POZ Community Forums
Off Topic Forums => Off Topic Forum => Topic started by: HIVworker on December 26, 2007, 03:48:14 pm
-
You know I was thinking today about buildings. You can point at a building and say that it is Victorian, or something is Elizabethan, Georgian or Edwardian. However, two questions spring to mind as the current Queen has been on the thrown for 50 years.
1) What do you call her reign as she is the sequel Elizabeth.
2) Why are there no defined style or buildings from her reign...unless you call "Crap" a style.
I guess I'll go for the hatrick of provocative statements and also wonder if there being no style is due to the revolution in building materials.
I don't want to sound like her son, but some of the architecture is absolute pants these days. I'm not suggesting (as Charlie does) that we go back to Victorian buildings...but rather someone design something that looks nice. Are we all trying to be too modern? Take railroad stations for an example....they have to be functional and not look like they are from a Sci-Fi film. Glass and steel have been used in railway architecture for years and there are some wonderful examples that aren't cold and windy.
I challenge someone to prove me wrong and show a picture of a building that you don't think is crap. I'm curious as there is a more serious and disturbing conclusion.....I no longer know what looks good!
;)
R.
PS. I know that the UK isn't a superpower anymore...but even in the UK there is nothing that suggests a known 'period'.
-
Hi R
I hate modern buildings, I love old buildings and anything that has "Character"...Crapabethian is how I would describe the style and buildings from Elizabeth's reign, I really can't think of anything else.
As a kid I always loved the old railway stations, still do, Charring Cross, Glasgow Central..the old steam trains, the soot and the grime, the hustle and bustle..everything.
I grew up in a little village in Scotland and there wasn't a brick to be seen, garden walls were made of dry stone..now all you see are 6ft fences made from corrugated iron, you can keep your glass and steel structures, it's not for me.
If I can find a photo of something I class as beautiful architect I will post it..and you can let me know what you think.
This is the Railway station we would leave from in Perth Scotland to go on our holidays to England..it looks a lot cleaner than it did back then.. :D
Hugs
Jan :-*
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
R, you've ruled out Macdonald's? Just askin'....
In the 1960s and early 70s an awful lot of what went up in NYC looked like it had been flown up from Miami and dropped on Manhattan. Many of those buildings seem perpetually to have scaffolding around them as they began decomposing soon after they were finished.
Now the mania seems to have gone to el cheapo glass and metal in kind of 21St centruy Erector Set style, sometimes with some waviness thrown in. And now we have the apartment, store and museum complex mode. Honey, call down for some Chinese and ask them to get a schedule from MOMA while you're at it. Feh. Double feh. And ugaleee. Inhumane.
I'd have to stop and think when was the last time I saw a new building that appealed to me. Even as they're going up you can see they are el crappo materials.
Don't get me started! LOL
-
So I am not alone then?
Check this crap out in London..
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/56932242.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19390335F8FA9CA92A6E1FDAF7A95FC97706B49E290EC96DE79 (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/56932242.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19390335F8FA9CA92A6E1FDAF7A95FC97706B49E290EC96DE79)
-
So I am not alone then?
Check this crap out in London..
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/56932242.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19390335F8FA9CA92A6E1FDAF7A95FC97706B49E290EC96DE79 (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/56932242.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19390335F8FA9CA92A6E1FDAF7A95FC97706B49E290EC96DE79)
;) That crappy link ain't working... :)
Ray
-
Two of my personal favorite buildings are Union Station, Los Angeles... Built in 1939 is considered one of the last great railway stations. AND Marin County Civic Center in San Rafael, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Have the best day
Michael
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The Flatiron Building in New York is one of my favorites. It's called the first skyscraper although it's very modest by contemporary standards. There's a special view of it the movie, BELL, BOOK and CANDLE, which is besides also a fun witchy warlock movie.
-
;) That crappy link ain't working... :)
Ray
works for me ;)
-
There is this house in San Francisco which looks like all the other houses in it's neighborhood. It has been in "Drop A Dime Don's" family for three generations. The Grandfather decided to put Sears Vinyl siding on a two story Victorian and replace the original windows with those low maintenance aluminum sliders. The real trick which defies reasoning is underneath.
The ground floor was a 1 car garage and a lot of storage space. "Drop A Dime's" Grandfather decided to convert a 1 car garage into a 6 car garage. He removed all the support beams under the house and replaced them with a series of cables and turn buckles. The second floor is a three bedroom apartment, the third floor is also an apartment (I think 2 bedrooms). Like almost every other house in San Francisco, it sits on a steep hill but the house did not fall during the Loma Prieta quake. All of this and how many cars park underneath this house? One. Have the best day
Michael
-
I challenge someone to prove me wrong and show a picture of a building that you don't think is crap. I'm curious as there is a more serious and disturbing conclusion.....I no longer know what looks good!
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/aaltohouse/aaltohouse1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/aaltohouse/index.html&h=328&w=430&sz=97&hl=en&start=60&tbnid=rhAYgvfwdvk2mM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Daalto%26start%3D40%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
Here's my old (1936) Modernist answer to your question. Alvar Aalto's supremely liivable architecture, well constructed, nice mix of materials and textures. Relationship to nature, without imitation. There are thousands of houses like this worldwide, which isn't all that many if you think about it. Style is not important---in fact fashion in architecture is really more of a problem than a solution. "Magazine architecture" only encourages style over substance and durability (engineering and construction). What's "hot" most likely is not. Siza in Portugal is a great architect. Or Correa in India. Ando in Japan, who is not even trained in architecture is a poet in concrete. If you like much older stuff, try the old Scottish Modernism of the Rennie Mackintosh. BTW: I live in a fake Normandie duplex in LA constructed in 1938, so it's Art Deco French Normandie! The best thing about it isn't the decoration, but the donut floor plan. In case you think I am anti-American the work of the 1930s thru 40s by California's William Wurster is a favorite of mine. These guys are just cream of the crop from my point of view.
-
The Flatiron Building in New York is one of my favorites. It's called the first skyscraper although it's very modest by contemporary standards. There's a special view of it the movie, BELL, BOOK and CANDLE, which is besides also a fun witchy warlock movie.
Andy's right. Flatiiron ROCKS!
-
I challenge someone to prove me wrong and show a picture of a building that you don't think is crap. I'm curious as there is a more serious and disturbing conclusion.....I no longer know what looks good!
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/aaltohouse/aaltohouse1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/aaltohouse/index.html&h=328&w=430&sz=97&hl=en&start=60&tbnid=rhAYgvfwdvk2mM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Daalto%26start%3D40%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
Here's my old (1936) Modernist answer to your question. Alvar Aalto's supremely liivable architecture, well constructed, nice mix of materials and textures. Relationship to nature, without imitation. There are thousands of houses like this worldwide, which isn't all that many if you think about it. Style is not important---in fact fashion in architecture is really more of a problem than a solution. Siza in Portugal is a great architect. Or Correa in India. Ando in Japan, who is not even trained in architecture is a poet in concrete. If you like much older stuff, try the old Scottish Modernism of the Rennie Mackintosh. BTW: I live in a fake Normandie duplex in LA constructed in 1938, so it's Art Deco French Normandie! The best thing about it isn't the decoration, but the donut floor plan.
No, I don't like that either.
-
I challenge someone to prove me wrong and show a picture of a building that you don't think is crap. I'm curious as there is a more serious and disturbing conclusion.....I no longer know what looks good!
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/aaltohouse/aaltohouse1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/aaltohouse/index.html&h=328&w=430&sz=97&hl=en&start=60&tbnid=rhAYgvfwdvk2mM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Daalto%26start%3D40%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
Here's my old (1936) Modernist answer to your question. Alvar Aalto's supremely liivable architecture, well constructed, nice mix of materials and textures. Relationship to nature, without imitation. There are thousands of houses like this worldwide, which isn't all that many if you think about it. Style is not important---in fact fashion in architecture is really more of a problem than a solution. "Magazine architecture" only encourages style over substance and durability (engineering and construction). What's "hot" most likely is not. Siza in Portugal is a great architect. Or Correa in India. Ando in Japan, who is not even trained in architecture is a poet in concrete. If you like much older stuff, try the old Scottish Modernism of the Charles Rennie Mackintosh. BTW: I live in a fake Normandie duplex in LA constructed in 1938, so it's Art Deco French Normandie! The best thing about it isn't the decoration, but the donut floor plan. In case you think I am anti-American the work of the 1930s thru 40s by California's William Wurster is a favorite of mine. The best houses constructed around LA were by two Viennese, Rudolf Schindler and Richard Neutra. Or native, John Lautner. All long dead. These guys are just the cream of the crop from my point of view.
-
Kind of my point though. Anything built after 1940 is crap. Although I do think the new stadium for the Braves in Wisconsin is nice..
R
-
Check this crap out in London
I am rather fond of that particular pile of "crap" ;)
I love the Tate Modern .. and they have crap in a tin can (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/06/30/nart30.xml) (which I am not so fond of), which they pass off as art (I am pretty sure I don't) and value more highly than gold (which is in itself rather tacky and highly overrated, but strangely seems to please the classless masses).
I think most architecture of the 50s, 60s and 70s was soulless, pretty ghastly and fails to stand the test of time.
I think most architecture from most times was probably pretty soulless, shoddy, ghastly and failed to stand the test of time .. and that we would be very wrong to assume that the old buildings that are preserved are necessarily representative of everything (or even most) that was built in their day; rather than just the preserved good examples of what hasn't been demolished (because it was crap), fell down (because it was shoddy) or got flattened in war.
I think there is SOME outstanding modern architecture that will stand the test of time .. and, like in any time, a lot that isn't and wont.
Anything built after 1940 is crap.
I also think that many of the sweeping and deliberately provocative statements made by some people are just like much of the architecture of ANY time: UNADULTERATED CRAP!.
Oh .. and by the way: HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_St_Mary_Axe) is a modern building I really like and think is the antonym of crap.
-
Ahh the London Pickle......a timeless piece of crap.
I honestly can't find an example of an old building that fell down because it was crap - although I am sure there are one or two. Point is that there are more of them now and when people try and be 'modern' with design they normally come up with something that is utter rubbish. Maybe the architects should listen to the sweeping comments of the "classless masses" as we are the ones who have to use the geographic warts they produce...
R
-
awww, I kinda like the Gherkin, especially when it was given a starring role in Basic Instinct 2.
-
I like architecture of all types. Doesn't matter to me what era or type.
-
I honestly can't find an example of an old building that fell down because it was crap
Well you obviously didn't try very hard then .. because it wouldn't have suited your purpose to discover that they have been erecting crap since we crawled out of our caves ;)
-
No doubt, just there appears to be more of it now...I guess that was partly my point. Anyhow, it's not only about them falling down (even though you dragged the discussion to that) it's about looking like they weren't just thrown together out of glass and steel and given some pretentious title.
Them : What I was trying to achieve was greatness and superiority while at the same time allowing the sun to light up the inner floor only on my birthday
Me : Yeah, looks rubbish and it's cold inside.
R
-
Ahh the London Pickle......a timeless piece of crap.
I honestly can't find an example of an old building that fell down because it was crap - although I am sure there are one or two. Point is that there are more of them now and when people try and be 'modern' with design they normally come up with something that is utter rubbish. Maybe the architects should listen to the sweeping comments of the "classless masses" as we are the ones who have to use the geographic warts they produce...
R
I quite like the Swiss Re building and think it will stand the test of time. If we had been having this discussion in the 50-60's we'd all be shuddering in horror that you admired the overwrought Victorian and Edwardian piles. Shoddy quality had more to do with the fast pace of rebuilding London after WWII than the design of the buildings.
Are you limiting you critique just to London? If not here are some great modernist buildings:
http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/torontocityhall/
http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/marinacity/index.htm
-
To be Victorian, the building has to be built in the Victorian Era...and not after the war so I wouldn't be admiring the shoddy concrete piles that were thrown up as a response to bomb damage....actually that's kind of my point. If you want Bomb damage replacements that really turn the stomach, then look no further at Coventry and Birmingham. The Bull-ring shopping center in Birmingham was about the worst possible thing you could do to a city....put the roads in the air and bury the walkways.
(http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/52766967.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=F87433A2638E5F911C6D261D086CCC09284831B75F48EF45)
Old Birmingham Bullring...
Several years, hundreds of jokes and a billion pound later they finally figured out that it should have been the other way around. However instead of a meaningful building they erected a large metal pillow.
(http://www.mondiale.co.uk/mondoarc/arcpics/bham1.GIF) A recent poll suggested that the masses think it is horrible....I agree. Looks like a metal cat.
I don't like Goldberg's landmark corncobs either...although they are better than most and qualify as structures that don't turn the stomach. They are at least unique enough but I don't know what people who live there think. Toronto is a nice city and, like the new tower blocks in Vancouver, it qualifies as "passable".
If you read up a little, I did say that I found the new Brewers stadium actually quite nice.
(http://www.baseball-statistics.com/Ballparks/Mil/stadium.jpg) I class this one as "good"
R.
-
(http://data.greatbuildings.com/gbc/images/cid_1107570533_London8690f.jpg)
-
Hey, not only do the British know how to design buildings, but they are the best at marshalling their fighter jets in a way that no other country would try...I'm still wondering why they bothered..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3f0YbQDxp0& (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3f0YbQDxp0&)
-
The architecture doesn't turn the stomach as much as that music in the link from James Blunt does. Ick.
And I like that giant pickle looking thingy.