Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
The sad thing is that I could even imagine the many unnecessary peaks and other details of the building adding to the cost. It probably would have been cheaper to do a flat roof (possibly green roof), and those are generally more appropriate for institutional-scale buildings.
It's a little strange to think of what has happened to architecture. In the past, average people were probably no more sophisticated than today in terms of how judging building designs, and there was little municipal planning, but the level of design of major buildings was much higher. Had something like this been built in Halifax in 1860 or 1930 it would have looked great.
|
It's true—it's like the default quality of a run-of-the-mill building has gone from 8/10 to 3/10. Even the least impressive old buildings tend to be plain, at worst, rather than actively ugly.
But I have a theory (unproven, mind you) that design in most things, including architecture, bottomed out sometime in the 70s-90s. I think we're on a slow upswing. Ten years ago, looking at new development proposals was a game of "Oh man, how bad is it going to be?" Now, there's often genuine cause for excitement. Maybe it has to do with the slow swing back toward urban design over suburban design, or with the waning of postmodernism, or with something else. Who knows, but I'd like to believe we'll be able to look back on the early 2000s as the beginning of a better era.
Prev
That picture is quite interesting in that there is a crane working in front of the Centennial building - perhaps it is from a time when that was still under construction. Also the Path Lab building does not yet appear to have been constructed.
Linear Mode
