Have you seen it?
Cold, emotionless compilations of glass and exposed steel, forbidding in its sharpness. It requires no craftsmanship. The mirrored glass is blinding when the sun reflects of of it. I know there are exceptions, but they are too far and few in between. Buildings constructed in the late 1800's and early 1900's in the USA are far more durable and appealing. A great many of them are worth going to just look at. There was an obvious and generous amount of pride and imagination in the planning and construction of these buildings.
The difference sickens me.
Quote from: Hawk on April 27, 2008, 05:54:27 PM
Have you seen it?
Cold, emotionless compilations of glass and exposed steel, forbidding in its sharpness. It requires no craftsmanship. The mirrored glass is blinding when the sun reflects of of it. I know there are exceptions, but they are too far and few in between. Buildings constructed in the late 1800's and early 1900's in the USA are far more durable and appealing. A great many of them are worth going to just look at. There was an obvious and generous amount of pride and imagination in the planning and construction of these buildings.
The difference sickens me.
Actually, the steel and glass monstrosities are far stronger than the iron and stone buildings.
Just saying.
Quote from: Hawk on April 27, 2008, 05:54:27 PM
Have you seen it?
Cold, emotionless compilations of glass and exposed steel, forbidding in its sharpness. It requires no craftsmanship. The mirrored glass is blinding when the sun reflects of of it. I know there are exceptions, but they are too far and few in between. Buildings constructed in the late 1800's and early 1900's in the USA are far more durable and appealing. A great many of them are worth going to just look at. There was an obvious and generous amount of pride and imagination in the planning and construction of these buildings.
The difference sickens me.
We have two of those in Portland, from the early 80's. Then we decided they were ugly and made them illegal.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2008, 05:58:45 PM
Quote from: Hawk on April 27, 2008, 05:54:27 PM
Have you seen it?
Cold, emotionless compilations of glass and exposed steel, forbidding in its sharpness. It requires no craftsmanship. The mirrored glass is blinding when the sun reflects of of it. I know there are exceptions, but they are too far and few in between. Buildings constructed in the late 1800's and early 1900's in the USA are far more durable and appealing. A great many of them are worth going to just look at. There was an obvious and generous amount of pride and imagination in the planning and construction of these buildings.
The difference sickens me.
Actually, the steel and glass monstrosities are far stronger than the iron and stone buildings.
Just saying.
Not in all cases. And they are so damn UGLY!
Quote from: Hawk on April 27, 2008, 05:54:27 PMHave you seen it?
Cold, emotionless compilations of glass and exposed steel, forbidding in its sharpness. It requires no craftsmanship. The mirrored glass is blinding when the sun reflects of of it. I know there are exceptions, but they are too far and few in between. Buildings constructed in the late 1800's and early 1900's in the USA are far more durable and appealing. A great many of them are worth going to just look at. There was an obvious and generous amount of pride and imagination in the planning and construction of these buildings.
The difference sickens me.
i love those buildings. they are so pretty and stylish.
i also love the old buildings, btw. they're also pretty.
what i don't really like is the grey concrete stuff, although, when they're in ruins, or being half-built or broken down, they acquire a certain new sort of aestethic again. kind of like the scenes in "Goodbye, Lenin" (which is a great, and very funny movie, btw).
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/05136/d507e1e3.jpg
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/05136/e36b32f0.jpg
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/05136/2ebf2d78.jpg
thanks to the crappy image quality you can't really make out the recently renovated (in the original classical style) old railway station, but IMO it goes seamlessly with the glass-n-steel office buildings next to it.
maybe it also helps that i don't have to deal much with the soulless corporations that inhabit them ;-)
Grey concrete is horrible.
St Andrews has actually managed to do a stylish grey with its older buildings. I'll have to get some pictures before I go.
(http://www.rentalpropertyhouston.com/images/houston-commercial-office-space.jpg)
(http://imgsrv.homes.com/imgsrv/d3/74/150273743.jpg)
Is this what you're talking about? If so I've always liked it... Houston is one of the few big cities I've been to, anyway.
Modern architecture is so utilitarian. What little style there is, is only because if you build a plain, square building, you'll violate somebody's patent or copyright. There's really no imagination in modern <American> architecture. They do some impressive stuff in that medium in other countries though, where there' no unspoken rule that every building taller than five stories must be an ode in glass and steel to the corn cob shoved up the People's collective conservative ass.
But, to be fair, nobody spends the time anymore to learn a decent craft. You have to pay ridiculous amounts of money if you want your new building to have things like frieze or custom masonry, because there's practically no supply of that kind of talent or expertise.
Quote from: vexati0n on April 28, 2008, 05:32:20 AM
Modern architecture is so utilitarian. What little style there is, is only because if you build a plain, square building, you'll violate somebody's patent or copyright. There's really no imagination in modern <American> architecture. They do some impressive stuff in that medium in other countries though, where there' no unspoken rule that every building taller than five stories must be an ode in glass and steel to the corn cob shoved up the People's collective conservative ass.
But, to be fair, nobody spends the time anymore to learn a decent craft. You have to pay ridiculous amounts of money if you want your new building to have things like frieze or custom masonry, because there's practically no supply of that kind of talent or expertise.
There never was enough. They only got away with it before because there was MAYBE one building going up in a city at a time.
Oh, and try to build 110 stories out of stone and iron. Let me know when it stops looking like a good idea.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2008, 05:50:10 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on April 28, 2008, 05:32:20 AM
Modern architecture is so utilitarian. What little style there is, is only because if you build a plain, square building, you'll violate somebody's patent or copyright. There's really no imagination in modern <American> architecture. They do some impressive stuff in that medium in other countries though, where there' no unspoken rule that every building taller than five stories must be an ode in glass and steel to the corn cob shoved up the People's collective conservative ass.
But, to be fair, nobody spends the time anymore to learn a decent craft. You have to pay ridiculous amounts of money if you want your new building to have things like frieze or custom masonry, because there's practically no supply of that kind of talent or expertise.
There never was enough. They only got away with it before because there was MAYBE one building going up in a city at a time.
Oh, and try to build 110 stories out of stone and iron. Let me know when it stops looking like a good idea.
Roger, don't you know that this is the Century of Fabrication? Your
facts have no power here.
also, try telling whoever designed those buildings that his job didn't involve any craftmanship.
although i do have to say that the similar buildings over here seem to have a littlebit more imagination in shape and tricks applied to them
http://www.flickr.com/photos/albertgeurts/203192527/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25397800@N00/1858338307/
they often have some sort of semi-organic curvery going on. but that's a manner of style. there's a lot of the more geometric cylinder/prism shaped stuff in amsterdam and den haag, afaik.
Utilitarianism has a beauty of its own, and the steel and glass skyscrapers, that push budgets and engineering so far that there isn't room for anything *but* the utilitarian, are magnificent creations. The concrete ones are ulgy as hell though.
Also keep in mind that the skyscraper is very much a minority in architecture. Look at the smaller buildings and more unique designs show up.
http://www.starling-travel.com/wp-content/sllibrary.jpg
http://www.mindmatrix.net/knowletcontent/images/37206.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
you probably meant something different, but the point is understood :)
I agree with Idem that the buildings can look great....but usually, they have to be balanced out with a lot of green and open space. Something like downtown Manhatten, where its just building after building like that....not so aesthetically pleasing. But Houston, for example, does look nice.
Also, St Andrews pics, linked, so you can see what I am talking about
http://www.python.org/files/success/st-andrews/university-print.png
http://www.students.bucknell.edu/projects/trafficcalming/Library/International/St.Andrews-Int1bbig.jpg
(http://www.high.st/standrews/StAndrews_high_street.jpeg)
More blinding lack of craftsmanship (click the image if you can stand it).
(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6058/eugenecourthousera5.jpg) (http://www.portlandart.net/archives/2006/11/doing_a_lot_of.html)
There were probably just as many shoddy and boring building designs in ratio to well built and cleverly designed structures a 100 years ago as there are today. I don't know where you're getting your ideas about architecture...
Quote from: Netaungrot on April 28, 2008, 11:49:42 AM
More blinding lack of craftsmanship (click the image if you can stand it).
(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6058/eugenecourthousera5.jpg) (http://www.portlandart.net/archives/2006/11/doing_a_lot_of.html)
There were probably just as many shoddy and boring building designs in ratio to well built and cleverly designed structures a 100 years ago as there are today. I don't know where you're getting your ideas about architecture...
As I said there certainly are exceptions. This building shows a great deal of personality and thought. I was in Kansas City when this mini bitch came to me. We went to a Sysco food show in what has to be one of the ugliest buildings I have ever seen. It made me look around and pay attention.
The pictures that Cain linked are prime examples of my thought process. The pictures of Houston also show some exceptions and imagination.
just out of curiosity, got some links for the ugly glass+steel ones then?
I don't. Didn't think to take pics, but will do so when back there again.
Also, what I really liked about Houston was that the skyscrapers were most nearly grouped on an "island", appearing to be separated from the rest of the city by a winding interstate. There was so much contrast; around the "island", nothing was nearly as tall or distinct.
Also, unrelated to that paragraph:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/WaltDisneyConcertHall.jpeg)
(http://www.newyorkarchitecture.info/NYAI/Images/Buildings/TimeWarnerCenter-002a.jpg)
(http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/Images/Buildings/Downtown/JPMorganChaseTower-002.jpg)
(http://www.newyorkarchitecture.info/NYAI/Images/Buildings/TimeWarnerCenter-004a.jpg)
(http://www.wickedgood.info/images/cityviews/ugly1.jpg)
Quote from: Hawk on April 27, 2008, 05:54:27 PM
Have you seen it?
Cold, emotionless compilations of glass and exposed steel, forbidding in its sharpness. It requires no craftsmanship. The mirrored glass is blinding when the sun reflects of of it. I know there are exceptions, but they are too far and few in between. Buildings constructed in the late 1800's and early 1900's in the USA are far more durable and appealing. A great many of them are worth going to just look at. There was an obvious and generous amount of pride and imagination in the planning and construction of these buildings.
The difference sickens me.
Do you understand what money does?
Utilitarian is the word that describes its essential function, basically if you have a straight line, let's say its 30 stories tall, for fun, it's crazy but follow me for a bit, and you want something not glass, something that isn't as energy efficient, now what would that take? idk maybe money wtf do i know lol were on a dxcordian boared after all hahahahahahaha
Your ignorance doesn't really sicken me.
Quote from: Subtract Eight! on April 29, 2008, 11:04:22 AM
Quote from: Hawk on April 27, 2008, 05:54:27 PM
Have you seen it?
Cold, emotionless compilations of glass and exposed steel, forbidding in its sharpness. It requires no craftsmanship. The mirrored glass is blinding when the sun reflects of of it. I know there are exceptions, but they are too far and few in between. Buildings constructed in the late 1800's and early 1900's in the USA are far more durable and appealing. A great many of them are worth going to just look at. There was an obvious and generous amount of pride and imagination in the planning and construction of these buildings.
The difference sickens me.
Do you understand what money does?
Utilitarian is the word that describes its essential function, basically if you have a straight line, let's say its 30 stories tall, for fun, it's crazy but follow me for a bit, and you want something not glass, something that isn't as energy efficient, now what would that take? idk maybe money wtf do i know lol were on a dxcordian boared after all hahahahahahaha
Your ignorance doesn't really sicken me.
I post an opinion and you choose to insult me. Go fuck yourself.
'pataphysics
ra-chitecture
daubing sensory paradigms
and rotating around switches
http://www.surrealismcentre.ac.uk/papersofsurrealism/journal4/acrobat%20files/Spillerpdf.pdf
currently vice dean of an outspoken school of learning
yet, there is something there.
Quote from: silentaether on April 29, 2008, 02:27:49 PM
'pataphysics
ra-chitecture
daubing sensory paradigms
and rotating around switches
http://www.surrealismcentre.ac.uk/papersofsurrealism/journal4/acrobat%20files/Spillerpdf.pdf
currently vice dean of an outspoken school of learning
yet, there is something there.
not quite architecture, but quite enjoyable nonetheless. Thanx!
yes, not quite architecture. the man has proven to be quite influential amongst young architects in England, and thankfully a byproduct of this might be architects with greater curiosity in general. I guess the shit will always reign over the rest, that's the way things are, the inextricable connection between architecture and money cannot really be overcome in a way other than the theoretical practice of architecture. Yet simultaneously this is what makes it interesting and soul destroying, and slightly retrogressive. Drawings and diagrams are great aren't they?I think so. Mr. Spiller's things are thought provoking at least.
I was at a party with an architect a few months back. Unfortunately, he was a Cambridge (or was it Oxford) taught one, so his ideas were somewhat....staid, shall we say? Hopefully this sort of thing will become more popular, and at least cause some creative thinking amongst the newer generation of architects.
I agree.
Quote from: Hawk on April 29, 2008, 12:17:12 PM
Quote from: Subtract Eight! on April 29, 2008, 11:04:22 AM
Quote from: Hawk on April 27, 2008, 05:54:27 PM
Have you seen it?
Cold, emotionless compilations of glass and exposed steel, forbidding in its sharpness. It requires no craftsmanship. The mirrored glass is blinding when the sun reflects of of it. I know there are exceptions, but they are too far and few in between. Buildings constructed in the late 1800's and early 1900's in the USA are far more durable and appealing. A great many of them are worth going to just look at. There was an obvious and generous amount of pride and imagination in the planning and construction of these buildings.
The difference sickens me.
Do you understand what money does?
Utilitarian is the word that describes its essential function, basically if you have a straight line, let's say its 30 stories tall, for fun, it's crazy but follow me for a bit, and you want something not glass, something that isn't as energy efficient, now what would that take? idk maybe money wtf do i know lol were on a dxcordian boared after all hahahahahahaha
Your ignorance doesn't really sicken me.
I post an opinion and you choose to insult me. Go fuck yourself.
all im saying is that architecture is a job, there are constant deadlines and the only way to satisfy YUO is if the person hiring the firm wants to spend an extra few million dollars and time.
Quote from: silentaether on April 29, 2008, 02:27:49 PM
'pataphysics
ra-chitecture
daubing sensory paradigms
and rotating around switches
http://www.surrealismcentre.ac.uk/papersofsurrealism/journal4/acrobat%20files/Spillerpdf.pdf
currently vice dean of an outspoken school of learning
yet, there is something there.
its pretty cool
though these kinds of things seem to me to be more literature than anything
Quote from: Subtract Eight! on April 29, 2008, 06:33:08 PM
Quote from: Hawk on April 29, 2008, 12:17:12 PM
Quote from: Subtract Eight! on April 29, 2008, 11:04:22 AM
Quote from: Hawk on April 27, 2008, 05:54:27 PM
Have you seen it?
Cold, emotionless compilations of glass and exposed steel, forbidding in its sharpness. It requires no craftsmanship. The mirrored glass is blinding when the sun reflects of of it. I know there are exceptions, but they are too far and few in between. Buildings constructed in the late 1800's and early 1900's in the USA are far more durable and appealing. A great many of them are worth going to just look at. There was an obvious and generous amount of pride and imagination in the planning and construction of these buildings.
The difference sickens me.
Do you understand what money does?
Utilitarian is the word that describes its essential function, basically if you have a straight line, let's say its 30 stories tall, for fun, it's crazy but follow me for a bit, and you want something not glass, something that isn't as energy efficient, now what would that take? idk maybe money wtf do i know lol were on a dxcordian boared after all hahahahahahaha
Your ignorance doesn't really sicken me.
I post an opinion and you choose to insult me. Go fuck yourself.
all im saying is that architecture is a job, there are constant deadlines and the only way to satisfy YUO is if the person hiring the firm wants to spend an extra few million dollars and time.
You know nothing about me. I don't care to know anything about you. You have just joined a non-exclusive list of primates who can kiss my ass.