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.
Asking him what he likes is not about satisfying myself. I just wanted to know what he likes because many times, it seems like he doesn't like anything in D.C., however, then he says he likes something in Philly that looks just like something from D.C. It's very confusing. I love D.C.'s new buildings. I think the people who hate D.C. buildings aren't into modern style. They probably don't like modern looking interior either. That's cool because I don't like many older styles personally. To each his own. That's the beauty of choice.
I just think you haven't left DC...?
The grittiest, "dirtiest", oldest cities in this country also have easily the best examples of contemporary architecture in this country.
I'm talking of course about NYC, Chicago, SF, and Philly. Most of the buildings will be old and a little grimy in these cities, but you'll find seamlessly integrated modern architecture designed by the leading firms du jour sprinkled all around. DC is OK in this aspect, but doesn't have the mass of old buildings and narrow streets and higher buildings that the others do. Architecture definitely doesn't seem to be a big focus in DC like it is in other cities.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can probably find even better examples of what you like in these cities, but then you'll have to put up with "looking at" your neighboring older buildings. DC is a sea of similar looking modern buildings. NYC, SF, and Chicago in particular offer really nice juxtapositions between old and new, and because these cities are super nostalgic about their history and older defined styles, they also demand a lot more from their newer buildings in return.
I think you'd realize that if you got out more. My view on Atlanta is that it's *soooo* new and inexpensive that people prioritize interior amenities and finishes wayyyyy more than how the building looks or fits in its surroundings. What results is cheap facades, VE'd construction, but every new unit is hardwood florring and granite counters and SPACE and balconies and floor to ceiling windows and walk-in closets and Viking range appliances, etc.
It's frustrating for urbanites who want to see the city evolve within their lifetimes to something that meets their standards. But buildings will continue to come with massive parking structures and amenity decks up top and huge units that might as well be houses to raise a family in before architects, developers, and design review committees/planning agencies put a priority on context, exterior design, and integration. Retail below is usually built as an afterthought, as well, because it must be included but more cost needs to go into interiors of units. In a city where yields are squeezed and rents are already low, something's got to give and in my opinion it has been the overall design.
At least in SF because most buildings are dense walk-ups with no amenities, people are forced to congregate in the public sphere. So that's why a place like SF will always have more people out and about than a newer city or even a DC, imo.
NYC, SF, and Chicago in particular offer really nice juxtapositions between old and new, and because these cities are super nostalgic about their history and older defined styles, they also demand a lot more from their newer buildings in return.
Any reason you excluded Boston? Or just slip of the brain?
It's almost good, and it does break up the monotony (the monotony aspect is what I find similar about City Center, and the reason why shopping in such environments will never compare to Back Bay, SF, Chicago, New York, Miami Beach, Georgetown, LA, Seattle, or Philadelphia).
However, it's *way* over the top and looks a little cheap/plasticky. Something simpler would have sufficed. It reminds me a bit of the Cheesecake Factory in Buckhead...it's also not as intimate as either the old location or the downtown franchise.
I disagree about you saying they will never compare.
Look at Dubai.Or Singapore.Tokyo.In their luxry districts you have lots of modern glass type designs.
So no I dont by your argument that districts cant ever compare.Its just hard to see it now because they are so new.
Even Atlantic Station is still going through a slightly upgraded look.Probably because of some of the criticisms it has gotten for looking less "Disneyesque"
The grittiest, "dirtiest", oldest cities in this country also have easily the best examples of contemporary architecture in this country.
I'm talking of course about NYC, Chicago, SF, and Philly. Most of the buildings will be old and a little grimy in these cities, but you'll find seamlessly integrated modern architecture designed by the leading firms du jour sprinkled all around. DC is OK in this aspect, but doesn't have the mass of old buildings and narrow streets and higher buildings that the others do. Architecture definitely doesn't seem to be a big focus in DC like it is in other cities.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can probably find even better examples of what you like in these cities, but then you'll have to put up with "looking at" your neighboring older buildings. DC is a sea of similar looking modern buildings. NYC, SF, and Chicago in particular offer really nice juxtapositions between old and new, and because these cities are super nostalgic about their history and older defined styles, they also demand a lot more from their newer buildings in return.
I think you'd realize that if you got out more. My view on Atlanta is that it's *soooo* new and inexpensive that people prioritize interior amenities and finishes wayyyyy more than how the building looks or fits in its surroundings. What results is cheap facades, VE'd construction, but every new unit is hardwood florring and granite counters and SPACE and balconies and floor to ceiling windows and walk-in closets and Viking range appliances, etc.
It's frustrating for urbanites who want to see the city evolve within their lifetimes to something that meets their standards. But buildings will continue to come with massive parking structures and amenity decks up top and huge units that might as well be houses to raise a family in before architects, developers, and design review committees/planning agencies put a priority on context, exterior design, and integration. Retail below is usually built as an afterthought, as well, because it must be included but more cost needs to go into interiors of units. In a city where yields are squeezed and rents are already low, something's got to give and in my opinion it has been the overall design.
At least in SF because most buildings are dense walk-ups with no amenities, people are forced to congregate in the public sphere. So that's why a place like SF will always have more people out and about than a newer city or even a DC, imo.
Well, not everyone likes to live the same way you do. Some people like modern. Some people like old/historic. They both have their pros and cons. Let a fire break out in a historic building where the codes weren't nearly as strong as they are today. You generally don't have central heating/AC which can be miserable in the winter or summer(Depends on the city. SF, you generally don't have to worry about that, but you do in NYC and Philly). Things are constantly falling apart because of how old it is. You generally have rats or other things going on that correlates with old things. Just saying though.
I'm sure plenty of people are rushing to those new apartment midrises being built in SF and don't have a problem with it.
The grittiest, "dirtiest", oldest cities in this country also have easily the best examples of contemporary architecture in this country.
I'm talking of course about NYC, Chicago, SF, and Philly. Most of the buildings will be old and a little grimy in these cities, but you'll find seamlessly integrated modern architecture designed by the leading firms du jour sprinkled all around. DC is OK in this aspect, but doesn't have the mass of old buildings and narrow streets and higher buildings that the others do. Architecture definitely doesn't seem to be a big focus in DC like it is in other cities.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can probably find even better examples of what you like in these cities, but then you'll have to put up with "looking at" your neighboring older buildings. DC is a sea of similar looking modern buildings. NYC, SF, and Chicago in particular offer really nice juxtapositions between old and new, and because these cities are super nostalgic about their history and older defined styles, they also demand a lot more from their newer buildings in return.
I think you'd realize that if you got out more. My view on Atlanta is that it's *soooo* new and inexpensive that people prioritize interior amenities and finishes wayyyyy more than how the building looks or fits in its surroundings. What results is cheap facades, VE'd construction, but every new unit is hardwood florring and granite counters and SPACE and balconies and floor to ceiling windows and walk-in closets and Viking range appliances, etc.
It's frustrating for urbanites who want to see the city evolve within their lifetimes to something that meets their standards. But buildings will continue to come with massive parking structures and amenity decks up top and huge units that might as well be houses to raise a family in before architects, developers, and design review committees/planning agencies put a priority on context, exterior design, and integration. Retail below is usually built as an afterthought, as well, because it must be included but more cost needs to go into interiors of units. In a city where yields are squeezed and rents are already low, something's got to give and in my opinion it has been the overall design.
At least in SF because most buildings are dense walk-ups with no amenities, people are forced to congregate in the public sphere. So that's why a place like SF will always have more people out and about than a newer city or even a DC, imo.
I would say D.C. does just fine. We have some of the most advanced buildings in the country. You don't have to like D.C. The only thing that matters is that the people who live here like it. I would put this building in D.C. up against any building in the country.
-Indoor Movie Theater
-Outdoor Movie Theater
-Music (Jam) Soundproof Room
-Library/Lounge Room
-Pet Salon
-Gym with live plant wall
-Rooftop Pool
-Rooftop Jacuzzi
-Rooftop Sauna
-Performance Kitchen
-Interior Court Garden that illuminates at night with Grills and water fountains
-Computer Cafe Lounge
Not luxe enough and those amenities under one roof. Is that because the neighborhood is boring? Rather middle of the road if you ask me, like an extended stay hotel.
At least in SF because most buildings are dense walk-ups with no amenities, people are forced to congregate in the public sphere. So that's why a place like SF will always have more people out and about than a newer city or even a DC, imo.
Amenities like the building I posted come standard in D.C. Every building being built pretty much has all that. Are we spoiled? Sure! But that's just the way people are living in D.C. these days. On a side note, you would live in a walkup? I don't do walkups.
I like Riverside Place. What new stuff in D.C. do you like? I hear so much about what you don't like. What do you like?
DC has a ton hard to call out specifics - I like a few you posted after this comment - like less monotony - wish they had more height contrast and frontage contrast - which to me can make the blocks look boring - sometimes skyscraper can look that way too
BTW just realized the Mormon tower is actually building a wall - under way not sure if it i a mock up or under way no crne yet which is odd but a perimeter wall that would be away from the tower
Damn that DC building is boring. No thanks. I'd rather be outside doing things and getting some real exercise. Buildings like that are for lazy shut-ins. That's the type of stuff going up in DC? Definitely not the place for me.
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.
