Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad
I think for two or three reasons, the first of which - the building itself - is probably hard to explain adequately, since it is just a matter of personal aesthetics, which are subjective. it is certainly not flashy. but for me it gives a more solid, weighty impression than a temporary structure, and I like the fact that it is mostly wood. the second reason is tied into the first, and has to do with the fact that this is a different type of building than will end up blanketing the area, and I think it will be nice to have a little piece of variety. no new development will have its curved roofline or its personal scale, for example. and I guess for me - and this almost seems a little dippy as I write it - the combination of wood and small scale gives the structure an overall earthy, almost friendly, accessibility (nice for a little park!).
ry BT, this is probably not much help - I think what I get from the building is pretty intangible. it may e
the other reason for me is that I do think it is a good idea to have little reminders of what was there before.
|
I'm with you on most of these sentiments. It's one reason, for example, I like having that building containing the Salt House restaurant on Mission St. But I suppose the fact that in my years in the military I lived and/or worked in so many of those WW II era structures, many of which had curved roofs because that was a fairly easy form to prefab apparently, gives me an adverse reaction to that particular era. As for wood, did you ever see, for example, Oakland Naval Hospital before they tore it down? Not the 1960s vintage midrise building, but the labyrinth of single story wooden structures that were the hospital during the actual war--all wood? And virtually identical to Orlando Naval Hospital and just about every other military hospital built during the war.
Bluepeter just looks to me like a WW II warehouse or light industrial building. They exist in nearly every port area where they haven't been torn down years ago.