Thoughts on City Center? (Washington: condo, lawyers, landscaping)
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 agree. I don't think something like the Musee du iquai Branly with all the greenery would work for a times square type development with bright lights etc. City Center will have light displays similar to Gallery Place. A space designed like the Musee du iquai Branly would be better for the national mall, not an active modern bustling entertainment district.
I don't agree. I don't think something like the Musee du iquai Branly with all the greenery would work for a times square type development with bright lights etc. City Center will have light displays similar to Gallery Place. A space designed like the Musee du iquai Branly would be better for the national mall, not an active modern bustling entertainment district.
I don't think something exactly like that would be appropriate. I just think the design is a good example of imaginative architecture, which the current City Center project is not. Also, I don't think that having greenery in the area is such a bad thing. That area already feels supremely sterile, hard and machine-like as it is.
I don't think something exactly like that would be appropriate. I just think the design is a good example of imaginative architecture, which the current City Center project is not. Also, I don't think that having greenery in the area is such a bad thing. That area already feels supremely sterile, hard and machine-like as it is.
There will be some greenery.
This is going up in foggy bottom next year. Is this more of what you had in mind?
Speaking for myself, this is what I have in mind. I would think that City Center could have taken a bold approach as this building did in Foggy Bottom. If you put the same type of lights on this building, it would truly stand out. Unlike some of the others, I do like City Center as it is, this is just my opinion on what would've made it better.
Would it stick out like a sore thumb in the middle of unimaginative glass and concrete facades? Yes. But then again, so do well-dressed women in a sea of Plain Janes.
Would it stick out like a sore thumb in the middle of unimaginative glass and concrete facades? Yes. But then again, so do well-dressed women in a sea of Plain Janes.
At street level, what is the difference between buildings in NYC and D.C. from an architectural standpoint? All buildings are basically a box at street level. Since human's walk at street level and interact with what is at the street, how would changing the tops of these buildings make this space more enjoyable? Unless you are looking up at the tops of buildings all day, nobody is going to care.
At street level, what is the difference between buildings in NYC and D.C. from an architectural standpoint? All buildings are basically a box at street level. Since human's walk at street level and interact with what is at the street, how would changing the tops of these buildings make this space more enjoyable? Unless you are looking up at the tops of buildings all day, nobody is going to care.
And that attitude is exactly why the architectural community struggles in DC. I think many people would be shocked how many professionals in the field throw their hands up in resignation with that same belief.
I'm not saying I would necessarily like to see these designs at City Center, but these buildings certainly impact the street level experience and define their community or institution, for better or worse.
At street level, what is the difference between buildings in NYC and D.C. from an architectural standpoint? All buildings are basically a box at street level. Since human's walk at street level and interact with what is at the street, how would changing the tops of these buildings make this space more enjoyable? Unless you are looking up at the tops of buildings all day, nobody is going to care.
I think people look at more than just the ground level, particularly when looking at buildings from a distance. You think people walk around Paris and only notice the ground level of all the buildings? The average pedestrian may not pay attention to the 36th floor, but he or she will pay attention to the 3rd or 4th floor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
And that attitude is exactly why the architectural community struggles in DC.
It's kinda like saying "clothes are clothes." But this attitude should not be too suprising in a city where each commuter appears from a Metro station clad in worker-bee attire (i.e., dark slacks/khakis and white/blue shirt for men; dark skirt/khaki skirt and white shirt/blue shirt and black sweater for women). Paris' flair and style is just as important (if not more important) than its concentration of retail.
I'm not a fan of the "beauty is subjective therefore there's no point in even trying" attitude. I don't know if this is a distinctly American attitude or what, but it seems that a lot of people feel that something that can't be quantified and number-crunched simply doesn't matter (or at least that things that can be quantified matter more than things that cannot).
Last edited by BajanYankee; 01-02-2013 at 12:08 PM..
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.
