Quote:
Originally Posted by killaviews
What is a good example of a condo tower that might satisfy this buyer, but yet is still modern? (I'm honestly asking, I can't think of any right now). And I guess it doesn't even have to be modern, but what building would work for the buyer that wants homey, not glassy.
|
Everything in this thread goes in cycles, so I believe somewhere back there I put in a detailed response to a question like this....
But, in short, I think many of the buyers I've talked to who dislike Modern aren't really turned off by the glass or the modernity of it. What they dislike, when you really start asking questions, is the sense of cookie-cutter housing, sterility, and blandness. They want something that has some character, that's the biggest issue.
As much as I love Miesian modernism, I realize that many people are not willing to limit their personal identity for the greater goal of living in a minimalist masterpiece. That's also part of the draw of Elysian-style buildings. Most people, as is clearly evidenced by this thread, don't really care about architecture or care to know much about architecture. But they like things that feel special to them, or give a sense of identity. Despite the fact that Elysian has repetitive floor plates for most of its living quarters, the added frills, setbacks, distinctive roof, little porte cochère area, etc, are enough to convince a lot of people. (For the people who love living in Miesian buildings, they identify with the
building identity more than a personal expression of identity.)
In support of the above theory, I think you will notice a decline in the popularity of Modern boxes that falls closely into place with the growing dislike of cookie-cutter suburbs. Americans have grown weary and are now wary of mass production.
The above is not antithetical to modern design, particularly the many new breeds / branches of Modernism that are far less rigid than the Miesian or other subgenres that existed in the "pure days" of Modernism. (Eventually Chicago would debate me here, suggesting that what I refer to is a more technological version of the PostModern.) Gang's Aqua tower or the Calatrava to a certain extent are leaning in this direction, although I think they too are lean on the individualistic in deference to a uniform composition. But the aim is clear: Give each owner a unique slice of the sky. 340 on the Park has also been singled-out by critic Blair Kamin as a tower that people can "point to" and find their home within the overall composition.
There are many newer designers who are attempting to introduce individuality and more uniqueness to high-rise residential architecture. For the most part, these are working very well. The major drawback, of course, is cost. Usually these are very unique buildings and not many progressive architects are as pragmatic as Jeanne Gang has been in her towers. The result is that they tend to cater to the rich - but this is another reason why I fault the Elysian, because this is exactly the crowd that could have produced such a building.
Prev
Linear Mode
