I just read an interesting article from the Seattle P-I. I'm not quite sure what to think yet...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ae/344489_arch25.html?source=mypi

Seattle has never really had too many outstanding architectural examples, just some notable ones here and there. So, what's been going up recently isn't any different from what went up in the past.

Yeah, Seattle is just blah right now. All most people care about these days is how "green" a building can be.

What more do they want? From what i've seen Seattle is gorgeous and has many cool buildings, and dozens proposed waiting to be constructed. idk.

^Please read the forum rules on signatures and edit yours accordingly.

I take it your talking to taiwanesed right?

The AIA isn't aligned with public opinion about architecture. The buildings with the best reviews are often the ones the public likes the least, and vice versa. In some cases, not all of course.

The AIA isn't aligned with public opinion about architecture. The buildings with the best reviews are often the ones the public likes the least, and vice versa. In some cases, not all of course.

Once again, I'll have to agree with Mhays. Although people 'know what they like' in Seattle, we seem to go along to get along. Lets take downtown Seattle skyscrapers. If you asked most architects which building (of a certain height) that they like, most would say Two Union Square. If you asked most people on the street, they'd respond Washington Mutual Tower. WMT was designed by Kohn Pederson Fox, in the heyday of neol-classical architecture. It made a statement compared with the typical modernism, and it seemed more friendly than the Gigantism movement that Columbia Tower typified.

So, the question remains. Should we be cutting edge with our architecture? I'm not certain that most people are that interested, and I think that unless we have a developer who has a strong artistic interest in buldings, our hopes for stunning architecture will remain dim.

We will on occasion have some home runs, but I think that on average, most of our buildings will be like our populace. They'll try not to offend too much.

This is why Heron Tower reeeeaaaaalllllly needs to come to fruition.

these people probably think dubai is an attractive city. i think in a city a majority of the buildings should be pretty simple with a little something to make it a landmark to help peoploe find their way. there should be a few crazy buildings like the library mixed in there though. what i really like about heron tower and norman fosters buildings is that they're impressive without using all the weird fins and stuff like the buildings in dubai

Actually I think the public likes Two Union also. It's actually my favorite from the north, south, or west. It's an interesting shape non-architects can understand and find attractive.

Buildings architectural reviewers tend to like that the public often doesn't include Klee, the senior housing next to the Crocodile, the backside of the federal courthouse...

The public also likes the well-done cases of "historic revivalism" or whatever architects call it. Atlanta has many good highrise examples of this and I'm a little jealous.

Actually I think the public likes Two Union also. It's actually my favorite from the north, south, or west. It's an interesting shape non-architects can understand and find attractive.

Buildings architectural reviewers tend to like that the public often doesn't include Klee, the senior housing next to the Crocodile, the backside of the federal courthouse...

Interesting that you don't like the east facade of Two Union Square either. I'd like to talk to the architect and find out what was going on with this facade. I know that at the base of the structure, you're only streetscape is a sliver of being seen by the freeway, but as you rise up, I don't know, it doesn't work. I remember when the building was being built, I was sure those beige strands were temporary. I thought they looked like masking tape holding the siding on.

What I hope for architecturally significant buildings in Seattle are not necessarily the big block buildings, but better in-fill buildings. I like the Sylvia Hotel in Vancouver B.C. That's a knockout.

Two Union is just a bit thick and less inspiring from that angle. My favorites are the wavy north side and the view from First Avenue with Two Union tall and skinny behind the historic WAC.

I'd don't know your Vancouver reference, but I'd take a bunch of Vancouver-style white and glass condo towers, some with colorful, intensive retail frontages. On the retail, we don't get frontages like that because our retail is too spread out. It's gotta be concentrated to be great.

Once again, I'll have to agree with Mhays. Although people 'know what they like' in Seattle, we seem to go along to get along. Lets take downtown Seattle skyscrapers. If you asked most architects which building (of a certain height) that they like, most would say Two Union Square. If you asked most people on the street, they'd respond Washington Mutual Tower. WMT was designed by Kohn Pederson Fox, in the heyday of neol-classical architecture. It made a statement compared with the typical modernism, and it seemed more friendly than the Gigantism movement that Columbia Tower typified.

So, the question remains. Should we be cutting edge with our architecture? I'm not certain that most people are that interested, and I think that unless we have a developer who has a strong artistic interest in buldings, our hopes for stunning architecture will remain dim.

We will on occasion have some home runs, but I think that on average, most of our buildings will be like our populace. They'll try not to offend too much.
I think most cities don't get much interesting architecture when they aren't yet recognized as a great international city. Up until recently, Seattle was thought of as a nice city but not with the likes of NY, Chicago etc..now with EMP, the library and some smaller projects-Seattle's status is going higher and higher. Look at San Francisco skyscraper architecture, while the ground level buildings are amazing, most of the real tall buildings in SF aren't any more daring or interesting than Seattle's -but they are getting some interesting ones soon. For a city its size I think Seattle does quite well and will get better with time.

The AIA is retarded. They're solely evaluating our buildings regardless the criteria in which this process is carried out (which IMO, is questionable). Their definition of risk differs with what the city believes is a venture for the purpose of betterment.

Washington mutual is post modern, not neo classical.

I actually like the old Washington Mutual; looks really nice with all the special features incorporated into the design. Now the new Washington Mutual (with SAM) is just terrible. It's just what seems to be gray walls with a bunch of right angles.

Now i'm not saying we need to have world-class architecture, but at least something that doesn't say "a giant block" (if you get what i'm saying).

Anything more than that would get protested by the citizens and shot down by the design review board. sorry.

still don't understand everybodies obsession with curves crowns spires and fins are. sure they're nice, but i don't think they're what makes a building. i think the new wamu looks fine it's deffinitely not fav. it does have a nice blue glass not gray by any means and a nicely lit top.

Most of us can't explain why we like curves and peaked tops. We just do.

Taste is subjective, not scientifically measurable.

I think several buildings in the pipeline will add alot to our skyline..altho not in a monumental way because of their height. Olive 8, 1521, Hotel 1, and for some interesting 'curves' Escala, Ava, and hopefully the new Civic Center by Norman Foster ...all of these are a bit out of the 'box' that should be interesting because of color, or roof treatment. The new 500' 818 building next to the Cosmopolitan is...what can I say...too bad.

I think most cities don't get much interesting architecture when they aren't yet recognized as a great international city. Up until recently, Seattle was thought of as a nice city but not with the likes of NY, Chicago etc..now with EMP, the library and some smaller projects-Seattle's status is going higher and higher. Look at San Francisco skyscraper architecture, while the ground level buildings are amazing, most of the real tall buildings in SF aren't any more daring or interesting than Seattle's -but they are getting some interesting ones soon. For a city its size I think Seattle does quite well and will get better with time.

I agree...

Actually I think the public likes Two Union also. It's actually my favorite from the north, south, or west. It's an interesting shape non-architects can understand and find attractive.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2123/1513889888_c3e44b0773.jpg

Most of us can't explain why we like curves...
Yes, we do, don't we? :banana:

I'm sorry, I had to say it.

It had to be said!

hey some of us are buttress guys.

I think most cities don't get much interesting architecture when they aren't yet recognized as a great international city. Up until recently, Seattle was thought of as a nice city but not with the likes of NY, Chicago etc..now with EMP, the library and some smaller projects-Seattle's status is going higher and higher. Look at San Francisco skyscraper architecture, while the ground level buildings are amazing, most of the real tall buildings in SF aren't any more daring or interesting than Seattle's -but they are getting some interesting ones soon. For a city its size I think Seattle does quite well and will get better with time.


^definately^
San Fransisco's skyline is much LESS varied or interesting compared to seattles imo. they have one or two really cool buildings (trans america and that weird brown one i forgot what it was called bank of america i think) while the other 90% are all just gray boxes.

Shoot me down, but I agree with the AIA.

Two Union is just a bit thick and less inspiring from that angle. My favorites are the wavy north side and the view from First Avenue with Two Union tall and skinny behind the historic WAC.

I'd don't know your Vancouver reference, but I'd take a bunch of Vancouver-style white and glass condo towers, some with colorful, intensive retail frontages. On the retail, we don't get frontages like that because our retail is too spread out. It's gotta be concentrated to be great.

Why is it that in Seattle, retail seems chaotically spread out rather than concentrated thoughtfully along a few major thoroughfares, anyway? Actually I find that it's not so spread out as it is clustered. For example, the retail core is centred on Pike and Pine and Fifth and Sixth, not a single street.

I notice that Vancouverites refer far less to actual neighbourhoods than they do to streets, since a lot of activity is centred on thoroughfares rather than clusters of blocks (Main Street, Robson, Commercial, Granville, etc.). It's also very, very gridlike.

^
Um, if you ask me, retail in Seattle - at least downtown - is about as concentrated as you can get.

The retail district is good. But Belltown is an example of retail that's far too dispersed to be great.

^definately^
San Fransisco's skyline is much LESS varied or interesting compared to seattles imo. they have one or two really cool buildings (trans america and that weird brown one i forgot what it was called bank of america i think) while the other 90% are all just gray boxes.

Yep, the Bank of America building is really weird, it is 55 stories reddish/brown and looks like a rectangular honey-cone. I love the way it makes every office a corner office from the inside and the upper floors have amazing views.

WMT and 2 Union are both great. I love the classic appeal of WMT tho.