Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung
They thought it was classy. It helps hide imperfections. Laser-cut alucabond panels aren't available yet.
|
So in other words, the function was that it made the buildings look more pleasing to people based on the tastes of that culture during that era. The same as the intended purpose of most ornamentation including the examples you love lambasting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung
The aesthetic didn't look stupid when repeated over and over again. Can't be said for most of the condos I've mentioned...
|
Didn't look stupid to whom? To the average citizen of the day? To modern observers? To you?
You're assertion that ornamentation requires a "meaning" just seems very inconsistent. I can understand the modernist position of form follows function and of designing the functional elements in a way that also has an appealing aesthetic rather than dishonestly hiding the functional elements with superficial ornamentation. But to imply that superficial ornamental elements are acceptable despite their lack of function if they have some flimsy notion of "meaning" such as people feeling it looks better doesn't make sense. I'm sure there are plenty of ordinary people who feel the ornamental elements of even your most hated condos looks good.
As far as the question of when repetition really works, the answer is that it works only when it can effectively fade itself into the background. Humans have always lived in environments that were dominated by repetitive elements with a small number of interest gathering elements. Mostly forest and grasslands punctuated by the odd mountain, river, etc. Buildings with a uniform size, mass, and colouring create a sort of baseline much in the same way that natural elements can. The buildings in the Paris picture are a great example. They allow people to mainly notice a few focal points which in the case of Paris are grand monuments like triumphal arches, statues, fountains, obelisks and grand public buildings. These are either much larger than the surrounding cityscape, or are in a highly visible position such as in a major intersection or public square. And they are all unique from one another and impeccably designed. To the modern, untrained eye they may look similar, but in their era that would not have been the case.
Now in the context of a younger city like Toronto, the problem is with establishing the baseline. Most of the city is lowrise masonry buildings so these are attempting to form the aesthetic background or baseline. But when you add totally different buildings like highrise condos, they stick out because they're so big and different from the lowrises. So they tend to act as focal points. But they don't fulfill that role very well if they're not unique and impeccably designed. So our human brains don't know what to make of this environment. We can't ignore them, but we're frustrated by their unremarkable characteristics. When you combine the lowrise and midrise cityscape with unremarkable highrises, it is not consistent enough to be an effective baseline and we find it mentally jarring (and not aesthetically appealing). We either want the condos to not be highrises and instead be integrated into the lowrise cityscape (NIMBYs) or to be remarkable and unique highrises capable of fulfilling the role of focal points (skyscraper enthusiasts).
Unfortunately unless the similar highrises completely dominate the cityscape they simply cannot form an effective baseline. They're just to big and different and attract too much attention. They may be able to form the baseline in small parts of the city like downtown but even then that's difficult to do effectively because of other buildings from other eras.
Also, I find this is particularly an issue with glass. Because of its nature with being very sparkly and reflective, it tends to be a great option for a focal point and provides relief juxtaposed against duller materials. But as the baseline I've never found it very workable. It's just too harsh on the eye compared to duller looking materials.
Prev
Linear Mode
