urbanSTL

Is that Boston's city hall? It's such a travesty.

I love Boston City Hall. The plaza could certainly use some work, though. 

This is one thing I never understood though, ripping the neighborhood up and creating an artificial public space. I think a contributor to its failures is the destruction of its surroundings. I've observed the best public spaces are surrounded and integrated to the neighborhood. This one, in a sense, rejects it, fortified by roads and other unhuman development. Here's an interesting before and after, 1938 and 1969.

It's horrible and an affront to humanity. Whomever approved it should be ashamed of themselves. We're lucky to still have ours.

It should be obvious not to do this to people.

Boston City Hall is a great example of brutalist architecture. If they wanted to showcase an ugly urban place, they could have posted a picture of the Taco Bell at Chouteau and Broadway instead.

But the Taco Bell is a great example of fast food drive-thru architecture.

imran wrote: ↑

Aug 12, 2022

framer wrote: ↑

Aug 12, 2022

I love Boston City Hall. The plaza could certainly use some work, though. 

How would you compare it architecturally to say St Louis City Hall? What about it do you find compelling? Would you linger in a place like it? Want to live next to it ( or in it)? Go on vacation to places that look like it? Or is it more of a removed admiration for architectural innovation?
.

I wouldn't compare them; two completely different animals. To everything else you ask, I'd answer "Yes!". I'm neither a writer or an architectural critic, so I can't articulate why I like it. I just do. It's got great energy and visual appeal.

imran wrote: ↑

Aug 12, 2022

framer wrote: ↑

Aug 12, 2022

I love Boston City Hall. The plaza could certainly use some work, though. 

How would you compare it architecturally to say St Louis City Hall? What about it do you find compelling? Would you linger in a place like it? Want to live next to it ( or in it)? Go on vacation to places that look like it? Or is it more of a removed admiration for architectural innovation?

Ps. They are working on adding trees and benches to the plaza.

While I love the architecture of our city hall, I don't think I could see myself hanging out near it either. I think the bigger truth the Tweet misses is that it's not just about the architecture of the buildings in isolation, but the context of the whole site. The square in front of Boston City Hall is enormous, paved, and uninviting in that picture. Maybe they're working on it and it will be fine, but there are no places for a person to sit in the picture, save for on the pavement. There's no grass. No benches. No trees. No shops where you might buy a cup of coffee or a sandwich. No nothing. Just bricks and a building. Our city hall looks prettier, but there's equally little to do around it. Why hang out there unless you're going to pay a fee or apply for a permit or something? Even all the grass on the mall doesn't really fix anything, because it's separated from everything surrounding it by a sea of cars and all the human scale uses are blocks away. The Old Post Office Square, on the other hand, might be a place worth hanging out since there's food, drink, activities, and people on the street nearby. Not just cars. The park benches are pretty close to being brutalist, honestly. And the design is quite modern. But it's human. It's small. It's approachable. It's on a scale quite similar to an Italian city square. And there's stuff to do. It's not just the buildings surrounding a square that make it work or fail. It's how far away they are, what's in them, how big the square is, and how comfortable a place there is to sit. It's a package deal to which architectural style is nearly inconsequential, and the tweet really misses that.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Aug 12, 2022

But the Taco Bell is a great example of fast food drive-thru architecture.

But there's only one Boston City Hall; there are thousands of Taco Bells. Some time in the future, when there's only one vintage Taco Bell left, I'm sure preservationists will fight to save it.

I'm not familiar enough with the latest penn station plans to be able to comment. I do think the loss of the original Penn station was a travesty.

Generally I'm opposed to I tearing down buildings of historical or architectural merit. I'm opposed to re-cladding buildings to match the latest design trend. I do, however, greatly approve of mixing old and new, something I think Europe does extremely well.

These pictures still reference these areas in an architectural sense. In terms of human scale and plaza activation of the area in front of the Pompidou is always pretty good. Sure the building is kind of weird and ugly but it still functions well in an urban context. All of the beaux arts buildings on the south of market despite being traditional and pretty are horrible for actual pedestrian level activation and human scale.

imran wrote: ↑

Aug 12, 2022

Good points. So scale and public realm activation might be the bigger issues than architectural style (you don’t have to tell me twice since I often get on the soap box against blank walls and wonky proportions) Do you know of a modernist collection of buildings that nurtures everyday intergenerational gathering like an old European town square? Let’s make it more interesting —- without trees/greenery

I'm not sure you'll be able to find many entirely without trees and greenery, but most college campuses have something close to what you're describing. Lowry Mall at dear UM Columbia is mostly surrounded by modernist buildings. There's one gothic revival structure, but I think it was the very modernist Missouri Bookstore building that mostly drove the integration, since that's where the food was. I honestly think it did a better job than the more famous Francis Quad, since there was more to do in a tighter area, where Francis was pretty much just a giant field of grass. (Though that's great for a picnic or playing frisbee. Or singing at the top of your lungs to your friends on the way home from the theatre.)

The trouble in the US is that there's so much colossal, planned, centrally controlled development that makes the kind of fine-grained uses of a good town square nearly impossible, so the breed is rare here unless someone planned it very very carefully. No matter the architectural style. City Garden has the potential to become a good one. On a good day it probably is a good square. And most of what's surrounding it is glass and steel. But it does have trees. Kiener Plaza could maybe also be made to work. (And I think sometimes it clearly does.) Though again, it has trees. I always thought the space over by the Edison Theatre at Wash U. was nice; Bowles Plaza, apparently. Not sure how popular it was/is, but it looked like the sort of place I'd want to hang out. The architecture is even pretty brutalist. (And I will gladly tell you just how awful the theatre itself is. But the plaza outside is pleasant.) Not sure any of those really count, but they're maybe moving in the direction you want. All of them have something of a mix of different architectural styles around them. All have some revivalist and historicist architecture. But the buildings aren't really what drives them so much as the uses and connections, I think. And they're all pretty clearly connected to some pretty modernist buildings. (And in the case of Kiener Plaza some brutally banal garages that can still work because they have store fronts that have, at times, been useful.)

An abomination I saw from a boat tour in Copenhagen. It's worse at ground level for a pedestrian, just inhuman. Of course I didn't take a picture of it. I'd be curious to know how many pics are unironically posted to Instragram et al of this sort of thing vs delightful buildings you see in such famous places for visiting to look at buildings.

alexstl wrote: ↑

Aug 12, 2022

These pictures still reference these areas in an architectural sense. In terms of human scale and plaza activation of the area in front of the Pompidou is always pretty good. Sure the building is kind of weird and ugly but it still functions well in an urban context. All of the beaux arts buildings on the south of market despite being traditional and pretty are horrible for actual pedestrian level activation and human scale.

If the Pompidou was not supported all around it by gorgeous buildings and mixed-use density I doubt it would evoke much gathering. And a lot of people in that weird step down square have a ‘Jeez what were they thinking! ‘ expression on their faces.
I felt a deep sense of loss when I saw it as I could imagine what they must’ve thrown away to make way for that editorial pile of junk.

Interesting point about the buildings on market street. On their own they are gorgeous but held back by lack of granular uses or dense residential context plus the adjacent six lanes of traffic violence.

I guess to really build places for human beings we need to make them inviting on both macro (context, connection, noise) and micro levels ( materials, ornamentation, fenestrations, trees, benches)

All other things being equal, classic buildings are more welcoming/nurturing to the average human being than say a brutalist monolith. And it seems pretty universal in cultures around the world.

^I think that misses out badly on early modernism, like the Chicago School and Art Deco, which was in no way historicist and is now almost universally revered. No offense, but I feel like the meme is basically complaining about things recently out of style without giving them time to come back in style. Which is every style since style was invented. The new in thing is modern and lovely. The antique is classic. The out of style thing is horrid, was always horrid, and will always be horrid. There's a part of me that honestly believes this about 80s cars, but . . . maybe I'll be proved wrong yet. (In which case the larger point will be proved correct.) Don't get me wrong. There are definitely buildings I want to hate on. But I'm skeptical that any entire style movement has ever been or ever will be bad. That just seems . . . silly. But the belief in its truth is a part of what drives fashion, so it's a silliness that will always be with us. We have to fight it. Notre Dame de melty Haut only looks like it's on drugs. (While also looking like the drugs. Slick move, really.)

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Aug 16, 2022

^I think that misses out badly on early modernism, like the Chicago School and Art Deco, which was in no way historicist and is now almost universally revered. No offense, but I feel like the meme is basically complaining about things recently out of style without giving them time to come back in style. Which is every style since style was invented. The new in thing is modern and lovely. The antique is classic. The out of style thing is horrid, was always horrid, and will always be horrid. There's a part of me that honestly believes this about 80s cars, but . . . maybe I'll be proved wrong yet. (In which case the larger point will be proved correct.) Don't get me wrong. There are definitely buildings I want to hate on. But I'm skeptical that any entire style movement has ever been or ever will be bad. That just seems . . . silly. But the belief in its truth is a part of what drives fashion, so it's a silliness that will always be with us. We have to fight it. Notre Dame de melty Haut only looks like it's on drugs. (While also looking like the drugs. Slick move, really.)

Also, much like today, many of the buildings considered classics now faced considerable criticism when they were built

I don't think it's necessarily architecture that makes places human or inhuman, it's humans. Obviously certain architectural styles facilitate this but the enjoyability of space for me is based so much more off of human interaction. You could replace the roman Pavillion in tower grove park with an ugly grey box, but I could still enjoy the farmers market and all the people just the same. Alternatively, there is no shortage of pretty buildings or traditional buildings that ultimately fail to be enjoyable on the human scale. There are hundreds of fancy greek townhalls and post offices that are nice to look at in photos but I would never want to actually spend time around. Obviously, buildings with unique history and architecture at a small scale make spaces interesting and fun but it's never been an end all be all. The touches that buildings get over time, an air conditioner in the window, a vine on a wall, a bike in the front yard are what make places so beautifully human and special, not just architecture.

^Hey, I know that spot!



And yes, it's a fairly human-scaled spot, even if the building is absolutely burtal(ist.)