City Hall Discussion - Redevelopment - Preservation - Relocation

[kz1000ps]

Briv and DowntownDave, you've stated my feelings AND thoughts better than I ever could. But "Jasonik" from WiredNY made this comment which I found to be very thought-provoking:

The only reason there are anything other than generic banal shopping mall civic buildings and cookie-cutter tract development is because of "architects and art historians".

 

[Ron Newman]

Which doesn't mean that everything designed by an architect is a good building.

 

[DowntownDave]

I certainly do not mean to condemn architects or intellectuals. I spent my time in academia studying medieval literature -- certainly not the most worldly of studies. There is no doubt at all that art and artists built all that makes Boston a top drawer city in the first place. 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.

 

[ablarc]

DowntownDave, what would you say to a redneck who told you he thought the Canterbury Tales was a bunch of crap?

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

I certainly do not mean to condemn architects or intellectuals. I spent my time in academia studying medieval literature -- certainly not the most worldly of studies. There is no doubt at all that art and artists built all that makes Boston a top drawer city in the first place. 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.

youre the man

I wish I had the time to write this stuff so justin wouldn't look down on my posts an not being articulate enough

 

[bowesst]

DowntownDave, what would you say to a redneck who told you he thought the Canterbury Tales was a bunch of crap?

That's a pretty weak analogy.

 

[Waldorf]

I certainly do not mean to condemn architects or intellectuals. I spent my time in academia studying medieval literature -- certainly not the most worldly of studies. There is no doubt at all that art and artists built all that makes Boston a top drawer city in the first place. 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.

DowntownDave: knowledge is power. 'Nuff said.

 

[DowntownDave]

The redneck isn't forced to read Canterbury Tales if he doesn't want to. Said redneck, however, is forced to look at City Hall every time he goes downtown. Not only that, he's forced to pay for it with his tax dollars. That is a wholly different matter.

And ZenZen:

But always ? do not forget this, Winston ? always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face ?for ever.

Do you think that that is how those with the power knowledge grants them should use it?

 

[Jasonik]

Using my tax dollars to stock public libraries with Canterbury Tales is a load of crap.

 

[ablarc]

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.

DowntownDave, what would you say to a redneck who told you he thought the Canterbury Tales was a bunch of crap?

The redneck isn't forced to read Canterbury Tales if he doesn't want to. Said redneck, however, is forced to look at City Hall every time he goes downtown. Not only that, he's forced to pay for it with his tax dollars. That is a wholly different matter.

You didn?t answer my question, Dave. You answered the question you wished I?d ask. I didn?t ask the question you answered.

As you say, it's a wholly different matter.

I?d still like to hear your answer to my question. And a truthful and rigorous one, please, befitting your academic credentials.

Btw, Jasonik took the trouble to address your response in such manner:

Using my tax dollars to stock public libraries with Canterbury Tales is a load of crap.

.

 

[DowntownDave]

I answered the question in a manner relevant to the subject at hand -- Boston City Hall. The Canterbury Tales were not paid for by the government as a symbol of government. Moreover, what would a redneck do with a Cornell paper on the Canterbury Tales? How would a rigorous academic discussion even be meaningful to him? I would have to frame my discussion in manner the observer can understand -- to make the tales speak to his cultural context. This statement was made in the course of a thread wherein it is alleged that people without certain credentials aren't even entitled to _have_ an opinion at all. You yourself have a Harvard degree -- how would you explain City Hall to said redneck in a manner meaningful to him? Your previous post, however beautifully written, certainly isn't.

 

[Jasonik]

I think you're missing the point entirely.

Look at the Zakim bridge.
-Is it purely functional?
-How much extra money was spent to make it look a certain way, to be 'iconic' or 'symbolic?' (The Storrow Drive connector bridge does the same function with far less pomp, and ice won't fall on you from overhead cable casings.)


The real underlying question here regards the value to society of art. You seem to assert that if everyone can't understand it then it's not worth having; unless dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, it is decadent, wasteful and of little value to society as a whole.

Next time you see a mural at a T-station think about how little you understand about the artistic style or medium of the artist. The guy next to you may know just as little, and might have the opinion that it is ugly or of little merit. I would put forth the argument that its very existence there is an enrichment of the civic landscape. Would you have people vote on whether to rip out a mosaic mural because they don't understand it, because it doesn't make the platform welcoming to them, because they see it as an affront to them as a citizen because they don't understand it?


Unless any new city hall looks like a Greek temple the plebs will come to question its 'style' when it goes out of 'fashion' and the blind will keep leading the blind.

 

[statler]

ALEX BEAM?!?

Wrecking ball tolls for City Hall

By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist | December 18, 2006

Preservationists are already crawling out of the woodwork to oppose mayor Tom Menino's One Great Idea -- moving City Hall to the waterfront and selling off the existing monstrosity to a developer. Predictably, the architectural priesthood is shedding crocodile tears over the possible loss of Gerhard Kallmann and Noel McKinnell's "important," but ugly, molded concrete, Brutalist doorstop. But there is only one possible fate for the Incredible Hulk: Tear it down.

Boston City Hall shows up in every architecture lecture in the world. Generations of snoozy undergraduates have seen the slide of Le Corbusier's odd, ramparted monastery of Sainte-Marie de la Tourette in Eveux, France, followed immediately by a picture of our City Hall. As if it were somehow relevant that a difficult to appreciate building by a great architect begat an ugly building by two other great architects. I have nothing against Kallmann and McKinnell, by the way. I practically live in one of their wonderful creations: the Newton Free Library.

City Hall may be interesting intellectually, but it's been hell to live with. Buildings have two faces. City Hall's exterior, which the world sees, is unprepossessing, to be charitable. The unseen interior is even worse. In an interview with Architecture Boston magazine, former mayoral aide Carter Wilkie described his workplace: "All of the dark, gloomy bleak concrete, wall after wall of it, is oppressive as you walk through. In those spaces where there aren't windows to the outside, it's very bleak. Even the spaces that should be monumental in a public building are a real disappointment."

Let's face it, Boston is a city where A-list architects have dumped a lot of B-list buildings. Philip Johnson , after doing a nice job building the modern extension of the Boston Public Library, threw up the nondescript International Place towers. Frank Gehry offloaded the silly, self-parodying Stata Center right in the middle of M.I.T. Charles Luckman had taste; he commissioned Park Avenue's Lever House, Manhattan's first, signature, International Style skyscraper. Then he gave us the Prudential Center.

Right next door, the CBT partnership, which is capable of great work, gave us the nothingburger R2D2 building, also known as 111 Huntington Ave . Now they are walling in Boylston Street east of the Hynes Convention Center, just so Robin Brown's rich friends can overpay for condos in the new Mandarin Oriental. There oughta be a law.

The great Henry Cobb gave us the John Hancock tower, but also the eyesore Harbor Towers, said to be the city's most desirable residence because the occupants can't see . . . Harbor Towers. As a young shaver, Cobb worked on the master plan for Government Center, the hideous brick and concrete setting for the Medusa head that is City Hall. "That space has a lot of problems," Cobb told me in an interview eight years ago. "We imagined there would be a green space there that would be linked by Tremont Street to the Common. Now, as a brick plaza, you look at it and say, 'Where are the people?' "

Well here is a chance to correct Cobb's, Kallmann's, and McKinnell's mistakes. For four decades, City Hall has squatted on the best nine acres in town, and everything has tanked there, from Yo-Yo Ma's Music Garden to the Enchanted Village. OK, it's a good enough venue for showering praise on World Series and Super Bowl champions, but they have been in short supply of late.

Important buildings get torn down all the time. Charles Bulfinch's Tontine Crescent and New South Church; Boston's original Masonic Temple and Aquarium; our imperious Union Station; the eye-grabbing Museum of Fine Arts on Copley Square, "Ruskinian gothic of an extravagance rarely seen," according to architectural historian Jane Holtz Kay. All gone. And we are enriched rather than diminished by their disappearance.

When it's time, it's time. Boston City Hall, the bell tolls for thee. And as long as there are bulldozers in the area, Harbor Towers is just a short drive away . . .

Alex Beam is a Globe columnist. His e-dress is beam@globe.com.

Link

Oh, and I'll save ablarc the time and pull this quote for him:

Let's face it, Boston is a city where A-list architects have dumped a lot of B-list buildings.

 

[Jasonik]

Let's knock down the BPL and auction off the valuable acreage and relocate it to the waterfront too! I'm sure we'll be "enriched rather than diminished" by its disappearance.

 

[DowntownDave]

I think you're missing the point entirely.

Right back at you.

The real underlying question here regards the value to society of art. You seem to assert that if everyone can't understand it then it's not worth having; unless dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, it is decadent, wasteful and of little value to society as a whole.

Next time you see a mural at a T-station think about how little you understand about the artistic style or medium of the artist. The guy next to you may know just as little, and might have the opinion that it is ugly or of little merit. I would put forth the argument that its very existence there is an enrichment of the civic landscape. Would you have people vote on whether to rip out a mosaic mural because they don't understand it, because it doesn't make the platform welcoming to them, because they see it as an affront to them as a citizen because they don't understand it?

We are not discussing murals on the T, or art in general. The subject is a single building, Boston City Hall, which serves as the seat of government in a representative democracy. You'll not find me level the same criticism of Rudolph's Art and Architecture building, for instance, as I do of Boston City Hall. Why should people not have a right to choose what they want in a building intended to house the government that represents them?

Unless any new city hall looks like a Greek temple the plebs will come to question its 'style' when it goes out of 'fashion' and the blind will keep leading the blind.

How do you explain London City Hall, or Toronto's City hall for that matter? This deeply cynical attitude towards the "plebs" eats like a cancer at the architectural community -- is the reason the "plebs" hate City Hall not because they see that it has been designed to send them a message that they "don't get it"?

Let's knock down the BPL and auction off the valuable acreage and relocate it to the waterfront too! I'm sure we'll be "enriched rather than diminished" by its disappearance.

Again, who is discussing the BPL? Must every building and every piece of artwork in the world be dismissed because there are those who don't like one specific object?[/quote]

 

[Jasonik]

The aristocratic and opulent stylistic underpinnings of the Boston Public Library are just as condescending, I say we tear it down.

McKim, Mead and White's oppressive classicism just reinforces the notion that knowledge and power is possessed by the ruling elite and given to the 'plebs' in the kind of pitiful benevolence that can't stop reminding them that they're lucky to have that which they don't really deserve.

Even Johnson's addition uses expansive space and open circulation to make the visitor feel insignificant and overwhelmed by the volume of knowledge to which they are ignorant.

Get a grip, cynicism in architecture is nothing new.

This is the role of architecture in society, to illuminate and present humanistic truths about our age, our attitudes, our greater societal mores. If you think architecture is about functional space that looks nice, you're missing the most important aspect of architecture, - its ability to communicate ideas.

Think about the destruction of the west end.

Is the powerlessness of the populace and the barbaric cynicism of government a message worth communicationg? Have you stopped to think that maybe the reason why the building is so 'important' architecturally is because it was able to communicate these important truths with a delicious irony?

If you don't "get it" don't hold it against those who do, and more importantly don't try to diminish the richness of a cultural heritage only available to those who do... get it.

 

[DowntownDave]

If you don't "get it" don't hold it against those who do, and more importantly don't try to diminish the richness of a cultural heritage only available to those who do... get it.

And who is to say I don't "get it"? You? And why is that? Because my opinion is not the same? You seem to want to assert that there exists a universal truth only available to those who share a given viewpoint. Do you feel that Briv also doesn't "get it"? Why has there been no attempt to discuss the points he brought up? I could argue with just as much justification that you diminish the cultural heritage of the City of Boston by seeking to retain an edifice hateful to its population to the detriment of its future growth and development. Ultimately what will matter is what happens between now and whenever a final decision is made with respect to City Hall. How do you intend to prevent its demolition? By asserting that you hold the universal key to understanding the building? What do you intend to _do_?

 

[Ron Newman]

Is the powerlessness of the populace and the barbaric cynicism of government a message worth communicationg?

No -- if a public building communicates that, it is suitable for a dictatorship, not a democracy. Send it to North Korea.

 

[Jasonik]

Is the powerlessness of the populace and the barbaric cynicism of government a message worth communicating?

No -- if a public building communicates that, it is suitable for a dictatorship, not a democracy. Send it to North Korea.

I was stating the building can be seen as a commentary on those very tendencies, not an approval or assertion that it is or should be.

And DowntownDave, what I tried to say as plainly as possible is that architecture speaks in a refined and nuanced way, just because one is unable to understand the language doesn't make it mute, unintelligible or any less eloquent, - and secondly, that the content of the message or its distastefulness does not make it any less relevant as a piece of our cultural history. Thirdly I would like to state that these hairsplitting nuances of intent, execution, and practice are the stuff that concern and occupy, IMO, the best type of architects and lovers of architecture. To discount this deeply relevant scholarly pursuit and to belittle or impede the most timeless and fundamental comparison between cultures and ages is an act of barbarism against intellectualism and understanding a time in our past, (though I suppose its demolition would be emblematic of this disturbing tendency in today's popular culture).

 

[DowntownDave]

Is the powerlessness of the populace and the barbaric cynicism of government a message worth communicating?

No -- if a public building communicates that, it is suitable for a dictatorship, not a democracy. Send it to North Korea.

I was stating the building can be seen as a commentary on those very tendencies, not an approval or assertion that it is or should be.

And DowntownDave, what I tried to say as plainly as possible is that architecture speaks in a refined and nuanced way, just because one is unable to understand the language doesn't make it mute, unintelligible or any less eloquent, - and secondly, that the content of the message or its distastefulness does not make it any less relevant as a piece of our cultural history. Thirdly I would like to state that these hairsplitting nuances of intent, execution, and practice are the stuff that concern and occupy, IMO, the best type of architects and lovers of architecture. To discount this deeply relevant scholarly pursuit and to belittle or impede the most timeless and fundamental comparison between cultures and ages is an act of barbarism against intellectualism and understanding a time in our past, (though I suppose its demolition would be emblematic of this disturbing tendency in today's popular culture).

But Jason, _I_ am not the one who is belittling and impeding comparison -- it is _you_ who is making the assertion that there are those who "get it" and those who "don't" -- thereby consigning any and all opinions which do not match those held by you summarily to the dustbin. Don't agree? Well that simply means you don't understand! I fail to see how there is anything scholarly whatsoever in this viewpoint.

Still waiting for a discussion of Briv's point of view, Do you think that he "doesn't get it" or not?