Quote:
Originally Posted by alki
I agree with you. Some deco bldings were built with the smooth stucco. I really like it as a building material. Its the textured stucco that makes me nuts and invariably its painted pink. And it was used a lot in LA because its cheaper to apply.
|
Stucco is an interesting thing.
Now, you see stucco in almost every new building. This is because A) it is cheaper, and in our culture aesthetics mean little when contrasted with the amount of money made on a development, and B) because developers have no taste and continually build a very similarly designed amalgamation of Italian Villa and Spanish Revival. This produces what I call the Hipster Effect. When something is so pounded into the mainstream that it because normality, it also becomes banal, boring, and jeered. Certain independent bands, for example, are generally liked by hipsters when said bands are little-known, but the second those bands hit the mainstream that original group of people who liked them begins to either ignore them or talk about how they were so much better until they 'sold out'. In stucco's case, there was a point (1930) where it was used sporadically enough and in a non-ubiquitous fashion that it was nothing more then another architectural material among others. Now, it is often the only thing used. Naturally, people want something different. They want variety. And also, stucco is just too mainstream.
Reason 2: Stucco is a bland material. There is no getting around it: stucco is pure nothingness. There is no detail to stucco, other then maybe a grainy texture. In more historic times, the style of architecture that was popular was one that resided on complex, organic shapes. Now, the popular style of architecture is nothing more then broad, geometric strokes. This means that something like texture becomes even more important then before. A building with no detail on the facade might be interesting if made of glass, or metal, or copper. If made of stucco, it becomes bleh. Modern buildings made of stucco are simply uglier then those made without. Of course, there are exceptions. Micheal Maltzan has become adapt at using large-scale geometric shapes and color in conjunction with stucco to create some stunning buildings. Sadly, he is not the rule. Too many stucco buildings come across as boring and lazy noways because of the modern style which they emulate. It's even worse when it comes to that McMansion style mishmash that is so popular right now. This style attempts to emulate a older style using cheaper materials and more minimalistic designs. Because of this, it almost always fails. Even when large amounts of money is spent, very few buildings successfully emulate historic architecture. I can think of two that come close, but none that succeed. 1 Central Park in New York comes within reaching distance, due to historic massing and material, but fails because of the lack of detail. 2 Rodeo in Los Angeles also comes close, due to good detail and materials, but fails because of massing. The McMuddle buildings going up around L.A. fail because of a lack of detail, poor to garish massing, and cheap material. Therefore, they are a poor showcase for stucco, and further the dislike of stucco.
This is why I don't like stucco. I am a hipster (
) and stucco is used as an excuse and a cheat nowadays. I have seen nice stucco buildings. Pure Spanish Revival in stucco generally looks nice. Historic stucco buildings generally look nice. Sometimes, modern buildings using clean, smooth, stucco sparingly even look nice. However, 99% of buildings going up in L.A. use stucco in a poor manner. The worst place for stucco is downtown. Historically, downtown is built with stone and terrecotta. When stucco is placed next to these much more expensive materials, it looks cheap and out of place, even when done in a way that would look nice in another place. Yes, stucco has the capability to look nice, but when it comes to downtown, keep it out.
Prev
, then I can't expect any better of a reaction in others, esp ppl who'll visit DT with a "show me the money" tude or any city that is far removed from their own.
but quite seriously, the owner should be publicly flogged for doing such a horrible job in renovating his property. It's as though he wanted to make it look like a very bad version of a strip mall in the burbs in order to fit with the very burban nature of hooters or certainly a themed knights & armor restaurant that I understand will be leasing part of the bldg. 
Linear Mode
