Quote:
Originally Posted by davidcappi
I agree, to each their own. I'm just not a fan of Disneyland/Mainland China knock offs of historic European buildings. I'm not against historically influenced architecture. I just don't enjoy pastiche copycat architecture. Your building shouldn't look like you went to Home Depot and bought every column and piece of decorative trim you could find and applied it to the facade. That doesn't make good historically contextual architecture.
We should expect some originality. And no obviously I don't think buildings in Paris are tacky, because they're real, and in Paris. There is a massive difference between going to Paris and copying Parisian architecture somewhere else.
The Randall looks like something you'd find here:
Plus it looks like The Randall is almost finished. Even a few million bucks in Oakville still gets you a precast/stucco building with awkward punched vents that never made it into the render.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.44844...7i13312!8i6656 |
Under that logic - no roman architecture should have ever been used by anyone ever after the collapse of rome, or any elements taken. Design should never evolve or aspects of the past never be reused.
Because let's face it - ALL architecture for the past 2000 years or so has been influenced by greco-roman design, INCLUDING paris.
Also as per the home depot comment - it's one reason I hate a lot of the modern buildings because all they ever seem to want is coloured glass, sharp angles, metal and stucco. It just feels like our "modern" look is actually starting to look dated. The style sure doesn't last as long.. stone.. as mentioned above, has been used for over 2000 years in architecture, and is rather timeless.
also most of your examples are simply bland. I'll give you the white and black one cuz it looks okay, and even the black brick one as it has some nice aesthetic looks but the brick with the windows punched in it just feels soviet era, and the grey one at the end makes me sick inside from an aesthetic point of view. That's why old brick buildings had stone lintels - both for structure and for aesthetic appeal. Stone is timeless, and imo some aspect of it should be applied to every brick building out there, or you're left with some very 80s goliath looking buildings like the building by the downtown bus stop.
Also I kinda hate how the solution to "modernize" something old or old looking is just to paint elements black.
Imo most "modern" is just a way of saying "we want to be cheap and not invest in any sort of design elements to make this building stand out" - I mean for gods sake even something such as a decorative CORNICE can add beautiful design appeal - look at the king william strip!
We've gotten, cheap, lazy, and we've lost our artisan craftsmanship talents. It reflects on us well as a civilization. Everything building wise that makes hamilton worth looking at quite frankly is old. Nobody comes to see condos, or office buildings. Our new architecture that isn't combining with an existing old building is imo, rather uninspired. Sure there are a few exceptions, but for the most part, it's just rather sad.
I do agree with you though on the punched vents that never make it into the render - that ruined the look of the building in the end imo, and the fact they didn't even try to incorporate it into the design like they did with the ones under the awnings - they didn't even center them! Although that is what happens when an architect designs it, and then the people who do the work say "well we need vents so we'll be punching them in here here and here" - someone didn't do a good design render because they most likely didn't have the background in architectural technology as well, which is what I have, which teaches you what you need utilities wise, where you need them, and how big and how many. Contrary to popular belief, the architects don't do all the work - they do the design - the technologists design everything utility wise within it, calculate the loads, design the hvac lighting and plumbing etc.
Prev
Linear Mode
