Quote:
Originally Posted by arbeiter
What is timeless and what is a passing fad architecturally is something for history to decide. It's almost never apparent contemporaneously - after all, didn't many want to get rid of the Eiffel Tower as soon as it was built?
I am not saying the W is a work of art, but in my opinion, the Frost building comes off as awkward and it may not be remembered fondly in 20+ years. I think its fatal flaw is that it's 15 floors too short. It looks squat and difficult. But what do I know? I'm a creature of the now and not an architectural historian from 2040.
After all, some 'daring' designs with funky ornamental work are looking hideous today - that Michael Graves building in Portland from the late 80's is something of an eyesore if you ask me - it looks ghastly.
|
I agree 100% with what you said about the Frost tower. It was shooting for a Chrysler building-like impact, but it is far too boxy... either it should have been about 15 stories taller, as you said, or maybe just 5 if it was more slender and graceful.
I think the W is a subtle / smart looking tower. I have never been crazy about the gray, but overall, I think its form and skin are artful. I really like the way that it sets up the expectation of lock-step symmetry and then disrupts it with the randomness of the changes near the top.
Will I hate the W and love Frost in ten years? Who knows? However, I suspect that both will be hard to see from many of the vantage points in the images recently posted here.