1. They remodeled City Hall Plaza in 2022 [1], unfortunately not a street grid, but less of a cold wasteland than before.

2. Agreed regarding the Congress St side, though the added playground from [1] adds some interest to that side (before the solid brick wall part).

3. Agreed with the interior. Something like just changing the flooring or interesting lighting would make it feel less cold. The floor is either brick (I assume an homage to Boston's brick) or terracotta tile. As a very rare visitor inside, it's kinda fun to see how the decor/lighting/infrastructure works with all concrete (hanging things from the ceiling instead of nailing to a wall, for example)

[1] https://www.sasaki.com/projects/boston-city-hall-plaza-renov...

Aware of the remodel and it is indeed an improvement in nice weather months but it's still pretty lacking and absolutely awful Nov to April which is.. close to half a year.

I sort of agree. On the other hand, the outside of a waterfront in a northern US city is probably not going to be great for a good chunk of the year in any case.

There are nice parks in the area but they're not exactly delightful in the cold weather months either.

I mostly agree. The backside is just hideous and the brickyard is unnecessarily a wasteland for most of the year. Boston's climate doesn't help but, certainly at least in the warmer months, there could be more of a welcoming commercial presence there like there is outdoors on the other side of City Hall around Quincy Market.

The renovation does help somewhat; I agree with other comments. Rarely down that way any longer. Used to work a few blocks from there.

> Also, it's a 50 year old structure..

I don’t personally see this a good reason at all.

The US had a good run building neoclassical government buildings in the spitting image of the Romans and Greeks, and we already know that when properly done the aesthetic will stand the test of time for thousands of years.

As far as the improved materials argument that’s up for debate too. Will Boston City Hall be standing in 2,000 years? If I could put money on it I’d say it’s more likely to end up in a landfill.

It will not. I guarantee it. The vehicle emissions worming into the bare concrete are acidic. The water from rain and from the humid air slowly degrades it. The salt air doesn't help. At some point, sooner than you think, the corrosion will reach the rebars inside the concrete.

All this could be prevented with sacrificial applications of stucco, but brutalist architects insist on keeping the concrete bare. It takes a lot of work to keep a building like that from crumbling under these conditions, and city hall is not loved enough to get the work done.

I don't love Brutalism in general but it also just ages pretty poorly. Some of it is about the updating of really crappy interior decor but the renovation of the Boston Public Library brutalist addition really helped a lot--though still, nothing like the original structure.

I work in the Watergate, and it's in terrible condition after just 60 years. The 1950s post-war mass produced house I grew up in is in better condition. Meanwhile, the Farley Post Office in Manhattan is so gorgeous 110 years later that they built the new Penn Station in it.

Sounds like one solution would be to apply a sealant that looks like bare concrete.

> The interior while very interesting architecturally is really quite... I dunno, soul sucking. I kind of love the aesthetic inside but only from a "wow this looks cool" perspective.

Totally agree with this. I enjoy walking through the interior and I like the building overall but I would hate working there.

A friend worked there for years, she said different offices would either be far too hot or else freezing on the same day. There was never a comfortable room.

If the interior offices were kept clean and tidy, I can see how it could be kind of interesting in a retro-futuristic way. But given that these are government offices, they're often full of stacked cardboard boxes of files and other mess that ruins the look. At least the building doesn't have drop ceilings (at least as far as I recall.)

If architectural beauty is subjective, that’s an even stronger argument for building stuff that broad majorities find pleasing instead of stuff designed by architects who write manifestos about how much they hate beauty.

Older structures cost more because they lasted longer and were more maintainable. Growth was given priority over tradition - and we've had to deal with the tradeoffs.

There’s more to it than that. People were rejecting tradition. How many millions were slaughtered in WW1 and 2?

There was a feeling that it was time to discard the old and do something different.

> Well.. first start by defining "beautiful", we're waiting.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/No...

https://wmf.imgix.net/images/70_hero_image.jpg?auto=format,c...

Hundreds of years later, most people from completely disparate cultures find these buildings beautiful.

Yes, those are two buildings people find beautiful. You can find lots more like it if you keep turning the dial all the way to "form" and away from "function".

It seems difficult to fit a city hall in either of them.

The one nice part of the wasteland plaza is that it can hold large outdoor exhibitions in a way that no other space in downtown area can.

Inside the NBA was held live there recently, Boston Calling (the only largish music festival in the area) started there.

There’s obviously no massive outdoor parking lot in downtown Boston, and it would be a shame to have packed crowds trample over the common.

Although Commonwealth Shakespeare has performances on the Common every summer and there's a fairly large underground parking garage there.