One key difference is the scale. You can think of a billboard as really bad graffiti that’s shoved in your face to manipulate you. Graffiti is ugly too (not to be confused with urban art) and should always be removed.
Generating money for the government isn’t something to be concerned with in this context, and most likely a billboard doesn’t generate enough money for the government versus the drain it has on the public sphere. (I’d be shocked to find it worthwhile).
I do think we need architectural standards and thankfully the federal government is looking to implement Greco-Roman architecture as mandatory for federal buildings [1]. Suburban houses for example are really awful architecture and continued research shows this [2]. Tall skyscrapers produce a fight or flight response.
Beauty isn’t in the eye of the beholder. We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty. The Notre Dame Cathedral is objectively beautiful (this also answers your question about what is not an eyesore) and Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building. You can have an opinion that differs from this but it’s like having an opinion that gravity doesn’t exist. Likewise broad scale highway billboards meant to try and sell you something promote private profit at the public expense and transform otherwise beautiful landscapes into something that is jarring and disfigured.
Neoclassicism is much more than “Greco-Roman architecture” (whatever that even means..) (Hagia-Sophia?).
Greek and Roman public buildings were pretty awful in almost every objective measure compared to any of the best (or even better than average) buildings designed in the 19th/20th century.
Unfortunately the person who wrote that document seems to have a very poor understanding of both architecture and history..
> Notre Dame Cathedral is objectively beautiful (this also answers your question about what is not an eyesore) and Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building
Let say so.. but even then you must realize that these buildings serve extremely different purposes? Buildings have other purposes besides just looking good (accounts to some subjective definition of that).
It's a pretty common term to describe this style of architecture. Maybe it's not the preferred one but it has good explanatory power (like Greek and Roman) that people understand.
> Let say so.. but even then you must realize that these buildings serve extremely different purposes?
Sure, but that would provide explanatory power for the Notre Dame Cathedral and it's function, but wouldn't provide explanatory power for the design of Boston City Hall. If you redesigned Notre Dame Cathedral in brutalist style architecture, it would fail in its purpose. Whereas if you designed Boston City Hall in French Gothic style (or whatever you wanted to call it) it would just be a very nice looking office building. [1]
> Maybe it's not the preferred one but it has good explanatory power
I don’t think so. Neoclassicism or classicism (which is what I assume these people might be thinking about) were influenced by Greek and Roman architecture to some degree but in no way is the US Capitol for instance is an example of Greeco-Roman architecture.
> Saint-Quentin, Aisne
It’s also tiny and not space efficient. You would have to scale up a building like that to monstrous level to fit 10000+ employees inside and I’m sure it wouldn’t look good or be very conformable to work in.
I’m not exactly defending the Boston City (though I also don’t think it’s the ugliest public building in the world) but in general sacrificing function for form is not exactly the best approach when we’re talking about buildings constructed using public funds.
> redesigned Notre Dame Cathedral in brutalist style architecture, it would fail in its purpose.
To be fair the purpose of the Notre Dame Cathedral no longer exists, or rather has changed dramatically (from a socio-political centre of power to a primarily tourist attraction)
That's besides the point - it's just an example, and, as far as I know still used. You can visit Europe, think Edinburgh or something, and see lots of really good looking buildings that are used for modern day purposes quite well without needing to be torn down and converted into some other bland architecture.
> You would have to scale up a building like that to monstrous level to fit 10000+ employees inside and I’m sure it wouldn’t look good or be very conformable to work in.
Or maybe 10,000+ people shouldn't work inside of the same building? Idk. But I see no reason a building can't be, say, "modern" on the inside and look good on the outside. I'm also unsure why we seem to need to solve for the specific use case of "10,000+ people" and use that as the guideline for architectural decisions - don't we just use big box skyscrapers for that? Though even some of those (older ones) look quite nice. I think I'm more on the side of buy-once cry-once here.
> but in general sacrificing function for form is not exactly the best approach when we’re talking about buildings constructed using public funds.
I think this is one of the really confusing points here. Boston City Hall did sacrifice function for form. It's not just how the building looks on the outside but how it functions in its built environment. For Boston City Hall the answer is "not really". For Notre Dame even solely as a tourist attraction it is more functional on a square foot basis than Boston City Hall is. Granted, it's hard to directly compare both of these buildings so I'd be open to other discussions about that.
I'm also not sure why you are asserting that there is a trade off we need to make. Ugly buildings get torn down. Probably cost more over the long run just for that. Regarding public funds, we should take pride in our country and our civilization. One of the most visible ways to do that is through architecture and by building places that people care about. You can see this reflected in tech offices which focus on "good design".
> To be fair the purpose of the Notre Dame Cathedral no longer exists
Sure that's fair though it certainly got a hell of a good run in the original purpose. But that it eventually "retired" to a tourist attraction speaks to the power of the architecture. Nobody in the world is visiting Boston to take pictures in front of Boston City Hall. It'll "retire" to the demolition list.
Going back to your comment about money, I bet Notre Dame has made a lot more money for Paris than Boston City Hall has made for Boston. (Acknowledging that these are hard to compare and open to comparing different buildings)
You see, you just said that "We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty" and "Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building" (and holy shit, it really is awful) in the same paragraph! Don't you see the contradiction?
In another comment here, someone said, "I'm not arguing for or against that - I'm just stating a fact (...) I find it extremely ugly."
Hey, "I find it extremely ugly" IS arguing against! There is the contradiction again.
But you see, people are all apologetic because they are afraid of criticizing. The truth of the matter is that tagging, graffiti, murals or whatever you want to call these abominations are made by very poor youngsters who could have access to real art if they wanted (museums, libraries, internet), but they don't because they are brought up in a ghetto culture that basically forbids them from even getting interested in traditional art. And a lot of people cower when they criticize it (or never criticize it at all) because criticizing that garbage is considered politically incorrect. So that so-called "art" is only tolerated thanks to fear of reprisal and should be labeled "fascist art" because that's what it is.
Unpopular opinion, but Boston City Hall is an objectively VERY beautiful building.
Brutalism is absolutely an acquired taste, but it is, by all measures, an objective style that can be measured against, in the same way classical or say, Spanish Mission architecture style is. In fact, some would even go so far as to argue that most Victorian/neo-classical architecture is just a chintzy facade with no real architectural rules, akin to a Vegas casino or a Cheesecake Factory (I wouldn’t, but some would).
But as far as Boston City Hall being “objectively” ugly— that’s an objectively wrong statement. I can understand the vast majority might unfortunately say they personally find it ugly, but that is subjective.
I have the same views on e.g. Dallas City Hall too, which I think is another stunning example of a beautiful building many people hate.
Saying a pile of trash covered in mold and feces is objectively ugly— I’d agree there. Barring that, though, I’m of the strong opinion that most anything expressive, including graffiti, is “art”. Your response to whether you find it beautiful or not is your own, but that does not make it art or not.
Boston City Hall isn't just awful because of the deranged architecture (which admittedly is a consistently abusive architectural style), it's awful because it's also a place that nobody wants to be because of the poor design of the plaza (necessitated by the bad design of the building). So it fails not just in terms of design, but in terms of harmony with the city and the people.
I will definitely give the building credit. It's an exemplary expression of brutalist architecture and it'll be in architecture textbooks forever. If you had to design the peak brutalist building that included how it affected the built environment, this would be it.
The style is objectively bad in the same way that if you say that Starry Night is a bad painting or that David is an example of bad craftsmanship you're be wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. A good way to separate your opinion (beauty is in the eye of the beholder stuff) is like this. I like Blink 182. It's not great music but I like it. The Beatles or maybe the Rolling Stones could be considered objectively good music. I don't particularly care for either, but I don't have to let what I think get in the way of what's true.
You can do the same thing with Boston City Hall. You can compare Boston City Hall to something like the Notre Dame Cathedral. There's a reason why one is considered a global treasure, and the other is probably the most hated building in America. We can converge on truthy understandings of things we don't have good objective measurements for (yet). You know it when you see it.
What is art or not is not decided by popular vote.
Similar to how film or food critics often differ from the general audience on what makes a good film— art must be studied within the context of itself.
Boston City Hall is a sublime architectural expression of the maxim, “you can’t fight city hall”. It’s an inhuman, authoritarian concrete bunker that makes the citizen feel lower than rat shit. Its highest artistic purpose would be if it were demolished with high explosives to celebrate the Fourth of July.
I completely disagree— walking around inside Boston City Hall, and any well-designed Brutalist building in general, makes you feel like you’re in some sort of natural rock formation.
Brutalism prizes honesty over anything else— the necessary structural elements are the form, and everything else gets out of the way. And that’s why walking through a good Brutalist building often feels refreshing, or like you’re an explorer:
Have you ever walked inside of a natural rock formation? Like a cave or something? They look nothing like that. Those photos look like the inside of a prison.
>> But as far as Boston City Hall being “objectively” ugly— that’s an objectively wrong statement.
>> I can understand the vast majority might unfortunately say they personally find it ugly, but that is subjective.
I have a very hard time reconciling these two (consecutive) statements. If the vast majority of people say they find something to be ugly, I would say that that makes it ugly. Imagine everyone in the world - except you - said "Boston City Hall is ugly." Claiming that it is not ugly, and that everyone's statement is subjective, seems wrong (since you've admitted that it is possible for things to be objectively ugly.)
Brutalism can be "sublime" under the right conditions, but the conditions are few and far between. It's not an aesthetic for everyday, hence many people's issue with it in prominent high traffic civi buildings. Otherwise it's a haunted house. Once in a while, on a moody night... chefs kiss.
No because it's true just not proven. I can't prove to you that doing squats are good for your health as a human being but I know it to be objectively true (specific conditions aside). Medicine strongly suggests that this is the case, but there's no formal proof or tool to measure it at least that I'm aware of. Good architecture roughly follows the same pattern here, but the effects are harder to measure even though the societal repercussions of bad design are profound.
> The truth of the matter is that
Completely agree. I view graffiti as more of an expression of frustration (which is well warranted) than it is art. That's not to say graffiti can't be art or can't be beautiful which is why I called out "urban art" specifically, but it's by far the exception and not the rule.
You're showing up to Hacker News to yell about poor youngsters with "ghetto culture," and then project them as "fascist." Are you really sure about this?
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/dmn/TIM5CMDTIZAKTFO3HKJMXZU6VE.jpg){kind=link}
Generating money for the government isn’t something to be concerned with in this context, and most likely a billboard doesn’t generate enough money for the government versus the drain it has on the public sphere. (I’d be shocked to find it worthwhile).
I do think we need architectural standards and thankfully the federal government is looking to implement Greco-Roman architecture as mandatory for federal buildings [1]. Suburban houses for example are really awful architecture and continued research shows this [2]. Tall skyscrapers produce a fight or flight response.
Beauty isn’t in the eye of the beholder. We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty. The Notre Dame Cathedral is objectively beautiful (this also answers your question about what is not an eyesore) and Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building. You can have an opinion that differs from this but it’s like having an opinion that gravity doesn’t exist. Likewise broad scale highway billboards meant to try and sell you something promote private profit at the public expense and transform otherwise beautiful landscapes into something that is jarring and disfigured.
1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28... [2] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/97810030315...