Quote:
Originally Posted by the Genral
I saw a list a while back that showed this building in the top 20 of ugliest buildings either in the US or world. I would have voted it in the top ten as it resembles a really tall grain silo with vertical strips. The expense and technical undertaking to renovate the exterior shows the new owners were tired of wearing paper bags over their heads when visiting it. I would welcome it to our skyline after the renovation though. Hotel Van Zandt is another example of the use of bare concrete, and other than the entrance and incredible interior, I hate this building.
Oh and...hey, the Independent is coming along nicely eh?
|
Well, I've said this in other threads so it doesn't bear repeating all the time, but the reason I think NYC and Chicago have the best skylines in the world is because of architechtural diversity. No other city in the world has had 150 years of sustained skyscraper development like NYC has (and to a lesser extent, Chicago). So, you see stuff like the Chysler Building, the Manhattan Municipal Building, as well as super modern stuff like 8 Spruce Street. And yes, you get brutalist monstrosities like the Verizon building, but I think that only adds to the skyline.
So the reason I'd love it here is that even if it looked ugly, it'd look different. Unlike something equally tall that's just off-white with blue glass (Spring, 360, Seaholm, Windor, Bowie, etc), or a blue glass rectangle (5th and Colorado, 303 Colorado, 500 W. 2nd, 3rd and Shoal, JW, Fairmont, etc). It'd give Austin some much needed architectural diversity that I think would make the skyline as a whole look much better.
And man, I forgot about the Van Zandt. I drive past it every single day and somehow forgot about their exposed concrete. I do think it looks good there, especially with the "noir" style HOTEL light theyve got.