Why is Boston So Ugly?

jdrinboston said:
Hasn't the Zakim Bridge sort of taken that mantle? At least from the perspective of live television remotes, the bridge has become a fairly standard and expected backdrop.
Click to expand...

It's a split between the Zakim, International Place/harbor, & Back Bay skyline for news backdrops. I watch way too much political news.

Also, the answer to fattony's question is Fenway Park/Citgo Sign.
 
Didn't Cheers show shots of the Hancock at least once a show? I remember when I finally visited here when I was 10 I was more excited spotting it than anything else.


I'd argue the Pru is Boston's icon.
 
I'd argue it three ways between the Pru, the Citgo Sign, and the Zakim, but the Pru certainly has more local than national recognition compared to the other two.
 
There are lots of visual icons in Boston but tend to be whole neighborhoods as in many European cities like London, Paris, Rome (Beacon Hill, Back Bay, South End). And before skyscrapers, the churches of Boston dominated the skyline in these neighborhoods. I'd hate Boston to end up like Shanghai...a jumble of visual icons competing for attention. And there's no more recognizable view of Boston than from across the Charles along the Cambridge esplanade. Panoramic and clearly identifiable for at least a century.
 
davem said:
Didn't Cheers show shots of the Hancock at least once a show? I remember when I finally visited here when I was 10 I was more excited spotting it than anything else.


I'd argue the Pru is Boston's icon.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention Cheers. I re-watched the entire run again since I hadn't seen it in decades (and more so, hadn't seen it since I moved to Boston), so it was fun to watch the references. (which btw. Diane seems to be a little too old in 1982 to be a BU student.. sorry Shelley!)

The exterior shots they used of the city could vary. Somewhere I have screen grabs of some of the shots the used. Its pretty clear Burrows only came to Boston three times to do scenes. Because in many shots (which appear to be from the roof of the Hampshire House hotel), it'll be late 80s episode, but will show copley place still under construction (the cranes) or not built at all (which means the shot is from the first season but recycled). Burrows didn't clue in that the Boston skyline changed a lot the 1980s, and re-cycling shots from 1982, didn't work well in 1990! (but he did it anyways..)

One other TV show to note, there's a great panoramic shot of Beacon Hill as seen from the Memorial Drive "bump out" viaduct near the Longfellow in St Elsewhere's 1st season. Check it out sometime.. the skyline looks very different in 1982.

Edit: This isn't the shot from Hampshire House as I described above, but this is the screen grab I was talking about that I knew I had. I think is from a later (1989 and on) episode because I took the screen grab because I wanted to see how out dated the shot was vs when it aired.

17190482840_daf40a26c9_b.jpg


Notice the cranes on the right for Copley place, and no 500 Boylston Street. So I place this photo to be 1982ish.
 
Last edited:
I've got it. We have a visual icon, it just isn't a view or a structure or (any one particular) object.

It is the American Revolution, the Minuteman, the tricorn hat. That is really what I was thinking when I mentioned the Paul Revere statue.
 
Her grasp of the facts and her political inclinations aside, perhaps Ms. Slade accomplished what she intended, if this debate is any indication.

Hopefully, people elsewhere (Mr. Fallon?) are having the same discussion.
 
You gotta love the hyperbole of "Why is Boston so ugly" when it's actually one of the most beautiful cities in this country.
 
The article is very clearly written about post war architecture, and more specifically the stuff built in the past few decades.

When everyone say Boston is beautiful they are usually referring to the still existing sections of pre-war Boston and a few notable post-war additions. She is asking why we stopped building to that level of quality. And it's a damn good question.
 
statler said:
The article is very clearly written about post war architecture, and more specifically the stuff built in the past few decades.

When everyone say Boston is beautiful they are usually referring to the still existing sections of pre-war Boston and a few notable post-war additions. She is asking why we stopped building to that level of quality. And it's a damn good question.
Click to expand...

But she didn't say "why is post-war Boston so ugly?" She said "Why is Boston so ugly?" She made a bizarre, simply incorrect blanket statement and deserves to be called out for it.
 
Yes, I can see how it can be confusing to people who only read headlines. She should have been more clear.
 
The question is what is the purpose of the article? It's clearly not designed to be persuasive, because it doesn't even try. It will immediately turn most off people who know what Boston looks like due to its headline and snarky/presumptuous tone. So it seems to be designed only to be provocative, sensationalist click-bait. It's not that she's wrong about Boston's recent architecture (although calling out Boston while praising some cities that are putting up just as much BS is telling...), it's that the piece is both shitty journalism and shitty editorializing. It's about the writing. Not the argument.
 
For the sake of argument. We always talk here about Manhattan having better architecture. This example really highlights some of the opportunities that are realized in NYC. There is a quiet grandeur to this project, but it also benefits that there are very specific rules on setbacks and ground floor design, combined with the highly regular grid of most of Manhattan. There are places in NYC where it is difficult to design these kinds of things because the NYC-ness does not exist in the same way (south of canal things start to lose their cohesiveness).

What am I getting at? Does is there better design in NYC. The answer is yes, but it does not have to do with the designers as much as you think it might.


foster-and-partners-425-park-avenue-new-york-designboom-02.jpg
 
There's also a lot more money to throw around in New York which can lead to better design and higher quality material.
 
Similarly, designers here get a bad rap. I can't imagine that any architect started out in his or her career thinking: "I really hope I can design mediocre crap". The artist gets crushed between the bottom line minded client and municipal planner. I suppose at a certain point it is almost enough satisfaction just to get paid.
 
At least Boston has some interesting buildings. We're actually not much different than most U.S. cities (other than NYC or Chicago). Just look at how bad Texas skylines are, Especially Houston. Tall, ugly, boring boxes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top