I'm not as enthusiastic about mid-century modern architecture as some of my friends, but it's a bit of a stretch to claim that one style of architecture or another is more likely to attract urine. People pee on brand-new buildings too. And, as jbradway mentions, the building's architecture hasn't deterred customers from spending their money. It just seems like sprucing up the existing exterior, and using other means to deter urination (security, cameras, blocking off corners where one can micturate without observation) might be cheaper and simpler than a total building re-facade.
Via the SacMod Flickr page:
It's a nice-looking modernist building, designed by John S. Bolles, and the ground floor was apparently more open with display windows to create a more visually appealing ground floor. So there's no reason why it couldn't be reopened when it is disengaged from the rest of the mall. There were elements of Brutalist architecture in the mall, also designed by Bolles, but those portions are already demolished. The term "brutalist" derives from its use of exposed concrete, and typically they are architecturally simpler and plainer than this building. The delicate arches overhanging the roof, the arched canopies over the entrance, the use of patterned stone, all indicate a more refined Modernist approach than later brutalism--a style that also has its own time and place, good examples and bad, but that's not what we're seeing here.
Prev
Linear Mode
