Quote:
Originally Posted by JayPro
Would I be out of order (as it were) to suggest that the Foster model is being scrutinized but for of its location geographically? I suspect so.
Why American and European developers aren't smashing down Lord Foster's front door to snatch a totally choice design such as this eludes me just as much. And how, if I may respectfully inquire, is this new render a stack of unidentifiable objects? This lovely thing positively *shrieks* symmetry, unlike the previous rendition...
IMO Mumbai is simply trying too hard to be like Dubai and Shanghai (rhyme + apropos analogy =  ). Designing supertalls, however subjectively pleasing or nauseating, ought not to be the measure of how any mega-city awash in technological bounty stakes its claim on the global stage. Nor should it be any sort of indicator of how a still-underdeveloped country's culture and society reconciles their ancient, storied past with their legitimate struggles to conform to the 21st Century. |
The new render is a stack of unidentifiable objects how? well, because the building (if you even want to call it that) is an unidentifiable object placed on top of another one and another one and another one. Not sure how you don't see that. And yes, unfortunately every supertall completed or planned nowadays, especially this one, is an ego trip of some third world country attempting to stake a claim on the global stage.
The negative reception of this building has almost nothing to do with the location. It's just ugly, and that's the end of it.
And may I respectfully project to you, dear sir, that you are the epitome of the collapse of modern architecture as we know it. you think that new ideas, as bad as they are, can replace aesthetics, and likely take favor in foreign starchitects who care more about their style and brand than producing good, contextual architecture. Having a well designed, livable city is a way more important feature of architecture than this international pissing contest, this absolutely disgraceful and pathetic excuse for innovation and cohesiveness. These supposed "world renowned architects," namely Lord Foster, are some of the most middling, mediocre designers on the planet, and to support this, this brand-over-aesthetics style of modern architecture is not "innovative" or "revolutionary," but detrimentive and absolutely sickening.
You are all but lost if it seriously "eludes" you as to why american and european developers aren't knocking down Foster's door. He is awful. Almost all of his designs are visually unappealing and unharmonious, and have zero cohesiveness with surrounding buildings and environments. Unlike these wannabe cities, nyc or london or chicago or la or philly or houston don't care about height. they care about aesthetically pleasing, contextual, cohesive architecture, which is why they are and always will be 10 times better cities, from their history to their culture to their skyscrapers than ones from southeast asia, india, and the emirates.
Give me a break.