Landmarking Brutalism

bbfen said:
I thought it's now widely known that FCCS voluntarily applied for protection. I don't think there's anything manipulative about it. I can't even think how it could be. The only thing unusual is that the church asked for it rather than waiting for hysterical do-gooders from away to raise a stink in the papers.
Click to expand...


So if they own the property, why do they need the government to protect it? Are they afraid they might tear down a building on a bender, and regret it later? Exactly what is in it for them?
 
If you're accusing Barbara Burley or Harley Gates of some underhanded or illegal deal, well I think you're off base.

The intent of landmarking, per the City website, is:

(a) to protect the beauty of the city of Boston and improve the quality of its environment through identification, recognition, conservation, maintenance and enhancement of areas, sites, structures and fixtures which constitute or reflect distinctive features of the political, economic, social, cultural or architectural history of the city; (b) to foster appropriate use and wider public knowledge and appreciation of such features, areas, sites, structures and fixtures; (c) to resist and restrain environmental influences adverse to such purposes; (d) to encourage private efforts in support of such purposes; and (e) by furthering such purposes, to promote the public welfare, to strengthen the cultural and educational life of the city and the commonwealth and to make the city a more attractive and desirable place in which to live and work.
Click to expand...

The current leaders of FCCS have made a commitment to honor these principles (letter D) so that future leaders of the church must have a dialogue with the city about changes to this quasi-public but privately-owned space. What's wrong with that?

I'd love to know what you think is "in it for them."



edit: fix quote tag and grammar
 
bbfen said:
If you're accusing Barbara Burley or Harley Gates of some underhanded or illegal deal, well I think you're off base.

The intent of landmarking, per the City website, is:



The current leaders of FCCS have made a commitment to honor these principles (letter D) so that future leaders of the church must have a dialogue with the city about changes to this quasi-public but privately-owned space. What's wrong with that?

I'd love to know what you think is "in it for them."



edit: fix quote tag and grammar
Click to expand...


Before you get all huffy, you might want to answer my first question, taken from the quoted article:

"But in the 118-page Landmarks Commission report that recommends preserving the complex, there?s no concise explanation of exactly why the Christian Science Center deserves protection."

And my second:

"What motivated this move? Was someone going to tear down the complex and built a WalMart? "


These are two, closely related questions. First, what is the historical justification? Second, why now? Does the Christian Science Church have to be protected from itself? Is it going to develop the property in a way that it doesn't want to? The question is nonsense, because the whole thing makes sense. And I don't care who is on the committee - these questions should be answered openly and explicitly before anything is done. Tying up a property of that size is a big deal, and once done would be extremely difficult to undo. The justification for granting landmark status should be transparent.
 
Since they are selling off pieces of their complex, they may want to bind future owners to keep its architectural integrity intact.
 
Ron, a source for selling off pieces of the campus? I know it's been a rumor around here but I've never heard anything more than the motor inn being on the table. Everything else was leases.

As for jonfrum person, I don't know what your deal is. I wasn't huffy at all. You are being obtuse at the idea of landmarking in general and conspiracy about the church in specifics.

This campus is one of the best examples of successful Brutalism. It's located in a busy and vibrant neighorhood and is a privately-owned public resource.

Does the Christian Science Church have to be protected from itself?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. Today's custodians have protected it so that future custodians must go through a documented review process.

What's difficult to understand?
 
Sometimes the church wants to tear it down.

For the saga of the Third Church of Christ, Scientist in Washington and its I M Pei designed brutalist church which became an architectural and spiritual nightmare, see:

http://thirdchurchfreedom.org/

home_mainphoto.jpg
 
Wow. How could he produce such a beloved landmark in one city and such an atrocity in another -- and for the same client?
 
Ron, in general, our faces are more appealing than our asses.

3rdChurchChristScientist2.jpg


Why this church chooses to "turn a cheek" to the street corner is a bit of a puzzle.

The design palate seems consistent with what we have here in Boston.

The interior of the Church Sanctuary is austere yet luminous:
3rdChurchChristScientist3.jpg


By any measure, the street facing sides of this building are unlovable.

Photo source
 
I appreciate brutalism and all but I'd question the sanity of anyone who'd willingly live in that kind of space day in, day out.
 
It is a but austere, kz. It needs some thick shag area rugs and some furniture purloined from the set of A Clockwork Orange.

a-clockwork-orange-1.jpg
 
Beton Brut said:
It is a but austere, kz. It needs some thick shag area rugs and some furniture purloined from the set of A Clockwork Orange.
Click to expand...

Oh lord that sounds demented; then again I have an endless fascination with the black/red/gold decor from Scarface so I guess I shouldn't talk.
 
I read that earlier and thought, HUH I don't totally hate the idea.
 
I absolutely love it. Seems like a logistical and structural nightmare though.
 
Wow. I like it because it looks futuristic, and even like it is hovering. But I feel it will look like absolute crap in real life, though dependent on what materials they use.
 
Esperanza Aguirre said:
Do you know why we should have the death penalty? I dislike architects because their crimes last longer than their own own lives. They die and leave us with this.
Click to expand...

I loled at that, a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top