What is your opinion on these buildings ?

[trueviking]

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.

[SteveP]

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.

[mhays]

We might as well discuss abortion or Iraq.

[trueviking]

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.

[Surrealplaces]

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.

[SteveP]

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.

[trueviking]

i am just kidding.....

[SteveP]

Originally Posted by trueviking

i am just kidding.....

I figured as much

[rockyi]

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.

[vid]

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.

[LostInTheZone]

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.

[DJM19]

It might be of note that these are both residential towers

[mhays]

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.

[Boisebro]

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.

[Surrealplaces]

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.

[Exodus]

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.

[simonisback01]

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.

[NEWNANGuy]

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.

[W6n]

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 ??

[vid]

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

^^ And apparently it is a condo.