HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2007, 3:12 AM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigKidD View Post
I'm still more impressed by such architectural gems as the one below than many modern, comtempory buildings,

Why was it demolished, it does not look too outmoded? Also, this post office is quite similar in design to Erie's former federal court building/post office that was replaced in the 1930s by a typical art deco structure. The citizens of Erie were quite devastated by its destruction.
I'm going to throw out a reason why that tends to be. It seems to me that for the most part buildings (I'm meaning tall buildings) today if they incorporate any interesting design, tends to be design that's meant to be viewed from a distance, as part of the skyline, but if you were to approach them at street level, the first few stories tend to be non descript, or the design is at the same scale as up above, so it's big and clunky. When you look at turn of the century towers though, they tend to have lots of smaller scale architectural points, right down to the street level.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2007, 5:57 AM
BigKidD's Avatar
BigKidD BigKidD is offline
designer&stuff
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: KCMO (Plaza)
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
I'm going to throw out a reason why that tends to be. It seems to me that for the most part buildings (I'm meaning tall buildings) today if they incorporate any interesting design, tends to be design that's meant to be viewed from a distance, as part of the skyline, but if you were to approach them at street level, the first few stories tend to be non descript, or the design is at the same scale as up above, so it's big and clunky. When you look at turn of the century towers though, they tend to have lots of smaller scale architectural points, right down to the street level.
Certainly a possibility. 19th century buildings always tended to be built with humans in mind instead of the modern, monolith building's of today in my opinion. Although the buildings of today have improved quite a bit.
__________________
“Most planning of the past fifteen years has been based upon three destructive fallacies: the cataclysmic insists upon tearing everything down in order to design from an absolutely clean slate; the automotive would plan for the free passage of the automobile at the expense of all other values; the suburban dislikes the city anyway and would just as soon destroy its density and strew it across the countryside.” Vince Scully
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2007, 6:06 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,183
I think new towers could easily be as 'nice' as turn of the century buildings, not by copying their style, but by simply shrinking the scale of the overall design as you get closer and closer to street level, give you something to look at on the first 2-3 stories.
For that matter, it's all part of what makes turn of the century areas enjoyable, the architecture, both high and low rise, the mixed use, etc etc were all designed in a such a way as to be inviting to a pedestrian.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted May 14, 2007, 3:38 PM
Victor Horta Victor Horta is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8
Bruxelles is sadly known a city which blindly and stupidly dilapidated its rich historical landmark since the 50’s

Here is a look to one of the many losses of that once beautiful city:
The Rogier square, with the North Station, which was demolished in 1956




to make way to one of the first skyscrapper of the city, the Rogier tower
the same place in the late 80's:


Which was itself torn down and recently replaced by the Dexia tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted May 17, 2007, 7:02 AM
RLS_rls's Avatar
RLS_rls RLS_rls is offline
▓▒░
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 1,601
^Well I can't say much about the Dexia Tower, but the second one was actually a lovely tower. Ahead of it's time, classy, elegant. I admit, it would have been alot better if it hadn't replaced the train station.
__________________
ಠ_ಠ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted May 30, 2007, 8:59 PM
Victor Horta Victor Horta is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Horta View Post
Bruxelles is sadly known a city which blindly and stupidly dilapidated its rich historical landmark since the 50’s

Here is a look to one of the many losses of that once beautiful city:
The Rogier square, with the North Station, which was demolished in 1956
Image of the demolition in the late 50's






the new station and the remains of the old one


Last edited by Victor Horta; May 30, 2007 at 9:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 9:39 PM
InfillJunkie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Some more of Denver

OK some others from Denver, sorry for the small pics they are from my Blog:

Here's the Arapahoe County Courthouse. The building sat at the corner of 15th and Court. The original name for Court Place was Wasoola Street. The name was obviously changed once the courthouse was finished. The Arapahoe County Courthouse was bulldozed in 1933 since it was no longer a viable public building. Once bulldozed the site was turned into a park with a reflecting pool and fountains. Then it became a parking lot until it was turned into the May D&F Store. May D&F was eventually bought out and the store was closed to make way for the Adams Mark expansion.

Then:


Now:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Charles Building sat at the corner of 15th and Curtis. It served as a commercial/retail structure until it was torn down in the 1930s to make way for a lovely parking lot. The parking lot was eventually filled in with a 12 story structure called 930 15th Street which houses telecommunication functions for Qwest.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Windsor Hotel once sat at 18th and Larimer. It was one of many hotels that used to grace downtown Denver. During the 1800s and early 1900s Denver boasted a wide array of hotels and establishments for tourists. Many of these structures are now gone as they fell into ruin during the 50's and 60's. Many of them became flophouses and cheap arpartments for vagrants and the homeless. The Windsor name was reused for a modern condo structure that was built midblock on Larimer between 17th and 18th. Unfortunately, this modern structure was not constructed on the site of the old hotel which gave it its name.

Then:


Now:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mining Exchange building sat at the corner of 15th and Arapahoe. It is now home to the Brooks Tower, a 42 story condo tower that was built in 1968. The Brooks Tower holds the prestige as being the tallest residential tower in Colorado. It is rather a shame; however, that the new structure was not quite as elegant as the old Mining Exchange. A statue of a prospector sat at the top of the Mining Exchange building pictured. He was forever captured hoilding a gold nugget in his hands. Today this statue sits in a small courtyard in front of the Brooks Tower as a reminder of the past.

Then:


Now:
*photo from Denverskyscrapers.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This structure used to sit at the corner of 16th and Arapahoe. It was originally the US Custom's building and then it became the US Post Office. It was finally torn down to make way for the Federal Reserve building.

Then:


Now:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

And finally, the Tabor Opera House, has to be the one building out of many that I wish still existed today. It sat at the corner of 16th and Curtis and was part of Denver's Great White Way theater district until it was bulldozed to make way for the Federal Reserve Building.

Then:


Now


Here's a picture of Denver's Theater District. The only building that survived is the Baurs building on the left of the photo. The building was recently restored and graced with the Baurs lighted sign once again.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 10:17 PM
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
Desert Dweller
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,610
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 11:05 PM
Exodus Exodus is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,859
The fact that they were built is tragic, and the only thing tragic about the loss of those was the lives that were lost with them.

Last edited by Exodus; Jun 7, 2007 at 10:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 11:06 PM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518




What makes the loss of the lollipop even more painful and stinging, however, is the fact that it will still be standing for much more time to come:but completely refaced and rebuilt. the entire structure will have been reworked, but it will now look stupid and kitcshy, and due to the 'new' factor I can't imagine it ever being restored to its original glory.
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2007, 12:07 AM
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
Desert Dweller
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exodus View Post
The fact that they were built is tragic, and the only thing tragic about the loss of those was the lifes that were lost with them.
Your post is Tragic.

Losing a World Icon is tragic. The other buildings on this thread no one even remembers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2007, 10:03 AM
Exodus Exodus is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
Your post is Tragic.

Losing a World Icon is tragic. The other buildings on this thread no one even remembers.
Wer'e talking about architecture, not "icons", or how big they were. You totally miss the point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2007, 4:20 PM
skylife's Avatar
skylife skylife is offline
I'm usually right.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Portland, Maine USA
Posts: 7,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exodus View Post
Wer'e talking about architecture, not "icons", or how big they were. You totally miss the point.
I think they were beautiful.
__________________
An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war. - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2007, 6:12 PM
Exodus Exodus is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylife View Post
I think they were beautiful.
I suppose it's subjective, but they looked like two giant toothpaste boxes on end to me. The new ones will be great though
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2007, 12:59 AM
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
Desert Dweller
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exodus View Post
Wer'e talking about architecture, not "icons", or how big they were. You totally miss the point.
They where Architectual Icons. And they are BUILDINGS, so no I didnt miss the point. A lot of people liked em' and the thread is "Your city's greatest architectural loss"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #196  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2007, 11:08 AM
Exodus Exodus is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,859
It's true they were icons, and of course architecture is going to be involved in building most things, but not everything is an architectural gem. If you think that was the greatest architecture that NYC has ever seen or at least lost, then that's your opinion I suppose, but I have mine also. Besides, in your response to my post, you try to use the fact that they were "icons" as to why they were NYC'S greatest "architectural" loss, though you made no mention about architecture. So yeah, you missed the point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #197  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2007, 7:07 AM
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
Desert Dweller
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,610
^Ok like what the hell is your problem? I LIKED the architecture of the WTC, yes it was pretty alien to NYC in the 1970's but blended in, sort of, by the 2000's. By 1999ish the barren plaza was redone and became on of the most popular sights in NYC. The sheer size of the complex is noteworthy. The Plaza had several sculptures to promote Peace, even the front of the complex had a huge "PEACE ON EARTH" sculpture. The architecture was clean, futuristic, built for a bright modern future, it was defantly new for its time.

The new architecture is just uninspired ripoff's of several real world buildings. The towers are not ionic, well except for the Freedom tower.

The WTC's architecture was very groundbreaking for its time, despite its demise, the complex will be remembered for hundreds of years to come. No one is going to care about a demolished 5 story building back in the 1800's. Why do you think they tore it down?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #198  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2007, 3:17 PM
Hof Hof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ocala/St Petersburg, Florida
Posts: 91
Old Rochester

I'm guilty of not reading all the posts in this most interesting thread,so Rochester,NY may have been mentioned previously.If so,sorry.As soon as I finish this,I'm going right back to reading everybody's post.Maybe I'll embarrass myself.We'll see.

A lot of my hometown's architectural history was demolished long ago for the white elephant Inner Loop and some boring but apparently necessary '60s and '70s boxes.Here are some that I remember.I wish I had pix.

What's gone is mythical.In the 1960's,Rochester tore out a Downtown riverside neighborhood of mercantile buildings--many of them ornate cast-irons from the 1800s--and in the process,stripped out Rochester's own Ponte Vecchio.
Main Street,where it crossed the River,was lined with pre-Civil War buildings,totally filling in the bridge over the Genesee River.
Strangers to town would never know that Main crossed a river
and that directly below them,the river was all rapids and waterfalls...
(... a rarely mentioned fact: Rochester's Genesee River is one of five in North America that flow NORTH !!).
Once the buildings were gone--along with acres of the surrounding neighborhood--the DT was opened to the River,an excellent transition,but at the expense of the core of early Rochester's downtown.It also split Downtown into two distinct Zones.

We also lost a magnificent McKim,Mead and White railroad station,a small version of Penn Station.When rail traffic declined in the 1960s,the station was cut in half,looking very odd.In the 70's,the building was in the way of the new downtown Loop,so it had to go.

A cluster of office buildings,four square blocks of banks,shops and a hotel at the city's busiest intersection--also mostly from the 1800s/early 1900s--was laid bare in an ambitious Urban Renewal project known as Midtown Plaza,and just down Clinton Ave one of the City's stunning baroque movie palaces--The Paramount--was demolished to make way for Rochester's tallest,the Xerox Tower.(We also saw four-five other cathedral-like movie houses go away during that period ).

Rochester is a very old town.It was big and busy in the early 1800s,and it boomed when the Erie Canal cut right through downtown.The Canal was carried across the Genesee on an acqueduct,something considered a construction marvel in it's day.Later,when the Canal was re-routed,it was paved over and named Broad Street.
Beneath the Broad St roadbed ran the Subway which was built along the old route of the Canal ( They ran the rails down the bed of the Canal and roofed it over),another piece of Rochester history which was obliterated by an interstate highway in the '60s.

The Hotel Rochester was one of those upper-class showcase hotels,the kind that the wealthy stay in.It was a red-brick hulk,with contrasting white brick accents,a very impressive presence and very New York City looking.It had huge ballrooms,fine restaurants and several saloons.It fell out of favor and declined,once becoming a dorm for the RIT downtown campus.It got torn down in the late '70s to make a parking lot.

A lot of Old Rochester went away for various reasons,all of it in the days before preservation and re-use was in vogue.The mantra in those days was "If it's old,screw it.Take it down and put up something with no apparent architectural merit",and they did...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #199  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2007, 8:49 PM
BigKidD's Avatar
BigKidD BigKidD is offline
designer&stuff
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: KCMO (Plaza)
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
^Ok like what the hell is your problem? I LIKED the architecture of the WTC, yes it was pretty alien to NYC in the 1970's but blended in, sort of, by the 2000's. By 1999ish the barren plaza was redone and became on of the most popular sights in NYC. The sheer size of the complex is noteworthy. The Plaza had several sculptures to promote Peace, even the front of the complex had a huge "PEACE ON EARTH" sculpture. The architecture was clean, futuristic, built for a bright modern future, it was defantly new for its time.

The new architecture is just uninspired ripoff's of several real world buildings. The towers are not ionic, well except for the Freedom tower.

The WTC's architecture was very groundbreaking for its time, despite its demise, the complex will be remembered for hundreds of years to come. No one is going to care about a demolished 5 story building back in the 1800's. Why do you think they tore it down?
If no one cared, then photos of those buildings would not be in this thread. Also, I respect your opinion of the WTC, but to bash this whole thread with such a remark is just plain ignorance on your part in order to support your position of the WTC tragic demise. Lastly, I'm quite sure a few New Yorkers remember Pennsylvania Station and its tragic loss.
__________________
“Most planning of the past fifteen years has been based upon three destructive fallacies: the cataclysmic insists upon tearing everything down in order to design from an absolutely clean slate; the automotive would plan for the free passage of the automobile at the expense of all other values; the suburban dislikes the city anyway and would just as soon destroy its density and strew it across the countryside.” Vince Scully
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #200  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2007, 9:57 PM
AKALive AKALive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2
For my hometown of Houston

From an architectural standpoint, no one lost building can compare to what the lack of zoning has done to Houston's skyline. True, the different skylines spread throughout the city are OK & Houston has succeeded mightily without zoning, but just think if the TMC were in south Downtown aka "Midtown" for example?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:05 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.