HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2011, 6:21 PM
Troyeth's Avatar
Troyeth Troyeth is offline
©2010
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 354
Two comments;

First, note how much time/intellectual effort has literally been wasted in effort to produce some good feeling for a failed structure that deserves nothing of the sort.

Second, a structure does not have to be an architectural masterpiece to be beautiful. Simple buildings can be stunning in their austerity. As such, as long as a building is crafted with the scale and needs of the individual in mind, already the architect will have gone a significant way toward rendering the building accessible and attractive. Consequently, the notion that any special consideration of exterior design equates to "fucking the people inside" is especially bogus. As architects are dealing with people, many of the demands on a structure will be the same for people inside and out of it, so an added focus on making the public areas of the structure handsome do not necessarily mean the interior must be a failed space. Design is not a zero-sum game.

For example, people outside feel better when they have mullioned windows through which to gaze into private, occupied spaces, connecting them to areas and individuals beyond the confines of the street. Correspondingly, people inside need windows to maintain their connection to the natural world, the sunlight and to an awareness that life is still unfolding outside of their workplace, and that they are a part of a larger network of people greater than the individual. The natural resolution to both the exterior and internal demand is then, clearly, to have spacious, mullioned windows. Neither the interior or exterior suffer and both benefit, as does ultimately (and especially) the public realm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2011, 6:31 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyeth View Post
Two comments;

First, note how much time/intellectual effort has literally been wasted in effort to produce some good feeling for a failed structure that deserves nothing of the sort.

Second, a structure does not have to be an architectural masterpiece to be beautiful. Simple buildings can be stunning in their austerity. As such, as long as a building is crafted with the scale and needs of the individual in mind, already the architect will have gone a significant way toward rendering the building accessible and attractive. Consequently, the notion that any special consideration of exterior design equates to "fucking the people inside" is especially bogus. As architects are dealing with people, many of the demands on a structure will be the same for people inside and out of it, so an added focus on making the public areas of the structure handsome do not necessarily mean the interior must be a failed space. Design is not a zero-sum game.

For example, people outside feel better when they have mullioned windows through which to gaze into private, occupied spaces, connecting them to areas and individuals beyond the confines of the street. Correspondingly, people inside need windows to maintain their connection to the natural world, the sunlight and to an awareness that life is still unfolding outside of their workplace, and that they are a part of a larger network of people greater than the individual. The natural resolution to both the exterior and internal demand is then, clearly, to have spacious, mullioned windows. Neither the interior or exterior suffer and both benefit, particularly the public realm.
Note, how much hypothetical arguments come from a single photo rather than a well detailed description. This back and forth can easily go on forever without proper information to back it up, something this one photo isn't truly giving us. At first sight, I thought this building sat at a corner of an intersection, not a back alley. Now I can't say for sure what that alley looks like, if it is more like a small street or an alley with dumpsters in it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2011, 6:35 PM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
How is this building a failure, exactly? It's a homeless shelter/reintegrating housing. Every detail about this building seems crafted for the 'scale and needs of the individual.' In a project like this, fancy mullioned windows are a luxury; this building is built with design goals that are not 'give the residents spaces where they can feel better through gazing into private, occupied space.' It's a homeless shelter where the intent is to provide humanitarian relief for a high volume of displaced people and do so in an ecologically sustainable manner within a tight budget, which are very reasonable design quantifications.

From the general contractor's website:

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.J. Deluca Company
Connelly House is a new 8-story transitional housing project for Project H.O.M.E and Bethesda Project – two organizations dedicated to providing shelter and opportunities to those in need . In addition to single rooms and efficiency apartments, the 79-unit Connelly House will provide laundry facilities, multiple kitchens, exercise room, and a community room for residents.

The project will seek LEED Certification and design plans include a green roof, a rainwater collection system for irrigation, high-efficiency mechanical systems and lighting, and much more. 75% of all demolition materials will be recycled, and 20% of the construction materials are recycled. Located in downtown Philadelphia at 13th & Market Streets, the Connelly House plans to open its doors November 2010.
http://www.jjdeluca.com/projects/view/74#
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2011, 6:36 PM
Troyeth's Avatar
Troyeth Troyeth is offline
©2010
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 354
Why does the location of an ugly building matter to you? If it is an alley, does that make it acceptable? Appropriate? Necessary?

Bramante's Tempietto rests isolated in a hidden courtyard in Rome. It is one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. Just food for thought.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2011, 6:40 PM
Troyeth's Avatar
Troyeth Troyeth is offline
©2010
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGII View Post
How is this building a failure, exactly? It's a homeless shelter/reintegrating housing. Every detail about this building seems crafted for the 'scale and needs of the individual.' In a project like this, fancy mullioned windows are a luxury; this building is built with design goals that are not 'give the residents spaces where they can feel better through gazing into private, occupied space.' It's a homeless shelter where the intent is to provide humanitarian relief for a high volume of displaced people and do so in an ecologically sustainable manner within a tight budget, which are very reasonable design quantifications.
When it comes down to it, the core, internalized feelings generated by a design, as you very well know, are intensely personal and subjective. Perhaps you are highly pleased by this building's appearance. Perhaps you think it does improve the cityscape of Philadelphia and the attitudes of those who encounter it. Wonderful!

I just presume you are on the very rare side of the spectrum of conclusions, and thankfully so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2011, 6:46 PM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyeth View Post
Why does the location of an ugly building matter to you? If it is an alley, does that make it acceptable? Appropriate? Necessary?

Bramante's Tempietto rests isolated in a hidden courtyard in Rome. It is one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. Just food for thought.
Are you serious? You are using Il Tempietto to illustrate what the architects should have been thinking of? Il Tempietto is a building with virtually no design constraints besides the space it is in. The interior is purely ceremonial space, and there was virtually no budget. Show us how Bramante's 8 story homeless shelters looked and we can have a proper comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyeth View Post
When it comes down to it, the core, internalized feelings generated by a design, as you very well know, are intensely personal and subjective. Perhaps you are highly pleased by this building's appearance. Perhaps you think it does improve the cityscape of Philadelphia and the attitudes of those who encounter it. Wonderful!

I just presume you are on the very rare side of the spectrum of conclusions, and thankfully so.
Of course feelings about design are subjective. However, the aspects of this design which provide outreach to those in need are directly quantifiable; you will find I am not a minority as this building has already received several awards both from design and humanitarian circles.


Here are a few groups involved in the design and construction of this building:
http://www.bethesdaproject.org/
http://www.projecthome.org/news/?id=134
http://www.stjohnsphilly.com/index.p...news&Itemid=39


Also, interior renderings from the architect's website (http://brianszymanik.com/built/connelly/connelly1.html)





__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2011, 6:57 PM
Troyeth's Avatar
Troyeth Troyeth is offline
©2010
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 354
Let us just recap one truth. Not once has anyone said that this building is attractive. Not one single time. A couple people have said, however, that because it is a half-way house or environmentally benevolent, because of this reason or that reason, that it is okay and acceptable that it looks as disappointing as it does.

Debate theories and ideas all you'd like; hey, I admit it does cultivate useful argumentation skills. It will, unfortunately, never cease, for theories and ideas are as numerous as there are people living, and each one of those people are certain they are 100% correct in their judgement. What is pretty unified, however, is the agreement that this building is a visual disaster.

A prominent name who debated theories and ideas as opposed to designing spaces people cared for and felt good in, and who was consequently awarded accolades and prizes by the establishment: Le Corbusier. Many others just like him, too. It goes to show how much theory and debate lack any substance ultimately, particularly in the absence of a product which leaves people feeling alive and connected with their environs.

Also, CGII, in your rush to be oppositional you missed my point wholly. My point was not that this building should appear as majestic as the Tempietto [I wish], it was that even in locations that do not necessarily justify it, we can still nonetheless produce very competent designs and bring them to fruition.

Last edited by Troyeth; Jan 5, 2011 at 7:07 PM. Reason: Inclusion of sarcasm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2011, 7:07 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyeth View Post
When it comes down to it, the core, internalized feelings generated by a design, as you very well know, are intensely personal and subjective. Perhaps you are highly pleased by this building's appearance. Perhaps you think it does improve the cityscape of Philadelphia and the attitudes of those who encounter it. Wonderful!

I just presume you are on the very rare side of the spectrum of conclusions, and thankfully so.
Have I seen better examples of homeless shelters? sure, do I understand that this one probably is working on an extremely limited budget and this photo only shows us a awkward example of the building while under construction? Definitely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2011, 7:17 PM
Troyeth's Avatar
Troyeth Troyeth is offline
©2010
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 354
CGII, those interiors look fine. Will we ever be able to appreciate them regularly? Highly doubtful, unless we fall on hard times (and are lucky enough to be provided shelter there). No, what were are offered for visual [dis]pleasure is only this.

This building will no-question be host to services that are praiseworthy and hugely beneficial to society, a welcome addition of new opportunities to people and families that need them most. Beyond that, it is also comparatively environmentally benevolent, efficient and completed on what was likely a very, very limited budget. All of these are laudable things.

Divorcing use from design, though, we must admit this building does not make is feel good, nor alive, nor inspired. Excuse why it looks horrific to your very final breath--please do!--but in the end it will always just look like shit. There is no defending that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2011, 7:22 PM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
This will be my last comment because I'm tiring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyeth View Post
Let us just recap one truth. Not once has anyone said that this building is attractive. Not one single time. A couple people have said, however, that because it is a half-way house or environmentally benevolent, because of this reason or that reason, that it is okay and acceptable that it looks as disappointing as it doesDebate theories and ideas all you'd like; it cultivates useful argumentation skills. It will, unfortunately, never cease, for theories and ideas are as numerous as there are people living. What is pretty unified, however, is the agreement that this building is a visual disaster.
.
Correct. But how it looks is irrelevant because it efficiently serves an important function in an efficient manner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyeth
A prominent name who debated theories and ideas as opposed to designing spaces people cared for and felt good in, and who was consequently awarded accolades and prizes by the establishment: Le Corbusier. Many others just like him, too. It goes to show how much theory and debate lack any substance ultimately, particularly in the absence of a produce which leaves people feeling alive and connected with their environs.
I think if you actually researched what people that lived in real Le Corbusier designed projects (and not the endless number of projects he influenced around the world) you would find they are especially satisfied. I understand his Unite d'Habitations around the world are often the butt of jokes of the cities they are in, however from what I've read the residents of these buildings are extremely satisfied with both the quality of the building, the aesthetics of their apartments, and the community they inhabit. Corbusier's buildings have generally been met with great success (though his contemporaries and planning strategies have not), so I find it interesting you wish to bring up his name here as some sort of architectural Godwin's Law.

Have you ever visited a Le Corbusier building? His buildings (especially his postwar work) have an incredible capacity to be emotionally stirring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyeth
Also, CGII, in your rush to be oppositional you missed my point wholly. My point was not that this building should appear as majestic as the Tempietto, it was that even in locations that do not necessarily justify it, we can still nonetheless produce very competent designs and bring them to fruition.
But ultimately your point is irrelevant to both everything I have been saying and the question at hand. Is this building defensible? The social and environmental problems that this project addresses are not conceptual and abstract as you are making them out to be; these are real, physical issues that this building is directly addressing; it is not proposing some conceptual solution. Shelter for the homeless is not theory, it is practice, and neither is environmental efficiency.

This building is doing so much to actually physically perform in the cityscape (in a non-intellectual manner) that to focus on what it could've looked like from the back alley it faces is to completely undermine the project. It is actually providing a space that people engage successfully regardless of the fact that this building could've looked better if it had a larger budget. To judge this building on its appearance simply strikes me as incredibly superficial considering that it is designed explicitly to house and care for the homeless within a very limited budget. To demand a cooler looking facade from the people providing this incredibly selfless care is really just silly.

There are modern buildings that deserve to be challenged on their application of concept and design. This really isn't one of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyeth View Post
CGII, those interiors look fine. Will we ever be able to appreciate them regularly? Highly doubtful, unless we fall on hard times (and are lucky enough to be provided shelter there). No, what were are offered for visual [dis]pleasure is only this.
Ah yes, because it is banal to us homed folks it is clearly a failure. I find it nauseating that you suggest we should hold a homeless shelter accountable for how it looks (in a back alley, no less) to people with higher taste and class.
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.

Last edited by CGII; Jan 5, 2011 at 7:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2011, 9:30 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyeth View Post
CGII, those interiors look fine. Will we ever be able to appreciate them regularly? Highly doubtful, unless we fall on hard times (and are lucky enough to be provided shelter there). No, what were are offered for visual [dis]pleasure is only this.

This building will no-question be host to services that are praiseworthy and hugely beneficial to society, a welcome addition of new opportunities to people and families that need them most. Beyond that, it is also comparatively environmentally benevolent, efficient and completed on what was likely a very, very limited budget. All of these are laudable things.

Divorcing use from design, though, we must admit this building does not make is feel good, nor alive, nor inspired. Excuse why it looks horrific to your very final breath--please do!--but in the end it will always just look like shit. There is no defending that.
Actually you are defending that, this building isn't about being noticed or screaming "look at me!!" if it was, they would of painted it red or some collection of loud colors. Instead it has a look that allows it to blend in with its surroundings, which building to your surrounding is often times an important technique to preform in architecture, and a common thing done in Europe if I am not mistaken.

As the renderings point out, this building was designed to have the users in mind, sure most of us will never get to see inside this building, and I am happy knowing that because I wouldn't want to be in those people's positions, but should the architect sacrifice the inside to make this building look like a condo building crammed in a weird location giving the residents views of the back ends of buildings...oh how inspiring that would be for the residents of this building.

No one has said this building is beautiful, but that was never the question, the question was can this building be defended? Which the answer to that is within the building's context, yes it can be defended.

Do you like this building? Obviously not, and you feel that it should of been done differently, though I would question your demand to have the building done differently would of been anywhere near as successful given the location of this building and the challenges it faced.

With that said, low income housing and homeless shelters in this country always face an uphill battle when trying to get them constructed because it is near impossible to get money to construct things like this, which are often times funded by churches that are more concerned with the users rather than the exterior architecture. In some degree, this is a valid excuse, should the church not build this building because they cannot afford to make the exterior look like some generic apartment building or should the church look at ways of making the living experience for those that use this building the best they can make it? When trying to decide where the money goes, this is a very tricky debate.

Given this building's location, I would say it is neither ugly or beautiful, it is purely a functional building that is tucked away from daily sight. One could easily argue that this building best reflects its users and acts as a castle to protect those from the harsh streets they have been so use to.

Would you still be having this argument about this building if the tiny windows were larger and consumed most of the facade? Would you of wanted some detailed and expensive brick working done to the facade to make the building more interesting? Or would it of just required a better choice in paint? I am unsure of where you are drawing the line for this building, what would of been a better choice for this location and budget that would of provided the same level of comfort for those that use this building? It is much easier to stand outside of architecture and criticize it, but when it comes to designing respectable architecture that both benefits the user and the building's surroundings, it becomes much harder and complicated to do.


Though on a side note, the low income housing photos from Vancouver were fantastic, that is a great example of a city that has shown civic class on how it deals with its low income housing and homeless shelters and it would be amazing if more cities held themselves to that same level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2011, 1:18 AM
bryson662001's Avatar
bryson662001 bryson662001 is offline
BeenThere,DoneThat
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: A swanky suburb in my fancy pants
Posts: 2,248
For what it's worth I finally got a chance to go look at this building and in all fairness it really is hidden from view from any of the surrounding streets and located in the center of the block. It is still visable from the windows of all the surrounding buildings however. There isn't much of a view from the building itself since it is surrounded by other buildings so that may be why they didn't think windows were important.
__________________
Forget it Jake ................it's Market East
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2011, 2:30 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryson662001 View Post
For what it's worth I finally got a chance to go look at this building and in all fairness it really is hidden from view from any of the surrounding streets and located in the center of the block. It is still visable from the windows of all the surrounding buildings however. There isn't much of a view from the building itself since it is surrounded by other buildings so that may be why they didn't think windows were important.
There might of been that whole trying to prevent that looking in feeling for the residents as well. No one wants to live in a fish tank, especially people trying to get off the streets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2011, 3:54 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
To use the logic from another thread, maybe living in fish tanks is popular...it's a big architectural trend.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 23, 2011, 1:08 AM
montréaliste montréaliste is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chambly, Quebec
Posts: 1,996
It is a gigantic crackhouse on crack.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 23, 2011, 4:37 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
This is a crackhouse:



Or at least, the first Google Image result for "crackhouse".

I don't see much resemblance. I don't see any resemblance at all, actually.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted May 23, 2011, 6:45 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
The interior actually looks pretty sleek and modern. Given the efficiency layout of each unit, there probably isn't the space for more windows. The amount of wall space available in which to install windows was further reduced by the energy-efficiency requirements.

Fire code may also play a role, since windows generally aren't allowed on walls that face lot lines, and on this building all four walls face lot lines. As the facade moves back from the lot line, the amount of openness in the facade increases, but at a fairly slow rate. There are ways to avoid this, but all of them are costly.

All of the windows look operable, but since many of the residents will have substance-abuse and/or severe emotional/mental issues, they can't be large enough to jump out of.

---

I keep hearing that this building looks like a prison, but I'll submit that what makes a prison unpleasant is not the design of the facades but the incredible spartan and dirty atmosphere inside (as well as the inhabitants, obviously).

This project had a limited budget and ambitious sustainability goals. I'm really glad that they decided to sink what little money they did have into attractive, functional and humane interiors instead of some fancy facade treatment. This building won't dehumanize anybody, but some slick glass box with dirty, banged-up metal furniture and empty, cavernous spaces inside would.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2011, 10:01 PM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
This is a crackhouse:



Or at least, the first Google Image result for "crackhouse".

I don't see much resemblance. I don't see any resemblance at all, actually.

I know this is an old bump, but holy shit, that building is a block from my apartment in Bed-Stuy. It is now some rather nice apartments.
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2011, 11:09 PM
stormkingfan stormkingfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PhilaPA
Posts: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangeld_slc View Post
maybe the windows are super tiny to discourage suicidal homeless people from jumping out of such a depressing structure
lmao!!!

Sorry, I shouldn't be laughing at anything having to do with suicide.

When I first saw this thread, I thought, "'k, whad I miss here, or is this just a CG rendition?" God, I hope they don't build this in Philly. Philly takes a lot of crap from people. Don't add something that's gonna pull Philly down even further.

Even the Bridge Apartments, those 4 ugly apt. bldgs just east of the George (NYC), aren't as tacky as this.

Last edited by stormkingfan; Nov 30, 2011 at 11:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2011, 11:25 PM
stormkingfan stormkingfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PhilaPA
Posts: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGII View Post
I know this is an old bump, but holy shit, that building is a block from my apartment in Bed-Stuy. It is now some rather nice apartments.
I'll bet this bldg was really nice in its heyday. It's a friggin' shame that these old homes, mansions, walk-ups go to crap like that.

Er, CGII, I guess I didn't read clearly. They restored and renovated this place? Bed-Stuy has been undergoing some big changes.
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 11:54 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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