Boston through Chinese Eyes

A

ablarc

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
3,524
Reaction score
2
Posted on SSP by a student now living in Boston:

itszjay said:
From what I heard Boston (MBTA included) in the 1960's/early,mid 1970's used to be like a very big city with one of the tallest building in the world (Pru. & John Hancock top 20), an world class subway system. Then after the 1970's it just stop and didn't move froward much. Was this true in anyway?

Boston used to be a world class city, now is just a city with college in it. I remember the Custom House used to be 6th tallest in the world back in 1915.

Is because of all these law, and some people in the city that still thinking in the 1970's. Who thinks the Pru is "too tall" and never went outside of Boston to see how the world looks today. People really need to update them self, and get back to sync with the world...
Click to expand...
 
All those skylines are great, but alot of them come out of the wrong places, economicly.
 
Aw! I was hoping for something racist. :eek:

As to why he says Boston has lost its dynamism (because of big buildings?!), and why you ... we ...okay, I think it has are two very different things. Therefore, this justification from his point of view is useless.

Has to '...get back to sync with the world.' ?!? By whose standards is this world to which he compares it? Why be in sync with anything else?

I thought that's why people, at least here on this board, choose Boston, Providence, Portland or New Bedford, over Houston, Tampa, Phoenix, or Charlotte.

You've been hanging here too long, ablarc. The framework for your logic is becoming mush. :p
 
Is there seriously one person on this board who would want to see Boston transform itself the way Chinese cities have? That would make the West End/Gov't Center look like child's play.

Building hundreds of skyscrapers doesn't make you a world class city. This guy argues that Bostonians should get out and see the world and I think that all people should, including this guy who clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.
 
I was going to say something similar, if the size of the buildings (or even their architecture) in more than even a small way define what is "world class", then we've lost the battle.

It's way more than that.
 
JohnAKeith said:
I was going to say something similar, if the size of the buildings (or even their architecture) in more than even a small way define what is "world class", then we've lost the battle.

It's way more than that.
Click to expand...
It is indeed. I remember when saying you were from Boston elicited oohs and aahs. There was a magic to it; Boston was perceived as world class.

Architecture was partly responsible; City Hall and half a dozen other projects projected or reflected Boston's intellectual cutting edge. That is now buried in a blizzard of timidity and conformity. How else would you describe "fitting in" as the principal goal of a new building? Used to be "standing out" (as in outstanding).
 
I think it is better to say that "No, Boston does not need tall skyscrapers dotted all over the place. However, the fact is that any response to any tall buildings is always negative. It doesn't matter if Boston wants or needs a tall building. It's the fact that people are so timid and conservative that when a day comes that a truly amazing building is proposed, people will shoot it down regardless, fearing change or expansion. It doesn't necessarily have to apply to anything architectural wise. It can apply to every aspect of change in Boston. No matter what, the response will still be timid and conservative."
 
Architecture was partly responsible; City Hall and half a dozen other projects projected or reflected Boston's intellectual cutting edge. That is now buried in a blizzard of timidity and conformity. How else would you describe "fitting in" as the principal goal of a new building? Used to be "standing out" (as in outstanding).
Click to expand...

Oh, but it used to be very cutting edge to be a "humanist" reactionary against brutalism and to call for small-scale contextualism. The problem is that Boston has been dragging its foot in this and other trends of the past for quite some time.

The revival of cities like New York and Chicago, and the awakening of San Francisco as a technology center, probably stymied a lot of Boston's [relative] step after the 1970s and 80s. Before, it stood out as a city that was simultaneously walkable, crime-free, intellectual, sophisticated, and elegant. The rise of those other cities made it appear not only less unique, but also less dynamic than other places. it's hard to think of any young people who are excited by the idea of "Boston"...or why they would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top