Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark
I find it interesting that a design such as this would be considered faux anything.
Good design is good design regardless of the era. Using design cues of the past should be as valid as anything current with attractiveness being the major goal (subjective, yes). To me, "faux" indicates that it is trying to imitate or be passed off as an original, which it wouldn't be.
The point of my post was that there are many ways to fill a cube without looking like a cube, and the example I gave was just one of them. The submitted design leaves so much to be desired (IMHO) that just about anything else with a little bit of character to the design would surpass it.
How about :
http://www.thestar.com/travel/northa...es-to-new-york
 |
Trying to recreate a style means its faux, we can't do Georgian or Victorian properly anymore without spending obscene amounts of money. The best thing developers and architects can do is design and build contemporary, elegant simple structures. Some might find them boring, but the time of ultra ornate stone buildings is long dead.
As for your modern example, yes something radical like that would be nice, but you need to factor in cost and return. It would not make sense to build something radical and expensive like that in such a small space in a city the size of Halifax.