Hey, there! Log in / Register
Couldn't their time be better spent building homes for poor people or something?
By adamg on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 9:49am
I'm no fan of the idea of moving City Hall to South Boston, but, geez, organizing to save City Hall because of its architecture? Calling it "one of the most architecturally significant structures in the world?"
Ow, my head.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
proof of an old saying
Boston's City Hall is proof of the old dictum that "nothing is ever completely useless insofar as it can be used as a bad example." Maybe they're trying to keep it around as an example of what not to do.
OK, kind of a fatuous argument
I've criticized people before for saying stuff like this, under the assumption that somebody can't possibly be interested in more than one thing at a time.
Even still, geez! Surely there are better things to do than trying to preserve the alleged wonderfulness that is City Hall.
While I agree that their motivations are silly ...
Making City Hall stay put would be a moneysaver, as opposed to building a monument to the mayor's greatness. And maybe that money could be used for something good, though I'm likely kidding myself.
Exactly
I don't like the idea of moving City Hall to the waterfront because it would cost a ton of money and would remove the "people's house" from a place where the people can get to it easily. But I don't get the sense these architects wouldn't much care if the place were turned into a giant self-storage place as long as their beloved brutalism continues to beat down the heads of uncaring philistines (and yes, I realize that "brutalism" refers to the type of concrete, not the soul-destroying basic architecture, but the name is truly appropriate).
Moneysaver?
The idea is that it wouldn't cost taxpayers any money. The proposal is to sell City Hall Plaza for some good coin (about 300M), and put the new City Hall on Drydock Four, where the BOA Pavilion is now, and where the city already owns the development rights. Menino's clever plan will work out just fine, because Boston has a good history of bringing in development projects on time and under budget.
I'd have no problem knocking down that monstrosity, because it's not only ugly but a poorly-designed building. Those militating to save it would do better to supply the pots and pans needed to catch all the roof leaks, or pay the $2 million dollar utility bill for all that drafty, empty space. It's such a crap building from a functional perspective that renovating it would cost more than building something new. And from an aesthetic perspective, how could we do worse? Even Boston architects used to cranking out giant brick and glass turds could do better than the box Faneuil Hall came in.
One of the arguments for saving it that irks me is that it represents some positive symbolism of Modern Boston. The "Rejuvenation of Boston" came at a high cost. A whole neighborhood was torn down to put in that Siberian brick wasteland (if you lived here, you'd be evicted by now)... If Boston City Hall represents anything, it's the arrogance of government and the abuse of the public trust. If we save it for symbolic purposes, it should be to remind us of just how asinine, wasteful, and damaging grand schemes of "urban renewal" can be.
And from an aesthetic
We'd either end up with a smaller, just-as-boxy building - essentially a tiny city hall wrapped in glass (The ICA) or some gimmicky Deconstructivist nightmare. Either way, it would have plenty of the plasticky paneling and beige precast I'm so incredibly sick of, but every new building Boston building apparently needs to have. Especially if it's in the Seaport district
So yeah, we could do worse.
This is a monumentally stupid idea designed to give Mumbles his ocean view, not actually improve the city. Moving city hall to a barely-accessible corner of Boston is a self-serving waste of time, money and effort that could be better spent doing something actually beneficial to more than one person.
Point made
The pictures make your point: yes, architects really can do even worse than the non-functional concrete shitcan that is City Hall.
One of the things I first imagined about Mumbles' proposal, for whatever reason, is that the location he picked was close to Fort Point Channel, instead of being way out in parking lot and chain-link fence land.
Why is it so-called urban planning always makes things worse?
how can you knock urban
how can you knock urban renewal as wasteful in the same breath that you propose demolishing a 30 year old building for leaks in the ceiling? I agree with you on the the painful lessons learned from that period, and no where did it hurt more than here, but spiting this building as a monument to that period would do no good-- look at the deal you've described, it would just be a monument to the new privatized urban renewal system that is slowly killing neighborhoods. Fill in the space save for some token park (the budget of which will be long gone by the time the buildings are finished) and put up a collection of tasteless condo towers. Even if its not currently good space, at least its public space.
And of all the brutalist buildings in Boston, why is this one the fall guy? I understand its sick inside and needs major renovation, but it has its charm. I hated it until I moved to the north end, then after looking at it everyday, in light, dark, fog, winter, summer, etc. I began to notice things I definitely like about it. It is flawed for certain, in some cases fundamentally, but I think its an important building, to architecture as well as Boston. But really, of the concrete turds in downtown if one has to go its the parking garage over congress street at haymarket. It is an urban design nightmare, it severs the bulfinch triangle from the city. What a dropoff when you get to the other side, its desolate. Not to mention the frightening space beneath it. So why not take that one down? Because you need to park your precious cars somewhere (at least until gas hits $5), and our suburban mayor can relate to that.
Here's how
Tearing down the West End actually resulted in worse use of the space. 2700 families were displaced, and 5 high rises were built to house only 477 families.
Scollay Square, whose corpse lays under the brick wasteland that is City Hall Plaza, was a bustling area, full of life, theaters ... always something doing.
Wasteful is that empty, lifeless, wind-swept brick steppe right in the middle of Boston - the dead heart of the city. I think moving City Hall is a bad idea based on the truly out-of-the-way location of Drydock 4 and our government's proven inability to bring anything in under budget. But the idea of putting something besides a baked clay desert punctuated by leaky concrete tumors in ex-Scollay Square is something I could get behind.
How about a compromise? Leave that crappy City Hall building there, but build around it. Sell development rights to everything between it and the JFK building, including air rights. Maybe it won't look like the styrofoam packing around a new monitor from every direction anymore, but the icky architecture fans will still have their postcard.
The JFK Building is an obstacle
City Hall is not the problem, the JFK Building is. The Feds have freaked out at every plan to do anything with the plaza, as they like the security provided by the barren, windswept, inhospitable landscape it offers. Move the JFK to the Seaport, because barren, windswept and inhospitable and the Seaport go hand-in-hand. Buildings there are far away from each other, office-park style. And there's plenty of parking.
You could sell and tear down City Hall tomorrow, but that doesn't mean the plaza could be improved one bit.
I don't know of a single City Hall preservationist who actually wants the plaza to remain as it is. Most I've heard from would be willing to go out there and tear it up themselves if the city gave them the OK.
Yep, the feds
People seem to forget Menino tried to get a hotel built on the plaza, but the feds shot it down.
The Underlying Problems
1. The BANANA BITS school of land use planning: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (without) Big Important Townie Sayso that plagues New England also keeps Boston a backwater. It impacts big ego projects like city hall, and also makes housing unafordable on a regional basis.
There is no comprehensive planning process with either democratic participation or teeth.
2. Maintenance is a dirty word. Yeah, build those ego monuments ... then don't bother putting a dime into keeping them up to code or functional status. Over time they crumble, there is an outcry, and you can build another ego monument to suit. Repeat. Oh, and you can also crow about how much money you saved the taxpayer during your lifetime tenure by keeping maintenance budgets low.
What kind of architect stays in Boston?
Answer that, and you might have a good explanation of why there is anybody who thinks a giant red brick turd is a landmark.
well me for one. (At least
well me for one. (At least through august, anyway). There are some very well respected, brilliant firms working here, but they do much of their work outside of Boston.
This is what I wrote concerning this on the Herald site:
The mayor is so concerned about sustainability all of the sudden, he should realize the greenest building in the world is the one that is already there. Construction waste and scrap fills landfills more than any other material. I think its great that Boston has a building that, for better or worse, challenges people to think and form opinions-- what a great metaphor for government. Don't take it for granted. Its great for Boston to have this thing energizing the core with dialog, rather than some claptrap, mundane developer windfall like the new hotel in kenmore.
Further, I don't think this administration (or city government for that matter) deserve a new city hall. Its like a child lost interest in its toy, let it fall apart, then wants a new one. We have these monuments you love like Faneuil Hall because they were maintained dutifully over generations, whereas this government doesn't give a goddamn about the people who move through and around government center. It has been wasting away since they cut the ribbon, do we really need to spend $40 million or more on another sandbox for them to grow weeds in? They can't even orchestrate getting the fountain on the common to work. Everytime I take visitors past there I'm embarrassed. Its full of homeless, pigeons, and piss. What a symbolic center for our city!! Boston thinks its on a par with cities like NYC or Chicago, its so sadly mistaken. This is the way they treat public infrastructure in Gary and Flint. They make excuses about parks department, budget and staffing, etc. It just underscores the priorities of this administration.
They talk the talk of caring for the public but don't pony up the money, nor do they press other governmental concerns-- just look at the "plaza" in front of the state services buildings. How does the city and the BRA let this important parcel be a haphazard parking lot? (to judge by the cars there, its funny how many state service employees have apparently been working weekends and evenings since the Celtics have turned around, isn't it?) Now they want to take city hall and move it out to the boonies, surrounded by a moat of parking (which is not-so-secretly what city hall plaza has become) and served by a bus line. You don't like the buildings, fine, but accept that you have inherited them. If you don't like your garden you spend that much more time in it. The apathy towards the public is pathetic.