nouveau gauche

...I kind of like it. It just needs a green roof throughout and some greenery on all that space around it.

I don't see what the kerfuffle is all about- I like this building, especially the part with the appendages sticking out of it. What I don't like about this building is the red-bricked terrace area (fountains? reflecting pools?). I think it would be really cool if they could re-clad the terraces (corten? wooden rainscreen?), plant neat rows of trees on the terraces and stick a green roof on top of the building.

It looks like these architects are trying to mask what they see as an ugly face with clown makeup.

I like the building as it is, just add some color, artwork and landscaping, then line the whole roof with solar panels.

Ouch! Ugliest???? I rather like it. I worked at City Hall for two years and rather enjoyed the space. It's modern...but for some reason Americans don't like exposed concrete which is used in some fantastic buildings in Europe and Latin America.

I agree it just needs some touch ups...greenery, some art, etc. Also, if they could somehow fix how drafty/cold it feels in the winter.

Do any of the proposals really solve the problem? I see how the firms want to update it with an ultra-contemporary flair, but I never realized the best way to do this was to insert colored blocks throughout the primarily unattractive concrete mass that is the entirety of the original building.

The glass windows were a great idea, but they are so seemingly randomly placed that it doesn't really improve the building's aesthetic.

Perhaps I stand alone, but I felt one of the biggest problems with the original was the concrete and the tiny "columns" that decorated the upper floors. And they're still there. Any one else feel the same way?

The mayor called for abandoning a perfectly good building just because it's not the prettiest thing? How pompous.

"The mayor called for abandoning a perfectly good building just because it's not the prettiest thing? How pompous."

Maybe Boston has a whole lot more money than most of our US cities these days...

...but I somehow doubt it.

It's hideous. Sell it to the highest bidder, and move on.

I think the problem is less that it's ugly on the outside but that it feels like a dungeon inside and the plaza around it is extremely unwelcoming. I applaud them for trying to find a way to make more of the space. Scrapping it and moving seems ridiculously wasteful.

it's pretty hideous. So is the J. Edgar Hoover building (similar architecture style).

To me, the big problem is the site -- it really needs some human-scale landscaping. I love visiting Boston, but how can a city with so many beautiful old buildings end up with so many ugly new ones? I mean, it is possible to build new buildings that don't evoke prison.

The thing about that building (which the ICA space lacks) is transit. Super easy to get to Government Center.

But the building and the area around it need a complete overhaul.

Wow - I've never seen it from that angle before and rather like it, but I always thought it was ghastly from the ground. Ditto the "dungeon inside" sentiment though.

It's surrounded by a horrible space- a huge, bare open area that is wind-swept and freezing to cross in winter, beaten with sun in summer, and completely devoid of interest year-round. Oh, and the interior is miserable, too - dark, cavernous, like something out of a bureaucratic nightmare. But fortunately most people don't work there, they just walk by. For the poor souls who do, well, I fear they're out of luck.
For the rest of us, just fixing the plaza would be far more cost-efficient and useful than fixing the building, ugly though it may be. A fountain would be a nice start, maybe a reflecting pool. More seats, certainly. Trees and other greenery. Surely that wouldn't be terribly expensive. The fixes pictured above don't seem worth the cost and effort.

From above, it's an interesting building. (I've never seen it in real life.) I can see, though, that from ground level there's no ornamentation. Perhaps instead of trying to change it on the macro scale, they should look at adding visual interest on the bottom few floors, where people are actually interacting with it.

Yeah, go spend some money on most of these "cover ups" and then in a few years, when everyone thinks these new ideas look stupid, lets go blow some money on it again.

These architects creating the fix for it, might think it looks great now, but the ideas they're showing will be passing fads.

The "enter it" and "extrude it" ideas do nothing, if anything make the building worse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Orange_County_Government_Center.jpg

Ugly building and the plaza is an unusable wasteland. Bulldoze the whole place and build it into something that is good for Boston.

The plaza is the problem. It feels like a place for a Chairman Mao rally/massacre. If the building had other buildings around it, it wouldn't be such an eyesore. But the open plaza gives the expectation of a really special building == the Vatican or something.

They aren't trying to leave just because it's ugly. They are trying to bring life into Boston's waterfront, and moving city hall there is one way they think they can achieve that. They also want to revitalize the area that city hall is in now by selling that land to private developers.

It was also considered cutting edge architecture at the time it was built, and that's why there's a fight to keep it there.

The whole problem with it is that it was designed as an architectural statement, and as such it deliberately did not address its context -- or even it's function! I mean, for crying out loud, this is the city hall, the hall of the people, and people couldn't be more unwelcome in this place.

And since this is an unwelcoming design with an unwelcoming plaza, I'm guessing it is not too pleasant in non-business hours.

Architects often overlook the urban context, or at least, they especially did so in that period. Trying to rework the design will never succeed -- it will at best produce an awkward and self-conscious solution.

Here are 2 of my favourite examples of welcoming and well-designed City Halls:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kitchener-city-hall.jpg

http://www.canada-photos.com/data/media/7/toronto-city-hall_574.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/38/115458471_761ea761bd.jpg

http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/images/236.jpg

Both the Kitchener and Toronto City Hall (the latter designed around the same time as Boston) made a point to include their citizens, and their plazas are extremely popular all year long.

I think it's spunky. It looks like it's risen out of a sand dune or was made by termites or something (that's a compliment). I'm not a fan of the terracotta coloured surroundings. I agree with some other commenters - it needs a contrast of greenery against the brutal lines.

Don't abandon it! Have a bunch of artists or theatre-makers move in... for free! They'll breathe life into it!

I think something fabulous can be done with the roof (rooftop garden).

In any case I think if it gets a redesign - it should be designed by someone who already likes it and can bring out its best points - not mask them.

its only sin is in the brick surround, the terraces and steps

repave/face in raw raw concrete

it is magnificent as itself

prettification or re-styling will make things MUCH MUCH worse and REALLY dishonest
it will never be green, it's grey

This is a historic building in a historic city. Is nobody fighting for preservation, warts and all?

I rather enjoy the building, it stands for a stark comparison to the surrounding historic brick structures in the area, and provides, for me, a bit of relief knowing that Boston was at some point not controlled by the BRA (Boston Redevelopment Authrity) and Architects were allowed to build what they wanted!

The hideous "plaza" that surrounds the building is the problem! Also, over the years the interior has become shut-off opposed to the original design that allowed the main floor and courtyard to be open air. I think this building should be preserved and the tax payers dollars can go elsewhere.. maybe schools? Hmmm.

Brutalism is responsible for a lot of ugliness, but at least most Brutalist works evoke something (usually a military prison). The people of Boston should consider themselves lucky their city isn't sullied by something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ariel_of_EMPSFM.jpg

Ha! I'm a professional preservationist and think it should be demolished. I forget which year (in the 60s or 70s), but a AIA poll voted it one of the nation's ten best buildings, ugh.

Whether we like it or not, Brutalist buildings have left their mark on our cities. Simply demolishing them and building anew will not solve anything, particularly as the price of materials continues to skyrocket. Retrofitting is the most environmentally sustainable option, but keep in mind that the renders above are from the brainstorming phase - in other words, they are concepts, and most likely form part of a process of elimination, rather than earnest "let's build a yellow tube through the building" proposals.

Just look at any of the historic cities in Europe and it doesn't take long to figure out that the charm comes from the layers of history that are readily visible and comprehensible. If we start layering our 1960's buildings with 00's alterations that we then alter in another 40 years, we're creating our own visible history instead of just bulldozing, starting from scratch and making the same mistakes all over again.

I think it looks cool! Maybe work on the surrounding Plaza!

I love the Soviet feel of this building. It just needs an ultra-modern upgrade, and I think the above renderings are a good start. What's wrong with preservation?

But someone has to think about the people that work inside. If it is a dark, cavernous cave, there are ways to fix that. Make sure there's some public space inside that retains some original/historic elements.

Wow, I am really glad that they are recycling it. What an eyesore.

I just don't see how anyone has the $$ to do anything with it right now. A little brutalism is good for the soul. A lot of buildings in Boston are ugly. So what's the big deal?

One word: plants.

You're right charlene, lotsof buildings in Boston are ugly. Massive, dated, Brutalist monstrosities like City Hall have become part of the local architectural vocabulary and distinctive characterof the city. The Boston Garden, State Street Bank, and most of MIT are probably equally offensive on the eye, but they help to identify the place -- in an increasingly shrunken and homogeneous world, how else would you know you were in Boston if not for the aggressively ugly concrete buildings? They are the legacy of architects and urban planners who, in their era, took truly bold steps toward the new, away from the tyranny of Georgian brick, Beaux Arts wedding cakes, and tasteful but tired traditionalism that had become rote in this region.

Unless there's a plan to draft Norman Foster to create some truly transcendent and iconic glass box, or Frank Gehry to throw up one of his heaving titanium sculpture forms in its place, razing this thing, though it be a well and truly hideous camel, would I think diminish the character of the city somewhat.

That said, the City Hall building and Government Square Plaza are a nightmare of dysfunctional and ill-used space, not to mention ergonomics and energy inefficiency. I don't have a solution, but I imagine the elements of a practical, as opposed to purely aesthetic solution, would have to involve rethinking the function of the plaza, repurposing some of the interior and exterior space, and perhaps incorporating some kind of counterbalancing addition, on the order of I.M. Pei's Louvre pyramid or Apple cube.

I really really wish they would just plant some grass to replace all the brick. That entire area is a complete nightmare in the winter...it's like one giant ice skating rink. with stairs.

Maybe I'm just a masochist, but I really like brutalist architecture, or any non-undescript buildings for that matter. It makes life a lot less boring, i.e. look at the buildings around the city hall. Maybe we should start thinking about humanizing those too?

But then again, I've never really had to walk past these monstrous buildings every day on my way to work, so I'm not one to judge people's desire to mute the visual disaster.

I think the building itself is unique and historic. The space around it is the problem. I think it was designed to have a large plaza surrounding it to draw people there, but the large brick expanse is too cold and uninviting for people to actually want to spend time there. If it were completely replaced by green space, I have no doubt that many people would want to spend time there. And if that's the idea, surrounding city hall with its citizens and involving them, then change the space where people will be...no one will be drive away by an ugly building if the surroundnng area is inviting and beautiful.

Just because it doesn't mesh with the aesthetic sensibilities of today, doesn't mean we should abandon the Brutalist concept. If it were left to me, every thing built by Gaudi would have been demolished the day after it went up. These ugly buildings were so tacky that the designer's name is forever associated with tackiness. But they are now considered classics and are the soul of a major world-class city. How many hundreds of mid-century buildings were demolished because they offended the post modern aesthetic? Now, a whole new generation has rediscovered those designs and are worshiping the few remaining examples. I am clearly not a professional preservationist, but I do know that the whole concept of preservation is to leave designs for future generations to judge. Let it be.

"Just look at any of the historic cities in Europe and it doesn't take long to figure out that the charm comes from the layers of history that are readily visible and comprehensible. "

No, the charm of European cities comes from layers of beautiful buildings that make the urban fabric stronger and contribute to urban life -- good architecture layered upon good architecture -- look at Prague.

That's 2 preservation professionals on this board who don't think it should be saved -- and I am not against brutalism per se, just this example of it.

Brutalism? It sounds like what it is.

I agree with what others have said about that awful plaza being a large part of the problem. Creating some green areas would humanize the area and add much needed shelter.

mschatelaine - no city is perfect, and even Prague has its fair share of very average looking buildings. It's very easy to sit back after centuries of architectural history and say that European cities are charming because they have "good architecture", but I doubt you can be sure that over those centuries, the people of the time thought their contemporary architecture was any good. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and in a few hundred years, our ancestors might be looking back wondering how and why we demolished so many beautiful Brutalist masterpieces. Unlikely, but possible :)

amed studio - I understand what you're getting at and I agree for the most part, but wouldn't a Foster or Gehry addition just further diminish the architectural character of the city? As much as I respect both of these architects, who's to say that in another 40 years time we won't look back at their glass or titanium buildings and shake our heads, just as we do now with the Brutalism of the 60s? Most people are already shaking their head at Gehry's unbridled love of notoriously environmentally unfriendly titanium. Starchitects do not solve all ills. Have a little faith in your lesser known local firms - they'll care far more about the outcomes because they'll have to live with it ;)

Get rid of all that crap sticking out the sides and on top, so it has very simple lines. Green the roof and the surrounding plaza. Then it might not be too bad.

Not a patch on a real building the way they used to make them, though.

MsUnreliable:
"...even Prague has its fair share of very average looking buildings."

Not every building needs to be a masterpiece, but in order to have a beautiful or pleasing city, individual buildings must relate well to each other. And in the center of Prague, they do. And that is an essential part of the definition of "good architecture" which I put forward.

Of course, the rules are different for important public buildings such as City Halls; there it is even more critical that they be well designed, be a masterpiece -- which is why the foot print of the Old Town Hall in Prague's Old Town Square, bombed ad destroyed in 1945, is still just that over 60 years later.

That's because of the way that the City of Prague has approached making architectural decisions, and because of the overall high level of both design training and appreciation, both among the architects and within the general population. The right design has not come around yet, and despite 2 design competitions, nothing was deemed worth building.

Sure, when the Gehry building was first built there were howls of protest by some locals. But the Office of the City Architect of Prague knew what it was doing -- they understood which rules that could and could not be broken, and what constituted a successful "fit" in the historic context. "Fred and Ginger" perfectly capture's Prague's essence and still manages to respect height, material, fenestration, etc. You will now be hard pressed to find locals who don't like it.

In Prague and many other European cities, beauty was not an afterthought, not something to be considered if there was the budget left over for it. The beauty of the individual building and the value of the contribution is makes to the whole, to its CONTEXT, is how urban architecture was (and is) approached in Europe. In North America, we are more preoccupied with the statement made by the individual building, and with matters of cost -- aesthetics are not viewed to be important in their own right, and context be damned.

The Boston City Hall fails because it fails in its function as a house of the people -- it is not a center which draws citizens -- from a distance, without knowing where it was, no one could figure out where the front door is, or what the real front facade is. It doesn't relate architecturally to Boston or its neighbours in any way, and no amount of revamping can fix that.

Heck, this is what I did my Masters Thesis on.

There are other charming cities in Europe mschatelaine, and not all are as considered and planned as Prague. If you've ever strolled the streets of Paris, Rome, Venice, or any other number of European cities, it would be immediately obvious that half the beauty comes from the various forms and styles of architecture, and the chaos in which they inadvertently mesh together. It's not a result of stringent planning or some all-seeing, all-knowing architectural community, it's history. Cities evolve, as do attitudes about cities, whether amongst architects, preservation professionals or the general population. Simply razing buildings you dislike and putting up another building you'll probably dislike in another 40 years isn't sustainable or logical.

Hey, if this is what you call an ugly building...you should come to Bulgaria or any of the ex-Socialist republics. Here you can find many replicas of this premise and even stranger ones!!! I would be extremely happy if anyone in these countries undertake a similar action and changes the ugly buildings left from the Commmunist era!

I'm a tour guide in Boston: the brick plaza was intended to connect City Hall with brick buildings near by, including Sears Crescent (the curved building with the tea kettle) and the Old State House. Also, the development of Government Center came about in the 1960s in response to that area being kinda seedy; ask a longtime resident of Boston to tell you about Scully's Square and the sailors. It is hard to imagine now, but the city was trying to do something good, like a lot of other American cities at about the same time.

The plaza is ugly and miserable on a windy day, but it is used a lot during the summer for larger events like the Scooperbowl and Pride festivities.

Kayla here -

Wow, what an amazing discussion. We're so excited that so many of you care about the future of architecture in this town and also about preserving and addressing our architectural history - the good and the "bad."

We think Brutalism definitely has its place in this world and we are totally against tearing down a perfectly sound building just to build something "newer" in its place (which is exactly what Menino wants to do).

I just came across Boston.com's response to this same Yahoo! survey that labelled City Hall as the ugliest building in the world and its very well written - check it out here.

Also, KTG, this post was in no way validating the Virtual Tourist Top 10 list - it was simply a very timely intro to a much deeper discuss which has turned out to be an amazing thread of opinions here on AT Boston. Thanks to all for contributing!

Ugly buildings are almost always unhealthy buildings as well. If the site is worth anything to a commerical developer, the city should sell it and move on. It's unlikely that City Hall is a "perfectly good" building--chances are that it's incredibly ineffecient.

Abandoning it to "artists and theatre companies" isn't going to do them or the city any good.

Los Angeles has a similiar problem with the hideous Pershing Square remake downtown. Similiar style as well.

MsUnreliable: We're in agreement. Where I may not have expressed myself clearly was in trying to say that ugly as it is, the City Hall Building is iconic and the Brutalist style has enough examples in the environs to have become part of the specific flavour of Boston. Unless it's going to be replaced with something equally iconic (e.g. Foster and Gehry whose building have come to characterise the flavours of London and Barcelona, LA and Cleveland), adding a new flavour, City Hall should be left to stand among its peers, perhaps with some refurbishment and repurposing.

I have no doubt that there are many fine local firms who could design a beautiful and functional building to fit the purpose; however, having worked in Boston City government for two years, I have little faith that any committee of COB stakeholders would arrive at anything bold or fresh, absent the imprimatur of a 'starchitecht.'

Boston would be a good location for the psy-geo-conflux.

It's not just an eye sore to look at, but its an awful place to work in or even go to. There are few windows, its dark and dingy and quite frankly a bad representation of Boston. The people that work in City Hall and the people of Boston deserve a better City Hall.

Boston City Hall has been fugly since conception, there are no ifs or buts about it. It is a terribly designed and even worse implemented structure and it is an eyesore for those of us who have to see it more than once. But then again it is the theme of 1970s architecture in the boston area, exibit b: new wing of the Boston Public lib in Copley; exhibit c : UMass Boston; exibit d Newton North High School .... the list is as long as the cocked up decade ;)
HOWEVER rebuilding the entire building, just like the case with UMass and Newton North -- wasted expenditure and unfortunately for those of you who live in the city of boston, that is your expenditure they're going to waste

Egad, just add another 30 stories of offices and condos on top of it, wrap it in retail shops and city customer service windows, and plant a proper city park (like Post Office Square) on the gaping brick lawn. The amount of teeth-grinding over this place is nauseating.