Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs
I'm going to be the voice of the hate-parade, because I know the average forumer likes these designs.
To be fair, it is, at least, an attempt on behalf of the developer to do something with a more local presence/influence. For that, I give kudos and it shows we're moving in the right direction.
However, honestly if I ever proposed something like this in Architecture School citing the rationale that "the local context also varies in colours and that dynamism is continued in my design", our professors wouldn't be happy. They would call it naive, superficial and kitsch. And for the most part, I think I agree.
Architecture shouldn't copy, mimic or imitate. This strategy is actually an uncreative way of responding to the context. It is taking exactly what we are seeing (with row-houses) and extrapolating the idea onto larger scale projects. It's decoration - it's not architecture.
The convention centre example is the best example of this being done horribly. It's like "oh, our city is colourful, so it makes sense that our building be colourful too" - I think it's a naive/superficial assessment of the context and it's a lazy design.
If it was done once, that's fine, but I can only pray this trend comes to an end soon because it's really thoughtless designing.
|
I could agree with your post if you were talking about something like this:
Google Street View
But Star of the Sea is an excellent, contemporary design. It "has a conversation" with our heritage, as you say, but doesn't mimic it to the point of being kitsch.
I'd rank Star of the Sea up there with the Bluedrop Building and others that flawlessly blend our heritage with contemporary design.
It's definitely not a Bowring Downtown Centre.