HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 6:26 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by turigamot View Post
That's absolutely fantastic.
My favorite part about that building is how it evokes the traditional shape of Japanese roofs yet is wildly futuristic. It is even more appropriate considering it was built for the 64 Olympics which served as Japans "Coming Out Party" after 20 years of reconstruction.

It really encapsulates the link between the wildly traditional pre-war Japan (traditional roof shape) and wildly futuristic post-war Japan that we have all come to know.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 6:44 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
I haven't read through 3 pages, so forgive me if I'm covering something that's already been said or if the topic has moved on.

We could have avoided this problem if the preservation movement had been honest with itself from the start. It was never really about "historic" preservation. It was about preserving what was GOOD from being replaced by what was BAD. We never needed a preservationist community until contemporary architecture started to suck so much and it became glaringly obvious that historic architecture was better.

Unfortunately, preservationists called it "historic preservation" rather than "preservation of the good" because it seemed easier at the time. But now that the shitty buildings are old, they're stuck with either admitting that it's quality rather than age that they're concerned with (and therefore being labeled hypocrites), or preserving shitty buildings that should be bombed into oblivion.

It was an epic mistake, and it's costing us now.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 6:49 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
So true, the Calatrava really fuglied up the original design!

Seriously though, this is what I'm talking about with people defacing Brutalism. If the Calatrava were to be built 50 years from now, no one would have ever thought to allow it to directly abut and clutter the Saarinen design. They would have demanded a respectful treatment of the original structure similar to the Nelson-Atkins addition in KC. The Calatrava is great enough on its own, but shouldn't visibly abut the Saarinen, it should emerge from the hillside and connect underground.
i'm not even talking about the calatrava addition, but rather the insensitive 1975 addition of the Kahler Building that added about 150,000 SF of exhibition space to the museum. it negatively affected the floating sensation of saarinen's original design.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 7:18 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ Oh I know, I don't think either addition was sensitive to the original design. The first addition should have gone under the roadway in my opinion and lined Lake Drive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 7:59 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
I haven't read through 3 pages, so forgive me if I'm covering something that's already been said or if the topic has moved on.

We could have avoided this problem if the preservation movement had been honest with itself from the start. It was never really about "historic" preservation. It was about preserving what was GOOD from being replaced by what was BAD. We never needed a preservationist community until contemporary architecture started to suck so much and it became glaringly obvious that historic architecture was better.

Unfortunately, preservationists called it "historic preservation" rather than "preservation of the good" because it seemed easier at the time. But now that the shitty buildings are old, they're stuck with either admitting that it's quality rather than age that they're concerned with (and therefore being labeled hypocrites), or preserving shitty buildings that should be bombed into oblivion.

It was an epic mistake, and it's costing us now.
All very true. But now it's about preserving "examples" and/or buildings that are considered "good" mostly by architects and fans, not the broader public. Even in the worst decades of urban renewal, historic buildings often got a lot of love if they weren't decrepit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 9:46 PM
fishrose's Avatar
fishrose fishrose is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midtown Detroit
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
But you're sentencing the neighborhood to have to live with it, and someone to be a tenant.
Oh boo frickin' hoo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 11:58 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172


Tblisi Roads Ministry Building, now occupied by Bank of Georgia, 1975



Yamanashi Culture Chamber by Kenzo Tange, 1966



Towers B and C of the Trg Republike complex in Ljubljana by Edvard Ravnikar, 1976.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 3:23 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356

flickr/architecturalhistorian
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 3:14 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
All very true. But now it's about preserving "examples" and/or buildings that are considered "good" mostly by architects and fans, not the broader public. Even in the worst decades of urban renewal, historic buildings often got a lot of love if they weren't decrepit.
Actually, during urban renewal pretty much only architects and preservationists considered Prairie Style, Victorian, Neo-classical, etc to be "Good". The general public was pretty much 100% in the "Mad-men" camp as evidenced by the spate of horrendous, linoleum coated, teal plastic tile lined, renovations that were applied to our historic buildings during the period. The fact is people, for about three decades, were almost 100% obsessed with the "in with the new, out with the old" mentality. Looking back it's easy to point out individuals and movements that arose to counter the wholesale destruction of our architecture, but there was really nothing more than isolated patches of support for these styles.

The people standing up for and supporting Mid-Century Modern styles, Brutalism in particular, will be looked upon in the same way by our children as they will have grown up in a period of time where all buildings in that style aren't at the peak of their depreciation cycle and aren't associated with their parents generation. And, when they find out what we've destroyed, they are going to ask the same "who would tear that down!?" question we ask when we see Penn Station or Chicago Stock Exchange.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 4:23 PM
WilliamTheArtist's Avatar
WilliamTheArtist WilliamTheArtist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tulsa Oklahoma
Posts: 800
The more variety in a cities downtown, the better imo. I think the brutalist buildings are great. I am not even sure if we have any in Tulsa that qualify as being brutalist? But I do remember how people used to think Art Deco was ugly and out-dated. Now it pains me to think how many neat Art Deco buildings we tore down. As for Victorian style, we tore those down in grand fashion. In old photos of Tulsa you could see lots of buildings that fit the style. Now, not a SINGLE example remains, not a one. That whole part of our architectural history is gone.

Bit of a side note. I am just old enough to remember "the strip" back in the day. Back when Route 66 through Tulsa was still alive and bustling. Nobody from later generations will be able to truly appreciate and really imagine what it was like back then. Pictures couldn't capture it, movies don't do it justice (the best example I can think of right off is in the cartoon movie "Cars" when they turn on all the little towns lights and drive back and forth up that little strip. Some of the buildings may remain in Tulsa from that era along the strip, but 99% of the other stuff is gone. Gone are the diners covered in shiny metal and lit up with neon, actually, almost every building had neon. Then there were the signs that would light up and move. The myriad starburst patters where the line of lights would start lighting up at the bottom and move up the sign the BOOM the starbursts would light up and revolve, the arrows that would light up, rocket signs with "fire" coming out their tails, the car lots with the flags and strings of hundres of light bulbs strung over them, flashing lights, spinning lights, neon of every color lining the street for miles and miles. Neat little hotels with the rooms that looked like individual TeePee's or cabins around a pool and all kinds of quirky buildings.... almost all gone now. I remember being in the back seat of my parents huge early 70s car as a little boy as they drove down the strip at night, listening to that 60s and 70s music and looking out in wonder at all of that, and sitting out at the drive through having a rootbeer float. All gone. And no matter how I try to describe it to those of you who are too young or didn't get to experience that era, your not going to be able to really get it. We tore it all down and what remains is mostly in ruins. From the art deco gas stations and diners to the 50s and 70s "mod" style store fronts and signs, only scattered hints remain.

Each era and place had its "look" the cars people drove, the clothes they wore, the music they listened to, advertisements and signage, tv and movies we watched, etc. A building from that era, especially one that exemplifies that era, is worth saving imo. Can't save them all, no. But at least a few here and there as reminders. Tulsa is a small city and we may only have a few of one era or another, and once those are gone, they are gone. And its always so sad when the next generation comes along and laments what was lost.

Every style goes through its "ugly" out of fashion, old and tacky, stage. The stuff we love now and think of as being cutting edge will do that. Those of you who are young and loving the latest fashion will see a day when that is seen as old and ugly. Every style has that time when its everywhere. For a time here all the shopping centers were that long, low flat roof design with large windows and pole columns. Now its Tuscan. Tuscan is eeeeeverywhere. Some day that will be old and out of fashion and will be torn down or rebuilt to fit a different style. But when that new "mass fashion" style comes along, I hope we don't tear all the old down. Heck, even the 80s for a while was seen as uuuuugly, now I hear with the younger crowd 80s music and fashion and even architecture (tacky 80s deco anyone?) is seen as cool. Like my generation thought my parents generation of the 50s and 60s was cool and they still hate the stuff and think its tacky and ugly lol. We would dress up at school wearing 50s and 60s costumes for parties, and I hear that some kids today do that with the 80s theme.

Sorry for a ramble, but suffice it to say, those brutalist buildings remind me of fond memories. They are beautiful to me for they fit in with the cars I rode in, first crushes, favorite old songs, movies and music,,, they stand as very poignant reminders of that world. Don't tear them all down. Even someone other than me may find them interesting in the future and wonder about that era. But thats not as likely if they are all gone. Just like old Route 66 in Tulsa. Seeing it in some faded photo, won't give you a clue.
__________________
Tulsa
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 6:35 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post


Tblisi Roads Ministry Building, now occupied by Bank of Georgia, 1975
Hey Beautiful! Where have you been all my life!


God what a gorgeous building! How have I not seen this one before?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 7:04 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
They could also be preserved by having their facades and or shell preserved in museum parks or something.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 7:42 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
Actually, during urban renewal pretty much only architects and preservationists considered Prairie Style, Victorian, Neo-classical, etc to be "Good". The general public was pretty much 100% in the "Mad-men" camp as evidenced by the spate of horrendous, linoleum coated, teal plastic tile lined, renovations that were applied to our historic buildings during the period. The fact is people, for about three decades, were almost 100% obsessed with the "in with the new, out with the old" mentality. Looking back it's easy to point out individuals and movements that arose to counter the wholesale destruction of our architecture, but there was really nothing more than isolated patches of support for these styles.

The people standing up for and supporting Mid-Century Modern styles, Brutalism in particular, will be looked upon in the same way by our children as they will have grown up in a period of time where all buildings in that style aren't at the peak of their depreciation cycle and aren't associated with their parents generation. And, when they find out what we've destroyed, they are going to ask the same "who would tear that down!?" question we ask when we see Penn Station or Chicago Stock Exchange.
The public tilted modern, but there was always a sizeable portion that supported older styles. It was very different from the few that support brutalist buildings today.

This is why colleges, state capitols, etc., managed to maintain outstanding cores of historic buildings...the ones that were maintained remained popular.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 7:45 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
Hey Beautiful! Where have you been all my life!


God what a gorgeous building! How have I not seen this one before?
I think everyone involved was arrested....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 10:10 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
The public tilted modern, but there was always a sizeable portion that supported older styles. It was very different from the few that support brutalist buildings today.

This is why colleges, state capitols, etc., managed to maintain outstanding cores of historic buildings...the ones that were maintained remained popular.
Ummm what evidence do you have that actually supports this? If I understand your second paragraph you are basically saying "because they didn't tear down all of the 'historic' buildings, it's obvious that the public obviously always had a soft spot for them" which would seem to apply equally to brutalism as 90% of it hasn't been torn down.

The public definitely didn't "tilt" modern. The public became so obsessed with the concept of modernism that we essentially razed all American cities except NYC and parts of Chicago. Don't try to dance around the issue. Most people thought classical, prairie, and art deco style architecture was outdated and backwards and therefore approved of the wholesale demolition of those styles in the name of "progress". I don't think there has ever been a style that was as dominantly popular as Moderism was in the 50's and 60's and that is part of the problem. In the past some buildings would have been Italianate and some would have been Classical and some might have been Deco while others Prairie, but after 860-880 Lake Shore Drive was built in Chicago, EVERYTHING was modern for about 30 years. There was no more new Deco buildings, no more new Classical buildings, there was Modernism and only Modernism. Offices, Homes, Apartments, factories, EVERYTHING was Modern. That isn't a "tilt" towards being modern, that's falling right off a cliff towards being Modern.

FYI, this thread alone is proof that there is still a huge section of the population that appreciates brutalism. The style is regaining more and more popularity as Mid Century Modernism continues to regain popularity. Right now modern buildings from the 50's and 60's are enjoying a resurgence in popularity as people retrofit them and spiff them up for modern uses and many of them are being landmarked. The same will happen to brutalism and other styles from the 1970's over the next decade or two as people begin to restore them to functionally modern uses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 10:37 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
You know that urban renewal wasn't about architectural style primarily. Come on. The areas "renewed" had been neglected for decades, due to the depression, WWII, the GI Bill, etc., which fed into a perception (and some reality) that they weren't as clean or functional as building new. They mixed uses, which was verboten to many urbanists. They often lacked elevators. Sometimes housing units were small, as were offices. Many buildings were called firetraps. All of this was used by urban renewal proponents to justify their campaigns.

As for this thread being indicative of "a huge section of the population".... what in the hell are you smoking? This thread is the architects and fans I'm talking about, no more. I'm flabbergasted that this isn't obvious.

As for brutalism not being torn down yet....surely you realize that these buildings are much newer? (Even so, when my city has school renovation bond issues, they're clear that the program is to tear renovate the old stuff, and tear down and replace the mid-century stuff...we get 70% yeses.)

Regarding what's popular, you seem to think that what gets built equals what's popular. That's odd. Even in the AIA's own well-known national survey of the general public a few years ago, nothing recently built was as popular as the pre-war buildings they showed. This illustrated to the architectural community better than ever before that there's a disconnect between what the public likes and what they've been designing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 11:34 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
You know that urban renewal wasn't about architectural style primarily. Come on. The areas "renewed" had been neglected for decades, due to the depression, WWII, the GI Bill, etc., which fed into a perception (and some reality) that they weren't as clean or functional as building new. They mixed uses, which was verboten to many urbanists. They often lacked elevators. Sometimes housing units were small, as were offices. Many buildings were called firetraps. All of this was used by urban renewal proponents to justify their campaigns.
Uhh and what do you think people are saying about brutalism right now? "The floorplans are outdated", "The interiors are dated", "they have been neglected for decades", "They aren't as functional as building new", "They don't comply to ADA standards", "They don't have modern sprinkler and alarm systems", etc. Same criticism, same mistake.

Quote:
As for brutalism not being torn down yet....surely you realize that these buildings are much newer? (Even so, when my city has school renovation bond issues, they're clear that the program is to tear renovate the old stuff, and tear down and replace the mid-century stuff...we get 70% yeses.)
Uhhh no it's not newer. Most of the stuff built in the glory days of our cities was built around 1900, that was the center of the boom. Therefore it was, on average, 50 years old when the wholesale demolition began. How long ago did they start building Brutalism? 45 years ago? Looks like we are almost at the prime "tear it down for stupid reasons" years.

Quote:
Regarding what's popular, you seem to think that what gets built equals what's popular. That's odd. Even in the AIA's own well-known national survey of the general public a few years ago, nothing recently built was as popular as the pre-war buildings they showed. This illustrated to the architectural community better than ever before that there's a disconnect between what the public likes and what they've been designing.
That's because historic structures came back into style. Styles change. As someone who actually works on the sales side of the industry I can tell you that you are completely wrong about what is being built not being representative of what people like. The fact is we CAN'T build buildings like we used to, so building historical structures is not an option. It's a false dilemma to suggest it is. Therefore what get's built is what is most popular right now that we can build right now. I deal with clients all day long on many projects and they all have a say in what their project looks like. This isn't architects dictating to the client, this is clients saying "I like what you are proposing" or "I don't like it". Architectural trends are in fact predicated off of popular opinion no matter how many people like to claim they aren't.

Anyone who believes that architectural trends are not determined by popular opinion is completely disconnected with reality. Not that they are insane, but that they clearly haven't seen how the process of building an new building works. I see it every day and I'll tell you that clients generally dictate what style their project will have. They hire architects that they like and they have input into how the project will look.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 12:01 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
I don't know whether you do residential or commercial. If it's commercial (offices, hotels, apartments, condos), then you know the clients are primarily looking for cost vs. benefit tempered by risk. If they're the end-user they're also interested in functionality. Either way, for most clients architectural style is generally secondary, and even when it's moderately important it's relegated to letting the architect take the lead. The selection process is different of course but even then, most clients will choose someone who can skinny things down so they'll pencil, not someone who will do a great looking building with expensive adornments. And they'll keep moving things to be cheaper throughout the process. None of this equals popularity of a style, even among clients let alone the general public.

I assume you're not on the single family residential side. Most houses, even while prioritizing parking and square footage, borrow from traditional styles rather than modern ones.

Or maybe you are on the boutique residential side. In that case, you're talking to a tiny demographic who has pre-selected your firm, perhaps because they're the same Dwell readers I've been talking about. (Can't be this one, can it? That's too obvious a point.)

Regarding why brutalist buildings are being torn down, the point was about most still existing today, even if your 90% figure was overstating it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 4:32 AM
Jasoncw's Avatar
Jasoncw Jasoncw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 402
Demolishing historic buildings didn't start in the mid-century, it's been going on for as long as there have been historic buildings.

In the 1920s and 1930s, all of those late 1800s richardsonian romanesque and victorian buildings were out of vogue. They were at the end of their life cycles, they had bad floor plans, they were firehazards, they were gaudy, etc. Those buildings were demolished and replaced with new ones. You know a lot of cities originally had richardsonian romanesque civic buildings (like Milwaukee's or Toronto's city hall), but they were demolished for bigger, more modern revival or art deco buildings.


Then during the midcentury, the preservation movement started. But like it's been said, it wasn't started by "common" people to fight against the "snobby minority out of touch cultural elites" (this is what you're getting at about dwell), it was started by those people to fight against popular opinion.

And it's the same thing for modernism today. Preservation groups are starting campaigns for spreading awareness about modernism. And while the group is small right now, there is a market for modernism and brutalism, which is why the higher profile buildings are getting renovated, and why people are buying t-shirts with Trellick Tower on them, or buying albums with Marina City as the album art, or why most of the locations in the most recent James Bond movie are modern, with the posters featuring a dramatic shot of Bond at the Barbican in London. More and more new books are being published about modern and brutalist architects.

Although by the time modernism and brutalism are appreciated again, postmodernism will be on the chopping block. It's already becoming increasingly unpopular, and it will be our responsibility to advocate for it, even when no one, even ourselves, thinks it has value.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 5:40 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
It's pure speculation that the public might rise up to protect modern buildings like we protected older buildings in the 60s, 70s, etc. It's not looking likely so far...there's no indication of any popular outpouring even on a moderate scale....
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 2:41 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.