Ahh, Boston: the city of my great defeat. If you read the blog post from about a year ago, I made a quick reference to what was maybe one of the worst nights of my entire life. I’m not going to tell the entire story, but I learned a few important life lessons:1. NEVER challenge someone to a Vodka Drinking Contest without establishing a finishing line.
2. A quick way to convince someone you are drunk is insisting that “dammit, you (I) a sro freickin shober, you (I) could dude their taxhes.”
3. When you wake up, covered in bruises, smelling like a gallery of disaster, wedged between a wall and a nightstand, it’s just best to assume that your friend hates you.
4. Buy them an apology gift, they will have peed on a public building because of you.
5. A baby shower is a rough place to get through a hang-over.
But like George Washington at Fort Necessity, I was destined to return to Boston and recover myself at the setting of my great naiive failure. Thus was the case here. When Johenwarter said Boston, I said "Yes" when she said that The Host was in, I said "ASAP". Traveling with intellegent people is the best thing in the world.
So since last time we covered Copely Place, with its Cerberus of Architecture (Hancock Place, Boston Public Library, Trinity Church) let’s try broadening our horizons. Shall we say CHRONOLOGICALLY?
Paul Revere House (1680)
So while called the “Paul Revere House” (and yes it was owned by that dude referenced in that poem about that thing, you know, the resolution or something like that) the house was about 20 years old before Paul Revere moved in. The PR House was originally built in 1680 as part of a larger three-house complex, while the other buildings burned down, this house stood up. (And that’s what you’ll get my’ boy, the strongest house in all these aisles) While not particularly grand or awe inspiring, it is probably the best example we have of what homes would have looked like in that day and age.
For me, the most interesting part was the evolution of the parts. Take the materials; you can see that they were just as much subject to fad as houses are now. Structure exposed and then covered only to be exposed again. Older and more utilitarian elements covered up by the more expensive. While I sincerely doubt anything major will be done to the structure now (Preservation Society and all that) for about 200 years this building was a work-in-progress.
P.S. Nice fire place.
Old North Church (1723)
Speaking of Paul Revere, let’s move on to the climatic setting of Longfellow’s poem. That is the Old North Church. The Church dominates the local area with the curt self-importance of a kid-knapped king. Clearly it was intended to be the tallest building in Boston for all eternity, but sir, architects will be having none of that. Most of the structure is Christopher Wren-esque enlightenment dynamism rolled up in an all-American package. All white interiors, tall windows, exposed brick exterior. It’s sturdy, tough, minimal and self-righteous; the kind of place John Adams would like.
If you ever visit, make sure to look at the wooden angel statues. The figures were a gift to the parish from a well meaning, if not entirely moral, parishioner who also happened to be a privateer.
Faneuil Hall (1740) & Massachusetts State Hall (1798)
These two are being rolled together because they have a common factor: That is Charles Bulfinch (for a love letter to him, http://toscaleornottoscale.blogspot.com/2010/04/dear-insert-name-here-william-levitt.html ). Faneuil Hall was originally designed to be akin to an English market, but in 1800 it was vastly expanded by Chucky B. around 1800.
Faneuil Hall is interesting because its plan is so basic it can serve multi purposes, essentially it is a very well designed warehouse with a kickin’ grasshopper weather vane.
Charles got to show his real chops at the Massachusetts State Hall. Mostly he interpreted ideas from the ongoing English Enlightenment vs. Romanticism battle that to this day silently rages on in places like Derbyshire. However, unlike in the European style, the American interpretation was done in wood and brick instead of sandstone and marble. So it’s the same speech, except with an accent.
The Gibson House (1859-60)
After a great fire consumed much of the city of Boston, part of the Mud Flaps was filled in with the wreckage so that the area could be made suitable for housing; this area became “Back Bay”. Soon after its completion, this dumping ground became one of the most sought after neighborhoods in Boston. Why? Robber Barons/Captains of Industry were a little tired of the austere and modest homes of their forbearers and wanted something a little more sophisticated, a little more showy, a little more…French. Thus the Brownstone Victorian houses of Back Bay came into vogue. Walking around a place like this you can see how one might say “Ahh, you mean of the Boston Gambles?” A good example of this is The Gibson House. As one of the earlier houses in the ‘hood, the Gibson house has the ability to say “they did it before it was cool” which with 1860’s hipsters is like currency. The textiles, furniture arrangement, kitchen, pantry, etc. are all pretty close to the original layout from150 years ago. It’s extraordinary to think that while this house in all its wrappings and layers was enveloping itself, there was the great Western wilderness.
Boston City Hall (1969)
The easiest and most incorrect thing to say is “then nothing happened for 100 years”, but as that time period is out of the scope of this Blogpost, let’s move on to Boston City Hall. To date, one of the most controversial buildings in Boston, this structure has been deemed either one of the ugliest and/or most brilliant. Dominating the huge plaza, City Hall feels like an 8bit video-game background, with a brutalist theme. Having grown up in Washington D.C., I have a nostalgic admiration for frank solid Government building, and this one in particular reminds me of the FBI head quarters in DC. In the city of perpetual display that is the district, something like this would be right at home, because it carries with it a certain kind of aesthetic power. But here in Boston, it’s a fish out of water. Boston City Hall is not only aesthetically different from everything around it; it makes no attempt to harmonize with the surroundings in any way. The building is eye catching, certainly, but does the setting make it ugly as well? It seems more and more that is a matter of opinion.
The New ICA building (2006)
I was really prepared not to like this building, from the pictures I had seen of it, it looked like a lazy, bulky, dull-colored Lego-house run amok. However, once inside I realized what the material was doing. Like the shade on a flash bulb, the lightness of the material makes the art inside pop which makes the colors brighter and the materials contrast one another to a greater depth. Unlike a Ghery design for a museum, this architecture does not seek to rival the art it houses, but to enhance it. The layout is something akin to, if not a direct reference to FLW’s the Guggenheim. Elevator up, work your way down.
Personally, I have never liked this idea of progression through a museum with a set agenda. In small museum, I can see why it’s necessary, but still, it seems a little too choreographed. (More like its CHORE-ographed, amiright?! *goes for high-5*)
It’s important to note that the architects who designed the new ICA building (Diller Scofidio + Renfro) also designed the Blur building at Expo .02 in Yverdon, one of the best examples of surreal phenomenology in the world.
However, to play Devil’s advocate, Phillip Nobel called this building a “botched box”. What do YOU think?
So there you have it, a little less than 350 years of Architecture in the frigid north all wrapped up in a tight little package.
There were many other buildings we visited that will be touched on later.
Special Thanks to the friend who hosted us in Boston, why don't we call him Thoreauffman.
No comments:
Post a Comment