Boston City Hall sits astride the downtown of one the world’s greatest cities like a twisted tribute to East German architecture, a Stalinist-style bunker in the birthplace of modern democracy.
And the fact that it’s still standing after all these years is an affront to common sense for a long list of reasons, from the odious design to the concrete barrier this monstrous pile has posed to Boston’s future development.
Sure, the cynics are chuckling after mayoral hopeful Martin Walsh said he would consider selling City Hall if elected. It makes him the latest in a long line of city pols, including Mayor Thomas M. Menino, to score a few easy points bashing this monstrosity.
But that doesn’t make it any less of a superb idea. Rather, it just highlights how lame Boston’s leading political lights have been over the years, unable to rid the city of an insultingly ugly building that everyone loves to hate, except, that is, for a few whacky architects.
A monstrosity, Boston City Hall is the product of a grim, lefty style of architecture that came of age in the 1960s, one whose leading practitioners had a not so hidden fascination with totalitarianism.
Here are three big reasons why Boston’s next mayor should roll out the wrecking ball and get to work.
It’s More Than Ugly It’s Downright Twisted
Architects are big on making statements, whether it’s the design of a skyscraper for a major corporation or, in the case of Boston City Hall, the municipal headquarters of a great city.
But too little attention has been paid to the statement made by Boston City Hall, an example of the “brutalist” style of architecture popular in the 1950s and ‘60s.
Frankly, if it had, maybe it would be gone by now.
The brain child of French architect Le Corbusier, brutalism was a style popular in devastated, post-World War II Europe, seen by its devotees as harkening a new age after years of mass slaughter and economic deprivation.
OK, that doesn’t sound so bad, except that the new age Le Corbusier and other lefty European architects of the ‘50s and ‘60s were dreaming of probably had more to do with state planning than any desire to celebrate democratic virtues.
The buildings, as the forerunners of this brave new world, were designed not to fit into or complement a city’s existing urban fabric, but to stand apart.
In fact, Le Corbusier dreamed of leading a worldwide revolution in architecture, one that would replace grand old city centers with these concrete towers and bunkers.
In a city like Boston with such a rich history and urban fabric, it’s hard to imagine a worse choice of architectural styles for the city’s civic showcase.
“Le Corbusier does not belong so much to the history of architecture as to that of totalitarianism, to the spiritual, intellectual, and moral deformity of the interbellum years in Europe,” writes Theodore Dalrymple, a British author, physican, and political commentator. “Clearly, he was not alone; he was both a creator and a symptom of the zeitgeist.”
Whatever the motives, the result has been a collection of some of the dreariest government and occasionally corporate buildings in the world, decaying concrete bunkers that look like they would be right at home in the old Soviet Union.
Boston City Hall is a monument to this skewed vision of state and institutional power, purposefully blunt and massive, with the effect of dwarfing the individual.
It’s hard to square with a city proud of its deep democratic roots, from its starring role in the American Revolution to the abolitionist movement and beyond.
These were history-changing events led by brave and often scorned individuals, who had the temerity to challenge overweening and unjust government institutions and laws.
And no, I am not some Tea Party lunkhead, but a traditional Democrat who thinks Franklin Roosevelt was one of greatest presidents.
A Manmade Barrier To Boston’s Future
Boston’s City Hall and the nearby massive Charles River apartment complex nearby testify to a desperate time in the Hub’s history.
After decades of stagnation and decay, city leaders were determined to deliver the equivalent of shock therapy to a seemingly dying metropolis.
So the so-called slums of the West End and the bars and dives of Scollay Square were bulldozed in a fit of urban renewal.
The desire to get Boston back on track was admirable, but the results were deplorable.
A much more successful venture came a few years later, in the 1970s, when then derelict Faneuil Hall was renovated and restored.
Yet even as Faneuil Hall and the nearby Boston waterfront thrived and boomed, Boston City Hall has effectively acted as an inland barrier, a manmade zone of concrete desolation that no one can build on and few would willingly choose to build next to.
Selling Boston City Hall to a developer with vision would reconnect the waterfront with a key piece of downtown Boston and to Beacon Hill and Downtown Crossing beyond.
And don’t worry, there will be no shortage of developers ready to take a crack.
The Sin Of Leaving Money On The Table
Finally, to do nothing and let Boston suffer for years and decades more with this crumbling concrete pile would simply leave money on the table, and lots of it.
Walsh, the union-backed mayoral candidate, thinks City Hall could get $150 million to $200 million from a developer and, as the economy and commercial real estate market heats up again, that could very well be true.
But the cost of maintaining the now aging and deficient structure also has to be taken into account, with city officials pumping millions into upgrades and simple maintenance.
In a city where budgets are always tight, not trying would be a crime.
The city deserves better. Boston should have a municipal headquarters that celebrates its vibrant and rich history, not some sad monument to the dark side of the 20th century.
Scott Van Voorhis can be reached at sbvanvoorhis@hotmail.com.
