Quote:
Originally Posted by Insoluble
I agree that this building looks like it will be one of the few historical imitation buildings that will come out nice simply due to the quality of material and quality of design. It's not just the materials, but the attention to details in the design that make a big difference in these types of buildings, and this one will likely have both.
So yes, often times buildings built these days that imitate historical styles come off a bit flat due to cheap design decisions. The same thing can be said for modern designs though. AQ Rittenhouse is a perfect example of this. Not to knock that building, which is a huge improvement over what was there and has a terrific urban design. But let's face it, it's an ugly building designed with a completely modern aesthetic. I suppose buildings imitating historical styles are more likely to be glaringly bad about cheap details than modern ones, but we also have our fair share of cheapo modern buildings. Thankfully we also have enough examples of high quality buildings in various styles to balance that out.
|
I couldn't agree more about AQ Rittenhouse. Yep, modern definitely comes in its good and bad too. Personally, I think the Ritz Residences looks of cheap materials and a design that will age fast, while the Murano was well done all around.
As for 1600 Vine, for me it's the design too. Considering it was done by the same firm that did 10 Rittenhouse, I think where 10 fails, 1600 succeeds. I'd almost rather see 1600 on Rittenhouse Square because it's just a very handsome design. Not that Vine Street doesn't deserve it. Done in the right materials, it would almost look as though it had been there since the 1920s.