Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess I am different in this regard. I obviously want the historical district to be kept, and I like the idea of having an old town and a business district further away. In Europe most cities tend to preserve old buildings, because doing anything else would cause an outrage.
But I feel a lot of city planners overrate their historical buildings. If the building is only 50 - 100 years old, and is not even pretty, then just tear it down and build something prettier.
I am talking architecture here. Warsaw, London, Moscow... Their skylines are getting very modern and some people are bothered by that. Do you think this modernization of European skylines are bad or good?
Europe has no where to grow, so there is no option other than to build up. It's on the shoulders of architects to ensure that new buildings fit with the urban environments.
Western European cities, towns, and countryside typically had what would translate to a "beauty commission" to ensure that new buildings did fit with surrounding style. Is that a thing of the past?
cmptrwit's post reminds me of a book I came across in the public library. This book was actually about buildings that were torn down in the USA. Which were photographed before destruction.
Not old by European standards, but the buildings actually had some character. Far more character than Modernist slabs. Unfortunately, an irreparable loss.
The man has no idea what he is rambling about. What is missing from most peoples sharp critique of modernism is that the men who designed those buildings came from a world that looked much different to our own. Now we look at old buildings and think they look quaint and beautiful. For the men who grew up in them back from the 1880's to the 1920's, they were often uncomfortable, cramped, dark, dingy, dusty, filthy, and more then then not disease ridden places.
This is what most them probably remembered from their childhood. If you grew up like that you can imagine why something modernist with its clean and functional look would be attractive.
The man has no idea what he is rambling about. What is missing from most peoples sharp critique of modernism is that the men who designed those buildings came from a world that looked much different to our own. Now we look at old buildings and think they look quaint and beautiful. For the men who grew up in them back from the 1880's to the 1920's, they were often uncomfortable, cramped, dark, dingy, dusty, filthy, and more then then not disease ridden places.
This is what most them probably remembered from their childhood. If you grew up like that you can imagine why something modernist with its clean and functional look would be attractive.
You're talking about infrastructure, public health and sanitation. He's talking about architecture. I would consider these two very different things.
For example, many tenements like those you show in your picture have been converted into modern apartments, while their architectural facades have been preserved.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19459
Greenwich Peninsula - London 1980's where the 02 Arena now stands.
Construction is underway on this on the site
Last edited by Brave New World; 07-17-2017 at 05:00 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.