Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

SpindriftRascal t1_jb260dc wrote

It’s an abomination. And it isn’t even functional. Spend five minutes inside thinking about efficiency and space utilization and you’ll want to tear it down.

5

Icy-Neck-2422 t1_jb26qmu wrote

It's a nice snap, but the building is still GATTACA fugly.

2

TomBirkenstock t1_jb2856b wrote

Every year at least a dozen condos go up in and around Boston that are so much uglier.

105

TiredPistachio t1_jb289a0 wrote

I do think its possible to say it "looks cool" and also say "its insanely ugly" at the same time. The contrast of the sunlight on that side does look pretty cool.

269

HairWeaveKillers t1_jb2alzu wrote

Some more trees plants or greenery around that area would be nice though

338

Malforus t1_jb2anin wrote

Brutalism is brutalism, it's an ugly style.

That said it ain't the worst brutalism building there is.

7

jricepilaf t1_jb2bnii wrote

Replying to oozforashag (#2,167,929)

Better than what they used to do...

"There is a brick building located at the end of the University of Massachusetts Boston campus facing Squantum. This is the location of the sewer system's pump house, known as the Calf Pasture Pumping Station Complex, which was named for the marshy area known as the Dorchester Calf Pasture at that time. Initially, this area was a long narrow land-filled peninsula but has been subsequently expanded many times to accommodate development.

Exiting the tunnel, the sewage was pumped through Squantum Neck and reached holding tanks on Moon Island through another conduit placed under the embankment from Squantum to Moon Island. The sand and gravel needed to complete this project was stripped from Half Moon Island, a crescent-shaped island that was located near the mouth of Black's Creek in Quincy Bay. Four huge cut-granite storage tanks with a 50-million-US-gallon (190,000 m3) capacity were built by the Cape Ann Granite Company to handle the sewage. These vats were formed by digging out the northern section of the hill and cementing and bricking the sides of the excavation. This reservoir was divided into four compartments, each with inlets and four outlets. The tanks were 900 by 150 feet (46 m) and 17 feet (5.2 m) deep. The bottoms were seven feet thick and were grooved to ease the removal of sludge. At one end was a gatehouse. The tank outlets were connected with a power pump and a turbine that was used to open the gates of the outflow pipe. The 12-foot (3.7 m) diameter outflow conduit extended 600 feet (180 m) into the harbor from the northern end of Moon Island. The Sewage Plant was completed in 1884 at a cost of $6-million.

The original operating plan was to collect the raw sewage in the four storage tanks during times of high water and, then, two hours after the start of ebb tide, the sewage would be discharged into the harbor. This allowed approximately four hours until slack water. The total outflow time was three to four hours per cycle or six to eight hours per 24-hour period. Boston Harbor normally has two tide and current cycles each day. The expectation was that the effluent would flow between Long and Rainsford Islands, through a small gut between Gallops and Georges Island, then out through Black Rock Channel and Nantasket Roads.

As time passed, the population of Boston expanded and additional communities were added to the system. The discharge of sewage at Moon Island required longer and longer outflow periods. The situation worsened until the incoming tides distributed the unprocessed sewage throughout the sand flats and beaches of Boston Harbor and Quincy Bay."

4

MonkitaB t1_jb2cr8v wrote

I think it depends on which side you are looking at

1

victoreap t1_jb2eaz9 wrote

If they did some accent painting or a mural it could bring some life to it. It's just so bland

−3

SoulSentry t1_jb2fu05 wrote

Looks like a communist flag with a portrait of Lenin should be hanging on the wall... Such a dystopic building. I hate it so much. Why couldn't we have a city hall that represents the historic birth of the revolution character of the city.

0

Anxa t1_jb2hoho wrote

Ah, red meat for the sub

3

imoneyswag t1_jb2hxd2 wrote

it's the ugliest building ive ever seen

−2

Stegosaurus5 t1_jb2jss5 wrote

Replying to hatersbelearners (#2,167,776)

It's crazy that we legitimately have one of the sickest buildings on the entire planet, and somehow most of the dweebs here complain that it's "ugly" because it isn't either a steel and glass gentrification box, or a "historic" brick thing.

38

Doc-DRD t1_jb2n0qt wrote

You know it’s a great pic when that truly horribly ugly building can be made to look good!

2

General_Liu1937 t1_jb2p5o1 wrote

It looks nicer on that side. The side getting off from Government Center isn't as nice.

1

potus1001 t1_jb2pbp6 wrote

Agree to disagree I guess.

There’s just so many sharp angles and it looks so unwelcoming.

2

thejosharms t1_jb2sxlm wrote

Replying to Anxa (#2,168,232)

Cape Cod homes are just so easy and cheap, gonna age terribly. Just part of the race to the bottom... (Reddit: Circa 1800~)

The colonial model is so easy, cheap and gonna age terribly. Just part of the race to the bottom for developers (Reddit: circa 1850~)

The triple decker model is so easy, cheap and is gonna age terribly. Just a part of a race to the bottom (Reddit: Circa 1870~)

Reddit circa 2020~: Ugh we keep tearing down these beautiful historic buildings and homes for these soul-less, bland modern condo and apartment buildings! Where has all the character gone!

Should I keep going?

/r/Boston - BUILD MORE DENSE HOUSING.

Developers build 5:1 buildings far more dense than stand alone buildings

/r/boston NO NOT LIKE THAT MAKE IT COOL LOOKING OR SOMETHING, RENOVATE HISTORIC BUILDINGS!

Developers: OK, but it's going to be expensive....

/r/boston NO. ALSO IT MUST BE AFFORABLE HOUSING

JFC what do you people want?

We can get housing "good" in terms of aesthetics and art, "fast" in that we all seem to agree we're in a housing crisis or "cheap" in that the developer can build it and rent units out at a reasonable cost.

Choose two. We can't have all three without massive government subsidies and as much as I'm in favor of that, and policies like UBI, it's really unlikely to happen even in the deep blue sea of MA. Can we just take what we can get instead of whining about generic 5:1 construction (which to draw attention to my original point is how construction has always worked and why you drive through neighborhoods where all the houses more or less look the same?)

81

CoolAbdul t1_jb2uab7 wrote

If you like that, I've got a whole campus down in Dartmouth you'll LOVE.

7

Walter_ORielly t1_jb2ulyt wrote

We’re all entitled to our own opinions. Yours happens to be wrong.

21

CoolAbdul t1_jb2und3 wrote

Hive mind regardless, it is a hideous building. If you want brutalism that works, Clark University's Robert Goddard Library is very spiffy.

6

Marshmallowadmiral t1_jb2vpt5 wrote

Replying to SteamingHotChocolate (#2,168,042)

My main issue with City Hall isn't the building itself, but rather that City Hall Plaza is an empty wasteland where a real neighborhood used to be. Scollay Square was a bustling working-class neighborhood, with its own unique character. Today, City Hall and most of the surrounding buildings see traffic only on weekdays, 9-5. That whole part of Boston feels like a monument to an era where we kicked people out of cities and reduced their neighborhoods to office parks.

56

jhoge t1_jb2xjcr wrote

city hall rocks and I will fight anyone who disagrees

0

detective_bigfoot t1_jb2y5av wrote

I think people are generally too harsh on brutalism. City hall isn’t even the ugliest building in Boston.

0

SherbertEquivalent66 t1_jb2zor2 wrote

If I had a time machine, would definitely go back and walk around Scollay Square.

3

reveazure t1_jb2zytr wrote

It looks like an extremely clumsy game of Tetris that got abandoned halfway through.

2

donkadunny t1_jb30lqf wrote

Replying to Marshmallowadmiral (#2,168,862)

The surrounding buildings only see traffic weekdays from 9-5? Buddy, Faneuil Hall is directly across the street and it’s the 4th largest tourist attraction in the country. It’s much busier than you are giving it credit for and Scollay Square was demolished 60 years ago.

12

beerpatch86 t1_jb30nmn wrote

I mean, it is ugly, but architecture is kind of an art (well, it can be..)

Brutalism is definitely polarizing but done well can be stunning, especially interiors. Exteriors are either loved or hated, though I have seen plenty of "meh" Brutalism structures. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to go for something as 'bold' as Brutalism, may as well go all out.

Boston City Hall is awesome from some angles, and a big fat concrete eyesore from others. It's absolutely subjective. Nice photo, op.

Alsp #bringbacktheplazafountains

0

Ok_Low_1287 t1_jb310ct wrote

It’s the incredibly stupid people who work in that thing. Just hard to believe ..

−1

Gingerstash t1_jb31iv9 wrote

Literal masterpiece! (In dappled sunlight or otherwise)

1

Marshmallowadmiral t1_jb33jd3 wrote

Replying to donkadunny (#2,169,097)

The point is that nobody lives there. Yes, Faneuil Hall is a major tourist attraction and there are some restaurants and bars around there (and doesn't city hall plaza seem even more dead when you look at the crowds around Faneuil?). But the area is not a real neighborhood, it's a destination. Which I think is a major failure of American cities in general- our city centers are most often treated as destinations rather than places to live. This general attitude has some pretty bad outcomes for city dwellers, both historically and today. While Scollay Square is long gone, it's still a useful story to explain why Boston looks the way it does today, and it helps us talk about what direction Boston (and American cities) should take in the future.

32

yacht_boy t1_jb34ki3 wrote

Replying to hatersbelearners (#2,167,776)

I love city hall. Took me a while to appreciate the interior, but once it clicked I was in awe of the architects. The whole building is awesome, except for where people have butchered various parts of the interior. Even the plaza, which may not be pretty, has served the city very well for huge gatherings of all sorts.

8

fab-lollies t1_jb34ljw wrote

Why do I like this photo? It’s horrible in real life.

9

WhatAmiDoingHere1022 t1_jb356zg wrote

I don’t understand the ugly reference I’m from Providence maybe that’s why. But that building in the pic is bad ass. Idk if there’s like an inside Boston joke about it being ugly but I think it’s dope.

0

mlivebc t1_jb35tge wrote

It looks like a Decipticon pretending to look like a real building and is frozen just as it started to transform back.

1

inspircatible t1_jb3cc0k wrote

I feel like if city hall got a massive renovation there would also be people complaining that their tax dollars are going to it.

3

boenobleman t1_jb3esnq wrote

Drink enough Sam Adams and anything looks handsome.

1

hbHPBbjvFK9w5D t1_jb3i7hu wrote

Sure the front is nice enough.

Shame the back looks like a lifer's prison.

1

Jimmyking4ever t1_jb3seqd wrote

Looks like it belongs in a dystopian scifi future like judge Dredd or hunger games

1

likezoinksscooby t1_jb3xsm4 wrote

I think one of the founders of brutalism architecture was quoted as saying the point of art is to be noticed. The building is meant to be transparent and Democratic in a way—the mayors office being clearly visible from the outside, for example. Personally I think it looks fine at night because the lighting and shadows help soften the appearance somewhat. That said, saying that art is meant to be noticed feels similar to a toddler acting out for attention—they may be noticed, but not necessarily for the best of reasons. I think the intention of the feeling they want to evoke in the view is just as important. The egalitarian/utilitarian/transparency that the architects championed is generally not the thing that comes to mind at first glance. Reading more about the buildings history has caused me to appreciate it more. That said, a city hall is a symbol just as much as it is a building. Reactions to Boston’s city hall generally run the lines of revulsion to disgust. It doesn’t evoke any sense of civic pride, and outside of certain niche circles, I truly don’t think many would miss it if it were torn down.

3

ccb621 t1_jb42oyy wrote

Is the old Ford Taurus still there? Every time I passed that thing I thought of Robocop (which was filmed at Dallas City Hall).

1

hx87 t1_jb45oub wrote

Replying to Anxa (#2,168,232)

Having the windows set in 4 inches from the exterior wall instead of being flush would fix 90% of 5/1 aesthetic problems. For some reasons builders insist on flush windows even when the rest of the waterproofing layer is 2-4 inches behind the exterior wall, which is insane from an engineering point of view.

1

cothomasmiller t1_jb478id wrote

Architectural changes in the city have made it blend in more. I remember it from the early eighties. When it was 'opened' before it was finished; the building must have been strange compared to the architecture of the area outside the renewal district.

note: it opened before it was finished because Mayor Connelly wanted to move his office before the grand opening

1

ARC_32 t1_jb47o0q wrote

You'd be amazed how much concrete can absorb the smell of urine over decades.

1

bluefives t1_jb4d3a5 wrote

Replying to TiredPistachio (#2,167,810)

I actually really like brutalist architecture.

Was visiting colleges with my dad, and at UMass Amherst I commented that I liked the architecture, and he said, "What are you, a communist?!" jokingly.

That was my first exposure to the meaning and history of brutalist architecture.

17

ElQueue_Forever t1_jb4epiq wrote

Every time I walk by that building I think "A mental patient designed it".

Then I remember that the Department of Mental Health is in that building.

And I facepalm...

1

microserf86 t1_jb4ky4u wrote

The problem with brutalism is that it looks great on paper: exciting, dramatic, modern, stark, efficient and effective. Where it fails is in the real life placement.

While the architect might've drawn a beautiful building in the blueprints (it might even look great from a mile away if there weren't line of sight interruptions), it rarely considered that there will be ugly streets, and other human requirements as they work.

Hopefully the greenery additions to the plaza will help a little bit in making it more human.

1

romulusnr t1_jb4lejl wrote

No, it's just that people have no fuckin taste. Always admired that building.

5

East_Cartographer_57 t1_jb4p0dv wrote

The stuff around it (like the weather) looks good. It's still ugly across the board.

1

IrnBruBruh t1_jb4pifz wrote

Someone, please tell me why this City Hall is built like a prison?!?! 😭

1

diadem t1_jb4qlkx wrote

The contrast between that utilitarian design* and the artsy nearby Christopher Columbus park doesn't help.

Edit: I apologize for not knowing the actual architectural term (brutalist, maybe? Not sure)

1

calinet6 t1_jb4rxcp wrote

Replying to Marshmallowadmiral (#2,168,862)

Yeah, like it’s just this big wasteland of flat concrete. Waste of space IMO. Sometimes I like to image what Scollay square would be today if they didn’t tear everything down to put in… flat concrete and stairs.

3

trimolius t1_jb4ryhn wrote

I stillthink it’s ugly but the lighting in this photo is lovely.

1

patrickbrusil t1_jb4si1y wrote

I refuse to believe this isn’t an oil painting or photoshop. Too pretty. Never seen it in real life. 😂

1

calinet6 t1_jb4ssix wrote

Replying to Anxa (#2,168,232)

Doesn’t matter. We need to catch up to the tune of approximately 100,000 more new units per year. Every era’s style differs, my 1900 Victorian for example is built like shit and need(ed/s) all kinds of structural improvement. The beams in the basement are literal tree trunks and the rafters are 3/4” boards.

We need to stop glorifying old stuff through rose colored glasses and wishing for more undefinable “character” and start building people homes to live in. Fast.

5

calinet6 t1_jb4ta2y wrote

Replying to okletssee (#2,168,885)

If you read some architecture writing like Christopher Alexander, one of the cool concepts is that architecture is not fixed and changes over time based on the needs of the inhabitants.

I find it cool that the triple deckers are undergoing a second life in many parts of town as people improve them and keep them up, many were turned from three units to two (“Philly style”) to accommodate larger families and more space needs.

We can expect this to happen more and more over time and there’s even some sense that we should build in preparation for change over the life of a building. And a more generic almost malleable style or construction might be just the thing over the long term to be ready for change.

Kinda a cool perspective.

3

AeuiGame t1_jb4v766 wrote

Replying to locke_5 (#2,168,355)

The five and one actually refer to building materials. Wood floors (Type 5) over a concrete base (Type 1). Its a building code thing, but yeah, its usually used as apartment levels over one retail/base level.

Buildings of various heights can be five over ones.

12

TuarezOfTheTuareg t1_jb4vcsj wrote

Replying to Marshmallowadmiral (#2,169,219)

Weird take... Why do people need to live there? What's wrong with an area being a destination? Are you saying that every inch of a city needs to be some kind of "neighborhood" where people live? I don't get your point at all. It's nonsensical. Cities need civic and commercial districts just as much as they need residential ones. City hall could be a better destination if, for example, the concrete plaza was replaced with more interesting commercial development or open space, but to criticize it for being a destination is kinda weird.

3

Ajgrob t1_jb4w43u wrote

I mean it kind of looks cool in this picture, but it's almost impossible to clean the exterior of this kind of building. So while it probably looked pretty cool the day it was built, over time the exterior has not aged well and up close it looks like shit. Interior is brutal too (and not in a good way).

I think there's plans to spruce up the plaza with trees etc., which will probably help.

1

TuarezOfTheTuareg t1_jb4wih4 wrote

Replying to thejosharms (#2,168,723)

God thank you!! Do people seriously think that builders in past eras were some kind of weird altruistic anomalies who opted for good design over profits? If older buildings are "good architecture", it's because the builders of the past backed into it while pursuing profit and it's because our tastes have been weened on older designs. The fan-favorite "cape house" was designed by Royal Barry Wills not because it looked nice, but because it was the most efficient design that could be pumped out in mass quantities. Now we view it as the quintessential quaint single family home. Who's to say we wont feel the same way in 70-100 years about the 5:1s?

6

eaglessoar t1_jb4wlev wrote

personally i love this building and the interior is awesome too

1

kdmccormick t1_jb4zcov wrote

Replying to TuarezOfTheTuareg (#2,171,834)

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but it's not true that destinations have to be non-residential. The North End is a destination and a neighborhood: people live above all those restaurants. The idea that commercial and residential need to be cleanly separated is weird modern one. People lived above businesses for hundreds of years before mid-1900s zoning laws made it largely illegal to build like that in the US.

All that's to say: another neighborhood of four-story townhouses with shops & restaurants on the first floor would be amazing to have in downtown.

7

TuarezOfTheTuareg t1_jb4zrjc wrote

Replying to kdmccormick (#2,172,046)

Yea I agree with that. It's just the characterization of "destinations" as being undesirable that was weirding me out. I'm a town planner and we talk all the time about strategies to make commercial/civic districts into more appealing destinations. That's a desirable trait! Nothing precludes people from living in areas like that too though

2

oozforashag OP t1_jb52p9m wrote

Replying to CoolAbdul (#2,168,798)

Umass Boston's original host of awful buildings definitely belongs in the running. They also decided to fuck with thousands of people per day by building the main library stairs on a slant, so when going up your right leg has to step further than your left, and vice-versa on the way down.

It's probably apocryphal, but I heard that the campus was designed to limit the ability of students to assemble/demonstrate in response to 60s activisim.

1

88mcinor88 t1_jb53lpg wrote

Is there any truth that they used Legos to prototype the design?

1

Commercial_Board6680 t1_jb53ryt wrote

I've never liked Brutalist architecture. It's too big and imposing and, well, brutal, as in punishingly hard or uncomfortable. But, the lighting is softening it's image a bit,...

Nah, it's still an ugly building. Sorry, I tried.

1

Stealth8900 t1_jb54380 wrote

Imagine how nice it would look like if it was powerwashed!

1

donkadunny t1_jb54adk wrote

Replying to kdmccormick (#2,172,046)

Have you even been to downtown Boston? Do you know how many buildings are already ground floor retail and residences above? There are many. Like that is actually what a ton of it already is. Ground floor retail with commercial or residential above.

2

Jet_Funk t1_jb5882e wrote

I see 8 huge cement boxes and some cars

1

JangSaverem t1_jb58w0i wrote

I'm actually a big fan of this style of building.

As a UMass Dartmouth allum you can see what I mean if you check out that campus

1

albert_the_unicorn t1_jb5919z wrote

This why you have to look at apartments on a shitty day. Everything looks nice on a beautiful day in winter.

1

RJH04 t1_jb5a414 wrote

Replying to MMAHipster (#2,171,538)

“Tell us again, about the magic times?”

“Ah, child, it was the worst of times, and the best. Half the country was screaming that their liberties were being removed because of a piece of cloth, and an orange ape was throwing ketchup on the walls of the White House… but my morning commute was measured in minutes, not hours…”

children murmur and gasp

6

[deleted] t1_jb5b9gv wrote

Still makes me feel like I'm gunna stub my toe or hit my head. Like it needs to ne babyproofed

2

derdoktor t1_jb5blze wrote

Most unfairly maligned building in the country. What’s bad about it is the wasteland that surrounds it, the jfk building, the tower. I know the plan is from Gropius, or near him, but overall the destruction of boston city center and the west end is one of the worst urban planning decisions of the „urban renewal“ and interstate highway era

10

TomBirkenstock t1_jb5eud7 wrote

Replying to thejosharms (#2,168,723)

Some of those older buildings are ugly, though. We should expect more, and I don't think critiquing ugly condos is the equivalent to saying we shouldn't build more housing stock. We absolutely should. I certainly wouldn't pay over a half a million to live in an ugly condo building from 2015, but clearly some people will.

1

MojitoSipper t1_jb5ftf6 wrote

I like the building. It looks weird but unique. I dig that.

1

Next-Editor6166 t1_jb5j2dm wrote

Worked downtown Boston early '74 (Mayor Kevin White) for 30yrs...loved watching all the "new" buildings and the city became a real city. Loved the poured concrete that was trendy back then. Aways liked City Hall, a distinct building. Unfortunately, they've tried a number of times/people to dress it up, the whole plaza. Never, maybe ever, be able to make it a successful space.I do miss Boston!

2

alohadave t1_jb5llrp wrote

Replying to TiredPistachio (#2,169,543)

No, it means that after about 50-75 years, styles become historical, rather than outdated. Many styles have this period where they get torn down because they aren't in style, and they aren't appreciated.

Brutalism isn't coming back because it was a 60s-70s idea, and the world has moved on.

2

Po0rYorick t1_jb5lrgs wrote

Replying to fab-lollies (#2,169,273)

I think the received knowledge is that it’s horrible and so many people never stop to question that opinion. But a good photo can make you stop and see the building again with fresh eyes.

It’s really quite a fantastic building that won all kinds of design awards. Check out this article for some more good shots.

2

Next-Editor6166 t1_jb5mgdz wrote

Replying to Moment_of_Inertia (#2,172,060)

ugly, typically. And single family homes, uggh. Don't have many pet peeves, but travel around the country see all the new homes being built 20 ft from one another, bulldoze any and all trees, but there's plenty of adjacent land.I understand the $cost. Welcome to everywhere

0

alohadave t1_jb5nbhj wrote

Replying to likezoinksscooby (#2,170,612)

This particular building exemplifies "form follows function". The internal spaces create the shapes that you see on the outside. One example is the city council chambers. The underside of it hangs in the corner of the building over the main entrance and the step backs that you see in the ceiling are the viewing gallery risers.

1

theotherlittleguy t1_jb5nlo5 wrote

Imagine explaining to someone who built the previous city hall that this city hall is somehow better. Let's not forget they kicked thousands of people out of their homes for this and the abomination that is the current west end / MGH complex.

1

Next-Editor6166 t1_jb5o1oi wrote

But I've l always loved Center Plaza even though they blocked the street view of Pemberton Courthouse

1

alohadave t1_jb5ogik wrote

Replying to Next-Editor6166 (#2,173,198)

That building hasn't been maintained properly and parts of it are literally falling apart. It was at risk of being demolished before the pandemic, but it's in limbo now.

The Mass Dept of Public Health building in JP is also Brutalist.

2

Nobel6skull t1_jb5thod wrote

Replying to calinet6 (#2,171,736)

If it had a non concrete facade it would be just ugly. If it had a non concrete facade and angles other then 90 it could be pretty. As it is, the sole benefit of nuclear war would be the annihilation of city hall.

1

irishgypsy1960 t1_jb5upay wrote

I personally find the center plaza building much uglier.

1

Stormodin t1_jb5xnyu wrote

It looks like inception when the buildings are transforming and this one didn't finish lol

1

BostonDogMom t1_jb67uas wrote

Replying to scrappychemist (#2,167,949)

I really like this building from the exterior. I wish it was better maintained and the entire area more welcoming to the public. But because of post-9/11 and -1/6/21 security issues government buildings no longer feel like public spaces.

1

TransientMoth t1_jb6n0m0 wrote

Calling brutalist architecture ‘handsome’ much like my nana complimented her homely grandchildren.

2

usernmtkn t1_jb6r331 wrote

The hate for Boston City Hall is ridiculous. Its a really cool building.

2

singalong37 t1_jb6ujbg wrote

Replying to Next-Editor6166 (#2,172,981)

They had a sidewalk cafe on the Plaza in the former Cornhill, near the steaming kettle, back in '74. You could sit in the sunken fountain on a nice summer evening then too. The plaza has always seemed to need more activity nodes but I haven't seen a regular restaurant with tables there since the '70s and the fountain is long gone. Anyway, the plaza got a big redesign last year with many enhancements and lots of new trees so we'll see how things go.

Ran into Kevin on Charles Street that summer, near his home. I felt a little sheepish holding an open container at the moment but it was fun to see him in the flesh.

2

Next-Editor6166 t1_jbacfuz wrote

Replying to singalong37 (#2,174,931)

Early days of Gov't Center there were push carts along Cambridge St selling pitas, etc. I remember Frank Belloti's (former MA AG) daughter ran a very successful kebob stand. My first pita! You'd see Kevin around town, I still think he was Boston's best mayor.

2