Imagine how nice it would look like if it was powerwashed!

I get this.

I've never liked Brutalist architecture. It's too big and imposing and, well, brutal, as in punishingly hard or uncomfortable. But, the lighting is softening it's image a bit,...

Nah, it's still an ugly building. Sorry, I tried.

Is there any truth that they used Legos to prototype the design?

Umass Boston's original host of awful buildings definitely belongs in the running. They also decided to fuck with thousands of people per day by building the main library stairs on a slant, so when going up your right leg has to step further than your left, and vice-versa on the way down.

It's probably apocryphal, but I heard that the campus was designed to limit the ability of students to assemble/demonstrate in response to 60s activisim.

Isn't UMass Dartmouth the brutalist one?

I like a building that's sharp enough to shave with.

Oh, totally agreed!

Yea I agree with that. It's just the characterization of "destinations" as being undesirable that was weirding me out. I'm a town planner and we talk all the time about strategies to make commercial/civic districts into more appealing destinations. That's a desirable trait! Nothing precludes people from living in areas like that too though

Why would 5 over 1 construction age terribly?

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but it's not true that destinations have to be non-residential. The North End is a destination and a neighborhood: people live above all those restaurants. The idea that commercial and residential need to be cleanly separated is weird modern one. People lived above businesses for hundreds of years before mid-1900s zoning laws made it largely illegal to build like that in the US.

All that's to say: another neighborhood of four-story townhouses with shops & restaurants on the first floor would be amazing to have in downtown.

Today is Ghana's independence day

personally i love this building and the interior is awesome too

God thank you!! Do people seriously think that builders in past eras were some kind of weird altruistic anomalies who opted for good design over profits? If older buildings are "good architecture", it's because the builders of the past backed into it while pursuing profit and it's because our tastes have been weened on older designs. The fan-favorite "cape house" was designed by Royal Barry Wills not because it looked nice, but because it was the most efficient design that could be pumped out in mass quantities. Now we view it as the quintessential quaint single family home. Who's to say we wont feel the same way in 70-100 years about the 5:1s?

I mean it kind of looks cool in this picture, but it's almost impossible to clean the exterior of this kind of building. So while it probably looked pretty cool the day it was built, over time the exterior has not aged well and up close it looks like shit. Interior is brutal too (and not in a good way).

I think there's plans to spruce up the plaza with trees etc., which will probably help.

Weird take... Why do people need to live there? What's wrong with an area being a destination? Are you saying that every inch of a city needs to be some kind of "neighborhood" where people live? I don't get your point at all. It's nonsensical. Cities need civic and commercial districts just as much as they need residential ones. City hall could be a better destination if, for example, the concrete plaza was replaced with more interesting commercial development or open space, but to criticize it for being a destination is kinda weird.

Ever since I was a child it has been my single favorite building. It looks fucking sick.

The five and one actually refer to building materials. Wood floors (Type 5) over a concrete base (Type 1). Its a building code thing, but yeah, its usually used as apartment levels over one retail/base level.

Buildings of various heights can be five over ones.

New phone, lucky lighting, and composition inspired by a few beers at the Sam Adams tap room from where I took the photo.

Ugly as shit in a good way.

[removed]

If you read some architecture writing like Christopher Alexander, one of the cool concepts is that architecture is not fixed and changes over time based on the needs of the inhabitants.

I find it cool that the triple deckers are undergoing a second life in many parts of town as people improve them and keep them up, many were turned from three units to two (“Philly style”) to accommodate larger families and more space needs.

We can expect this to happen more and more over time and there’s even some sense that we should build in preparation for change over the life of a building. And a more generic almost malleable style or construction might be just the thing over the long term to be ready for change.

Kinda a cool perspective.

Doesn’t matter. We need to catch up to the tune of approximately 100,000 more new units per year. Every era’s style differs, my 1900 Victorian for example is built like shit and need(ed/s) all kinds of structural improvement. The beams in the basement are literal tree trunks and the rafters are 3/4” boards.

We need to stop glorifying old stuff through rose colored glasses and wishing for more undefinable “character” and start building people homes to live in. Fast.

I refuse to believe this isn’t an oil painting or photoshop. Too pretty. Never seen it in real life. 😂

Agreed. That would look great. And reface the brick garage entrance to match: At least in this photo, it sticks out like a sore thumb.