Quote:
Originally Posted by tower
this building isn't ugly by any means (imo) - that argument i don't understand
i do understand the roof height deal though but that's been done to death
let's wait for the FINISHED product!!!  |
When someone writes that a building is ugly, beautiful, impressive, etc. it would be helpful it they were able to describe what it is about a building's design that makes it ugly, beautiful, etc. Without that input I usually just ignore the comment. The fact that they can not articulate what elements of the design are responsible for their assessment tells me they have not or can not "THINK" very deeply about why they "FEEL" the way they do.
If someone is going to write intelligently about architectural design they should first understand the intent of the architect. There are plenty of Google searches that can gather information on how N. Foster was lead to the design he chose for CITC.
I realize some people are not really interested in spending the time and effort to do this so their remarks often just portray ignorance. The UGLY remark is an example of this. I have grown to appreciate the design of the building but at first there were a few things with which I was unhappy. The single set back, for example, seemed sort of abrupt and if he had three triers(base, middle and top) if might have been seemed more appealing. Maybe he(Foster) was following an orthodox modernism with form following function. There are only two functions being expressed in this building, the CITC function and the hotel function. I just use this as an example of how someone could express their dissatisfaction with the design. If people were willing to describe their judgments more fully we could all learn more and have many times a more interesting dialog.