daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 10th, 2011, 11:07 AM   #661
s.j.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheZoolooMaster View Post
Actually it seems to me that they take so much more into consideration than you do, which limits the possibilities of architectural exploration. Get real! Look at the Burj Khalifa -- its design is essentially a result of gravity; if this building goes through, it will be one of the tallest in the world, and how do you want the architects to cover all the grounds in terms of safety, sustainability, longevity, practicality and liveability?
In any case, I for one think that the Dream Hub cluster is probably the most exceptional project under way (fingers crossed that it will happen), you've just got a very personal aesthetic preference.
Was I complaining about that specific design? And if super-tall design is so limited by safety and other requirements, perhaps it should tell them that building that tall isn't something we're ready for.

It seems to me that all you care about is how tall it is. Well, sorry, but architecture is about more than size. If an architect can't meet all the requirements, he or she shouldn't be an architect. No one said that it's easy. And besides, it whole teams that work on this, not one architect.
s.j. no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 10th, 2011, 11:36 AM   #662
s.j.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganghui View Post
Whats wrong with sci-fi like? It's 2011 and hitech, neon, electro and all that shit is all hyped again, just like it was decades ago. Seoul is already like one big spacepark so I’d say its very fitting – and cool as hell.

Neon's been around for a century. It's hardly sci-fi. Regardless, that's not what I meant at all. All I was saying is that architecture on such a big scale needs to be sensitive to it's surroundings. It's can't be something that appeals only to those that wish to fly around in a spaceship; It needs to appeal to many, and be comfortable.
Look at some historic examples of architecture that verges on sci-fi (by which I mean extremely unconventional and entirely focused on organic or angular forms). It's okay on small scale, and added as 'spice'. But on large scale, it's hard to live in. I'm NOT saying that these proposals are quite that bad, but they're not far off. And another thing, I think that it's never a good idea to have a single architect (or architectural firm) design a whole city (this is so big, that it's practically a whole neighbourhood). It rarely works, and you can tell something is missing. It's unnatural, and these no spontaneity.

So, in this case, I think that it's a bad idea to resort to a design that has a set of buildings of similar design, and varying in little more that size.. I think this should be the work of a few architects, who work together to bring some cohesion to the overall design. The layout looks good, but I'm really not sure about the buildings themselves.

As for Seoul being a space-park, it really isn't. That's just one part of it's identity. It's all about the layers (traditional, modern, poor, rich), and I find beauty even in some not classically beautiful areas. The power-lines on top, small winding alleys.

I guess my main complaint is that most of the designs don't feel like Seoul. The buildings could be anywhere. I think a little bit more of straight lines and detail is more characteristic of East Asian modern architecture. This is very... international, and not really 'finished', in my opinion. The feel of the Cocoon tower, for example, seems to me more appropriate. And the golden elongated tear-drop-like design above isn't bad, but the surrounding building are a little less impressive...
s.j. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2011, 11:46 AM   #663
s.j.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellatur View Post
i hope they change the design of that building... people are gonna continuously bring up that similarity, and the blocky design doesnt go well with the curvy design of other surrounding proposed buildings either
I think the design is excellent, but it probably needs some work... You're right, it doesn't really fit in, but that to me is more of a reason to change the other building, rather than this one. I think the final design should be made to look like the building were build separately, and not all at once. Right now most of the buildings in the individual proposals really look like they were done by the same person, and that just doesn't look good. I think there should be more designers, working within some perimeters to ensure there is some cohesion between the buildings. That way it would look better, to me at least...
s.j. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2011, 11:53 AM   #664
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

In my opinion all of the problems you mentioned above can be put into one single word .... Libeskind!

Most buildings in that huge cluster look identical to each other and identical to what he proposed at the World Trade Center (fortunately his proposal of the buuildings was dropped in that case). He either creates something chaoticaly curvy or his signature tappering roof skyscraper, or a combination of both. He also always makes sure that none of the buildings is dominating by placing similary sized buildings arround it. In my opinion the less Libeskind in that project the better
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2011, 07:10 PM   #665
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,986
Likes (Received): 1028

Internationalism, if it's not, ought to be a new school of architecture. Just like any other post-modernist design, the focus is on the buildings, not the place that they're in. Whether or not that's to your liking is one thing, but South Korea, and Seoul in particular, wants very badly to become more international (at least in the easy ways; xenophobia is still pretty common, in my experience). So it makes sense to have a development that will have people from China, Dubai, the U.S., England, etc., feel as if they're in familiar surroundings.

In any case, very little of what we've seen so far is guaranteed to be the final design, so wait to make a judgement until we've seen what's going to be built.

P.S.- korea2002 화이팅!!!
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2011, 07:52 PM   #666
korea2002
Registered User
 
korea2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Jeonju,서울,한국
Posts: 6,105
Likes (Received): 1269

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
Internationalism, if it's not, ought to be a new school of architecture. Just like any other post-modernist design, the focus is on the buildings, not the place that they're in. Whether or not that's to your liking is one thing, but South Korea, and Seoul in particular, wants very badly to become more international (at least in the easy ways; xenophobia is still pretty common, in my experience). So it makes sense to have a development that will have people from China, Dubai, the U.S., England, etc., feel as if they're in familiar surroundings.

In any case, very little of what we've seen so far is guaranteed to be the final design, so wait to make a judgement until we've seen what's going to be built.

P.S.- korea2002 화이팅!!!
감사요 한국말 하시는가봐요
korea2002 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 09:31 AM   #667
s.j.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
Internationalism, if it's not, ought to be a new school of architecture. Just like any other post-modernist design, the focus is on the buildings, not the place that they're in. Whether or not that's to your liking is one thing, but South Korea, and Seoul in particular, wants very badly to become more international (at least in the easy ways; xenophobia is still pretty common, in my experience). So it makes sense to have a development that will have people from China, Dubai, the U.S., England, etc., feel as if they're in familiar surroundings.

In any case, very little of what we've seen so far is guaranteed to be the final design, so wait to make a judgement until we've seen what's going to be built.

P.S.- korea2002 화이팅!!!
'Internationalism' is nothing new. You know those 'commie' blocs everyone is criticising, and most hate? They were part the first wave of internationalism. I actually don't hate them as much as most, but even I don't advocate preserving any more of them than is necessary. An architectural design that completely ignored not only the cultural landscape, but often also the climate of the country concerned. It resulted in unnatural, soul-sucking spaces that answered none of the requirements.

And the idea that not being yourself makes you more international is nothing more than a foul remnant of colonial and imperialist times, that I hope will disappear. Destroying what makes us unique DOES NOT bring 'world peace'. These are stupid utopian ideas with no basis in reality.

All 'internationalism' of that sort brings is a whole lot of disillusion and even more hatred. We need to preserve what we are, while not hating and respecting others, and accepting parts of other cultures on our terms. That's the true path to peace and respect. Because removing differences does not remove hatred. Those who hate will always find reason to hate (in other words, the fault is at the core, not on the surface).

That's why I think that local culture is important. No one is saying that we should resort to some faux-traditional styles, just that mindless acceptance of everything isn't the answer either. And besides, looking 'international' was far from my main concern..
s.j. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 09:32 AM   #668
inno4321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SEOUL
Posts: 5,335
Likes (Received): 12436

Quote:
Originally Posted by korea2002 View Post
감사요 한국말 하시는가봐요
I'm so sorry korea2002.
I make a new thread. I'm waiting all day what first you make ....but not yet ...so i did. Aways respect to your enthusiasm.
Rgards yours
__________________
Seoul Projects Compilation Blog

"Theory of Quantum Mechanics, theory of Inflation, M-theory imply Multiverses. Probably We're a part of Infinity&Nothing" inno4321
inno4321 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 09:52 AM   #669
s.j.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
In my opinion all of the problems you mentioned above can be put into one single word .... Libeskind!

Most buildings in that huge cluster look identical to each other and identical to what he proposed at the World Trade Center (fortunately his proposal of the buuildings was dropped in that case). He either creates something chaoticaly curvy or his signature tappering roof skyscraper, or a combination of both. He also always makes sure that none of the buildings is dominating by placing similary sized buildings arround it. In my opinion the less Libeskind in that project the better

Don't get me wrong. I'm not normally this critical, and I would never criticise another's work so strongly, but there is nothing normal about this. this isn't some house, or a small office block. This is practically a whole city, and it really can't be treated so sloppily.

You're right, Libeskind's design is just horrible. Too much replication, to many wrong ideas, too much average.. If it was some small project, fine, but this is HUGE. Even in Seoul, a city so huge, and with so many different centres (in most cities you have one centre, and houses elsewhere. In Seoul it feels like you are in the city no matter where you are), a project like this is bound to make an impact. That is why it can't be just 'okay' or average (and some of these designs are below average). I can't understand why Libeskind doesn't realise that a project like this needs a centre-peace. It needs a focal point to have an impact (and it needs to have an impact; that's practically the whole point of the project), and this just looks like a cluster of clones and mini-clones.

I agree, less Libeskind=good. I also think that not too much of one person=good. It just look so artificial when only one person does it. I don't think it's ever worked, to be honest..

And another thing that makes me angry is that many (if not all) of the proposals seem to come from those big architectural firms (they're the architectural equivalent of those big multinationals).. I mean, that's okay in some ways, they have a lot experience and resources, but it also results in very mass-produced looking architecture. I see very little variation in some of their designs... And I feel that other architects, whose proposals might even be better than these, are ignored because these companies and architects are such 'big names'. It might not be the case, but I can't believe that these are the top proposals...

ANYWAY, I do hope something get's built. There have been so many proposals for Seoul, but the financial crisis has been causing problems..
s.j. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 11:23 AM   #670
inno4321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SEOUL
Posts: 5,335
Likes (Received): 12436

Quote:
Originally Posted by s.j. View Post
Don't get me wrong. I'm not normally this critical, and I would never criticise another's work so strongly, but there is nothing normal about this. this isn't some house, or a small office block. This is practically a whole city, and it really can't be treated so sloppily.

You're right, Libeskind's design is just horrible. Too much replication, to many wrong ideas, too much average.. If it was some small project, fine, but this is HUGE. Even in Seoul, a city so huge, and with so many different centres (in most cities you have one centre, and houses elsewhere. In Seoul it feels like you are in the city no matter where you are), a project like this is bound to make an impact. That is why it can't be just 'okay' or average (and some of these designs are below average). I can't understand why Libeskind doesn't realise that a project like this needs a centre-peace. It needs a focal point to have an impact (and it needs to have an impact; that's practically the whole point of the project), and this just looks like a cluster of clones and mini-clones.

I agree, less Libeskind=good. I also think that not too much of one person=good. It just look so artificial when only one person does it. I don't think it's ever worked, to be honest..

And another thing that makes me angry is that many (if not all) of the proposals seem to come from those big architectural firms (they're the architectural equivalent of those big multinationals).. I mean, that's okay in some ways, they have a lot experience and resources, but it also results in very mass-produced looking architecture. I see very little variation in some of their designs... And I feel that other architects, whose proposals might even be better than these, are ignored because these companies and architects are such 'big names'. It might not be the case, but I can't believe that these are the top proposals...

ANYWAY, I do hope something get's built. There have been so many proposals for Seoul, but the financial crisis has been causing problems..
I agree with you big global worldwide architecture firm is like a "mass-produced looking architecture". I think like a mass copy car.
That is weak point of big firm such like a adrian, daniel, piano etc.

But i expect some kind of creative and innovative design. Because IBD is center of seoul and is going to symbol of seoul like pari effiel tower, sydnye opera house,

By the way IBD's design amount is 77% belong to korea architecture firm(samoo, heerim ect). 33% belong to foreign(adrian, lenzo piano)
__________________
Seoul Projects Compilation Blog

"Theory of Quantum Mechanics, theory of Inflation, M-theory imply Multiverses. Probably We're a part of Infinity&Nothing" inno4321
inno4321 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 11:38 AM   #671
korea2002
Registered User
 
korea2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Jeonju,서울,한국
Posts: 6,105
Likes (Received): 1269

Quote:
Originally Posted by inno4321 View Post
I'm so sorry korea2002.
I make a new thread. I'm waiting all day what first you make ....but not yet ...so i did. Aways respect to your enthusiasm.
Rgards yours
No thanks. thank you for knowing my Enthusiasm. but,I think,Why don't you change new threads about Yongsan IBD?

Seoul - Yongsan Boutique Office Tower
Seoul - Yongsan Clouds

is it okay?

Regards inno4321
korea2002 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 03:22 PM   #672
s.j.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by inno4321 View Post
I agree with you big global worldwide architecture firm is like a "mass-produced looking architecture". I think like a mass copy car.
That is weak point of big firm such like a adrian, daniel, piano etc.

But i expect some kind of creative and innovative design. Because IBD is center of seoul and is going to symbol of seoul like pari effiel tower, sydnye opera house,

By the way IBD's design amount is 77% belong to korea architecture firm(samoo, heerim ect). 33% belong to foreign(adrian, lenzo piano)
Exactly, it's too commercial. That's just how those big companies operate. They try to be appealing to all, and end up not being appealing to anyone.

I agree that more Korean architects need to be involved, but I don't think that ratio is right. I don't think there should be a ratio. I think good design should come first, and simply being from a big company shouldn't guaranty a proposal's success. Look at all the 'top proposals'. They're almost all from rather big and/or established architects, and I don't think that it's simply a coincidence. I may be wrong, but it seems to me as though their big names played a big part in their success in this project...

Also, I agree that this is a project of ENORMOUS importance to Seoul. These building will become a permanent and prominent feature of Seoul's skyline, and that alone is reason enough to be extremely picky.
s.j. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 04:07 PM   #673
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,986
Likes (Received): 1028

I would only recommend that temper your disappointment a bit; look at the vast majority of other skyscrapers, not only in Seoul, but throughout most of South Korea. There's very little that's very innovative. And most Korean architectual firms operate, well, like you'd expect any organization that exists to make a profit (you can hardly blame the Seoul metropolitan government and various other companies that have invested some 20 billion USD for behaving the same way). They create very safe proposals that they know will sell easily once built because they're basically vanilla pudding. If you want to know what the product of the vast majority of those firms look like, I suggest you trawl around some of the various Korean skyscraper projects that have not been picked up to get a feel of what I'm talking about.

And I agree with you that it'd be nice to see a bit of whatever Korean/modern fusion architecture would look like. But then...what would that look like? The building closest to what I'd picture is something like Taipei 101, basically a giant pagoda. That's the difficulty in trying to bring any non-Western influence into what is essentially a Western invention. It's hard to do so without it ending up looking either repetitive or contrived. And going down the other route of just using modern/post-modern architecture as interpreted by a Korean, I'd look at Mass Studies (their website is quite good). They have a lot of very unique proposals, many of which I think are very neat, but how might one pull the "Korean-ness" out of them to see what that is?

I agree that in many cases, the focus in cities around the world on height in order to draw attention has negative consequences for architecture, and I'd far rather have Seoul build a few dozen shorter but exquisitely-designed towers that keep it from seeming nouveau-riche, but the priorities for this project are what they are. There's not much we can do about that.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 05:03 PM   #674
s.j.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
I would only recommend that temper your disappointment a bit; look at the vast majority of other skyscrapers, not only in Seoul, but throughout most of South Korea. There's very little that's very innovative. And most Korean architectual firms operate, well, like you'd expect any organization that exists to make a profit (you can hardly blame the Seoul metropolitan government and various other companies that have invested some 20 billion USD for behaving the same way). They create very safe proposals that they know will sell easily once built because they're basically vanilla pudding. If you want to know what the product of the vast majority of those firms look like, I suggest you trawl around some of the various Korean skyscraper projects that have not been picked up to get a feel of what I'm talking about.

And I agree with you that it'd be nice to see a bit of whatever Korean/modern fusion architecture would look like. But then...what would that look like? The building closest to what I'd picture is something like Taipei 101, basically a giant pagoda. That's the difficulty in trying to bring any non-Western influence into what is essentially a Western invention. It's hard to do so without it ending up looking either repetitive or contrived. And going down the other route of just using modern/post-modern architecture as interpreted by a Korean, I'd look at Mass Studies (their website is quite good). They have a lot of very unique proposals, many of which I think are very neat, but how might one pull the "Korean-ness" out of them to see what that is?

I agree that in many cases, the focus in cities around the world on height in order to draw attention has negative consequences for architecture, and I'd far rather have Seoul build a few dozen shorter but exquisitely-designed towers that keep it from seeming nouveau-riche, but the priorities for this project are what they are. There's not much we can do about that.

I don't quite get the point. I wasn't criticising Korean companies, I was criticising the multinationals (or big enough to be the architectural equivalent of a multinational) for not being sensitive to the requirements of the project (or, to make it more politically correct, my personal opinion of what the requirements are, or should be).

I don't agree that skyscrapers are a 'western thing', nor am I only saying this in relation to Korea. I would be just as critical if these were proposals for New York. New York has a certain cultural and urban character that would be harmed by massive scale infusion of a radically different architectural form (namely blobs and spaghetti-stile spires of some of these proposals). So does Seoul, and many other places.

Korean-ness, or any other x-ness, is not solely about some faux-traditional-meets-modern architecture. It's about spaces, colours, arrangements, details. No one is saying that Korean, or for that matter American, or anything else, is that which is purely and solely 'native' (whatever that might be). The international style of today is everyone's, and what might make it local is how it responds to the environment. Look at Sears tower. There's nothing that makes it really specifically 'American', is there. I'm not saying that it's an architectural masterpiece, but at least the architect looked around, realised that straight lines were a better idea that curves, took many things into consideration, and came up with a reasonably-fitting structure.

Here I'm pretty much shocked by the most basic 'line choice', let alone the rest. It doesn't respond to the surroundings, and that is what makes it look alien (not the absence of a hanok-style roof).

I don't think that the skyscrapers make Seoul look 'nouveau-riche', nor do I see skyscrapers as solely a status symbol, not that that is such a deadly sin, either. This project is, of course, about more than just providing office, shopping or living space. It should be about beautifying the city, and adding to the city's identity (and it's not up to the developer to decide if they want that. It's too big for a developer to decide 'I don't care if it's ugly'), just as the skyscrapers of New York, or the Haussmann's rebuilding of Paris, or the Bund in Shanghai, added to, or even created, the identities of those cities.

When you build this big, you are doing more that creating space, you are reshaping the city's whole skyline. It's not like an ugly house that is invisible once you leave the street. If this is built ugly, it will remain ugly, and be visible from practically every angle, forever scaring every view, every photo, every postcard.

Sorry for typing so much..
s.j. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 05:44 PM   #675
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

I agree with you folks that a skyscraper must be designed as a balance between the modern and the traditional. While a skyscraper should be as dominating as possible, it's design should not be very different from the design of the smaller buildings arround it. I don't think this is a matter of nationalities or culture, but more like a matter of the cities themselves. For example the Burj Khalifa, while an incredibly beautiful building would look completely alien in New York of Shanghai but it looks good in Dubai.

One thing I would like to mention is that the tallest building in a city gets more design freedom because it is the most important factor determining what is alien and what not in a skyline, though not the only factor. However, if you have other, older tall buildings arround the range of possible designs that are not alien decreases.

As I mentioned in my first sentence, a carefull balance between modern and traditional has to be maintained in a building. If an architect focuses only on being traditional, he will make an ugly kitsch like ugly Abby in Mecca. On the other hand if he focuses only on being modern he will make an even far uglier abomination like the Slaughterhotel in Pyongyang. Both of these buildings are incredibly ugly and completely alien in their citie's skylines.

As a final note I'd like to post my opinion about what way should Seoul's architecture look like. Atm Seoul has none really tall buildings so the current projects will estabilishe what style's the city gonna pick. The most important style direction giving building is in my opinion gonna be the Lotte Super Tower because it's the first one to rise. I think the buildings in this complex should try to look similar to the Super Tower in order to create something that is a true signature of Seoul. And it should be noted that the Super tower is one of the best designs I ever saw so I think if Seoul's gonna go this way it will look very good
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 07:19 PM   #676
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,986
Likes (Received): 1028

Quote:
Originally Posted by s.j. View Post
I don't quite get the point. I wasn't criticising Korean companies, I was criticising the multinationals (or big enough to be the architectural equivalent of a multinational) for not being sensitive to the requirements of the project (or, to make it more politically correct, my personal opinion of what the requirements are, or should be).

I don't agree that skyscrapers are a 'western thing', nor am I only saying this in relation to Korea. I would be just as critical if these were proposals for New York. New York has a certain cultural and urban character that would be harmed by massive scale infusion of a radically different architectural form (namely blobs and spaghetti-stile spires of some of these proposals). So does Seoul, and many other places.

Korean-ness, or any other x-ness, is not solely about some faux-traditional-meets-modern architecture. It's about spaces, colours, arrangements, details. No one is saying that Korean, or for that matter American, or anything else, is that which is purely and solely 'native' (whatever that might be). The international style of today is everyone's, and what might make it local is how it responds to the environment. Look at Sears tower. There's nothing that makes it really specifically 'American', is there. I'm not saying that it's an architectural masterpiece, but at least the architect looked around, realised that straight lines were a better idea that curves, took many things into consideration, and came up with a reasonably-fitting structure.

Here I'm pretty much shocked by the most basic 'line choice', let alone the rest. It doesn't respond to the surroundings, and that is what makes it look alien (not the absence of a hanok-style roof).

I don't think that the skyscrapers make Seoul look 'nouveau-riche', nor do I see skyscrapers as solely a status symbol, not that that is such a deadly sin, either. This project is, of course, about more than just providing office, shopping or living space. It should be about beautifying the city, and adding to the city's identity (and it's not up to the developer to decide if they want that. It's too big for a developer to decide 'I don't care if it's ugly'), just as the skyscrapers of New York, or the Haussmann's rebuilding of Paris, or the Bund in Shanghai, added to, or even created, the identities of those cities.

When you build this big, you are doing more that creating space, you are reshaping the city's whole skyline. It's not like an ugly house that is invisible once you leave the street. If this is built ugly, it will remain ugly, and be visible from practically every angle, forever scaring every view, every photo, every postcard.

Sorry for typing so much....(Not at all; it's nice to talk.)
Well, it seems to me, then, as though you might be complaining less than you think. Besides, what does it really mean for a building to "respond" to its surroundings?

I think what I said in my first response to you probably best sums up the problem.
a. Yongsan-gu is essentially being totally remade from below-ground up. Unless you're talking about the city as a whole, it hasn't got an environment to respond to.
b. Seoul is often, sometimes unfairly but not wrongly, criticized for not having any particularly defining traits or areas, save perhaps for Gangnam, the 63 Building or Namsan Tower.

That's another reason why I absolutely agree with the importance you ascribe to this project. This isn't just "a" project in Seoul, it is the project, and will probably be Seoul's trademark panorama shot for decades to come. Which is why you ought to understand the why development company went to big name architects; it wanted to make sure that they got this design from someone with a reputation for good design, whether or not the reputation is deserved. If the design firm chosen proceeded to make something subpar, that's another issue. And it's worth noting again that we've seen very few of the 50+ towers that are going to be built.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 11:42 PM   #677
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,760
Likes (Received): 10143

this is now a megatall
https://store.ctbuh.org/p-91-future-...0-in-2020.aspx
__________________
Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2020.. https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2011, 08:01 AM   #678
s.j.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
Well, it seems to me, then, as though you might be complaining less than you think. Besides, what does it really mean for a building to "respond" to its surroundings?

I think what I said in my first response to you probably best sums up the problem.
a. Yongsan-gu is essentially being totally remade from below-ground up. Unless you're talking about the city as a whole, it hasn't got an environment to respond to.
b. Seoul is often, sometimes unfairly but not wrongly, criticized for not having any particularly defining traits or areas, save perhaps for Gangnam, the 63 Building or Namsan Tower.

That's another reason why I absolutely agree with the importance you ascribe to this project. This isn't just "a" project in Seoul, it is the project, and will probably be Seoul's trademark panorama shot for decades to come. Which is why you ought to understand the why development company went to big name architects; it wanted to make sure that they got this design from someone with a reputation for good design, whether or not the reputation is deserved. If the design firm chosen proceeded to make something subpar, that's another issue. And it's worth noting again that we've seen very few of the 50+ towers that are going to be built.
By 'respond' I mean take into consideration it's surroundings, and the city's character.

a)Yongsan-gu is having a large portion remade, but that portion isn't the whole area. And besides, Yongsan-gu is part of Seoul. Unless these buildings become invisible once you leave Yongsan-gu, which they don't, the architects do have to take the city's character into consideration.

b)It might be criticised, but I actually love Seoul for that very fact. It isn't a city with one big centre, and nothing but living space outside it. It's a city with a more 'spread' plan. Many cities have literally nothing once you leave the immediate centre, but Seoul does. That is part of it's character, and part of it's charm, and it shouldn't be mindlessly altered just because it's not 'like other cities'.

This is certainly an important project, put to me it's much more so because of the skyline, than because it creates space Seoul is missing. I know that many might be underwhelmed by some of Seoul's older towers, but I actually REALLY like the atmosphere they create, and I would hate it if those in power chose an excessively organic/spaghetti-like design, which would clash with what is already there.

Imagine Burj Khalifa in in Tokyo, or Hong Kong? It would look absolutely horrible, and it's the same with some of these designs.

That is why I'm put off by what seems to be excessive emphasis on big names. I would love to see some more original and appropriate designs, no matter who they come from, but I'm afraid that a big name will be chosen no matter what...

Anyway, let's hope for the best
s.j. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2011, 08:13 AM   #679
s.j.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
I agree with you folks that a skyscraper must be designed as a balance between the modern and the traditional. While a skyscraper should be as dominating as possible, it's design should not be very different from the design of the smaller buildings arround it. I don't think this is a matter of nationalities or culture, but more like a matter of the cities themselves. For example the Burj Khalifa, while an incredibly beautiful building would look completely alien in New York of Shanghai but it looks good in Dubai.

One thing I would like to mention is that the tallest building in a city gets more design freedom because it is the most important factor determining what is alien and what not in a skyline, though not the only factor. However, if you have other, older tall buildings arround the range of possible designs that are not alien decreases.

As I mentioned in my first sentence, a carefull balance between modern and traditional has to be maintained in a building. If an architect focuses only on being traditional, he will make an ugly kitsch like ugly Abby in Mecca. On the other hand if he focuses only on being modern he will make an even far uglier abomination like the Slaughterhotel in Pyongyang. Both of these buildings are incredibly ugly and completely alien in their citie's skylines.

As a final note I'd like to post my opinion about what way should Seoul's architecture look like. Atm Seoul has none really tall buildings so the current projects will estabilishe what style's the city gonna pick. The most important style direction giving building is in my opinion gonna be the Lotte Super Tower because it's the first one to rise. I think the buildings in this complex should try to look similar to the Super Tower in order to create something that is a true signature of Seoul. And it should be noted that the Super tower is one of the best designs I ever saw so I think if Seoul's gonna go this way it will look very good
I agree with what you're saying. This is an INCREDIBLY important project, and one that will inevitably dictate future Seoul skyline development (assuming they don't want things to clash), but I ABSOLUTELY disagree with the assessment that Seoul is somehow a 'blank slate', because it might not have existing supertalls (which few cities do). By that logic you could build anything in the older quarters Paris, because most of the structures there are not skyscrapers. OF COURSE, that isn't the case, and it's the same here. Every city, every culture, has it's own brand of modern, and you simply can't 'drop' just any design. I'm not saying I have a definitive solution, but I feel that the designs all have SOMETHING that makes them not quite right. I think they need more clean lines, because at this point they seem... experimental. And you simply don't experiment on SUCH a big scale.

Yeah, faux-traditional style isn't good, but I don't mind it in small doses. It can give some 'spice' when done right. Any style can be nice if done right, and I just don't think these designs are 'right'. They may look beautiful in some ways, but I'm worried, that's all...
s.j. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2011, 10:59 AM   #680
inno4321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SEOUL
Posts: 5,335
Likes (Received): 12436

Quote:
Originally Posted by s.j. View Post
I agree with what you're saying. This is an INCREDIBLY important project, and one that will inevitably dictate future Seoul skyline development (assuming they don't want things to clash), but I ABSOLUTELY disagree with the assessment that Seoul is somehow a 'blank slate', because it might not have existing supertalls (which few cities do). By that logic you could build anything in the older quarters Paris, because most of the structures there are not skyscrapers. OF COURSE, that isn't the case, and it's the same here. Every city, every culture, has it's own brand of modern, and you simply can't 'drop' just any design. I'm not saying I have a definitive solution, but I feel that the designs all have SOMETHING that makes them not quite right. I think they need more clean lines, because at this point they seem... experimental. And you simply don't experiment on SUCH a big scale.

Yeah, faux-traditional style isn't good, but I don't mind it in small doses. It can give some 'spice' when done right. Any style can be nice if done right, and I just don't think these designs are 'right'. They may look beautiful in some ways, but I'm worried, that's all...
Dear s.j.
I read your above all comment.
I'm deeply aapreciated for your "enthusiasm"
I hope dream hub and seoul goverment accept your advise. Thanks for your precious comment
__________________
Seoul Projects Compilation Blog

"Theory of Quantum Mechanics, theory of Inflation, M-theory imply Multiverses. Probably We're a part of Infinity&Nothing" inno4321
inno4321 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu