T E A R _ I T _ D O W N ! ! !

[CGII]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

the gropius tower should've been built. this tower is a disgrace to the city's architecture history and modernist fundamentals.
not to mention it's ugly.

Yes, we should demolish anything that conform to the philosophies of your preferred architetural style.

What kind of thinking is that?

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by CGII

Yes, we should demolish anything that conform to the philosophies of your preferred architetural style.

What kind of thinking is that?

modernism isn't a mere architectural style.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

modernism isn't a mere architectural style.

Right, so let's start condemning anything that doesn't fit your world view.

[stormkingfan]

You tell him, CGII!!

Br'klyn!!!!

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by DecoJim

Perhaps its just that Mr. Sands enjoys being an iconoclast and is amused by all the reactions to his "outrageous" adherence to modernism at all costs.

ding ding ding

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by CGII

Right, so let's start condemning anything that doesn't fit your world view.

Behold the mindset of the modernist zealot. The architect is God, he can do no wrong - unless the architect doesn't want to do bare concrete, steel, and glass boxes. Then, the architect is an evil and talentless hack who is depriving the world of High Holy Modernism, which is the only acceptable architectural path.

That's because people like Adrian have decided that "of our time" means "modernism and modernism alone," which is ridiculous.

[TANGELD_SLC]

Personally, I think we ought to incorporate more art, motifs and symbolism in our buildings nowadays.
I used to really like the ideal of "less is more", but now I think it's a bucket of shit. Nobody knows how to do it right any more, and we should start a NEW modern style rather than the 1950-80's crap that people still call "modern" It's lazy people with NO imagination WHATSOEVER that like the less is more junk because it's an easier, cheaper design.

It's not modern, it's ugly mementos from the 20th century, when style and beauty nearly died in architecture. I say NEARLY, because there are a few good buildings from that period, but not many.

[America 117]

edit

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC

It's lazy people with NO imagination WHATSOEVER that like the less is more junk because it's an easier, cheaper design.

Nope.

[Cbautz]

[QUOTE=TANGELD_SLC;3978535] It's lazy people with NO imagination WHATSOEVER that like the less is more junk because it's an easier, cheaper design.
QUOTE]

[dawn.]

Was it not Mies van der Rohe who coined the phrase "less is more"? Correct me if I am wrong, but I strongly doubt he was a lazy man lacking imagination.

It would be nice to see more art, motifs, and symbolism incorporated into ALL architecture. However, I disagree that "modern" buildings are missing these things.

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC

Personally, I think we ought to incorporate more art, motifs and symbolism in our buildings nowadays.
I used to really like the ideal of "less is more", but now I think it's a bucket of shit. Nobody knows how to do it right any more, and we should start a NEW modern style rather than the 1950-80's crap that people still call "modern" It's lazy people with NO imagination WHATSOEVER that like the less is more junk because it's an easier, cheaper design.

It's not modern, it's ugly mementos from the 20th century, when style and beauty nearly died in architecture. I say NEARLY, because there are a few good buildings from that period, but not many.

This is a very uneducated comment. I would try to explain things to you but it would take too long.

[TANGELD_SLC]

Originally Posted by dawn.

Was it not Mies van der Rohe who coined the phrase "less is more"? Correct me if I am wrong, but I strongly doubt he was a lazy man lacking imagination.


It would be nice to see more art, motifs, and symbolism incorporated into ALL architecture. However, I disagree that "modern" buildings are missing these things.

I was NOT talking about van der Rohe. I'll talking about Mies van der Rohe wannabes.

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC

Nobody knows how to do it right any more

I'm not saying all are missing symbolism, I'm talking about the cookie-cutter office boxes you can find in any city around the world that anybody could think up that are boring and utterly unremarkable.

Originally Posted by Zerton

This is a very uneducated comment. I would try to explain things to you but it would take too long.

PM me then.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC

Personally, I think we ought to incorporate more art, motifs and symbolism in our buildings nowadays.
I used to really like the ideal of "less is more", but now I think it's a bucket of shit. Nobody knows how to do it right any more, and we should start a NEW modern style rather than the 1950-80's crap that people still call "modern" It's lazy people with NO imagination WHATSOEVER that like the less is more junk because it's an easier, cheaper design.

It's not modern, it's ugly mementos from the 20th century, when style and beauty nearly died in architecture. I say NEARLY, because there are a few good buildings from that period, but not many.

In many ways you are right TANGELD, particularly with many of the so-called 'international style' knock-offs. IMO, beauty can be constructed in every style.

However and unfortunately, the international style and it's subsequent progeny have encouraged the cheapest possible finish in far too many cases. Often, the aesthetics of a developer's project goes unchecked by a particular council. Only those functions that are related to specific codes and utilitarian functions are checked off. The finished beauty of a tower is not a priority. Instead, the lack of visual beauty becomes a means of producing the biggest profit at the expense of architectural and civic pride.

.

[deja vu]

The Pittsburgh post-Gazette Building

not terrible, but I wouldn't miss it either.



(photo by me)

[volguus zildrohar]

Philadelphia:

Penn Center Plaza



There are two of these buildings and they wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that they occupy a prime central location downtown and are so bland and featureless they make you want to scream at them.

[deja vu]

yeah. same with the post-gazette building.

[volguus zildrohar]

It's kinda crazy with these bloody things. They were the first of the Penn Center buildings, which brought Philadelphia into the modern office building era. If there's any decade that needs its architecture stripped ofrom the face of the planet it's that boxy 50s crap. You can save a few.

[Jasoncw]

I had heard that Gropius did an entry before I actually saw the image of it, and I was excited and ready to say "too bad that wasn't built" but then I saw what it was supposed to look like, and I think we're better off how it was built. Maybe if he would have chopped off all of those stylistic balconies and massing it would have been better.

Though I do think the Saarinen entry was the best out of all of the images I've seen, and a lot of the entries are really bizarre. But I think that sort of gives context to our own time, since in the future the blobs of today will look just as absurd (if they don't already, imo).

[Exodus]

Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar

Philadelphia:

Penn Center Plaza



There are two of these buildings and they wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that they occupy a prime central location downtown and are so bland and featureless they make you want to scream at them.

You are right, not really a bad building, but bad location. They just don't seem to fit in where they are at. It's like the Kennedy Sq. Bldg. in Detroit, it would be ok in Southfield, Troy, or Dearborn, but not in the heart of Downtown Detroit.