Quote:
Originally Posted by Archdevil
Yes, I know I havn't addressed this question yet. I am searching for words or an analogy that could help me explain why this idea bothers me. I know Norman Foster did something similar in New York with the Hearst Tower and it worked nice. However the Hearst building was a much larger structure to begin with. 6 stories makes for a nice base, I think the facade of the Sun Merc is simply to thin and to small to have the same kind of presence. Seriously what is the point of doing that anyway? If you aren't going to preserve the building then just tear it down! I think the problem you seem to have is that you can't see past the "TALL BUILDING" . And maybe I am just having this conversation in the wrong forum but I am a supporter of urban environments. By urban I mean high density and mixed use and "high rise" doesn't define urban. Some of the greatest urban cities in the world have very few skyscrapers.... Rome, Paris to name a couple. You should also understand that another skyscraper isn't going to make downtown any more popular than it is right now! Put it this way, in architecture we study precidents in order to inform our new designs. They act as a kind of guide book that says, hmmm no that didn't work or this idea worked very well. If you use precidents of cities in this argument then every great city in the world has historic buildings and historic preservation is a major concern. Phoenix, which I love, is also a joke among great cities and hardly comperable in the global community. That said, Phoenix also has a long history of tearing down historic buildings. Now I know its not directly related but one could say that its the lack of preservation and the mindset of the people here that keeps this city from really developing. The mindset that I speak of is that of people like you who would tear down their own grandmothers house to make way for new buildings. There is enough vacant land downtown to keep developers busy for the next 20 years. So how about we concentate on that before we go tearing down what we already have. Maybe this argument is simply not one worth having, similar to religion and politics , maybe we should just agree to disagree and see what the court decides. As I said before, I am not going to stand in front of the wrecking ball, and that wrecking ball won't stop at the Sun Merc either! Better yet, if the Sun Merc goes then they should just go ahead and tear down every other historic building in Phoenix! There is no sense having these arguments every time a developer comes to town with pretty renderings. Plus that way the ground work would already be done for them.
|
While the tall building would be nice, that's not really what I care about. I'm more disturbed by the fact that someone can't simply buy a property and do with it what they want without interference from outside parties who claim to have some kind of "community interest" in the property.
If there's something truly historic or unique about a building, I think a developer has a duty to preserve it, and I'll stand behind anyone who wants to rant and rail against developers who don't live up to this. But I don't think there's anything about the Sun Merc that's worth saving. It's small, ugly, run down, and totally out of place on that block. I'd prefer to see it torn down. However, if the developer is offering to incorporate the facade into the new construction, I think that should be commended and the preservationists should be happy. To require anything more from the developer when such an insignificant building is holding up such a monumental development is ridiculous, IMO.