{shortcode-7931311d581b779705990411632abd353270c86c}
The Boston City Hall — the notorious Brutalist landmark of the city — has faced substantial backlash, criticism, and ridicule over the decades. Unfortunately, it was recently named the fourth ugliest building in the world and one of the major Global Eyesores, according to Buildworld. Buildworld compiled their ranking by identifying all design-themed tweets and calculating the percentages of those that are critical of the building. At number four, the Boston City Hall received an astounding 25.03% negative tweets.
The overwhelming criticism of the city hall has persisted over the years, and all for good reason. Its ostentatious location in the middle of an open plaza blatantly forces passersby’s attention onto the enormous, looming structure. Amidst sleek, contemporary skyscrapers and classical red-brick architecture, the monotonous, austere, and uninspiring City Hall stands out painfully. The unclad concrete exterior, lacking proper maintenance over the years, is stained with age and use, further detracting from its appeal. The geometric elements on the facades are frankly excessive, creating a simultaneously banal, yet busy appearance. The darkened entryways further evoke an ominous, uninviting atmosphere for the many visitors and residents who have to enter the buildings. Perhaps the Boston City Hall does indeed deserve its title as the fourth ugliest building in the world.
{shortcode-c6973db3936ccbf25a79df545072974040350887}
Beyond its visual failures, however, the greatest failures of the Boston City Hall may be its historic relationship with the Boston community and the city as a whole. In its conception, the architects Michael McKinnell and Gerhard Kallmann aspired to create a monumental, innovative, yet still classic building that would serve as the emblem of the Bostonian government and people. Their commitment to the Brutalist style — as seen particularly in the uncladded concrete facades and the unornamented austerity — is an attempt to reflect the openness of the government and their focus on civic life.
Despite their idealistic, righteous intentions, the architecture actually reflected the opposite ideals to the people of Boston. The severe concrete and rigid, angular forms portray the government center as an unwelcoming, unapproachable space, hated by the people who work and visit the building. The impenetrable solidity of the material contradicts the concept of a transparent, accessible government and clearly sends the wrong signal to the people of Boston. Its location on the open plaza not only places too much emphasis on the building, but is also inhospitable to passersby, as the unrelenting Boston winds disrupts any social activities attempted there.
{shortcode-445fd4acc33dbf7552b3a742ea88ca8242cc107e}
Moreover, the style and form of the building fail to capture the spirit and history of the city. Boston is a city known for its rich history, marked by iconic red-brick and colonial-style architecture that exudes culture and warmth. Yet, in an effort to create a distinctive and monumental structure that represents the future, the architects entirely eliminated any classical and historical elements. Its austerity and lack of connection to the cultural history of the city fail to truly represent Boston, as a city hall ideally would. Any of the previous city halls or gathering spaces — from Faneuil Hall to the Old State House to the Old South Meeting House — would embody the Boston culture much more fully than the new Boston City Hall.
Overall, the Boston City Hall is both visually and symbolically a painful eyesore that fails to work harmoniously with the city. Unfortunately for the Boston City Hall, it seems that the prestige title of fourth ugliest building in the world is rightfully crowned, and the public criticism will likely continue for the foreseeable future.
