While many of the architectural examples shown here are elegant and impressive, in my opinion the majority are either grotesque, like that proposed "giant quid" thing over Stanley Park, or assymetrical in an UGLY way.
Even here in Paris, so often thought of as the "style and design" capital of the Western world, along with Milan, there are plans at the La Défense complex just outside town for some huge and not-all-that-beautiful buildings to go up very soon. And we're talking 300m plus in many cases.
Many of the examples of highrises listed here make me think of Dubai, which is impressive to the extreme, or of something almost extra-terrestrial, like the old comic books of Earth astronauts who land in some strange organic-hybrid space city on a remote planet.
Hey, if this is what most people want, then go for it, but I think there are some existing older examples (and yes, maybe I'm just an oldster, out of sync with the majority !) that have an elegant, timeless appeal to them.
Examples: the Transamerica Pyramid, the Château Champlain in Montreal (not tall at only 36 storeys, but so beautiful I could look at it all day), as well as the sleek lines of the Tour de la Bourse (although I admit the coppery-black glass is a bit sombre, and could have been clad in a more upbeat colour.).
Chicago has a number of beautiful buildings (which, not being familiar enough with the city, I can't name, other than Watertower Place, andthe John Hancock Centre and Sears tower) and even the former Pan Am Building in New York (now Met Life), whose bevelled sides "soften" it, yet make it a
fitting and impressive culmination to the south end of Park Avenue.
I'm not advocating to stick to yesteryears's styles, but a great numberof the new illustrations - and again, this only my perception - had a grotesqueness
to them that evoked neither beauty, nor even great innovation, but rather, almost shock value for the sake of either shock value itself, or breaking way from the past irreverently as a kind of statement of rebellion.
I'm not advocating putting up 1920s stle old time skyscrapers, or gigantic versions of the Burrard building (although it might win the Ultra-Bland Award of all Time), but I am saying that there are elements of the classic style, the International Style being one of them, that are worth keeping.
When designing something new and big, you don't have to go "Martian" or try and outdo Kuala Lumpur or Dubai to make a statement.
There are design aesthetics that have endired from Greco-Roman times until the present day, and have been adapted to the highrise. And again I'm speaking in overall proprtions, lines and perspectives, NOT about putting fake columns at the entrance doors, or gargoyles on the roof.
Like many, perhaps the majority, of North American cities, downtown Vancouver is a mish-mash of unconnected stlyes that contribute to a discordant feeling.
Compare the Scotia Tower to The Royal Centre, and the TD Building to Park Place. Fortunately, a certain consistency in the design element seems to be manifesting itself, like the understated similarity between the shape and proprtions of Bentall 5, and the Wall Centre Sheraton.
My "thesis" is: innovate, yes; but don't let comic book images, or weirdness for weirdness' sake be your motivating principle.
Think of beauty and elegance on equal terms with functionality.
And think how it will fit stylistically with the neighbouring buildings. Functionality is the necessity, but beauty and elegance are what remain in people's minds and what make a classic a classic, be it contemporary, post-modern, International style, early 20th century (the Chrysler Building roof, for example) right on back to the Pantheon in Rome, the Taj Mahal, or the Acropolis in Athens.
It is these types of buildings, whatever their style but timeless and elegant in their own right, that make a statement that truly lasts.
Prev
Linear Mode
