Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanight93
People complain when uncreative buildings get built and then proceed to complain when a project shows out of the box thinking.
Maybe seaform spandrel clad boxes is truly all we deserve.
|
I see your point, and I'm not complaining about this building, but there is definitely a balancing point in-between innovative but one-off unmaintainable architecture (think Guadi's cathederal in Spain) and cookie-cutter and uninspiring developments (think USSR housing blocks).
A lot of young architectural firms like to design amazing-looking buildings that are made possible due to the recent developments in material science and manufacturing processes. Look all around South-East Asia's new cities that have popped up over the last decade. OK, cool. But architecture is designed to last decades if not generations, and those designs haven't been proven against the tests of time yet.
So just because a company can design something cool, doesn't mean they will be around in the future to fix it. Finding that balance is just as important as building it in the first place, and should be part of the responsibility of the developers. Otherwise whoever happens to be the owner on the day that some fancy feature fails gets lumbered with the repair cost.
I love innovative buildings, but I wouldn't be the one buying them off a design drawing. I'll happily wait until the building is finished and the first beta testers owners have dealt with all of the defects and the strata or homeowner has a realistic number on annual maintenance before I'd be willing to buy in.
Prev
Linear Mode
