we're obviously arguing taste here but how do you figure lax's expansion will look better than munich's new terminal 2? at this point, one can already see how much lighter (and much more more elegant) the superstructure of munich's terminal 2 appears, and actually is. i wonder how you'd compare it with berlin's brandenberg expansion then.
lax's new terminal, while highly welcomed, is still a goofy caricature in comparison - its beams encased in white drywall - faithful to the typical angeleno practice of disingenuously masking structural elements to create an "effect". Nowadays most good public architecture proudly displays structure in its aesthetics. For some reason, architects for angeleno projects approach design as though they were working in set design. They're more interested in selling you on a false image of the building (eg sculpting with stucco, plaster, gypboard, etc) rather than displaying the essence (eg. sculpting with structure) of the building itself.
it's a travesty in how much of a wasted opportunity it represents, but not a complete travesty. it's safe and predictable, like most of the architecture in this city.
although, to say our expansion is nicer than what existed is a waste of self-consolatory rhetoric
Last edited by edluva; Oct 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM.
|
Threaded Mode