Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
Thank you.
I've found that at least among a few people their opinions are based more on what firm is designing it rather than what structure is in plain view. Clearly there are some personal/professional ill-feelings or "axes to grind" so to speak, perhaps some people wishing a firm they like or one they aspire to work for some day would be getting more high profile projects.
But to those of us who don't have such personal or professional connections it's all about the building. And to me, this thing is basically Optima plus or minus some very superficial differences. It's a glass box--how much variation can you perceive in that? And it's the architectural profession who insisted on pursuing this stripped-down uniformity (perhaps because it makes their jobs easier? That's for another discussion), not us laypeople. Sure, in the pre-modernist era you could see vast differences between buildings, especially with all the ornamentation & various shapes, etc. But now it's just about different ways to do a glass box, and I'm supposed to somehow love one and hate another one even though they are about 99% similar? Sorry...
|
I can guarantee there's no personal/ professional axe to grind - you're reading things in both our statements that aren't there, frankly. But honest to God, some of you in this forum can't see the forest through the trees; you cling to what have become hackneyed, one-off statements by architects from decades ago, developing hyper-critical biases that smack of a mob mentality (the Chicago way?), rather than focusing what this residential building represents. And TUP, can you sincerely tell me that, ignoring the apples to oranges debate between this and Optima, that the original, Teng design is better than the final outcome?