Soulless Skyscrapers

[Troubadour]

We have all seen and lamented them: Those tragic cases of architectural nihilism whose only distinction is height. Offensively inoffensive; bland; mercilessly mediocre; perhaps adding insult to injury with superficial artistic flourishes that add absolutely nothing to the overall effect of the building or the beauty of the city. Post buildings like this that have particularly irritated you here in this thread: Skyscrapers that are the architectural equivalent of pastel print-paintings in a dentist's office - the shallow, bitterly phony images of architecture meant only to make your eye NOT notice them.

Thank Jeebus these buildings will not be remembered a few weeks after they're ultimately torn down - which they will, as no historical commission on the planet is going to designate them as landmarks - but at least bring them to light here so we can enjoy ridiculing them.

[Flamesrule]

Well the WHOLE Kitchener/Waterloo, Ontario skyline is practically soulless.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Flamesrule

Well the WHOLE Kitchener/Waterloo, Ontario skyline is practically soulless.

This.


Also, 97% of the office towers in Ottawa, Ontario (land of the reflective blue glass boxes ad nauseum).

[wrab]

^ Yeah - about the only thing the twins had going for them was their size.

[M II A II R II K]

And their popularity after the fact was akin to a President getting killed and then temporarily getting 80% approval ratings.

[jetsetter]

I am going to nominate almost every skyscraper built after the 40s.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

I am going to nominate almost every skyscraper built after the 40s.

damn you really hate modern architecture

[Rizzo]

You could take it from a very literal standpoint. Many of the older, more labor intensive buildings prior to the depression required a lot of immigrant labor as well as artists and skilled draftsman to produce the elaborate designs you see. Alot of blood sweat and tears went into the constructing those buildings brick by brick. Modernism brought manufacturing of standard components into the field...built by machine. Probably what I'm saying is a stretch and could be debated, but you may see what I'm getting at.

[CRE8IVEDESTRUCTION]

That ugly Verizon building with no windows in Manhattan is really ugly. Needs to be DEMOLISHED in my opinion.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by CRE8IVEDESTRUCTION

That ugly Verizon building with no windows in Manhattan is really ugly. Needs to be DEMOLISHED in my opinion.

is being recladded heres a pic


http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/image/Verizon.jpg

[marvelfannumber1]

You know, i was about to say something but someone beat me to it.

Originally Posted by jetsetter

I am going to nominate almost every skyscraper built after the 40s.

[Surrealplaces]

I've never liked this Calgary office tower.

http://www.emporis.com/building/fift...calgary-canada

[TANGELD_SLC]

LDS Church Office Building: Not just soulless, but soul-sucking.

jpstanley's flickr http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/63...ea756973_b.jpg


Highrise_Mike http://i617.photobucket.com/albums/t...nVideos412.jpg

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC

LDS Church Office Building: Not just soulless, but soul-sucking.

jpstanley's flickr http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/63...ea756973_b.jpg

You know, I kind of like the look of that one. Maybe it's just the photographer getting a flattering angle.

That Verizon building that's being recladded looks kind of like a kitschily ugly building that in 20 years (with the current façade) would wind up getting a historic designation.

[photoLith]

^^^
I actually love those types of buildings, they are just so massive and just pow in your face solid. Im glad they arent building them anymore though, one per city or less is good.

Now that building in Salt Lake City is terrible, I cant stand buildings like that, they are completely soulless and every last one needs to be reclad.

[RLS_rls]

^The Long Lines building really works with its lack of looks. The big vents/openings at the top and the weathered facade make it look like a giant machine. At least it doesn't bother looking like something else.

[M.K.]

Post #5: The world Trade Center were beautiful simple clean buildings, nothing wrong with their architecture, mainly cause was office very functional to be used for their time, the 70ies years. Soulless is much more those horrible small skyline in front of them. Have they also be destroyed for a beautiful nature promenade near water with trees and so on, instead? That is a horrible architecture. It is because many of those buildings in New York, why i don't appreciate much the city.

Post #14: Actually both are impressive good. I rather like the old facade of clean concrete. I think the glass one made it lose to be what is most today of midrises everywhere. Its character was gone.

Post #21 & #22: Both are very beautiful simple and functional office buildings of the old decades. I see nothing wrong with them. I am surely in United States has many more horrible decandent things to be compared as soulless, dirty, with all grafitti like it has in whole North and South America and even European cities. Those in other hand were nice kept interesting facades. I would like if the cities we live would have cleaned buildings like those, nothing wrong with them. And I agree all buildings shown in Post #23 are horrible, at least outside. I don't know inside whatever. The second photo of Post #22 shows an interesting very spread good neighborhood instead, it seems. I don't know in person. Better than what is found in whole Africa, which is already in medieval times and in Italy, France and East Europe.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by M.K.

Post #5: The world Trade Center were beautiful simple clean buildings......

How anyone could find beauty in those huge, featureless, towering, soul-sucking pieces of shit is beyond me but then M.K. has always kind of struck me as insane. The terrorists probably would have been considered heroes if no one was in those buildings at the time.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

How anyone could find beauty in those huge, featureless, towering, soul-sucking pieces of shit is beyond me but then M.K. has always kind of struck me as insane. The terrorists probably would have been considered heroes if no one was in those buildings at the time.

See, again, I would have to disagree with that opinion. Those towers had a lot of soul and spoke very clearly about who the architect was. Minoru Yamasaki was afraid of heights and he couldn't understand why anyone would want to be that high up and having floor to ceiling windows, which is where the distinct facade of the towers came from.

But again, I am not saying your opinion is wrong, just saying that not everyone feels the same way as you do about them.



Oh and calling other forumers "insane" makes you sound really classy and likable....

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Oh and calling other forumers "insane" makes you sound really classy and likable....

Have you ever read (or rather attempted to read) any of M.K.'s incredibly long-winded, convoluted posts? I rarely get halfway through his posts before I just give up and move on to the next poster. His English is so poor he creates his own words that are utterly unintelligible. That tells me that he can't even be bothered to learn English beyond it's most basic, rudimentary level. Resultingly, I often skim over his posts.

Now back to the topic:

Originally Posted by urbanlife

See, again, I would have to disagree with that opinion. Those towers had a lot of soul and spoke very clearly about who the architect was. Minoru Yamasaki was afraid of heights and he couldn't understand why anyone would want to be that high up and having floor to ceiling windows, which is where the distinct facade of the towers came from.

Assuming that what you said is right about Yamasaki, I hardly think that designing buildings based on one's own personal phobias gives the building "soul". What it gives it, is neuroses.