HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 2:15 AM
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: 34,374
And it's not necessarily tearing down the whole building. The old artistic facades are maintained as part of a new highrise built on top of it.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 6:00 AM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 8,126
I wouldnt mind having 80% of brutalist structures wiped off the face of the Earth. They cant even be compared to pre war architecture and the saving of it. Brutalist buildings are ugly pieces of junk that add nothing to the streetscape, and are usually just huge concrete buildings with a few protruding strangely shaped windows. Good riddance to them. There are some that are very cool, but they are few and far between.
__________________
Visit my Photography Facebook Page...

https://www.facebook.com/chrislitherlandphotography
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 6:01 AM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 8,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryson662001 View Post
Just to put things in perspective when it comes to the way people "feel" about buildings, before 9/11 the twin towers were considered banal, boring and old fashioned if not downright ugly by pretty much everyone and the big plaza was a cold, wind swept waste of space. Now that they are gone they are idolized and admired. Go figure!
I still think they were incredibly ugly and quite boring. They were just incredibly tall and dominating.
__________________
Visit my Photography Facebook Page...

https://www.facebook.com/chrislitherlandphotography
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 12:38 PM
Tyler Xyroadia's Avatar
Tyler Xyroadia Tyler Xyroadia is offline
Architect Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 161
You are preaching to the Choir Photo!

I am sure by now most know my own views on Brutalist works, and of course the treasures that were lost to build many of them. A sad dark chapter in history when so much was lost to build these monstrosities.

So..

In 100years times when someone says "Lets tear down the ESB. It's incredibly ugly and quite boring" Who will speak up?

Again, destroying something that is one of a kind because it is Ugly (oh LORD are they ugly) is not valid because it is STILL one of a kind
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 3:30 PM
Nick. Nick. is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia View Post
You are preaching to the Choir Photo!

I am sure by now most know my own views on Brutalist works, and of course the treasures that were lost to build many of them. A sad dark chapter in history when so much was lost to build these monstrosities.

So..

In 100years times when someone says "Lets tear down the ESB. It's incredibly ugly and quite boring" Who will speak up?

Again, destroying something that is one of a kind because it is Ugly (oh LORD are they ugly) is not valid because it is STILL one of a kind
could you be a little more melodramatic?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 3:57 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
I assume that's a jail, and I hope the architects and client team are in it.
No, but this beauty is:


flickr.com

Harry Weese's Metropolitan Correctional Facility. How could anyone ever advocate something like this being torn down? Same goes for following hospital:


Chicagotribune.com

Same goes for Regenstein Library:


ccjm.com

Same for University Hall:


flickr.com

Or the Seventeenth Church of Christ Scientist:


blogspot.com


These are all fantastic buildings that have, at one time or another, been threatened with mutilation or demolition. They all must be preserved as there were only a handful of buildings ever built like this. They are dynamic, unique, structures that, when you remove yourself from the bias of our times, are actually quite handsome.

The problem is everyone associates these buildings with run down, poorly maintained condition, out of date 1970's interiors, and general obsolescence. When you remove those biases from your mind and think "gee is that a cool looking building or not" you have to agree that they are. They look like something out of Star Wars and are very representative of the aesthetic preferences of the time. You can't tell me the public never liked these buildings because the style pervaded through our culture from Star Wars to Back to the Future. This was the "futurism" of its day and will one day again be popular and cherished.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 4:20 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 13,247
Those are mostly horrible. The church might be the best, at least providing a good pedestrian corner. University Hall doesn't look that bad from a distance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 6:07 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: 34,374
And then there's this, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

http://www.autonorth.ca/home/2010/8/...t-toronto.html

__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 6:08 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Those are mostly horrible. The church might be the best, at least providing a good pedestrian corner. University Hall doesn't look that bad from a distance.
Mostly horrible? On what grounds? Just because you feel like they are horrible? Or do you have some aesthetic argument against them? I would actually argue that University Hall is the worst of all of them with Regenstein being the best.

Its funny you say that though because the only one of those photos that was taken when the building was new is the one of University Hall which fits in perfectly with my argument that a lot of criticism of Brutalism results from the fact that the movement is approximately 40 years old and at the peak of its depreciation cycle and most buildings are considered "run down". Also, the church is in fantastic shape because the congregation prizes this church and takes phenomenal care of it. Also, in real life the corner is not all that pedestrian and actually features a sunken, glass lined, rock garden/zen garden type thing at the bottom of a trench that curves between the building and the sidewalk.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 6:52 PM
Tyler Xyroadia's Avatar
Tyler Xyroadia Tyler Xyroadia is offline
Architect Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick. View Post
could you be a little more melodramatic?
Why yes, yes I can...
The question is, why do you think that is melodrama, when I am being 100% serious?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 7:54 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 13,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
Mostly horrible? On what grounds? Just because you feel like they are horrible? Or do you have some aesthetic argument against them? I would actually argue that University Hall is the worst of all of them with Regenstein being the best.
You're trying to make this an intellectual arguement. For the vast majority of people, what we like or don't like isn't intellectual, and doesn't need to be. That doesn't make our opinions any less valid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 10:42 PM
bryson662001's Avatar
bryson662001 bryson662001 is offline
BeenThere,DoneThat
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: A swanky suburb in my fancy pants
Posts: 2,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
. When you remove those biases from your mind .
I’m afraid there will always be some who lack the sophistication and experience to see past their biases.
__________________
Forget it Jake ................it's Market East
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2012, 12:30 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
y u no take me srsly
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 35,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
You're trying to make this an intellectual arguement. For the vast majority of people, what we like or don't like isn't intellectual, and doesn't need to be. That doesn't make our opinions any less valid.
Slippery slope, here...
__________________
Vancouver: September 2013 + other photos / random things
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you've got, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2012, 2:44 AM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 8,126
^
My opinion is that your opinion doesn't matter.
__________________
Visit my Photography Facebook Page...

https://www.facebook.com/chrislitherlandphotography
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2012, 3:04 AM
Tyler Xyroadia's Avatar
Tyler Xyroadia Tyler Xyroadia is offline
Architect Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
^
My opinion is that your opinion doesn't matter.
Boy Phot, that is a real thought provoking and truly in depth debating philosophy you have...

I mean Really, could you BE any more childish about this?

Your whole argument boils down to "RAR BUILDINGS I DONT LIKE SHOULD BE TORN DOWN!!!"

It has been shown by many others that your Exact philosophy is what led to the Architecture Holocaust of the 60's and 70's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2012, 4:54 AM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 8,126
^
I was being sarcastic about anyone's opinions not mattering, chill out man. But, you can't compare beautiful pre war architecture, like Victorian, art deco, neo classical, etc to these brutalist eye sores. They are not beautiful to look at like the interior of an 1880s church or have the intricate detailings of Victorian trim. They are big piles of stinking crap and that's my opinion so oh well. You could make the same argument for saving suburban tract housing in the future. It's ugly, cheap, and lacks a human touch. When they start tearing down shit suburbs that were built in the 90s in like 40 years will you be saying we have to preserve crap like that too?
__________________
Visit my Photography Facebook Page...

https://www.facebook.com/chrislitherlandphotography
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2012, 8:20 AM
mdiederi's Avatar
mdiederi mdiederi is offline
Entrepreneur
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
You could make the same argument for saving suburban tract housing in the future. It's ugly, cheap, and lacks a human touch. When they start tearing down shit suburbs that were built in the 90s in like 40 years will you be saying we have to preserve crap like that too?
No comparison. The type of Brutalist buildings being discussed for preservation are one-of-a-kind eccentricities. Suburban tract houses are cookie cutters that are often designed to have a shelf-life, made with cheap material and craftsmanship with the intention of being replaced some time in the future. Brutalist buildings look like they're built to last for eons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2012, 2:32 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
y u no take me srsly
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 35,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
It's ugly, cheap, and lacks a human touch.
It doesn't lack a human touch, it is just shy. When you get close to it and see the imprint of the wood used to mould it, the little spots where a bit of cement squeezed out between the boards, it almost takes you back to the 1960s and 1970s when they were being constructed. And exploring the interior of a large brutalist building is a really fun experience because no other buildings are designed quite like them, and every single one is unique. It's like being in another universe.

We don't have to save all brutalist buildings, but we do have to save the ones that exemplify brutalism as an architectural genre. It is a part of our architectural history and we shouldn't erase it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
When they start tearing down shit suburbs that were built in the 90s in like 40 years will you be saying we have to preserve crap like that too?
Thirty years from now we probably will work to preserve buildings constructed in the late 1980s and 1990s, such as Scotia Plaza in Toronto. But we won't bother to save tract housing. We don't put any effort into preserving tract housing from 100 years ago, and my neighbourhood is full of them. They were just as identical then, but the craftsmanship is far better.
__________________
Vancouver: September 2013 + other photos / random things
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you've got, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2012, 4:40 PM
Nick. Nick. is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 32
there's a window of time for buildings and architectural styles where they fall out of fashion, lots of "beautiful" older buildings were torn down to make way for parking lots because they had little value for people at the time. in a few decades people will probably admire most brutalist structures and place them under historical protection.

people on this forum cry constantly about the tragedy of buildings that have been lost over time. but you're basically doing the same thing by dismissing an entire architectural style, especially one as striking and unique as brutalism that represents a significant point in architectural history. bye.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2012, 7:12 PM
bryson662001's Avatar
bryson662001 bryson662001 is offline
BeenThere,DoneThat
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: A swanky suburb in my fancy pants
Posts: 2,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
^
I was being sarcastic about anyone's opinions not mattering, chill out man. But, you can't compare beautiful pre war architecture, like Victorian, art deco, neo classical, etc to these brutalist eye sores. They are not beautiful to look at like the interior of an 1880s church or have the intricate detailings of Victorian trim. They are big piles of stinking crap and that's my opinion so oh well. You could make the same argument for saving suburban tract housing in the future. It's ugly, cheap, and lacks a human touch. When they start tearing down shit suburbs that were built in the 90s in like 40 years will you be saying we have to preserve crap like that too?
I can’t stand Victorian style buildings that are encrusted with all kinds of ugly superfluous decorations and towers and turrets stuck all over them. “They are big piles of stinking crap and that's my opinion”
__________________
Forget it Jake ................it's Market East
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 12:49 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.