Hilton (or not) (deal, settlement, between)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

yes, buildings have always been knocked down and replaced (sometimes with better buildings and most often in the post war era, not).

Again, the predictable cycle is that when buildings hit their middle-age period, people will tend to think they have little value and knock a bunch of them down. Then a few decades later, people regret it, because they now see buildings from the relevant era as having unique, irrecoverable historic value, and in retrospect the arguments in the prior era for knocking them down seem insufficient and short-sighted. Maybe this time is different--but that is what people always think (yes, people in the past were too hasty to knock down buildings, but THIS time we know what we are doing).

there would seem to be no function in knocking off ornaments.

Typically that was done for a combination of aesthetic and practical reasons (the latter could include cleaning and maintenance costs, the desire to put up a new facade, and so forth). Generally, I was reacting to your claim:

"the basic function of a building is perhaps the most important. some things are worth saving, others are not."

On that theory, what's the harm in knocking off a bunch of ornamentation that people of your era don't happen to like?

and in this case, they really aren't that interesting.

So says every generation in the process of knocking down the relevant buildings. "These Victorian-Era/Beaux-Arts/Art-Deco buildings are a dime-a-dozen--nothing too interesting about them, so lets knock them all down and make way for something more interesting!" That's a big part of the problem: in their middle-age, buildings are considered least interesting because they are viewed as neither innovative nor historic, and lots of people fail to consider that future generations might find them more interesting.

while it's noble of you to argue for city destroying architecture, the ideas they had didn't work.

And that is what they said about their immediate predecessors. Everyone always thinks their own ideas are the best--funny how that works.

today isn't full of wonderful architecture but the back to basics ideas in urban planning are refreshing. it's not today's fad, it's time tested.

They said that too. Le Corbusier, for example, specifically argued that he was returning to the principles of classical architecture.

Oh well. This debate happens every generation, and we aren't likely to have any better luck settling the controversy this time either.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

"the basic function of a building is perhaps the most important. some things are worth saving, others are not."
...
On that theory, what's the harm in knocking off a bunch of ornamentation that people of your era don't happen to like?

except that there's little proof in your second statement. my parents lived through that era and hated seeing them knock it all down. it was generally a top down approach where the planners and architects of their day thought they knew better...not some public uprising to knock down anything with ornamentation. it was this era that gave birth to the preservation movement to begin with. the era of top down urban renewal...the era of failure. my parents are city folks which I suppose makes them different. at any rate, I really don't see how that is a problem. in every era some things are worth saving, and some are not.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

They said that too. Le Corbusier, for example, specifically argued that he was returning to the principles of classical architecture.

Oh well. This debate happens every generation, and we aren't likely to have any better luck settling the controversy this time either.

le corbusier probably said a lot of things but none of that made it true. you are choosing only to see one side of the argument. save everything because someone some time might find it interesting no matter how poorly designed it is for actual living or how unremarkable it is even for its style.

at any rate, getting back to the hilton, at one point you agreed it should be modified to better interact with both the plaza and the street, have you changed your mind back? not that it matters, it will likely stay crap hotel businesses. neither wyndham nor hilton seem to have been bitten by the good hotel restaurant bug.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

except that there's little proof in your second statement. my parents lived through that era and hated seeing them knock it all down. it was generally a top down approach where the planners and architects of their day thought they knew better...not some public uprising to knock down anything with ornamentation.

And no one voted for Nixon. But anyway, the truth is that it is almost always a small group of people actually making these decisions, and I am talking about them when I describe the decisions we later come to regret, not popular sentiment.

at any rate, I really don't see how that is a problem. in every era some things are worth saving, and some are not.

The point is that with buildings only a few decades old, we typically lack the perspective to make well-informed decisions about the future perceived value of those buildings. Hence, we should prefer to defer the relevant decisions to future generations, absent compelling need.

le corbusier probably said a lot of things but none of that made it true.

Right, but the lesson to be learned is one of humility--every generation tends to have great confidence in the superiority and timelessness of its own ideas, but in retrospect we tend to think prior generations got a lot of things wrong, and that what they thought was timeless was actually transient. So it is quite likely future generations will think we got a lot of things wrong, and we should be humble enough to recognize that fact.

Again, the point of that humility is not complete inaction. But at the same time, we should exercise restraint to the extent we are de facto making decisions for all future generations, particularly in the absence of a compelling need to make that decision right now.

you are choosing only to see one side of the argument.

That's not quite accurate. The two sides of the argument in the primary sense would be "These buildings suck" and "These buildings are great". Rather than taking a side in that argument, my point is that absent compelling need, we shouldn't be rushing to make that decision for all time after only a few decades.

Now it is true that if you characterize the two sides as "We shouldn't rush to make that decision" and "No, it is OK to make a decision right now, because unlike in the past, this time we know for sure that our ideas are right and timeless and our evaluations of these buildings will be shared by all future generations", then I am indeed taking a side.

But it isn't that I don't see what the argument is on the other side. I just don't think it makes sense to adopt that view in light of what we know about the course of human history, again absent compelling need. Seriously, what's the rush?

save everything because someone some time might find it interesting no matter how poorly designed it is for actual living or how unremarkable it is even for its style.

Note I haven't claimed we should "save everything", but have just said that we should save things absent a compelling need.

But yes, part of my point is that we lack the perspective to be confident that we can declare on behalf of all future generations what is poorly designed, what is unremarkable, and so forth. Again, human history is full of instances of different generations making different judgments about such matters.

And in this case, I have also pointed out that apart from just the individual buildings, we also have an interesting collection of buildings, all of which were in fact conceived, designed, and implemented as part of a common plan. In that sense, I would argue the burden is even higher, because you would be breaking up what is, at the moment, a "complete set".

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

And no one voted for Nixon.

really an irrelevant stateament.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

... the truth is that it is almost always a small group of people actually making these decisions...not popular sentiment.

but really both are important. they lived ina time when they thought they knew better than everyone. according to the PG poll, there's more support for getting rid of than keeping the igloo.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Right, but the lesson to be learned is one of humility--every generation tends to have great confidence in the superiority and timelessness of its own ideas,

I don't think you've learned the right lesson at all. it's obvious that those ideas were not timeless and it was obvious to the public. they were actively destroying cities and ignoring how they've been built for centuries. you are simply using an academic theory to prop up a defense but it has little basis in reality. simply because you say this, doesn't make it true. they may have thought they wer e honoring cities but it's obvious they were not. using basic principles in how to address the street and pedestrian is obviously not simply a generational fad, no matter how much you'd like to think so. in fact, there were many critics of that style then so this generations belief are really affirmation of those critics...it;'s not simply generational differences as you'd like me to believe. and as you've probably guessed, my parents are not from the same generation as I, nor most of the people designing today.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

but in retrospect we tend to think prior generations got a lot of things wrong,

no, not really. prior generations of done lots of things right.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That's not quite accurate. The two sides of the argument in the primary sense would be "These buildings suck" and "These buildings are great". Rather than taking a side in that argument, my point is that absent compelling need, we shouldn't be rushing to make that decision for all time after only a few decades.

of course, compelling need is highly subjective. buildings that degrade wuality of life, such as those that interact poorly with their environment at ground level, should be modified. we've already waited several decades. I fail to see the reasonableness of your argument that things need to be left as is for a century.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Now it is true that if you characterize the two sides as "We shouldn't rush to make that decision" and "No, it is OK to make a decision right now, because unlike in the past, this time we know for sure that our ideas are right and timeless and our evaluations of these buildings will be shared by all future generations", then I am indeed taking a side.

but that's a false argument. we're talking about principles, not ideas. I'm not saying that all of today's architecture will be timeless (most will not just like all eras) but today's design principles are. you can argue with that but I don't see much basis for it. one is based on millennia of city building, another is based on abstsract theory that has since been disproven.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

And in this case, I have also pointed out that apart from just the individual buildings, we also have an interesting collection of buildings, all of which were in fact conceived, designed, and implemented as part of a common plan. In that sense, I would argue the burden is even higher, because you would be breaking up what is, at the moment, a "complete set".

obviously I'm not going to agree with you. you've made your piece in support of anti-pedestrian urban architecture and against livening the streetscape. I don't buy the argument that a poorly designed set is better than a modified plaza that adds value to the city outside academic theory. I also realize that I'm never going to get you to change your mind so it's fairly pointless. you enjoy a certain type of architecture and need it to exist without alteration and that's fine, I will simply disagree with you. while I don't like the building and certainly would like to see something a little more interesting, I'm fine with modifying the structure so that it works for the city, rather than the academic.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

really an irrelevant stateament.

The point is that as a general matter, people engage in a lot of revisionism about their personal role in history (often without conscious awareness, it seems)

according to the PG poll, there's more support for getting rid of than keeping the igloo.

That's fine, but it is really up to the SEA.

I don't think you've learned the right lesson at all. it's obvious that those ideas were not timeless.

That's what they thought about their predecessors.

they were actively destroying cities and ignoring how they've been built for centuries.

Again, they thought they were returning to historic forms.

you are simply using an academic theory to prop up a defense but it has little basis in reality.

That's the sort of thing people always say in response to this sort of common-sense conservatism.

they may have thought they wer e honoring cities but it's obvious they were not.

That's what they said about their predecessors.

using basic principles in how to address the street and pedestrian is obviously not simply a generational fad, no matter how much you'd like to think so.

I didn't say I know it is a generational fad. I said each generation claims for itself its ideas are timeless, and often future generations think they are wrong, so some humility about these issues is warranted.

in fact, there were many critics of that style then so this generations belief are really affirmation of those critics.

There are critics of current theories around now too.

it;'s not simply generational differences as you'd like me to believe.

Again, I'm not saying I know whether or not it is simply a generational view. The point is that many people in the past have thought their ideas were timeless and they ended up being wrong, so we should exercise some restraint and humility.

and as you've probably guessed, my parents are not from the same generation as I, nor most of the people designing today.

That's irrelevant. The problem is we don't know what people in the future might think. I trust no one you know is from the future.

no, not really. prior generations of done lots of things right.

Sure, some things, others not. Interestingly, history keeps getting rewritten as impressions about the good and bad in prior generations change.

of course, compelling need is highly subjective.

Eh, I'd say only somewhat subjective. Since these buildings are currently well-used and the land they occupy currently isn't needed as a location for new development, there really isn't much of a case for needing to tear any of them down.

buildings that degrade wuality of life, such as those that interact poorly with their environment at ground level, should be modified.

Again, what exactly is your hurry? If you want to build a new building you would like better, there are plenty of places in Pittsburgh to do it, including right Downtown.

we've already waited several decades. I fail to see the reasonableness of your argument that things need to be left as is for a century.

That's based on an empirical observation about the general track of perceived value. Again, after a couple decades the designs of the previous era typically start to fall out of favor as a new set of design principles take hold. Lots of buildings tend to get destroyed for the next few decades. Then after many more decades--100 years is a very rough approximation--the perceived value of older designs typically starts to go up again.

None of this is surprising--some people like new things, and some people like historic things, but things which are neither don't have as much of a constituency. It takes some restraint and humility to preserve buildings during this period, particularly if (like me) you really don't particularly like the buildings in question.

I'm not saying that all of today's architecture will be timeless (most will not just like all eras) but today's design principles are.

That's what people always say.

you can argue with that but I don't see much basis for it.

Like I have repeatedly noted, the argument is one based on common sense conservatism and humility. It is not that I am claiming that I know what people in the future will think about our ideas and principles. I am just noting that no prior generation has shown much ability to judge the timelessness of their ideas and principles, and I doubt we are so much better at that than any of our predecessors.

one is based on millennia of city building, another is based on abstsract theory that has since been disproven.

Again, they argued the same thing.

obviously I'm not going to agree with you. you've made your piece in support of anti-pedestrian urban architecture and against livening the streetscape.

You are misstating my views--and quite clearly so. As I clearly stated above, I am not taking a stand against contemporary design principles and in favor of Modernist design principles. I am taking a stand against destroying buildings unnecessarily on the assumption that we are the first generation in human history to be able to know exactly what all future generations of humans will believe and value.

I don't buy the argument that a poorly designed set is better than a modified plaza that adds value to the city outside academic theory.

The current buildings are already adding value to the city, as all the daily users can attest. And if you want a different sort of building, there are lots of places available to build one. Again, what's your rush to remake everything?

I also realize that I'm never going to get you to change your mind so it's fairly pointless. you enjoy a certain type of architecture and need it to exist without alteration and that's fine, I will simply disagree with you.

One reason you are going to have trouble persuading me to change my views is that you seem hell-bent on misstating my views, despite my clear statements to the contrary. Strawman arguments and similar tactics might play to a third-party, but they are never convincing to the other person.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The point is that as a general matter, people engage in a lot of revisionism about their personal role in history (often without conscious awareness, it seems)

eh, still irrelevant

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That's fine, but it is really up to the SEA.

be that as it may, judgement of course lays with the people

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That's what they thought about their predecessors.

this is a cop out. they had no real justification for that thinking, if, in fact, that's what they did think. I find that unlikely, though, as Ed Bacon didn't see it that way at all, but as modernization, getting rid of the undesirable things of the old way..not returning to form. I think,perhaps, you're engaging in a bit of revisionism yourself.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, they thought they were returning to historic forms.

and obviously, if in fact they did, they were wrong. I think you know this but now that you've painted yourself into a corner, won't admit it. there's really no basis for that thought, and many of that age were not interested in returning to historic norms of urban design.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That's the sort of thing people always say in response to this sort of common-sense conservatism.

another cop out. interestingly, it is you who is the conservative here.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

..false claims...
I didn't say I know it is a generational fad. I said each generation claims for itself its ideas are timeless, and often future generations think they are wrong, so some humility about these issues is warranted.

I suppose if humility is not using your brain, but it's fairly obvious that your claims are not indeed true.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

There are critics of current theories around now too.

who? any as intelligent as jane jacobs? your theories have been proven wrong over time.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, I'm not saying I know whether or not it is simply a generational view. The point is that many people in the past have thought their ideas were timeless and they ended up being wrong, so we should exercise some restraint and humility.

obviously it isn't a generational thing since the prior generation was largely rejected, then the ideas largely failed, and now urban design is turning back to what it is was prior to that. you are a bit too obsessed with "this generation thinks they're right." really, there were huge changes in technology and they really were trying new things. some worked, many didn't. I use cars are tools and fairly infrequently. I don't look down on my parents for doing differently, they grew up when cars were a luxury. that's called perspective.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That's irrelevant. The problem is we don't know what people in the future might think. I trust no one you know is from the future.

that's irrelevant, we can't know what some people might think in the future

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Sure, some things, others not. Interestingly, history keeps getting rewritten as impressions about the good and bad in prior generations change.

yes, you're engaging in some right now.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Eh, I'd say only somewhat subjective. Since these buildings are currently well-used and the land they occupy currently isn't needed as a location for new development, there really isn't much of a case for needing to tear any of them down.

who said them? we're only talking about one building. I never made the argument there's a compelling case to tear the hold hilton down, only to alter it...for now. a compelling reason would be to replace it with a signature building sometime in the future. for right now, I think a compelling case is to alter the pedestal to engage the plaza and point park with more active uses.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That's based on an empirical observation about the general track of perceived value. Again, after a couple decades the designs of the previous era typically start to fall out of favor as a new set of design principles take hold. Lots of buildings tend to get destroyed for the next few decades. Then after many more decades--100 years is a very rough approximation--the perceived value of older designs typically starts to go up again.

that's a nice thought, but design and architecture are two different things. they were dealing with something very different at the time, something that had never existed before, the automobile.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That's what people always say.

nope, false claim yet again.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Like I have repeatedly noted, the argument is one based on common sense conservatism and humility. It is not that I am claiming that I know what people in the future will think about our ideas and principles. I am just noting that no prior generation has shown much ability to judge the timelessness of their ideas and principles, and I doubt we are so much better at that than any of our predecessors.

mostly based on academic mumbo jumbo and conservatism.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, they argued the same thing.

false, many didn't. those that did were obviously wrong. you've never made any compelling case that putting blank walls to the urban streetscape in anyways fits classic design save maybe temples. it's a false argument you are repeatedly putting forth that wasn't even shared by many of that age that were remaking modern cities, not classical or traditional ones. perhaps you should try adding a little perspective to the humility and conservatism.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

You are misstating my views--and quite clearly so. As I clearly stated above, I am not taking a stand against contemporary design principles and in favor of Modernist design principles.

contemporary design is really throwback. new urbanism is anything but, incorrect claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I am taking a stand against destroying buildings unnecessarily on the assumption that we are the first generation in human history to be able to know exactly what all future generations of humans will believe and value.

not doing things simply because some future generation might disapprove isn't very compelling.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The current buildings are already adding value to the city, as all the daily users can attest. And if you want a different sort of building, there are lots of places available to build one. Again, what's your rush to remake everything?

I don't know about that. and we're only talking about one building. it's actually not adding much value at all to the city, with dated rooms, and no flag. I don't see why you should wait another generation to keep improving the city. if you have a compelling argument against active uses and how vitality is bad for the city I'd be happy to read them.
until then

Distinct characteristics of urban planning from remains of the cities of Harappa, Lothal, and Mohenjo-daro in the Indus Valley Civilization (in modern-day northwestern India and Pakistan) lead archeologists to conclude that they are the earliest examples of deliberately planned and managed cities.[2][3] The streets of many of these early cities were paved and laid out at right angles in a grid pattern, with a hierarchy of streets from major boulevards to residential alleys...The Greek Hippodamus (c. 407 BC) has been dubbed the "Father of City Planning" for his design of Miletus; Alexander commissioned him to lay out his new city of Alexandria, the grandest example of idealized urban planning of the ancient Mediterranean world, where the city's regularity was facilitated by its level site near a mouth of the Nile. The Hippodamian, or grid plan, was the basis for subsequent Greek and Roman cities.[4]
The ancient Romans used a consolidated scheme for city planning, developed for military defense and civil convenience. The basic plan consisted of a central forum with city services, surrounded by a compact, rectilinear grid of streets, and wrapped in a wall for defense. To reduce travel times, two diagonal streets crossed the square grid, passing through the central square. A river usually flowed through the city, providing water, transport, and sewage disposal... In the 1920s, the ideas of modernism began to surface in urban planning. Based on the ideas of Le Corbusier and using new skyscraper-building techniques, the modernist city stood for the elimination of disorder, congestion, and the small scale, replacing them with preplanned and widely spaced freeways and tower blocks set within gardens. There were plans for large-scale rebuilding of cities in this era, such as the Plan Voisin (based on Le Corbusier's Ville Contemporaine), which proposed clearing and rebuilding most of central Paris. No large-scale plans were implemented until after World War II, however. Throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, housing shortages caused by wartime destruction led many cities to subsidize housing blocks. Planners used the opportunity to implement the modernist ideal of towers surrounded by gardens...
By the late 1960s and early 1970s, many planners felt that modernism's clean lines and lack of human scale sapped vitality from the community, blaming them for high crime rates and social problems.[14]
Modernist planning fell into decline in the 1970s when the construction of cheap, uniform tower blocks ended in most countries, such as Britain and France. Since then many have been demolished and replaced by other housing types. Rather than attempting to eliminate all disorder, planning now concentrates on individualism and diversity in society and the economy; this is the post-modernist era.[14]
Minimally planned cities still exist. Houston is a large city (with a metropolitan population of 5.5 million) in a developed country without a comprehensive zoning ordinance. Houston does, however, restrict development densities and mandate parking, even though specific land uses are not regulated. Also, private-sector developers in Houston use subdivision covenants and deed restrictions to effect land-use restrictions resembling zoning laws. Houston voters have rejected comprehensive zoning ordinances three times since 1948. Even without traditional zoning, metropolitan Houston displays large-scale land-use patterns resembling zoned regions comparable in age and population, such as Dallas. This suggests that non-regulatory factors such as urban infrastructure and financing may be as important as zoning laws in shaping urban form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_planning

[greg42]

Originally Posted by pman

I don't know what to say, it's fairly obvious it is. you can see it clearly in the photos posted. in where? in the plaza? I tend to think you're considering the elevated windows and the are in there. the building presents a wall at ground level with windows above it and does not engage the plaza at all. perhaps we have different standards.

LOL No, I am perfectly capable of distinguishing the elevated windows from the ground-level ones. In the Google Maps street view, what you see is a view from Liberty Avenue, looking at the rear corner of the Hilton, through a passageway between the Hilton and Three Gateway Center office building. On that street corner of the building (and, I noticed today, actually farther along the Liberty Avenue side than I had originally thought) are windows at GROUND level. In the passageway, in about the center of the rear of the Hilton, is the blank wall you are talking about. THEN, on the other side of that blank wall, and around the opposite corner, are more windows at GROUND level. That latter space, which is the farthest into the Gateway Center Plaza and has a decent view up through the space with old trees and a fountain, houses a restaurant.

Does it "engage" the plaza? I don't know, that's a subjective standard. What I'm talking about is windows at ground level on the plaza side, which is the rear of the building. This is an indisputable fact. I'd go back and take pictures myself, but I was busy today, too busy even to check this thread, and I won't be going downtown to work next week. So true photographic proof from me would have to wait until after. I did a quick image search, but it doesn't look like any nuts have posted pics of the Hilton from that side.

[BrianTH]

Just a sampling for the ill-informed:

Toward an Architecture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Le Corbusier argues from historical evidence that great architecture of the past has been guided by the use of what came to be known in English as "regulating lines." These lines, starting at significant areas of the main volumes, could be used to rationalize the placement of features in buildings. Le Corbusier lists off several structures he claims used this, including a speculative ancient temple form, Notre-Dame de Paris, the Capitol in Rome, the Petit Trianon, and lastly, his prewar neoclassical work in Paris and some more contemporary modern buildings. In each case, he attempts to show how the lines augment the fine proportions and add a rational sense of coherence to the buildings. In this way, the order, the function, and the volume of the space are drawn into one architectural moment. Le Corbusier argues that this method aids in formalizing the intuitive sense of aesthetics and integrating human proportions as well. . . .

See also here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=qsU...thenon&f=false

As usual, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[greg42]

The Hilton name has been removed from the hotel exterior, I noticed this morning (also there was a pic in the P-G sometime a few days ago). Haven't read any other new developments recently.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Just a sampling for the ill-informed:

Toward an Architecture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



See also here:

The Le Corbusier guide - Google Books

As usual, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. clearly you have misunderatood it which has caused you to support repeating the sane mistakes. the quote could not be less relevant to the argument at hand. being inspired by something does not mean someone is recreating it.