reverend_paco
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2012
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 261
uninspiring. I bet they're all labs too
Shouldn’t someone at this point standup for the beauty of brutalism?
Shouldn’t someone at this point standup for the beauty of brutalism?
The above proposals have a "Frankenstein's Monster" quality. Not even lipstick on a pig. Pardon mixing metaphors...but in this case it's appropriate.As I’ve said several times before, call in the bulldozers, level that existing concrete monstrosity, and use that blank, level canvas to build something that Boston can be proud of!
This iteration is embarrassing. No one who’s advocated for preservation via adaptive reuse has this in mind. Some may know, I’ve attended a handful of public meetings, spoken up, and submitted comments. Guess I’d better sharpen my pencil…Shouldn’t someone at this point standup for the beauty of brutalism?
Can't we get the peeps that did the Umass Dartmouth Library in to build something nice here? I mean, I get it. It's hard. Really inordinately hard, like way extra effort level hard to find that balance between old and new, preservation and practicality, finding some harmony in a way that makes sense on aesthetic and financial and cultural levels and all the rest. But shouldn't we at least try?
Jesus Christ, no one gives a shit about the housing crisis.
I could envision some structural remnants of the Hurley's corduroy concrete tastefully and artistically preserved here and there within and surrounded by an otherwise entirely new design.
I stopped trying to convince people that "ugly" buildings are worth saving because most people can't get past the cover of a book. The discourse about architecture on this forum stopped a generation ago and now all people care about is how tall a new tower is. Architecture, everywhere, is dead. I can live with that (I'm ready for a rebirth). But what I can't live with is the blanket rejection of something.
Many of the historic buildings that are sacred in Boston have had many lives and been altered. That's a GOOD thing. It means that they have earned their place in history and are worth celebrating. So when I hear people talk about wanting to tear down any of these Brutalist buildings, I hear the same voices from 60 years ago who were calling for the wholesale demolition of everything they deemed ugly. Boston is unique in having a high concentration of literally the best examples of this era in the world. How are we not celebrating this?
Sure, these buildings are far from perfect. But that is a design challenge. This proposal has the basic ideas right, but the execution is terrible. This is a building that needs someone who understands its inner beauty to bring it out.
That would actually be really cool if it were, but alas, I highly doubt something even remotely creative is baked in to this proposal.Is that a putt putt golf course on the roof between the 2 ✌✌Towers✌✌???
So when I hear people talk about wanting to tear down any of these Brutalist buildings, I hear the same voices from 60 years ago who were calling for the wholesale demolition of everything they deemed ugly. Boston is unique in having a high concentration of literally the best examples of this era in the world. How are we not celebrating this?
Yes and no. Stewart Brand has an excellent dichotomy of buildings into "high road" of flexible, high concept architecture and "low road" of cheap, reusable, and easily replaceable buildings. The problem, as he details, is that starting around the early 20th century, the flexibility of traditional architectural forms allowing relatively easy reuse and adaptation of even the most high end buildings basically disappeared. This is very clear with buildings like City Hall and the Hurley. I agree we should reuse and build on historic buildings, that's tradition in the best way. The problem is these buildings that were designed to prevent any of that. We shouldn't build like that ever again and the cost of adaptation seems not at all worth the value here.I stopped trying to convince people that "ugly" buildings are worth saving because most people can't get past the cover of a book. The discourse about architecture on this forum stopped a generation ago and now all people care about is how tall a new tower is. Architecture, everywhere, is dead. I can live with that (I'm ready for a rebirth). But what I can't live with is the blanket rejection of something.
Many of the historic buildings that are sacred in Boston have had many lives and been altered. That's a GOOD thing. It means that they have earned their place in history and are worth celebrating. So when I hear people talk about wanting to tear down any of these Brutalist buildings, I hear the same voices from 60 years ago who were calling for the wholesale demolition of everything they deemed ugly. Boston is unique in having a high concentration of literally the best examples of this era in the world. How are we not celebrating this?
Sure, these buildings are far from perfect. But that is a design challenge. This proposal has the basic ideas right, but the execution is terrible. This is a building that needs someone who understands its inner beauty to bring it out.