Talk:Boston City Hall

Looks like the Lincoln Memorial upside down

This is a common thing that residents will mention to family, etc. that they take on a tour of the city (take out a penny, hold upside down, compare). I think it should be mentioned. Also, does anybody know if the Lincoln Memorial was an influence on the design? 24.34.94.110 (talk)

Judges

Any idea who the judges were for the design competition? - Eyeresist 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

They should be shot.

the claim that Boston City Hall was inspired in part by Le Corbusier's La Tourette monastery

I'm wondering about a citation for the idea that La Tourette was a model for Boston City Hall. I've done some research on this question and can't find anything in the architects' own words suggesting this. Does anyone know where this idea originated? ADF119 (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation added Hal (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

la Tourette was a huge influence of the so called brutalist architecture and its architect Le corbusier a living legend. The architects of boston city hall surely knew it intimately and you find many common elements. to find them compare floorplans, materials, details, and so on. what the architects themselves say is of lesser importance, theyre not paid for talking.80.108.36.246 (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Me thinks that you are looking in the wrong places to understand this connection. Architects, artists, poets, and other such creative types rarely cite their sources, especially in the modern era, and especially younger artists, when "originality" is seen as the true sign of creative genius. However, if you were to look at photos of the two buildings, at plans, sections and elevations, and at the materials and the proportions, you would see a fact for a fact. A citation is not necessary for such obvious influence. (However, if you really like footnotes, you could research the many articles published worldwide when Boston City Hall was completed, and you will undoubtedly find more than one commentator making the same observation about this relationship.) Redcabin21 (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Architects, artists, poets, and other such creative types rarely cite their sources... Possibly true, but irrelevant, given that Wikipedia is supposed to cite secondary sources, and the parties you're listing are primary. "(O)riginality" is seen as the true sign of creative genius. Probably because there has been so little of it since WWI one is tempted to say, there has been none.Hal (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the earlier question as to the jury for the design competition: architects Pietro Belluschi, Walter Netsch, Ralph Rapson and William Wurster; local business leaders Harold Hodgkinson, chairman of Filene's; Kelly Anderson, president of New England Mutual Life; and Sidney Rabb, chairman of Stop and Shop. Redcabin21 (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Point of View

The Positive reaction section is unencyclopaediac and over-the-top in its language, using biased language such as "representative of the acclaim", "renewed recognition", etc. The section reads like a press release rather than a serious and credible analysis. 195.211.227.117 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. M2545 (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

“Design” subsection maintenance tag

I removed the {{POV-section}}. This subsection doesn’t really include interpretations of—which is to say, opinions about—the design of the building, but rather statements about what the designers intended to convey. Assumedly, these would be verifiable; for the most part, however, they are not supported by citations, hence the {{refimprove section}} (I changed it from {{unreferenced section}}, since there currently are a few citations).

Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Government section

How does including a list of the mayors and city council members add to this article? Unless someone objects, I propose to add a sentence to the intro describing the building's roles as the location of the mayor's offices and the meeting place for the city council, and then remove the "Government" section entirely. Rks13 (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Denying Architectural History

I find it astonishing that a group like California Home + Design or any other aesthete wanna-be can have the audacity to deny architectural history. The Brutalist architectural movement was very much real and as valid as any in history. Many legendary architects such as I.M. Pei and Tadao Ando designed significant works in the brutalist style. Brutalist architecture is a window into a significant part of modern architecture and urban planning. Its examples throughout the country and the world should be celebrated and studied. Boston City Hall actually has a tremendous amount of flare for a brutalist piece. It is no more or less significant than Rudolph Hall, Yale’s Art and Architecture Building, or any number of Le Corbusier's buildings in France. No one would consider blowing them up simply because they don’t agree with, or dislike the aesthetic. It is as much a part of the character of downtown Boston as the Chrysler building or the UN complex is of that part of NYC. Boston City Hall is part of our cultural heritage and should be celebrated and protected as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardak63 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boston City Hall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061112101733/http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=119435 to http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=119435

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Boston City Hall/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

"It is widely regarded by Bostonians as an ugly building.[1]" I didn't remove this outrageous statement, supported by a single article. Later, it is noted, that it is considered one of the most significant buildings in American architectural history. I was born in the metropolitan area, and used to live in Boston. I never met a single individual who didn't like the design. For me, it was one of the few buildings in the city that gave me a sense of pride when I walked by it. Given it is one of the most significant designs in architectural history, why is this page rated "low priority"? Who wrote this page - one of Mumbles' intellectual peers? Don't ask me to edit it - this page requires a degreed Architect or Architectural Historian. Sbrundle (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)sbrundle

Last edited at 02:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boston City Hall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060608193714/http://www.waltlockley.com/boston%20city%20hall/bostoncityhall.htm to http://www.waltlockley.com/boston%20city%20hall/bostoncityhall.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060302205059/http://www.bostonphoenix.com:80/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/02229143.htm to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/02229143.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boston City Hall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217071702/http://info.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek07/0413/0413n_polls.cfm to http://info.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek07/0413/0413n_polls.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060302205059/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/02229143.htm to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/02229143.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Help in adding quote box

I tried to add a positive quote to balance the negative one in the Reception section. See the edit history. But I couldn't get the positive one to appear near the top of that section. Can someone tell me what I did wrong?

NewtonCourt (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead image for the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The ground level photo will be the lead image. ↠Pine (✉) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Which of these images should be the lead image for the article?

• 
  Ground level front facade
• 
  Ariel view

--Pine (✉) 00:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ariel view I think that this provides better context for the reader regarding the building's surroundings, and it provides a view of the inner courtyard. --Pine (✉) 00:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  I am pinging User:Beyond My Ken to request the user's participation in this discussion. --Pine (✉) 00:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• The ground level front view which gives a much better sense of the Brutalism of the building. The aerial image is useful, and definitely should appear in the article, but it is not the image which gives the best representation of the building, since extremely few people will ever see it from that vantage point. For these reasons it is not the best image for the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Ground-level: No doubt the perspective that the architect intended the building to be viewed; it's the view people are most likely to see and therefore the most representative image for the article; and IMO it's just a better picture.Glendoremus (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Ground-level: Agree with the points put forward by BMK and Glendoremus. The surroundings and inner courtyard are less important than accurately portraying what the building itself actually looks like. I also think the overview from 1973 currently in the gallery is better in this regard than the more recent (2019) aerial picture; it is the only photo in the article that does a good job of conveying what City Hall Plaza looks like. --JBL (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that the 1973 aerial view gives a good sense of the plaza, but I think there's room for both it and the 2019 aerial, which shows that there's a courtyard (which I didn't even know existed). Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sure: I think both are fine in the gallery. I just mean that the 2019 photo wouldn't even be my 1st choice for the lead image among aerial photos in the article. --JBL (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.