The lead headline in Wednesday's Boston Globe announced that, "Mayor says he'll build waterfront City Hall." So what, I asked myself, will happen to the old City Hall? Now, the old City Hall is not yet 40 years in existence. In fact, it's up for just 37 years, hardly a long time for a government building that cost billions of dollars--when a billion dollars was a lot of money. The waterfront, even without City Hall, is a fast-growing area, already chic and getting more chic all the time. The Institute for Contemporary Art just opened its new museum in a building that I haven't seen but lots of people are raving about. Well, that's what lots of au courant people said about City Hall when it was opened. Mayor Menino wants City Hall torn down, and frankly I couldn't agree more. It's a triumph of the Brutalist style that reigned in the sixties and which has monuments to vanity and well, yes, brutalism all around the world. The mayor wants to sell it a developer who would tear it down and put up something better, even beautiful, in its place. From his mouth to God's ears. He even hopes to make a profit on the transaction given the size and location of the present city headquarters The eminent architecture critic at the Globe, Robert Campbell, does not want it torn down He's written a piece, also in Wednesday's Globe, telling us that "Brutal, powerful structure of 1969 is now out of style." Nonetheless, he has some ideas about improving this building and its spacious surroundings. I think he's wrong. There's been a yearning in the public to have it destroyed for decades. It would be a tribute to a democratic taste that demanded more grace and attractive space for men and women working for the city of Boston. Instead of keeping this tumor on Boston's body in tact, it should be taken down, the sooner the better. And I'm taking suggestions for other Brutalist constructions, and not only in Boston, that merit elimination. There are a few candidates in my home town of Cambridge. So, please, tell us what should go and why.