HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 5:51 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,056
Quote:
What makes old Penn Station objectively better than new Penn Station? NOTHING
Nonsense. By virtue of being a good public space, old Penn Station encouraged increased use of the nearby sidewalk, rail facilities, and shops. New Penn Station discourages all those things. The difference is objective.

Quote:
I think its hugely ironic that someone would actually come right out in this thread and use that reasoning since thats the antithesis of the preservation movement.
I don't care about preservation for preservation's sake. I care about good buildings.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 6:16 PM
DigitalUrbanity DigitalUrbanity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ZooMASS
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSsocal View Post
I should have mentioned that the job was techinically a renovation, but as you can see in the link, the final product is a thousand times better then what was previously there, and so totally different that it is practically a new building.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...67.35,,0,-9.27
I'd be interesting to see what it looked like as built. It could go either moderne or stripped classical judging from the facade composition, if it had any "style" going on at all .

IMO the renovation lacks rigor, the original was actually more successful as a piece of classical architecture. (in composition if not detailing), its more or less a pasting of elements. Goofy stepped pilaster bases = fail. They should have just kept the exterior appearance and spent the cast stone budget on decent metal divided light windows or brise solei to provide finer scale visual interest that would match the squared off aesthetic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 8:19 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,394
.

Last edited by Hed Kandi; Jun 29, 2016 at 4:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 8:45 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Nonsense. By virtue of being a good public space, old Penn Station encouraged increased use of the nearby sidewalk, rail facilities, and shops. New Penn Station discourages all those things. The difference is objective.
But that's not what you were just arguing. You didn't ask why is this better from an urban design standpoint, you asked why is it aesthetically better. Besides, the arguments you just made are completely bunk anyhow since you have no objective evidence to prove that it encouraged or discouraged anything. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the New Penn station sees far higher use of rail facilities and shops than the old Penn station did in its last few years. Remember they tore it down because train ridership everywhere was waning and the Pennsylvania railroad needed $$$. I have a feeling up to twice as many people use Penn Station today as did in 1960. Isn't over crowding now one of the rants against Penn Station?

Quote:
I don't care about preservation for preservation's sake. I care about good buildings.
Case in point. You don't give a damn whether there is inherent value in something, you only care if its "good". "good" is inherently subjective and its constantly changing definition and caused the wanton destruction of thousands of extremely valuable structures. What defines good? Is it personal aesthetic taste? Is it whatever is in style? Is it new? Is it buildings with no soot on them? Is it better urban planning? No, its any and all of these things which is why you cannot use that word. Its people like you who constantly cause architectural disasters.

Do you think that Penn Station would have been leveled if what was believed to be "good" urban planning at the time called for something on the scale of new Penn Station? Do you think they would have destroyed it if ye olde roman headhouses were the "good" style at the time instead of giant bland slabs? Do you think it would have happened if people didn't assume that new=good? Or do you think that maybe it wouldn't have been destroyed if people sat and thought "wait, what we think is good doesn't matter, its inherent historical, economic, social, and cultural value must be preserved"?

Then again, I guess architectural, historical, and cultural significance means nothing and we should only keep "good buildings" however we chose to define that...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 8:55 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,056
Aesthetics affect and are part of urban design, which is not subjective. At its most basic, people on the sidewalk need frequent things to look at, or a street feels empty, which discourages pedestrian use. In that sense, by virtue of offering more detailed, ornate buildings, traditional architecture is objectively superior to modern architecture from an urban design standpoint, generally speaking (there are plenty of exceptions). These arguments can be found in any book on urban design written since Jane Jacobs. They are also why it is not acceptable for architects to treat the aesthetics of their buildings as abstract art, to be based on the stylistic whims of the year without regard for urban design functionality.

But if you'd like to go on believing the rant you just spouted off, be my guest. I'll not clutter a thread intended for photos by further responding to off-topic debate.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.

Last edited by Cirrus; Sep 22, 2010 at 9:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 9:31 PM
DigitalUrbanity DigitalUrbanity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ZooMASS
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hed Kandi View Post
Handcrafted limestone exterior complete with balustrades, orbels, and wrought iron finishes.

Quite possible one of the greatest buildings constructed on American soil in the past 50 years!

Does anyone know who the architect is?
Hut Sachs Studio

http://www.hutsachs.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 10:18 PM
DigitalUrbanity DigitalUrbanity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ZooMASS
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post

Case in point. You don't give a damn whether there is inherent value in something, you only care if its "good". "good" is inherently subjective and its constantly changing definition and caused the wanton destruction of thousands of extremely valuable structures. What defines good? Is it personal aesthetic taste? Is it whatever is in style? Is it new? Is it buildings with no soot on them? Is it better urban planning? No, its any and all of these things which is why you cannot use that word. Its people like you who constantly cause architectural disasters.
"Good" is not completely subjective. Judgements of artistic value by humans follow several different but consistent metrics. Its not arbitrary. Mastery of a medium within a certain set of rules, visual pleasure based in neuroaesthetics, intellectual complexity, familiarity, rarity etc. Something can excel in one of these categories and utterly fail in all the others.

A brutalist concrete bunker of a building may be intellectually brilliant in terms of its programmatic resolution and tectonic expression but may be completely horrible in terms of aesthetic pleasure to those who are unlikely to understand the arguments it is based on. People generally don't like to be near things that are ugly or unwelcoming . Big Suprise. Its an observable phenomenon that impacts the urban environment, so I'd say thats a pretty solid foundation to make a value judgement, especially as we know more about about environmental psychology as time progresses.

Fun reading material: http://pdfcast.org/pdf/architectural...c-architecture
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 11:55 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ You see this is exactly what I am talking about though. There are certainly patterns in what people consider to be "good". However, there are always exceptions to the rule and temporarily popular styles. For example, in theory humans should hate bland glass boxes, but for 30 years we couldn't get enough of them and thought all the old architecture was trash. The fact that we acted on our temporary preference for glass boxes by destroying the old caused huge damage to our stock of historic buildings. No matter how many studies conclude humans like fractal patterns or human scaled detail, it doesn't change the fact that every once in a while those things go out of style and we start destroying them. This is exactly why "good" is subjective. We change our minds on what is "good" all the time. In 1995 "good" was a Ford Excursion, in 2010 "good" is a Toyota Prius. In 1995 "good" was pomo cartoon architecture, in 2010 "good" is Aqua or Beakman. Show me how that is in any way constant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2010, 3:34 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,831
Graff diamonds - Chicago

Photo from Cook County Assessor
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2010, 5:17 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oakland, Pittsburgh
Posts: 11,917
^^^
That is very well done, Im glad some stuff like that is still being built and actually looks good unlike crap like the Eylesian.
__________________
Computer; end program.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2010, 5:33 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,394
.

Last edited by Hed Kandi; Jun 29, 2016 at 4:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2010, 12:42 PM
Tolbert Tolbert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 238
Not bad, but by far not as good as the one before. The proportions are stil not right. 1st the windows are to small and without any ornamentation seem to be of newer age than the rest of the building. 2nd. the builing is not in line with its neighbours and thats just very bad planing.
__________________
Limburg Nürnberg Heidelberg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 10:57 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,394
Wat Nongwan - Khon Kaen, Thailand



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2010, 8:07 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oakland, Pittsburgh
Posts: 11,917
__________________
Computer; end program.

Last edited by photoLith; Oct 9, 2010 at 8:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2010, 3:11 AM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,394
Sakya Monastery - Kaza, India

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2010, 4:03 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 6,037
__________________
My signature proved way too controversial. Fiddling while Rome burns...

Last edited by Busy Bee; Nov 2, 2010 at 4:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2010, 9:35 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,394
Parrillo Mansion - Chicago, USA



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2010, 10:19 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,056
The mansion is excellent.

The Lincoln Park townhouses don't qualify. The middle one maybe, but the top one and especially the bottom one are modern designs. Facing a building in brick or stone does not make it traditional.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2010, 1:20 AM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Insertoronto
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,572
anybody else notice the door on the house in Busy Bee's first pic?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2010, 3:10 AM
RLS_rls's Avatar
RLS_rls RLS_rls is offline
▓▒░
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 1,601
^Yeah I did. Pretty ghetto. Maybe it's temporary.
__________________
ಠ_ಠ
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:53 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.