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
Donna Sink, I'm sure neuroscience has a lot to offer in certain ways, but I think it's quite important to distinguish between "mind" and "brain." Another way of looking at it: persons are not their brains. Instead, brains are a particular kind of vehicle for persons. All of this gets into post-Cartesian arguments about substance dualism, materialism, and so on. At the moment, I am not a professional philosopher, but anyone who has some knowledge of the contemporary literature in this area can see that the debate around these crucial issues is far from over.
I have fun poking fun at one of my cousins who grew up in the Boston area. He says he doesn't like Boston City Hall. I've pointed out that Boston politicians have a gratuitous target when they run for office. All they have to do is tap into the supposed popular sentiment about this building, and they can run against City Hall the building (another arrow in their quiver), instead of something else.
I think we should ask: Do Bostonian's deserve Kallmann, McKinnell and Knowles' Boston City Hall? (In a de facto sense, they do, since they already have it.) Have the denizens of Boston risen to the challenge of taking-on and understanding this building as best they can? Why should the burden be put on the designers of this building, and the building itself as form and expression, instead of on the citizens who have been given this great gift from the beginning?
Taste changes all the time. The nature of the mind doesn't. Just because you are born into a repressive culture doesn't mean you can't see the sublime beauty and genius the mind is capable of. In anyiemt Rome, a man named Lucretius proposed that the universe was an infinite number of atoms moving randomly through space...'in a ceaseless process of creation and destruction'. How do you reckon he was able to think that before Newton and Google? It's surprising that people who fancy themselves to be progressive thinkers would so willfully miss- read the latest neoroscience and evolutionary biology research, all for the sake of an outdated 19th century view of evolution. Next you're going to tell me that a little Kenyan girl can't ever aspire to the level of a Cambridge scientist. Sad commentary, but ultimately not surprising as we humans have relied on this kind of thinking for 60,000 years,
Boston City Hall is a challenging building to read, in part due to its good manners. That is, there's still something of the Miesian (and American) propriety so common to this era to be found in its attitude toward reality. While Brutalism may be seen a prelude to a rebellion against certain aspect of the Modernist aesthetic, in its manifestation in Boston City Hall, I think we still need to think in the context of Modernist heroism (or heroics). There's an implied optimism to the Modern movement in architecture that is not missing here at all. There's also a hint of tragedy, a la Le Corbusier, and his post-Ronchamp invocation of Mediterranean and Greek architecture (including. even India's Chandigarh). But the tragic here is still reined in and qualified by the aesthetic constraints of this moment in architecture, as described above. This points to a destabilized aesthetic in Boston City Hall, and may help to explain why so many find its form and expression so challenging to take on.
I wonder what Homer would think of Boston City Hall.
davvid, I have no doubt that Homer would like Boston City Hall a lot; of this I'm especially quite sure.
That is the Greek Homer; I suppose the American Homer (fictional character) can come along for the ride . . .
Thayer,
This is what I call "foreboding" architecture:
davvid, "anti-intellectual" is a strong word...I just met with a client who is a doctor...smart guy but knows nothing at all about design...his ideas were probably worse than the average joe...but he is a very educated guy...
What defines a successful work of civic architecture? Is it enough that architects find the work intellectually stimulating? Or is a broader connection with the public important?
I wonder: if a work of architecture, no matter how pleasing architects may find it, cannot provide reasons for the broader public to want it to be the way it is, and not some other way, can it be considered a great work?
You've hit the nail squarely on the head!
EKE, You're basically arguing against culture. Why not just have a like/unlike button under each piece of artwork in the Lourve?
jla-x , You're right. Anti-intellectual might be too strong. Closed-minded or ignorant is more accurate.
meh...
DISLIKE! the roof leaks and I can't figure out where the entrance is. No relation to context either. Probably built by unpaid laborers...
There are modern civic buildings that have become beloved by the public. The Sydney Opera House comes to mind. The Boston City Hall has had 47 years to gain public esteem and respect and has failed. This building and this Brutalist style has failed the people it was meant to serve and this fault is not some imagined cultural deficiency in the populace that loathes it. I came across the Boston City Hall and the Paris City Hall both by accident when visiting those two cities. The Boston City Hall is just atrocious. If you had told me it was the national headquarters of SWAT teams I would have believed it. The Paris City Hall just blew me away, just an incredibly, fantastically, beautiful building. I changed my schedule just to make time to visit it. Likewise the Sydney Opera House is stunningly beautiful and a credit to all of Australia.
Would Shakespeare still move people or Politicians discard Machiavelli if our nature had changed? It's astounding that we are still questioning human nature, it's at the core of being able to empathize with others rather than define them as different because of their unique cultural circumstances.
davvid, I won't argue with your personal feelings on that building, but short of asking everyone personally, we have surveys which I understand could be slanted, but at some point I would encourage you to engage in empirical evidence and factor in the biases for your self. Also, there's no shortage of foreboding traditional architecture, just look at Speer or if you like icing, look at Versailles. In general though, the idea that we communicate in a variety of ways beyond language and facial expression includes our buildings. This is why this building is considered the most hated building in Boston. For me it would be the John Hancock building.
"So what exactly is this "component of human preference that is innate and inherited" and how exactly does it "define human nature"? And what exactly is the proof of its innateness, its inherited-ness, and its defining-ness?"
Human beings generally prefer eating grapefruit to eating sand. It's not universal. There are people who hate grapefruit, and a small handful who probably enjoy sand. But generally, there is an innate preference for grapefruit.
Before Richard Dawkins became world's top atheist, he wrote a book called The Selfish Gene where he coined the word "meme".
From wikipedia:
"A meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture".[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.[3]"
Theres absolutely nothing about the Boston City Hall or brutalism generally that goes against human nature. Its not like eating sand. Its more like eating asparagus.
The question of whether our human nature is changing is irrelevant to a discussion about a 50 year old architectural style.
Obviously there is or people would not be clamoring for the damn things to be destroyed. On a very happy note the Brutalist FBI building in DC is slated for demolition also.
Rather than winning or losing this argument, it's more important to find out what underlies the ideas expressed on all sides. This thread has been extremely enlightening, especially Donna's comments, who by the way is an excellent person from everything I can tell.
quondam, next time you merge a classical building with the neon computer graphics you should try using the Boston City Hall or the Villa Radieuse site plan, assuming you find them as compelling as the ones you actually include. Maybe you could tell us something about your choices.
I wonder if we would be having a different conversation if we were all together in the physical space of this building. We're mostly referring to images and so the reactions are very much a response to the semiotics, not the actual building itself.
What I am not understanding here is that this building is clearly "classical" in its presence and mass...I have always felt that strong connection between brutalism and roman architecture. How does the differ from your typical civic classical building?
To me, the building is not meant to be pleasant or sweet...and that's ok. There is a drama to such environments that also draws us in and appeals to our sense of adventure...Proof of this in in every dystopian sci-fi set that we are intrigued by...by the abandoned buildings, graveyards, haunted houses that we explore as kids...Many people seem to only want their cake...fluffy things...manicured lawns...vines tamed to a trellis...safety and comfort....pandas and koalas are easy to love, but what would the zoo be without snakes and crocodiles...The urban "zoo" requires that variety between the large and humane...the dark and light...the sweet and sour...variety and contrast is what makes a place interesting...and each component of the city has its role...a building should not be burdened by the mundane nature of the adult mind...
"EKE, there's no intelligence in what you just wrote. Is your lack of intelligence innate, inherited, or both?"
This is a really spectacular post. In two short, very efficient sentences, you managed to be breathtakingly rude, insult both me, AND my parents (!), and then circle back with a reference to the "nature vs. nurture" discussion. Very, very clever...brilliant, really. Bravo!
"Theres absolutely nothing about the Boston City Hall or brutalism generally that goes against human nature. Its not like eating sand. Its more like eating asparagus.
The question of whether our human nature is changing is irrelevant to a discussion about a 50 year old architectural style."
Of course we disagree about this. My example of grapefruit and sand was simply an obvious example of innate preference. It goes without saying that there is a set of things that humans, by their nature, tend to prefer over other things. This to me is obvious, and I'm always puzzled at the lengths that some people will go to avoid confronting this.
If you accept that there is a human nature, and that persons tend to prefer some things over others, then it's highly probable that those preferences would extend into the realm of architecture and urbanism.
The "nature vs. nurture" question is a really important one for aesthetics, in my opinion. To which influence you ascribe more importance goes a long way toward shaping your aesthetic worldview. Modernists generally prefer the view that "nurture" or culture is dominant, because then the landscape is constantly evolving, and we can reshape ourselves to each new paradigm that comes down the tracks. Traditions are of little importance when culture is shapeshifting constantly. Traditionalists favor the "Nurture" argument, insisting that human nature is a baseline absolute that you cannot avoid. Culture evolves, but always in the context of an unchanging immutable natural ground. In this view, traditions are valuable because they evolve in parallel with human beings, reflecting their true nature.
The truth certainly resides between these two poles, but which side you see as more important is certain to shape how you see architecture.
I'd rather see society dragged up by critics and curators with high standards than dragged down by anti-intellectual joes.
As many critics and curators have demonstrated, intellect tends to be highly overrated.
You're either a criic or anti-intellectual. Give people a bit more credit. Plus, the average Joe's building record was pretty good up until relatively recently.
Everyones a critic. Some are anti-intellectual.
So you agree that humans by their nature, prefer to eat edible things over inedible things. Good, we're getting somewhere.
OK. Do you think that it's possible that human nature could cause human beings to generally prefer one kind of environment over another? Say, for example, structures which make them feel safe, versus structures that make them feel uneasy. Or structures that provide detail at a scale that is appreciable to their senses, versus structures that provide no sensory stimulation at the human scale.
Christopher Alexander has written about this for years, of course. See "A Pattern Language" or "The Nature of Order".
Lots of interesting reading here, for the inquisitive:
http://www.katarxis3.com/index.html
EKE, you're not getting anywhere with this line of thinking. You're going in circles.
No, what I'm doing is talking to a wall. Our worldviews couldn't be more different. That's ok, though.
Really, all I'm saying is that if they are really interested in pleasing clients and producing work that makes people happy, architects might try to investigate the idea that there might be innate preferences that most people share, take those preferences seriously, and then address those preferences in thoughtful ways.
How do you identify those preferences? Well, as I said, Christopher Alexander and Nikos Salingaros have done lots of great research into this. But a simple way of approaching this is to look at what patterns have worked in the past, and emulate them There are very good reasons why traditional architectures have a broad appeal. It's stunning to me how many modern architects turn their back on this accumulated wisdom. It strikes me as spectacularly uninquisitive.
We all know about New Urbanism and A Pattern Language.
Its not new at all. Stop patting yourself on the back for knowing about it.
We all talk about preferences ENDLESSLY already for a living. This happens through conversations, design, redesign, criticism, travel etc etc. We get to know people. We try our hardest to understand them, their goals, their agendas, they passions etc.. Some of what gets mentioned in New Urbanism circles is relevant, some isn't. Lots of styles have broad appeal. My biggest clients are EXTREMELY passionate about midcentury design. Its central to who they are and their business. And guess what, some people even like to suffer for fashion. And some people love to walk around in sweats and crocs.
Stop trying to put people into a box defined by the lowest common denominator. Its not working.
new urbanism is a fucking buzzword circle jerk sleight of hand to push a shit conservative aesthetic agenda.
...and you guys are accusing me of being anti-intellectual?
:)
After Kant's Third Critique,The Critique of Judgment (1790), any argument for innateness in our evaluation of and taste of art and architecture falls away. Kant points out that it is our critical faculty, acting freely and with autonomy, that judges art and the art of architecture, and not some determinist cause in the psyche over which we have no control. The challenge of Modernism in art and architecture, I think more than bears this out. In the West, we do look for the associations (historical, etc.) that determine the paths that the arts take, and use these connections as markers for talking about contemporary art, but, this is not the same as not being able to appreciate a manifestation in the arts that is original and new.
"Original and new" can still be out of scale, inappropriate, and repulsive.
"Original and new" can still be out of scale, inappropriate, and repulsive.
OBVIOUSLY
The cult of dernier cris, of the new, in art and architecture can be exploited by artists and architects. Writing "original and new" in my post, I mean it in the most generic sense, that is with reg to the aesthetic of Modernism, and its reception in our culture per se. I don't think there are many critics out there who could get on board with Tom Wolfe, and attempt to dethrone Picasso, or something like that. Original and new includes Kurt Schwitters, Bruno Taut, and Le Corbusier, just to name a few.
The cult of the original and new can lead some artists and architects astray. I'll put forward one example. Wolf Prix has designed an exhibition building for BMW in Munich that is so overwrought, that it looks like a world's fair pavilion instead of a building that's meant to be permanent (see link). On the other hand, Wolf Prix has designed buildings that can be described as original and new e.g. the European Central Bank in Frankfurt-am-Main (see link).
http://www.designmadeinaustria.com/project/bmw-welt/
And for European Central Bank:
http://www.designcurial.com/news/functional-sculpture-coop-himmelblaus-european-central-bank-in-frankfurt-4547055/
It is still possible to disagree with Immanuel Kant. Many do, on many things.
EKE, Yes, there are always debates in philosophy, and philosophical thought implies this. I'm on Kant's side when it comes to aesthetics, and I think anyone who has followed Thierry de Duve's recent lectures and articles that are derived from Kant's positions and insights, will discover Kant anew. Aesthetics is like any other philosophical pursuit: it requires taking sides in an ongoing debate, one that ideally will lead to some clarity of belief and description. I'm not a big fan of Kant's (supposed) attitude toward knowledge of God, religion, etc., but that doesn't stop me from admiring his intellect in other areas.
What's funny about people's apprehension with New Urbanism is that it's no different than plain old urbanism, the kind that Makes Santa Monica, New Orleans, or Bath England so wonderful. Yes, the architecture is not quite where it should be, but when you don't teach the art of architecture or employ non-modernist precedents as valid examples to be emulated, or understand the civic nature of public architecture, what do you expect. Shit in, shit out.
To say as modern people that we can't learn from such successes and can only emulate the modernist styles is nothing short of insanity. Especially with a warming planet, over population, and the re-awakened understanding of walking's importance, not to learn from these kind of places whether in form or detail is a kind of medieval thinking that boggles the mind. Read Kant or study the physical reality...you could do both, but I know which will provide more concrete solutions to our world's present problems, and which makes me prouder, but to each their own.
And that's as it should be. I'd be happy calling a truce if we could simply acknowledge this and allow for the various expressions out there, and in this I'm speaking about schools, not architect, which despite its biases still shows a variety of view points.
There already is a wide variety of expressions out there. Even in schools.
New Urbanism struggles in academia because it fails when the logic behind it is picked apart. It thrives among community activists. But it ends up looking like wishful thinking and a niche alternative lifestyle, not a comprehensive strategy that is responsive to other aspects of society.
Your kidding yourself if you think theres a wide variety in schools today. Having recently been in Harvard, Virginia, and Maryland's schools, I can tell you point blank this is a false statement unless your spectrum of choices doesn't include traditional work.
Again, New Urbanism was a marketing moniker to get through to the developers and bankers that they weren't proposing building instant ghettos. New urbanism is old urbanism before it replaced the pedestrian with the car. If you can't see that, then I can't explain further, but DPZ and others even said this right out. Take the best examples and adapt them to the particular circumstances. If this has no logic, you can explain every well functioning pedestrian oriented city to me, I'm all ears.
davvid, For some, the experience of Boston City Hall may be like eating Brussels sprouts, but, who doesn't know how nutritious and good for people this veggie is?
http://www.naturalnews.com/043326_Brussels_sprouts_health_benefits_nutrient-dense_food.html#
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.