New York sacrificing its heritage and unique flair - an affront to its grand historical cityscape? Dumb York?

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by socrates#1fan

I have to disagree. There were a few vague gothic elements (especially at the lobby), but that didn't change the fact that it was literally just a tall box. No, it isn't art-deco. Art-Deco towers almost always are formed in the pencil shape (Think Empire State building) which appeals to human senses.

We should not let our sympathy and emotions get in the way of our aesthetics. The WTC was loved because it was massive and then after 9/11, it was deified.


Anyone with a real appreciation and knowledge of architecture can differentiate what is good architecture, and what their text book told them was good architecture.

I never claimed the towers were art deco, I said that the 3WTC structure had some art deco elements. ( look at far left of this picture)

Originally Posted by Chapelo

Domination

image hosted on flickr

New York - World Trade Center by waldo posth, on Flickr

Also, 9/11 had nothing to do with the twin towers being my favourite structures of all time, since they I loved them even before 911. I'd have visited WTC over the Empire state building any day. Even if Empire state building was taller.

[erbse]

You said the old WTC had "Gothic elements" which is a difference. But anyway, this is not the place to discuss the old Twins.

Originally Posted by Hudson11

as long as there are sections of the city like this

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8179/8...08fddc07_b.jpg

i don't mind seeing a few older buildings razed.

Sure, one of these areas should be enough, let's raze the rest.

Btw, that gorgeous ensemble was heavily threatened by that abomination called 1 Madison Square (thin box in the upper left). Several historical townhouses from the 19th century were torn down for it.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Beauty is a subjective concept when it comes to design styles. You can't define objectively what is beautiful and what is not. Thus, the market should be left alone in that regard (as in deciding if a full-glass cover or a fake-brownstone façade are better, for instance).

Concrete or glass box is ugly no matter how you look at it.

[ThatOneGuy]

It's painful to see such broad generalizations. This thread is very one sided and disrespectful, judging by some of the comments on here. Especially the title, which is sickening. How can you call people dumb for disagreeing with your tastes?

[El_Greco]

I didnt call anyone dumb. And yes concrete/glass boxes, or in other words majority of modern architecture, is indeed ugly and with no aesthetic qualities whatsoever. It simply does not compare with the pre WWII architecture. For instance -

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=855

[ThatOneGuy]

I meant 'you' as a generalization, as in all non-modernists who call people dumb for disagreeing with their tastes. Like the title of the thread. (This thread itself is pretty pathetic, too)

I find simplicity and soaring lines aesthetic qualities. I find it compares to pre WWII architecture. See? It's all subjective. There is no definitive saying on what taste is right or wrong.

Also, I've always wondered why people call them concrete boxes, when 90% of the boxes I've seen were clad in granite, marble, or limestone? It's like saying the Empire State Building has a concrete facade.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

it compares to pre WWII architecture.

No, it doesn't.

[ThatOneGuy]

That rebuttal of yours just made me change my entire taste in architecture! Thank you for enlightening me, o wise teacher!

[Suburbanist]

The issue with modern (not only modernist per se) architecture that many people (and SSC forumers) seem to ignore is that the only reason certain elements prevailed well into mid-18th century was the lack of engineering advances that brought new materials (= precast concrete, large glass panels, steel framed structures), new means of vertical transportation (= elevator/lifts), new means to convey light (= distributed electricity) etc.

So when you had a sudden stream of technological advances, many possibilities were opened. To dismiss anything that doesn't evoke the past as "lame" or "ugly" is just a product of recent (post mid-1970s) nostalgia. It is a similar process that made many people in the 1950s, for instance, to mock and despise music made with electric instruments instead of merely acoustic-mechanical ones; or people 10 years ago dismissing digital photography as lame and "soulless" in favor of developable photo film techniques. And there are people who still whine that engine burners were better than electronic-controlled fuel injection on cars. The list goes on.

This assumption that anything older than WW2 is automatically full of "personality" or "character" and thus inherently better than any modern contemporary non-retro building is an emotion-based reaction founded on general cultural nostalgia. And some cities are almost obsessed in fossilizing themselves, in terms of architecture, sometime in the 19th Century or early 20th century.

[ThatOneGuy]

If people build new skyscrapers in the old style, to retain so-called "character" or whatever these old men on this forum call it, they should learn how to design them properly. Otherwise buildings like this end up getting built:






They want postmodernism, they should build like THIS:





image hosted on flickr

by berlin-en-ligne

Those types of buildings would be amazing in NYC. But modernism should be no less looked down upon for them. The only modernist buildings I dislike in NYC are the three large ones, 1/2 New York Plaza and 55 Water.

[RegentHouse]

I don't hate modernism and art deco, but I think they fit much better in newer cities like Los Angeles, Denver, and most within Texas. The only exception would probably be Boston because I really like the Prudential Center and Hancock Place.

Yes the Seagram Building is nice, but I still hate the plaza. The funny thing is, the reason it's built so well is because the addition of said plaza allowed it to be without that stupid wedding cake design. Seriously, I wouldn't mind seeing a swath of post-1916 buildings ripped down if a healthy mixture of modernist and postmodernist styles take their places. It certainly would've been far more exciting to build the world's tallest in the 1920s if that stupid zoning code was never in place.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

That rebuttal of yours just made me change my entire taste in architecture! Thank you for enlightening me, o wise teacher!

So clever and witty, except nowhere was I trying to change your taste, merely making a statement that majority of modern buildings are ugly. And guess what? They are! These words describe them the best - dull, bland, arrogant, ugly, with no redeaming features and no aesthetic qualities either.



Only a small minority would find this attractive, most either wouldnt notice it, because its just another glass box, or find it absolutely ugly. Maybe that makes them hopeless nostalgics with no taste? Hardly.

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

the only reason certain elements prevailed well into mid-18th century was the lack of engineering advances

I guarantee you that if Georgians had modern technology they would not be building boxes.

is just a product of recent (post mid-1970s) nostalgia.

Favourite line of the modernists - just accuse any critics of being hopeless nostalgics who dont know shit.

This assumption that anything older than WW2 is automatically full of "personality" or "character" and thus inherently better than any modern contemporary non-retro building is an emotion-based reaction founded on general cultural nostalgia.

You said the same thing twice in the same post! Once again you betray your complete lack of understanding of human psyche. Perhaps I shouldnt be surprised, youre, after all, the man who wishes more social control and considers any kind of rebellion or alternative lifestyle (graffiti, hipsters etc) not as merely unwanted but criminal too. People dont hate modernism because of their lack of taste or understanding, they hate it because majority of modernist buildings are not human. They have no beauty, no aesthetics, no grace, elegance or interest. They are just there plonked in the middle of the city with no consideration or respect for their surroundings.

Decoration is not pointless or superfluous. Its essential. People love beauty and they need it. Modernists deliberately avoid it, even mock it. People have been trying to create beauty for as long as they have been roaming the Earth. The cave painters, for instance, could have just left their cave walls blank and natural, but they didnt. They made an effort to improve their surroundings. Its the same when school children customize their bikes or make little drawings in their notebooks.

Since the first buildings went up architecture has been following the same principles, trying to improve and outdo the stuff that came before them, but always taking inspiration from the past and having respect for it. Then, abruptly, modernists came - "stop being such nostalgics" they said, "lets tear them all down".

These buildings are from different eras (Medieval to late Victorian) and despite their visual differences they, nevertheless, create a harmonious whole (even Art-Deco and some 50s buildings would fit in there) and thats, because they all employed similar architectural language. Modernist would have destroyed the whole street for some nightmarish concrete building or plonked it arrogantly in the middle with no consideration, thus destroying the harmony.

image hosted on flickr

Fleet Street by EricP2x, on Flickr

And some cities are almost obsessed in fossilizing themselves, in terms of architecture, sometime in the 19th Century or early 20th century.

Hardly. It simply shows the lack of faith in modern architecture. Attractive modern buildings are rare, attractive old buildings are common.

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

If people build new skyscrapers in the old style, to retain so-called "character" or whatever these old men on this forum call it, they should learn how to design them properly. Otherwise buildings like this end up getting built.

Oh the irony! The guy who complained of modernists being insulted now goes and insults those who dont like modernism!

[ThatOneGuy]

One half-insult comment/joke and they go crazy, but they can still call an entire group of people stupid for disagreeing with their tastes. Seems fair.
That glass building is gorgeous, BTW. What's ugly is the building way in the back of the picture.

With very few exceptions, have I seen buildings like those torn down for modern architecture except for maybe in communist Russia, (at least today). Most old buildings I've seen torn down were nothing special. For example, Penn Hotel is just another building that nobody will look twice at. And the buildings that 1715 Broadway and 250W55th replaced from the 20s-40s were even ugly. 432 Park should have been built elsewhere, and left the Drake and those other small buildings alone.

I think brutalist blocks gave modernism a bad name.
These are ugly:



These are beauties






Maybe you like details?

[El_Greco]

No it really isnt, its a box with no redeaming features whatsoever that youll find in any city on the planet, it looks bland, it looks dull and temporary, it adds nothing of interest to the street, you dont even notice it when you pass it and if you do its only because of its sheer ugliness, it does not compare in any way, shape or form with pre WWII buildings.

Modernist love calling their critics as backwards or stuck in the past, but if you look at these photo its quite obvious that it is them that made a breathtaking leap backwards -

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=855

The thing is, I dont despise, modern architecture I like it, however I cant stand lazy and boring architecture and sadly majority of modern buildings are exactly like that.

[The Cake On BBQ]

I think the personality of modern buildings is that they have o personality at all Which is why I like them. I used to hate modernism too, but I started to appreciate shiny glasses, sunshine and clear lines more and their attribution for unity and normality. I still like historical buildings with beautiful ornaments, and I'm by all means against demolishing them. But why being stuck in the past?

We certainly created a better civilisation than our ancestors, and we should start appreciating it.

Modern buildings may look beautiful when done right. From "Dutch" and "Polish" modern architecture threads:



image hosted on flickr




image hosted on flickr







Yeah, there are plenty of ugly and boring modern buildings, but then, there are also a lot of ugly historical buildings as well. I think Versailles for example, is quite a smothering place.

[ThatOneGuy]

I notice it because I like simplicity.

Most of the new buildings you posted were not modernist. The majority were, ironically, postmodern.
These are the two I really like.
image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by The Cake On BBQ

Modern buildings may look beautiful when done right.

And how often are they done right?

[yankeesfan1000]

This thread actually irritates me. A few quick points:

-The New York Landmarks Commission has set over 27,000 individual buildings as landmarks, in addition to 107 historic districts or neighborhoods that are a minimum of several entire city blocks that are completely landmarked, all since 1965.

-LPC impose a new rule on themselves in 2006 stating they have to landmark a minimum of 16 buildings per year regardless of anything, while far exceeding that number every year since the rule.

-And just within the past 6 months the historic districts of Harlem and the East Village get expanded.

These are critical points that need to realized, and understood, in addition to the fact that a huge percentage of the buildings in the entirety of New York City date from the first half of the 20th century whenever there is a discussion about preservation in New York. How anyone could even suggest that New York doesn't care about its historic architecture is genuinely absurd, and laughable.


I also don't understand the hate for 432 Park. Apparently even the developer is still tweaking the concrete to be used in the facade, because they need it to be extra strong, but they also want it to be as white as possible and smooth as glass. I don't understand how people can hate something we know so little about. I mean, do people here honestly think we're going to get something that resembles a commie block, all while the developer charges tens of millions of dollars for apartments?


Also erbse, what you've done is you've taken one example of an old building being torn down, completely overlooked context (the points I raised in the beginning of my post), because that would run counter to your claim, and try to use it to justify a hilariously naive and frankly ignorant statement. Taking one example to use as evidence does not work. Ever. I can do the same. Take the landmarking of one building, and use it to say that New York does too much landmarking and it's holding the city back economically. You can claim anything if you use just one example.


The irony of all this is that in the renderings on the first page which are used in an attempt to show how New York has become barbaric in the manner in which it treats historic architecture, you can actually see not only individually landmarked buildings, but entire landmarked neighborhoods. I mean, come on. Are you even trying?


I think this discussion is completely backwards. New York throughout its near 400 year history has been a relentlessly commercial city, and a city that has experienced immense growth, in a mere 200 year period the city grew from roughly 100,000 residents to over 8 million. The fact that the city and its people have saved as much we have, and how we continue to preserve and protect this cities architecture to me is incredible. A lot was lost in order to have the system we have today, which is by no means perfect, but the cities embrace of the importance of historic architecture deserves mountains of credit.

[The Cake On BBQ]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

And how often are they done right?

Usually. At least in the west.

[socrates#1fan]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

Also, 9/11 had nothing to do with the twin towers being my favourite structures of all time, since they I loved them even before 911. I'd have visited WTC over the Empire state building any day. Even if Empire state building was taller.

You are entitled to your tastes. But I do not believe most humans find these types of buildings attractive.

I hope you know I'm not trying to insult you. You are entitled to your opinions just as I am my own. If everyone agreed, there would be no debate and things would get very boring very quickly around here.