- New Classical Architecture -

[RLS_rls]

Those vinyl windows kill it.

[Cirrus]

Yeah. Bronze window fixtures would have been much better. Or at least black vinyl.

Otherwise it's pretty darn good.

[Krases]

It just looks too sanitary. Like the facade of a traditional building instead of an actually traditional building.

[JSsocal]

I should have mentioned that the job was techinically a renovation, but as you can see in the link, the final product is a thousand times better then what was previously there, and so totally different that it is practically a new building.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...67.35,,0,-9.27

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Krases

It just looks too sanitary. Like the facade of a traditional building instead of an actually traditional building.

That's because it's new and clean. Actually traditional buildings looked like that when they were new and clean too.

[RLS_rls]

You know with some work the original structure could have been renovated with a really snazzy Art Moderne feel instead of tacking some concrete pilasters onto it and passing it off as Greek revival.

[jetsetter]

I feel that the architects did a great job with the remodel.

[vandelay]

I see no difference between passing off one old style for another. Except there is a tradition in America of main street banks being in a neo-classical style. This one looks great.

[Cirrus]

You know with some work the original structure could have been renovated with a really snazzy Art Moderne feel instead of tacking some concrete pilasters onto it and passing it off as Greek revival.

And that would be objectively better because?

[jetsetter]

Palladium at the Center for the Performing Arts - Carmel, Indiana

the.urbanophile @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/urbanophile/4632598560/

jonathanhaag.com @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/48685813@N06/4838732284/

jonathanhaag.com @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/48685813@N06/4838118647/

http://www.ci.carmel.in.us/government/newsrelease/07-14-10.htm

More information: http://www.thecenterfortheperformingarts.org/

[RLS_rls]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

And that would be objectively better because?

Because the original building had a bit of an Art Moderne feel to it, and it's not as imitated (continued, rather) as Classical whatever. If that were the case than kudos to the architect, but it isn't so...nevermind.

[Cirrus]

Because the original building had a bit of an Art Moderne feel to it

So what? Why should maintaining some bit of the original character be objectively better than not maintaining it?

I don't mean to pick on you. If your point is simply that it might have made a nice building in a different style then that is fair enough. But it sounds like you're implying that it was somehow wrong to do what they did.

[RLS_rls]

^I think it's inherently wrong designing something new to look old anyway, despite my opinions on some of the buildings posted here. I just felt that bank would have looked better as Arte Moderne.

Anyway I've derailed this thread enough, I'm done now.

[jetsetter]

The building does not look "old". It may be done in a design that was pioneered earlier than you like but what I see is a beautiful new building.

[Hed Kandi]

Leng Noei Yi Monastery - Bangkok, Thailand


http://www.flickr.com/photos/drflint/4546366838/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/neung-chalit/4808471432/

[Hed Kandi]

Ralph Lauren Mansion - New York, United States of America

[RLS_rls]

^wow nice, that went up fast

[Tolbert]

Thats the way i like historistic architecture. All of it is just right!

If you have to do Historicism, do it that way!!!

[photoLith]

That building is absolutely incredible. Everything looks right, nothing is out of proportion like a lot of new "historic" type buildings. Why oh why cant more architects get it right like that RL store?

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So what? Why should maintaining some bit of the original character be objectively better than not maintaining it?

I don't mean to pick on you. If your point is simply that it might have made a nice building in a different style then that is fair enough. But it sounds like you're implying that it was somehow wrong to do what they did.

Uhhh Ok, by that logic I believe the wrong way to restore historic facades is to make them appear as they originally were and the right way to "restore" them is to rip the terra cotta off an put on glass...

I think its hugely ironic that someone would actually come right out in this thread and use that reasoning since thats the antithesis of the preservation movement. No, I'm sorry, but buildings, and sometimes historic districts, should be protected because they contain designs that have historical merit that we can't easily just get back. Guess what, Art Moderne is a style that is hugely significant in South Pasadena that we can't easily get back once we destroy it. I think its hilarious that someone would use the same line of reasoning that was used to mutilate historic facades in the past to justify blowing away the moderne look of this building just because what they were blowing it away for is ye olde greek temple style.

That said, the original building wasn't that great of a piece of Art Moderne and the Classical facade is way better so I'd take the end result any day over the original. My beef is just with your sickening "well what makes that objectively better" reasoning. What makes old Penn Station objectively better than new Penn Station? NOTHING, so by your logic its OK to just tear it down. However, Old Penn Station is of far higher quality and historical significance and simply something we can never get back. In most cases that is enough to justify the protection of a structure.