What is your opinion on these buildings ? - Page 2

trueviking · #21 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 2:58 AM**

the mona lisa is one of the most famous and beloved painting in the world....it has its place in art history, just as roman architecure does in the art of architecture...if artists today started to replicate this painting would you consider it good art...just because it is familliar?

architecture is a design discipline that needs to look forward to new ideas... art, architecture and design in general must express thought and creativity by its very nature....this design does not....it is simply plucking design vocabulary from the history books and gluing it on to a building without thought...

without new ideas design does not progress...society does not progress...whether its painting, music, car design or architecture....why not prove to future generations that our time has the imagination and originality to progress and develop innovative ideas to pass on to them...that they can build on, just like we have done from the innovators of generations before us..

...this building says, we have no more imagination...we have to resort to stealing from those in the past that did....

rockyi · #22 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 3:28 AM**

Architecture has often borrowed from the past otherwise we would never have had Colonial Revival, Egyptian Revival, Gothic Revival, etc. etc....... They found their own place in history as much as the architectural era they "copied" from.

And sorry but I don't know of anybody that has an Elvis on black velvet painting.

slide_rule · #23 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 3:40 AM**

pretty much everything has already been said. but i'm stuck at a hotel with complimentary internet access, so i'll add my 2 cents.

the design doesn't work. it's not a dig against historicism, and certainly not a dig against LA. i'll try to explain my opinion.

i realize that historicist detailing has its appeal. the assorted bits of romanesque, renaissance, neoclassical, etc. detailing aren't coherent. but even then, strange combinations can be made to work.

i do find the faux masonry facades to be... godawful? the building's ratio of window space to masonry is similar to that of the monadnock (a load bearing masonry skyscraper), than those of the later, and generally more appreciated golden age (1920s +) skyscrapers of new york and chicago. in the other thread, another forumer remarked that people should be allowed to choose what appeals to them, and that people complained about too MUCH window space. it's hard to see too MUCH window space. if people desired privacy, they could always close the blinds.

the monadnock's load bearing masonry walls made the building seem claustrophobic. aside from more efficiently using materials, and allowing for taller buildings, modern construction technology and materials have allowed for more window space.

these proposed buildings WANT to look like taller versions of a hodgepodge of prestigious older stone constructions. of course, load bearing masonry could only produce modestly tall buildings, and certainly not anything this tall and slender. if low rise buildings were made of masonry, i would not have the same complaints. it may be less efficient than modern technologies, but at least using masonry for low rise buildings does not CAUSE more problems.

similarly, the combination of small windows, and large facades often results in questionable aesthetics.

among the portland building's numerous flaws, its tall, wide facade and its very small windows conspire to make the building look oppressive. the skewed relationships between window area and a large expanse of concrete in many rationalist/brutalist projects is often cited as ugly as well.

it's often subjective, but aesthetics is influenced by materials usage, proportion, and size. the towers in LA may have interesting bits and pieces, but they do not combine to form a cohesive whole.

phillyskyline · #24 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 4:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by malec

Those particular buildings above I don't really like but I honestly have no problem with towers like this:

I like the sleek lines but im not crazy about the apex.

trueviking · #25 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 4:38 AM**

access to natural daylight has become a key feature to sustainable buildings in modern architecture....it is a large part of the LEED rating system and its beneficial effects have been well documented.....increased productivity, fewer sick days, better health, greater job satisfaction, reduced electrical requirements...all can be attributed to greater access to natural daylight, which this building ignores in the name aesthetic...a bad one at that.

a few examples:

The study by the Heschong Mahone Group based near Sacramento found that students who took their lessons in classrooms with more natural light scored as much as 25 percent higher on standardized tests than other students in the same school district.

A survey of tenants of rented offices (BOMA, 1988) has shown that 2.1% of tenants think that the poor quality of their windows is the worst problem in their building, and that if the windows could be improved, an estimated productivity gain of 4% would result.

Dasgupta (2003) found a small but statistically significant reduction in negative mood for people who worked for about 20 minutes in a private office with a large window during daytime; but no reduction in negative mood for the same people in the same office at night.

"Mal-illumination," a term coined by the photobiologist John Nash Ott, D.Sc. (Hon.), has been linked to conditions as diverse as malabsorption of certain nutrients, fatigue, tooth decay, depression, seasonal affective disorder (SAD), hostility, suppressed immune function, strokes, hair loss, skin damage, alcoholism, drug abuse, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and even loss of muscle tone and strength.

fell free to browse this study on the effects of natural light:

http://www.orientationsnova.com/heal...t.htm#Physical

mhays · #26 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 6:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

mass appeal is hardly the definition of design quality...it is actually almost always the inverse...in all areas of the art world....to be popular is to be watered down and generic.....celine dion is one of the most popular singers in the world......does her popularity mean that she is the best musician?

more people have one of these hanging in their homes than any leonardo or botticelli...will you argue that because it is popular, it must then be better design?

Aesthetics is subjective, in the eye of the beholder. With that in mind, yes, architecture really should factor "what people like" much more than it does.

I don't dress according to what fashionistas say. I don't buy books or CDs according to reviews. And I don't want architects turning our cities into places that represent academic philosophies more than what the public likes.

Quality materials and construction are a totally different topic. Regardless of style it's got to be built right.

These buildings are outstanding.

BTinSF · #27 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 8:06 AM**

If they were 2 separate buildings, I would kind of like the one on the left and give it a 7/10. The one on the right is more of a 5. It's too tall to have that kind of top IMHO. As a single building, I have to give it a 3/10. As someone else said, the base is very awkward and, frankly, I don't think the two towers relate to one another. That's OK, even desirable, if they are separate, but not if it's one building.

Also, I like neoclassicism, but I must admit I have not seen a good example of it in a building built since WW II. I don't think we know how to do it any more or perhaps its that the materials and workmanship would be far too expensive today. Anyway, as drawings these two are interesting but as actual buildings I'm pretty sure they'd be a mess.

SteveP · #28 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 2:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

seems like i am the only one actually analyzing it....can someone tell me what they like about them?....besides they remind you of something old?

mass appeal is hardly the definition of design quality...it is actually almost always the inverse...in all areas of the art world....to be popular is to be watered down and generic.....celine dion is one of the most popular singers in the world......does her popularity mean that she is the best musician?

more people have one of these hanging in their homes than any leonardo or botticelli...will you argue that because it is popular, it must then be better design?

To me, neither argument makes sense. So what if Celine Dion isn't the best musician. If people like her singing, then they like it, no if ands or buts about it. Is she the best musician......who cares?? I like lots of different types of music, and alot of the music I like is pop music made by bad musicians, but I still like it.

I see far more copies of Van Gogh, Monet, and other famous artists, on people's walls then any Elvis pictures. I never actually see an Elvis 'black velvet' in someone's house.

I can agree with you that in many cases mass appeal doesn't always produce the best product in the end. Fair enough.
I can't explain exactly why I like the buildings, I just do. If alot of people like them, then I don't see a problem with them.
I don't like everything about them, but just like the general look, especially the one on the left.

Exodus · #29 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 3:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

my opinion expressed ad nauseum in the other thread....kitsch....cartoon architecture.....pure decorative wallpaper...design using the crutch of the past....sacrifices natural light for fake old stylistic replication.....completely dishonest architecure...has no spirit or innovation.....even as a knock off old building it is way out of scale and references historic styles that are inapproriate for this type of building....deco would have at least had some precedent.....the architect had no imagination whatsoever.....i bet he drives a PT cruiser.

yarabundi...there is no art deco in that design...it is a mish mash of a half dozen other thousand year old styles, but nothing from the last 2 centuries.

if this building was a car...it would be this.....

Sorry, but I don't have a problem with that car. You probably don't like the new Mustang either.

Eigenwelt · #30 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 4:59 PM**

Trueviking, you suffer from the exact illness you claim to despise. You let your supposed subjective critiques be heavily influenced by popular opinion. There are too many variables to make any clear correlation between public acceptance/non-acceptance and artist merit. The desire to do so is one part intellectual laziness and one part intellectual elitism.

Blind rejection of a thing is the same as blind acceptance.

As for the recycling of historical detail... why do those who oppose it so vehemently fail to ever look into it's actual historical precedence? There has never been a time of pure architectual invention. The very nature of the beast is one of slow evolution with constant use of previously developed devices. The only crime is the poor or awkward use of a style. When that style is used should have no critical basis.

And the cult of originality is a modern fad. It goes hand in hand with the larger social desires of the individual to be different and stand out in a growingly large morass of anonymous humanity. Different is not synonymous with "better" or "good".

Oh, and if you are going to continue to rant against historical references in any thread in which they appear, could you please change your username to one which doesn't contain a historical reference? The hypocrasy is something I find quite distasteful.

rockyi · #31 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 6:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eigenwelt

Oh, and if you are going to continue to rant against historical references in any thread in which they appear, could you please change your username to one which doesn't contain a historical reference? The hypocrasy is something I find quite distasteful.

So I'm not the only one who noticed that.

pdxstreetcar · #32 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 7:22 PM**

These two towers are about being true classical architecture, they are not postmodern at all. Classical architecture has vastly different objectives than avant-gardism... Classical/traditional architecture is about using something proven to work (aka borrowing) and reworking it. It is about using other successful buildings from the past as models, infact being "traditional" architecture if something is not replicated by future buildings it is considered to not be a good idea. The greatest architects of all time borrowed from the past, take Michelangelo for example.
This is exactly the opposite with avant-gardism which tries to be as different as possible from everything else hence the "weird for the sake of being weird" architecture.

This is not a cheap phoney reproduction, one only has to check out the architect's website to see that this proposed building is to be built to high standards and quality levels:
...these two towers will surpass the quality of most of the historic derivations of this architectural style with its golden-hued limestone, clay-tiled roofs, copper gutters and its street-level, bronze-trimmed retail shop windows. Artistic sculptural relief limestone panels and limestone architectural details will be profuse at the street and penthouse levels of the two towers.
-http://www.robertsonpartners.net/cityhouseandolympic.html

Exodus · #33 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 7:58 PM**

The two major arguments Trueviking makes are about maximum natural light and not being different. I don't think it's necessary to have "maximum natural light", you don't have to feel like you are virtually outside. If the windows are big enough, they could let in sufficient lighting. Buildings don't need to be a glass wall. If they are glass walled, then you loose a chance to have a solid nice detailed interior, and it could be a little distracting to office workers if they feel like they are sitting outside. Also a building dose not have to be different for the sake of being different. Being different dose not always equate to being better or better looking.

A couple other arguments made by him are cost. On one hand he says that doing a style like this "right" cost too much, but if it is done more economically, he says it is cheap and fake. Though he says we should take advantage of modern techniques that are more economically friendly, Sounds like a bunch of contradictions to me, or excuses to down this kind of architecture because he personally dose not like it. Besides, if someone wants to pour more money into a project, that's their business. If they want to do it more cost efficient, then more power to them as long as the project looks good and serves its purpose. If you can combine a classic style with todays cost efficient and advanced techniques, and turn out a nice looking project that serves its purpose, then great. It might not be "genuine", but what's wrong with a nice looking "replica" ? I just don't see the big deal.

Exodus · #34 Posted **Jul 16, 2006, 8:32 PM**

I like Victorian and Queen Anne homes. If I had the money to buy one, but couldn't find one in a location I wanted, I might would build a "replica". Would there be anything wrong with that ? Not in my book. Because it dosen't have to be old or historic, I just like the style plain and simple. When I get the money, I'm buying a new Mustang. They might not be original, but I like the retro look. Nothing wrong with that either in my book. What's wrong with having best of both worlds, a new car with a nice classic look. Call me what you like, but if I like something, I like it. It shouldn't matter when it was built, as long as I like the style. What if a lot of these inner city neighborhoods built cutting edge architecture for infill ? That would look stupid imo. Then again, people gripe about the bland suburbs, but if they would have carried on the tradition of building neighborhoods like their inner city counterparts, they wouldn't be so bland. Then again, some people would still bitch about the burbs being "cheap replicas". If they would have poured more money into the materials, some would bitch about the neighborhoods being to costly and slow to build, "why not take advantage of modern massed produced building techniques ?" Theres just no pleasing some people, it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

malec · #35 Posted **Jul 17, 2006, 12:38 AM**

The thing is, I don't particularly like these towers since they look awkward. TrueViking is right when he says that the combination of different styles don't work in this example.

About people copying each other, nowadays people freak out if say, the roof of a building is copied somewhere else, or not even copied but might look a bit like the original. How come people don't complain about these buildings then?

Exodus · #36 Posted **Jul 17, 2006, 2:45 AM**

I don't "freak" out if I see a building that looks very similar to another. I understand that architects will sometimes reuse certain aspects on their own work. It's like the 05 and 06 Mustang, it has certain aspects borrowed from several different years, and many people thinks it looks great, including me.

Surrealplaces · #37 Posted **Jul 17, 2006, 2:58 AM**

I'll add my two cents as well. I don't mind the towers.... they aren't the best towers I've seen, but I think they are allright. I agree with with TrueViking about the natural light aspect, but on the whole I think they look good.

As far as buildings made to appeal to the public masses...why not, isn't that we strive for in every aspect of society?

TowerPower · #38 Posted **Jul 17, 2006, 5:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by malec

Exactly!

BTW, can someone guess where and when the building below was built?

Let me guess, Dubai or Abu Dhabi? Judging from the Arabic and the palm tree it's probobly somewhere in the mideast. At first I was going to say it was the glitzy new UAE Embassy in London (or was it Berlin?).

SFBoy · #39 Posted **Jul 17, 2006, 7:15 AM**

Left Tower = 8/10
Right Tower = 10/10

Overall 9/10

trueviking · #40 Posted **Jul 17, 2006, 5:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eigenwelt

Trueviking, you suffer from the exact illness you claim to despise. You let your supposed subjective critiques be heavily influenced by popular opinion. There are too many variables to make any clear correlation between public acceptance/non-acceptance and artist merit. The desire to do so is one part intellectual laziness and one part intellectual elitism.

Blind rejection of a thing is the same as blind acceptance.

As for the recycling of historical detail... why do those who oppose it so vehemently fail to ever look into it's actual historical precedence? There has never been a time of pure architectual invention. The very nature of the beast is one of slow evolution with constant use of previously developed devices. The only crime is the poor or awkward use of a style. When that style is used should have no critical basis.

And the cult of originality is a modern fad. It goes hand in hand with the larger social desires of the individual to be different and stand out in a growingly large morass of anonymous humanity. Different is not synonymous with "better" or "good".

Oh, and if you are going to continue to rant against historical references in any thread in which they appear, could you please change your username to one which doesn't contain a historical reference? The hypocrasy is something I find quite distasteful.

wow...i couldnt disagree more with every single point you have made.....

original thought is a modern fad!!!!!....are you serious?

you need to read your architecture history books....do you want me to list the styles that the world breezed through in the last century alone?...design is hardly a slow moving thing....only when it is held back by blind nostalgia....this is particularily true in an era of technology moving forward so quickly.

it is a rare thing when original art is accepted by the masses....it is not elitism...its a fact.

still not a single person can tell me what they like about this building.....nostalia is its only merit...if you consider it that.

i hope the username thing was a joke....i dont oppose history....i travel around the world exploring historic architecture.....i have taken many art and architecture history courses....i love historic architecture....i live in an old house...i live in a city that is loaded with it...and i love it....i even belong to 'heritage winnipeg'...an architectural preservationist organization.

i oppose thoughtless, kitsch design and cartoon architecture....ok for a vegas casino, but not a real building.