Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
I tend to agree with you, but I did think it was worth raising the question.
Marina City was not built during a period when this construction type had done so much damage. It's a shame, really, to look at the Shoreham and the Tides next to Aqua, because they are obviously visually connected. So, I do think it is a real risk, that Aqua could get pulled down with them. Seeing the photo above is what made this click for me.
Aqua also lacks Marina City's power from a distance. I think it works well from street level, but the jury's out on its impact from afar. That's the kind of distinction that the lay person registers immediately. Furthermore, it has none of the sculptural qualities of Marina City in its structure (hear what I'm saying before anyone jumps on me for this statement), just being flat plates in most cases. This limits its visual appeal as compared to Marina City on a detail level. Marina City is truly masterful concrete construction; this one is rather prosaic except for the innovative balconies.
In essence, the more I see Aqua, the less I think it compares to Marina City in innovation or quality. This is not intended to damage or dismiss Aqua in any way, but only to recognize Goldberg's achievement at Marina City.
So, will people mistake Aqua for Grand Plaza? Surely not, but it's obvious they are distant cousins.
|
I think you're suffering from nostalgia. Aqua isn't a development concept like Marina was, but it is a building concept. And frankly, its rationalized expressionism could be the solution to the modernist ("where do we go from here") problem that has plagued architecutre of late. It ends the "anything goes" philosopy of architecture and starts to present a coherent method of design.
Lets get the building built first before we question its full impact. Also, personally I LIKE the subtely. Aqua doesn't need to flash its innovation, it makes it all the more mature. It achieves some delicate qualities that weren't as aspired too in the age of concrete brutalism.
You can certainly dislike the building, but saying its unsuccesful because it uses an unsuccessful element in other buidlings is nieve (espeically ignoring the use of the glass, the form, construction methods, etc). It totally sells short the depth, complexity, and rationality that exists an Aqua. Frankly, I think, with this buildigns height, that unpainted balconies would get lost in the strucutre. Compaing Aqua to Grand Plaza is a tremendously false comparison. Its like comparing the Eiffel tower to railroad tracks because they both use steel.
Then again, this is comming from the guy with Aqua as his avatar.
Threaded Mode