[oceanplexian]

> Also, it's a 50 year old structure..

I don’t personally see this a good reason at all.

The US had a good run building neoclassical government buildings in the spitting image of the Romans and Greeks, and we already know that when properly done the aesthetic will stand the test of time for thousands of years.

As far as the improved materials argument that’s up for debate too. Will Boston City Hall be standing in 2,000 years? If I could put money on it I’d say it’s more likely to end up in a landfill.

[ocschwar]

It will not. I guarantee it. The vehicle emissions worming into the bare concrete are acidic. The water from rain and from the humid air slowly degrades it. The salt air doesn't help. At some point, sooner than you think, the corrosion will reach the rebars inside the concrete.

All this could be prevented with sacrificial applications of stucco, but brutalist architects insist on keeping the concrete bare. It takes a lot of work to keep a building like that from crumbling under these conditions, and city hall is not loved enough to get the work done.

[rayiner]

I work in the Watergate, and it's in terrible condition after just 60 years. The 1950s post-war mass produced house I grew up in is in better condition. Meanwhile, the Farley Post Office in Manhattan is so gorgeous 110 years later that they built the new Penn Station in it.

[ghaff]

I don't love Brutalism in general but it also just ages pretty poorly. Some of it is about the updating of really crappy interior decor but the renovation of the Boston Public Library brutalist addition really helped a lot--though still, nothing like the original structure.

[blacksmythe]

Sounds like one solution would be to apply a sealant that looks like bare concrete.