Some architects consider the design a stunning example of the modern Brutalist style, but for many Bostonians it’s the building they have long loved to hate.
[...] why can’t we make changes that are easily reversible, while simultaneously acting to protect and preserve the structure?
Here’s one simple, obvious and cost-effective solution: Sheath the building with a tinted glass curtain wall — but not to create another modernist glass box.
— The Boston Globe
120 Comments
I'm going to be a jerk:
Shouldn't it be "sheathe"? Sheath is a noun.How does this slip by in a news organization. If you're a writer and you don't know things like the difference between nouns and verbs, how are we to accept that your opinion on architecture even remotely valid or informed?
Rather irrelevant, specious comment. Any constructive ideas about BCH?
holy shit...worst proposal ever.
what a hack.
Let's hear your ideas.
Harry, why resurrect a 7y old post to challenge a rather silly design proposal?
I just became aware of this thread, so it was new(s) to me. The original proposal is still a work in progress. Thank you for your interest.
"work in progress" please let us know when you actually put in some effort.
How is this different than constructing an industrial sized Trojan Condom?
Sooo..the proposal was to slap a couple florida rooms on it...?
Not exactly. Try reading it again.
I guess I should read the lengthy theoretical argument about why this is brilliant before I make judgments...for all I know it could be witty reference to Calvino's invisible cities or something...
Helpful input, not snark, would be welcomed.
I support this idea.
I mean it's ridiculous but SO much better than the constant screams to tear it down! And the ridiculous friendliness of it - it's exactly a huge Florida room, jla-x, as you said - is IMO a perfect metaphor for a government that appears to be transparent but is truly a dead dark hole of suck at it's core.
Which in NO WAY expresses how *I* feel about the Boston City Hall! I have been to it in the cold grey of winter and I still love it. I think it's elegant and strong, materially satisfying. All Beton Brut buildings (I've stopped using Brutalism as the word only fans the flames of the haters) should remind us of a time when a large-scale optimism in our society's ability to create great things still existed.
The energy efficiencies might be misconceived - I can easily see solar gain, even in winter, turning the interstitial space into an oven. And despite the claims that this intervention wouldn't damage the original building, it's well-documented that stained glass windows with non-venting exterior plastic "protective" glazing suffer more harm than good over the long run.
That said, it's a better solution than tearing the building down, and as the professor says, when public opinion shifts back to liking Beton Brut in a few decades we'll still have this masterpiece.
Bring on the country's largest Florida room! And throw in a few potted plants. It can be a mashup of fern bar/solarium in there.
Louvered windows would allow heat to escape when necessary.
(Read my comments above knowing that I'm fully aware that the exact design proposed here is impossible and hokey. But the general idea, sure, why not?)
Actually that big curved line is the Golden Ratio superimposed on the facade via mullions, I think. Hell yes, that humanizes it!
Not exactly the Golden Ratio . It's just a curve to soften the angularity of the overall design. Notice, it's a broken curve and does not pick up where it left off above the main entrance. I think this break should have been more pronounced.
The author seems to think that the proposal is "cost effective" because it's glass & steel rather than poured concrete. I'd like to see a few bids to test that assumption.
Cost effective in relation to other, off the wall, proposals in the past.
Of course, the proposal would be lower-cost that demolition and replacement. But the assumption is that the only problem is the exterior, not the interiors.
This is about the exterior. It's understood that the interior has a host of problems. That's a whole other issue, though the proposal does add to the interior area in the form of shops and/or exhibition and display space.
I like brutalism...and this is one of the coolest brutalist buildings...
Me too. I understand that some dislike this building and that it may not perfectly carry out its intended functions -- but to me it is a golden moment in 60s architecture.
This building was one of the ones I loved seeing so much as a child that I knew I wanted to be an architect...
This idea seems fun. Maybe build a Buckminster Fuller type glass dome over all of government center would be even better, and genuinely useful during Boston's winters.
It would also be neat just to see it painted different colors. Yellow?
Horrible idea for a great building.
if you want to talk about symbolism in architecture this is a great place to start. The building's lack of clearly defined entry, massive structure and repetitive elements are all perfectly symbolic of the bureaucracy that it houses.
This is one of the worst "renovation" proposals I've seen in a long time. The mediocrity of the curtain wall depicted here is an embarrassment. Boston City Hall is a masterwork, and it's important to hold the line with regard to its preservation.
Attempts to restore and upgrade the interior spaces (not including the entry stair-hall, which is magnificent, and should be left alone) could be considered, assuming a truly competent firm could be found for this. Otherwise, there's no merit to this proposal in the slightest. It reminds me of the outlandish Gehry scheme, floated a while back, to enclose the Lincoln Center Plaza with a glass canopy.
Masterwork? Huge brick structures blocking the front with no clear purpose; the Congress Street side a throwaway, pressed up against the street, with blocked stairways going nowhere and brick walls bearing down on pedestrians. Interesting sculpture, poor urban architecture.
The design is ridiculous and disrespectful to the original architecture. Any proposal that starts from the idea that this is an ugly brutalist building is a nonstarter.
The author does not think the building is "ugly". He offers opinions from both sides, then presents the visual evidence for an intervention. "Ugly", like "beautiful" is subjective, and not the issue here. The hard fact is that the building is generally disliked but, in true New England fashion, we'll just learn to live with it.
in this case, ugly is objectively accurate when speaking of this design proposal.
"Actually that big curved line is the Golden Ratio superimposed on the facade via mullions, I think. Hell yes, that humanizes it!"
Architecture as a one liner. This is the problem with snark, no one dares come out with a sincere proposal because sincerity is considered quaint. The public ends up with these built concepts that have nothing to do with the lived reality. As citizen says, this building is problematic on both the interior or exterior, so it's pitted as a political battle between architectural progressives and conservatives when most people walking by and working inside only see the physical reality, and it's soul crushing. At least it's not a glass curtain wall, but is this the best we can do today for a great city with an even greater architectural heritage?
The mediocrity of the curtain wall is exactly what one woudl expect from an elderly art professor (I assume he's elderly as he's Emeritus.) It's adorable. It's like when your grandma says "Maybe some flowery curtains would liven up this (intentionally minimalist) room, I'll sew some for you, honey" and how can you say no?!?
Painting it would be a disaster, although the Milton Glaser mural (recently beautifully restored) on the wonderful Minton-Capeheart Federal Building here in Naptown definitely complements the overall heaviness of the parti:
Some ageism there? The writer took early retirement.
How about some helpful suggestions on improving that curtain wall?
Harry, quit calling yourself 'The Writer.' Just say 'I'.
The writer would prefer this discussion to rise above the personal.
The writer (That's YOU, Harry!) made this personal by taking it personally 7 years after it was forgotten.
Painting Boston's City Hall would be an amusing idea if it weren't so destructive and awful. While no one's saying that that Boston's masterwork is Chartres Cathedral (yet), the notion of painting or repainting great architecture for reasons scholarly or restorative should be discouraged (New York critic Martin Filler is surely right about this reg Chartres).
A better alternative to painting, is light-projections. This has been done for some of the Cathedrals in France, to reveal lost Medieval polychromy, and, it could be a fun, and edifying experiment in Boston too. But please, lets not confuse a light installation with some misguided redecoration project.
Great solution for nighttime. But what about daytime?
Actually, "not liking" the design of City Hall, has become one of Boston's important legacies. The citizens this great American city have been blessed with the paradox of significant architecture, that is, with the struggle of learning to like and admire something great which at first they don't understand. And, I'd suggest that even those of us who have appreciated much about this splendid building from the start (I still have my Architectural Forum with feature article about it), are still working-through what this building symbolizes and means as idea and form.
quondam.com, Le Corbusier's use of color at the La Tourette Monastery is great. I've always admired it, especially for the top-lit chapels (interior) appended to the side of the otherwise rectangular building. What a super architect!
Yes, there's no mistaking the lineage of La Tourette for some buildings here in the States. In addition to Boston's City Hall, there is (or was) Pietro Belluschi's Juilliard School at the northern edge of Lincoln Center. Diller Scofidio + Renfro have done a clever job of undoing Belluschi's design in New York, but I wouldn't recommend something along these lines for Boston. DS+R have been especially ruinous of Eero Saarinen's eloquent Vivian Beaumont Theater at Lincoln Center (a theater perched on the roof), and their redesign of the plaza in front of the Beaumont is a considerable mistake too. (Before this addition, Eero Saarinen's theater was probably the finest building at Lincoln Center.)
Boston City Hall already has all the color it needs: the use of red brick at the base (and inside), and a terrific roman-brick plaza (a la Sienna) to set it up too.
Let's put "I am always right" Corbu in his place. Remember, he proposed destroying a large area of central Paris, sacrificed to his concepts of ideal urban living, and many of his "urban solutions" are in dismal, dysfunctional disrepair.
Also, is the term 'Brutalist' brave or a distraction? The etymology of this moniker is something I need to research a bit more, but as I recall, one source is "beton-brut," in French, that is: roughly finished concrete. Also, Peter Smithson's student nickname was "Brutus." Yet another architectural rebellion with impudent "like me if you dare" appellation? This said, I've always admired the Smithsons, especially their Economist block. And, Brualism, so called, was a significant movement that produced some very significant buildings in late-Modern (classical period) architecture (e.g. Rudolph's Yale A+A). It's an aesthetic that deserves to be better understood, despite the presumed challenge and difficulty of its name.
When you have to paint your building with bright primary colors, you've already failed, especially when the whole ethos of Brutalism is supposed to be about the honesty of raw concrete forms. It happens to be one of my favorite modernist styles, but for all the gymnastics, the Boston City Hall is simply too foreboding.
47 years later, the building is firmly part of the existing context. The struggle is now between those who have the capacity to appreciate the existing building's architecture and those who don't.
If having the "capacity" to appreciate the existing architecture is how you frame the discussion, then it seems that you come to the debate with a closed mind. There are many buildings that are firmly part of an existing context. That doesn't make them good.
article written by same guy making the proposal....and he's an artist not an architect and teaches art not architecture.....anyway nice idea, horrible execution. someone should take this on as an architectural project. right now it's hack.
Would love to have pro fessional architects pick up on the idea.
"That doesn't make them good." What makes this building bad though? You've said that you find it "too foreboding". I don't think its foreboding at all. Stand near the entrance and watch people approach the building and enter. Do they hesitate to go inside? Do they seem fearful of the architecture?
Why is it that the people who lecture use the most about beauty, proportions and elegance are the ones who never manage to actually produce things of beauty or intelligence? We never hear the likes of Rem Koolhaas or David Chipperfield or John Pawson whining about Brutalism.
You have a good point. There will be differences of opinion, and this is surely not the worst offender as there's actually some interesting geometries to train one's mind on. The reason I talk about it this way is that I think this way and I've heard many others express that opinion, much like I've heard many express wonder at Leonardo Da Vinci's drawings. That doesn't make it universally true, it just makes it a general consensus. Just type in "the most hated building in Boston" and see what you get. I'm not prone to conspiracy theories, I just see patterns, which sometimes correspond to how I feel.
That's pretty good, Thayer. :) I just googled "most hated building in Boston", clicked the "images" tab, and this was the top match:
It's remarkable how many people neither understand architecture, nor have begun to learn how to look at it. This includes many educated people, and unfortunately, not a few architectural clients. In the Modern period, many really fine buildings can be challenging to take on (and I'm not referring to the likes of Wolf Prix on a bad day here). Perhaps Boston's City Hall is one of these, although I've never felt this way about it. The Sienna-inspired plaza in front of City Hall is bold and great too (and I should add that it's not paved with "roman brick," as I suggested earlier on this post, but in red brick, similar to the brick used for the building). What's disconcerting right now is the way City Hall's interiors are furnished. Photographs dating no more than a few years back show significant rooms and offices done out in bland "Ethan Allen," "traditional" furnishings. The addition of some smart bespoke area rugs and contemporary furniture would go along way toward revealing the logic of the architecture.
i have always thought this building thinks itself a bad ass building. never thought this building gave a fuck if you liked it or not. fuck you I'm concrete in the middle of Boston quaint little historic hoohas, well they are close,who cares.
DWL, the plaza was better before they fucked it up with "improvements", like filling in the amphitheater.
Thanks Miles, Too bad some want to compromise great urban spaces for rationales that don't have much merit.
Boston City Hall Plaza = "great urban space"?
really?
The only thing that plaza has in common with Siena is brick paving.
Isn't it funny how with things like literature or film or cuisine, we're very comfortable with adjusting our expectations according to the cultural context. We don't expect a happy ending or a sexy lead in a Michael Haneke film. And across most of the US, these kinds of film are unfortunately marginalized as "arthouse" cinema. Its a special place for pretentious and dark people who expect art to challenge their assumptions and expose some truth.
The dialog around "challenging" or artistic architecture rarely addresses the difficult balancing act of how to respect the views of those in the Boston.com comment section, for example, while still producing architecture based on a meaningful dialog with history and serious intellectual rigor.
Just compare the outside to the Paris city hall where they have fountains, ice skating in winter, outdoor cafes, topical exhibits.
Boston City Hall Plaza = "great urban space"?
Nope, actually a horrific barren hot/cold windswept plain overshadowed by a massive structure. A perfect metaphor for bureaucracy. The original sunken amphitheater was an oasis.
Odd how if the occupants and visitors to a Brutalist building loath the place it is because of some defect in their character or education, but if the residents, visitors, and workers of Paris love their French Renaissance city hall and the statues and paintings and tapestries and ice rinks and cafes and exhibitions and grounds that make up the whole of their city hall they are not considered to be mouth breathing gomers. Why is that?
There is no rational answer to your question Volunteer, but it's the essential question if one is willing to be honest.
Volunteer, why is it that you don't account for the passage of time, the shaping of memories, the evolution of identity, the accumulation of knowledge over centuries? Why is time and the growth that happens over time such a difficult issue to talk about with some architects?
davvid,
Do you think that the nature of a person born 200 years ago is somehow different than a person born today? If you believe in science, that the modern mind appeared around 60,000 years ago in south Africa, you would know the answer to your question.
Thayer-D,
I don't see how your question/statement is relevant.
Yes, the nature of a person born 200 years ago is different from a 21st Century mind! Aren't the logical abilities of the mind of someone born into a culture of common indentured servitude that holds up the monarchy as appointed by God going to be very different in their understanding of "public space" than is a 21st Century denizen?
Haven't you guys been following all the neuroscience and architecture stories here on Archinect?
Show me evidence that the nature of the human mind has substantially changed in the last 2000 years. I'm really interested in exploring this evidence, should it exist.
Donna, are you saying that you think there is a neurological difference between people born 200 years ago, and now, and that difference has something to do with our aesthetic taste? What would the mechanism for such a change be? Lamarkian inheritance of acquired characters?
Even if environmental conditions hampered the cognition of people hundreds of years ago (an interesting if unproven claim), that deficit would not be passed on genetically.
Taste is a product of culture and it changes with exposure to variety...That said, a guy who has never eaten anthing but processed fast food and his moms ketchup and spaghetti is probably not a relevant food critic.
The public is mostly like that guy when it comes to art and design...but it is in their space...
"but it is in their space..."
So are the publicly funded art museums, concert halls, universities... I'd rather see society dragged up by critics and curators with high standards than dragged down by anti-intellectual joes.
So has mine. My aesthetic taste has changed since last year. I'm not saying that we don't learn things and evolve. But there is also a component of human preference that is innate and inherited. That's what defines human nature.
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.