The Boston Landmarks Commission has recommended the City Hall’s exterior and interior main lobby space be designated as a landmark in a report released last week.
The move to landmark City Hall, which has landed on lists of the ugliest public buildings for years, and ranked number 4 in the world in a Buildworld analysis in January, started after a public petition was submitted to the commission back in April 2007.
City officials began to prioritize urban renewal in the 1950s, with Boston losing roughly 100,000 people, mainly in middle-class families during the decade, according to the report.
“Not only the architectural significance, which is undeniable, but we also have to think of the moment that this building was built in,” Nicholas Armata, senior preservation planner for the commission told the Herald.
Boston’s Scollay Square, at the time, was flooded with tattoo parlors and burlesque houses, businesses that drove out those families, according to the report. The area would be transformed into Government Center, the epicenter of civic activity in Boston aimed to bring a more professional reputation to the city.
Former Mayor John F. Collins hired planner Edward J. Logue in 1960 to serve as development administrator for the city, with both working together to rebuild Boston. Plans for City Hall began with a design competition that garnered more than 250 submissions from the public.
Construction on the building began in 1963 and was completed in 1968. The design, according to the report, played a significant role in rejuvenating the city and is widely considered to be one of the premier examples of brutalist architecture in Boston.
That brutalist architecture has been the focal point of those who wish to preserve its historical design and the ire of those who wish to see it change.
“When people have these strong opinions about a building, whether it’s good or bad, I really feel that the architecture is doing its job because it’s starting these conversations, and it really solidifies the significance of this building in the city’s history,” Armata said.
The purpose of the landmarking process, according to the report, is to aid in the decision of city officials by providing historical and architectural background along with public comment. Landmarking certain structures, Armata said, is not intended to keep a structure as is with no room for modifications.
“The landmarking status is not designed to freeze this building in place,” he said. “It’s just designed to place a focus on the important elements of the building to allow for change to happen over time.”
The recommendations and the potential landmarking of City Hall, Armata said, would not be indicative of the city or commission wanting to designate certain structures over others.
“This is not a conversation about trying to prioritize certain buildings over another. This is strictly in response to the public’s request to landmark a building that they feel is critical to the culture of Boston.”
An updated City Hall plaza opened last year, officially completing the first phase of a plan to reimagine the imposing building and the area around it. Public voices in favor or opposing the plan, according to officials, will be able to make their voices heard by visiting the Landmarks Commission website along with a public hearing scheduled for Oct. 24.
Armata reiterated the importance of public discussion and how mixed feelings can still spur people’s desire to improve Boston in ways they see the most fitting.
“The building is certainly a controversial issue. Whether or not you love the building, it still evokes these really passionate opinions.”
