Several years ago when I worked for the National Register of Historic Places, I had the occasion to look at the National Register nominations for Graceland (Elvis Presley's home) and the Jack Daniels Distillery. Listing on the National Register is a public process, so when a property is proposed for listing, there is a public comment period. Both Graceland and the Jack Daniels Distillery attracted numerous comments, most protesting National Register status for the buildings. Why? Well, Elvis used drugs and the distillery sold drugs (or at least alcohol) and both were undeserving for those reasons. The request for landmark status for Boston City Hall made me think of these letters, because the outright hostility to City Hall seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of why landmark status is granted.
In general, landmark status is granted for historical significance, which might mean it is the birthplace of a historically important individual, the site of a significant historic event, or representative of a broader trend in history. Landmark status can also be granted for architectural significance. Architectural significance has little to do with the aesthetics of a building--architectural tastes change--but more to do with a building's importance as a representative or icon of a particular style. I would argue that Boston's City Hall has both historic and architectural significance.
My review of Thomas O' Connor's Building a New Boston gives an overview of the context in which City Hall was built and I think City Hall's importance as a representative of the "New Boston" cannot be overstated. One wonders if the Quincy Market renovation would have taken place had the Government Center renovation not preceded it. And although they came at a tremendous cost to those living in the West End and the Scollay Square areas, the new City Hall and Government Center mark the dividing line between an older, moribund, shrinking Boston and the city we know today.
A question: What protections does being granted landmark status give to the structure? That is, if it's granted, can the building be torn down? If granted, will we be forever saddled with an ugly building and an enormous plaza that can't be used for anything?
Posted by: todd | 26 April 2007 at 10:12
City Hall is a dramatic building in a dramatic setting. The "useless" plaza is the only paved gathering space in the city able to hold a really large crowd. It also is home to many temporary structures, tents, shows, etc. You can reach it by the subway without a transfer from every corner of the city.
City Hall is beautifully located on its plaza. It was designed to pull the plaza space into the lobby, symbolically opening itself to the people of the city.
Both the plaza and the city hall have design flaws, but they are minor compared to the benefits which this design brought to Boston.
The last effort to fix the flaws of the plaza focussed entirely on real estate development. As a developer, I am all for real estate development, but the City is the City, and developers are developers. The City does not need to develop every corner of its property. The federal government, which shares the plaza, correctly objected to transferring this space to private use.
The building itself suffers from an admittedly poor main lobby design, and also from horrible lighting of the main lobby. It is time to correct the flaws in the intial design, to carefully clean the concrete, both interior and exterior, and to correct the poor lighing design. There is no reason for the space to be dim and dirty. Building a new city hall won't fix the fact that the city is a "low-rent" steward of its own structures.
But to sell off the plaza and move to a "three-transfer" spot at the edge of town - that is going backwards, wasting alot of money, and demeaning the brilliance of the people who did not give up on Boston when the going was tough.
Richard Graf
Posted by: Richard Graf | 28 May 2007 at 17:21