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 > Supertalls > Proposed Supertalls



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 September 3rd, 2016, 12:56 AM   #5981
Titan Man
Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-nana
 
Titan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Zadar
Posts: 593
Likes (Received): 718

Since when did BIG's 2 WTC become postmodern? It's clearly in neomodern style, just because it has a couple of leaning parts doesn't make it deconstructivist or postmodern. Also, just because a building "looks" deconstructivist doesn't mean it can't be bland and boring. Not saying this one is completely bland or anything, but it doesn't look very impressive when you look at it from the main point of the whole complex, which is the National September 11 Memorial. IMO, it would be great for Hudson Yards, but here... Also, I don't know why Ingels even considered Tribeca as something crutial for designing this building.
__________________
If you build it, they'll come.

IBeMo. liked this post
Titan Man no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:00 AM   #5982
ThomasK2001
Registered User
 
ThomasK2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Lawnside, NJ
Posts: 519
Likes (Received): 652

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACK DAHLIA View Post
I respect Thomas Koloski work but this is the worst rendering you could find..
One has to wonder why many foremost architects and critics endorsed Big's design:hard to believe that all of these people are"on drug".
I guess many here are simply jealous about Ingels success:the guy is cute,young,talented,rich and famous;he is also very mediatized and losers focus easily their hatred and negativity on him...
Thanks
__________________

Titan Man liked this post
ThomasK2001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:03 AM   #5983
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1284

Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan Man View Post
Since when did BIG's 2 WTC become postmodern? It's clearly in neomodern style, just because it has a couple of leaning parts doesn't make it deconstructivist or postmodern. Also, just because a building "looks" deconstructivist doesn't mean it can't be bland and boring. Not saying this one is completely bland or anything, but it doesn't look very impressive when you look at it from the main point of the whole complex, which is the National September 11 Memorial. IMO, it would be great for Hudson Yards, but here... Also, I don't know why Ingels even considered Tribeca as something crutial for designing this building.
Sweet hart it's time for you to read a book (it's been awhile), or just search deconstructivism on google, you'll get the right information.
And it doesn't have a couple of leaning parts - the whole building is leaning. Well you can classify the building as you like if it's neo futurism for you, it's okay.

Last edited by Architecture lover; September 3rd, 2016 at 01:08 AM.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:06 AM   #5984
Titan Man
Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-nana
 
Titan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Zadar
Posts: 593
Likes (Received): 718

Can you recommend me some, I bet those HAVE to be fun based on your posts here and elsewhere.
Also, It's not neofuturism nor postmodernism, it's neomodernism, the whole building is not leaning, it's just one side of it. The point of deconstructivism is fragmentation, but in this building, it's completely opposite, it's about the unification of blocks. Even Ingels said it.
__________________
If you build it, they'll come.

Last edited by Titan Man; September 3rd, 2016 at 01:18 AM.
Titan Man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:16 AM   #5985
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1284

They wouldn't match you, especially if we speak about which culture gave which buildings. I'm sure your stuff is quite amazing tho.
About the rest, if you say so - I trust your expertise on the subject. Yet, I can spot some fragments in the design.

Last edited by Architecture lover; September 3rd, 2016 at 01:27 AM.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:26 AM   #5986
Titan Man
Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-nana
 
Titan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Zadar
Posts: 593
Likes (Received): 718

If you want to have a healthy discussion, I'm all for it, but if you're here to troll and insult others because you can't agree with facts, then you're on your own. If every building that doesn't look like a perfect box is proclaimed as deconstructivist, almost every new building would be deconstructivist. Ingels' description of the building is the opposite of deconstructivism, which is all about fragmentation. 2 WTC is about unification of blocks that function as ONE. Also, check the Wikipedia article, it clearly say it's neomodern, but don't change that part of the article if it doesn't suit you.
__________________
If you build it, they'll come.
Titan Man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:31 AM   #5987
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1284

The truth is I can't have a healthy discussion with someone as experienced as you, in both historical and modern. Therefore, bye bye.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:34 AM   #5988
Titan Man
Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-nana
 
Titan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Zadar
Posts: 593
Likes (Received): 718

Well, thank you for your compliments.

P.S. It's still neomodern.
__________________
If you build it, they'll come.
Titan Man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:34 AM   #5989
Nyghtscape
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 108

Quote:
Originally Posted by Architecture lover View Post
Well as much as I know modernism succeeded in its cause to make buildings functional in so many examples, there might be some bad of course just as you say it all depends on the architect.
On the other hand postmodern says that modernism culminated in a situation where we forgot how to design a classical building, and not only classical, but most of the time we forgot how to design a building that's interesting since modernism is too plain, ordinary. Therefore it's main cause should be to bring back classical roots, or just buildings with interesting shapes. I am not sure if it succeeds in this cause.
Edit: I'm aware that this whole etc. vs etc. thing is quite boring, or even tiring, but I am not the one who started the thread: has modernism failed? (in the section architecture)
I am just here to state the opposite.
Paul Goldberger, the Vanity Fair Architecture Critic and former dean of Parsons I think spells it out quite clearly. He sort of parrots the great Paul Rudolph, who was a modernist architect, but still felt that Modernism was good at the one-off foreground building but bad at being a good background actor. It liked to exist in a vacuum. Goldberger went further to say that the difference between a classical approach and a modernist approach is that Modernism can be transformational, and exciting when in the hands of a genius. You can get a Bilbao or a Sydney Opera House. Classicism can also be exquisite and transformational as anyone who has ever been to Versailes or Rome can attest. The difference is that classicism is based on a set of rules. Rules about rhythm, proportion, scale, emphasis, harmony, balance, etc. Modernism has no such rules (it actually does but in a different way), so what happens is that Modernism has a very high ceiling. A ceiling as high as any great classical building. The issue is that the floor of barely competent classical building (one that follows the basic principles and elements) will still yield a decent classical building. The floor for classicism isn't that low provided you stick to the rules. You see this all over America with little bank buildings and Victorian and Collegiate Gothic buildings, old country houses, etc., that as buildings are not spectacular but they get the job done and are feel complete. With Modernism, however, though the ceiling is high, the floor is endlessly low. And add to that most architects are not geniuses so you get a lot of mediocre work that masquerades as genius work forming a chaotic landscape.

Moreover you get a lot of copycats trying to mimic the work of geniuses and failing (Skidmore Owings and Merrill were so enamored with Mies Van Der Rohe that Frank Lloyd Wright called them "The Three Blind Mieses"). One of Bob Stern's favorite retorts to people who try to use his historical sensibilities against him is that today's modernists are just mimicking old modernist stuff (and often badly). Stern points out that 432 Park, for example is just Vinoly summoning Hilberseimer (and he's right). Zaha's precedents can be found in Googie and Italian Futurism before that. Richard Rogers and Norman Foster's stuff is neo-constructivism. Moshe Safde was doing jenga buildings a half century before 56 Leonard. Very little that appears to be new actually is.

I would not classify deconstruction as post-modernism, because PoMo, as introduced by Scully, Stern, Graves, Venturi (and later Philip Johnson) was a critique to international style modernism and particular the dogma that had taken over. You have to understand that Modernism is much less of a style than an ideology. And then when the style grew tired in the 1960s, divorced from the vitality and energy of Breuer, Gropius, Mies, Corbusier, etc., then people like Manfredo Tafuri, Rem Koolhas and Peter Eisenman turned architecture into a something of a philosophical discourse.

When Gropius took over as dean at Harvard GSD he literally removed all the history books and cancelled all the history classes. They wanted a clean break with history, which today seems arrogant, but which is nonetheless an ideological reality that even contemporary architecture schools live under. If you wanted to learn classical architecture there is basically one school in the US, Notre Dame, where you can do it. Almost every other pedagogy, even Stern's Yale School of Architecture, is basically built upon the modernist approach.

The art deco architects like Walker and Hood thought of themselves as modernists, though today we wouldn't refer to their work as modern because it doesn't follow too closely to the Le Corbusier/Mies/Gropius mode of expression. But if you know who Patrik Schumacher and Jacques Derrida are, then you know that deconstruction is modernist manifestos wrapped in new clothing. Deconstruction ideologically is much closer to canonical modernism. it's biggest proponents like Eisenman, Wigley, Stephen Holl, Eric Owen Moss, Thom Mayne and Liebeskind are basically Modernist in ideology.

What's interesting is that the canonical modernists, especially those who were transplanted from Germany had been trained classically at the Ecole de Beaux Arts or schools with a Beaux Arts pedagogy. Mies' buildings are very classical in scale, proportion, despite being structurally expressionist. Corbusier would travel to the Acropolis and sketch. They were essentially classicists but who nonetheless saw classicism as imposing, dull, routine, and lacking in vitality. Add to that, since the 19th Century there was a crisis of "in what style shall we build?" People just kept reviving old stuff over and over again, Gothic, then Neoclassicism, then Greek Revival, etc., and some really wild Architecture Parlance type stuff. The industrial revolution and the rise of the field of engineering was beginning to flower. On top of that the despots of the early 20th century had come to interpret classicism as the language of power and authoritarianism. It's no surprise the Nazis basically shut down the Bauhaus (the Bauhaus had more than a flirtation with communism) and adopted the work of Albert Speer and his monumental classicism as their language. Mussolini and Stalin did similar things with a stripped classicism reminiscent of Paul Cret (or what we in the states call WPA Moderne). The irony of it all is that while the early modernists saw themselves as a departure to something new, their language would be co-opted by capitalism and totalitarian governments and basically ruin Eastern Europe, and become the preferred expression of big business.
__________________

Last edited by Nyghtscape; September 3rd, 2016 at 01:43 AM.
Nyghtscape no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:39 AM   #5990
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1284

Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan Man View Post
Well, thank you for your compliments.

P.S. It's still neomodern.
Yep.
Just like Croatian culture gave Dubrovnik.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:41 AM   #5991
Titan Man
Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-nana
 
Titan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Zadar
Posts: 593
Likes (Received): 718

Quote:
Originally Posted by Architecture lover View Post
Yep.
Just like Croatian culture gave Dubrovnik.
Yep. Just like Germans immitated Greeks.
__________________
If you build it, they'll come.
Titan Man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:43 AM   #5992
scraper2293
Registered User
 
scraper2293's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 169
Likes (Received): 199

I don't care what style this is, it's not nearly as nice or elegant as Foster's tower.

The other towers in the complex were originally intended for banks/financial firms and they got media tenants. So why should two (the best of them all) be any different? Especially considering the only tenant who had a problem with the design is no longer on board. They may have had trouble leasing Foster's tower but I still don't see anyone signing the dotted line for BIG's tower either.

Just tweak Foster's tower for media companies demands and be on their way. It's the same square footage anyway and it already has it's lobby in place...
__________________

Titan Man liked this post
scraper2293 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:48 AM   #5993
Titan Man
Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-nana
 
Titan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Zadar
Posts: 593
Likes (Received): 718

Quote:
Originally Posted by scraper2293 View Post
I don't care what style this is, it's not nearly as nice or elegant as Foster's tower.

The other towers in the complex were originally intended for banks/financial firms and they got media tenants. So why should two (the best of them all) be any different? Especially considering the only tenant who had a problem with the design is no longer on board. They may have had trouble leasing Foster's tower but I still don't see anyone signing the dotted line for BIG's tower either.

Just tweak Foster's tower for media companies demands and be on their way. It's the same square footage anyway and it already has it's lobby in place...
This is what I was hoping for since the beginning. Interior of Foster's tower can probably be changed without damaging the exterior, I just don't understand why would they bother with the cost of demolishing and cleaning the original's base. It just doesn't make any sense.
__________________
If you build it, they'll come.
Titan Man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:52 AM   #5994
Nyghtscape
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 108

Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan Man View Post
This is what I was hoping for since the beginning. Interior of Foster's tower can probably be changed without damaging the exterior, I just don't understand why would they bother with the cost of demolishing and cleaning the original's base. It just doesn't make any sense.
Lot of assumptions here. If you want to have large studios you need a lot of floorplate that has a large clear span (60 feet or more). That is just an atypical condition for a tower (the studios at 30 Rock wouldn't pass the mustard in LA). Foster's building has a structural grid that has to be accounted for.
Nyghtscape no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 01:58 AM   #5995
Titan Man
Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-nana
 
Titan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Zadar
Posts: 593
Likes (Received): 718

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyghtscape View Post
Lot of assumptions here. If you want to have large studios you need a lot of floorplate that has a large clear span (60 feet or more). That is just an atypical condition for a tower (the studios at 30 Rock wouldn't pass the mustard in LA). Foster's building has a structural grid that has to be accounted for.
Of course it's assumption, I just hope they gave it a try, I think they could've probably alter parts of the exterior as a way to make it fit. We've seen dozens of skyscrapers that were slightly remodelled to make them suitable for investors. Maybe make it slightly "fatter" or something like that. I just hope they tried it with Foster's tower.
__________________
If you build it, they'll come.
Titan Man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 02:06 AM   #5996
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1284

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyghtscape View Post


I would not classify deconstruction as post-modernism, because PoMo, as introduced by Scully, Stern, Graves, Venturi (and later Philip Johnson) was a critique to international style modernism and particular the dogma that had taken over. You have to understand that Modernism is much less of a style than an ideology. And then when the style grew tired in the 1960s, divorced from the vitality and energy of Breuer, Gropius, Mies, Corbusier, etc., then people like Manfred Tafuri and Peter Eisenman turned architecture into a philosophical discourse.
Deconstruction ideologically is much closer to canonical modernism. it's biggest proponents like Eisenman, Wigley and Liebeskind are basically modernists in ideology.
The irony of it all is that while the early modernists saw themselves as a departure to something new, their language would be co-opted by capitalism and totalitarian governments and basically ruin Eastern Europe, and become the preferred expression of big business.
I appreciate both your effort and your experience on the subject, but first of all you say that Modernism is much less of a style than an ideology. Plenty of people perceive architecture as ideological which might be truth, but I don't think it's the right thing to do, for so many reasons. Even if it is an ideology it does have some very basic principals that follows (well actually it followed). One of the most famous being "form follows function". Most of the time we don't see such things in Deconstructivist architecture. When I say Modernism I refer to the one that was popular in the 20th century, now there seems to be so much negative attitude around that movement, so I am here the say a nice word, because it gave elegance and sophistication, it strives to be as simple as possible and therefore is worth of being called Avant Garde, even from this point of view. So Deconstructivism could be easily called Avant Garde too, but in every other aspect it is quite different from Modernism, especially if we consider the main principals. The other name for Deconstructivism is New-Baroque, so it does sound alot like Postmodern.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 02:27 AM   #5997
Nyghtscape
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 108

Quote:
Originally Posted by Architecture lover View Post
I appreciate both your effort and your experience on the subject, but first of all you say that modernism is much less of a style than an ideology. Plenty of people perceive architecture as ideological which might be truth, but I don't think it's the right thing to do, for so many reasons. Even if it is an ideology it does have some very basic principals that follows (well actually it followed). One of the most famous being "form follows function". Most of the time we don't see such things in deconstructivist architecture. When I say modernism I refer to the one that was popular in the 20th century, now there seems to be so much negative attitude around that movement, so I am here the say a nice word, because it gave elegance and sophistication, it strives to be as simple as possible and therefore is worth of being called Avangarde, even from this point of view. So deconstructivism could be easily called Avangarde too, but in every other aspect it is quite different from modernism, especially if we consider the main principals. The other name for deconstructivism is new-baroque, so it does sound alot like postmodern.
I think, without getting into semantics, the definition of modernism is probably incomplete. Le Corbusier's stuff is often not simple, nor can you say that, at Ronchamp for example, form follows function (actually the quote is a misreading of Louis Sullivan who said "form ever follows function." Corbusier will never be thrown out of the canon of modernists, Sullivan isn't really considered to be a modernist (sort of a godfather in a way). Form follows function would actually be more true of classical buildings than modern buildings because the expression of the buildings tectonics is usually not honest in contemporary buildings. Today's buildings are held up by columns and steel, not curtain walls. Up until a few months before the building opens, you can't even tell whether its a modern styled or traditional styled building. The style becomes more of a skin. The butressses at cathedrals, the entablatures of classical rome and Greece, actually serve a tectonic purpose. Even the little coronas and bedmoulds of a classical cornice were such to keep water off the building. Keystones, and vouissoirs are all functional parts of an arch.

I agree architecture shouldn't be dogmatic or ideological, but the discourse and discipline of architecture (not necessarily the day to day practice) are absolutely ideological. I mean the difference between Driehaus winners and Pritzker winners is light years. Elizabeth Plater Zyberk may not ever win a Pritzker but has done more to revive cities than almost any of its actual winners.

Much of this division has been around for centuries. There has, at least since the 1700s been a split between those who thought architecture should adhere strictly to precedent and those who got willy nilly with it. Most of the people history celebrates are those who got funky with it. It's why we love McKim Mead & White and don't know who Ralph Adams Cram is. We don't today think of McKim, Mead & White as innovative, but they were the Frank Gehry of their day blending then state-of the-art engineering and technology with their classical predilections. Palladio re-invented the classical language. HH Richardson was an innovative genius. His Shingle Style is, what Vincent Scully calls, a medieval house that has jumped out of its skin. Lutyens, Schinkel, Soane were all people who took classical syntax and did some really wild things with it.

I don't personally have an issue with modernism or classicism. I think there is a place for both and that one doesn't have to come at the expense of the other, which is often a (valid) complaint leveled at modernism. That it rarely is a better replacement, but I'd rather a competent modern building than a bad classical one too. Far too many McMansions and crap shopping malls out there.
__________________

Titan Man liked this post
Nyghtscape no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 02:43 AM   #5998
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1284

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyghtscape View Post

I don't personally have an issue with modernism or classicism. I think there is a place for both and that one doesn't have to come at the expense of the other, which is often a (valid) complaint leveled at modernism. That it rarely is a better replacement, but I'd rather a competent modern building than a bad classical one too. Far too many McMansions and crap shopping malls out there.
I'm sure, but when I read opinions like this one: "When the original WTC went up it epitomized modernism's habit of not paying any attention to context", or this one: "One of the nice things about this era is that New York is starting to return back to a gothic-y skyline as opposed to the truncated flat roofs of the middle 20th century" - by you, in 3WTC thread, I am not very convinced.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 02:56 AM   #5999
Nyghtscape
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 108

Quote:
Originally Posted by Architecture lover View Post
I'm sure, but when I read opinions like this one: "When the original WTC went up it epitomized modernism's habit of not paying any attention to context", or this one: "One of the nice things about this era is that New York is starting to return back to a gothic-y skyline as opposed to the truncated flat roofs of the middle 20th century", by you in 3WTC thread I am not very convinced.
But all of those things can be true and I can still appreciate when its done well. The architecture of the 1950s-1960s NYC was NOT GOOD. There's a few outstanding examples like Lever House and The Seagram Building, and then a whole bunch of people ripping those two buildings off badly. The 1960 Zoning law destroyed the streetscape with soulless concrete plazas. That generation of architects thought Corbusier was god, and Corbusier hated all of the things that we find endearing about urbanism. Little storefront shops, density, energy. And since everyone worshiped at the church of the Corb (and because companies were footing the bill) that's all that got built. I think too often people confuse the good, interesting early modernism of the 1920s-early 1950s with the bad which overran everything in the 1960s.

I for one advocate for the preservation of the buildings of people like Paul Rudolph. I actually find the stuff that Bill Pederson's firm is doing up at Hudson Yards and One Vanderbilt to be very cool. Big fans of SHoP Architects, Diller Scofidio and Renfro and Tod Williams & Billie Tsien. I actually quite like Bjarke. No issue with modernism as a stylistic expression where its appropriate. What I don't like is blind adherence with little though to context and the sense of modern architecture as a kind of imperative. That it is the only way through which architecture can be vital. That's silliness and I always contend no other creative discipline lives under that kind of tyranny. We don't demand that composers only do electronic music. no one (who matters) scoffs at John Williams summoning Holst in his Star Wars scores. There might be a few people out there who might play Hans Zimmer at a wedding, but Pachabel's Canon will probably be more popular. I just have an issue with this notion that we must be modernists if we are to be contemporary. When I read stuff by Inga Saffron, for example, the arch critic in Philadelphia, she is so antagonistic to anything that isn't (to her) on the cutting edge that it just gets tiring.
__________________

Titan Man, bodegavendetta, McSky liked this post
Nyghtscape no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2016, 03:20 AM   #6000
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1284

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyghtscape View Post
But all of those things can be true and I can still appreciate when its done well. The architecture of the 1950s-1960s NYC was NOT GOOD. There's a few outstanding examples like Lever House and The Seagram Building, and then a whole bunch of people ripping those two buildings off badly. The 1960 Zoning law destroyed the streetscape with soulless concrete plazas. That generation of architects thought Corbusier was god, and Corbusier hated all of the things that we find endearing about urbanism. Little storefront shops, density, energy. And since everyone worshiped at the church of the Corb (and because companies were footing the bill) that's all that got built. I think too often people confuse the good, interesting early modernism of the 1920s-early 1950s with the bad which overran everything in the 1960s.

I for one advocate for the preservation of the buildings of people like Paul Rudolph. I actually find the stuff that Bill Pederson's firm is doing up at Hudson Yards and One Vanderbilt to be very cool. Big fans of SHoP Architects, Diller Scofidio and Renfro and Tod Williams & Billie Tsien. I actually quite like Bjarke. No issue with modernism as a stylistic expression where its appropriate. What I don't like is blind adherence with little though to context and the sense of modern architecture as a kind of imperative. That it is the only way through which architecture can be vital. That's silliness and I always contend no other creative discipline lives under that kind of tyranny. We don't demand that composers only do electronic music. no one (who matters) scoffs at John Williams summoning Holst in his Star Wars scores. There might be a few people out there who might play Hans Zimmer at a wedding, but Pachabel's Canon will probably be more popular. I just have an issue with this notion that we must be modernists if we are to be contemporary. When I read stuff by Inga Saffron, for example, the arch critic in Philadelphia, she is so antagonistic to anything that isn't (to her) on the cutting edge that it just gets tiring.
Speaking about antagonism you should check the opinion of some of the people who appear to be the biggest fans of postmodern stuff on these forums, then you'll see a completely new definition for antagonism on a completely new levels and words like atrocity and crimes against the world of architecture so frequently, ofcourse all of this used just to describe everything modern.
I don't remember myself using such words as much as I dislike postmodern.
You say the architecture of the 1950s-1960s NYC was NOT GOOD. Well I say that just before a couple of years New York looked amazing, it had both historical and modern buildings and they looked so good next to each other, these days the city is crowded with postmodern stuff, if it's good or not, I'll leave for the rest of the people to say.
__________________

birchey liked this post
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
200 greenwich st., 2wtc, foster and partners, lower manhattan, new york, nyc, silverstein, supertall, world trade center

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 08:46 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