I never expected my opinion of the aethestics to have raised hackels especially since I specifically said that
Quote:
|
..your opinion is fine, no problem..
|
I understand how some people could like this better. Really I do. What I really expected that my idea of scrapping what the CTBUH is calling the "official height" would get more responses. In essence I'm saying whether a spire or an antenna should not make a difference in their height calculations.
In any case. To talk about this I think we'd have to agree that there is a "generally accepted" concept of good design in architecture both of massing and color as well as what elements fit together well. It is neither absolute nor monolithic, does not need to followed slavishly, nor does it apply to all. It'll probably change next year or the year after that. But, if we cannot agree on that then there is such a thing as generally accepted "good desing" there is no point in the discussion. I also think that when it comes to aesthetics every opinion is just as valid as another but that doesn't mean that there is not a "generally accepted" good design idea.
If we go by "generally accepted" concepts of good design then I will say that I think reviews by professional architects and reviewers would agree that Childs' desing is "better" than the exposed support structure which is really of no design at all. Childs' desing may be flawed and there could certainly be worse designs that the exposed support structure but comparing just these 2 I think the majority would agree that Childs' desing was better based on generally accepted principles of good design. It's not like we are comparing 2 designs here, we are comparing a design to a support structure.
Good design can be taught in terms of both massing and color. There is empirical evidence that certain massing and color combos are please to more people than others.
I think the spire needs to be white because in my opinion and from empirical evidence white is more pleasing with a blue and silver color scheme than black. There is good reason you see virtually every building with that color scheme with a white spire rather than black. Not everyone prefers it but the majority clearly do. Further, I think it is truer to the architects intent, and if the support structure (which was never meant to be seen) is going to be exposed to save money then keeping the top white was the least they could've done.
I agree that proportionally it was not perfect in either version.
Having said all that, I'll repeat that with aethestics everyone can have an opinion and it can be valid even if in the minority of one. But, I think when the reviews come in on this, the original spire will be seen as a better design for the building.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayPro
Point By Point:
1. Please help me define "any architectural standard". Are you proposing to take the tried and true "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" maxim and reduce it to some kind of empirical formula by which every single example of architecture is judged without slightest exception to the rule?? These very same folks who fancy themselves as grand exponents of such standards are in reality little more than self-imprtant dilettantes who look down their snouts at those whose opinions deviate even by a hair.
2. Why must it be white? People are already kvetching that as it is this 400+ foot, pretty-damned-hefty spire can't be seen even from somewhere like the Verazzano Bridge, which IMO is stretching it more than a bit. Therefore, whitening it defeats the purpose of making it more prominent from afar. Keeping it as is is good enough. The metallic corners of the building are better suited for a darker color anyhow.
Secondly, I see no issue with proportion. I mean, look at the antennae of Prudential in Chicago and 1 Shell Plaza in Houston: "That's disproportionate, especially re Shell. Tacking a plain antenna on top of a 715' building just to get it to 1,000' is just plain lazy.
3. I *love* this building; but not suprisingly not as much for anything it may show above ground as for what lies beneath. It has been a fascinating watch to see how unprecedented structure security measures are put into effect. The rest is cake AFAIC. In fact the one aspect of this buidling I *didn't* like was the radome spire, and it was almost exclusively because of the shape and dimensions of it.
Now *there* IMO is an instance of garing disproportionality. But are you going to tell me I'm somehow "wrong" for not appreciating why they should've chosen the route you would've liked them to take? Why? Why should your review...or any "artistic" review for that metter...be univerally taken with such poker-faced gravity?
Artistry and architecture can be taken only so far together before one ultimately makes the other look farcical...and I already extrapolated this observation to the radome spire in another thread. This "spantenna" is the most realistic solution available, while at the same time tipping its hat to a semi-architectural need to exaggerate. It also IMO honors NY's industrial heritage, which to me spuersedes any chi-chi homage to whatever thing that some clueless, Johnny-come-lately starchitect *thinks* NY is famous for.
I myself can appreciate all sorts of art, while those that make me wanna barf I simply walk away from without denigrating the efforts of the creator. The idea that there should be universal standards in place to judge good form from bad---and by extension good taste from bad---somehow violates, apropos to this thread. the sovreign right to hold forth on the design of a naked "spantenna" one way or another without ad hoc reprisal.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy
Any serious review of architecture standards? So Richard Rogers' Industrial Style architecture isn't valid then? Thie current spire gives a cool industrial look, which relates more to NYC's character, unlike the radome, which belonged more in Dubai than in NYC. And I'm not the only one who thinks this.
So it's indeed controversial.
|
I quite like Roger's industrial style and is certainly not invalid, but to stick a piece of industrial style on a building that is not industrial style is a mistake in my opinion. The exposed support structure is not even a piece of industrial style architecture. It is a support structure. It was never designed at all beyond the function of supporting an outer shell.
Now, if you want to argue form should follow function then I think you have a point.
I'm sure you're not the only one who likes the support structure better bare than covered with radome. I never argued that. But that doesn't make it good design considering it was never designed to be seen at all.
I'm also not sure I agree that an exposed support structure is more to NYC's character. I think NYC's character is defined more by the sleekness of art deco than industrial metal works. Perhaps NYC's true character lies in its variety though, both in its people and architecture.
Finally, I didn't think my opinion of the design would be controversial as I think it has been well established in this thread that we all have our own opinions. I should've made it clearer I guess than just saying
Quote:
|
..your opinion is fine, no problem..
|
.
Prev
and it's not just "these days" it's been the center of the universe for quite some time
Linear Mode
