Quote:
Originally Posted by apetrella802
When someone writes that a building is ugly, beautiful, impressive, etc. it would be helpful it they were able to describe what it is about a building's design that makes it ugly, beautiful, etc. Without that input I usually just ignore the comment. The fact that they can not articulate what elements of the design are responsible for their assessment tells me they have not or can not "THINK" very deeply about why they "FEEL" the way they do.
If someone is going to write intelligently about architectural design they should first understand the intent of the architect. There are plenty of Google searches that can gather information on how N. Foster was lead to the design he chose for CITC.
I realize some people are not really interested in spending the time and effort to do this so their remarks often just portray ignorance. The UGLY remark is an example of this. I have grown to appreciate the design of the building but at first there were a few things with which I was unhappy. The single set back, for example, seemed sort of abrupt and if he had three triers(base, middle and top) if might have been seemed more appealing. Maybe he(Foster) was following an orthodox modernism with form following function. There are only two functions being expressed in this building, the CITC function and the hotel function. I just use this as an example of how someone could express their dissatisfaction with the design. If people were willing to describe their judgments more fully we could all learn more and have many times a more interesting dialog.
|
I definitely agree with what you're saying with regard to the poster who called the building "ugly." If you're going to call something ugly, at least say why. Truth be told, plenty of people think the CITC is ugly. If you embrace Philadelphia's colonialism east of Broad, its Williamsburg-esque qualities, the CITC probably
is ugly.
I have my own personal issues with it. Like those you mention, I think the two-step facade is odd. I also don't care for the superfluous "smokestack" and I think some of the vertical lines make it appear shorter than it is. If you're gonna build the tallest building in Center City, make it look like the tallest. But I'm not an architect, and Norman Foster knows what they're doing. They designed a building to
stand out.
And that's what I love about the CITC. It breaks up the monotony of Philadelphia's "downtown." With the exception of Comcast Center, which I don't really think is necessarily exceptional, our city's tallest buildings aren't really all that great. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love Liberty 1 and the Verizon Tower. But even those echo more substantial buildings like the Chrysler Building and Rockefeller Center.
The CITC - good or bad, ugly or not - is
unique. It would blend well, even stand out, in cities known for skyscrapers: New York, Chicago, even Hong Kong. I hate this phrase, but it's
world class. Not just because Norman Foster designed it, but because Norman Foster knows how to design icons.