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.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2007, 2:47 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 41,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by pico44 View Post
New York may be the greatest bridge city in the world, but no single bridge can touch the Golden Gate. Wow!

As for the list, it isn't claiming to be a definitive review of America's buildings, it's simply a list of builings we like the most. The poll used a large sample size of people, so i don't think anyone can question its accuracy. Sure it'd be nice to see the Seagram building and Lever House on there, but for the most part it looks like Americans have pretty good taste.

The Golden Gate is beautiful, and the color certainly helps. I think it beats
New York's two largest span bridges in beauty though...

_





__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2007, 3:23 PM
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
The Golden Gate is beautiful, and the color certainly helps. I think it beats
New York's two largest span bridges in beauty though...

I think the George Washington Bridge is the second most beautiful bridge in the world. The Brooklyn, Manhattan, Verrazano, Queensboro, and Hell's Gate would all make my top twenty as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2007, 6:39 PM
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
Desert Dweller
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,610
Impressive to see the WTC is 19.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2007, 8:45 PM
2PRUROCKS!'s Avatar
2PRUROCKS! 2PRUROCKS! is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 481
The fact that the John Hancock Center in Chicago was left off is a crime. It is better than any other Chicago building on that list and I thought one of the most recognizable buildings in the world...what gives?!? Would anyone even care to try to explain this to me and I'm sure many others who find this to be completely baffeling?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2007, 9:33 PM
JonVegas's Avatar
JonVegas JonVegas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Silver Lake
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukecuj View Post
Chicago Tribune's architecture critic article on the whole thing.

The public is even open to supposedly "tasteless" places like the Bellagio, whose luxe fantasy world is said to be inspired by the idyllic Italian village of Bellagio and nearby Lake Como.

Perhaps, as Venturi once said, architects have something to learn from Las Vegas.
I don't think the Bellagio is tasteless. It's a very nice hotel.
Just because it is a casino is no reason to knock it.
Las Vegas is a real town with real buildings and real citizens. Regardless of the purpose they serve, the buildings are real.

Frank Lloyd Wright is lower on the list because most people look at his stuff and say WTF. People don't need a degree in architecture to know a bunk design when they see one. Art history teachers can bang you over the head all day and call whackos and hacks like Wright and Ghery geniuses. Fortunately most people can trust their eyes and pick true classics like ESB and Chrysler.

IMHO
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2007, 10:59 PM
pdxstreetcar's Avatar
pdxstreetcar pdxstreetcar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,299
Here's the part thats been missing, these are the buildings nominated by architects but didn't make it in the top 150...

98 Buildings That Didn't Make The Cut
860-880 Lake Shore Drive Apartments - Chicago, IL
American Folk Art Museum - New York, NY
Art & Architecture Building - Yale University, New Haven, CT
Baker House - Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Beinecke Rare Book Library - Yale University, New Haven, CT
Beth Shalom Synagogue - Elkins Park, PA
Boston City Hall - Boston, MA
Bradbury Building - Los Angeles, CA
Burton Barr Library/Phoenix Public Library, Phoenix, AZ
Caltrans Building - Los Angeles, CA
Carpenter Center - Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels - Los Angeles, CA
Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Assumption - San Francisco, CA
CBS Headquarters/ Black Rock - New York
Center for British Arts/Museum of British Art - Yale University, New Haven, CT
Chapel/W15 - Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Crown Hall - Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), Chicago, IL
Dallas City Hall - Dallas, TX
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport - Dallas, TX
De Young Museum - San Francisco, CA
Denver Art Museum - Denver, CO
Denver Public Library - Denver, CO
Eames House - Pacific Palisades, CA
Ennis House/Ennis-Brown House - Los Angeles, CA
Esherick House - Chestnut Hill, PA
Experience Music Project - Seattle WA
Farnsworth House - Plano, Illinois
First Christian Church - Columbus, IN
First Church of Christ Scientist - Berkeley, CA
First Unitarian Church - Rochester, NY
Ford Foundation Headquarters - New York, NY
Frank Gehry Residence - Santa Monica, CA
Freer Gallery of Art - Washington, DC
Genzyme Center - Cambridge, MA
Gropius House - Lincoln, MA
Guaranty Building - Buffalo, NY
Horton Plaza - San Diego, CA
IBM Building - Chicago, IL
Inland Steel Building - Chicago, IL
Jacobs Field - Cleveland, OH
John Deere Headquarters - Moline, Illinois
John Hancock Building - Chicago, IL
Johnson Wax Building - Racine, WI
Kaufmann Desert House - Palm Springs, CA
Kimball Art Museum - Fort Worth, TX
Kings Road House - West Hollywood, CA
Larkin Building - Buffalo, NY
Lever House - New York, NY
Lovell Beach House - Newport Beach, CA
Macy's - New York, NY
Marin Country Civic Center - San Rafael, CA
Marshall Fields - Chicago, IL
Minneapolis Central Library - Minneapolis, MN
Modern Art Museum Of Dallas-Fort Worth - Fort Worth, TX
Monadnock Building - Chicago, IL
Morgan Library & Museum - New York, NY
Mount Angel Library - Mount Angel, OR
Museum of Contemporary Art - Los Angeles, CA
Museum Of Fine Arts - Houston, TX
Nasher Sculpture Center - Dallas, TX
National Gallery of Art (East Wing) - Washington, DC
North Christian Church - Columbus, IN
Oakland Museum of California - Oakland, CA
O'Hare International Airport - Chicago IL
Peabody Terrace - Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Petco Park (San Diego Padres) - San Diego, CA
Philadelphia Savings Fund Society Building/PSFS - Philadelphia, PA
Phillip Johnson's Glass House - New Canann, CT
Prada - Los Angeles, CA
Prada - New York, NY
Price Tower - Bartlesville, OK
Rachofsky House - Dallas, TX
REI Flagship Store, Seattle, WA
Reliance Building - Chicago, IL
Richards Medical Center - Philadelphia, PA
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport - Washington, DC
Rosenthal Center For Contemporary Art - Cincinnati, OH
Salk Institute - La Jolla, CA
San Francisco Public Library - San Francisco, CA
Sandra Day O'Connor United States Court House - Phoenix, AZ
Seagram's Building - New York, NY
Smith House - Darien, CT
Soldier Field - Chicago, IL
Sony Plaza (AT&T Corporate Headquarters) - New York, NY
Staples Center - Los Angeles, CA
Superdome - New Orleans, LA
The Chapel of St. Ignatius - Seattle University, Seattle, WA
The Menil Collection - Houston, TX
Tiffany & Co. - New York, NY
Unity Temple - Oak Park, IL
University of Phoenix Stadium (Arizona Cardinals Stadium) - Glendale, AZ
Vanna Venturi House - Chestnut Hill, PA
Wainwright Building - St. Louis, MO
Washington Dulles International Airport - Chantilly, VA
Wexner Center for the Arts - Ohio State University - Columbus, OH
Whitney Museum - New York, NY
William J. Clinton Presidential Library - Little Rock, AR


When it comes to the tops in architecture, it's all about how it makes people feel
John King
Tuesday, February 13, 2007

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...DGRFO28SL1.DTL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2007, 11:16 PM
pdxstreetcar's Avatar
pdxstreetcar pdxstreetcar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,299
A talk given by Robert Campbell several years ago on this very subject...

Why Don’t the Rest of Us Like the Buildings the
Architects Like?

Robert Campbell - Boston Globe Architecture Critic
http://www.amacad.org/publications/b...4/campbell.pdf

This informal talk was given at the House of the Academy on April 2, 2004, as part of the Academy’s Friday Forum series.

The talk focuses on Peabody Terrace a dorm at Harvard using the mid-century "housing projects" model. It is loved by architects and hated by the public.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2007, 11:41 AM
grollo grollo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 56
New York Times Building (not even finished yet) better than Hearst Tower???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2007, 2:29 PM
Antares41's Avatar
Antares41 Antares41 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bflo/Pgh/Msn/NYC
Posts: 1,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by grollo View Post
New York Times Building (not even finished yet) better than Hearst Tower???

Now! NYT Bldg was the surprise on the list for me! Makes me really want to re-visit the criteria for the voting. I'm one of the those who fall on the side of liking the building, but, I wouldn't think such a polarizing building would finish #68, and, not ahead of the universally applauded Hearst bldg.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2007, 12:59 AM
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 LostInTheZone View Post
this would only surprise you if you hung out with a lot of architects and designers. It still surprises them, and they can't understand it.
architects like old buildings as much as anyone...probably more....because we have studied them and appreciate them for more than just the fact that they are old.

generally architects dont like fake old buildings....big difference.

in 80 years this list will be filled with buildings built today...it has nothing to do with architectural quality...it is about familiarity...many of these buildings are not great architectural achievements, they have just been around a long time.

a similar list in europe would be filled with modern buildings.....probably why i wish i lived there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2007, 1:54 AM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,482
Interesting that the Bellagio is the only "modern" in the top 30, yet its ugly as sin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2007, 6:16 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
architects like old buildings as much as anyone...probably more....because we have studied them and appreciate them for more than just the fact that they are old.

generally architects dont like fake old buildings....big difference.

in 80 years this list will be filled with buildings built today...it has nothing to do with architectural quality...it is about familiarity...many of these buildings are not great architectural achievements, they have just been around a long time.

a similar list in europe would be filled with modern buildings.....probably why i wish i lived there.
Architectural achievements -- there's the crux of the issue. Architects build "achievements" and the public wants stuff that looks good. They're often different things.

Personally I doubt that much of today's "achievements" will be loved in 80 years. We'll see it just like we see buildings of the 50s, 60s, and 70s today: ugly, regardless of how "familiar" they are.

I do like some avant garde architecture, mostly because it excites my imagination. But mostly the current stuff I like is paying more attention to long-time architectural lessons and less attention to the fads and "achievement" stuff that gets you in Architectural Digest. AD, btw, is about 70% stuff that I think is horrible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2007, 11:12 PM
JonVegas's Avatar
JonVegas JonVegas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Silver Lake
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJM19 View Post
Interesting that the Bellagio is the only "modern" in the top 30, yet its ugly as sin





Break down for me what you find so ugly about it. I don't have the same feelings so I'm honestly interested to see where you're comming from.

Here's what I like to be fair:
2 story windows, colors, general property layout (fountain, village facade) Scale, and the faux-patina roof.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2007, 5:13 AM
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 mhays View Post
Architectural achievements -- there's the crux of the issue. Architects build "achievements" and the public wants stuff that looks good. They're often different things.

Personally I doubt that much of today's "achievements" will be loved in 80 years. We'll see it just like we see buildings of the 50s, 60s, and 70s today: ugly, regardless of how "familiar" they are.

I do like some avant garde architecture, mostly because it excites my imagination. But mostly the current stuff I like is paying more attention to long-time architectural lessons and less attention to the fads and "achievement" stuff that gets you in Architectural Digest. AD, btw, is about 70% stuff that I think is horrible.
yeah whatever.... sorry if i dont buy your pre-concieved rant...

what is your favourite band?.....whoever it is, 99% of the world hates them...does that mean they make bad music?...by your logic only celine dion should be able to record music, because she is favoured by the broadest swath of the general population....your comment could read....all the public wants is music that sounds good....is good sounding music judged by how many people it appeals to?

a list of america's favourite paintings would probably have the mona lisa at the top...does this mean that we shouldnt allow modern art?...all art should copy works done 400 years ago?

most people like the pt cruiser...enough said.

there is a place for design that pushes boundaries of imagination....it moves thinking forward and inspires new ideas....as an example, once, people hated glass buildings because they were new....today's architecture offers spacial and environmental quality far beyond what any stone building ever could because of this advancement.

the architecture and architects that you are dismissing represent .00001% of the profession.....you are painting the entire discipline with the same brush.....good modern architecture does not have to be fake old and it can respond to every bit of functional and aesthetic sensibility that it needs to without being an 'achievement' or grasping at some ancient style.

besides, most people are idiots....if design quality was based on the opinion of the unwashed masses, everything would look like a greek temple.

this list is about familiarity and that is it.

Last edited by trueviking; Feb 16, 2007 at 5:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2007, 5:34 PM
slide_rule's Avatar
slide_rule slide_rule is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 912
ouch.

i'm assuming mhays is alluding to the worst of starchitecture. yes, it's pretty
bad, with some affectation-spewing turd in all-black quoting nietzsche and designing 'concepts' which have unlimited budgets and absolutely no consideration for practicality. thus you get blobs 'n shards presented as 'modern'. but they do have rich patrons and media access to their advantage. they're not representative of present day contemporary architects, but they generally give architecture a bad name.

as for architectural digest, that's more about the houses of the rich and famous. it's more focused on the matching of drapes and chairs than architecture.

unfortunately, the tweed-wearing, descended-from-the-mayflower, friends with prince charles clique isn't much better. designing office blocks with mansard roofs and palladian facades may appeal to people, but much of this attraction is based on both nostalgia, and because this type of (expensive and unnecessary) architecture is lauded in the media as well. think about it. neoclassical and victorian styles are sought after for everything from offices to private houses, yet equally beautiful and historically significant styles such as pre-columbian aztec, or mughal indian are confined to theme parks.

modern materials and technology should allow architecture to go beyond louis XIV's standards of beauty. modernist architecture fell out of favor amongst both the highbrow critics and the lowbrow builders not because it was aesthetically unappealing, but because it had become ubiquitous. numerous cut-rate warehouses and public housing units married the practicality of modernism with the mindset of cost accountants.

tastes are fickle. ironically the cheeseball googie architecture of the 50s to early 70s is making a comeback. half a century ago, art deco was seen as passe, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2007, 6:11 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,478
It's interesting to watch architects in denial.

Pre-war architecture looks better to most people. It's sad that this doesn't matter to you.

Edit: We might like the occasional whacky museum, and personally I like sleek office towers and Vancouver-type condos. But anonymous boxes like the Seagram Building and...whatevers like the San Francisco courthouse will never be loved.

Last edited by mhays; Feb 16, 2007 at 6:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2007, 7:37 PM
slide_rule's Avatar
slide_rule slide_rule is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 912
if pre-war architecture looks inherently better, why would the vietnam war memorial and the gateway arch be on the list? they're even more austere than the typical modernist boxes. give it another few decades. tastes will change, and people will grow fond of another batch.

the seagram and the lever house aren't on the minds of most people because their designs were popular and pragmatic, and thus copied until their designs became anonymous.

keep in mind that tastes change. many of the new york skyscrapers weren't seen as 'pretty' until many years after their erection. why else would the singer building be torn down? same thing with the destroyed wtc. they were less delicate but much taller and higher profile boxes than the seagram and lever buildings.

the fountainebleau hotel is another example. it may be miami-modern/streamline/art moderne or whatever now. but it was ridiculed as nouveau riche trash (with notable anglo snobbery against its jewish architect and patrons) when it was built. yet it's now on the top 100 list?

as an aside, MANY of the pictures do not correspond to the actual buildings. the 1910 madison square gardens in the list was accompanied with a picture of its widely disliked 1968 bicycle roof replacement.

Last edited by slide_rule; Feb 16, 2007 at 7:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2007, 10:22 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,478
Seagram wouldn't win in any version of the contest. You could do great exterior and interior photography and put it up against an equally-anonymous building from 1910. Assuming both were in equal shape, including mep, seismic, and elevator systems, the real difference would be window area and aesthetics, and the old building would win.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2007, 4:51 AM
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 mhays View Post
It's interesting to watch architects in denial.

Pre-war architecture looks better to most people. It's sad that this doesn't matter to you.
yup...and most people eat at mcdonald's, shop at wal-mart, watch reality t.v., listen to celine dion, live in peach coloured stucco house that look exactly like their neighbour's, on a street that looks exactly like the next one, in a suburb that looks like the one down the road.....and they drive around in a silver mini van just like their friend's.

are you willing to claim that these things are the best of their type (restaurant, neighbourhood etc.) because they are the most popular?

broad acceptance by the masses generally means the lowest quality.

it is the same with all kinds of art...architecture included....you seem to think all architecture should be dismissed because of a few 'whacky museums'....should cinema be dismissed because they made 2 jackass movies?

seagram and lever changed the way the world looks.....modernism would not have proliferated around the world if only architects loved it....the people paying the bills had to as well...and they liked what the public would buy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2007, 6:02 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,478
Office buildings are designed to meet pro formas, with aesthetics far down the list of priorities.

The same executives go home to...houses that resemble past styles, even if many were done poorly. Why do you suppose that is?

I don't know where you get this McDonalds analogy. Attractive styles can be well-built, sustainable, etc., just like any other. I don't like the cheap knock-offs either.

Read my "whacky museum" sentence again. I suggested that we often like them. I do.
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 7:39 PM.

     

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