Bostonist: City Hall Plaza Really Is As Ugly As We Always Thought

phil

Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:19:51 -0500

Menino is RIGHT! No more of CITY HALL, thank you. Time for the demolition crews to come in.

Dean

Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:21:19 -0500

i'm going to hate myself in the morning for saying this, but... i wouldn't want to see city hall torn down (so i disagree with the pps). that's not to say that i find city hall plaza an attractive public space. it's not. i agree that it is in desperate need of improvement. but scollay square isn't coming back (any more than the west end is), and while we're certainly not stuck with anything, it was demolition that got us into the mess we're in with city hall plaza. it's here now. demolishing existing infrastructure is wasteful from an ecological point of view, though in some cases, it's necessary (i.e. the central artery). i think that city hall should be preserved for its historical and, yes, architectural significance, though aesthetically, it's a bit jarring, i know. but as an example of brutalist architecture, it reminds us all of the failed urban utopianism envisioned by modernist architecture.

Krimpet

Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:59:00 -0500

I can't deny that there is plenty to fix at Government Center and in a perfect world I would certainly prefer to have the old Scollay Square back. But I just don't think that there's as much wrong here as people like to believe. Plazas work best when there is a lot of pedestrian traffic across them, the more the better generally. CHP has plenty of traffic along the southern edge past the T station but almost none north of that. If there were destinations along the northern or western edge it would help a lot. I actually think it would be improved a lot if the western edge were closed off with row of buildings with retail on the ground level that would restore the Cambridge Street street-wall and bring foot traffic to the area. Regarding the building, I don't really think that slapping some marble or columns onto a box makes a good building,though the idea of adding a classical colonnade to the current structure is delightfully perverse. I also don't believe that good modern buildings need to be flashy showboats. City Hall and the Mental Health Services building are beautiful and could be successful but are chronically abused by their tenants. City hall in particular is hamstrung by the half-assed security modifications that barricaded the front entrance behind folding tables and metal detectors and closed the lower entrances altogether, creating a warren of dead-ends in what should be active corridors. One can certainly make the argument that the program of the original building does not match current needs, but one could solve these problems through intelligent modifications.

Charlie

Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:12:16 -0500

Many buildings at UMass Amherst have been similarly criticized. The contrast of the massive concrete Fine Arts Center, Campus Center, and other academic buildings with the more traditional brick buildings around them is seen as a bad thing - hideous and ugly - by many. I always thought the contrast was a good thing, and actually represented the school very well -- a broad range of architectures on a campus that strives to promote diverse cultures and thought. Also, it reflects a very unique period in American architecture where concrete was used in very unique ways. To me, the problem with City Hall is not so much the building itself, but the plaza that surrounds it. I think the architecture of the building is very interesting, but unfortunately the plaza offers very little to encourage citizens to congregate there.

Josh

Tue, 03 Jan 2006 09:25:56 -0500

Krimpet, I understand that among modernist architecture, expecially of the public building sort, City Hall is seen as something rather good. (I have noticed that the only defenders I can find of that edifice are architects or those well-versed in architecture (i.e., art history majors).) The thing is, modernism, for whatever reason, is an inherently risky proposition because it is such a departure from the forms that most lay people are comfortable with that it runs the risk of turning some of them off: we're just trained to like the columns, marble, and oak of old-time civic buildings, and it's hard to get away from that. So unless a modern building is really really cool (e.g. the Sydney Opera House or some bendy, shiny Frank Gehry creation), we plebeians are bound to find it baffling. City Hall may be an elegant vision of civic participation, but it's also a palpably massive structure that most people find depressing and bunker-like. I think that, when it comes to big-ticket public buildings, you gotta do more to satisfy the phillistines.

Krimpet

Mon, 02 Jan 2006 21:57:46 -0500

I agree with you that the plaza might need some improvements, though I think there's hope for it as a vast piazza along the lines of Siena. I have to loudly disagree with you about City Hall though. It is a deeply beautiful building that presents an optimistic and elegant vision of civic participation. Bostonians seem to have a terrible lack of appreciation for their very few modernist masterpieces. City Hall and the brilliant Paul Rudolph Mental Health Services Building top this list for me.

Matthew

Mon, 02 Jan 2006 18:01:11 -0500

I have always liked City Hall Plaza. A vast, flat, empty space right in the middle of a very crowded city is beautiful.