What do you think?
Rate this book
Heroic: Concrete Architecture and the New Boston
Often problematically labeled as “Brutalist” architecture, the concrete buildings that transformed Boston during 1960s and 1970s were conceived with progressive-minded intentions by some of the world’s most influential designers, including Marcel Breuer, Le Corbusier, I. M. Pei, Henry Cobb, Araldo Cossutta, Gerhard Kallmann and Michael McKinnell, Paul Rudolph, Josep Lluís Sert, and The Architects Collaborative.
As a worldwide phenomenon, building with concrete represents one of the major architectural movements of the postwar years, but in Boston it was deployed in more numerous and diverse civic, cultural, and academic projects than in any other major U.S. city. After decades of stagnation and corrupt leadership, public investment in Boston in the 1960s catalyzed enormous growth, resulting in a generation of bold buildings that shared a vocabulary of concrete modernism. The period from the 1960 arrival of Edward J. Logue as the powerful and often controversial director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority to the reopening of Quincy Market in 1976 saw Boston as an urban laboratory for the exploration of concrete’s structural and sculptural qualities. What emerged was a vision for the city’s widespread revitalization often referred to as the “New Boston.”
Today, when concrete buildings across the nation are in danger of insensitive renovation or demolition, Heroic presents the concrete structures that defined Boston during this remarkable period—from the well-known (Boston City Hall, New England Aquarium, and cornerstones of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University) to the already lost (Mary Otis Stevens and Thomas F. McNulty’s concrete Lincoln House and Studio; Sert, Jackson & Associates’ Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School)—with hundreds of images; essays by architectural historians Joan Ockman, Lizabeth Cohen, Keith N. Morgan, and Douglass Shand-Tucci; and interviews with a number of the architects themselves. The product of 8 years of research and advocacy, Heroic surveys the intentions and aspirations of this period and considers anew its legacies—both troubled and inspired.
As a worldwide phenomenon, building with concrete represents one of the major architectural movements of the postwar years, but in Boston it was deployed in more numerous and diverse civic, cultural, and academic projects than in any other major U.S. city. After decades of stagnation and corrupt leadership, public investment in Boston in the 1960s catalyzed enormous growth, resulting in a generation of bold buildings that shared a vocabulary of concrete modernism. The period from the 1960 arrival of Edward J. Logue as the powerful and often controversial director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority to the reopening of Quincy Market in 1976 saw Boston as an urban laboratory for the exploration of concrete’s structural and sculptural qualities. What emerged was a vision for the city’s widespread revitalization often referred to as the “New Boston.”
Today, when concrete buildings across the nation are in danger of insensitive renovation or demolition, Heroic presents the concrete structures that defined Boston during this remarkable period—from the well-known (Boston City Hall, New England Aquarium, and cornerstones of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University) to the already lost (Mary Otis Stevens and Thomas F. McNulty’s concrete Lincoln House and Studio; Sert, Jackson & Associates’ Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School)—with hundreds of images; essays by architectural historians Joan Ockman, Lizabeth Cohen, Keith N. Morgan, and Douglass Shand-Tucci; and interviews with a number of the architects themselves. The product of 8 years of research and advocacy, Heroic surveys the intentions and aspirations of this period and considers anew its legacies—both troubled and inspired.
- GenresArchitectureNonfiction
336 pages, Hardcover
First published October 13, 2015
2 people are currently reading
134 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 23, 2025
I picked this book up because I love Brutalist concrete architecture. I know a lot of people don't! I was hoping that either (A) this book would be a detailed architectural review of the specific techniques and styles used in Boston's concrete architecture, helping me put words to what it is that I love about it or at least (B) it would be a collection of pretty pictures of said architecture.
It was neither. The imagery used in the book is largely incomplete; you either get a shot that's too wide to capture detail OR a shot that's too close up to place the detail in the bigger picture, and almost never both. It was very frustrating.
And the writing... most of it focused on the history of the buildings, and then repeated that history five times as the different authors for the different essays would recap it. And, on the rare occasion that the book actually talked about the architectural styles of the buildings, it would be so jargon-heavy as to be nigh indecipherable to the layman - without any attempt to define terms.
Its gravest sin was the hand-wringing about the term Brutalist. I get it, it's a vague descriptor that the architects themselves didn't pick. But pretending that the use of the word Brutalist is the reason why people generally don't like the architecture in their cities is outright laughable. You're not going to convince people to like the architecture by relabeling it as 'Heroic'. People feel how they feel, then pick the words, not the other way around. If the book did a better job of celebrating the actual architecture rather than trying (and certainly failing) to change the word used to describe it, I think that would have gone much further towards rehabilitating the architecture in the public's minds.
The book got its second star for the formatting and page layout, which was excellent.
It was neither. The imagery used in the book is largely incomplete; you either get a shot that's too wide to capture detail OR a shot that's too close up to place the detail in the bigger picture, and almost never both. It was very frustrating.
And the writing... most of it focused on the history of the buildings, and then repeated that history five times as the different authors for the different essays would recap it. And, on the rare occasion that the book actually talked about the architectural styles of the buildings, it would be so jargon-heavy as to be nigh indecipherable to the layman - without any attempt to define terms.
Its gravest sin was the hand-wringing about the term Brutalist. I get it, it's a vague descriptor that the architects themselves didn't pick. But pretending that the use of the word Brutalist is the reason why people generally don't like the architecture in their cities is outright laughable. You're not going to convince people to like the architecture by relabeling it as 'Heroic'. People feel how they feel, then pick the words, not the other way around. If the book did a better job of celebrating the actual architecture rather than trying (and certainly failing) to change the word used to describe it, I think that would have gone much further towards rehabilitating the architecture in the public's minds.
The book got its second star for the formatting and page layout, which was excellent.
June 23, 2021
Coming from a place of suspicion of Brutalist/Heroic architecture, I thought this was a helpful reflection on the optimistic philosophy that surrounded concrete architecture in the 1960s. Gave me a new layer of appreciation for the buildings that I do like (Christian Science Center, Design Research) and at least helped me understand the rationale behind the things I don't like (anything by Sert). The essays in the introduction are a bit hit-or-miss, or at least should have come after the descriptions of the buildings, IMO. But the essays on the buildings, the photography, and the interviews with architects were all compelling.
I wish there had been a bit more examination of the ways this architecture doesn't work, or why it's not beloved by the public. In his essay, Douglass Shand-Tucci acknowledges it's unpopular, but then dismisses that public sentiment as "anti-academic" and wishes for intermediaries to explain to the public why the architecture is good. For a style whose reputation is so defined by public distaste for it, I think a deeper reckoning with that distaste should have had a place in this book. But conceived of as a celebration of the style, I think this book does a good job.
I wish there had been a bit more examination of the ways this architecture doesn't work, or why it's not beloved by the public. In his essay, Douglass Shand-Tucci acknowledges it's unpopular, but then dismisses that public sentiment as "anti-academic" and wishes for intermediaries to explain to the public why the architecture is good. For a style whose reputation is so defined by public distaste for it, I think a deeper reckoning with that distaste should have had a place in this book. But conceived of as a celebration of the style, I think this book does a good job.
May 29, 2021
A terrific analysis of concrete architecture. It is very readable and beautifully illustrated.
December 13, 2015
A fascinating anthology of 1950s and 60s heroic/brutalist architecture in Boston. These buildings are often reviled, but the political and architectural history of them sheds light onto why they look they way they do and what they were intended to accomplish. I have often found these buildings to be very unique and interesting, despite the fact that many are neglected and some have plazas that have never worked particularly well. Anyone who thinks these buildings should be destroyed should read this book first. These buildings represent a transformational and optimistic time in Boston history, one that we do not want to forget. If anything, most of these buildings should be upgraded and improved rather than demolished and forgotten.
April 18, 2016
great intro essays, and stellar graphic design throughout, but drags a little with the somewhat bloated analyses of individual buildings and concluding interviews. Still, recommended for architects and students interested in the style, and - more importantly - in the social potential of architectural design.....
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews