HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


View Poll Results: Your opinion on these buildings, on a scale from 1-10
10 14 14.29%
9 20 20.41%
8 23 23.47%
7 15 15.31%
6 11 11.22%
5 3 3.06%
4 2 2.04%
3 6 6.12%
2 1 1.02%
1 3 3.06%
Voters: 98. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2006, 5:18 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 11,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exodus
The two major arguments Trueviking makes are about maximum natural light and not being different. I don't think it's necessary to have "maximum natural light", you don't have to feel like you are virtually outside. If the windows are big enough, they could let in sufficient lighting. Buildings don't need to be a glass wall. If they are glass walled, then you loose a chance to have a solid nice detailed interior, and it could be a little distracting to office workers if they feel like they are sitting outside. Also a building dose not have to be different for the sake of being different. Being different dose not always equate to being better or better looking.

A couple other arguments made by him are cost. On one hand he says that doing a style like this "right" cost too much, but if it is done more economically, he says it is cheap and fake. Though he says we should take advantage of modern techniques that are more economically friendly, Sounds like a bunch of contradictions to me, or excuses to down this kind of architecture because he personally dose not like it. Besides, if someone wants to pour more money into a project, that's their business. If they want to do it more cost efficient, then more power to them as long as the project looks good and serves its purpose. If you can combine a classic style with todays cost efficient and advanced techniques, and turn out a nice looking project that serves its purpose, then great. It might not be "genuine", but what's wrong with a nice looking "replica" ? I just don't see the big deal.

you need to go back and read my posts....you are completely missing the point.

i have never mentioned anything about cost.

i have never said it should be different..that isnt my point at all.....as a matter of fact, this fake crap is more different that most towers being built today (thankfully)...my argument is that design of modern buildings that simply replicate unrelated styles form 2000 years ago in a modern building form is inapropriate and kitsch....i think you think that i want every building to look like a self indulgent frank gehry pile of crinkled tin....there are many examples of good modern design that is not loud and obnoxious, but contextual and appropriate.

this building will have substantially less natural light than a typical modern building....it isnt about sitting right beside the window and feeling like you are outside.....its about transmittance of light to the interior...the solid wall to window ratio is ridiculously low in this design, because they are so hell bent on making it look like it was built by emporor herod.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2006, 6:50 PM
SteveP SteveP is offline
Reach for the heavens
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking

still not a single person can tell me what they like about this building.....nostalia is its only merit...if you consider it that.
It's not likely that anyone will either. There doesn't always have to be a reason why people like something. Take women for example, sometimes you might like the eyes, or smile, etc..., but other times you just like the sum of all parts. The general look.
Again, that's the architect part of you coming out. Having to analyze it to death.

For me, I just like the coloring, and the look in general. I like the look of the windows. I like the way they would look in LA. Maybe not the same for other cities. I realize that the windows are not as effective for lighting as would be with a glass curtain, but I like the looks of them.

You've mentioned that you've studied art. What is it that you like about a certain painting? Is there a law to like a painting you have to know exactly what it is you like about it??? You see where I'm going with this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2006, 7:03 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,478
We might as well discuss abortion or Iraq.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2006, 7:18 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 11,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveP
It's not likely that anyone will either. There doesn't always have to be a reason why people like something. Take women for example, sometimes you might like the eyes, or smile, etc..., but other times you just like the sum of all parts. The general look.
Again, that's the architect part of you coming out. Having to analyze it to death.

For me, I just like the coloring, and the look in general. I like the look of the windows. I like the way they would look in LA. Maybe not the same for other cities. I realize that the windows are not as effective for lighting as would be with a glass curtain, but I like the looks of them.

You've mentioned that you've studied art. What is it that you like about a certain painting? Is there a law to like a painting you have to know exactly what it is you like about it??? You see where I'm going with this.

most paintings that i like, i can give you actual reasons why.....why wont you uneducated rhubes just agree with me......i have spent my life studying architecture......i know best.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2006, 7:24 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 20,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
access to natural daylight has become a key feature to sustainable buildings in modern architecture....it is a large part of the LEED rating system and its beneficial effects have been well documented.....increased productivity, fewer sick days, better health, greater job satisfaction, reduced electrical requirements...all can be attributed to greater access to natural daylight, which this building ignores in the name aesthetic...a bad one at that.

a few examples:

The study by the Heschong Mahone Group based near Sacramento found that students who took their lessons in classrooms with more natural light scored as much as 25 percent higher on standardized tests than other students in the same school district.


A survey of tenants of rented offices (BOMA, 1988) has shown that 2.1% of tenants think that the poor quality of their windows is the worst problem in their building, and that if the windows could be improved, an estimated productivity gain of 4% would result.


Dasgupta (2003) found a small but statistically significant reduction in negative mood for people who worked for about 20 minutes in a private office with a large window during daytime; but no reduction in negative mood for the same people in the same office at night.


"Mal-illumination," a term coined by the photobiologist John Nash Ott, D.Sc. (Hon.), has been linked to conditions as diverse as malabsorption of certain nutrients, fatigue, tooth decay, depression, seasonal affective disorder (SAD), hostility, suppressed immune function, strokes, hair loss, skin damage, alcoholism, drug abuse, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and even loss of muscle tone and strength.

I agree with you on the natural light aspect. I'm a lover of natural light and love office towers which have floor to ceiling glass.

If this thread was a debate over whether the building was the most efficient or effective then maybe the results would be different.

To me this building has a similar window design to buildings like the Chrylser building or Empire state building, and most of buildings in the Exchange district in Winn.. You can't expect many people to dislike the Chrysler tower, for example.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2006, 7:33 PM
SteveP SteveP is offline
Reach for the heavens
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
most paintings that i like, i can give you actual reasons why.....why wont you uneducated rhubes just agree with me......i have spent my life studying architecture......i know best.
Hmmm...I sure you're saying that half jokingly. Several people have said the words 'trust me I know best' over the years, some of them are quite infamous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2006, 7:53 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 11,191
i am just kidding.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2006, 7:55 PM
SteveP SteveP is offline
Reach for the heavens
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
i am just kidding.....
I figured as much
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2006, 9:33 PM
rockyi's Avatar
rockyi rockyi is offline
Bah!
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rock Island, Illinois
Posts: 16,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
...why wont you uneducated rhubes just agree with me......i have spent my life studying architecture......i know best.
You make it sound as if architects design for themselves and other architects, not the general population.
__________________
My feet hurt!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2006, 9:42 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 40,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyi
You make it sound as if architects design for themselves and other architects, not the general population.

Well, in a way, they are. Architects constantly try to out-do each other. Look at the competition for WTB in NYC around 1927-1933. Each architect wanted HIS building to be the worlds tallest, not the other guys. When the spire was put on Chrysler Building it probably broke their hearts.

They design things that will be convenient for the general population (unlike this POS) and try to out do each other with something good. This is just a giant leap back wards and a slap in the face, IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2006, 10:53 PM
LostInTheZone's Avatar
LostInTheZone LostInTheZone is offline
Do you like... Huey Lewis
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Phila.
Posts: 3,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyi
You make it sound as if architects design for themselves and other architects, not the general population.
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:



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.
__________________
"I'm exceedingly pro-growth, but I have to respectfully dissagree. Growth is not the holy grail, smart growth is. Uncontrolled, careless growth which ends up creating problems in the long run is called cancer." -Eigenwelt

Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2006, 11:11 PM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,482
It might be of note that these are both residential towers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2006, 1:11 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInTheZone
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:

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.
What an outstanding post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2006, 1:43 AM
Boisebro's Avatar
Boisebro Boisebro is offline
All man. Half nuts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,852
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.
__________________
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.”―Mark Twain
“The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page.”―Saint Augustine
“Travel is the only thing you buy that makes you richer.”―Anonymous
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2006, 5:54 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 20,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInTheZone
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:



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.
Personally I like this building. It's a simple design with just enough detail, lots of glass as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2006, 4:21 AM
Exodus Exodus is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,859
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2006, 4:42 AM
simonisback01's Avatar
simonisback01 simonisback01 is offline
Look Up^
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The land of the rising smog, PA
Posts: 89
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.
__________________
Ive spent years searching for the answer to life, and it is a leech.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2006, 5:32 PM
NEWNANGuy's Avatar
NEWNANGuy NEWNANGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Atlanta (Newnan/Sharpsburg), GA
Posts: 476
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.
__________________
Newnan 2006 - 27,097
Coweta County 2006 - 115,291
Atlanta Metro 2006 - 5,138,223
Georgia 2006 - 9,363,941
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2006, 2:27 PM
W6n's Avatar
W6n W6n is offline
Architect Qataria
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Qatar
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exodus
Just simply vote on a scale from 1-10

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

but both of them looks like residential building ... is this is their function ??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2006, 8:54 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 40,142
^See, folks? Even new members from the Mid East are noticing that there is something wrong with it.

^^ And apparently it is a condo.
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 12:25 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.