I guess "ugliest" depends on the weather. Looks pretty handsome rn.Submitted by oozforashag t3_11je373 in boston
TiredPistachio t1_jb289a0 wrote
I do think its possible to say it "looks cool" and also say "its insanely ugly" at the same time. The contrast of the sunlight on that side does look pretty cool.
FourAM t1_jb2p9vu wrote
It could probably do with a good power washing
drb00b t1_jb2we69 wrote
That could be said about a lot of the city, including the MBTA
charons-voyage t1_jb2zarz wrote
Please don’t disrupt the load-bearing grime
drb00b t1_jb30l1e wrote
I suppose it does also camouflage the rats
DiMarcoTheGawd t1_jb5kem8 wrote
The rats are part of the grime, like one big interconnected super-organism
DJFurioso t1_jb33ydh wrote
Can you imagine how much water would leak through the walls if they removed the grime? Only thing keeping the tunnels from flooding.
bluefives t1_jb4d3a5 wrote
I actually really like brutalist architecture.
Was visiting colleges with my dad, and at UMass Amherst I commented that I liked the architecture, and he said, "What are you, a communist?!" jokingly.
That was my first exposure to the meaning and history of brutalist architecture.
ducksaws t1_jb52p7h wrote
Isn't UMass Dartmouth the brutalist one?
alohadave t1_jb5khdv wrote
The student center and the Fine Arts buildings are both Brutalist. Amherst has a more diverse set of styles than Dartmouth does.
Next-Editor6166 t1_jb5jyqa wrote
Visited friends down at UMassDartmouth, or whatever it's called now, maybe mid '70's. All concrete construction, I was amazed. Can't imagine what it looks like now
SteamingHotChocolate t1_jb2djt5 wrote
I don't really get why people care about City Hall being sort of Brutalist-weird when there is plenty of beautiful architecture abounding everywhere else in the city
hedoeswhathewants t1_jb2gez3 wrote
Why aren't people allowed to think a building is ugly just because there are others nearby that are less ugly?
SteamingHotChocolate t1_jb2rvd7 wrote
Ah yeah because I definitely said people weren't allowed to do that thing that they're doing
doomsday_windbag t1_jb2te82 wrote
Where did they say it wasn’t allowed?
Marshmallowadmiral t1_jb2vpt5 wrote
My main issue with City Hall isn't the building itself, but rather that City Hall Plaza is an empty wasteland where a real neighborhood used to be. Scollay Square was a bustling working-class neighborhood, with its own unique character. Today, City Hall and most of the surrounding buildings see traffic only on weekdays, 9-5. That whole part of Boston feels like a monument to an era where we kicked people out of cities and reduced their neighborhoods to office parks.
donkadunny t1_jb30lqf wrote
The surrounding buildings only see traffic weekdays from 9-5? Buddy, Faneuil Hall is directly across the street and it’s the 4th largest tourist attraction in the country. It’s much busier than you are giving it credit for and Scollay Square was demolished 60 years ago.
Marshmallowadmiral t1_jb33jd3 wrote
The point is that nobody lives there. Yes, Faneuil Hall is a major tourist attraction and there are some restaurants and bars around there (and doesn't city hall plaza seem even more dead when you look at the crowds around Faneuil?). But the area is not a real neighborhood, it's a destination. Which I think is a major failure of American cities in general- our city centers are most often treated as destinations rather than places to live. This general attitude has some pretty bad outcomes for city dwellers, both historically and today. While Scollay Square is long gone, it's still a useful story to explain why Boston looks the way it does today, and it helps us talk about what direction Boston (and American cities) should take in the future.
TuarezOfTheTuareg t1_jb4vcsj wrote
Weird take... Why do people need to live there? What's wrong with an area being a destination? Are you saying that every inch of a city needs to be some kind of "neighborhood" where people live? I don't get your point at all. It's nonsensical. Cities need civic and commercial districts just as much as they need residential ones. City hall could be a better destination if, for example, the concrete plaza was replaced with more interesting commercial development or open space, but to criticize it for being a destination is kinda weird.
kdmccormick t1_jb4zcov wrote
I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but it's not true that destinations have to be non-residential. The North End is a destination and a neighborhood: people live above all those restaurants. The idea that commercial and residential need to be cleanly separated is weird modern one. People lived above businesses for hundreds of years before mid-1900s zoning laws made it largely illegal to build like that in the US.
All that's to say: another neighborhood of four-story townhouses with shops & restaurants on the first floor would be amazing to have in downtown.
TuarezOfTheTuareg t1_jb4zrjc wrote
Yea I agree with that. It's just the characterization of "destinations" as being undesirable that was weirding me out. I'm a town planner and we talk all the time about strategies to make commercial/civic districts into more appealing destinations. That's a desirable trait! Nothing precludes people from living in areas like that too though
kdmccormick t1_jb4zyrc wrote
Oh, totally agreed!
donkadunny t1_jb54adk wrote
Have you even been to downtown Boston? Do you know how many buildings are already ground floor retail and residences above? There are many. Like that is actually what a ton of it already is. Ground floor retail with commercial or residential above.
[deleted] t1_jb39m7d wrote
[deleted]
Next-Editor6166 t1_jb5kmm9 wrote
Look at the Combat Zone, lower Washington St. Been high rise Ritz for a while now. No more shops & strip joints. Fun times at 3am
calinet6 t1_jb4rxcp wrote
Yeah, like it’s just this big wasteland of flat concrete. Waste of space IMO. Sometimes I like to image what Scollay square would be today if they didn’t tear everything down to put in… flat concrete and stairs.
alohadave t1_jb5kzup wrote
> City Hall Plaza is an empty wasteland
If they made it into an actual park, it'd help significantly. With like grass and trees and a reason to linger, rather than as a passthrough to get to somewhere else.
Bostonstrangler69 t1_jb38rxo wrote
it takes roughly 50 years for a building to come back in style.
TiredPistachio t1_jb39qte wrote
Oh great we're overdue for more of this? "Wonderful"
alohadave t1_jb5llrp wrote
No, it means that after about 50-75 years, styles become historical, rather than outdated. Many styles have this period where they get torn down because they aren't in style, and they aren't appreciated.
Brutalism isn't coming back because it was a 60s-70s idea, and the world has moved on.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments