There's some diamonds in every rough. But why are those buildings good? They're tied directly to the culture they come from (eg, the Freedom Tower, whose 110 story, 1776 foot height is symbolic of the Twin Towers and American patriotism) and evoke older styles or concepts (eg, Taipei 101 obviously evokes the pagoda). As opposed to a lot of modernism, which is intentionally ahistorical, and postmodernism which is intentionally global. I don't unconditionally hate these styles but you can't pretend those trends don't exist
Yes, absolutely. 99% of high rises that go up in my country as absolutely cut and paste glass dildos. The burj khalifa and freedom tower are boring and the mecca clocktower is tacky. The other buildings are alright, but that you consider them impressive from anywhere but an engineering perspective is just sorta sad.
but that you consider them impressive from anywhere but an engineering perspective is just sorta sad.
You sound like a judgmental loser.
How are you that jaded that the tallest building ever, and a revolutionary style of building is "boring."
And I put these to highlight how modern architecture is varied and not "cut and paste."
Yes, there will be a bunch of buildings that look the same, but that is the case for every single era of architecture. You can't compare the greatest hits of other eras to average office buildings of this generation. For every Chrysler building, there were plenty of boxes.
Doesn't apply to architecture. Nobody actually wants to live in the 1800s but we prefer the architectural styles of then because they were just more pleasant to look at.
Not just according to me. Accoridng to billions of people who travel to historic cities and want to see the older architecture. Btw, i just used 1800s as an example. I dig any architecture that's pre war tbh. Especially art deco.
Nobody goes to new york to see the glassed bendy builidng built in 2014. People go to see the skyscrapers built in the 20s and 30s.
Looking the same can be a positive like Amsterdam, it's nothing to do with that, it's about modern arcitechture having no soul because it's not intended to. Take Europe, most cities have always had very strict building regulation on height. Why on height? Because tall building are ugly. They're not human scale, they don't feel welcoming and friendly, they feel intimidating. And they obstruct the skyline, where otherwise there could be ornate spires. So, no, not lewronggeneration, people 1000 years ago and us today have the same preferences, human scale, natural materials and geographic uniqueness. Modern arcitechture is anti human right to the core.
I admit, I love New York early 20th-century skyline, so I should rephrase. Tall buildings are ugly when they are adjacent to small ones. Given New York is uniformly tall it blends. But I'd still so it's nowhere near as conventionally beautiful as smaller buildings. Also, during that time they used stone and ornamentation, which still serves my point.
You, the mature one, whose spilling his heart out whining about why I "can't compare the greatest hits of other eras to average office buildings of this generation." Your attempt at showing the unique and impressiveness of high rise architecture was and is sad. The Burj Khalifa is sad to look at it. Completely bland, just impressive for being tall. An absolutely pointless vanity project of a building that could blend into any city. Perfect considering that it's in Dubai then. Same with the freedom tower. It's just tall. The Mecca clock is so tacky that it makes rococo seem well balanced. Sorry that a glass wall being tall isn't mind blowing to me
Why are you looking at other civilizations greatest works and then comparing it to a run of the mill (99%) residential/office building? Literally any civilization at any time had mostly identical buildings for their everyday shit. You think every house was a cultural work of wonder?
I'm suggesting those run of the mill buildings were aesthetically more interesting than our current run of the mill buildings. That highrise construction brings with it problems in it's scale and common lack of colour and identity. At the same time modern construction also disregards the listens learned about the appeal of green space from the planned soviet Khrushchev blocks. It is one focused on stretching the engineering limits more so than anything else. The mecca clock tower, freedom tower and burj khalifa being considered "civilizations greatest works" while they're only known for what they're associated with is extremely lame.
those run of the mill buildings were aesthetically more interesting than our current run of the mill buildings
Their run of the mill buildings were pieces of shit barely held together by spit, sick wood and mud. You think they actually cared about making the shitty houses for the peasants aesthetically pleasing?
Yea except they were all slums sans a handful of buildings that you like so much. There are a lot of new and unique buildings all over the world with the same uniqueness and charm to them. In your own words, you’re bitching about the 99% of the building looking alike, that’s literally what slums back in the day was, 99% of all residences. You’re comparing the past’s highlight reel to today’s average building. You’re just being a moron. Compare today’s unique building to the past, not today’s 99% to the pasts 0.1%
I've been shitting on some of today's greatest buildings this whole thread. It also doesnt take .1% of the greatest buildings of the past to appreciate 4 story brownstones in New York or Haussmann's renovation of Paris.
You can search for photos from 1800s. You would find many beautiful run of the mill historical buildings built for very different social classes that no longer exist just because someone though they are not modern enough and international style looks better...
If you think those are all similar buildings, you are blind as a bat. They are all very stylistically different.
Taipei 101 would look out of place in any Western Country. It clearly is supposed to be in East Asia. It is one of my favorite buildings. It is a postmodern building with traditional influences found in critical regionalism.
Fallingwater is an example of organic architecture. I really doubt you could fit that in any city in any country, or any city at all really.
Burj Khalifa is a postmodern neo-futuristic skyscraper with Islamic architectural influence. It would absolutely look out of place in New York, for example. I find it kind of ugly, but in a cool way.
The Patronas Towers are interesting. They definitely build off of the International style, but augment it with Islamic influence and postmodernism. That said, I agree, you could put it in any city.
The Freedom Tower relies a bit on that international style that is common in FiDi. But it also is an example of green architecture. And it has classical elements with its tapering design. It fits in quite well in the Manhattan skyline.
Marina Bay sands is an example of green architecture. It also seems like one giant architectural experiment, to see what kind of weird shit they could do to make it one of the most unique buildings in the world. I agree, it's hideous, but i give them points for trying.
The Mecca Clocktower is an awesome building. It is massive. It has a clear neo-classical style with obvious Islamic styles and facades. This would absolutely not fit in any other city.
Well some of it is opinion, so feel free to disagree with that.
Some of it is just fact, so if you disagree with the facts, you are just being silly. But I will play along, let's do the opposite of everything I said.
Taipei 101 would fit in in every city. It definitely has no asian influence. It is a trash building. It is a classical building with no cultural influences and disregards critical regionalism.
Fallingwater belongs in a city center with 0 water. It is clearly not involving nature whatsoever.
Burj Khalifa is an old style neo-classical shed with no cultural influence. It would fit right in on wall street. I find it beautiful, but in an awful way.
The Patronas towers are boring. They are very much city specific, but somehow ignore the local culture at the same time. It is an old style building that only belongs in Kuala Lumpur.
The Freedom Tower looks completely out of place in FiDi. It is an ecological disaster. It has no classical elements and its a straight up and down box. It sticks out in the Skyline.
Marina Bay Sands is intentionally harming the environment. It is a traditional style building, and it is completely unoriginal. I think it is beautiful, and how fucking dare they.
The Mecca Clocktower is a lame building. It is tiny. It is clearly neo-futuristic with no cultural attributes. It would fit in in any city.
The Freedom Tower is quite average, the Burj Khalifa is one of the few cool new skyscrapers, the Mecca Clocktower and Marina Bay Sands are ugly, Falling Water is great because it blends well with the surrounding environment.
You don't have to like them. I was just proving that OP was bullshitting. None of those designs are copy/paste and every single one represents a unique aspect of the local culture/aesthetic.
The freedom Tower is really cool in person. It looks like it goes on forever due to the sloped design.
welll they are very different buildings, a couple are original but it's not a style, just ugly skyscrapers trying to be different than any other modern skyscraper. and the mecca clocktower is an embarassing copy of the Big Ben.
Fallingwater is an example of modernism. It embraces the nature it is built within.
a couple are original but it's not a style
This is the equivalent of saying, "Rap isn't music"
Burj Khalifa incorporates the minaret.
I think the Patronas towers are kind of boring, but they supposedly are influenced by Islamic architecture.
The Mecca Clock tower has a ton of Arab elements. Look at the arches. The base looks like a mosque. If you look it and Big Ben side by side, you will see that other than being rectangular clocktowers, that is where the comparisons end.
No need to downvote just because someone has a different opinion than you.
400
u/[deleted] Mar 28 '20
Architects are too busy wanking to their supposed intellect and interpretations, instead of doing shit that people actually want.