City Hall Discussion - Redevelopment - Preservation - Relocation

Seriously TheBostonBoy, you need to think before you type. I literally cringed when I read that post.

What school do you go to where grammar isn't taught?

Their = ownership

There = place

They're = They are
 
IMO it is hard for me to imagine that area without City Hall their, but just thinking about how much space their is and what could be built their in the future makes my mouth water.

ahahaha....... hahaha... aha... hahahaahaha.

That just made my day, and i've been chuckling for the last 5 minutes solid. Hey everybody makes mistakes it's ok...

BTW, bostonboy has to be the happiest energetic kid i've ever heard. LOL. YOU DA MAN Bostonboy. take the drugs mommy gives you, they're good for ya.
 
OMG

OMG, what a boring article!!!!

Summarize it for me, please.

I guess newspaper print is cheap these days ...

I also want to say, it would be nice to read at least one story about relocating City Hall where the person doesn't bring up the entire 20th century history of Boston as a point of reference!
 
dont mean to go off topic, political and about 2 weeks late....

but i completely agree with ronny newman about 9/11. on point.
 
Well I am glad that my stupid mistakes make everyone happy!
And besides, I am in Honors English Class, I just don't really take time to worry about my grammar and punctuation in forums such as this.
So piss off! Jk....
And I don't take pills, so shutup about that. Their (?):shock: is nothing wrong with being energetic.
 
Since moving to Boston, I have always wondered why the people here held such a dim view of New Hampshir(ites?, ians?, Hampsters?), now I think I understand.

Of course I love your enthusiasm. I enjoy clicking on the forum and seeing the last 15 threads all have last been replyed to by TheBostonBoy. I know right away that I am in for a treat of astute observation and unbridled civic-by-mail pride.

I just want to know, where should City Hall be located to make Boston, the most wicked-cool city in America?

On a more serious note, will the departure of Tom Miller from the BRA likely push the decision past Menino's term?
 
atlrvr said:
I just want to know, where should City Hall be located to make Boston, the most wicked-cool city in America?

A City Hall should reflect what the city represents, what its dreams are. Look at San Francisco's city hall, arguably the most beautiful in America. There is some passion and vision in that building.

As for location, some place where people are and can get to easily. Gov't Center is a great location as it is. Other good locations would be Dudley Sq, Dewey Sq, North Station, over the Turnpike in either the South End or Back Bay, and Fan Pier. Menino's argument for putting it way out in SBW doesn't really work, yes Copley was once on the fringes of the city but the city could grown beyond Copley thus making it a center. The city can't grow past SBW, it can only fill up the SBW. Fan Pier would make a good central location and one that could be seen from the waterfront.
 
Ya atlrvr, I am not a New Hampshirite!
it's not my fault i live here, I moved here from Boston like 8 years ago.
And I live in Southern NH, right next to Manchester. So I'm not some stupid ass hick from way up in no mans land. \
Besides that I think Fan Pier would be a good location for a New City Hall.
 
Fan Pier wouldn't really fit the bill for City Hall. While it is a great location on the water, it isn't very accessible. As Vanshnookenraggen pointed out, a City Hall should be in a central location that everyone in the city can get to easily. By sticking City Hall all the way out on a point on one of the piers on the waterfront, it is far from convenient in terms of location and ease of transportation.
 
That would also be true for Dudley Square, which doesn't have rail service. Fan Pier isn't so bad -- one Silver Line underground bus stop from South Station.
 
Other good locations would be Dudley Sq, Dewey Sq, North Station, over the Turnpike in either the South End or Back Bay

From the very beginning I've thought Dewey Sq. would be the best location for a new City Hall. It would create foot traffic in the currently empty square as well as give people more reason to use the Greenway. I can't think of a better anchor for the south end of the Greenway, a piece of land that without a doubt is the symbol of the New Boston. And what better to way to represent the New Boston than building a new City Hall right in the center of it all? The challenges of building over the ramps and Big Dig would demand a creative and innovative design, and did I mention it would be right across the street from the city's biggest transportation hub?
 
You are talking about the parcel(s) formerly allocated to the Garden Under Glass. Are they big enough for a city hall?
 
They're definitely big enough, especially when looking at all three together. But the building would have to be much more long than wide. Once again, I think the shape of the parcels and what lies under them would actually help the architects come up with a truly unique design, rather than being "inspired" by a successful modern design from another city.
 
vanshnookenraggen wrote:

A City Hall should reflect what the city represents, what its dreams are. Look at San Francisco's city hall, arguably the most beautiful in America. There is some passion and vision in that building.

I'm not trying to negate the rest of your argument, but saying that San Francisco's city hall accurately represents the city is a stretch, to me.

When I think of San Francisco's government, I think of the most messed up group of people ever elected, unable to pass a simple law without years and years of debate, in an endless cycle of mental masturbation.

How does their city hall reflect that?
 
Looking like an emigre from France, San Francisco's city hall is truly splendid, as are the other Beaux-Arts and Beaux-Arts Revival buildings around it. The vast homeless encampment on the grand mall in front is, however, a hilarious sendup of its pomp.
 
ablarc said:
Looking like an emigre from France, San Francisco's city hall is truly splendid, as are the other Beaux-Arts and Beaux-Arts Revival buildings around it. The vast homeless encampment on the grand mall in front is, however, a hilarious sendup of its pomp.

On my first visit to San Fransisco, I was struck by the juxtaposition of city government and cultural centers, and since then, I have believed that the best way to improve City Hall Plaza is by constructing one or two cultural buildings; a proper venue for opera (1800 seats), and 3-400 seat black-box that could also be used for chamber music -- both would need facilities for outdoor performances.

JimboJones said:
When I think of San Francisco's government, I think of the most messed up group of people ever elected, unable to pass a simple law without years and years of debate, in an endless cycle of mental masturbation.

How does their city hall reflect that?

One of the reasons I love the Kallmann McKinnell & Knowles building is because I find it honest and purposeful.

Its elected stewards...not so much...
 
San Francisco's fake St. Peter's and the entire Civic Center around it scream nouveau riche prententiousness to me, so I'd say they express the spirit of the city very well.

justin
 
Beton Brut said:
On my first visit to San Fransisco, I was struck by the juxtaposition of city government and cultural centers, and since then, I have believed that the best way to improve City Hall Plaza is by constructing one or two cultural buildings; a proper venue for opera (1800 seats), and 3-400 seat black-box that could also be used for chamber music -- both would need facilities for outdoor performances.
Good notion.

Problem is, there's not enough demand for a full and satisfying schedule at the venues that exist --much less new ones.

Jordan Hall has chamber music covered, opera demand in Boston is barely enough to fill the Majestic a few times per season.

Boston's not the cultural center it once was.

Now if they brought back the Old Howard... (seem to recall it was somewhere around City Hall ;). Now that was culture!)
 
Actually, there is more demand for concert hall space than you'd think. Jordan Hall is both very expensive to rent and so frequently in use that it's surprisingly difficult to get. It's also too big for many types of events that are held there. Vocal recitals, for example, almost never sell more than 400 to 500 seats; Jordan has just under 1000 seats, which means that the hall feels way too empty. A smaller hall would both be cheaper to rent and make for a more satisfying concert. (The disused but intact Steinert Hall was once one of the city's busiest halls for just this sort of smaller concert.) Recitals, new music, early music, and chamber music would all benefit from a medium-sized hall. The demand certainly exists: between late September and early May, almost no day passes without at least one or two concerts being held in a Boston space that was _not_ designed to be a concert hall.

As for opera, well, ablarc has a point there. But if you take all the local productions together---BLO, Opera Boston, Teatro Lirico d'Europa, the NEC Opera Workshop, BEMF every other year, the occasional production by H and H or Boston Baroque---then there is almost enough to justify building a proper house. One thing is certain: no existing space in town is particularly appropriate for opera. The Majestic is probably the best, but its pit is very small. Same for the Shubert, and its acoustics are not great. The Wang has a huge pit but the acoustics are downright awful. I haven't seen a production in the Opera House, so I can't say how it is.

In recent years, Opera Boston has shown that there is quite an eager audience for opera that isn't exactly standard issue (I think this year's run of Weill's _Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny_ sold out completely.) So it's also possible that a better venue would help the local opera scene improve.

Of course, if Constellation Center gets built, most of these problems will be solved, but that's still a question mark.
 

Back
Top