Time Magazine's Most Anticipated Building of 2007

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by CGII

So, only decorated, exuberant buildings are attractive, and only buidlings without ornament are ugly?

Did I say that? I'm only responding to the seeming prevailing sentiment among high-concept modern architects that only decorated, exuberant buildings are ugly and only buildings without ornamentation are attractive.

So, anything simple cannot be beautiful just because apparently anyone could design it?

That depends on whether it looks cheap and uninspired or not.

This building is incredibly richly ornamented. According to you, 'richly ornamented buildings are not poor architecture.'

They're not, as a whole. That one, as a single example, is.

This building is not richly ornamented. According to you, it's a brutal beauty. I'd rather not raid the "Monstrosity in your City" thread, but I can dig up plenty more.

Simple cannot be beautiful because it resembles a commonly used shape?

Simple can be beautiful, but it usually isn't because it looks like your average building-on-a-budget.

Pshaw! Anyone can take an elementary school jungle gym structure and put glass over it! What a cop out!

What's so special about that? It looks like a large bus stop.

Who is telling you to have an orgasm for this building? Who is telling you to disregard classical architecture? Who is telling you all history must be abandoned to pursue modern identity?

What else am I being told when I am told relentlessly that old architectural styles are outdated and irrelevant, which is why we must abandon however many hundreds of architectural styles from the past in favor of boxes and blobs? Art deco, art nouveau, Romanesqe, neo-classical, neo-gothic, Aztec revival, neo-Georgian, Spanish baroque, and the like aren't allowed anymore because we must be true to our time with boxes and blobs.

If you want to see a cop out, look at this:

It's impressive, but surely you know that a criticism of Gehry is that all of his buildings look alike.

A building is a cop out when it focuses too much on itself and not at all on those who use and interact with the building, focuses nothing on the enviroment, and can be built at any location whatsoever as a 'plop a landmark.'

Would you mind telling me what else your average box office building is doing?

Who cares if something is simple? Something has to have loads of overdone ornamentation to be beautiful?

Unfortunately, the prevailing school of architectural thought states that any ornamentation is overdone. I don't mind if something is simple, but I prefer that it look like something other than the box the nice buildings were shipped in.

What's so awful about streamlining and keeping things simple?

What's so awful about some shoulders on a building, or a gargoyle? Art deco is my favorite style of architecture precisely because it looks antique and futuristic at the same time, whithout being too cluttered, or too boring.

Actually, it would be FAR easier to design something like the Opera Garnier as a building:essentially, follow the basic vernacular for theatres, add some exaggerated features (such as domes, or cornices), and then commision sculptors to slather the building in ornament. Granted, the result is beautiful...

Thank you for acknowledging that. Yes, the opera house is a big building, and so is your average Wal-Mart. However, if you build enough big buildings like the opera house you build a city's entire identity. Build enough buildings that look like Wal-Marts and you sap its identity, because you can twist and torque them all you want but they'll still look like all the other Wal-Mart-inspired buildings going up everywhere else. There is practically nothing else getting built these days, and when someone tries, like with that performing arts center in Nashville, they're ridiculed by the architectural elite.

In addition, you must realize that due to the increase in America's and Europe's quality of life, exuberant sculpture on buildings as seen on the scale of the 19th and early 20th century is no longer feasible. You simply can't afford to build another Opera Garnier or another St. Pauls Cathedral, or another Penn Station, or another Singer Building. It's just not an option.

Yes, I realize that we live in a cheap and ugly era, but I don't have to like it, nor will I when told I should just because all the buildings going up are "faithful" to that cheap and ugly era.

Well, you could have done it the Gehry way, and make it look like shreds of aluminium in a pile, you could have done it the Calatrava way, paint lots of curved metal white and involve some sort of 'interactive' and moving aspect, you could have done it the Piano way and make a glass box with some screens, you could do it the corporate way and just build a glass box over the site, or you could do it the way it was and be the least invasive to the landscape by putting the structure underground, essentially, with stations that peak out of the ground to provide points of entry for both humans and light. I honestly think they did quite nice the way they did.

They did an acceptable job, but it's certainly not worth being the most anticipated building of the year. I admire its environmental aspects, but aside from that it is a plain and utterly unremarkable building. If it was up to me, I would have tried to combine the environmental aspects, and the rising and sinking beneath the earth, with something akin to the Helsinki train station. And your vision when you picture that won't be mine, so don't bother ridiculing it.

Overall it sounds more like you dislike anything new and like anything old.

I dislike anything that looks cheap and uninspired and that is all.