HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #441  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2010, 12:45 PM
Trantor's Avatar
Trantor Trantor is offline
FUS RO DAH!
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The Ecumenopolis
Posts: 16,234
this thread is quite a joke... you guys want to tear down lots of beautiful or unique buildings. A building has "bathroom tiles"?? Reclad it!

All must be the same!!! How dare a building be different from all the other SAMENESS of the early 21st century???
__________________
________________________________________
Easy, Tychus. This ain´t science fiction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #442  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2010, 1:00 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
^^^ You do realize that is widely considered a revolutionary design right? Its also got an extremely well laid out interior. If you dislike this building its only because you can't accept brutalism as a style or aesthetic and not because it has any flaws. I would be horrified if anyone suggested plans for tearing such an excellent building down. That's probably in my top 10 or 15 favorite buildings in Chicago.
To each his own. If we're not allowed to have different opinions on architectural styles then what are we doing on this forum? =)
__________________
1. 9 DeKalb Ave - Brooklyn, NYC - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. American Radiator Building - New York City - Hood, Godley, and Fouilhoux - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #443  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2010, 2:31 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
I never said you can't have your opinion, but even if you don't like how it looks why would you want to tear an extremely well functioning and useful building down? Why would you want to tear a historical landmark down?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trantor View Post
this thread is quite a joke... you guys want to tear down lots of beautiful or unique buildings. A building has "bathroom tiles"?? Reclad it!

All must be the same!!! How dare a building be different from all the other SAMENESS of the early 21st century???
I totally agree. I can't believe some of the gems that are getting put up on here. I would love to steal that blue and gold building and put it in Chicago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #444  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2010, 3:24 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
I never said you can't have your opinion, but even if you don't like how it looks why would you want to tear an extremely well functioning and useful building down? Why would you want to tear a historical landmark down?

I think you're taking the "what if" scenario of this thread a little too seriously... I simply don't like the appearance of this building. If you disagree that's fine but don't get so up in arms over an opinion based thread.
__________________
1. 9 DeKalb Ave - Brooklyn, NYC - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. American Radiator Building - New York City - Hood, Godley, and Fouilhoux - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #445  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2010, 3:28 PM
Trantor's Avatar
Trantor Trantor is offline
FUS RO DAH!
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The Ecumenopolis
Posts: 16,234
should we base our appreciation of a building look simply on our layman knowledge, or base it on deeper knowledge of the building function historicity, context, etc?
__________________
________________________________________
Easy, Tychus. This ain´t science fiction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #446  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2010, 5:13 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ I would argue you have to combine both, but that you can't truly understand a work of art or piece of architecture without an understanding of its context and importance. The basis for this argument is that architecture (and even "Art") is different from mere decoration. In the case of Art, there is a philosophy or thought experiment driving the piece or a statement being made. So its more than just decorative aesthetics and includes an element of meaning or communication.

In the case of architecture the primary function isn't even to look good, but to be useful. A home is not a sculpture, it is a useful and functional space, so you can't just judge it by how it looks, but you are forced to take into account how it functions. Then there is the preservation argument that says that since buildings can become landmarks or have historical value, you also have to take into account the value of history. I would argue that your own personal preference is the last thing that should be considered when judging a building. Think about it, the usefulness of the building, the historical value of the building, the community value of it acting as a landmark, and even the influence the design had on subsequent architects and their designs are all much bigger than you. Those are all much more important than one person's personal tastes and must be treated as such.

Not taking into account such value is a recipe for disaster. Chicago has learned this the hard way as dozens of excellent and important buildings have been torn down because the public views them as "old" or some developer thinks the building is ugly. Society goes through fads and every style will be unpopular at some point or another and we don't want to tear down buildings we will regret losing in the future. Therefore we have to be very careful about allowing our own aesthetic tastes from ruling how we value our buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #447  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2010, 2:21 AM
Jonboy1983's Avatar
Jonboy1983 Jonboy1983 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The absolute western-most point of the Philadelphia urbanized area. :)
Posts: 1,721
I saw someone already posted the Post-Gazette building of my hometown of Pittsburgh. I agree that that building just does not look right surrounded by all of that vertical development. Something else they should tear down: even though it's not a high-rise or even in the city itself, but Century III Mall in West Mifflin!! That thing is one giant concrete pit of an eyesore if there ever was one! That, and the mall is pretty much on life-support...

Regarding where I currently reside, Philadelphia... Tear down City Hall? Yeah, I saw you were joking about that. That is a historic building and a real jem in the city's skyline! I love that architecture and it looks absolutely beautiful right smack in the center of Center City!

The Penn Center buildings, I agree that they just do not belong in Center City. They are uninspiring and dull. They're right on top of one of the busuiest transit stations in the city, not that that means anything. Those buildings would look more suitable in a place like King of Prussia...

Oh, something else to consider for the wrecking ball, One World Trade Center. Sorry, but the Twin Towers belong there! Madison Square Garden. I cannot believe that they tore down a grand railroad terminal to build that eyesore. Of all the cities to not have a grand atrium in their main train station, why New York? They should have something like Philadelphia's 30th Street Station there!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #448  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2010, 3:51 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
The building to the right in downtown Chicago (with the blank wall) has got to go. Not sure the number, 1 East oak or something.

I have to see this abomination out my living room window. Every one of my guests has commented on how awful it looks.

Regardless of whether it functionally made sense, it was a perfect opportunity for views down Oak toward the lake and they blew it. It's on a corner and completely lacks transparency on the Rush Street side. The North and South elevations aren't bad at all, but these East and West blank walls ruin it.


Me
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #449  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2010, 3:56 AM
Dmitry095's Avatar
Dmitry095 Dmitry095 is offline
Мир
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avian001 View Post
This is easy! The 40-story mega-complex Riverside Plaza in Minneapolis...



And good god, this was only Phase I !!! It was originally going to cover several hundred acres.

By the way, this was the apartment complex that "Mary Richards" moved into during the last season of the Mary Tyler Moore Show. It does have some very nice units in the F Building, but it is still ghastly.
Agree!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #450  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2010, 4:13 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
The building to the right in downtown Chicago (with the blank wall) has got to go. Not sure the number, 1 East oak or something.

I have to see this abomination out my living room window. Every one of my guests has commented on how awful it looks.

Regardless of whether it functionally made sense, it was a perfect opportunity for views down Oak toward the lake and they blew it. It's on a corner and completely lacks transparency on the Rush Street side. The North and South elevations aren't bad at all, but these East and West blank walls ruin it.


Me
This is a great example of the building not being aesthetically pleasing or functional. Who the hell builds a blank wall facing down two streets and towards the lake? That is not functional for an apartment building or an office building. I doubt the inside is laid out well either if the architect was too stupid to make windows facing the lake...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #451  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2010, 5:04 AM
Kingofthehill's Avatar
Kingofthehill Kingofthehill is offline
International
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oslo
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
Every one of my guests has commented on how awful it looks.
The Kosovo building!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #452  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2010, 6:42 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
This is a great example of the building not being aesthetically pleasing or functional. Who the hell builds a blank wall facing down two streets and towards the lake? That is not functional for an apartment building or an office building. I doubt the inside is laid out well either if the architect was too stupid to make windows facing the lake...
It's a common enough layout for long, narrow towers. You put a fire stair at each end, along with elevators, plumbing stacks, etc. That way, the views on the long sides are maximized.

If you were to combine all the service spaces into a single core, it would be quite large on the site, and there would be no easy way to lay out functional space around it.

The ends can also function as shear walls, helping to keep the building stable and preventing wind loads from racking the structure.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #453  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2010, 6:56 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
I understand why they did it that way, I just think it was lazy design. Just look at how skinny the first Modernist towers at 860-880 are. They have no wasted space on the exterior. Its not very difficult to get all the utilities and sheer walls into a single core, its been done 100's of times elsewhere in Chicago and the rest of the world. This sandwich style was popular for a short while in the 60's and 70s among lazy architects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 6:56 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.