How Boston City Hall was born

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Aesthetic reactions to Boston City Hall

  • Many commenters call the building “hideous,” “dystopian,” and intimidating, describing its message as “we will crush you.”
  • Some see it as humorous or “absurdist,” like an elephant ballerina or a Quake level, and enjoy it as an extreme, memorable object compared to bland glass boxes.
  • A smaller group argues it is beautiful or at least visually striking, especially in photos without the plaza, and appreciate it as a bold, expressive work of brutalism.
  • Several say it feels like totalitarian or military architecture, evoking torture chambers, machine-gun nests, or civil defense bunkers.

Functionality and user experience

  • Critics describe the interior as dark, confusing, soul-sucking, and uncomfortable (wild temperature swings, awkward columns, poor accessibility).
  • Others say it is easy to navigate, has good light and air, and offers many gathering spaces inside and out, especially compared to the cramped, inaccessible old City Hall.
  • Some argue the building serves its large-plaza role for protests, concerts, and TV events, even if unpleasant day-to-day.

Plaza, climate, and urban context

  • The brick plaza is widely disliked as an empty, windy, winter “wasteland” and missed opportunity in an otherwise lively area full of shops and alleys.
  • The recent (2022) renovation is seen as an improvement—playground, more activation—but many still find it harsh in cold months and underused for commerce.
  • Several regret the demolition of Scollay Square and other neighborhoods for Government Center, seeing it as emblematic of damaging mid‑century urban renewal.

Materials, aging, and construction quality

  • Commenters discuss post‑WWII shifts: loss of skilled labor, preference for cheap concrete and glass, and reduced use of durable brick or wood.
  • There is concern that exposed concrete ages poorly in Boston’s polluted, salty, humid climate and may deteriorate faster than older stone or brick buildings; sealants or stucco are proposed but clash with brutalist aesthetics.

Architecture, taste, and ideology

  • Debate over whether beauty is subjective vs. some forms (e.g., Gothic, classical) having near‑universal appeal.
  • Some blame modern architects and clients for prioritizing “bold statements” and personal ego over usability and public preferences.
  • Others defend challenging styles as legitimate art, arguing that public incomprehension does not alone make a design bad.