[light_hue_1]

> In the 50 years since, architects worldwide have declared Kallmann and McKinnell’s City Hall one of the greatest buildings of the 20th century

I despise architecture as a field. This is widely reviled building. I work in a similar building that is extremely user hostile but beloved by architects; every single day, multiple times per day, we run into stupid limitations of the building. And it's particularly nasty for people with disabilities.

In engineering we care so much about the end user experience. In everything from building fridges, to roads, to HVAC systems, etc.

That these two people see this as a work of art, instead of a practical thing that humans need to interface with, and that the artistic nature of the building is more important than the people, is incredibly selfish.

Selfish and shameful.

[bombcar]

Architects design what their clients want, and their clients want "a bold statement" because that looks good on the planning documents and photographs.

If you want a well-designed building that works for the users, you can find architects to design that. It just won't be as well known because it'll work and do what it needs to do without pissing people off.

[fatnoah]

> That these two people see this as a work of art, instead of a practical thing that humans need to interface with

As a Boston resident that has had to conduct business at City Hall many times, I couldn't agree with this more. The lower level interior spaces are dark and somehow cavernous and confining at the same time, while the upstairs spaces are more of a warren of rooms and hallways. Nothing about walking in the front door makes you feel welcomed into the space. Either the actual use of the building was totally disregarded in its design, our our standards for how we expect to interact with buildings have dramatically changed since its construction.