The UFO Mothership has landed (office, house, space, architect)

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by cisco kid

I guess people are just easily impressed by gigantism and seem to be captivated by really tall buildings, regardless of their simplicity or actual appearance. They don't really have to look good. They just have to be really, really big.

My guess is that you never visited the twin towers - they did actually look good. Sorry they weren't free flowing shapes like the Gehry but the point was to build two gigantic buildings, not two gigantic buildings that look like they came from a warner brothers cartoon.

[Chango]

Originally Posted by cisco kid

The gigantic signage is necessary because otherwise library patrons might think they had mistakenly stumbled into the receiving department of a US Army ordnance installation or the basement of a commercial laundry.

Eyesore of the Month

You've gotta wonder who really thinks they are being cute and whimsical with crap like that. It reminds me of the SLC library; the bike racks are large steel letters spelling out "BIKE RACK", like we don't know what a normal bike rack looks like and need it spelled out for us.

The funny thing is that it makes a lousy bike rack in the real world so everyone locks their bikes up on the steel railing next to it instead!

[Prytania]

Urban DESIGN should go hand in hand with urban planning. That is all

[nybbler]

Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown

My guess is that you never visited the twin towers - they did actually look good. Sorry they weren't free flowing shapes like the Gehry but the point was to build two gigantic buildings, not two gigantic buildings that look like they came from a warner brothers cartoon.

The thing about the twin towers is they were twin; either one of them alone would have looked very stark, but both together had a different effect.

[believe007]

Originally Posted by cisco kid

The Seattle Library has no big flowing curves and sweeping organic shapes, which Gehry is known for. It is far too angular and rigid, has too many straight lines to be a Gehry. The difference between Koolhaas and Gehry is like night and day. I don't see how you can confuse the two.




Koolhaas: very rigid and angular






Gehry: very curvy, no straight lines

This is the reason I tune into this site-I never heard of Gehry, until I checked this thread out. This man is an artist....I love what I've discovered

Thanks

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by nei

Well, it's not my favorite style, but it's eye-catching and looks cool.

My town is mostly late 19th century / early 20th century so our library is prettier but not as exciting looking:

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/3583986.jpg

I had the pleasure of seeing that area almost 10 years ago, stopping by for an Saturday in Northampton when I spent two weeks at a seminar in Sturbridge. The place was remarkable, should be on the front of any postcard concerning how nice small town New England can be.

Regarding the library in Seattle, that is just downright ugly. I don't see it constructively fitting into the environment, and just seems odd looking. Like others, I find that Gehry's designs are pretty creative without being so strange.

Just a matter of personal taste, I guess. But I think Seattle's library is ugly.

[Lamplight]

I didn't like the Seattle Central Library until I saw it in person. The interior does nothing for me, though.

[cisco kid]

Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown

My guess is that you never visited the twin towers - they did actually look good.

I have never heard anyone describe the twin towers as being beautiful have you? They were known for their size, not their beauty. It's one thing they have never been accused of being. OTOH, there's no shortage of people who said they were ugly.

Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown

Sorry they weren't free flowing shapes like the Gehry but the point was to build two gigantic buildings, not two gigantic buildings that look like they came from a warner brothers cartoon.

I'm not a huge fan of Gehry's work or anything. I just think as far as starchitecture goes, his stuff isn't half bad, aesthetically speaking. They could even be called beautiful, if severely limited in functionality and not even very practical for use as buildings. They're more like giant abstract sculptures than buildings.

[wburg]

50-60 years ago, people called Richardsonian Romanesque buildings ugly, drab, tacky and trashy, and eagerly demolished them to make way for clean Modernist buildings. Architecture is fashion, some are passing fads while others are more classic--but even the most classic go through periods when none of the cool kids wear them. Discussion about which architect is the hippest, from Wright to Le Corbusier to Gehry and in between, should be imagined as being exchanged by 16 year old girls in order to put them in the proper context.

[cisco kid]

I would put Richardsonian Romanesque in the classic category. Never heard of his buildings being demolished on a large scale. A few of may have been torn down, but more for commercial considerations than because people didn't like them. The Marshall Fields Department store was torn down in 1930 for example because the business owners outgrew it and wanted more space.

But about 80-90% of Richardson's buildings are still standing today. They have stood the test of time. Many are designated national landmarks.

list of extant Henry Richardson buildings (still standing)





Hayden Building in Boston, built 1875