City Hall Discussion - Redevelopment - Preservation - Relocation

When you read aloud to me a Latin poem and I respond to you it is gibberish and unintelligible you would tell me to learn Latin. You could try to translate it but the puns and nuanced double entendres would be lost on me and I would still maintain that it was stupid and couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I doubt that I would ever be able to convince you that the poem was crap, nor would I be able to debate you on its true shortcomings, (if at all) regarding formal and literary composition.

I think I am beginning to see why you keep holding up Briv to make your argument.
 
Jasonik said:
When you read aloud to me a Latin poem and I respond to you it is gibberish and unintelligible you would tell me to learn Latin. You could try to translate it but the puns and nuanced double entendres would be lost on me and I would still maintain that it was stupid and couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I doubt that I would ever be able to convince you that the poem was crap, nor would I be able to debate you on its true shortcomings, (if at all) regarding formal and literary composition.

This is fair enough. One either can read Latin or one cannot. If you are not able to read a language, you cannot understand it. Does this mean by extension that _architecture_ is necessarily a language? Does it mean that by definition, buildings are designed by and for a select few, and it is only permissible to said few to comment upon it? That is a separate question altogether. My argument is that no person or group has a monopoly on understanding architecture and its language -- that indeed the assertion that such a group does exist is repellent. One can determine objectively whether or not one understands Latin. How does one objectively evaluate whether or not one understands the language of architecture? What is the independent set of criteria that qualify one to make this judgment?


I think I am beginning to see why you keep holding up Briv to make your argument.

Because he _does_ seem to understand the 'language of architecture" as defined by you and yet does not like City Hall. If he is someone who by your criteria is qualified to judge the building, what is the response of another such person to his assertions?
 
Jasonik said:
When you read aloud to me a Latin poem and I respond to you it is gibberish and unintelligible you would tell me to learn Latin. You could try to translate it but the puns and nuanced double entendres would be lost on me and I would still maintain that it was stupid and couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I doubt that I would ever be able to convince you that the poem was crap, nor would I be able to debate you on its true shortcomings, (if at all) regarding formal and literary composition.

Which I think is one of the problems with architecture, that other art forms don't need to worry about.
What if you had a co-worker that only spoke in Latin iambic pentameter? What if you you had to conduct business with such a person? What if you only needed to pass by that person every single day?
Would you go and get a degree in medieval literature so you could understand what they were saying? Would you expect everybody to?

Edit: nevermind.
 
Jasonik said:
When you read aloud to me a Latin poem and I respond to you it is gibberish and unintelligible you would tell me to learn Latin. You could try to translate it but the puns and nuanced double entendres would be lost on me and I would still maintain that it was stupid and couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I doubt that I would ever be able to convince you that the poem was crap, nor would I be able to debate you on its true shortcomings, (if at all) regarding formal and literary composition.

I think I am beginning to see why you keep holding up Briv to make your argument.

Jasonik, are you an architect? If you are the level of condescension in yours and ablarc's posts only help support DowntownDave's point.
 
...

dumb question, but I am far to lazy to read all this crap, what the hell are you guys fighting over?
 
whether City Hall (a) has architectural merit, and (b) is worth preserving.

(the answers to these two questions are not necessarily identical)
 
From the South Boston Bulletin:

Mayor pitches a new South Boston home for City Hall

Joseph Mont
Peter Van Delft
Bulletin Staff

Mayor Thomas Menino on Tuesday morning dropped an unexpected bombshell on those attending the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce's annual breakfast - a proposal to sell off the existing City Hall Plaza and relocate the Hub's seat of government to South Boston's Waterfront.

His proposal calls for building the new City Hall on the City-owned site at Drydock Four, a 14-acre site that currently has a temporary use agreement with the Bank of America Pavilion.

"This new building will bring together the city's past and its future, at a site that unites the history of our harbor with the promise of tomorrow's Boston," Menino said at the breakfast. "It will sustain an architecturally magnificent structure, as well as wonderful open space along the water's edge. I will insist that our approach extends the achievements of the ICA-the building's co-existence with its environment, and the experience it offers to visitors. This site links commercial and residential uses with the important industrial businesses we worked so hard to protect. Our new City Hall will ensure the continued growth of the districts on either side."

During the speech, Menino reminded those in attendance that this was not the first time his administration has considered relocating City Hall, a building many consider to be an ugly reminder of the "brutalism" era of architecture and an energy-wasteful eyesore. Some have claimed that the aging structure is an example of "sick building syndrome" and unhealthy for those who work there.

''Some of you may recall that I explored this idea back in 1998," Menino said. "I knew then how inefficient that building was, and how many expensive updates it would need in the years ahead. I knew that these prime parcels could do more for Boston's future. But at that time, the market conditions were not right. Today, however, the demand for downtown development is stronger than it has ever been.''

Menino also used his speech to tout the importance of the ongoing development of the city's waterfront.

"Look at the milestones of growth on the South Boston Waterfront, where we invested so heavily in planning and infrastructure," he said. "Look at the new Institute of Contemporary Art. That building is magnificent - five thousand people showed up on Sunday. My administration designated the land to that project because we saw then what everybody sees now. That it would become a powerful symbol of contemporary Boston - a statement of the city's rich diversity and its long tradition of innovation and creativity. And that it would totally change people's perceptions of our waterfront. Until 10 years ago, the waterfront was the greatest untapped asset in this city. Today, it is booming and expanding our downtown."

In an interview with the Bulletin on Tuesday, Menino said he was hopeful that the Boston Redevelopment Authority could set the process for a new City Hall in motion by this summer. Those initial tasks will be formulating a business proposal and soliciting bids for the project. Menino was optimistic that the selling price of City Hall Plaza to a private developer would reap a windfall.

"There are some people saying it would get a minimum of $300 million," he said.
Speaking with pride about the steady progress the city's waterfront has made, Menino cited a new City Hall as an important part of that effort.

"There could be spin-off business for the entire city," he said. "We are connecting the old industrial site to the new South Boston waterfront. Having City Hall right there...with the new ICA and the harbor. There are great possibilities."

State Rep. Brian Wallace (D-South Boston) has an interest in the plan that reaches beyond his constituency.

"My father opened the doors at City Hall," he said. "Bubby Wallace was a custodian there, so I have some sentimental ties to the place."
Those emotions aside, Wallace said he could appreciate the Mayor's strategy.

"Menino is certainly thinking outside the box," he said. "A lot of people didn't like the location of the [current] City Hall for a number of reasons. A lot of people have said it is not the best structure in world."

He added, however, that the proposal needs to consider all concerned parties.

"The Pavilion is a place that a lot of people work at and enjoy," he said. "I think we just want to make sure that they don't get tossed out [of the neighborhood]. I think a lot of people would want to see them stay in the area."

"It certainly will generate some foot traffic," Wallace added. "Transportation is up in air right now, but I'm sure we'll be working on that aspect and many others. Certainly, [existing transportation] will have to be changed. Is the Silver Line enough for a building of that size? We'll have to change things and add some more lines, I'm sure. But there are a number of things that they can do. You can do a shuttle from Broadway and expand MBTA service.

"One drawback of the [current] City Hall is that there's nowhere to park unless you want to pay 25 bucks. There's enough land there that they can work with, but then you get into the parking freeze [enacted for South Boston earlier this year]. That's the only thing-the fly in the ointment. But I do give Menino credit for thinking outside the box. It shows some vision, and good for him. Sure there's still a long way to go and lot of community meetings and ZBA, but I think Menino sees his legacy as the waterfront and he really wants it to be special. It's pretty interesting and I give him credit for coming up with something that is certainly revolutionary."

State Sen. Jack Hart called the proposal "a bold decision," "revolutionary thinking" and one of the "biggest things" to come out of the Menino administration.
"People have talked about the difficulty in visiting and working at City Hall," he said. "In terms of serving the people it does not do a good job."

The only initial problem Hart could envision is transportation-related.

"Boston City Hall is generally a place people take public transportation to," he said. "I'm sure the mayor is looking at this. [We need to make sure] the Silver Line can handle the passengers."

He added, however, that City Hall would have fewer logistical issues than other developments that might covet the site.

"It could be a high rise condominium development or it could be another hotel on the waterfront with far more traffic than City Hall," he said. "Most of the people who go to City Hall today take public transportation, so I'm not as concerned about what the impact on the neighborhood is as much as other large-scale developments. I think it fits nicely and will be a signature piece of development."

Hart was hopeful that a new City Hall would foster "a whole spin-off economy" for South Boston.
"Maybe some of those people will shop at stores on Broadway creating demand for more and better businesses," he said, predicting "positive effects for the neighborhood."

On Tuesday, many residents were still digesting the news. The reaction among civic leaders, however, was initially positive.

"I think Menino is correct, we need to change with the times," said Tom Miller, president of Cityside Neighborhood Association. "Cities like Chicago and Los Angeles have gotten new city halls. I do think we have to change with the times."

"It sounds like a good fit for South Boston," said Peter Golemme, president of the Dorchester Heights Association. "South Boston residents take their politics pretty seriously. There are two things that South Bostonians are so very passionate about that they're not supposed to talk about at polite dinner parties-religion and politics. I think it's a natural fit [for the neighborhood]."

Ed Flynn, chairman of the South Boston Crimewatch group and a former City Council candidate, was a bit less enthusiastic.

"I think what we need in South Boston is more senior and veteran housing and housing for families," he said.
An even harsher critique of the plan came courtesy of City Councilor John Tobin, an official who has been increasingly critical of the Menino administration. Tobin himself had previously floated the idea of building a new City Hall, including last year's trial balloon that it might suitable to relocate to the Hynes Convention Center property.

"There has been a long history of vocal criticism of the current City Hall," he said. "I'm sure the energy bills would blow your hair back. I've been a long term supporter of tearing the building down."

"I applaud the Mayor's decision to sell it," Tobin added. "But I'm still not completely sold on the new location."

He stressed the importance of keeping City Hall downtown where more people can more easily access it. The current location, he pointed out, is at a nexus of several forms of public transportation. At the proposed site in South Boston, "you have the Silver Line and that's about it." He also questioned the logic of embarking on such a costly project when homeowners throughout the city are being saddled with property tax increases.

Tobin's alternative to Menino's plan is to sell off the current Court Street location of the School Department. Those proceeds can then be used to "knock down City Hall," rebuild on the site and create a new facility that would bring city and school officials together under one roof.
 
Ron Newman said:
whether City Hall (a) has architectural merit, and (b) is worth preserving.

(the answers to these two questions are not necessarily identical)

Ah, I see. There sure is a lot of banter for such simply helpless issue. Does City hall have architectural merit, I would say yes, it in of it self is a decently conceived piece of 60's architecture. If nothing else it was ground breaking for the time. As for the remainder of government center, yea not so much. The building itself may be worth saving. I would want to see proposals for the site, for it is the vision of what is to come that could make it either worth the loss of the said building, or worth persevering it in some state. At this stage I would be more inclined to think that the latter would be more enriching, how they would incorporate such a building into a new development could make an extraordinary landmark with more character and history then any single new development could offer. But then again, it may not play out that way. The most important thing is that at least some issue has been raised over what overall has proved to be at very lest a somewhat disruptive development for the Boston urban fabric.
 
DowntownDave said:
Justin, I have an Ivy League education, and have
been to more than 30 countries. Does that make me qualified to have
an opinion about City Hall? :)
DowntownDave, I am very impressed by your Ivy League education. It does not, however, grant you the licence to not actually read what you're responding to and instead invoke the nearest stereotype. So I remind you:

justin said:
So here I propose a fairly low bar for who should have a say: those who have seen a large enough sample of architecture to inform their opinions, and who can articulate those opinions beyond grunting 'cool' or 'sucks'.

No formal education requirement; a sensitive autodidact with an internet connection would do just fine. Moreover, no a priori qualifcation; I propose that we only consider opinions which are considered opinions, no matter who they come from. (After all, I have to set the bar low enough so that I myself can clear it). This is very much a reaction to Ron and other populists on this board, who seem to take popular disapproval as sufficient to pre-empt reasoned debate.

DowntownDave said:
However, one can use one's knowledge to inform and enlighten that part humanity which does not have that knowledge, or one can use it to condemn and denigrate such persons. The idea that a select and self-appointed elite should "decide" somehow what is a good building and what is not; the idea that some people's thoughts, values and opinions are not valuable because they are not educated in a certain field is an outrage. Architects should be thinking about how best to bridge the gap between themselves and non-architects, not exploiting that gap for the sake of self aggrandizement.

From the ordering, I'd infer this is a response to my post, but it seems aimed at an elitist straw-man rather than anything I actually said. I agree with you that a good elite is keenly aware of its pastoral duty to the rest of humanity. But if you accede to average Joes tastes, you are forfeiting any hope of informing and enlightening him.

One way to deal with a gap is to never cross it. It's easy and pleasant, but it doesn't get you very far.

DowntownDave said:
The elimination of City Hall may well be just the catharsis that Boston needs -- a means to symbolically exorcise the demons of the 60s

...While the new West End, which is equally bad as urban design but infinitely worse as architecture, remains as an all-too-concrete reminder. Why does everybody immediately lunge for the one piece of urban renewal that has some merit?

More to come...

justin
 
Why should we keep City Hall if most people don't like it? Just because a bunch of people who think they know what they're talking about think its significant doesn't actually make it significant. It's ugly, non-functional, inefficient, and does not belong in the middle of a city like Boston. Most people want it torn down. 'Nuff said. We don't need a pow-wow of people who think they know what architecture is to decide whether to tear it down.
 
I'd love to remove the 'new West End' as well, but that would involve displacing thousands of residents -- a repeat of the original blunder. Not a good idea. Nobody lives at City Hall.

However, I'd happily implode the State Service Center (Lindemann-Hurley).
 
I don't get it ...

Will people stop talking about the Seaport and South Boston in the same breath??? It's practically impossible to get from the one area to the other!

It's 1.6 miles from Salem Street (North End) to the ICA; it's 1.4 miles from East Broadway to the ICA.

The longer we keep mentioning the two neighborhoods at the same time, the more the pinheads in South Boston will think they have a right to decide what goes on there.

And, they don't ... their right ended the day they threw the first rock ...
 
As the area between the ICA and West Broadway fills with buildings, the boundary between the Seaport and residential Southie will begin to erode.

The land on the other side of Fort Point Channel has always been considered 'South Boston'. Notice the prominent label 'South Boston Flats' on this 1884 map.
 
Ron Newman said:
However, I'd happily implode the State Service Center (Lindemann-Hurley).

I guess you missed the party at Bamiyan, eh?

justin
 
Now to respond to briv, whose post is just what I was calling for.
briv said:
Art is also a very subjective thing, unlike, say, physics or human biology. You cant really get it wrong, IMO, because art really requires the perceiver to complete its circuit, so to speak. It is that act of a person perceiving that thing, and responding to it that finally makes it art. Joe Sixpack's interpretation is as valid as Professor Whoever's.
... i.e. devoid of validity in any 'objective' sense one might expect from science. I agree. But I am dead set against our tribunes' underlying schema for making aesthetical judgements: aggregate gut reactions accross the population. Not only is it philosophically spurious; if applied rigorously to past art, it would rob us of a lot, if not most, of what we rather uncontroversially cherish today.
briv said:
I dont believe that some special education is essential in forming a critical judgment about a piece of architecture or art. In fact, when it comes to City Hall, I believe it only serves to cloud and contaminate one's true perception of the thing. This building communicates so loudly on such a fundamentally visceral level that I feel it is on these terms most of all by which it should be evaluated. Almost invariably, people have an instant emotional reaction to this building. It is one of revulsion, loathing, and general negativity. Why do we feel the need to think this reaction away? Seeing that such a reaction is so universal, don't you think it is interesting, important and indicative of something real?
I must be the weird one here: I found Brutalism as easy a taste to acquire as foie gras. It required no intellectual mediation whatsoever. If you've ever delighted in medieval European castles or Romanesque churches, or Richardson for that matter, you'll find plenty to like in Brutalism: it's solid, earthly, playfully asymmetrical, concrete in every sense of the word. But I can see why people who grow up in a pseudo-colonial or a three-decker, and spend their youth between a prefab school and a strip mall might find it alien. Brutalist's disregard for urban design certainly doesn't help; fixing the surroundings, making it a destination rather than an occasional chore, and providing explanations in form of plaques and tours would go a long way toward fixing the popular perception.

Briv is right: the widespread negative reaction is not to be ignored. It should spur us to correct the problems with City Hall, listed here umpteen times and ones that I fully recognize. What should be resisted is the non-sequitur corollary of the visceral reaction: raze it. (To the engineers out there: would it be extra hard to do so, given the location and the materials?) There is too much historical significance and architectural merit in it to throw it out with the bathwater. City Hall is fixable; Ron is wrong to set it up as some Gesammtkunstwerk that would disintegrate if we shrank the plaza or improved the lighting. (Unless people would prefer to keep all City Hall discussion in one place, I'll start a thread for constructive, specific proposals to fix the City Hall and the plaza).
briv said:
I don't believe that it is worth preserving on the grounds that it is some virtuoso example of that flash in the pan architectural fad known as Brutalism. IMO, there are countless better, far more interesting examples of the style in existence. The work of Gottfried Bohm and Fritz Wotruba, for example, make City Hall's tectonic voodoo, which Ablarc writes so passionately about, look downright pedestrian. Even Corbu and Rudolph had the good sense to take advantage of concrete's plasticity, unlike City Hall which is composed almost entirely of axonometric right angles. Not to mention that Kallman and McKinnel themselves have a much finer specimen of Brutalism in their Five Cent Saving Bank, IMO. Furthermore, City Hall is not original. It's a shameless riff on Corbusier's La Tourette. Perhaps all these Little Boston City Halls everyone keeps mentioning are actually Little LaTourette's?

So are the right angles a missed opportunity or a bold departure from the fashions of the time? It's a critic's coin toss. I actually agree with you in that City Hall is some way down my top-10 Boston Brutalist list (unlike the Hurley, which I love), but way too high for me to contemplate supporting its destruction. As for Corbu, I think you just gave ablarc a perfect homework assignment: show us some pictures of would-be City Hall clones, and let us decide whether the coprolalia hurled at City Hall isn't just a case of La Tourette's syndrome.

To be continued...

justin
 
You're right, of course ...

I agree, Ron, it's been known as part of South Boston for a very long time.

I think anything to the East of 1st Street, however, has nothing to do with South Boston "the neighborhood". It is almost all industrial and commercial space, with a lot of parking lots (now, with a couple hotels, an apartment building, and a couple of office buildings).

My fear is that South Boston residents (and politicians) will, and, in fact, already do feel that they have a right to decide what happens in the Seaport District. Might I suggest otherwise.

If South Boston residents attempt to make claim to the area, might I remind them that this part of "South Boston" didn't exist until around 1900.

Also, several history books do not call the area to the east of Northern Ave the "South Boston Flats" - they call them the "Commonwealth Flats" because the Commonwealth bought the area and in-filled it. This includes the land underneath the courthouse, Fan Pier, the ICA, and the new City Hall.

Plus, if South Boston wants us to call things by their historical names, I'll be glad to discuss it with them, on Telegraph Hill, in Dorchester Heights, someday.
 
Rapper finds inspiration in Chaucer

By MARK PRATT, Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 18, 4:42 PM ET

WELLESLEY, Mass. - The lights dim, the music pumps ? a steady beat that can be felt in the bones ? and Baba Brinkman struts and bounces around the stage, belting out his rhymes about hard living, violence, sex and the secrets to true love

He gets his inspiration not from growing up in the 'hood, but from the musings of a 14th-century English poet.

"Ready to kill with their jagged-edged daggers drawn/The three aggravated braggarts staggered up the lawn/And without dragging on while the story is told/Beneath the tree they found a bag filled with glorious gold," Brinkman raps in a seamless cadence, updating Geoffrey Chaucer to hip hop.

Brinkman, a native of Vancouver, British Columbia, who has a master's degree in medieval and Renaissance English literature from the University of Victoria, has adapted some of Chaucer's earthy, satirical and pious "The Canterbury Tales" into rap.

There are remarkable parallels between "The Canterbury Tales" and modern rap, Brinkman said at Wellesley College during a recent stop on his tour of high schools and colleges across the eastern United States and Puerto Rico.

"Chaucer and rap are both performance-based and they're both battles of words where your proficiency gets you by," said Brinkman, whose master's thesis compared the two.

"The Canterbury Tales" was a storytelling competition among pilgrims on their way to Canterbury Cathedral, much like freestyle rap battles today.

"Before I ever read anything about (Brinkman) I could see the similarities between rap and Chaucer, especially the storytelling aspect," said Kathryn Lynch, a Wellesley English professor who teaches classes on "The Canterbury Tales."

"Like rap, the sound of Chaucer is important for the audience's experience, and they are both competitive verse forms."

Brinkman, 27, creatively adapts the Middle English of "The Canterbury Tales" into contemporary English, yet stays faithful to the original.

"My goal is that anyone who knows nothing about Chaucer would really be able to appreciate it," said Brinkman, who has previously performed in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia.

He captures the humor, the vulgarity, the suspense, educating and entertaining in the process.

"I think seeing something like this, you'd learn as much, if not more, than any other way other than reading Chaucer in the original," Lynch said after a show at Wellesley attended by about 100 people. "He really knows the tales he's rapping."

College students clap and laugh as they see the stories most have only read come to life on stage.

"Brinkman's performance gives a new form of life to Chaucer's poetry. ... It can be enjoyed in a live and dynamic way," said Kyle Koerber, who saw a show at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass.

Brinkman performs the "Pardoner's Tale," the "Miller's Tale" and the "Wife of Bath's Tale." His one-man show, with recorded music and a few props that include a couple of chairs, a bottle of water and a bandanna, is constructed much like the pilgrims' journey in "The Canterbury Tales." He acts as the narrator ? a stowaway fan on a tour bus ? and plays the part of three rappers on the bus engaged in a rap battle.

He mixes in other songs, including a rap based on his experiences growing up in British Columbia working for his family's tree-planting business.

Brinkman has been a rap fan since age 10, influenced by Young MC, Slick Rick, Ice T, 2 Live Crew, Snoop Dog and LL Cool J. "Baba" is not a street name ? it's a word meaning peace that his father bestowed upon him the day he was born, and has always been used instead of his given name, Dirk.

He wants to be known as a rapper, not just as the guy who raps Chaucer. He has released three independent CDs, including "The Rap Canterbury Tales," with a picture of Chaucer wearing wraparound shades on the cover.

"When I started rapping, I decided I am going to dedicate my life to this," Brinkman said. "My options were either drop out of school and battle my way to the top, or stay in school and use my education. I spent college advocating to my professors that rap should be taken as a literary form that should be studied the same way."

Because of his background, and because of his subject matter, Brinkman knows he has to overcome skeptics.

Rap purists don't think a white kid from Canada, a self-described son of hippies, can relate to an art form that developed on the streets of urban America.

"That's a hurdle I have to jump," he said. "People have a narrow idea of what constitutes rap based on what they see on TV. Who's to say that white people are not supposed to rap, or Asians, or Hispanics? ... Hip hop is all about proving your skills. About keeping it real. Some people are skeptical at first, but when they hear me, they realize I can rap."

Academics sometimes sniff condescendingly. Brinkman performed at
Harvard University to an audience that included the chairman of the English department, but Columbia University was not interested when he offered to bring his act to campus, he said.

But there are rap adaptations based on Shakespeare and "Oedipus," all part of a genre dubbed "Lit-Hop," which is also the name of Brinkman's latest CD.

Rapping Chaucer is like putting any classic literature into a modern context, including Hollywood versions of Shakespeare, said Tyrone Williams, an English professor at Xavier University in Cincinnati.

"If Chaucer was around today, he'd probably rap," Brinkman said.






DowntownDave ... ?

.
 
justin said:
As for Corbu, I think you just gave ablarc a perfect homework assignment...
Ain't doin' no more homework. Don't pay no dividends.

.
 
justin said:
Briv is right: the widespread negative reaction is not to be ignored. It should spur us to correct the problems with City Hall, listed here umpteen times and ones that I fully recognize. What should be resisted is the non-sequitur corollary of the visceral reaction: raze it ... City Hall is fixable...
Sinners should be executed.
 
Justin, I agree that Brutalism does share some of the same DNA with medieval architecture, particularly the Romanesque. I think Corbu was conscious of this when he designed la Tourette -- a monastery, which is a typology traditionally tied to the Romanesque. The Brutalists, however, seemed to be uninterested in harmonizing these massive forms like the Romanesque architects did. Just look at the monotonous staccato rhythm of City Hall's "windows". If architecture is frozen music, then the upper portion of City Hall is the petrified report of machine gun fire.

I think that Brutalism was a noble attempt to address the fact that mid-century Modernism could not convey the gravity necessary in embodying important civic, religious and cultural institutions. But it failed, because the Brutalists were unwilling or uninterested in mitigating their harsh and severe forms. The architecture of the past did this when it came to monumental architecture. Whether hierarchical or ordered like the classicists, or more freeform like the medievalists, it was always important that harmonious relationships were established between their massive forms. These forms were then softened further with decoration, the scale of their building units, and/or other architectural elements. With Brutalism massiveness was an ends; cacophony was a rule. Furthermore, the human scale is rarely to be found in Brutalism architecture because vast continuos concrete forms have no points of reference.

I think another very important reason people react so harshly to Brutalism is the fact that the material, raw concrete, has the same gloomy color and texture as a rainy day.

But this leads to another issue that Im sure will pop up after this debate ends. How do you design a contemporary civic building in Boston that is the equivalent of, say, the State House, or Old City Hall or The McKim building. Here we have three different styles of architecture, yet they all communicate the same things: That these are important civic buildings. They also elicit pride and respect from the populace, and communicate very easily what the are. I don't think Foster's City Hall in London, which I think may be Menino's template here, achieves all this. The same goes for probably just about any other major civic building built in the last 50 years.

...But maybe we should save that debate for later.
 

Back
Top