Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin7
This simply comes down to different taste in architecture. Personally, with an overbuild I prefer a clean break from the existing structure. I think this is very well done.
I don't want to try to match a 21st century build with prewar masonry. You're fortunate if it even ends up being passable and 9 times out of ten it's awful. Do you have an example of an overbuild you DO like?
|
What if it were the other way around? In this hypothetical scenario, you have a modern all-glass lowrise that is overbuilt with prewar materials and design. Would you still like it?
I'm not even saying I want a overbuild that looks exactly like its base here. Any site,
especially an overbuild, has its own contexts and needs. In this specific site, the only thing tying the two original structures together is that they're both prewar. Other than that, they use completely different materials and served two completely different purposes when built.
What I
am saying is that somehow this design is less appropriate given the space than if they had just demolished the red brick building on the corner and built a completely new tower from scratch. In the same way that Soldier Field looks completely mismatched, this design clashes far too much to be appreciated, imo. I actually think I preferred the original design because it 1) Kept the third historical building and 2) Didn't clash too much as to completely draw away from the original structures.
I get it. It's completely a matter of personal taste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyhigh07
It’s really about usage, cost and context. The new diamond street brownstones you mentioned are within a historic district and are remarkably indistinguishable from the older ones. I’m not sure who the developer is but they’re a rare anomaly. I really haven’t seen anything like it.
The overbuild is best suited for lab space usage and demand. I’m not sure how an alternative “historically appropriate” design would be conducive here. Brick and smaller windows? I’m just happy they’re preserving 2 of the 3 old buildings. Any other developer would knock them down.
|
Comments like this disappoint me though. It doesn't
have to be an anomaly. Clearly there was enough of a demand for new structures here, and developers played ball and made something fantastic and
in character as a result. A lot of what you see getting built in the hot neighborhoods right now (not all, mind you) is completely out of character with its surroundings. I realize that there are factors far beyond just people's differing tastes at play here; architecture as a career and industry isn't what it used to be. I started out at Drexel as an Architecture major and became less and less infatuated with what I saw.
I hate to do this, but it is at this point where I have to draw comparisons to other cities. There's certainly some crap going up in Chicago. Plenty, in fact. But
so much of what is going up around the Red Line right now is all contextual. It all
looks like Chicago. How many Lowrises built recently can you remove from their contexts and say, for certain, "oh yeah that looks Philly."
I also realize that my above comments can't really be applied to the overbuild at 23rd and Market. Completely different situation. But the two discussions are linked in that I think we could be doing a better job of designing structures that give better respect to their surroundings.
Sorry to drag this conversation so far away from the original topic, and I'll finish it with some more optimistic outlooks: the works that CANNO and Ambit have been designing lately are superb. Both are clearly local firms that put real effort into contextualizing everything that they design.