Quote:
Originally Posted by a chicago bearcat
yeah, interiors aren't worth preserving, it's not like it's an art that caaptures the ideals and spirits of the time it's created, interiors aare just function, architecture is the form
form follows function
but seriously, wasting our precious building materials by building something behind an existing structure ends up defacing acres and acres more of land across the world, than a high rise development in a city with this many surface parking lots and drive thru restaurants. Plus demotioning interior spaces because they are deemed not as profitable by a developer, and don't have 12 foot ceilings. Some of the spaces within could become within the public realm, and preserving masterpiece interiors is one of the pressing issues of our time design wise. these spaces are lost to fires and the economy. true new uses need to be found, but gutting a building of both it's guts and it's structure seems mighty wasteful.
as usual I could go on and on about how not all facadectomies are horrible, but for the sake anyone scrolling through, I'll stop here
|
As always, I am a little confused by the anti-developer bias so prevalent on this forum. It's sort of like being a movie buff and being anti-producer. I suppose that the big studios/developers occasionally produce shit (Pearl Harbor), ruin old favorites (Blues Bros. 2000), or basically screw up some great potential (both Matrix sequels), but what are you going to do? Developers are why our favorite buildings are there in the first place. Do you know what THOSE developers tore down to put them there?
And urban commercial architecture absolutely does NOT capture the ideals and spirits of a time. Rather, it is a distillation of economic expedience. People build what they can afford to sell.