
Re: How Boston City Hall was born
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
That particular urban renewal didn't create a lot of new housing. On the other hand, that whole general area of Boston was pretty crappy back in the day. (Not just what's now Government Center but all along Washington Street.) It mostly didn't result in more housing; I'm guessing less. But burying the central artery was almost certainly a lot more positive overall.
According to the West End Museum site, the project created more housing units, but also led to a population decrease, most likely due to the decrease in the number of people living in each unit. This document is a fascinating read: https://archive.org/details/westendprojectre00bost/page/n79/... Comparing what they proposed vs what resulted is very interesting.
Thanks. I can believe that easily. I assume a lot of what, if not exactly tenement housing at least adjacent, was torn down while generally high-end often waterfront condos were built.