What places, structures or geographic features should be (inter)nationally famous?

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I really do empathize with aggrieved Sun Belt residents who feel like their cities are picked on, as silly as that sounds. Their strengths are often minimized to the point where a foreigner reading these boards could be forgiven for believing they have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I feel this way especially about Atlanta, which has been one of the few cities where black Americans have been able to really flourish post industrialization (manifested in the high volume of the city's cultural output, particularly music), something for which it rarely gets any credit around here.

But because positives aren't mentioned alongside the negatives doesn't mean that the negatives cease being true, and perceiving every critique to mask an anti-Sun Belt agenda distracts from/stifles an honest discussion about very real problems, often problems disproportionately affecting Sun Belt cities.

The funny thing is, I personally wasn't even planning on contributing to this thread, but was so bowled over by the praise heaped upon what I consider to be a very mediocre (good at best) work of architecture not even close to satisfying the OP's question that I would have felt remiss not to comment. If you notice, I (and several others) even provided or referred to alternative local examples that (I believe) do. Disagree? Engage the argument, not in name-calling.

Originally Posted by JManc

Not pointing you out specifically but...

This attitude underlies the lack of maturity that continues to plague this forum year after year and has driven a lot of people away. Chiefly people from these "sprawly" cities leaving behind a forum full of opinionated assholes from places like New York, Chicago, LA and wherever. Eventually it will wind up a big circle jerk discussing who city is the most walk-able or has the biggest metropolitan economy. SSP is supposed to be a community that celebrates cities, all kinds of cities as well as their skyscrapers. Urbanism comes in all forms and varieties, not a limited subset predefined by a few adolescent 30-somethings hoping to make themselves feel better.

The praise for New Orleans further highlights my point. Sure, it looks pretty on the surface but most of that density is in the well maintained expensive touristy areas (French Quarter...tiny fraction of total area) while rest of the city laid it more like a traditional southern city; row after row of peer and beam bungalows with large swathes of poverty. It's New Orleans after-all. Most of New Orleans' residents are not well-to-do urbanists enjoying the urbanity and history of their city but treading water financially and no where near the dense areas.

Great posts both...

Hope this thread can continue in the same spirit.

[chris08876]

This thread started out good, but took a nose dive right into a mountain.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Not to derail the much needed attitude correction going on here, but:

Originally Posted by JManc

Most of New Orleans' residents are not well-to-do urbanists enjoying the urbanity and history of their city but treading water financially and no where near the dense areas.

Pun intended?

New Orleans is one of my favorite cities, but I have absolutely no idea how it has managed to stay standing despite repeated flooding. Most of the shotguns you mention are made of wood and yet have managed not to rot into the ground despite repeated floods, constant humidity, and total lack of maintenance. You know what, I think New Orleans deserves to be more world famous. Everyone on earth should be forced to pilgrimage there once in their lives to see how awesome it is kinda like Muslims do with Mecca or Jew with Israel.

[ardecila]

Many of those shotguns are built with local cypress wood from the swamps around the city, which is extremely resilient to rot, moisture, mildew, insects, etc due to natural oil content - plus it was dense old growth. It's a superwood that lasted for centuries. Unfortunately there is now a species of Formosan termite in the city that will chow down on the stuff... so the clock is ticking on a lot of these old homes.

My last NOLA apartment (a half shotgun) looked fine to the naked eye until one day I saw termites swarming out of the plaster in 5-6 places... I popped the attic hatch and realized all the cypress framing had gone to shit, probably in the last 2-3 years.

Originally Posted by JManc

The praise for New Orleans further highlights my point. Sure, it looks pretty on the surface but most of that density is in the well maintained expensive touristy areas (French Quarter...tiny fraction of total area) while rest of the city laid it more like a traditional southern city; row after row of peer and beam bungalows with large swathes of poverty. It's New Orleans after-all. Most of New Orleans' residents are not well-to-do urbanists enjoying the urbanity and history of their city but treading water financially and no where near the dense areas.

No argument from me here, but you're focusing on the superficial look of the city. The real uniqueness is in the culture - music, food, traditions, etc - which make being poor in New Orleans different from being poor in Houston or Birmingham. Being in poverty sucks no matter where you are, but most poor residents I've encountered believe rightfully that there is no substitute.

Yes, New Orleans neighborhoods from 1910 onwards are similar to other Southern cities. The architectural uniqueness lies in the pre-1900/Victorian and antebellum neighborhoods, most of which are close to the river on higher ground and are gentrified or gentrifying.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by JManc

Not pointing you out specifically but...

This attitude underlies the lack of maturity that continues to plague this forum year after year and has driven a lot of people away. Chiefly people from these "sprawly" cities leaving behind a forum full of opinionated assholes from places like New York, Chicago, LA and wherever. Eventually it will wind up a big circle jerk discussing who city is the most walk-able or has the biggest metropolitan economy. SSP is supposed to be a community that celebrates cities, all kinds of cities as well as their skyscrapers. Urbanism comes in all forms and varieties, not a limited subset predefined by a few adolescent 30-somethings hoping to make themselves feel better.

The praise for New Orleans further highlights my point. Sure, it looks pretty on the surface but most of that density is in the well maintained expensive touristy areas (French Quarter...tiny fraction of total area) while rest of the city laid it more like a traditional southern city; row after row of peer and beam bungalows with large swathes of poverty. It's New Orleans after-all. Most of New Orleans' residents are not well-to-do urbanists enjoying the urbanity and history of their city but treading water financially and no where near the dense areas.

Excellent post.

Many discussion forums get derailed by the same offenders.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Also, for the record, I think the Transamerica Pyramid is beautiful. The architect, William Pereira, played with form in a way Philip Johnson didn't--not just in this case but throughout their careers. Obviously, most people in this thread who have expressed their opinions about it don't like or even appreciate the results, but, like mhays said, they're often "unusual-looking enough to be memorable," and the memorability of a building is often an important factor in its fame.

Transamerica's shape is so odd it's memorable, which is why it's famous. But the building is positively brutalist at street level, and the crushed quartz facade looks like pockmarked concrete in person. It's as famous as it should be, I suppose, but it rightfully takes second fiddle to the Golden Gate Bridge, and I'm glad it will no longer be the tallest building here (it will soon be 3rd tallest). To my eyes, it is very dated.


source

[simms3_redux]

I think Transamerica is also famous partly for representing an iconic company of its long day. In fact, I saw a Transamerica commercial the other day on TV with the shape of the pyramid well represented. It's not even HQ'd in SF any longer - Aegon bought the company and the NA HQ is in Baltimore. In fact, while Aegon might be a minor tenant in the building, I don't believe Transamerica is even a tenant in the building any longer (for a while actually).

It should also be noted that the Pyramid was completed in 1972. There were VERY FEW tall buildings in SF then and the phrase "Manhattanization" was coined in the city largely due to the BofA building a few blocks over constructed in the same time period.

In person, it appears MUCH taller than it is due to there being a single focal point at the top, but it's not a nice building. Very brutalist - looks better from afar than right up close (though that view looking up, pretty cool, especially at night - the single windows at varying distances from each other confuses the eye and the building can legitimately appear like 60-70+ stories tall from several angles looking up).

The earthquake proofing of the time of its construction is also an interesting engineering feat/read.



I can't think of any structures to nominate. Some of the city halls in CA are particularly notable - thinking pretty much most of them actually. The cities light them up really well, too.

St. Patrick's cathedral in New York (> St. John the Divine imo). Even Trinity Church. On that note - Trinity Church Boston, too.

The Ponce de Leon hotel in St. Augustine, FL (now Flagler College).

Cape Hatteras lighthouse.

Smith Tower in Seattle always struck me as quite interesting, though far from internationally notable.

Plymouth Rock?

Some stuff up by Buffalo that is likely sadly falling apart?

Water Tower in Chicago? (not Water Tower Place) Heck the Harold Washington library even?

Wrigley Field or Fenway? Very iconic American structures that epitomize the Great American Pastime better than any others.

Freedom Tower Miami? Fontainebleau resort's original structure? Breakers in Palm Beach?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Many of those shotguns are built with local cypress wood from the swamps around the city, which is extremely resilient to rot, moisture, mildew, insects, etc due to natural oil content - plus it was dense old growth. It's a superwood that lasted for centuries. Unfortunately there is now a species of Formosan termite in the city that will chow down on the stuff... so the clock is ticking on a lot of these old homes.

My last NOLA apartment (a half shotgun) looked fine to the naked eye until one day I saw termites swarming out of the plaster in 5-6 places... I popped the attic hatch and realized all the cypress framing had gone to shit, probably in the last 2-3 years.



No argument from me here, but you're focusing on the superficial look of the city. The real uniqueness is in the culture - music, food, traditions, etc - which make being poor in New Orleans different from being poor in Houston or Birmingham. Being in poverty sucks no matter where you are, but most poor residents I've encountered believe rightfully that there is no substitute.

Yes, New Orleans neighborhoods from 1910 onwards are similar to other Southern cities. The architectural uniqueness lies in the pre-1900/Victorian and antebellum neighborhoods, most of which are close to the river on higher ground and are gentrified or gentrifying.

I was because I suspect most (at least here) are drawn to the superficial appearance of New Orleans...based on the layout and density of the Quarter. Yes, you're right; what makes the city so special are not the buildings but the vibrant history and culture that gives them life.

[StethJeff]

My posts were not meant to derail the discussion - they were to guide it back on track. Either some people really want to boost up their own city or they are very naive about the world outside of their own bubble. Much of what has been discussed in this thread is completely irrelevant to the thread title, which is very specific, "What places, structures or geographic features should be (inter)nationally famous?" The Houston tower in particular is very nice, it just doesn't belong in this discussion.

Most of the houses of worship in America do not stand up to Aya Sofya, Angkor Wat, Vatican, Sacre Couer, Notre Dame, Catedral Metropolitana, and other places that are actually internationally famous. And outside of a half dozen or so skyscrapers mostly in NYC or Chicago, most of the skyscrapers in America are pretty nondescript and would blend in to several hazy Chinese skylines. People around the world have too short of an attention span to appreciate the 75th nicest skyscraper in the world.

As far as the accusations of being some sort of elitist coastal dweller, keep in mind that I ripped my home city in my original post. As an Angeleno, I think that there are zero structures here that should be internationally famous. If it weren't for the media industry here to prop everything up, nothing in LA would be internationally famous because nothing here ought to be. There are better beaches, mountains, deserts, museums, buildings, streets, etc in countless other places. IMO, outside of the Golden Gate Bridge, the only places west of the Mississippi that should enter the discussion of 'internationally famous' are all natural features (oh yeah, and I also bashed Death Valley earlier too).

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

As far as the accusations of being some sort of elitist coastal dweller, keep in mind that I ripped my home city in my original post. As an Angeleno, I think that there are zero structures here that should be internationally famous. If it weren't for the media industry here to prop everything up, nothing in LA would be internationally famous because nothing here ought to be. There are better beaches, mountains, deserts, museums, buildings, streets, etc in countless other places. IMO, outside of the Golden Gate Bridge, the only places west of the Mississippi that should enter the discussion of 'internationally famous' are all natural features (oh yeah, and I also bashed Death Valley earlier too).

I'm guessing you mean skyscrapers alone. As a native to SoCal and frequent visitor there who doesn't give a rip about Hollywood (I've only toured once), the Hollywood sign is about internationally famous as it gets and rightfully so given what it symbolizes, not necessarily the structure and its setting.

If we're talking about skyscrapers, then yes, they're all pretty cookie cutter except a few but the Hollywood sign definitely belongs on that list. Let's also not forget about the Space Needle, Vegas Strip at night, Alamo, Gateway Arch (St. Louis isn't all that Western but I'm just fitting your criteria) if we're talking about Western attractions. But really, what becomes famous is what the media wants to become famous unless something stands out so much and is so unique it will get attention regardless, like the Space Needle making the Seattle skyline instantly recognizable.

As for the Williams Tower that keeps getting brought up, even as a Houston area resident, I find it unique but also mundane at the same time. If it were the largest building and towered over everything in a CBD of a city like Oklahoma City or Albuquerque, for example, it would be the single biggest identifier but in Houston it is not the most unique and not even the tallest building. But to each their own.

[dc_denizen]

Dunno, IMO Sacre Coeur is unremarkable (and new: built in the 1880s, younger than many US cathedrals). it's the setting that makes it interesting. And the Bradbury building in LA should be as famous as the Gaudi apartments in Barcelona, IMO.

SF's location, specificically the feeling you get of walking around 20 feet below the clouds rushing over your head, is worth some recognition worldwide. At least that's how it felt to me being there in September. Totally unique.

Chicago's 'big shoulders' Burnham architecture (City Hall) and Miesian architecture should be more famous worldwide. Same for Toronto's Miesian core. I would vouch for LA's beach houses and quirky 50s architecture, also quite unique.

And as others have said, the fact that like most cities, N Orleans is filled with nondescript houses and everyday people makes no difference to the discussion, I don't see why its brought up. London is filled with nondescript garden apartments and rowhouses, Berlin is filled with commieblocks and little kiosks serving crappy snackfood. its the culture (not just the french quarter but the food, garden discript, the vegetation etc) and the charm of a few locations that make cities interesting and justify their fame in most cases.

[mhays]

Mies buildings might be loved by the Dwell crowd, but to the general public (and me) I'd guess they're "typical midcentury box." There was zero love in the famous AR survey about five years ago for example.

I've walked by some. There are some underused windswept plazas. The twin apartment buildings in Chicago didn't look remarkable in any way, and of course nobody else was looking at them.

I looked up the Bradbury Building in LA. It looks like a nice old building, like the sort that line the streets of a good historic district. Maybe it's more intricate or well done than usual. But if you asked the public (who decides what's famous after all) whether it or the cathedral in Barcelona ought to be more famous, and you'd get laughter.

I agree with the comment about buildings or signs that symbolize a city. Those are famous because they're referred to constantly anywhere the city is part of a movie, map, book, postcard, whatever. The icon will also be used to represent the larger region, like the Arch being used for the Midwest.

[dc_denizen]

Not talking about the Cathedrals (the barcelona cathedral is average, but the city's Eglisia de Santa Maria del Mar is incredible and something that the new world does not offer outside of the oldest Spanish-settled cities). But La peredra and other similar buildings can be compared I think, although Gaudi is far more insane...

[Leo the Dog]

This was one of my favorite buildings growing up. It could've been in any city and would've been my favorite. I do remember seeing it for the first time in person when I was 15. Up close, it looked like it needed a major scrubbing, I was kind of disappointed.

Still one of my favorites and still defines DTSF.

[Leo the Dog]

Balboa Park is a 1,200-acre (490 ha) urban cultural park in San Diego, California, United States.[3] In addition to open space areas, natural vegetation zones, green belts, gardens, and walking paths, it contains museums, several theaters, and the world-famous San Diego Zoo. There are also many recreational facilities and several gift shops and restaurants within the boundaries of the park. Placed in reserve in 1835, the park's site is one of the oldest in the United States dedicated to public recreational use. Balboa Park is managed and maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of San Diego.

Named for the Spanish maritime explorer Vasco Núñez de Balboa, the park hosted the 1915–16 Panama–California Exposition and 1935–36 California Pacific International Exposition, both of which left architectural landmarks. The park and its historic Exposition buildings were declared a National Historic Landmark and National Historic Landmark District in 1977, and placed on the National Register of Historic Places.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_Park_(San_Diego)



http://www.aaccessmaps.com/images/ma...alboa_park.jpg



http://www.balboapark.org/sites/defa...1_27_11_lg.jpg



http://ideasinspiringinnovation.file...boa-park-5.jpg

Cabrillo Bridge



http://media.sdreader.com/img/photos...ebf11d604414e5

Cabrillo Freeway. One of the first freeways in CA. Opened 1947.


http://public.csusm.edu/kovri001/Cabrillo%20Freeway.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Konstantin.jpg

[AviationGuy]

Balboa Park is beautiful and one of my favorite places to visit, but I'm not sure it could be internationally famous. It probably "should" be, which I think is what the thread is all about. Glad you posted this.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I'd say places like Bannf or Bryce Canyon or Zion National Park should be more famous internationally. There's nothing like Zion in all of Asia or Europe. I saw at least six or seven iterations of Williams Tower in just Shanghai and Shenzhen last month.

good call. It'd help if it was more famous here at home. When I went it was a bunch of Japanese and German tourist.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Not said in the most tactful way, but I agree completely if you replace "sunbelt city" with "American or Canadian" city. The Sunbelt doesn't have a monopoly on "average" or "nice but not All-World status." That is something every American and Canadian city not named New York produces in spades - not to imply that NYC too isn't filled with "average", because it is.

Were Williams Tower in SF or NYC, it wouldn't matter - cities in China none of us can even pronounce properly shit out similar towers every other day. We have built very few monuments or civic / religious buildings which can fairly even compare to European and Asian originals with in many cases a thousand years' worth of historical events attached to them.

America and Canada have a wealth of natural wonders which DO stack up well against the rest of the world's best. This is an area to expound on and market even. But built form stuff? Not so much outside of massive public works projects like the Hoover Dam, and even these have all been surpassed by much bigger, more ambitious versions in Asia like the Three Gorges Dam.

Originally Posted by StethJeff

My posts were not meant to derail the discussion - they were to guide it back on track. Either some people really want to boost up their own city or they are very naive about the world outside of their own bubble. Much of what has been discussed in this thread is completely irrelevant to the thread title, which is very specific, "What places, structures or geographic features should be (inter)nationally famous?" The Houston tower in particular is very nice, it just doesn't belong in this discussion.

Most of the houses of worship in America do not stand up to Aya Sofya, Angkor Wat, Vatican, Sacre Couer, Notre Dame, Catedral Metropolitana, and other places that are actually internationally famous. And outside of a half dozen or so skyscrapers mostly in NYC or Chicago, most of the skyscrapers in America are pretty nondescript and would blend in to several hazy Chinese skylines. People around the world have too short of an attention span to appreciate the 75th nicest skyscraper in the world.

As far as the accusations of being some sort of elitist coastal dweller, keep in mind that I ripped my home city in my original post. As an Angeleno, I think that there are zero structures here that should be internationally famous. If it weren't for the media industry here to prop everything up, nothing in LA would be internationally famous because nothing here ought to be. There are better beaches, mountains, deserts, museums, buildings, streets, etc in countless other places. IMO, outside of the Golden Gate Bridge, the only places west of the Mississippi that should enter the discussion of 'internationally famous' are all natural features (oh yeah, and I also bashed Death Valley earlier too).

The US is a young country. If you’re going to assess the importance of its contributions to architecture, you have to remember that many of its structures haven’t had time to develop a historical ‘patina’ of authority. For example, the Pont du Gard is not a UNESCO World Heritage Site because it’s pretty; rather, it’s one well-preserved piece of really old, totally utilitarian, at one time extensive civic infrastructure that could only be engineered by an ‘advanced’ civilization. The only thing different between it and something like this


source

is its age. You might not like it aesthetically or like what it has come to represent, but that’s not really relevant to its importance or the importance historians or archeologists will ascribe to it five hundred years from now. The same goes for architecture movements, something that unfortunately is lost on a lot of critics of modern architecture.

[brickell]

For Florida, I'm going to through out Bok Tower in Lake Wales as both a man made and natural beauty. But to everyone's point, it's tough to compete with random 800 year old castles scattered around Europe.


src: http://www.visitorlando.com/things-t...Gardens/31145/

[dc_denizen]

it's just interesting that people don't differentiate European historical architecture by age. That Bok tower in Orlando is not much newer than the UK Parliament, Tower Bridge, Sacre Coeur, Hausmann's Parisian blocks, Barcelona's modernist blocks, Berlin's apartments, etc etc.

It's the architecture, not the age that makes those areas interesting.