Redesign Government Center

JumboBuc said:
I thought public viewing galleries were a fairly typical feature of democratic legislatures. In fact, The US Senate and House of Representatives both have viewing galleries open to the public. If you want to watch Congress in session just contact your Senator or Representative and his or her office can get you a pass. You won't even have to pay.
Click to expand...

I've done it. It was interesting, mostly because you realize that all those speaches on C-SPAN are given to a mostly empty chamber. There were more visitors in the gallery than Senators. Maybe 30 spectators to a few senators. Most "sessions" are pro forma, so Senators can get some air time and they can say they made a speech on the Senate floor and so the president can't make recess appointments. And a few people from each party to make sure someone is paying attention in case a vote is called. All very odd and a bit archaic to think things are actually run this way.
 
FYI: Apparently, the Walsh administration is continuing their about-face on City Hall, and are now in a year long study to "rethink" city hall and the plaza (and implement some "solutions"?) www.rethinkcityhall.org is the website to monitor and contribute to the city's process.
 
Re: Government Center

vanshnookenraggen said:
I think what would be a happy medium would be to lay down a few regular streets (2 ways with parking) and then a second network of pedestrian "streets" between lots so that you can have access for loading/parking/emergency but you'd still have the pedestrian experience that you are looking for.

Edit:
How's this: http://goo.gl/maps/CPgnP

Blue is new development.
Click to expand...

I like this, but would only make Hanover open to vehicles. The other streets should all stay as pedestrian and bicycle only and building heights should be scaled appropriately for a "human" environment (probably no taller than City Hall itself).

I wonder if the development of the City-owned parcels could generate enough revenue to help fund the red-blue connector, or if all the money would be swallowed up in street construction to support this scheme or even renovation of City Hall itself? I'm assuming Federal parcels would offer no windfall as the developer would be required to construct a new Federal building instead of selling the land, similar to the Volpe site.
 
Re: Government Center

nick said:
I like this, but would only make Hanover open to vehicles. The other streets should all stay as pedestrian and bicycle only and building heights should be scaled appropriately for a "human" environment (probably no taller than City Hall itself).

I wonder if the development of the City-owned parcels could generate enough revenue to help fund the red-blue connector, or if all the money would be swallowed up in street construction to support this scheme or even renovation of City Hall itself? I'm assuming Federal parcels would offer no windfall as the developer would be required to construct a new Federal building instead of selling the land, similar to the Volpe site.
Click to expand...

Well, since the Commonwealth (more specifically, the MBTA) does not own any of these sites, I'm not sure how that could work.
 
Speaking of the MBTA, while I like the general concept that vanchnookenraggen laid out (linked to by nick a few posts up), I think that the parcels in the mid-plaza would need to be shaped to work around the Brattle Loop, wouldn't they? Those Green Line tunnels aren't very deep. From the pictures I've seen during construction, they built new concrete boxes over top of some of them, but since only a plaza was planned, I'm doubtful you could go on top with buildings.

Working around the Brattle Loop could make for some funky shaped plots, would be a back to the future sort of thing.
 
Hey folks, I moved the discussion about the new Delaware North proposal to the New Development forum City Hall thread. I figure we will leave this thread for forumer-generated ideas.
Sound like a plan?
 
Tombstoner said:
BBC article cites City Hall as one of the 10 Beautiful Brutalist buildings in the world.
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160606-ten-beautiful-brutalist-buildings
Click to expand...

I'm starting to turn my opinion on this. I think it needs to be preserved. All of the brutalist shit around it (ALL OF IT) should be demolished and redeveloped, but City Hall should stay. Fix the little things, the Congress Street frontage, City Hall plaza (OK, not so little), but keep the building.
 
It needs the McKim Treatment, aka blast out the add-on bunker at the bottom to open the building up to the street.

Edit: Yikes! Yeah, Justin's correct below. The Johnson Treatment is what I meant.
 
Last edited:
^I think you mean Johnson Treatment and I agree. If it's going to be kept it needs to be updated.
 
Last edited:
underground said:
It needs the McKim Treatment, aka blast out the add-on bunker at the bottom to open the building up to the street.
Click to expand...

I agree, this is the critical thing that needs to happen.

I'd also vote to augment that with the Reichstag treatment*, putting a glass cupola on top to convert that central core from pigeon shit territory into a usable interior space. This would be more of a rectilinear cupola than what they put on top of the Reichstag, I'd think. Along with that on top would also be lots of glass filling in down below where the bottom is already open, and also the newly opened places where the bunker walls get removed. It would need to all be very high-quality glass, with lots of sharp angularity to coincide with the concrete's angularity. The lower level glass would be set back in behind the overhanging concrete upper façade, not bumping out like that pathetic mall-looing proposal that got circulated a few months ago.

I've always really liked the building from about it's horizontal midpoint up. Those projecting upper details would look awesome if someone skilled in lighting were given a budget to splurge on LEDs. Even with the weak lighting in place now, the upper parts look pretty cool at night. The base is just absolute shit, as is much of the plaza. If it's going to get preserved, the historical preservationists are going to have to allow for the regular preservation rules to get pretty severely broken. The existing design has some great features worth saving, but some other features that will doom the building in the long run. Those horrible brick bunker walls down low have failed the test of time, completely. It needs to be partly destroyed to be saved.

*this is not to be confused with the treatment given to the Reichstag by someone in 1933, let's not go there.
 
I would love to see City Hall restored/updated and preserved.
The problem with doing that it is politically unfeasible. Can you imagine the outcry?

"Why are putting so much TAXPAYER money into that DUMP?" "Are you just trying to give your union cronies jobs?!? HUH? HUH?"

The only political safe move is to sell the parcel and build a new, small, cheaper city hall for less then what they got for the parcel and then invest the difference in parks, schools or come up with some convoluted taxpayer refund program (least you be accused of pocketing the difference.) Oh and get an ironclad agreement with the developer that you sell the parcel to that it will remain 99% open space and whatever is built will never cast a shadow on that open space.

And since that will never happen, best to learn to love City Hall as is.
 
Yeah exactly. That or lots and lots of resident only parking...
 
Via: HYM

20140508_Office_Tower_Office+Levels.jpg


20140508_Office_Tower+View+2-day.jpg


WPB1+Rendering+%284%29+-+Looking+at+Charles+River+%28Upper+Amenity+Level%29.jpg


2015_11_I05_Streetview_03.jpg
 
Wrong thread this should be in the Congress Street Garage thread which was recently renamed I believe. I quoted these over for you I hope you don't mind.
 
statler said:
I would love to see City Hall restored/updated and preserved.
The problem with doing that it is politically unfeasible. Can you imagine the outcry?

"Why are putting so much TAXPAYER money into that DUMP?" "Are you just trying to give your union cronies jobs?!? HUH? HUH?"

The only political safe move is to sell the parcel and build a new, small, cheaper city hall for less then what they got for the parcel and then invest the difference in parks, schools or come up with some convoluted taxpayer refund program (least you be accused of pocketing the difference.) Oh and get an ironclad agreement with the developer that you sell the parcel to that it will remain 99% open space and whatever is built will never cast a shadow on that open space.

And since that will never happen, best to learn to love City Hall as is.
Click to expand...


This is so spot-on; I don't know how I missed it last month.

Great design interacts with society to improve everyone's QoL. Imagine the Zakim bridge as a bunch of I-beams on a bunch of concrete piers - its a good thing that wasn't local taxpayer's money, or we would never see the current form gracing our city. Meanwhile, investment in design (and engineering) sparks development; the slurry wall construction that we fumbled with during the Big Dig was painstakingly refined and improved, and now it's used everywhere - especially by commercial developers in the seaport and elsewhere. But that ROI is never mentioned when we lambaste our public projects for being too costly.

Long live great design and engineering in places public and private.
 
There are a few questions I've been thinking about at Government Center:

1. Has anyone here on the board looked into the feasibility of reintroducing Cornhill and Hanover through the plaza? It's been mentioned time and time again, but both alignments are terraced with stairs and viewing platforms well above Congress Street. Could these structures be removed without any adverse impact to the garages or other functions they support?

2. If we reintroduced these streets to their former grade, how would they address adjacent buildings, including City Hall? I fear the solution on Cornhill for City Hall would be a big blank wall like what exists today on the Hanover side. What about the commercial buildings on the other side of Cornhill? And how would you drop down the Washington Street mall to meet the new grade? Would you have to demolish 1 Washington Mall (the building with the Staples)?

3. Is it structurally possible to remove the brick walls on City Hall's Congress and Hanover sides? Are they as firmly in place as the concrete portions of the building, or could they be demolished and replace with something more welcoming (thinking something similar to the Johnson building).

4. With the abandoned segment of the Green Line running under Cornhill, would it be feasible to turn the lower portion of City Hall into a Boston city museum with a transit wing that allows visitors to enter the abandoned (but spruced up) tunnel? Or is the tunnel used for some purpose by the MBTA? I think the side of City Hall facing Faneuil Hall and Dock Square would be a great grand entrance to a Boston city museum.
 
Removing the brick wall at the base of city hall is appealing to me. Looks like they could be removed without any issues with the structure above. Not entirely sure what is behind the wall, but I think it is just office space/ storage on one side and some garage space on the other side.
 
statler said:
I would love to see City Hall restored/updated and preserved.
The problem with doing that it is politically unfeasible. Can you imagine the outcry?

"Why are putting so much TAXPAYER money into that DUMP?" "Are you just trying to give your union cronies jobs?!? HUH? HUH?"
Click to expand...

There would be outcry, but to a certain extent, does it matter? There is always outcry about everything. I know people who flipped out about the lounge chairs because they saw it as stealing money from the BPS budget. That's how crazy some activists can be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top