this is the problem. Architecture is supposed to be able to be appreciated by the general public, since they are its users and viewing audience.

now, what about a building like this:

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...ous/435576.jpghttp://www.emporis.com/files/transfe.../02/435578.jpg

this is the Residences at the Ritz-Carlton, in Philly. Personally, I really like this building. I like it for its sleek, clean-lined, classic modernism. By your line of argument, however, this building is no good, since it incorporates the cantelevered roof, sheer glass walls, and open arcade/plaza characteristic of 1950s modernism. It's a revivalist building.

Modernist architects are just as guilty of putting form over function as the styles they claim to hate. They love putting on the appearance of cantelevered facades and ribbon windows, even if it's a conventional frame with structural columns directly behind the glass. How many buildings have wraparound corner windows trying to look like they're cantelevered, but then have a column inside at the corner?

I like well-done modernist architecture, I like well-done historicist architecture. I've never understood throwing out a style and calling it immoral. Because that's all it is: just style. Everyone has their own preferences.

It might be of note that these are both residential towers

What an outstanding post.

i gave them a 10.

enough steel and glass is being built... nice to see a building(s) that let you see the windows and height and incorporate columns into its facade.

Personally I like this building. It's a simple design with just enough detail, lots of glass as well.

The question was asked what is that people like about the buildings. Well, I like how the taller ones shape dose the opposite toward the top when there's a break with the over hanging ledges, I like the roofs, columns, arches, and color.

I think the biggest issue with these buildings is that the mixture of a relatively bland styling and height has created a grotesque streched tower. Im all for a good revivalist building, but the dimensions have made this tower a pretty bad design. Just my take, though.

i love these buildings.....i gave them a 7 instead of an 8 or 9 because i think im having problems with them being directly side by side versus diagnal or across the street from one another.....then it'd be an 8 or 9. each building individually is awesome, although i think id rather honestly see the domed tower be the taller of the two and the flat one be the shorter.....

^^^ i completely agree, the flat tower appears to be too stretched with it's height.

I think The building in the right side have some thing wrong in its proportion.. :shrug:
the one in the left is ok :tup:

but both of them looks like residential building ... is this is their function ?? :rolleyes:

^See, folks? Even new members from the Mid East are noticing that there is something wrong with it. :)

^^ And apparently it is a condo.

They are quite nice. :) I'd give them a 7

I like both of them

I think that the buildings have too many differences and don't blend together. Their style is too oldfashioned, I have a whole different style. I like modern buildings or even classic buildings with a modern edge.

The one on the left is beautiful, but I'm really not fond of the columns on top of the one on the right. I gave them a 6.

I miss playing simcity 3000 unlimited. I loved making and inserting buildings, but it seemed it was too limited (which contradicts the name) when it came to making or inserting bridges, more buildings without making everything a landmark, and keeping water in the cities was almost impossible.

Do they have a newer and better version out (I didnt think simcity 4 looked all that great maybe I am wrong)?

Here is a rendering I made last month with both towers. Also included is the 54 story Ritz Carlton/Marriott Marquis opening in 2010 and the Hanover Tower opening in March of 2007.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h1...er/LA3copy.jpg

They do NOT fit in. At all.

good one

I think that only looks good if the buildings are square identical twins, for these asymmetrical buildings (one some what square and one rectangle) I think the side by side position make their differences more obvious while tying them together neatly.

I love these two odd sisters. I give them a 9

but them being side-by-side like that makes them appear intentional and thus artificial, if they were diagonal (on seperate blocks), their presence would be more organic becuase this is how great skylines are formed; random placement of buildings...not them neatly lined up in a row. that is the difference between manhattan and dubai.

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/tim...an-skyline.jpg

http://www.jludwick.com/Notes/Dubai/Skyscrapers.JPG

View from different angles:

http://www.robertsonpartners.net/images/och9.jpg

http://www.robertsonpartners.net/ima...6---8.5x11.jpg

http://www.robertsonpartners.net/images/F3---8.5x11.jpg

http://www.robertsonpartners.net/images/F4.jpg

That's only one element in a city of randomly placed buildings. A bunch of building lined up in a row does look dumb I agree with you on that.

The poll is closed so I could not vote.
The design is too classic for todays modern architectural styles.
I give them a 7

:tup:

New renderings of The City House and The Olympic!

http://robertsonpartners.net/images/1-Front-View.jpg

http://robertsonpartners.net/images/10-Back-View.jpg

http://robertsonpartners.net/images/16-Top-Two.jpg

http://robertsonpartners.net/images/2-Left-View.jpg

http://robertsonpartners.net/images/3-Front-View.jpg

http://robertsonpartners.net/images/4-Front-View.jpg

http://robertsonpartners.net/images/8-Sidewalk.jpg

I think that SimCity 4 is AWESOME...you should definately give it another shot (make sure you get the 'rush hour' version though). As for the bldgs...I agree with the other comments: a good effort was made to make the bldgs look classic in their design; however they are far too symetrical and that overrides the sense of uniqueness that the bldgs would of had. The placement into KC couldn't be any worse...totally out of place/context!

Sorry they are contrary to everything I difine as modern. They are 1920s and 30s are not great examples either. But then I am Chicago School. Please tell me their not new proposals. Score a one.