Boston Confronts the Origins of Its Lousy Architecture

For the first 300-or-so years of its history, Boston built some of the most handsome, historic neighborhoods in the country. Lately, says critic Rachel Slade, it has given in to mediocrity. Mayor Marty Walsh is trying to undo the damage.

2 minute read

June 4, 2015, 10:00 AM PDT

By Josh Stephens @jrstephens310

Richard Cavalleri / Shutterstock

Rachel Slate of Boston Magazine sticks it to her city's architectural community with a savage appraisal of what she describes as dull, derivative architecture, especially among the city's new towers. She notes the irony that the city has some of the best design schools in the world—including Harvard Graduate School of Design and MIT's School of Architecture—and yet does not have the political will to compel developers to take advantage of local talent.

"Our city lacks a consistent language to express its desires. We fumble for the right words because design has so seldom been part of the discussion about development. We don’t have a vocabulary to describe it. And the problems with turning this ugly city into a 21st-century design mecca run far deeper than that: It’ll take more than just the mayor’s vague notion that design matters. The rest of the city needs to get onboard, too."

"Developers from every corner of the globe are salivating over Boston—precisely because this may be the last place in America where you can recycle entire drawing sets and still make serious dough. Newcomers like Sweden-based multinational Skanska and Oregon-based Gerding Edlen are delighted to cater to our bargain-basement design standards—dumb design means near-instant cash. And Skanska is suddenly king of the waterfront: They’re building three blank-faced, forgettable boxes there right now. Some one million square feet made of glass, glue, and drywall."

"Boston deserves a visionary architect who can lead the approval process from the get-go, and empower an independent design board, divorced from the demands of developers and the BRA, to monitor projects as they work through the system. To stimulate vigorous review and prevent nepotism, the new design-review board will need term limits. It should also include architects who don’t work in the city. Finally, we need robust, comprehensive, and innovative planning—in advance of development—to ensure that height and width result in pleasing proportions and energized streetscapes. And then, maybe someday, we won’t have to send our city’s leader to New York to see good design."

Read the full story: Why Is Boston So Ugly?

Friday, May 1, 2015 in Boston Magazine

Architecture Massachusetts Boston Urban Design Boston Redevelopment Authority

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching. Mary G., Urban and Environmental Planner

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching.

Mary G., Urban and Environmental Planner

Get top-rated, practical training for planners

Start Learning

Advertise with us

FREE Course: Walkable City 1: Why Walkability?

After describing his path towards focusing on walkability as the essence of good planning, Jeff Speck marches through his five principal reasons for making more walkable places.