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 don't really not approve of it, but it has pretty much zero architectural value. It's a unique paint job on an extremely utilitarian design. It's folk art... folk art isn't about being "good" art, it's about expressing something. Same with the apartment in BC. Painting the trim on the balcony as a rainbow isn't really "good" art (as in technically skilled, demonstration of artistic ability or what have you) but it communicates something, an ideal, a statement.
Seems more resources are spent trying to convince everyone that something looks great then to actually make it look great. And to disagree with them is met with "you just do not know art".
There is a new building going up here, looks the same as every other one, yet it is being labeled as designed by some hip modern designer; the dang building is boring looking and looks like every other one. Get into a conversation with a supporter and they cannot actually show one thing that is different about the building than the other ones around (condo).
And I will not even get into all of this "art" that they throw up everywhere, some sort of scrap metal someone welded and call it something.
I think part of the problem is architecture, unlike other forms of art, cannot be too "reactionary." I mean this not in the ultra-conservative sense, but in the sense that a building movement cannot exist just to be a reflection upon the immediately previous movement. This is because unlike fine art, a well-constructed building could be standing for centuries (okay, less with modern materials, but still, probably contemporary buildings could last with maintenance), long after the surrounding context they were built in no longer matters.
Architecture needs to be built in the context of not the architectural movement at the time, but the surrounding built form - and to speak to people who know nothing about architecture at all. Brutalism, in particular, often failed at this.
I agree with this. I personally think that cities in America should look to cities like Paris or Rome which kept much of their historic architecture much more compared to even places like New York.
Two questions.
First, do you know that the old city of Paris was (almost) completely destroyed during the late 19th century? Haussmann's renovation of Paris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second, do you know that the Rome's historical district is actually smaller than NYC's Central Park and San Diego's Balboa Park?
Paris and Rome aren't good examples at all...
Two questions.
First, do you know that the old city of Paris was (almost) completely destroyed during the late 19th century? Haussmann's renovation of Paris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second, do you know that the Rome's historical district is actually smaller than NYC's Central Park and San Diego's Balboa Park?
Paris and Rome aren't good examples at all...
Yes I know that much of medieval or Renaissance era Paris was destroyed by the late 19th century, but there is nothing we can do about that now. That was in the distant past, but I still say that the one that replaced it is still much better than 1950s era and later architecture. I am concerned more about now, and those 1800s buildings are still much better looking and makes Paris such an attractive place that it gets amongst the highest amount of tourists amongst any city in the world. If Paris underwent a complete demolition and reconstructive in the modernist style, it would be much worse and less attractive for tourists don't you think?
Also, what does the size of Rome's historic district compared to other cities places have anything to do with this? There are cities that are smaller than NYC's Central Park or San Diego's Balboa park, but that doesn't mean anything. It still is well preserved and it should continue. Many tourists still come to see old Rome despite how small that it is. We should be concerned about preserving what is already there, and cannot simply say that they are bad examples because they aren't big because we cannot go back in time and change things. A place is just as important if it is historical whether it be one square kilometer large or one thousand square kilometers large, size doesn't matter. There are lots of other places filled with old architecture and history that may be "bigger" in size than Rome but they are not as well known to most of the people of the world, but most everyone knows of Paris and Rome and when they think of those places, they always think FIRST of the historical/old parts of those cities and not of the new parts. Whenever movies or TV shows showcase those cities, the majority of the time it is of those old parts of Paris/Rome first rather than newer parts.
Also, what does the size of Rome's historic district compared to other cities places have anything to do with this? There are cities that are smaller than NYC's Central Park or San Diego's Balboa park, but that doesn't mean anything. It still is well preserved and it should continue. Many tourists still come to see old Rome despite how small that it is. We should be concerned about preserving what is already there, and cannot simply say that they are bad examples because they aren't big because we cannot go back in time and change things. A place is just as important if it is historical whether it be one square kilometer large or one thousand square kilometers large, size doesn't matter. There are lots of other places filled with old architecture and history that may be "bigger" in size than Rome but they are not as well known to most of the people of the world, but most everyone knows of Paris and Rome and when they think of those places, they always think FIRST of the historical/old parts of those cities and not of the new parts. Whenever movies or TV shows showcase those cities, the majority of the time it is of those old parts of Paris/Rome first rather than newer parts.
You're right - but I still don't think that Rome is a good example of historical preservation: in fact large parts of its historical district were destroyed after the reunification of Italy.
The House of Savoy first and the Fascism then started several "urban renewal" works in Rome, building ugly plazas and avenues (such as Piazza Augusto Imperatore, Via Nazionale, Via Cavour and Via della Conciliazione) at the expense of several old, charming structures
Regurgitating the same old rehashes of Greco-Roman architecture is the definition of all that is good in architecture.
It's not just about Greco-Roman architecture, which I find rather monumental. In that sense, Greco-Roman architecture is similar to brutalism, they're both monumental and don't meet the street that well: the entrance is often set back from the street and there are stairs to climb. Greco-Roman architecture is appropriate for city halls, courthouses, maybe banks, or universities, theatres and other important institutions, but for more background buildings like apartments or offices, other styles are better.
There's also Romanesque, Victorian, Chinese, Islamic, Mayan... Background buildings work too, as long as they meet the street well and look friendly. Most of Venice is just stucco clad brick boxes with square windows painted in warm colours and with some balcony flowers, and that's fine.
So you just care about there being zero setback and have no particular concern about the architecture is what you're saying. Prague is Beaux-Arts in its various iterations (which are rehashes of Greco-Roman), and Art Nouveau for the newer "old" buildings. There are countless examples of both Beaux-Arts and Art Nouveau that meet the street with no setback.
Function over form, function being oversimplified to a single design parameter of a building having zero or at least very little setback. I disagree that that's an important design parameter, let alone the most important or sole important parameter. Taking out the parking lot of a stripmall would make it totally useless. Burying the parking underground would be incredibly expensive. Large parking structures seldom "meet the street well," but would be the next most functional thing to the stripmall as it exists. Ironically, the stripmall as exists is largely entirely because of a disregard for form and focus purely on function. They're ugly but highly functional for their environment. They wouldn't function well at all in the middle of a bustling urban core, however.
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.
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.
