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 > City/Metro Compilations

City/Metro Compilations Help report active highrise/urban developments occurring in your city to the global SSC community.



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 February 19th, 2013, 07:23 AM   #561
The Constantine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 22
Likes (Received): 21

Berlin becomes
__________________

cloud32, Highcliff liked this post
The Constantine no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 19th, 2013, 07:46 AM   #562
Syndic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 101
Likes (Received): 41

People who dislike Neotraditional architecture must hate their culture. They want "new and exciting" -- "Make it new!", as Ezra Pound said -- with no foundations, no roots in culture. It's not progressive if you stop what you were doing and completely start again from scratch, which is what Modernism does. There's no clear progression. You see what I mean? It's just people being lost, having no direction. Experimentation without coherence. There's a reason why Modernism failed. It's not rooted in anything historic. It's not taking into account all of the good things our ancestors learned over the years. It's actually disrespectful to the history of architecture, dismissing anything and everything they learned and accomplished and every problem they solved. There is room to experiment in Neotraditional architecture. Many of these buildings are incredibly beautiful and interesting.

As someone from a country with no history before basically the 1700's, I find it deeply disturbing when Europeans disrespect European history and culture. It seems like we care about it more than you sometimes. At least Berlin architects are being smart about it. That's more than I can say about the rest of Europe, including The Netherlands. Modernism is boring. Anybody can do that.

One thing that does trouble me, though, is this apparent taste for yards in Berlin. This is a terrible idea. It will only lead to low density and suburbia. Please, stop with the yards, Berliners. Nature is for outside the city, not inside.
__________________
Syndic no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2013, 10:51 AM   #563
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,231
Likes (Received): 57904

^ I wholeheartedly agree with what you say.

Except this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syndic View Post
Nature is for outside the city, not inside.
Berlin is beloved for its green soul. For the spaces it provides. For the air to breathe.

It's a metropolis of its own category, and yes, it's a very green one. And that's alright.

Most of these buildings still increase density a lot, as most of the time nothing was in their place. And they offer space for many people.

The "green courtyard" actually is something typical for most parts of Berlin, so of course many neotraditionalist buildings keep this tradition up.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥

Highcliff liked this post
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2013, 11:03 AM   #564
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,231
Likes (Received): 57904

(It's not too offtopic yet, so let's make a point...)

Just to illustrate what's part of the essence of Berlin:


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ape_Berlin.jpg


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...jpg?uselang=de

Berlin is also known for its almost countryside-like lake areas:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...hmoeckwitz.jpg

Greenery wherever you look:

http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.d...engarten.shtml

Central Charlottenburg (incl. its Palace) & Mitte:
[IMG]http://oi47.************/zsvklc.jpg[/IMG]
http://www.fotos-aus-der-luft.de/Ber...geViewsIndex=1



So of course buildings should be as urban as possible inside Berlin's S-Bahn-Ring (the central part of Berlin) -
but at the same time they should provide the qualities Berlin is associated with. Spaces, green and good vibes.


Get you in the mood!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q9NVvADmEs
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥

mb92, Highcliff liked this post
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2013, 11:31 AM   #565
deckard_6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 453
Likes (Received): 112

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloud32 View Post
I just think that architecture needs to be progressive and experimental, like most contemporary architecture in the Netherlands; The outcomes may not be to everyones taste but at least its new and exiting, and puts a new idea forward not seen before.
You may not be really able to appreciate it, which does not mean that this kind of architecture is not progressive or experimental. Have a look what's being built around us nowadays and then try to figure out who is breaking the status quo in contemporary architecture.
__________________

erbse, Highcliff liked this post
deckard_6 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2013, 06:48 PM   #566
GhostOfDorian
Smartshitter
 
GhostOfDorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Freiburg im Breisgau
Posts: 2,079
Likes (Received): 5959

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syndic View Post
People who dislike Neotraditional architecture must hate their culture. They want "new and exciting" -- "Make it new!", as Ezra Pound said -- with no foundations, no roots in culture. It's not progressive if you stop what you were doing and completely start again from scratch, which is what Modernism does. There's no clear progression. You see what I mean? It's just people being lost, having no direction. Experimentation without coherence. There's a reason why Modernism failed. It's not rooted in anything historic. It's not taking into account all of the good things our ancestors learned over the years. It's actually disrespectful to the history of architecture, dismissing anything and everything they learned and accomplished and every problem they solved. There is room to experiment in Neotraditional architecture. Many of these buildings are incredibly beautiful and interesting.

As someone from a country with no history before basically the 1700's, I find it deeply disturbing when Europeans disrespect European history and culture. It seems like we care about it more than you sometimes. At least Berlin architects are being smart about it. That's more than I can say about the rest of Europe, including The Netherlands. Modernism is boring. Anybody can do that.

One thing that does trouble me, though, is this apparent taste for yards in Berlin. This is a terrible idea. It will only lead to low density and suburbia. Please, stop with the yards, Berliners. Nature is for outside the city, not inside.
It’s the human nature to make it new. If you criticize modernism because it’s new, then you criticize also traditional architecture. There was a time when Art Déco, Art Nouveau and Baroque have been brand new, too. If only the past counts, also those styles should not exist.

So you better criticize modernism for its results. Too often, they are ugly. That’s because modernism doesn’t use ornament. There are very few architects, who can create a building, which is beautiful only because of its forms and materials. Because most of architects are craftsmen and no artists they need a system to make their buildings beautiful. With ornamentation they have a method to design nice buildings.

We should design a modern ornamentation for our modern buildings. That would stop all complaints about the ugliness of modern architecture. And it would stop the use of historical ornaments.

In the Berlin Style I don’t see any future for architecture. But I can see in it a strong demand of people for beautiful houses. So we should give an answer, but we shouldn’t go back in history.
GhostOfDorian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 01:06 PM   #567
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,231
Likes (Received): 57904

"Modern" in the sense of modernists ain't new either. It's almost a hundred years old now.

Of course we should go back in history. Just like any other style before the arrogant modernist movement since the 30s.

I'd love to see a true progressor to expressionism and Art Deco (yeah, the latter sometimes features modernist elements, but it's still rooted in classical architecture unlike later styles).
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥

Highcliff liked this post
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 01:56 PM   #568
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,421
Likes (Received): 21043

Old arhcitectural styles exist to be overcome, surpassed and, except for their most representative buildings, demolished.

I'll take a glass box over a new classic building anytime, anywhere.

Anyway, Berlin has more pressing problems, like the renovation/modernization ban ordinance passed by the Pankow district, and the low-income, low-tax paying, welfare-dependent demographics still not entirely transformed by gentrification (but hopefully it will and in 20 years its demographics will look better from the income and tax-paying capacity point)
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 01:58 PM   #569
deckard_6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 453
Likes (Received): 112

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostOfDorian View Post
It’s the human nature to make it new. If you criticize modernism because it’s new, then you criticize also traditional architecture. There was a time when Art Déco, Art Nouveau and Baroque have been brand new, too. If only the past counts, also those styles should not exist.

So you better criticize modernism for its results. Too often, they are ugly. That’s because modernism doesn’t use ornament. There are very few architects, who can create a building, which is beautiful only because of its forms and materials. Because most of architects are craftsmen and no artists they need a system to make their buildings beautiful. With ornamentation they have a method to design nice buildings.

We should design a modern ornamentation for our modern buildings. That would stop all complaints about the ugliness of modern architecture. And it would stop the use of historical ornaments.

In the Berlin Style I don’t see any future for architecture. But I can see in it a strong demand of people for beautiful houses. So we should give an answer, but we shouldn’t go back in history.
Not true. It's the human nature to go back and forth, look at any other form of artistic expression. Furthermore you underrate our creative capacity if you think all these styles you call traditional can't evolve any further.
deckard_6 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 02:01 PM   #570
moustache
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,161
Likes (Received): 706

Quote:
I'll take a glass box over a new classic building anytime, anywhere.
The most part of moderns buildings are so boaring and ugly.
moustache no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 02:02 PM   #571
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,421
Likes (Received): 21043

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syndic View Post
People who dislike Neotraditional architecture must hate their culture. They want "new and exciting" -- "Make it new!", as Ezra Pound said -- with no foundations, no roots in culture. It's not progressive if you stop what you were doing and completely start again from scratch, which is what Modernism does. There's no clear progression. You see what I mean?
You mean a weak and afraid mind who is stuck in the past instead of just disregard it and build something for the FUTURE.

By merely being new, post-modern buildings are better than those that merely replicate façades of 1890.

Human achievements are only achievements when they go beyond what already exist. Preserving a couple of old buildings is enough for architecture.

If we don't follow that, cities will fall behind and become stuck, dragged on past.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!

cloud32 liked this post
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 02:03 PM   #572
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,421
Likes (Received): 21043

Quote:
Originally Posted by moustache View Post
The most part of moderns buildings are so boaring and ugly.
Excitement and beauty are on the eye of the beholder I personally LOVE glass and steel buildings because they attain an image of sterility, flawlessly surfaces, massiveness that are only achievable with modern materials and modern engineering techniques. Building 10m wide glass panels requires a lot of technology, precision tools, mathematically-loaded machines and composite materials. Much better than building something with bricks that are purposefully made look uneven, imperfect.

I'm against old styles not because they are ugly anyway (which is a personal reference), but because they are old. Old is bad when it comes to architecture.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 02:09 PM   #573
GhostOfDorian
Smartshitter
 
GhostOfDorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Freiburg im Breisgau
Posts: 2,079
Likes (Received): 5959

To build a modern building doesn't mean to ignore the past. Modernization means, to improve tradition.
GhostOfDorian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 02:22 PM   #574
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,421
Likes (Received): 21043

Might be as well, but I prefer highly disruptive change of paradigms in architecture, those that disregard entirely what existed before.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 03:00 PM   #575
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,307
Likes (Received): 8163

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Old arhcitectural styles exist to be overcome, surpassed and, except for their most representative buildings, demolished.
Youre a philistine and a troll. Architecture is about aesthetics and not some philistine anti-everything dogma. The era of motorways, suburbs and glass boxes is over and has been proven as a complete and utter failure. Most architects of today largely agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
and the low-income, low-tax paying, welfare-dependent demographics still not entirely transformed by gentrification (but hopefully it will and in 20 years its demographics will look better from the income and tax-paying capacity point)
Wow. Absolutely amazing. Yes lets herd the poor into some ghetto far, far away and forget about them. Infact lets make being poor a crime!

Heres a good article by Rogers -

Quote:
Originally Posted by potto View Post
Good piece on the evening standard from Richard Rogers about just that very point!

Richard Rogers: We need a new plan to build an even greater city

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/co...y-8499562.html

London’s resurgence over the past 30 years has been remarkable. Far from playing second fiddle as a financial centre to Frankfurt, as was once predicted, our capital is now the most vital city in the world. Only New York can compete with its vibrant mix of business, culture and life. But London faces two serious challenges: the growing gulf between rich and poor, and the persistent shortage of housing.

More than 40,000 households are homeless or in temporary accommodation, a further 220,000 live in overcrowded conditions, and population growth is expected to add a further 850,000 households by 2031. Meanwhile, the chronic housing shortage is pushing prices beyond the reach of many Londoners. The question is not whether we should build more housing, but how and where we do so.

We need to build around 33,000 new homes a year in London, but only 25,000 were completed in 2011/12. This is not enough to keep up with demand, let alone deal with the backlog, as spiralling house prices demonstrate. The solution, some argue, is radically to relax planning restrictions, and in particular to abandon the green belt that has formed a foundation of town planning for more than 60 years.

This would be an easy solution — and also a profoundly wrong one. I do not say this as a rural nimby, though I treasure England’s natural landscape, but as a defender of cities. Allowing greenfield development to run riot would wreck our cities even more surely than it would despoil the countryside.

Cities depend on a healthy mix of uses and people for their vitality. As a pre-eminent world city, London is a magnet to people from across the globe. They come to be close to work, friends and entertainment, and it is this mix of uses — of living and working, of retail and restaurants, of parks and playgrounds, of theatres and nightclubs — that brings life to London’s centres.

Letting the city sprawl would undermine this mix and intensity, reversing the rebirth of city-centre living. Losing population density and mix undermines the viability of shops, transport and other services, leading to segregation between city centres that clear out when offices close and suburbs that are lifeless all day. Suburban sprawl leads to social atomisation and fragmentation and is environmentally disastrous, as carbon-intensive car journeys displace local shops and replace public transport.

Even now we can see the erosion of civic character created by empty brownfield sites, gaps in the urban fabric that can feel threatening and lead to a diminution of public safety. Our town centres and high streets already face challenges. As Mary Portas observed last year, many have so far simply failed to adapt to rapid changes in retail, making it all the more important that we defend and strengthen our city centres, rather than relinquishing them to dereliction.

Take Croydon as an example of what happens to city centres without mix and density. It is well served in terms of transport and has a busy office life. But it still lacks vitality, and empties out every evening, like many “hollowed out” US cities. Dense, well-connected, well-designed cities not only make good social sense; they also make good economic and environmental sense.

There may be challenges to delivering brownfield development, but a shortage of sites is not one of them. England has more than 66,000 hectares of brownfield land, more than any other industrial nation, and this increases every year. It is true that some sites are less easy to build on than the blank canvas of green fields, but architects, planners and developers need to show ingenuity in rising to this challenge rather than shrugging their shoulders. Why tolerate the huge environmental and social cost of greenfield development when clever adaptation of our urban centres can immediately link to existing infrastructure?

Making brownfield sites work does not require the abandonment of all town planning disciplines but does call for a more intelligent and design-led approach. The Government has, for example, proposed relaxing planning laws to allow developers to convert offices into housing. The proposal has some merit, but unleashing land from all planning restrictions could simply give developers a bonanza.

It is true that there is surplus office space: 18 per cent of commercial space in the London Borough of Hackney was empty before the recession hit and in the country overall there is capacity for some two million additional homes if empty commercial space was used. But simply converting offices is not sufficient. It will not create homes or communities unless intelligent urban design and planning also create the schools, shops and public transport hubs civilised life demands. And why should we rush to convert office blocks when we already have three-quarters of a million homes in England lying empty, and sites with planning permission for 400,000 more?

In addition, empty flats above shops — and the hundreds of thousands of small sites in London of less than one hectare — may not be counted in official statistics but they offer opportunities to shore up our urban centres and to provide desperately needed new housing in every neighbourhood. A more intelligent approach would be to encourage a mix of working and living in these underused properties.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the challenges facing our cities or to the housing crisis, but the two issues need to be considered together. From an urban design and planning point of view, the well-connected open city is a powerful paradigm and an engine for integration and inclusivity. A greater focus on design in all new homes would make the best use of land, create homes and public spaces and reinforce the structures of urban life.

In 1999 I chaired the Urban Task Force, whose resulting report received cross-party support. The time feels ripe for the next government-sponsored investigation into how we can regenerate not just our high streets, but our cities themselves
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius

Highcliff liked this post

Last edited by El_Greco; February 20th, 2013 at 03:14 PM.
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 03:23 PM   #576
Tiaren
Registered User
 
Tiaren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,702
Likes (Received): 5550

Suburbanist sometimes scares me...
Tiaren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 03:35 PM   #577
deckard_6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 453
Likes (Received): 112

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Might be as well, but I prefer highly disruptive change of paradigms in architecture, those that disregard entirely what existed before.
You forget we are all rational human beings and therefore we developed our houses during thousands of years to fulfill our needs, that's the only reason why buildings look like buildings and not like cucumbers or upside down mushrooms. Architecture's divas may design whatever weird-shaped building to enlarge their egos, which does not mean their work is good or even useful for its final users.
deckard_6 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 04:13 PM   #578
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,421
Likes (Received): 21043

Oh, but then we are discussing functionality. I agree that buildings must attain their functions. Buildings with "signature" architects that fail to accomplish what they were built for are a failure.

And that is precisely my point: it is uttermost hypocrite to build a new building with all contemporary amenities (floor heating, LED bulbs, plumbing, triple-glazed windows, electricity, internet wiring), modern floor plans (hence no "servant quarter"), inhabited by people engaged in modern professions, yet plaster it with a crap old façade that resembles 1890. Why do that? Everything is modern: the inhabitants, the amenities, why keep the cover antique-looking?
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 04:17 PM   #579
GhostOfDorian
Smartshitter
 
GhostOfDorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Freiburg im Breisgau
Posts: 2,079
Likes (Received): 5959

There's a good example of an architecture, which doesn't ignore history, but is modern as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cager View Post
Hier mal noch eine kleineres Projekt für And1 - eine Villa mit 3 Wohneinheiten, unter anderem ein Penthouse in Berlin Dahlem - ''Stadtvilla Miquelstraße 69''.

Visualisierungen:


(C) M 69 Projektentwicklungs GMBH


(C) M 69 Projektentwicklungs GMBH

Für mehr Infos: Klick

Projektseite
It's a building with modern windows, modern juliet-balconies, french windows and a frieze of modern ornamentation. Beautiful and elegant.
GhostOfDorian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 04:49 PM   #580
Tiaren
Registered User
 
Tiaren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,702
Likes (Received): 5550

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Why do that? Everything is modern: the inhabitants, the amenities, why keep the cover antique-looking?
Simple answer: Because it looks nicer!
Even in these ultra modern days, people are in need of beauty in their lifes. You may find 19th century facades ugly and kitschy, but trust me, the biggest part of the population does love them. Why should they be denied that? Because you know best?
__________________

Skrapebook, Highcliff liked this post
Tiaren no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
alexanderplatz, berlin, capital city, construction, investment, stipson

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 11:55 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