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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



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 October 1st, 2009, 01:57 PM   #21
Concrete Stereo
Registered User
 
Concrete Stereo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 1,598
Likes (Received): 599

The 30's skyscrapers are 'classic' ('the architecture of mass'), but not (neo) classical - they were very much about the now and about the future, not about the past. The neo-classical buildings that are shown here for me are developers-retro-kitch and feel like a cheap fernish to sell appartments, not as a serious attempt to how to make massive/classic/'stone' architecture anno 2009.

However, in the Netherlands/Germany/Switzerland there are some influensive architects really pioneering with a stone architecture and developing it into perfection. Chipperfield, Kolhoff also Pritzker-prize-winner Zumtor are known for taking the material as startingpoint - developing new materials (mosly brick) into perfection specific for one project with incredible delecacy.

Of course this is primarely about buildings:

Chipperfield in Berlin:
[img]http://*************************/berlin/jpgs/am_kupfergraben_10_dca150908_cioanamarinescu_1.jpg[/img]

Zumtor in Köln


And also the wave of 'unspectacular architecture' created a series of very well done brick and stone blocks in Amsterdam



And that somehow leads skyscrapers like these ones again: Kolhoff's brick skyscraper in Berlin:

Last edited by Concrete Stereo; October 1st, 2009 at 02:20 PM.
Concrete Stereo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 4th, 2009, 01:16 AM   #22
Guaporense
Registered User
 
Guaporense's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,147
Likes (Received): 28

"Does anyone build classical skyscrapers anymore?"

No. "Classical" skycrapers are death, nobody builds decent skyscrapers since air conditioning was perfected around 1950. After central air conditioning it was adopted, the skyscraper in its classic glory was killed forever. Why? Because now it is possible to make glass skycrapers, that are much cheaper than real ones. Never there will be another Woolworth building.

Modern architecture sucks.
Guaporense no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2009, 01:20 AM   #23
Guaporense
Registered User
 
Guaporense's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,147
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concrete Stereo View Post
However, in the Netherlands/Germany/Switzerland there are some influensive architects really pioneering with a stone architecture and developing it into perfection. Chipperfield, Kolhoff also Pritzker-prize-winner Zumtor are known for taking the material as startingpoint - developing new materials (mosly brick) into perfection specific for one project with incredible delecacy.
Well, these guys are just making toy buildings. I don't see much difference from the other modern buildings made of concrete, they all look like random construction materials dropped from a helicopter on some specified location.

Anyway, I don't know how some people can find these asymmetric and undetailed monstrosities good looking.
Guaporense no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2009, 03:30 AM   #24
derUlukai
✪ ALPHA-KEVIN ✪
 
derUlukai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,401
Likes (Received): 5161

kolhoff`s mainplaza in frankfurt:






dunno if this is really cassical - messeturm, frankfurt
derUlukai está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2009, 04:28 AM   #25
No1_Saint
Registered User
 
No1_Saint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 261
Likes (Received): 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concrete Stereo View Post
The 30's skyscrapers are 'classic' ('the architecture of mass'), but not (neo) classical - they were very much about the now and about the future, not about the past. The neo-classical buildings that are shown here for me are developers-retro-kitch and feel like a cheap fernish to sell appartments, not as a serious attempt to how to make massive/classic/'stone' architecture anno 2009.

However, in the Netherlands/Germany/Switzerland there are some influensive architects really pioneering with a stone architecture and developing it into perfection. Chipperfield, Kolhoff also Pritzker-prize-winner Zumtor are known for taking the material as startingpoint - developing new materials (mosly brick) into perfection specific for one project with incredible delecacy.

Of course this is primarely about buildings:

Chipperfield in Berlin

Zumtor in Köln

And also the wave of 'unspectacular architecture' created a series of very well done brick and stone blocks in Amsterdam


And that somehow leads skyscrapers like these ones again: Kollhoff brick skyscraper in Berlin:
I don't know why... but I like that.

Last edited by erbse; October 17th, 2009 at 01:14 PM.
No1_Saint no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2009, 04:34 AM   #26
No1_Saint
Registered User
 
No1_Saint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 261
Likes (Received): 18

333 Collins street, Melbourne.

This was built over the top of an old banking chamber. I think it is very nice and the lobby area is the old victorian banking chamber. This was completed in 1992.

image hosted on flickr


No1_Saint no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 09:03 PM   #27
sebvill
Mr.Br*gthside
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 14,552
Likes (Received): 18029

Ive always make myself the same question. I also prefer the classic skyscrapers than the new glassy ones. And I hate no one in Lima dares to make one, maybe because is expensive, old-fashioned and can be seen a little bit tacky to build skyscrapers like that nowdays.

Anyway, here´s one I like in Buenos Aires, the Mulieris. Is not that classic but at least is something.

sebvill está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2009, 01:42 AM   #28
''Henk''uitBreda
Home sweet Breda
 
''Henk''uitBreda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Breda & Rotterdam
Posts: 197
Likes (Received): 0

New Orleans, Rotterdam



''Henk''uitBreda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2009, 11:01 AM   #29
Ribarca
Registered User
 
Ribarca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 6,605
Likes (Received): 3267

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense View Post
"Does anyone build classical skyscrapers anymore?"

No. "Classical" skycrapers are death, nobody builds decent skyscrapers since air conditioning was perfected around 1950. After central air conditioning it was adopted, the skyscraper in its classic glory was killed forever. Why? Because now it is possible to make glass skycrapers, that are much cheaper than real ones. Never there will be another Woolworth building.

Modern architecture sucks.
Stop living in the past. A lot of modern architecture is amazing and often rooted in past concepts.

These are ugly?

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr
__________________
Drive away these people, Who are so conceited and so contemptuous.


Hong Kong by Xavibarca, www.xavibarca.com
Ribarca no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2009, 08:27 PM   #30
''Henk''uitBreda
Home sweet Breda
 
''Henk''uitBreda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Breda & Rotterdam
Posts: 197
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ribarca View Post
Stop living in the past. A lot of modern architecture is amazing and often rooted in past concepts.

These are ugly?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2441/...c2091758_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2475/...2d2f7d89_o.jpg
first one: Yes!

you prefer that one instead of the Empire state building?

and this is a threat about classical architecture, so if you don't like it just don't visit this threat anymore

Last edited by erbse; October 17th, 2009 at 01:19 PM. Reason: NO IMAGE QUOTES!
''Henk''uitBreda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2009, 10:01 PM   #31
socrates#1fan
Registered User
 
socrates#1fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,605
Likes (Received): 1318

First of all, the whole ‘it is in the past’ is extremely simple minded.
Anyone who looks at history will notice our tendency to revive things.
There is nothing wrong with construction classical high-rises in today’s day and age, for many it would be refreshing.
However, many don’t, because it is expensive.
I think a better discussion is why don’t people build in classical at all?
Skyscrapers today are functional, but I would never call them beautiful when compared to the skyscrapers of old.
Their plain look is out of economics, not aesthetics.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"I don’t know what it is about Hoosiers, but wherever you go there is always a Hoosier doing something very important there."-Kurt Vonnegut
socrates#1fan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 01:44 AM   #32
MDguy
Registered User
 
MDguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,671

^ Thats all true, except the last statement, because otherwise, all buildings would look like commie blocks. Aesthetics are almost always added today. Also, while they may have focused much more on aesthetics in the classical skyscraper era than today, it was also done out of economics and function
MDguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 10:41 AM   #33
Boscorelli
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,036
Likes (Received): 229

Tors Torn

Technically not a skyscraper I suppose since it's only going to be like 34 floors or so.
But the inspiration is 1930's american style skyscrapers.
The twin highrises are planned to be built in the new area of Norra Station in Stockholm.
I hope you don't mind me posting them here! Sorry is someone do mind!
If it only could have been higher though!





Boscorelli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 08:22 PM   #34
socrates#1fan
Registered User
 
socrates#1fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,605
Likes (Received): 1318

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDguy View Post
^ Thats all true, except the last statement, because otherwise, all buildings would look like commie blocks. Aesthetics are almost always added today. Also, while they may have focused much more on aesthetics in the classical skyscraper era than today, it was also done out of economics and function
True, I should have thought about that before I made the statement.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"I don’t know what it is about Hoosiers, but wherever you go there is always a Hoosier doing something very important there."-Kurt Vonnegut
socrates#1fan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 08:44 PM   #35
Hed_Kandi
Registered Usurper
 
Hed_Kandi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,277
Likes (Received): 12577

The only architects that I'm aware of that are trained in classical architecture and are capable of producing the same fidelity of architecture and quality of materials that was witnessed in the 30's is Robert Adams architects http://www.robertadamarchitects.com/ and Quinlan and Francis Terry Architects http://www.qftarchitects.com.

Last edited by Hed_Kandi; October 10th, 2009 at 08:50 PM.
Hed_Kandi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 09:41 PM   #36
JmB & Co.
Registered User
 
JmB & Co.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 3,614
Likes (Received): 461

"Renoir tower"
Buenos Aires, Argentina


image hosted on flickr


__________________
LeitoStafe liked this post
JmB & Co. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 04:33 AM   #37
''Henk''uitBreda
Home sweet Breda
 
''Henk''uitBreda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Breda & Rotterdam
Posts: 197
Likes (Received): 0

because of the glass it's not classic
''Henk''uitBreda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 05:41 AM   #38
JmB & Co.
Registered User
 
JmB & Co.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 3,614
Likes (Received): 461


You are so sure you re right! haha

Well, with that idea, there are no classical skyscrapers built anymore, because "we dont use the same materials". You refered "glass", but the Chrisler Bldg. used brick. And nowadays, we dont use brick for a 300 mt skyscraper.

Materials, architectural technology and people demand, change through time. (people want a huge glass wall to see the landscape, not a little Chrisler Bldg. window.) I do not share that opinion, but common people do.
__________________
LeitoStafe liked this post
JmB & Co. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 05:22 PM   #39
socrates#1fan
Registered User
 
socrates#1fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,605
Likes (Received): 1318

Quote:
Originally Posted by JmB & Co. View Post

, but common people do.
That isn't true.
It depends, some people find large glass windows cold and prefer the cozy feeling of smaller windows, others prefer large windows.
Also, a great deal of the tallest structures in my city are constructed with glass and granite, not just sheets of glass.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"I don’t know what it is about Hoosiers, but wherever you go there is always a Hoosier doing something very important there."-Kurt Vonnegut
socrates#1fan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2009, 11:39 PM   #40
Ribarca
Registered User
 
Ribarca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 6,605
Likes (Received): 3267

Quote:
Originally Posted by ''Henk''uitBreda View Post


first one: Yes!

you prefer that one instead of the Empire state building?

and this is a threat about classical architecture, so if you don't like it just don't visit this threat anymore
I do. The Chrysler building on the other hand rocks. Still the Bank of China matches it in my opinion.

This is a discussion site.... If somebody says that they don't build great skyscrapers anymore I can disagree with that. As I said these buildings ARE rooted in past architecture. Some of the "fake" skyscrapers posted here that are meant to look classic are horrible in my book.
__________________
Drive away these people, Who are so conceited and so contemptuous.


Hong Kong by Xavibarca, www.xavibarca.com
Ribarca 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 10:52 PM.


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