Landmarking Brutalism

Nice. A no brainer really. I worked in there in 2006-2008, and really liked it
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
Charlie_mta said:
It's a great building, still carrying much of the mid-century look of the 1950s. It's really much more normal looking than the other brutalist buildings put up in Boston a few years later.
Click to expand...
It’s also a nice size — if it had the footprint of a super block it would be imposing, but the smaller width makes the street experience and impression a lot lighter. The Y-shaped supports at the base also channel the eye and buildings energy-feeling skyward, which I think contributes to the lighter look. Glad this one is getting the respect it deserves.
 
type001 said:
Nice. A no brainer really. I worked in there in 2006-2008, and really liked it
Click to expand...

Perhaps... except, out of curiosity, I just checked the assessing page for the property--its value plunged 19% this year.

Again, I repeat: 19%.

Insofar as assessed value is a reasonable proxy for a property's economic health, this property is experiencing considerable (if not catastrophic) economic headwinds. This, the worst possible thing to happen to it is to have a net economic hindrance slapped on it, which is what a landmarking designation represents... no? Mind you, I'm with everyone else, it's incredibly historic and it should be preserved--I just find the timing of this landmarking to be incredibly unfortunate, if not thoughtless/careless.
 
DBM said:
...to have a net economic hindrance slapped on it, which is what a landmarking designation represents... no? Mind you, I'm with everyone else, it's incredibly historic and it should be preserved--I just find the timing of this landmarking to be incredibly unfortunate, if not thoughtless/careless.
Click to expand...
Assuming the owners don't intend to dramatically change the building, doesn't landmarking in fact open up eligibility to a range of preservation grants and tax credits, including at the federal level? e.g.: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/index.htm

It's true that landmarking might make it hard to "flip" a building and cash in on it, but it's hard to know, without more info, how this helps or hinders this particular building owner. If there's some occupancy (and/or minimal debt) and the owners are in a hold position, the landmarking could be a net positive for them, opening up rehab funds and tax credits. But I can certainly envision other situations where it's not a net positive.
 
bigpicture7 said:
www.archpaper.com

Paul Rudolph’s Blue Cross - Blue Shield building declared local landmark by Boston Landmarks Commission

Paul Rudolph’s Brutalist Blue Cross - Blue Shield building declared local landmark by Boston Landmarks Commission.
www.archpaper.com www.archpaper.com
Click to expand...
I saw this and thought, "That ugly building?"

But I see you all supporting the landmark status in this thread, and I'm willing to change my mind. So you all encouraged me to (happily!) run down a rabbit hole reading about this building; Paul Rudolph; his other buildings in Boston; the Yale Art and Architecture Building; the Sarasota School of Architecture. Fascinating stuff. And now.... I'm still baffled. That ugly building?

Really curious, what do people like about this building? What am I missing?
 
ritchiew said:
I saw this and thought, "That ugly building?"

But I see you all supporting the landmark status in this thread, and I'm willing to change my mind. So you all encouraged me to (happily!) run down a rabbit hole reading about this building; Paul Rudolph; his other buildings in Boston; the Yale Art and Architecture Building; the Sarasota School of Architecture. Fascinating stuff. And now.... I'm still baffled. That ugly building?

Really curious, what do people like about this building? What am I missing?
Click to expand...

A particular building doesn’t need to be universally liked or regarded as aesthetically pleasing to be architecturally significant.
 
ritchiew said:
I saw this and thought, "That ugly building?"

But I see you all supporting the landmark status in this thread, and I'm willing to change my mind. So you all encouraged me to (happily!) run down a rabbit hole reading about this building; Paul Rudolph; his other buildings in Boston; the Yale Art and Architecture Building; the Sarasota School of Architecture. Fascinating stuff. And now.... I'm still baffled. That ugly building?

Really curious, what do people like about this building? What am I missing?
Click to expand...
I like it quiet a bit because it's style to me is a bridge between the mid-century modernism of the 1950s and the more bizarre (IMO) brutalism of the mid 1960s, although it really is much more mid-century modern than brutalist. It has an understated 1950s type of classy look, which the later bizarre brutalist buildings (i,e, the Hurley Building and Boston City Hall) do not have.
 
Another reason why it's OK it got landmarked, is because it's small.

The State Services building, on the other hand...
 
kmp1284 said:
A particular building doesn’t need to be universally liked or regarded as aesthetically pleasing to be architecturally significant.
Click to expand...
I think if you were to poll the citizenry, they’d disagree.
 
Last edited:
kmp1284 said:
Fortunately there are still some things we as a society defer to experts on.
Click to expand...
I agree. For example, an average person may or may not place much importance on a historically significant building, but that doesn't mean it should be torn down for new development. Same with works of art (paintings, etc.). You look at Jackson Pollock's paintings, and the average person may think they're garbage, but they are highly valued by art experts. Isn't that a foundation of civilization; placing a high importance to, and preserving, items significant to our cultural legacy?
 
Charlie_mta said:
I like it quiet a bit because it's style to me is a bridge between the mid-century modernism of the 1950s and the more bizarre (IMO) brutalism of the mid 1960s, although it really is much more mid-century modern than brutalist. It has an understated 1950s type of classy look, which the later bizarre brutalist buildings (i,e, the Hurley Building and Boston City Hall) do not have.
Click to expand...
Charlie_mta said:
I agree. For example, an average person may or may not place much importance on a historically significant building, but that doesn't mean it should be torn down for new development. Same with works of art (paintings, etc.). You look at Jackson Pollock's paintings, and the average person may think they're garbage, but they are highly valued by art experts. Isn't that a foundation of civilization; placing a high importance to, and preserving, items significant to our cultural legacy?
Click to expand...
I agree that this Blue Cross-Blue Shield building isn't as bad as the Hurley Building or City Hall. But also, what about those buildings? They're landmarks. They're architecturally significant, at least as much as this other building. There are groups of expert architects organizing to get them landmark status and a bunch of preservation protections. Would you be in favor of that? How far do you want to go to preserve historically significant architecture? And how much does this hinge on just thinking the particular building is kinda ugly?

(I don't actually have my own answers to these questions. I take your point, but I'm still skeptical of these kinds of landmark designations, and just thinking out loud)
 
ritchiew said:
I agree that this Blue Cross-Blue Shield building isn't as bad as the Hurley Building or City Hall. But also, what about those buildings? They're landmarks. They're architecturally significant, at least as much as this other building. There are groups of expert architects organizing to get them landmark status and a bunch of preservation protections. Would you be in favor of that? How far do you want to go to preserve historically significant architecture? And how much does this hinge on just thinking the particular building is kinda ugly?

(I don't actually have my own answers to these questions. I take your point, but I'm still skeptical of these kinds of landmark designations, and just thinking out loud)
Click to expand...
I hate the Hurley building, and somewhat hate City Hall, and I'd like to see them torn down. When I was active in design projects as a civil engineer, we had an old truss bridge that was deemed historical per government regulation, but it was not functional anymore, and a new bridge was needed. So we got permission to fully document the old bridge with photos and data, and tear it down. So, yeah, I would not want to preserve every building of an architectural genre, just the better examples if possible. Otherwise, a city would become a museum of curious old artifacts.
 
I love this building and the move to landmark it. It's a throwback to a very different time and really showcases those midcentury roots. And unlike the Hurley or City Hall, it was built on a human scale.

I don't love the SSC, but I do appreciate the intricacy of the Lindemann (the Hurley doesn't strike the same chords). To me, the complex is representative of my biggest issue with Brutalism - that it coincided with auto-centric urban renewal. It's an issue of architecture vs. urbanity. I love Brutalist architecture, but I hate what the larger examples mean for the urban environment around them. I realize that to purists, it would be as authentic as Frankenstein's monster, but I wish the SSC could be chopped up with elements of the Lindemann preserved and repurposed to improved the area around it. But the megablock needs to go. 133 Federal doesn't have the same problem. It's a gem, and I'm glad it's a landmark now.
 
I made a point to go by the Blue Cross Blue Shield building the other day and took some pictures. A security guard came out to ask me what I was doing, and I told him I was checking out the building because it is now officially an architecturally significant Boston landmark. He asked "...This?" and at no point in our conversation did he seem to believe that could be true.

Thanks to the folks here sticking up for this building. But I guess my tastes just differ. It's like a lot of mid-century modernism for me. From the exact right angle, and with the exact right lighting, (and maybe with some good photo filters) it sometime looks alright. Generally, it looks bleak with a bad street level design.

As for whether this should get landmark status and the preservation requirements that come with it: nope, bad idea. I generally don't think government bodies should be dictating which art is good and important and must be preserved under penalty of law. We've never needed laws to protect Jackson Pollacks. People just do it because they enjoy the works. And I don't think comparing this to preserving a painting is very useful, anyways. Paintings don't also have to serve some other utility. They are small and can be displayed or packed away for later for (relatively) zero cost. By contrast, this is a 13-story office building. It's massively expensive to maintain (compared to a painting), it can't be moved or stored and it takes up a quarter acre of massively important downtown real estate. If the owners want to preserve it, fine. If new owners want to tear it down and build something in its place, that should also be fine. Take pictures, document it as much as you want, and tear it down.

Regardless, here's some pictures

IMG_1736.jpg

IMG_1734.jpg

IMG_1741.jpg

IMG_1746.jpg

IMG_1748.jpg

IMG_1790.jpg

IMG_1769.jpg

IMG_1764.jpg
 
ritchiew said:
I made a point to go by the Blue Cross Blue Shield building the other day and took some pictures. A security guard came out to ask me what I was doing, and I told him I was checking out the building because it is now officially an architecturally significant Boston landmark. He asked "...This?" and at no point in our conversation did he seem to believe that could be true.

Thanks to the folks here sticking up for this building. But I guess my tastes just differ. It's like a lot of mid-century modernism for me. From the exact right angle, and with the exact right lighting, (and maybe with some good photo filters) it sometime looks alright. Generally, it looks bleak with a bad street level design.

As for whether this should get landmark status and the preservation requirements that come with it: nope, bad idea. I generally don't think government bodies should be dictating which art is good and important and must be preserved under penalty of law. We've never needed laws to protect Jackson Pollacks. People just do it because they enjoy the works. And I don't think comparing this to preserving a painting is very useful, anyways. Paintings don't also have to serve some other utility. They are small and can be displayed or packed away for later for (relatively) zero cost. By contrast, this is a 13-story office building. It's massively expensive to maintain (compared to a painting), it can't be moved or stored and it takes up a quarter acre of massively important downtown real estate. If the owners want to preserve it, fine. If new owners want to tear it down and build something in its place, that should also be fine. Take pictures, document it as much as you want, and tear it down.

Regardless, here's some pictures

View attachment 49006
View attachment 49007
View attachment 49008
View attachment 49009
View attachment 49010
View attachment 49011
View attachment 49012
View attachment 49013
Click to expand...

If the typical mass-produced, panelized, flat, soulless facade system on a 2020s building had even a fraction of the depth, texture, and contrast of this one's facade...then maybe we wouldn't need to preserve it. BUT...

(BTW, nice photos)
 
ritchiew said:
I made a point to go by the Blue Cross Blue Shield building the other day and took some pictures. A security guard came out to ask me what I was doing, and I told him I was checking out the building because it is now officially an architecturally significant Boston landmark. He asked "...This?" and at no point in our conversation did he seem to believe that could be true.

Thanks to the folks here sticking up for this building. But I guess my tastes just differ. It's like a lot of mid-century modernism for me. From the exact right angle, and with the exact right lighting, (and maybe with some good photo filters) it sometime looks alright. Generally, it looks bleak with a bad street level design.

As for whether this should get landmark status and the preservation requirements that come with it: nope, bad idea. I generally don't think government bodies should be dictating which art is good and important and must be preserved under penalty of law. We've never needed laws to protect Jackson Pollacks. People just do it because they enjoy the works. And I don't think comparing this to preserving a painting is very useful, anyways. Paintings don't also have to serve some other utility. They are small and can be displayed or packed away for later for (relatively) zero cost. By contrast, this is a 13-story office building. It's massively expensive to maintain (compared to a painting), it can't be moved or stored and it takes up a quarter acre of massively important downtown real estate. If the owners want to preserve it, fine. If new owners want to tear it down and build something in its place, that should also be fine. Take pictures, document it as much as you want, and tear it down.

Regardless, here's some pictures

View attachment 49006
View attachment 49007
View attachment 49008
View attachment 49009
View attachment 49010
View attachment 49011
View attachment 49012
View attachment 49013
Click to expand...


Neutral on the building, but you got some nice intergenerational reflections of (160 Federal?) in the windows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top