Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson
I would expect that a design show tends to show the unique stuff though. The "rank and file" buildings don't make for good TV. Besides, someone could easily do a spot on Queens Marque, and if that's all you saw of Halifax you'd get a very different impression of our architecture than reality.
As for the "all new buildings look the same", that's the way it has always been and will always be. Buildings reflect the trends and technologies of the time. But today's buildings do not look the same as the buildings 10, or even 5 years ago. Remember when seafoam green glass was all the rage?
That's not to say there are not a lot of "subpar" buildings in Halifax, but I'm much less cynical about the state of architecture in the city than many people.
|
While I understand the point you are making, and generally agree, I think peoples' comments here are valid.
My opinion:
- Generally, the quality of new buildings appears to be better than those of the 1990s-2000s era, but of lower quality and less architectural interest compared to buildings from the 1960s and back. While buildings of an era tend to be built based on technology, building techniques and styles of the era in which they were built, there seemed to be more effort put into individualizing the appearance of buildings - which in all fairness was probably easier to do since there was less reliance on pre-fab materials back then, and more reliance on handwork.
- What I find disappointing in most run-of-the-mill current buildings is reflected in the point you made about seafoam green. I find many of the designs today, which all seem to be a slight variation on the same theme, seem to be trying to be 'cool' or 'relevant' for today (or 2 years ago... to be more succinct), but this also results in the building being more 'dated' in a decade or so. Today it may look trendy to have a bunch of blocks protruding here and there, clad in various colours, but this will likely fall to another trend in the near future which will make these look just like ugly buildings that we are stuck with. At least hairstyles and clothing can be tossed aside when they go out of style, but we are stuck with buildings for 50 or 60 years, so IMHO their designs should be more timeless.
- Surely there has to be a way for an ambitious architect to create unique buildings without playing follow the leader to everybody else. But of course that might increase project costs above the bare minimum, which could be the actual root of the situation.
Just my opinion, nothing more, nothing less...