In defense of Boston

[bosdevelopment]

Bosdevelopment wrote:

Sounds like someone's a little embittered.

LOL, Bosdevelopment, stay away from Phychiatry. I was referring to the many parents I've had contact with over my 30 years of classroom teaching where the parents would accept nothing short of perfection. Or the student herself/himself put the same sort of pressure on themselves. The point being, some people can never be pleased.

My parents were not like that at all, that's why I turned out to be a slak jawed yoekel.


"I wash myself with a rag on a stick"

 

[bosdevelopment]

WORLD CLASS BOSTON
Its cutting-edge architecture and urban design.

By any realistic measure, Boston is one of the USA?s big six real cities, along with New York (the undisputed champ), and in arguably descending order: Washington, San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia.

As far as "real" cities go, they're are real, but as far as urban-ness I'd defer to this list

1-Manhattan
2-Chicago

(Manhattan and Chicago are in a different ballpark, hence the spacing)


3-Brooklyn
4-Queens
5-Philadelphia
5-Tied (Bronx)
6-Boston
7-SF
8-DC - spread out




[size][/b]

 

[kz1000ps]

"I wash myself with a rag on a stick"

"I don't wan to look like a weirdo! I'll just go with a muumuu."

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Take Queens and the Bronx off that list. They are part of Greater New York City.

 

[type001]

"I wash myself with a rag on a stick"

"I don't wan to look like a weirdo! I'll just go with a muumuu."

"I just came to see 'Honk if you're horny' in peace." :lol:

 

[tocoto]

WORLD CLASS BOSTON
Its cutting-edge architecture and urban design.

By any realistic measure, Boston is one of the USA?s big six real cities, along with New York (the undisputed champ), and in arguably descending order: Washington, San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia.

As far as "real" cities go, they're are real, but as far as urban-ness I'd defer to this list

1-Manhattan
2-Chicago

(Manhattan and Chicago are in a different ballpark, hence the spacing)


3-Brooklyn
4-Queens
5-Philadelphia
5-Tied (Bronx)
6-Boston
7-SF
8-DC - spread out

[size][/b]

IMHO


Brooklyn has some pretty cool areas but better than Boston? Not in my book by any stretch.

Queens has its charms but they are minimal, not even in contention.

Bronx was a masterpiece in 1916 when my wife's parents were born (the old pictures of the area are unbelieveable) but now it's hardly worth mentioning.

DC much more and much nicer than most would believe

Philly a work in progress. Has good bones. Its skyline was severely compromised long ago by the twin brown towers and the dueling modern glass interpretations of the Chysler building.

SF is special regardless of sklyine or archetecture, although there are lots of highlights in both areas

 

[tmac9wr]

"I wash myself with a rag on a stick"

"I don't wan to look like a weirdo! I'll just go with a muumuu."

"I just came to see 'Honk if you're horny' in peace." :lol:

Sir, if you'd just quiet down, I'd be happy to treat you with a garbage bag full of popcorn.

 

[lexicon506]

Why does a city with such fine universities have a school system with a dropout rate over 20%?

I found some interesting quotes from Wikipedia that give the Boston Public Schools credit as one of the best big-city school systems in the country.

"In September 2006, the district was named the top city school system in the nation, winning the Broad Prize for Urban Education. The prize, sponsored by philanthropist Eli Broad, includes $500,000 in college scholarships to graduates from the winning district. Each year since the prize program began in 2002, Boston has been one of five finalists, earning $125,000 in scholarships each year."- Wikipedia.org "Boston Public Schools"

"In 2002, Forbes Magazine ranked the Boston Public Schools as the best large city school system in the country, with a graduation rate of 82%."- Wikipedia.org "Boston"

I don't know too much about the BPS, but you have to keep in mind that Boston does have over half a million people. So comparison to smaller school systems with more money is unfair. I think we all see that 18% non-graduation number and automatically jump to conclusions, while in fact it isn't bad. Of course, there is plenty of room for improvement and I still think the city needs to prioritize schools more than it does now.

 

[yumpt]

As someone from Chicago who travels infrequently and then only to cities where you don't need a car, I do not own one, Boston is one of my favorite cities. You have a gorgeous city. I do not know the innuendoes of people's personality's on this forum but in defense of ablarc I am the same way about Chicago. I will actually get pissed about the smallest detail of something about Chicago and it will consume my thoughts for a while. Some people are into sports, some people are into art, I am into cities. I am very picky about cities. Boston to me is top notch.

I have been to Boston twice in the past year or so and plan on going back in January to finish my photos of Boston and too walk a few more non tourist neighborhoods that I haven't been too yet.

Soon I will start a thread somewhere here in this forum about my impression of Boston during my visits. It will be be an honest assessment, mostly, by far, glowing.

Take care Boston.

 

[justin]

We all love Boston, and we know why. I think ablarc's complaint, and not only his, can be summed up as follows: most of what we love about Boston has been built before the 20th century, and precious little since.

justin

 

[ablarc]

We all love Boston, and we know why. I think ablarc's complaint, and not only his, can be summed up as follows: most of what we love about Boston has been built before the 20th century, and precious little since.

In a nutshell.

And I would add that some that's worthwhile and built in the 20th Century is currently under attack by philistines.

 

[statler]

We all love Boston, and we know why. I think ablarc's complaint, and not only his, can be summed up as follows: most of what we love about Boston has been built before the 20th century, and precious little since.

In a nutshell.

And I would add that some that's worthwhile and built in the 20th Century is currently under attack by philistines.

Rather than whine about how the mouth-breathers don't "get it", why don't you explain exactly what makes this this building so great? Do it in a way that even the knuckle-draggers can understand. Educate more, bitch less. If Einstein can turn a byzantine mathematical formula in a pop cultural icon, surely this can't be so difficult.
I'm really trying to like this building. You've already convinced me it should be saved, but nobody has done a good job of explaining why. Mostly it's just "because I said so" or empty platitudes about how powerful and bold the building is.
It something you are actually really good at:

[...] You've captured the remnants of a onetime iconic Boston set-piece: the way Hancock '47 inflatedly echoes Trinity's massing (base, shaft, pyramid). The effect was really strong before Johnson ruined it with his pompous lump.
(Hancock '71 serves as campanile for both editions.)

City Hall needs this type of treatment.

 

[Ron Newman]

And in particular, explain why the building should be saved even though it doesn't work for the purpose it was built -- to serve the public.

And then explain why it's OK to modify the building to make it work better, even though that would presumably damage or destroy its original abstract architectural integrity.

And then why it's also a fine idea to strip it of its original context by removing or developing the plaza that it's an integral part of.

Once you've done all of this -- what is left to save?

 

[Waldorf]

And in particular, explain why the building should be saved even though it doesn't work for the purpose it was built -- to serve the public.

And then explain why it's OK to modify the building to make it work better, even though that would presumably damage or destroy its original abstract architectural integrity.

And then why it's also a fine idea to strip it of its original context by removing or developing the plaza that it's an integral part of.

Once you've done all of this -- what is left to save?

What do you suggest they do then, Ron? I'd like to hear some of your ideas -- keeping in mind the issue of feasibility.

 

[Ron Newman]

Well, my preference is to demolish it and re-create the layout and scale of former Scollay Square as much as possible.

 

[statler]

Does anybody know if it possible to move City Hall? I assume because it is poured-in-place concrete it would be impossible, but maybe not?

 

[Ron Newman]

Hey - let's float it onto a boat and send it to Dubai!

 

[bowesst]

And then why it's also a fine idea to strip it of its original context by removing or developing the plaza that it's an integral part of.

This is a very important point. When I hear "City Hall" it makes me think not just about the building itself but the entire plaza. They were both designed together and exist as one architectural entity. It doesn't really make sense for one to exist without the other.

 

[bowesst]

I've said this earlier, but I've given it some more thought.

I'd like to see an annex to City Hall (I'm envisioning glass cube forms, echoing City Hall but appearing much lighter--this would also pick up on the Holocaust Memorial close by) on the Congress Street side stretching back onto City Hall Plaza for public service functions: permitting, paying parking tickets, etc. which would include a museum space/visitor center. The glass cube idea could also be extended to enclosing the entrance to City Hall.

I'd take the space in the lower levels of City Hall which currently serve the public and give them over to a library for the BRA/Environment Department--any agency which produces documents that the public might like to see on a regular basis--old planning reports for example, or Boston Landmarks Commission files--and possibly include some space for the Boston Archives to have some of its most in demand materials, or a BPL sponsored reading room of Boston history. Given the storage problems of materials faced by the BRA and Environment, I think this would also go a long way to helping improve those office spaces as well.

I'd leave City Council, the BRA, the Mayor's offices, etc. in the old building--they have some great views of Boston and the waterfront. I'd bring in a lighting consultant to redo the lighting throughout using energy saving LED lighting. A restaurant on the roof? A roof garden? Sure, why not?

Finally, I'd give City Hall Plaza over to some housing/retail, the year round farmer's market perhaps, using the lines of old Scollay Square as an inspiration--to help finance the annex. The National Park Service would probably chip in some financing for the visitor center in the annex and it would help solve the Boston Museum Project's biggest problem, which is a phenomenally expensive site on which they hope to build a museum. I'd leave space from the Gov't Center Station looking towards City Hall to preserve something of the open space which gives City Hall its iconic stature.

I believe this plan solves a number of problems currently on the table in Boston. And, of course, it will never happen.

IMO this and all the other plans proposed by members of this forum treat the massive area that is City Hall plaza very much the same way it is treated now - like some sort of special "zone" that is detached from the rest of the city. Think what you would want the area to be if you lived across the street from it. It should be completely and utterly seamlessly connected with:

1. Congress St./Quincy Market/Hanover St.
2. Court St./ State St. / and the beginning of DTX.
3. Beacon Hill
4. After the garage is torn down it can be connected to the Bullfinch Triangle area.

The scale of the buildings and street patterns should be such that each area blends perfectly into the other.

 

[statler]

And then why it's also a fine idea to strip it of its original context by removing or developing the plaza that it's an integral part of.

This is a very important point. When I hear "City Hall" it makes me think not just about the building itself but the entire plaza. They were both designed together and exist as one architectural entity. It doesn't really make sense for one to exist without the other.

Well, Robert Campbell pointed out in his column:

Even the original architects, who now run a very successful national practice out of Boston, say they would welcome some changes.