Modern Archietecture In Boston (Cambridge, Harvard: 2013, city hall, neighborhood)

[Rcsligar]

I am a young man looking to possibly relocate to Boston. I am a big fan of contemporary Archietecture and was impressed by some buildings I saw in Seattle, to give you an idea. I understand that Boston is very historical in some aspects, being the center of the revolution and all, but I imagine there are contemporary establishments sprinkled here and there.

These buildings are my preference:

https://www.google.com/search?q=mode...20&bih=416#i=0

https://www.google.com/search?q=mode...20&bih=416#i=7

This is the general feel I'm looking for. If you have any input, let me know.

[MikePRU]

There's some contemporary architecture in Boston and Cambridge, but predominantly the buildings are older. Here's the MIT STATA Center which I always thought was a very cool example of contemporary architecture:

http://www.architravel.com/files/bul...er_Gehry_4.jpg

[bostonguy1960]

The John Hancock Tower, built around 1974, I think, is the defining skyscraper here, by I.M. Pei. Its location ensures it doesn't get obscured by other skyscrapers, which allows its beauty to literally shine. I think most people here love its shining blue mirrored facade (but not everyone?).

Our Institute of Contemporary Art, build just a few years ago, has its new location in the Seaport District.

But, no, we don't have many buildings similar to which you depicted in your link.

(Sorry, but don't know how to post pictures)

[flowbe202]

The daddy of all modernists tucked a little building in at Harvard:
Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And to prove there is no accounting for taste:
Ada Louise Huxtable was the architecture critic who loved City Hall - Editorial - The Boston Globe

[Bettafish]

MIT looks very cool. Different from all the other institutes with long history.

[lrfox]

Brutalism did a lot to sort of turn people against bold, modern architecture. The shame of it is that the architecture isn't so much of a problem; the development style and maintenance (or lack thereof) is.

When you say "Brutalism" in Boston, people instantly think of City Hall. It's the most famous one in the city. It's not the prettiest building on earth, but the real problem is the development of/around it. For one, in order to build City Hall, the city had to demolish a bustling, dense, urban (although lower income) neighborhood. That was a bad omen before development even started. Then, the city built City Hall and surrounded it with a barren, brick plaza. It's a horrible place. In the winter it feels like Red Square in Moscow during WWII... windswept and frigid and devoid of happiness (I don't think I'm exaggerating). In the summer, it's still fairly lifeless and devoid of any green or inviting spaces to relax. The building is the least of the problems. The real flaw with City Hall is that instead of opening up the ground level to retail, cafes, etc. They've closed it off. It's a monolith. Instead of keeping the exterior and interior clean and up to date, it's been left to decay and be covered in a layer of grime.

If it were kept clean with some interior and minor exterior updating, the building wouldn't be bad. The plaza would still suck, however. Brutalism gets a bad name in Boston because of City Hall (and some others like the nearby Hurley Building). However, there are examples out there of how it works well. Most Bostonians would agree that the Christian Science Plaza is nice. Well, it's Brutalist and it's very well done. The Salk Institute near San Diego may be the best example of Brutalism done right.

Still, Boston has a sour taste for modern architecture because of blunders like City Hall Plaza. That's why we don't have much like Seattle's Library or the EMP Museum. MIT is notable for being a little bolder (Frank Gehry, who designed Seattle's EMP Museum is the architect of MIT's Stata Center). But no, you won't find that Boston has much outstanding modern architecture. I'd love a good Koolhaas or Caltrava somewhere in Boston, but I'll have to wait. The Zakim Bridge provides a nice modern look to the city skyline, though.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The problem with City Hall isn't the architecture IMO, it's the fact that they decimated a very lively portion of Boston, Scollay Square with a bland superblock.

[shiver]

City Hall Plaza is pretty ugly, IMO. It just stands out so much from the surrounding area. I'm not a fan of Brutalism though. The Christian Science Center is an exception. They did a great job with that.

To the OP, you have some great examples here of modern architecture in Boston (Zakim Bridge, the new ICA and the Hancock Tower especially) pointed out here. So you're right, we have a "sprinkling" of the style, but Boston isn't a showcase city for it.

[Estate28]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Brutalism did a lot to sort of turn people against bold, modern architecture. The shame of it is that the architecture isn't so much of a problem; the development style and maintenance (or lack thereof) is.

When you say "Brutalism" in Boston, people instantly think of City Hall. It's the most famous one in the city. It's not the prettiest building on earth, but the real problem is the development of/around it. For one, in order to build City Hall, the city had to demolish a bustling, dense, urban (although lower income) neighborhood. That was a bad omen before development even started. Then, the city built City Hall and surrounded it with a barren, brick plaza. It's a horrible place. In the winter it feels like Red Square in Moscow during WWII... windswept and frigid and devoid of happiness (I don't think I'm exaggerating). In the summer, it's still fairly lifeless and devoid of any green or inviting spaces to relax. The building is the least of the problems. The real flaw with City Hall is that instead of opening up the ground level to retail, cafes, etc. They've closed it off. It's a monolith. Instead of keeping the exterior and interior clean and up to date, it's been left to decay and be covered in a layer of grime.

If it were kept clean with some interior and minor exterior updating, the building wouldn't be bad. The plaza would still suck, however. Brutalism gets a bad name in Boston because of City Hall (and some others like the nearby Hurley Building). However, there are examples out there of how it works well. Most Bostonians would agree that the Christian Science Plaza is nice. Well, it's Brutalist and it's very well done. The Salk Institute near San Diego may be the best example of Brutalism done right.

Still, Boston has a sour taste for modern architecture because of blunders like City Hall Plaza. That's why we don't have much like Seattle's Library or the EMP Museum. MIT is notable for being a little bolder (Frank Gehry, who designed Seattle's EMP Museum is the architect of MIT's Stata Center). But no, you won't find that Boston has much outstanding modern architecture. I'd love a good Koolhaas or Caltrava somewhere in Boston, but I'll have to wait. The Zakim Bridge provides a nice modern look to the city skyline, though.

So, one Epic later... No, there's not a lot here for the OP?
Joking...