Beautiful or Depressing?

Boston’s Most Controversial Building

By: Mayzie Wusz

Photo by Daniel Garber

Boston’s City Hall was named the fourth ugliest building in the world in 2023. 

Determined to see past the bad press, I decided to look into the building’s history and original design to understand why it ranks so poorly.

Designed by Michael McKinnell and Gerhard Kallmann and completed in 1968, the building has a repetitive, geometric façade made of poured-in-place and precast concrete. Huge coffered modules jut out over the public plaza, resting on massive concrete piers. 

These concrete forms actually serve a functional purpose: the exterior mirrors the three distinct tiers of municipal government inside the building. The lowest section houses public-facing municipal offices, the middle layer of protruding concrete volumes holds the Mayor’s Office and the City Council chambers, and surmounting the entire structure, a top-heavy, grid-like cantilever contains the administrative offices.

The logic behind the design dates back to the post-World War II era. Governments needed durable and cost-efficient public reconstruction, so architects used the inexpensive, raw, unclad poured concrete for the facade. This practical shift is how Brutalism—derived from the French béton brut, or “raw concrete,”— was born. 

The style also carried an important ideological ambition. Elements that are usually hidden, like stairs, structural supports and divisions between offices, were left exposed. Accompanied by a simple palette of concrete, steel and glass, this openness was meant to represent transparency. The exposure symbolized a democratic ideal that civic institutions had nothing to hide.

The problems with the Hall arise when the Brutalist ideals don’t effectively translate into a positive public experience. Many visitors see the raw, monolithic construction as cold and authoritarian. The Harvard Crimson expressed a sentiment shared by many locals: “Its austerity and lack of connection to the cultural history of the city fail to truly represent Boston, as a City Hall ideally would.” Historical gathering spaces like Faneuil Hall, the Old State House, and the Old South Meeting House rely on red brick and modest human scale to create welcoming gathering points. The Hall creates a visual disconnect with the city it governs.

Operational issues also obscure its democratic intent. Inside, the massive spatial layout can feel disorienting. Maintenance challenges linger as well; The Daily Free Press reported on long-term escalator outages that present physical barriers for seniors and visitors with disabilities. 

Despite public frustration, the building and its style have always had passionate defenders among architectural historians and preservationists. In their 2015 book “Heroic”, authors Mark Pasnik, Michael Kubo, and Chris Grimley focused on Boston’s unique density of concrete architecture, arguing that the term “Brutalist” had become a loaded shorthand for ugly, oppressive design. They advocated for “Heroic” instead, a word choice intended to shift perception away from the negative associations of Brutalism and focus on the ambitions of the era.

Years of effort by historians ultimately led to official recognition. In December 2024, after decades of demolition threats, Mayor Michelle Wu and the Boston Landmarks Commission granted the building local landmark status.

Effort has also shifted toward considering how the site could more effectively benefit the public. Under Mayor Michelle Wu, the city completed a massive renovation of the surrounding seven-acre City Hall Plaza. The update introduced 250 new trees, accessible pathways, social seating and a dedicated children’s play area. 

Next time you take the T to Government Center, I recommend you step out onto the plaza and decide for yourself: beautiful or depressing?