Landmarking Brutalism

[Charlie_mta]

I made a point to go by the Blue Cross Blue Shield building the other day and took some pictures. A security guard came out to ask me what I was doing, and I told him I was checking out the building because it is now officially an architecturally significant Boston landmark. He asked "...This?" and at no point in our conversation did he seem to believe that could be true.

Thanks to the folks here sticking up for this building. But I guess my tastes just differ. It's like a lot of mid-century modernism for me. From the exact right angle, and with the exact right lighting, (and maybe with some good photo filters) it sometime looks alright. Generally, it looks bleak with a bad street level design.

As for whether this should get landmark status and the preservation requirements that come with it: nope, bad idea. I generally don't think government bodies should be dictating which art is good and important and must be preserved under penalty of law. We've never needed laws to protect Jackson Pollacks. People just do it because they enjoy the works. And I don't think comparing this to preserving a painting is very useful, anyways. Paintings don't also have to serve some other utility. They are small and can be displayed or packed away for later for (relatively) zero cost. By contrast, this is a 13-story office building. It's massively expensive to maintain (compared to a painting), it can't be moved or stored and it takes up a quarter acre of massively important downtown real estate. If the owners want to preserve it, fine. If new owners want to tear it down and build something in its place, that should also be fine. Take pictures, document it as much as you want, and tear it down.

Regardless, here's some pictures

View attachment 49006
View attachment 49007
View attachment 49008
View attachment 49009
View attachment 49010
View attachment 49011
View attachment 49012
View attachment 49013

It does look a tad bleak, but I attribute that to aged, weathered concrete. The proper treatments would spiffy it up. As for preserving the building, hell yeah, especially when far inferior buildings like the Hurley Building and City Hall are apparently going to be allowed to stand for many decades to come.

 

[ritchiew]

Neutral on the building, but you got some nice intergenerational reflections of (160 Federal?) in the windows.

Thanks! Yeah, that's the address. It's almost harder to avoid getting intergenerational buildings when taking pictures downtown

 

[ritchiew]

It does look a tad bleak, but I attribute that to aged, weathered concrete. The proper treatments would spiffy it up.

For sure, that's a part of it. Some other (relatively) superficial issues, too. The courtyard is getting cracked and uneven; the railing around that is broken in places; a lot of windows are yellowing and need to be replaced. I hope the owners make all those fixes to spiffy the place up. But I don't think that significantly changes my opinion of the building.

As for preserving the building, hell yeah, especially when far inferior buildings like the Hurley Building and City Hall are apparently going to be allowed to stand for many decades to come.

Oh no. If that's the logic, all the more reason to knock down Hurley and City Hall right quick.

 

[kmp1284]

I made a point to go by the Blue Cross Blue Shield building the other day and took some pictures. A security guard came out to ask me what I was doing, and I told him I was checking out the building because it is now officially an architecturally significant Boston landmark. He asked "...This?" and at no point in our conversation did he seem to believe that could be true.

So? Given the choice most Americans would probably choose a home that looks like this:

over one that looks like this:

Credits:

A Special Spot in McMansion Hell - The Craftsman Blog

The McMansion deserves a special spot in the bowels of architectural design failures, but despite that it seems to permeate the landscape. What gives?

thecraftsmanblog.com

Edgartown Harbor House - Patrick Ahearn Architect

patrickahearn.com

 

[ritchiew]

So? Given the choice most Americans would probably choose a home that looks like this:

View attachment 49075

over one that looks like this:

View attachment 49076

Credits:

A Special Spot in McMansion Hell - The Craftsman Blog

The McMansion deserves a special spot in the bowels of architectural design failures, but despite that it seems to permeate the landscape. What gives?

thecraftsmanblog.com

Edgartown Harbor House - Patrick Ahearn Architect

patrickahearn.com

Oh I wasn't trying to make point with that little anecdote. I just thought it was a funny story, given the rest of this conversation. I don't think the landmark status of a building should hinge on the opinion of a random security guard.

But, exactly what point are you trying to make here, claiming most Americans would prefer the aesthetics of a McMansion?

 

[type001]

I didn't get the point of the reply either. Maybe it was intended for a different message or thread even.

 

[kmp1284]

Oh I wasn't trying to make point with that little anecdote. I just thought it was a funny story, given the rest of this conversation. I don't think the landmark status of a building should hinge on the opinion of a random security guard.

But, exactly what point are you trying to make here, claiming most Americans would prefer the aesthetics of a McMansion?

That there’s an alarming abundance of bad taste and that the popular opinion isn’t always or even often the logical or well-informed opinion.

Perhaps a polite way of saying who cares what some rando who has no expertise or knowledge on a topic thinks?

 

[ritchiew]

That there’s an alarming abundance of bad taste and that the popular opinion isn’t always or even often the logical or well-informed opinion.

People don't need to be logical or well-informed to form their own subjective preferences for aesthetics. People can just like stuff. Or dislike stuff. And those opinions are all equally valid. They are subjective. There is no correct answer, and no wrong answer. If someone prefers McMansion aesthetics, they are not wrong, even if it's not my preference. People will find beauty, value, meaning, or lack thereof in anyway they want.

Perhaps a polite way of saying who cares what some rando who has no expertise or knowledge on a topic thinks?

The security guard probably cares about his own opinions. He has to go to work there everyday. He probably cares whether the place he spend most of his waking hours is ugly or beautiful or uplifting or soul crushing. I'm curious what he thinks, too. There are few people in the world that could know the building better than he does. He probably knows every square inch of this Paul Rudolf masterpiece. Him and a lot of the workers there. Part of the reason I've taken an interest in this building is @type001 mentioned they enjoyed working there years ago, and I thought that was interesting. It didn't square with my feelings about the place, so I got curious to go give it a closer look.


But beyond that, your responses have pushed me really quickly to thinking this form of historical preservation is terrible. It is so narrow minded to be treating personal preferences as correct or incorrect. It is so condescending to suggest people have "bad taste" because they're uninformed or won't think logically. It is so dismissive to not care about the opinions of the people who deal with this building day in and day out. And it's elitist to make a small group of professionals the sole arbiters of taste and value in a legally binding way. If this is the core or historic preservation, then burn that system to the ground.

 

[bigpicture7]

People don't need to be logical or well-informed to form their own subjective preferences for aesthetics. People can just like stuff. Or dislike stuff. And those opinions are all equally valid. They are subjective. There is no correct answer, and no wrong answer. If someone prefers McMansion aesthetics, they are not wrong, even if it's not my preference. People will find beauty, value, meaning, or lack thereof in anyway they want.


The security guard probably cares about his own opinions. He has to go to work there everyday. He probably cares whether the place he spend most of his waking hours is ugly or beautiful or uplifting or soul crushing. I'm curious what he thinks, too. There are few people in the world that could know the building better than he does. He probably knows every square inch of this Paul Rudolf masterpiece. Him and a lot of the workers there. Part of the reason I've taken an interest in this building is @type001 mentioned they enjoyed working there years ago, and I thought that was interesting. It didn't square with my feelings about the place, so I got curious to go give it a closer look.


But beyond that, your responses have pushed me really quickly to thinking this form of historical preservation is terrible. It is so narrow minded to be treating personal preferences as correct or incorrect. It is so condescending to suggest people have "bad taste" because they're uninformed or won't think logically. It is so dismissive to not care about the opinions of the people who deal with this building day in and day out. And it's elitist to make a small group of professionals the sole arbiters of taste and value in a legally binding way. If this is the core or historic preservation, then burn that system to the ground.

Ritchiew, with respect, what you are describing is an absolute logical argument that doesn't reflect the reality of how preservation works in most municipalities. I am not an expert on how it works within Boston proper specifically, but usually these decisions are made in a quasi-technocratic/quasi-democratic manner -- they are not made unilaterally by some all-powerful self-appointed "expert" with a polarized opinion as you seem to be implying. Rather: there is a panel of experts who get to decide such things, but the panel membership is term limited and/or governed by some broader democratic process, even if indirect (i.e., voters vote on the politicians who appoint such panel memberships). In other words, a historical commission (or the like) that consistently makes decisions unpopular by the general public is unlikely the remain intact forever. The point of a within-limits technocracy (which, btw, is used all over the place in government) is that it is unreasonable for Joe-public to be capable of making certain decisions that require years of study, training, special knowledge, etc., to be made effectively. If my opinionated neighbor thinks that road lanes should be 6-ft wide, his opinion does not mean much. As such, sorry for him, he doesn't get to directly vote on road lane width. There are a ton of things in society that we don't get to directly vote on, and preservation, thankfully, is one of them. As much as you can point to architecture that might not deserve to be preserved in your eyes yet was preserved, one can also think of examples of horrific and offensive architecture that thankfully would never stand the chance of being protected (or allowed to be built in the first place) due to this process. Architecture, unlike some painting hanging in your living room, is part of the public realm. The public realm is shaped by a blend of governmental processes and peoples' preference. All of this said, panels of experts are fallible and we deserve to be able to be critics of them, but that doesn't mean that they are an invalid form of governance for this type of issue/decision.

 

[kdmc]

Yeah. I like to think that a well-designed public authority does in fact represent the opinion of the general population, but smoothed out across generations, and steeped in patience/context/knowledge that the average person wouldn't be expected to have.

If 51% of a city doesn't like some building at this moment in time, then maybe we should allow it to be knocked down. But maybe, we should keep it around because there's a possible future where 75% of people enjoy the building as an interesting old part of the the city. The people who make that decision should be elected, or apppointed by elected people, based on their ability to make good decisions about architecure and the urban realm. If they regularly make choices that people hate years later, then they're not doing a good job.

So yes, power to the people, but if every decision were a public referendum, then we'd end up with a lot of impulsive, populism-driven, marketing-campaign-suscetible decisions. It's very likely that 50%+ of people would be very unhappy with the sum of those decisions.

 

[ritchiew]

Ritchiew, with respect, what you are describing is an absolute logical argument that doesn't reflect the reality of how preservation works in most municipalities. I am not an expert on how it works within Boston proper specifically, but usually these decisions are made in a quasi-technocratic/quasi-democratic manner -- they are not made unilaterally by some all-powerful self-appointed "expert" with a polarized opinion as you seem to be implying. Rather: there is a panel of experts who get to decide such things, but the panel membership is term limited and/or governed by some broader democratic process, even if indirect (i.e., voters vote on the politicians who appoint such panel memberships). In other words, a historical commission (or the like) that consistently makes decisions unpopular by the general public is unlikely the remain intact forever. The point of a within-limits technocracy (which, btw, is used all over the place in government) is that it is unreasonable for Joe-public to be capable of making certain decisions that require years of study, training, special knowledge, etc., to be made effectively. If my opinionated neighbor thinks that road lanes should be 6-ft wide, his opinion does not mean much. As such, sorry for him, he doesn't get to directly vote on road lane width. There are a ton of things in society that we don't get to directly vote on, and preservation, thankfully, is one of them. As much as you can point to architecture that might not deserve to be preserved in your eyes yet was preserved, one can also think of examples of horrific and offensive architecture that thankfully would never stand the chance of being protected (or allowed to be built in the first place) due to this process. Architecture, unlike some painting hanging in your living room, is part of the public realm. The public realm is shaped by a blend of governmental processes and peoples' preference. All of this said, panels of experts are fallible and we deserve to be able to be critics of them, but that doesn't mean that they are an invalid form of governance for this type of issue/decision.

Thanks. I hear you, but a couple of things:

First, I agree with you in part, and I'm not really against technocratic decision making in government. But your example about road design is a good counterpoint to show why I think landmarking a building like this is different. With road design, there are objective standards and goals a technocrat works towards: increased speeds or throughput; reduced crashes or pollution; whatever. That quasi-democratic part is important for setting priorities, but then the technocrats have (relatively) objective goals. If your hypothetical neighbor comes along with a plan for 6 foot lanes, the technocrats can evaluate that plan. They can objectively see he is wrong. This is maybe the clearest example of where technocracy can work well.

By contrast, in the case of landmarking certain architecture, a group of experts is essentially being tasked with answering "Which art is good and should be preserved?" I'm saying that is inherently subjective. An architect might think this building is good and influential, and they'd be correct. Your hypothetical neighbor might think the building is ugly and only influenced other ugly buildings. He is also correct. It's subjective opinion. There is no wrong. This is not an ideal situation for technocrats, because there aren't a lot of objective standards to grab onto. There are other situations where the city is tasked with picking and choosing art, like putting up an art display in a city building or hiring musicians for an event. There they get to at least pick what is popular, which can be measured. But going by popularity doesn't help us here. Experts could pick buildings by what is "influential," but that's never really what we mean. There have been trends in McMansions and 5-over-1s that have been massively influential but we don't like those, so really we're looking for influential in a subjectively "good" way. Ultimately, I think this inevitably comes down to a select group of people saying "Well, I like it." If it ended there, fine, but the stakes are high. This isn't a temporary gallery organized by a technocrat. This has the potential to indefinitely tie up valuable downtown real estate, by law, based almost entirely on a few architects personal preferences which no more correct than anyone else's. That is why I am generally skeptical of this whole thing.

And second, the reason I am turning from skeptical to actually against this kind of historical preservation is from reading @kmp1284 's comments. This looks like a total deference to experts on subjective taste, and indifference or contempt towards the opinions of the public or even people who spend a lot of their lives in that building. If the attitude of the historical commission is anything like this, it should be disbanded:

Fortunately there are still some things we as a society defer to experts on.

So? Given the choice most Americans would probably choose a home that looks like this:

That there’s an alarming abundance of bad taste and that the popular opinion isn’t always or even often the logical or well-informed opinion.

Perhaps a polite way of saying who cares what some rando who has no expertise or knowledge on a topic thinks?