Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Herald)   Boston mayoral candidate runs on platform of destroying city hall   (bostonherald.com) divider line 48
    More: Interesting, Marty Walsh, boston mayoral, development plans, private ownership, Financial District, City Hall, redevelopment  
•       •       •

1031 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Sep 2013 at 11:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-16 11:28:30 AM  
Privatize EVERYTHING! YES!

Fark off you pimp.
 
2013-09-16 11:30:21 AM  
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev approves.
 
2013-09-16 11:30:49 AM  
Boston's most coveted site? More like Boston's most ugly site.
 
2013-09-16 11:31:11 AM  
Demolish this brutalist monstrosity?
blog.preservationnation.org

images.wikia.com
 
2013-09-16 11:33:16 AM  
I actually like the idea.

Bulldoze that piece of shiat.
 
2013-09-16 11:40:09 AM  
Seems like a pretty good idea to me. The space necessary for the government to function should be rent free though.
 
2013-09-16 11:40:23 AM  

FarkedOver: Privatize EVERYTHING! YES!

Fark off you pimp.


I generally agree with you and that was my first reaction as well.  However, his plan for privatizing the city hall isn't massively horrible.
 
2013-09-16 11:41:13 AM  
As someone who walked past that concrete POS twice a day for almost 10 years, tear that mutha down.

And fix the Government Center T stop.
 
2013-09-16 11:42:34 AM  
Dumb move.  Fifty years from now it will be seen as as great a loss as many of the Victorian buildings torn down in the 1950s.  Maybe as big a loss as Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan.
 
2013-09-16 11:42:39 AM  
I never got the hate for Brutalism. Those buildings are a reflection of the times they were built in, like how you can tell which buildings on university campuses were built before and after the 60s.

/ones built after the 60s are a lot harder to burn down
 
2013-09-16 11:44:06 AM  
And that building looks infinitely better than any crappy postmodern architecture.
 
2013-09-16 11:46:47 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-16 11:47:30 AM  

Teiritzamna: Demolish this brutalist monstrosity?
[blog.preservationnation.org image 850x637]



Nice selection of an image source.
 
2013-09-16 11:55:17 AM  
It will no longer be the government center stop on the greenline it can be the Highest Bidder greenline stop! Nice!
 
2013-09-16 11:57:14 AM  

Bloody William: Boston's most coveted site? More like Boston's most ugly site.


You haven't seen the Frank Gehry building at MIT, have you?
 
2013-09-16 11:57:36 AM  

Zeno-25: I never got the hate for Brutalism. Those buildings are a reflection of the times they were built in, like how you can tell which buildings on university campuses were built before and after the 60s.

/ones built after the 60s are a lot harder to burn down


Yes that's the urban legend tossed around in every college campus with a brutalist building.

The politics around brutalism are rather interesting - the buildings were supposed to facilitate democracy, not a police state. Of course, in reality all they did was support ugliness.
 
2013-09-16 11:58:22 AM  
Hah! I've got some architecture nerds on my Twitter feed. They're in love with Brutalist architecture, they reacted with horror to this idea. I understand the idea of preserving the past, and Boston City Hall is a perfectly okay building, but Brutalism is a definite acquired taste. The way ferroconcrete stains and collects grunge in an urban setting is not a pretty, noble or inspiring aesthetic.

And it really hearkens back to the days of Robert Moses bulldozing everything in his way to put up elevated freeways that served to divide, segregate and destroy neighborhoods. Boston had its share of such modernist monstrosities, but one of the death knells for 60s-style urban planning came when a huge coalition of local interests joined forces and defeated a proposal to put a giant elevated highway artery connecting I-95 and I-93 right smack dab through the centers of Waltham, Belmont, and Cambridge. I shudder to think what these towns would have looked like if that had gone through.

The main problem with Brutalism is that it basically subsumes the human element of architecture to a purist ideal. In that way it resembles, in physical form, communism and objectivism.
 
2013-09-16 11:58:22 AM  
starwarsroadtrips.comsubwaynut.com
 
2013-09-16 11:58:52 AM  
Privatize everything, liberal edition.
 
2013-09-16 12:00:09 PM  
Ah yes.  Sell the govermnet assett (hideous as it is), then let a private party charge an outrageous sum to provide a replacement asset. Brilliant!
 
2013-09-16 12:04:08 PM  
Remember the Mooninites! Suck it down, beaneaters! Err ALWAYS gets the last laugh!
 
2013-09-16 12:05:16 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Yes that's the urban legend tossed around in every college campus with a brutalist building.
The politics around brutalism are rather interesting - the buildings were supposed to facilitate democracy, not a police state. Of course, in reality all they did was support ugliness.


Urban legend? Well, I'm sure people convinced themselves that their constructions were facilitating democracy. But looking at the way Brutalist buildings and plazas were built and used, there was certainly a huge undercurrent of top-down control in their intentions. Wide, unsheltered, cheerless spaces, crowd-control pylons, uncompromising angles and faceless concrete are not terribly democratic aethetics.

Just curious, what's your take on Tilted Arc?
 
2013-09-16 12:11:05 PM  

theorellior: Urban legend? Well, I'm sure people convinced themselves that their constructions were facilitating democracy. But looking at the way Brutalist buildings and plazas were built and used, there was certainly a huge undercurrent of top-down control in their intentions. Wide, unsheltered, cheerless spaces, crowd-control pylons, uncompromising angles and faceless concrete are not terribly democratic aethetics.


Not what we see as "Democratic" today; 40-50 years ago was another story.  And a large number of your complaints are true of International Style buildings in general, not just of Brutalist structures.

But really, the problem is that for any genius architect working in a particular style, there are 20 imitators doing a crappy job of it.  So for every 200 buildings built, you only get one of these:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-16 12:13:21 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: FarkedOver: Privatize EVERYTHING! YES!

Fark off you pimp.

I generally agree with you and that was my first reaction as well.  However, his plan for privatizing the city hall isn't massively horrible.


Meh, it is horrible.  The concept of leasing city hall (or any other non-temporary governmental building), as opposed to owning it outright, doesn't making any sense to me-it strikes me as a way to line a private landlord's pockets at taxpayer expense.
 
2013-09-16 12:14:10 PM  
Relevant to this discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI5okqUxi2k

/also CSB - one of my best friend's bought and now lives in the house Jonathan Richman grew up in (in Natick)
//we spent a little time looking for a hidden stash to no avail
 
2013-09-16 12:17:44 PM  

Zeno-25: I never got the hate for Brutalism. Those buildings are a reflection of the times they were built in, like how you can tell which buildings on university campuses were built before and after the 60s.


I absolutely hate Brutalism, but it's historic, and it should be preserved. We've lost so much of the historic fabric of our country because it was considered ugly at the time or because "oh, it's only X years old, in Europe, they would consider that new!" Even though X number of years is always well past what most European countries consider historic.

Save it.
 
2013-09-16 12:21:48 PM  
So instead of using the property you already own go to a private landowner and lease the property therefore using more taxpayer funds.  Um.....
 
2013-09-16 12:22:22 PM  
Sure it's a hideous building but it's our hideous building (and yes, Gehry's Stata Center is hideous-er). The one benefit to this Walsh guy getting elected is that he'd be a certain one term mayor. One term, then off to Rio de Janeiro to spend his ill-gotten gains, or off to jail.

Interesting story about the Stata Center--the architectural firm I work for built a new building right next to it (the one where the security guard was murdered after the Marathon Bombing and we're also working on the UMass Dartmouth campus where Tsarnaev Junior hung out, so I'd say we're all definitely terrorists). When it came out that MIT is suing Gehry because the building leaks like a sieve (who could have possibly anticipated that?), our project architect was practically dancing with glee. "Now we'll be able to clad the building with marble instead of just limestone!"
 
2013-09-16 12:24:31 PM  
By the way, take a penny out of your pocket. Look at the back and turn it so the picture is upside down. Compare with the photo of Boston City Hall earlier in this thread. Ta da!
 
2013-09-16 12:38:02 PM  
What strikes me as comical is that all of the conservatives I know love them some Robocop.  They don't quite get that it was very, very biting satire on how crazy privatizing everything in sight is, amongst other things.
 
2013-09-16 12:39:05 PM  
AZ did this, they should check how well that turned out.

Hint:  Brewer sold it and then wanted to buy it back a couple years later, spending >$20m what they got for it initially
 
2013-09-16 12:41:46 PM  
Oh just use the old City Hall down the street. But you'd need to kick out Ruth's Chris Steak House currently in the space....
 
2013-09-16 12:42:46 PM  

clambam: When it came out that MIT is suing Gehry because the building leaks like a sieve (who could have possibly anticipated that?), our project architect was practically dancing with glee. "Now we'll be able to clad the building with marble instead of just limestone!"


LOL. Gehry is a farking hack.
 
2013-09-16 12:43:43 PM  

clambam: Interesting story about the Stata Center--the architectural firm I work for built a new building right next to it (the one where the security guard was murdered after the Marathon Bombing and we're also working on the UMass Dartmouth campus where Tsarnaev Junior hung out, so I'd say we're all definitely terrorists). When it came out that MIT is suing Gehry because the building leaks like a sieve (who could have possibly anticipated that?), our project architect was practically dancing with glee. "Now we'll be able to clad the building with marble instead of just limestone!"


I actually tend to like Frank Gehry's work, but the Stata Center was a massive farkup on his part: it was explained to him numerous times that all those projecting windows were going to leak in Boston and that he wasn't building the building in Southern California, but he refused to listen to any critics, even though many of them were on the architectual staff of MIT.  And it's not like he's never built in the NE before.

He of course is claiming that the contractors didn't follow his designs, which is why the windows leak.
 
2013-09-16 12:55:04 PM  

Geotpf: Satanic_Hamster: FarkedOver: Privatize EVERYTHING! YES!

Fark off you pimp.

I generally agree with you and that was my first reaction as well.  However, his plan for privatizing the city hall isn't massively horrible.

Meh, it is horrible.  The concept of leasing city hall (or any other non-temporary governmental building), as opposed to owning it outright, doesn't making any sense to me-it strikes me as a way to line a private landlord's pockets at taxpayer expense.


Under the terms he suggested in the article, I would call it "kinda bad" but not "OMG BBQ HORRIBLE."
 
2013-09-16 12:58:52 PM  

FarkingReading: [starwarsroadtrips.com image 670x285][subwaynut.com image 850x566]


Is there an attractive way to funnel large numbers of people underground?  They usually end up looking like bunkers or just open pits.
 
2013-09-16 12:59:38 PM  
I must admit, i really would rather they just get rid of this ugly, banal scrim of a building:

imgc.artprintimages.com

as it blocks one from seeing the Adams courthouse, which is delightful:

familysearch.org


/Perhaps my hatred of brutalism stems in part from spending too much time in this concrete wang dribbling over the Charles:
cache.boston.com
(ugly, uncomfortable, and constantly falling apart - what's not to love!!)
 
2013-09-16 01:00:26 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Geotpf: Satanic_Hamster: FarkedOver: Privatize EVERYTHING! YES!

Fark off you pimp.

I generally agree with you and that was my first reaction as well.  However, his plan for privatizing the city hall isn't massively horrible.

Meh, it is horrible.  The concept of leasing city hall (or any other non-temporary governmental building), as opposed to owning it outright, doesn't making any sense to me-it strikes me as a way to line a private landlord's pockets at taxpayer expense.

Under the terms he suggested in the article, I would call it "kinda bad" but not "OMG BBQ HORRIBLE."


He's assuming that after leveling the building and removing all the rubble that someone is going to jump in to rebuild and offset the costs of destruction, clearing, moving, and the perpetual costs of privately leasing space somewhere else.  That's a pretty bit "what if".
 
2013-09-16 01:07:52 PM  

Fart_Machine: He's assuming that after leveling the building and removing all the rubble that someone is going to jump in to rebuild and offset the costs of destruction, clearing, moving, and the perpetual costs of privately leasing space somewhere else. That's a pretty bit "what if".


That's the only thing that saved City Hall here in Philadelphia in the 1930s:

i.factmonster.com

The cost of tearing it down (it's pretty much solid stone, except the top of the clock tower) and hauling away the rubble would have been twice the cost of the replacement building.
 
2013-09-16 01:12:21 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: FarkedOver: Privatize EVERYTHING! YES!

Fark off you pimp.

I generally agree with you and that was my first reaction as well.  However, his plan for privatizing the city hall isn't massively horrible.


I'm not familiar with Boston's particular situation or the proposal itself but when has this sort of idea worked out for the benefit of the public in the history of ever?
 
2013-09-16 01:13:24 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Satanic_Hamster: FarkedOver: Privatize EVERYTHING! YES!

Fark off you pimp.

I generally agree with you and that was my first reaction as well.  However, his plan for privatizing the city hall isn't massively horrible.

I'm not familiar with Boston's particular situation or the proposal itself but when has this sort of idea worked out for the benefit of the public in the history of ever?


Well, it has a few problems in reality but works out well in theory.
 
2013-09-16 01:14:15 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: That's the only thing that saved City Hall here in Philadelphia in the 1930s:

i.factmonster.com

The cost of tearing it down (it's pretty much solid stone, except the top of the clock tower) and hauling away the rubble would have been twice the cost of the replacement building.


Damn beautiful building, glad they didn't tear it down.
 
2013-09-16 01:18:55 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Well, it has a few problems in reality but works out well in theory.


In theory ideas that fall apart in application are pretty terrible ideas. In theory.
 
2013-09-16 01:20:06 PM  
Good.  Now maybe we can finally get the tube technology.
 
2013-09-16 05:47:06 PM  

Farker Soze: Good.  Now maybe we can finally get the tube technology.


Tuuuuube teeeechnoooology

TOOK 44 farkING REPLIES TO GET TO THIS REFERENCE?

//i am dissapoint.
 
2013-09-16 06:34:28 PM  
It really is ugly as shiat, but privatization?  Fark you Marty Walsh.
 
2013-09-16 09:13:59 PM  
Hey, I think Whitey Bulger has some land at the dump they could look at.
 
2013-09-16 11:57:22 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Fart_Machine: He's assuming that after leveling the building and removing all the rubble that someone is going to jump in to rebuild and offset the costs of destruction, clearing, moving, and the perpetual costs of privately leasing space somewhere else. That's a pretty bit "what if".

That's the only thing that saved City Hall here in Philadelphia in the 1930s:

[i.factmonster.com image 800x653]

The cost of tearing it down (it's pretty much solid stone, except the top of the clock tower) and hauling away the rubble would have been twice the cost of the replacement building.


Also that is a great building.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report