Firstly, thanks everyone for your comments. I'm glad you left your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich
Growing up in a capital city, myself, I always enjoy contrasting and comparing them, so I found this thread really interesting. For however sprawled out it may be, at least in its core, it does a good job of hiding underutilized space with its vegetation. A lot of cities do this poorly, or they don't even care to do it.
That said, I think you are being way too hard on your old state capitol building. It's obviously too small - even for the time in which it was built - and it could be far more adorned. But, I could count off on one hand with no reference far more grand and adorned state capitols that are architecturally worse, if because of their horrible proportions are garishness. Bigger is truly not always better. Sure, the old North Carolina capitol could have been better, but it could have been much worse. I think it's a classy little structure, and certainly better than that thing the legislature now meets in.
|
I'm interested in your comment on greenery... What do you see that Raleigh does that other capitals don't do when it comes to trees and greenery? One thing I personally noticed is that Raleigh really plays up its "City of Oaks" moniker, which has a couple of benefits. The prime benefit, of course, is that oaks are slow-growing trees, and therefore won't be blocking signs or power lines as quickly as another variety of tree might. Thus, businesspeople are less likely to fight a municipal effort to plant them around town. And so Raleigh is able to get away with putting out more trees than another city might, when tempted to plant something cheaper or faster-growing.
I agree with you, also, that some fancier capitols fall short. The dome on the Illinois State Capitol, for instance, just looks awkwardly-proportioned, as does that on Montana's capitol. I also understand that the North Carolina capitol was grand or its time, the 1840's, when North Carolina was a total backwater when compared to Virginia or South Carolina. However... I've never liked Greek Revival architecture. I find the Virginia State Capitol to be inexcusably bland as well. As for the Legislative Building, I find far more fault with the actions of the people meeting there than I do the building itself. It's ugly, of course, but it's also sort of fun -- if you'd ever seen the interior, you'd know what I mean. Blood-red carpet, "Space Age" chandeliers composed of brass cones and rods... It's tacky as hell and built in a style that does not age well no matter how well-maintained (and the building is maintained to perfection), but the style speaks to a time when North Carolina's face to the nation was Andy Griffith and it holds the backwoodsy charm of that time and place. The old capitol, however, is just backwoods and sterile to the point of charmlessness.