TOKYO | Nakagin Capsule Tower | 154 FT / 47 M | 13 FLOORS | 1972

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by skylife

They shouldn't tear it down, but they should definitely PAINT the thing. I think it would look amazing in different and well selected colors.

Nah, it just needs a good power wash. Though concrete often looks boring and cheaply done, if done right it can be an amazing material (e.g. works by Tadao Ando).

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by Jibba

This tower has a very anachronistic aesthetic, right down to the personal electronics array (at least in the photos posted with that arcspace article so who knows how dated those are). I guess that makes this building even more unique. I would advocate trying to preserve this structure too, but this would be from the point of view of a skyscraper geek. If these are really in shabby condition and/or are undesirable as a living space, then it wouldn't really make sense to preserve them as a museum-like artifact of design especially in a place such as Tokyo where developable land is likely very scarce. I also wouldn't want to live in this place if water management/leakage was an issue: according to the arcspace article, the individual living capsules are attached to the central core of the structure with only four high-tension bolts.

But these are desirable living places. The faulty wiring and plumbing can be fixed. The tower looks like it has some fairly new living cubes. They just have to change the plumbing in the core and replace the old cubes for new ones with better plumbing. Even if it is preserved, it wouldn't be a museum, it's too large and the rooms are too small. The buildings would still be residential or a hotel. I watched a show on Nat Geo where they said that people have bough multiple cubes in the building and made them into a hotel. I assume you can also buy like 2 or 3 units to make the apartment bigger.

Fixing the base and spire would be nice too. They just need to paint the top with a bright red or some bright color. The base should get new windows and maybe some of that spire color too. It would be cool if the windods in the cubes were framed with neon blue, green, yellow, or a combination of red, blue, yellow and green. That would be too expensive and the neighbors might complaint but hey, it'd be cool

Originally Posted by skylife

They shouldn't tear it down, but they should definitely PAINT the thing. I think it would look amazing in different and well selected colors.

It's bare concrete. You can't paint it. Only the top but that's about it.

[Jibba]

^I have no idea of what the actual desirability of occupying this building is, but my point was that if there is no desire to live there (based on an excerpt that someone posted on page 1), then there seems little reason to preserve this building as an empty, non-functional object of historical preservation. I also never stated that this structure would be used as a museum, but rather that if it were unoccupied and preserved its purpose would be akin to that of an artifact in a museum (and in this case its value as an architectural artifact would not be near enough to compare to the value gained of redeveloping the land). Don't get me wrong: I find this building fascinating and have hope that there is desire for some to live in this building, and if this should be the case then I have hope that it will be utilized and preserved.

[skylife]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

are you serious? omg.

Yes, I am. Brutalism is grey and ugly and this is no exception.

Originally Posted by Aleks0o01

It's bare concrete. You can't paint it. Only the top but that's about it.

I think we've technologically advanced enough as humans to paint a concrete building.

[Ducov]

demolish it, paint it?!

oh dear oh dear, me thinks people have missed the point of this building, it's not meant to beautiful in a traditional sense, but a building with a revolutionary purpose, to be modifiable, an abandonment of old ideas about a finished structure's immutability.

These spaces are very much in demand, center of Tokyo? - any room is precious. Ive heard people who have lived in them for years and continue to love them.
This building was meant o change, to evolve, so I hardly think a bit of repair work is out of the question.

It absolutely shouldn't be covered up with an immature slathering of paint either, it would ruin its structural purity.

[skylife]

^ If the structure is meant to change and evolve, I fail to see how an "immature slathering of paint" to make it far more attractive would ruin anything...and of course it would have absolutely zero effect on its structural purity. An aesthetic renovation would in no way change its revolutionary purpose to be modifiable. Does it have to be fugly, too? Heck - just white would look far better.

I believe an "immature slathering of paint" makes a world of difference on, say, The Golden Gate Bridge. Of course it's not exactly the same thing, but how would that look as dull concrete grey?

That grey concrete brutalist era is so over and it looks aged, dirty and anachronistic. Yuck. You may think I'm being a Philistine but I don't believe ugly is beautiful just because it's different, functional, architecturally daring or cerebral.

[Ducov]

It's not an ugly building, but it is not beautiful. The purpose of this building was to be modifiable at the very structural level, covering it up with some ghastly paint work would betray the utilitarianism of its intrinsic purpose, it would not be adding anything to its functional aesthetic, instead it would try to conceal it.

I personally see nothing wrong with exposed concrete, it is bare, brutal, but it in the end merely a man made stone, and can be beautiful in a sense of being true to it material. The golden gate does not apply, it was meant from the start to be a glorious red, that's an intrinsic part of design. It would not be at all true to itself it it was bare, and unadorned, it would look wrong, much as the capsule tower would the other way round.

[skylife]

Originally Posted by Ducov

It's not an ugly building, but it is not beautiful. The purpose of this building was to be modifiable at the very structural level, covering it up with some ghastly paint work would betray the utilitarianism of its intrinsic purpose, it would not be adding anything to its functional aesthetic, instead it would try to conceal it.

^ Um, then how about some tasteful paintwork instead of "ghastly" paintwork? It could be a much more beautiful building than it is.

Unless you oppose all paint all the time, I don't see your point since of course, a more appealing color than gloom grey would not in any way betray the utilitarianism of its intrinsic purpose. Do you believe something has to be ugly and bland to serve a purpose? If so, then we definitely disagree. This building itself isn't pure function anyway, and the ghastly Soviet-style functionalist ideology is o-v-e-r. But I'd rather turn the page than burn the book, if you know what I mean. I wouldn't like this torn down.

I personally see nothing wrong with exposed concrete, it is bare, brutal, but it in the end merely a man made stone, and can be beautiful in a sense of being true to it material. The golden gate does not apply, it was meant from the start to be a glorious red, that's an intrinsic part of design. It would not be at all true to itself it it was bare, and unadorned, it would look wrong, much as the capsule tower would the other way round.

I am personally turned off by almost every brutalist monstrosity built worldwide. Usually I'd say tear the sucker down. This one is a little different because it's more of an idea than just function, as you insist. I understand the philosophy behind raw concrete and progress has been made as a building material. Though when it doesn't work and looks obsolete, I don't see the reason to insist on its purity.

Did you oppose aesthetically and functionally renovating the Reichstag in Berlin or the Tate Modern in London? Maybe I'm just more progressive in my views about architectual purity and this-style-is-this-style-and-it-can't-be-fiddled-with.

[Ducov]

No, you completely missed the point I was making. Firstly, I do not believe this building to be ugly at all, so I do not believe by serving a purpose it is being ugly. But that is a question of aesthetics so it's up to every individual. What I would say is that painting it would be lie to its original purpose, making it hard for any one to appreciate it fully.

This isn't 'soviet style functionalism' at all, this is a example of fleeting, uniquely Japanese movement known as metabolism. The buildings belonging to this movement were meant to mix functionalism with flexibility, there was nothing meant to be rigid or imposing about these structures. They were merely meant to be a way for people to use a original frame, then to add attachments to suit themselves over time. Like a slowly constructed mecano set.

This philosophy couldn't be further from absolutist totalitarianism . It was meant to be organic, free flowing, entirely open to revised uses, which at the same time lead to the ideas ultimate impossibility. City sized, organic mega structures never materialised.

And when it comes to brutalism, I've seen it working, not obsolete at all, if has worked then for me it has achieved some sort of purity, no matter how esoteric. If a building works, there is no reason to dogmatically disregard it on the basis of its less competent contemporaries.

This tower represents this little known but actually hugely influential theory in building and architecture. So yes I would advise it remain, without fiddling, without modifications that apply beliefs that were the antithesis of its original concept, as a prime example of modern architecture. If you want to build something new then build it, but don't destroy a page in the book of design that molded modern architecture. There's nothing progressive about destroying a land mark.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by Jibba

I also never stated that this structure would be used as a museum, but rather that if it were unoccupied and preserved its purpose would be akin to that of an artifact in a museum (and in this case its value as an architectural artifact would not be near enough to compare to the value gained of redeveloping the land).

Oh, ok well. Better explained. I still don't get why the city doesn't do something to remodel the building. What about the residents? Wouldn't they have say in this? Demolishing it would be easy, just take the thing apart and demolish the core but still. Actually, that's a great idea. Maybe this building wasn't just made to be built up on, but it was also designed to make it easy to demolish a building without harming the surrounding structures. Another great reson why it shouldn't be torn down but looked upon on.

Originally Posted by skylife

I think we've technologically advanced enough as humans to paint a concrete building.

Didn't mean it like that. I meant it in a way to say that it would look ugly colored. It's like painting the Flatiron building with a green or blue. It would look bad because we're all used to it. This building isn't as famous as the Flatiron but they both have the same plain, dull, non exciting colors.

Originally Posted by skylife

I believe an "immature slathering of paint" makes a world of difference on, say, The Golden Gate Bridge. Of course it's not exactly the same thing, but how would that look as dull concrete grey?

The Golden Gate bridge was never meant to look gray.

[skylife]

Originally Posted by Ducov

This tower represents this little known but actually hugely influential theory in building and architecture...There's nothing progressive about destroying a land mark.

Symbolism doesn't make it a better building. It's not a great building. It's an idea. Beauty could make it a great building, and landmarks are changed all the time.

Didn't mean it like that. I meant it in a way to say that it would look ugly colored. It's like painting the Flatiron building with a green or blue. It would look bad because we're all used to it. This building isn't as famous as the Flatiron but they both have the same plain, dull, non exciting colors.

The Golden Gate bridge was never meant to look gray.

Oh, come on. This isn't the Golden Gate, but now it's the Flatiron? You can't reject one absurd comparison then make another. This ain't the Flatiron.

The Parthenon in Athens is iconic for its purity, function and mathematical perfection, though it was painted in vivid colors during Athens' Golden Age. The pyramids in Giza were once blinding white and covered with limestone. They were absolutely adorned, and I bet far more beautiful. I don't think adorning this - yes, in my opinion kinda unattractive thing - is strange or controversial at all. I think it's just common sense as a hardcore aestheticist. Yeah, you read it right, I'm an aestheticist and proud of it!



I think it would look amazing with color.

[Ducov]

Originally Posted by skylife

Symbolism doesn't make it a better building. It's not a great building. It's an idea. Beauty could make it a great building, and landmarks are changed all the time.

It is a great building, landmark status takes into account things other than aesthetics, because beauty is subjective, an no one would agree on what was most beautiful thus most deserving of preservation if that were the case.

[Tom Servo]

there's no more point in talking about what could 'make this building better' i saw a recent photo and all the windows were boarded up and the top was being disassembled. shame.

[James2390]

I usually don't like buildings of this sort, but this cool!

[easy as pie]

still scheduled for demolition, they're actively looking for a development partner.

[DamienK]

A notable building of sorts as a prototype metabolist style building. I have known of this building for quite some time but stumbled upon it accidentally on my last trip to Japan - I was taking photos of some skyscrapers in Shiodome and crossed to the other side of a major road to get a better vantage point, and realised i was standing in front of the capsule tower. As you can see it's looking a bit run down: (pics from April 2011)

[MolsonExport]

unique. I remember seeing it during my last Tokyo visit...in a city full of odd buildings, this one really stood out. Any interior photos? It does look very much like stacked front-loader washing machines, as Yoda pointed out.

[ThatOneGuy]

Sorry but I truly hate it.

[DURKEY427]

It reminds me of washing machines.

[alps]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

still scheduled for demolition, they're actively looking for a development partner.

Really awful to hear this! Have checked up on it during my last two visits to Tokyo and thought we dodged a bullet. What a cool building, and really well-known internationally. Deserves restoration and preservation.