Boston needs bolder buildings, and it needs civic leaders who aren’t afraid to permit them. In what could mark a major turn for Boston’s architectural history, Mayor Marty Walsh signaled Wednesday that not everything needs to built in red brick. Unlike predecessor Tom Menino, he personally won’t be deciding what the tops of new buildings should look like. And, most striking of all, non-boring ideas are now welcome in the city. — bostonglobe.com
6 Comments
The worst problems in cities happen when architecture of a certain "flavor" - which at times has been historicist, modernist, or sculpturish/iconic - is given priority over the more subtle problems of quality planning and rich space making. Such focus on the image tends to give a free-pass to weak designs that fit the style-of-the-day.
To the extent Walsh's statements indicate an open-mindedness towards all design approaches this change would be a good thing. Boston certainly has plenty of architects capable of doing great projects - it's a bit surprising they've never formed a coherent local school of thought. If the local economy keeps up maybe this will be their chance.
I hope he realizes developers aren't always the problem. Some are actually willing to pursue better design if they can be assured support from the city. The problem is when NIMBYs put up a fuss. Sometimes that's a red herring to block any and all new development without regard for the design - but a lot of people just don't care enough to study a proposal and appreciate the qualities it could create. Bland is always easiest to ignore.
midlander - I think you hit on Boston's main problem, which is NIMBYism. I'm not sure the term is perfect, tho, as many of the people most vocally opposing change in the city don't actually live in the city (or, at least, in the areas being affected). People have found memories of strolling down Newbury Street or having dinner in the North End and never want anything in the city to change or grow so as to preserve their nostalgic construction of what Boston is / should be.
We also had an overpowered, overinvolved mayor who shaped the city aesthetically for quite a long time - and I would say not for the best. Menino, who recently died, was a good mayor who's planning vision was in some parts of the city very successful. His ability to essentially have absolute control over how a project looked, however, didn't do the city any favors. Walsh, on the other hand, is (I think and hope) a 'builder' - I expect him to encourage development, press for quality design and building, and give the professionals space to figure out what that means.
His ability to essentially have absolute control over how a project looked, however, didn't do the city any favors
definitely not my experience doing dozens of projects in the city. Menino was only somewhat involved if the project was downtown - otherwise he deferred to the neighborhoods... the reason so much mediocre stuff has been done over the years is because developers were very concerned about not upsetting the neighborhoods. if you're involved from an early stage, you can get a lot further - but some people like to throttle projects - and the absolute most destructive tactic is parking. I'd rather have battles over height, form, materials, basic program... but parking? it's a project killer - it hurts neighborhoods. you want it underground? you're only going to be able to do luxury, and there aren't many areas in the city where this is feasible.
Great point about parking, toasteroven. In cities that have good transit and density, parking shouldn't even be a consideration. In DC, they are looking to eliminate the parking requirement for certain inner-city neighborhoods since so many of the new arrivals don't have cars anyway.
There does seem to be a pattern of Nimbyism being strongest in cities with clear and identifiable character. Probably becasue they are aware of how little architects/developers seem to take the local character into account, if they can design in those styles to begin with. What you get is the booring brick banalities that pass for contextualism, but I don' think a bunch of Zaha Hadid's is what he had in mind, just not a 'traditional' building that's been bleached to with-in an inch of it's aesthetic life. Not that they shouldn't build "iconic" buildings, but there's a place and a time for them. That's one of the reasons those neighborhoods are so jealously guarded, becasue the buildings play nice together, aesthetically.
thayer - even in the outer neighborhoods of Boston where people do rely more heavily on cars, the parking ratio is still too high, especially for multi-family. The city really should have two different criteria for parking - single family versus multi-family, and trade-offs for being near transit. Once you get developers trying to do anything that doesn't conform with zoning, people will always complain about parking. downtown there are no parking requirements - the city actually has a cap on the total number of parking in some districts - which I think has been in place since the 70s or 80s.
Additionally, the number one complaint that the police department gets outside of downtown is dangerous driving. the city has been extremely slow in upgrades, and the current biggest problems in this area is that the interim traffic commissioner is about 2 or 3 decades behind in current thinking on roadway design... and the state legislature keeps ignoring the city's request to set their own speed limit (last I heard, the city council wants to set it at 20 mph). great street design can go a long way with helping to create great architecture - but we won't get there if we're still thinking like it's 1960.
we have some of the same kinds of problems in Minneapolis; many neighborhoods, many neighborhood organizations with too much time on their hands, seemingly holding back projects for stupid reasons. one reason why this is happening is that the city has provided little guidance, and almost no criteria for neighborhood organizations to look at developer projects. one neighborhood would say x, another would say y. the city is now working better with developers, and neighborhoods to provide more consistent criteria. the city is also re-examining the parking requirements for projects, this has altered development positively.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.