Ugly-ass brutalist Boston building featured in cell-phone ad

It comes from a French term related to the use of concrete as a part of the architecture, not due to the fact that the buildings all look like they want to stamp on a human face, forever.

...no attempt was made to handle the interior in the fashion that the architect designed. My recollection is that he was quite upset about how the interior was botched.

I can promise you that the one thing that is never going to change about Boston is its aversion to change. Indeed, that itself would require change, which is inherently bad. Lets put aside for a moment questions of taste in architecture (which is muddied up with subjective aesthetic preferences, etc) and take up the case of the Northern Avenue Bridge. For those of you unfamiliar, the Northern Avenue Bridge is one of the three original steel spans crossing the Fort Point Channel and has been there since the late 19th century (perhaps the very first decade of the 20th), thus making it somewhat of a modern structure for the city to begin with. One of its siblings was christened by our own J. Michael Curley. During the Big Dig, the Northern Avenue Bridge was scheduled for replacement because it was structurally unsound (and it probably still is). A new bridge was built. It is, granted, a thoroughly unartful structure like any other highway style bridge but it is new nevertheless. Preparations were then made to tear down the Northern Avenue Bridge. Not so fast. The People became angry. The source of the anger: that bridge has always been there and it should be restored as a landmark. It was. In full disclosure, I personally agree with the decision to leave it in place. As a born and raised Bostonian, I too have an inherent aversion to change, and moreover, the change or removal of anything old. However, one must acknowledge that the old bridge is really only good for what it is presently used for (and shall be in perpetuity) - walking. Personally, I think the blandness and highway-ish-ness of the new bridge warrants having the nice old bridge as a walking path. Its a kind of memory lane. But it is a perfect and extreme example of how Bostonians don't like anything to change. This, in my opinion, is why the People of the City hate Brutalism. Brutalism was used, in a very high handed manner, to replace a part of the City that has now taken on mythic significance - Scolly Square. It was also used as a tool of bigotry to level the West End (where the "undesirables" lived). When I try to look at City Hall and set those facts aside, I agree that it is an architectually significant building and should be preserved (indeed, anything else would require additional change, which could only make things worse). However, it is very difficult to divorce the two and I think that is why this City has always disliked brutalism. If some way could be found to make City Hall Plaza a pleasant public open space that might go a long was towards bridging the gap.

I think Paul Rudolph's Government Services Center is on of the most interesting buildings in town and my favorite piece of Brutalist architecture anywhere. There are fascinating details everywhere you look, including the famous frog. Rudolph's vision was never completed: the complex was never finished (construction of this high rise portion was blocked). The northern corner of the building has long been fronted by a hideous chain-link fence enclosed parking lot instead of the landscaped park in the original design. But what has survived is still fascinating. Too bad the building's been so poorly maintained.

It definitely could stand some improving -- but it certainly gets lots of use during the times of year when weather is least hostile.