Well.. first start by defining "beautiful", we're waiting. Also, it's a 50 year old structure.. we stopped building "nice" things after WW2 mostly because costs were astronomical and new materials and engineering opened up all kinds of avenues for more modern construction.
I've spent decent amount of time in and around Boston City Hall, the biggest problem with the building are:
1. The plaza in front of it is a damn wasteland. So much could be improved by building over the plaza and reestablishing the street grid here properly.
2. The Congress Street side facing Faneuil Hall is a concrete wall and a garage entrance. You probably can't fix the garage problem easily but the concrete wall with a proper structural engineer could probably reopened up.. of course, it would be expensive.
3. The interior while very interesting architecturally is really quite... I dunno, soul sucking. I kind of love the aesthetic inside but only from a "wow this looks cool" perspective.
Yes, those are two buildings people find beautiful. You can find lots more like it if you keep turning the dial all the way to "form" and away from "function".
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.
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.
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.
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.
If architectural beauty is subjective, that’s an even stronger argument for building stuff that broad majorities find pleasing instead of stuff designed by architects who write manifestos about how much they hate beauty.
1. They remodeled City Hall Plaza in 2022 [1], unfortunately not a street grid, but less of a cold wasteland than before.
2. Agreed regarding the Congress St side, though the added playground from [1] adds some interest to that side (before the solid brick wall part).
3. Agreed with the interior. Something like just changing the flooring or interesting lighting would make it feel less cold. The floor is either brick (I assume an homage to Boston's brick) or terracotta tile. As a very rare visitor inside, it's kinda fun to see how the decor/lighting/infrastructure works with all concrete (hanging things from the ceiling instead of nailing to a wall, for example)
Aware of the remodel and it is indeed an improvement in nice weather months but it's still pretty lacking and absolutely awful Nov to April which is.. close to half a year.
I sort of agree. On the other hand, the outside on a waterfront in a northern US city is probably not going to be great for a good chunk of the year in any case.
There are nice parks in the area but they're not exactly delightful in the cold weather months either.
I mostly agree. The backside is just hideous and the brickyard is unnecessarily a wasteland for most of the year. Boston's climate doesn't help but, certainly at least in the warmer months, there could be more of a welcoming commercial presence there like there is outdoors on the other side of City Hall around Quincy Market.
The renovation does help somewhat; I agree with other comments. Rarely down that way any longer. Used to work a few blocks from there.
> The interior while very interesting architecturally is really quite... I dunno, soul sucking. I kind of love the aesthetic inside but only from a "wow this looks cool" perspective.
Totally agree with this. I enjoy walking through the interior and I like the building overall but I would hate working there.
A friend worked there for years, she said different offices would either be far too hot or else freezing on the same day. There was never a comfortable room.
If the interior offices were kept clean and tidy, I can see how it could be kind of interesting in a retro-futuristic way. But given that these are government offices, they're often full of stacked cardboard boxes of files and other mess that ruins the look. At least the building doesn't have drop ceilings (at least as far as I recall.)
Older structures cost more because they lasted longer and were more maintainable. Growth was given priority over tradition - and we've had to deal with the tradeoffs.
The reason this stuff comes up is because many folks are forced to use a language for commercial reasons due to job. It's not as simple as just fscking off to use something else you desire. Good luck selling that rewrite.
Use something that solves 1000 use cases of which yours is one. Some would say that's simplicity while others would say that's complexity. When it breaks do you know why? Can you fix it properly or are just layering band-aid on a bigger problem inside the component.
Or... build something that solves exactly your use-case but probably doesn't handle the other 1000 use-cases and needs to be put through trial-by-fire to fix all the little edge-cases you forgot about?
Early in my career I opted for #1 but nowadays I generally reach for #2 and really try to nail the core problem I'm tackling and work around the gotchas I encounter.
While not over they have a tough battle ahead. This was a case brought by the Trump Admin and carried on under Biden. I don't see a conservative Federal judge gutting this ruling any more than I do a liberal one.
That's roughly what I assumed about the state/federal split, although hedging our bets on federal bureaucracy's long-term sanity certainly seems... risky, lol. Especially now.
Do you have evidence of that? I mean, the article says they got a concession, if you mean it this way: the bill was changed to meet their needs. That's how democracy is supposed to work.
> Bills are supposed to be modified to meet the demands of interest groups?
Yes! Who else's interests should they serve? I know interest groups are demonized - by powerful people who want to grab power unimpeded, but those powerful people are really tiny (but wealthy!) interests groups themselves.
Basically, interest groups represent the interests of a group of citizens. The senators can't know nearly everything themselves; they must ask people on the ground or even with the best intentions they will clumsily hurt lots of people. Who else in the population should representatives listen to? They should listen to individuals but that only represents one person.
Think of veterans groups. How does the senator understand how a bill would affect veterans? Asking one veteran helps, but not a lot. Asking someone whose career involves speaking to veterans and veterans groups nationwide for years, knows tens of thousands of them, knows their concerns inside and out, and whom they pay to represent their interests in Washington - that seems like a good step. It's not everything, but it seems really valuable.
With any interest group, there is a legitimacy question. I could start the Atlantic Deep-Sea Fishing group and claim to represent such people, but I don't know a thing about them. The legitimacy question is solved by seeing who has influence - whose voice do LGBTQ or veterans or deep-sea Atlantic fisherpeople listen to? Who do they show up for? That's the person they respect and the person with influence.
> Why does this particular interest group get to decide the fate of a bill and not, for instance some group that you and I create?
On a bill with a close support margin, lots of groups have influence and lots had influence here. Our group could too, if we represented enough people. That's a good thing. Our government should carefull craft bills to meet everyone's interests - that's by design.
> With any interest group, there is a legitimacy question. I could start the Atlantic Deep-Sea Fishing group and claim to represent such people, but I don't know a thing about them. The legitimacy question is solved by seeing who has influence - whose voice do LGBTQ or veterans or deep-sea Atlantic fisherpeople listen to? Who do they show up for? That's the person they respect and the person with influence.
Interest groups should pick people that the people show up for? That's what elections are for!
You've basically recreated the legislature, except you've removed the voting and the supposed accountability and transparency. You've added a layer of shadowy groups in between the people and their representatives.
> The senator can't talk to millions of people individually.
Nobody is talking to millions of people individually. Least of all the lobbying groups that you're defending. But whatever critical role you feel they're playing, there's no reason why a senator and their staff can't do the same. It's literally their job. If you want to say they need more resources to do it, then I'd agree with you, sure.
> The legislature is not the be-all and end-all of democracy. It's part of the daily mechanism; so are citizens.
The lobbying groups we're talking about here are NOT talking to citizens. They aren't made up of citizens. They aren't democratic in any way. Most citizens aren't even aware that they exist.
If I go to my local LGTBTQ hangout and ask around, do you think they're all going to be in support of the bill that this LGBTQ group has now signed off on? Of course not! This group has nothing to do with them other than exploiting their cause to shake down politicians.
> But whatever critical role you feel they're playing, there's no reason why a senator and their staff can't do the same.
Each senator is going to replicate the work of every interest group in the nation? It's just not possible.
> The lobbying groups we're talking about here are NOT talking to citizens. They aren't made up of citizens. They aren't democratic in any way. Most citizens aren't even aware that they exist.
Which groups do you mean? LGBTQ groups, the ones I'm aware of (I have limited knowledge), are certainly made of citizens and talk to them.
> do you think they're all going to be in support of the bill that this LGBTQ group has now signed off on?
All of them? Nothing can be approved of by everyone. You need another standard.
> This group has nothing to do with them other than exploiting their cause to shake down politicians.
That's just an assumption. You have shown us nothing to support it. Show us some evidence.
They're probably not an LLC but some other kind of entity. Their HQ is probably in DC. The payoff probably comes in some form other than a bag full of cash.
Other than that it's as absurd as you make it sound. Why does a group no one knows about have any say in what happens in the senate?
> Why does a group no one knows about have any say in what happens in the senate?
This is a great question. All we know about them is that the LGBTQ Group may or may not be an LLC, they have a physical headquarters in DC, and accept money (maybe cash or crypto?) in exchange for either making or not making laws. This is not a fabrication because on Facebook my uncl
> The federal bureaucracy is often marginally more sane than the state ones because the politics are less localized.
The feds are much more sane on LGBTQ issues, where some states are now maximize oppression. If Trump wins, however, he has a detailed plan to replace functionaries with political activists loyal to him. In that case, at least some states could be safe using the original idea.
People show up for their salary, they work hard for their bonus. The core part of the revenue is taken for granted as they focus on developing new parts, specifically the ads part. It allows for an up-and-coming exec to say "I made X for Microsoft, you should pay me Y% of X". So even though it would only account for a small % of total revenue it would dominate the thinking. It's how ideas such as ad supported Windows happen despite the long term deterius effect that would have on the core business.
I use commit history a little bit more than that, but mostly agree. I had another dev recently give me crap about the mess of "WIP" commits on a feature branch because they review by clicking through the commits and my commits don't tell much of a useful story other than I apparently did some shit and eventually it all worked.
That said, I've also come to the conclusion there's basically two classes of Git users: people who really understand Git and use it fully, and those of us who basically use it as a place to shove source code before quitting for the night.
I mean if you don't look at the thing, on paper it's fantastic. When you get to the looks - well, let's just say I canceled my order last year because I couldn't imagine myself driving it (in addition to the fact that it's so late).
Sure engineering problems may be solved, but personally I don't give Mr. musk credit that he really cares enough if the thing looks "cool" and can be appropriately hyped.
FTA: "Braking performance was one of the worst areas of the report. Tesla’s engineers were aiming for a score of 7, or “fair,” on the Society of Automotive Engineers rating scale, but the alpha version achieved only a 4, or “poor” rating. According to the report, in January 2022, the Cybertruck’s brake pedal pressure pad was still under design, and so the alpha experienced “excessive pedal travel and inconsistent stop,” and “excessive pitch during friction braking,” braking during turning issues, as well as power braking instability."
As someone who will probably see a lot of these on the road near me, it's kind of terrifying.
The attention issue is the opposite of a problem for a lot of people, though. Especially people who drive large trucks. So I think there's a market there.
I felt that way about Model 3 because it was just too different. I couldn't get past the lack of a grill. Now I got one sitting in the garage. It grows on you after a while.
The F-150 is the top selling vehicle in the US. Not car, top vehicle. The X and Hummer aren't anywhere near the same level of sales.
The F-150 EV has orders through next year, and has a long history and branding behind it. Now Ford has some issues with Labor that are going to impact production, but I have little doubt the EV Fords will do well.
IMO the Cybertruck is going to end the F150's dominance if it lives up to its expectations. You'll see almost none for the first year, some in two years, and way too many in year three.
The cybertruck was announced in a different world, there’s no longevity to the novelty of something so “weird”. The high-like feeling of “oh my god that’s so weird I need one” eventually wears off and Tesla’s half-decade delays have let the moment slip through their fingers long ago.
The electric F150 and the Rivian are already delivering on the promise of a great electric truck. All the cybertruck has going for it now is novelty and with Musk’s cultural standing worsening day by day, it’s hard to imagine which ordinary people are going to ever buy the thing.
I think there’s a very very low chance. I live in Utah and have land in Wyoming. I own the hybrid (powerboost) F150 and use it for its intended purposes constantly. I am in southern Utah and northern Wyoming all the time. There is simply zero infrastructure for electric vehicles in the areas I frequent. I get 600 miles per tank and there are gas stations everywhere, zero charging stations. Plus people hate Elon and the cybertruck is the ugliest car ever made.
I don’t think so. Been living in Seattle for almost 8 years, spent a lot of time in CA and Oregon as well. The only time I ever heard word “petrol” was in british media.
I'm in Alberta, aka North Montana. Can confirm Diesel is big here, tho there is arguably a practical need.
There is some anecdotal story about how Chevy had a batch of diesel Colorado trucks and they sold out couple hours hour they made them available online.
I think it looks fantastic. It's the only car that doesn't look like every other car. I just don't want a ute, I want that exterior design on a Model Y layout.
My lifetime mpg is just about 20 on the dot. It’s a 30.6 gallon tank. Keep in mind I’m driving through canyons and mountain passes and just about maxing out my payload over half the time I drive. It’s incredible.
Most people buying them don't buy it for work and maybe use it to move a couch once a year. So I guess shitty EV pickup from overhyped brand might sell there...
Well.. first start by defining "beautiful", we're waiting. Also, it's a 50 year old structure.. we stopped building "nice" things after WW2 mostly because costs were astronomical and new materials and engineering opened up all kinds of avenues for more modern construction.
I've spent decent amount of time in and around Boston City Hall, the biggest problem with the building are:
1. The plaza in front of it is a damn wasteland. So much could be improved by building over the plaza and reestablishing the street grid here properly.
2. The Congress Street side facing Faneuil Hall is a concrete wall and a garage entrance. You probably can't fix the garage problem easily but the concrete wall with a proper structural engineer could probably reopened up.. of course, it would be expensive.
3. The interior while very interesting architecturally is really quite... I dunno, soul sucking. I kind of love the aesthetic inside but only from a "wow this looks cool" perspective.