Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
I'd say though that monochromatic buildings with this style of cladding are the current style and they were rare in the past and kind of unnatural looking. You can add random colour, sure, but you could also use high quality materials with a warmer appearance like brick, stone, or Muntz metal. Or organic forms and detailing in more modern materials, like patterns cut into metal screens.
That said I think this one may end up being better than it seems in the long run. The renderings are done with a perspective that exaggerates how imposing it will look in person and in the long run there might be more new buildings around there like something to replace the Staples. And maybe there will be something on the curved corners of this building when it's constructed that isn't shown in the rendering. I could see this corner feeling a bit like Spring Garden Road where there are lots of medium sized buildings and none of them stand out much.
|
Honestly, I don't think it's so much of a case of whether it's a 'current style' or not (though arguably monochrome isn't really a new concept), but how the aesthetic will age. Of course there is a whole lot of subjectivity involved, but IMHO a monochromatic building will age much better than a building with multiple bright colours added for effect. Then it also depends on how it's done, as the Curve example that I used actually does have some multi coloured panels in it, but they are quite understated, and thus do not stand out or add a 'garish' appearance.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what they mean by "vibrant colours", but typically vibrant is used in the sense of making it stand out due to its brightness. So in that sense, again, I agree with the architect's statement (but don't disagree with your ideas on higher quality materials).
Of course not everybody has the same opinion about aesthetics, so there is no wrong answer here, I suppose...
