What places, structures or geographic features should be (inter)nationally famous?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

I don't recall anyone saying it was in the same league as Chrysler or Empire State. Hardly any structures in the world are in that league.

but as to why transco (i refuse to call it williams) are not like chrysler or empire state building is not due to their architecture but when they were built and where they were built. philip johnson is brilliant and one of my favorite architects and i finally made it to his glass house in CT this summer.

if the transco tower were built in a more iconic city and similarly situated as it is in houston, i think it would be more well known internationally.

[dc_denizen]

and nobody would remark about the transamerica pyramid, were it in Houston.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by JManc

philip johnson is brilliant and one of my favorite architects and i finally made it to his glass house in CT this summer.

I'm somewhere on the other side of the Philip Johnson spectrum. I appreciate his contributions as an advocate for modern architecture, but am not very impressed by his buildings. I think he was too much of a dabbler, and his building designs reflect his lack of focus and rigor.

[MolsonExport]

Louisville's gift to the architecture world. I give you the Kaden tower:

bluffton.edu

Love it? Hate it?

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by gallo

I'm going to nominate the Baha'i Temple in Wilmette, IL, just north of Chicago. Absolutely breathtaking and very underrated.. in fact, most people in Chicagoland probably don't know about it:


source: http://wall.alphacoders.com/

That's awesome. It's sited well and in a nice area which IMO is just as important as the architecture itself... next to the water, in an established old neighborhood and just a couple blocks from the train station.

[Crawford]

Phillip Johnson, to me, had highly variable quality. He had a few world-class works, and then lots of derivative dreck, and by the end, he was mailing it in.

His earlier work makes him an extremely important figure in architecture, though.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by RCDC

That's awesome. It's sited well and in a nice area which IMO is just as important as the architecture itself... next to the water, in an established old neighborhood and just a couple blocks from the train station.

I love visiting this temple (my sister lives nearby).

The best thing is that no one really visits, so you have the place to yourself most of the time. You just park on this random residential street and stroll in.

Also, beautiful old suburban neighborhood. Totally weird that this got built in this specific location, but very cool.

[Austin55]

Could make an argument for a lot of Pelli buildings. Petronas has landmark status already for Malaysia, and on a more local level Key Tower, BOA Corporate center, Wells Fargo, Citigroup center, and BOK center (Tulsa) are landmarks for their cities.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Phillip Johnson, to me, had highly variable quality. He had a few world-class works, and then lots of derivative dreck, and by the end, he was mailing it in.

His earlier work makes him an extremely important figure in architecture, though.

exactly

it's his earlier works that gives his later works some notoriety...the mere fact that they were designed by philip johnson, not the quality of the architecture. his stuff from the 80's and beyond were ok (though transco one of my favs due to art deco queues) but it was his work from the 40's through the mid 70's that stood out.

same is true for houston's jpmorgan chase tower, it is a i.m. pei building built in 1982 but no where near the caliber of the bank of china or the louvre

@ molson, last time i was in louisville, i went out of my way to look for that thing...it was just as magnificent in real life.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Double L

http://www.infoplease.com/us/history/williams-transco-tower.html

Houston is like the Dubai of the US...

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Even in Houston, the Bank of America Center is superior to (as well as more identifiably 'Houston' than—at least to this non-resident) the Williams Tower.

Agreed. When I think of Houston, I think of is this:


wikimedia

or the one with the Pomo diamond in at the top:


britannica.com

I definitely don't think of that Williams Tower. It's just not very prominent, in terms of location and representation of the city; I realize it's tall.

Originally Posted by Double L

Post Modern buildings are the only ones I like.

Yikes. That's unfortunate.

[Tom Servo]

Reading through this thread was amusing.

And I'll through in a vote for the Baha'i Temple too. I believe there are only a handful of them around the world.

Here's one in Delhi:


delhitourism.com

britannica.com

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by JManc

if the transco tower were built in a more iconic city and similarly situated as it is in houston, i think it would be more well known internationally.

I vehemently disagree. IMO, there is nothing about its architecture that would ever allow it to gain national (let alone international) stature, especially in a country where every major city seems to have a skyscraper designed in the same style by the same architect or one of his peers (e.g., Pelli).

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

and nobody would remark about the transamerica pyramid, were it in Houston.

There are many buildings like the Williams Tower. There are few like the Transamerica Pyramid.

Originally Posted by dchan

I'm somewhere on the other side of the Philip Johnson spectrum. I appreciate his contributions as an advocate for modern architecture, but am not very impressed by his buildings. I think he was too much of a dabbler, and his building designs reflect his lack of focus and rigor.

This is pretty much how I feel. Philip Johnson had a gift for identifying ascendant movements early on in their development and adapting his style accordingly. He was also great at promotion.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by JManc

if the transco tower were built in a more iconic city and similarly situated as it is in houston, i think it would be more well known internationally.

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I vehemently disagree. IMO, there is nothing about its architecture that would ever allow it to gain national (let alone international) stature, especially in a country where every major city seems to have a skyscraper designed in the same style by the same architect or one of his peers (e.g., Pelli).

If the Williams Tower were built in Chicago or NYC, it'd be lost. If it were built in any other US city, it'd be equally as indistinguishable and forgettable as it is in Houston. Ch.G is spot on.

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

There are many buildings like the Williams Tower. There are few like the Transamerica Pyramid.

...

Now excuse me while I escape before the hoards of Houston homers come running in, flexing their insecurities and accusing us of 'city bashing' because we don't agree that their 900 foot tall Philip Johnson tower should be internationally recognized.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by texcolo

I might be going a little off topic, but here's some Phillip Johnson love...


http://filecache.drivetheweb.com/mr5mr_comerica


http://photos1.blogger.com


http://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae143/nmorgan111/Random%20Shots


http://www.turnasure.com/images/project-building-att2.jpg

Why all the hate????

not hate, but there are at least two distinct pj's. i love his glass house (duh) and the ft worth water gardens, but hate those later pomo towers. granted, i also hold a grudge against him since he didnt leave a strong legacy project in his hometown of cleveland - ha. not totally his fault of course but still.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

If the Williams Tower were built in Chicago or NYC, it'd be lost. If it were built in any other US city, it'd be equally as indistinguishable and forgettable as it is in Houston. Ch.G is spot on.





...

Now excuse me while I escape before the hoards of Houston homers come running in, flexing their insecurities and accusing us of 'city bashing' because we don't agree that their 900 foot tall Philip Johnson tower should be internationally recognized.

I won't speak for others, but for me, it's not that I have a problem with the comments that disagree with a person's wish that William's Tower be recognized, but that some members who don't care for Williams Tower have come back in such a condescending manner. Some of those rude comments are gone now, though. I see, though, that Williams Tower isn't the only structure that has elicited condescending remarks (e.g., the one regarding a temple).

[Ant131531]

I do agree with the Houston posters a little. If the TransAmerica building were in Houston, you all would saying it's ugly and shouldn't be well known.

Like for example, I think Atlanta has a lot of unique looking skyscrapers(191 Peachtree, Westin, One Atlantic Center, even the BoA tower, many cities would kill to have) and if they were in Midtown Manhattan, they would stand out, but because they're in Atlanta, they don't stand out because the city itself isn't iconic.

[mhays]

Most of us are probably going on the topic header, not the description inside. By the header, location counts, and opinions about architecture count. As for whether debate is ok...this is SSP.

Transamerica isn't great looking. It's famous because it's the #2 symbol of an iconic city and it's unusual-looking enough to be memorable, all of which is supported by a ton of attention over a period of decades.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by mhays

Most of us are probably going on the topic header, not the description inside. By the header, location counts, and opinions about architecture count. As for whether debate is ok...this is SSP.

Transamerica isn't great looking. It's famous because it's the #2 symbol of an iconic city and it's unusual-looking enough to be memorable, all of which is supported by a ton of attention over a period of decades.

No one said debate isn't OK. It certainly is. What some of us object to is uncivil remarks by a couple of members when they disagree with someone who proposes recognition of a structure. Most of those remarks are gone, though, leaving mainly constructive comments.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by MayDay

^The building itself (the ornately carved section) is absolutely stunning but the site? It's surrounded by a sea of parking and the outlot with Walgreens...?

Oh, I know Shawn. It's a shame.

They got a good price on a large piece of property, right were they wanted to be. Unfortunately it's at a major intersection deep in the heart of stripmall, fast food suburbia.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

I won't speak for others, but for me, it's not that I have a problem with the comments that disagree with a person's wish that William's Tower be recognized, but that some members who don't care for Williams Tower have come back in such a condescending manner. Some of those rude comments are gone now, though. I see, though, that Williams Tower isn't the only structure that has elicited condescending remarks (e.g., the one regarding a temple).

Bingo!

The anti-Sunbelt, anti-Southern bias exhibited freely by many will probably never change. It deserves to be challenged, and will be.