Plaza move-ins (ongoing)

[grovester]

MLK Jr. Bowl?

[chaglang]

The problem is that most new buildings are uglier, less interesting/ornamented and degrade the public realm/neighborhood more than the old building

You were doing so good and then it became subjective.

I think my statement is very accurate.

Are new buildings uglier than pre-war buildings? On average, yes. At least to non-architects.
Are new buildings less interesting/ornamented than pre-war buildings? On average, yes.
Do new buildings degrade the public realm or disrespect the neighborhood more than pre-war buildings? On average, yes. They tend to create boring streetfronts on larger parts of the first floor.

The average citizen may not be sophisticated, but they know when it feels better or worse. New buildings, on average, are less lovable than an older building. And that has nothing to do with history. It has to do with connecting to people's inherent preferences.

Do you have stats to back those averages?

The old building/new building categorization lumps a lot of disparate designs into groups that are far too broad to be discussed accurately. Old/New or even Pre-war/Post-war are vague and don't actually match up with the changes in architectural tastes that I think you are associating with them. Even focusing on style is too narrow to really understand why buildings look different than they used to. It shortchanges what is a could be a very interesting discussion about how we build cities. Styles have changed, but so has what we ask buildings to do, how we build them, and how we travel to and access them. Things like the advent of air conditioning, of car culture, of mass production of building materials, and changes in code and zoning requirements all have shaped building design and how buildings address the public realm more than whatever Corbusier or Mies were doing. People have always been predisposed to like older styles because (pop psychology alert) they're familiar or have associations with a different time. It's true now and it was true in 1919 and 1819. Revival styles are popular for a reason and have been for centuries.

My hunch is that most architects would add far more ornamentation to their buildings if they could. I certainly would. The old Internationalist stuff isn't really a style anyone chases anymore (architects are far too trendy for that!). But architects don't control the purse strings, the client does. And unless you are in the AEC industry it is hard to fathom how wildly bleeping expensive things are. Old warehouse buildings were brick walls, wood frame, and some tar on the roof. Now that building has to be insulated, very likely has large mechanical units, has a far more complicated roof, has to account for stormwater runoff, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Add to that the regulatory hurdles a city like KCMO imposes (along with associated fees, of course) and you get a building that is in real dollars far, far more expensive to build than its predecessors. I've been on a lot of projects (a few that we've been on together, haha) on which we tried to add ornamentation or make similar design improvements, but the cost of just putting a building in the ground is so high that the first thing to get cut by the client is ornamentation because it's deemed inessential. And they aren't doing that because they just got done reading "Ornament is Crime" or some similar modernist tract. The book they are looking at is their checkbook. When it comes down to getting the square footage they need or preserving a terra cotta detail that I spent a day designing and am very excited about, the square footage wins out every time. Renovations can be cheaper, but the accompanying budgets are often proportionally smaller, so you're back in the same boat.

My point in writing all these many too many words is to try to add some nuance to what is often a very binary discussion. None of this is intended to excuse bad design. That's something that has always existed and always will.

[AlbertHammond]

You were doing so good and then it became subjective.

I think my statement is very accurate.

Are new buildings uglier than pre-war buildings? On average, yes. At least to non-architects.
Are new buildings less interesting/ornamented than pre-war buildings? On average, yes.
Do new buildings degrade the public realm or disrespect the neighborhood more than pre-war buildings? On average, yes. They tend to create boring streetfronts on larger parts of the first floor.

The average citizen may not be sophisticated, but they know when it feels better or worse. New buildings, on average, are less lovable than an older building. And that has nothing to do with history. It has to do with connecting to people's inherent preferences.

Do you have stats to back those averages?

Ummm....let's see here....where did I leave my ugly measurement tool....

[TheLastGentleman]

Again, that ornament is so expensive because the industries it required were dismantled. Ideally, some bold developers and architects would push for new systems of ornament, start a trend, and cause the stuff to come back into demand, in the same way the Bauhaus designers had to convince their clients of the merits of glass boxes, a far more expensive feat at the time than today.

That way, the industries can come back, with all the modern technology that comes with them, and can make intricate detail affordable to anyone. That's the way it was prewar, where even some of the most insignificant warehouses in the crossroads still had elaborate art deco parapets worthy of NYC skyscraper

[flyingember]

The most insignificant new buildings in the crossroads today are built with *different* ornamation because that's what the owners want. They don't care that their building doesn't have a single corbel on it.

There's been a new architectural style about every 20 years to the point that you can pick a war and find a different look on either side.

The 1960s towers are quite different from the 1980s towers. A 1999-ish home already looks different from one built this year

[normalthings]

The most insignificant new buildings in the crossroads today are built with *different* ornamation because that's what the owners want. They don't care that their building doesn't have a single corbel on it.

Multifamily rental margins can be surprisingly low. Ornamentation (or lack) is almost entirely driven by cost - especially in a market such as KC.


On another note, I think that the need for ornamentation is gone. It used to be something that drove tenant and public interest in a project. Now Technology is what really drives tenant interest, leasing rates, and even public interest. Whether that is buttonless elevators, LED walls, or even efficient and environmentally friendly appliances and systems. As buildings have grown complex, adding a variety of systems, what sets buildings apart has moved away from how they look to how they work.

https://youtu.be/DqOWyL5S1UE

[AlbertHammond]

I think that the need for ornamentation is gone. It used to be something that drove tenant and public interest in a project. Now Technology is what really drives tenant interest, leasing rates, and even public interest. Whether that is buttonless elevators, LED walls, or even efficient and environmentally friendly appliances and systems. As buildings have grown complex, adding a variety of systems, what sets buildings apart has moved away from how they look to how they work.

Because beauty is useless:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul. -John Muir, The Yosemite, 1912
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some are offended by the suggestion that there is a difference between good and bad taste, or that it matters what you look at, or read, or listen to. But this doesn’t help anybody. There are standards of beauty which have a firm base in human nature. And we need to look for them and build them into our lives. Maybe people have lost their faith in beauty because they have lost their belief in ideals. All there is, they’re tended to think, is the world of appetite. There are no values other than utilitarian ones. Something has a value if it has a use. And what’s the use of beauty? Just think of it. What is the use of love? Of friendship? Of worship? None whatsoever. And the same goes for beauty. Beauty is assailed from two directions. By the cult of ugliness in the arts and by the cult of utility in everyday life. These two cults come together in the world of modern architecture. At the turn of the 20th century, architects, like artists, began to be impatient with beauty and to put utility above beauty.

Put usefulness first and you lose beauty. Put beauty first, and what you do will be useful forever. It turns out that nothing is more useful than the useless. We see this in traditional architecture, with its decorative details. Ornaments liberate us from the tyranny of the useful and satisfy our need for harmony. In a strange way, they make us feel at home. They remind us that we have more than practical needs. We’re not just governed by animal appetites like eating and sleeping. We have spiritual and moral needs too. And if those needs go unsatisfied, so do we.
– Roger Scruton
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not long after I was elected, I’d see visitors in town. They looked like they were retired blue-collar workers, and you’d see them admiring buildings. Beauty has no economic litmus test. It’s a basic human need and instinct. -Mayor Joe Riley, Charleston, SC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preservationists ask why we preserve because many preservationists, and especially those with jobs in preservation, have forgotten why we preserve. But it is not rocket science. We preserve because we love and respect beauty above all. Preservation was a hobby before 1950, dedicated to saving actual historic structures (“George Washington slept here”) over decades and even centuries when people tended to believe that a demolished building would naturally be replaced by a better building. When people started to believe, increasingly, after 1950 that a demolished building might well be replaced by something worse, preservation was swiftly transformed from a hobby into a mass movement. That’s the essential truth about preservation. And it is not difficult to understand why we preserve if we understand that truth. - David Brussat

[flyingember]

https://www.curbed.com/2019/1/16/181841 ... -materials

This article is interesting and touches on the subject.

[chaglang]

Again, that ornament is so expensive because the industries it required were dismantled. Ideally, some bold developers and architects would push for new systems of ornament, start a trend, and cause the stuff to come back into demand, in the same way the Bauhaus designers had to convince their clients of the merits of glass boxes, a far more expensive feat at the time than today.

That way, the industries can come back, with all the modern technology that comes with them, and can make intricate detail affordable to anyone. That's the way it was prewar, where even some of the most insignificant warehouses in the crossroads still had elaborate art deco parapets worthy of NYC skyscraper

This is far more complicated than architects starting a trend. I can draw anything I want, but if it won't fit in the budget it won't get built. And ornament has to compete with things like insulation and mechanical systems for project dollars. My hunch is that even if styles hadn't changed, escalating construction costs would have killed these industries anyway. Postmodernism is a good example. It was a full-on, ornamentalist veer away from modernism in the 70's and 80's. It was fully embraced by many architects. But I don't think it sparked much of a revival in the ornaments industry. And then the style fell out of favor - as all styles eventually do. Given that the 80's are making a comeback we may be in for a Postmodern Revival, who knows.

3D printing might eventually be able to fill some low-cost ornament needs. It seems like something that is still in the experimental phase but if a plant opened in China tomorrow I wouldn't be surprised.

[TheLastGentleman]

Loads of buildings have features or designs that add significantly to the budget. Look at Gehry buildings, or Calatrava's, or even Safdie's. The Kauffman Center would've been a lot cheaper without those curves. Not all buildings are on a super tight budget, and can totally afford to experiment, and those experiments often influence the course of architecture. That's how modern architecture got started in the first place. Glass boxes were not exactly cheap to produce early on.

The issue with postmodernism is that its take on ornament was super abstract. There was no actual texture, it was all just big symbols. "Remember domes? You liked buildings with domes, right? Here's a building with a dome! Isn't it beautiful?"



What they missed was texture. This building in particular is referencing an old domed courthouse nearby, which, while not extravagant, still features tastefully applied ornament to add interest to the facade. Each one of those column capitals has more sculptural complexity than the entire skyscraper does.



I think that's why postmodernism died so quickly. It reminded everyone about better, more interesting buildings instead of being interesting on its own merits. Also, it all looked like it was made of Lego pieces.

If WWII hadn't happened, and stripped classicism/streamline moderne had been allowed to evolve naturally, I think ornament would've come back in some form. The stripping of ornament occurred because of the great depression. You can even see it reflected in KC's deco architecture. The Jackson County Courthouse from 1934 is more ornate than City Hall from 1937, for instance. But they both still have friezes, intricate ironwork, ect. If a devastating economic disaster like the depression didn't completely kill ornament, I doubt any other economic force would've. It was style that truly did it in.

As the country got out of the depression, I suspect ornament would've returned, having never been totally rejected like it was in our world. It may have stayed more subdued than before the depression, and may have taken some cues from European modernism, the Bauhaus, ect, but it would've still been part of the vocabulary. Maybe something along these lines of the building shown below. Built in 1967 BTW.



In response to the claim that tech can replace ornament, I don't see how they can't exist at once. Tech and ornament existed together before. In Union Station, for instance, the chandeliers have exposed bulbs because electricity was a luxury in 1914 and so it was flaunted.



Also, check out those huge glass windows. The daylighting can be so good that the lights don't even have to be turned on during clear weather.

Or see the giant exposed structural ribs in the Natural History Museum in London



Or the glass concourse of Old Penn Station



Technology can't replace ornament outright, however, because it will eventually lose its novelty over time. Nobody is impressed by Union Station's exposed bulbs any more. They are now more impressed by the intricacy of the chandeliers they are attached to. The technology simply enhances the ornament now.

Another issue of relying strictly on technology to improve a building is that it will mostly be internal. Of the people who see a building, only a fraction will ever go in. You can't avoid seeing 1KCP, but you are completely barred from entry unless you have a job there, for instance. IMO, a building that has blighted the city in exchange for a fancy interior has done the public a disservice. It makes business sense, sure, but that isn't a good excuse. We've been able to produce externally beautiful buildings before without compromising the interior.

The biggest issue with tech, though, is that for it to be impressive it must be new, and thus very expensive. This is prohibitive for most developments, and is where ornament has the greatest potential. You're all correct in that the average development will have an extremely tight budget. It's for that reason that the average new building looks like this



Compare that with similarly scaled prewar developments.



"Developer modernism" or whatever you want to call it is a style of building that only exists to roughly fit in with context without actually contributing anything beyond occupying a lot. To some people this might be more than enough, but I have higher standards than that, especially looking back at what was being accomplished a century ago.

So, how do you apply ornament affordably? Well, lets take a look at some older buildings. A good local example would have to be the Scarritt Building, as it is directly based off the work of Louis Sullivan. Sullivan argued that buildings, tall buildings in particular, should adhere to a tripartite form, with a base, shaft and cornice, just like a classical column. Besides providing a visual balance, adding interest to the ground floors, and drawing the eye towards the building's top, it also meant that the ornament didn't have to coat the entire building. It could be clustered around the base and cornice, with the shaft being potentially featureless, as seen here.



Thus the building can look ornate without the ornament taking up much surface area.

Okay, but why does any of this matter though? Doesn't the public not care about architecture?

Well, as demonstrated by how much public support the preservation movement has gained, it would seem a lot of the general public not only notices architecture, but is willing to join movements about it. There are other ways of judging public interest as well. What cities are considered the most beautiful? What kinds of buildings are tourist attractions? What kind of cities do people honeymoon in? Even if people don't actively think about architecture, studies have shown that the built environment, including architecture, has an enormous subconscious impact.

https://www.citylab.com/design/2017/07/ ... re/531810/

I particularly like the Louis Kahn quote

Architects intuited some of these principles long ago. As Kahn once noted of the monumental Baths of Caracalla in Rome, a person can bathe under an eight-foot ceiling, “but there’s something about a 150-foot ceiling that makes a man a different kind of man.”

Despite its slightly shorter ceilings, it brings to mind the visitors at Union Station. People, few of whom are even related to the building industry or have any sort of architectural education, are able to be awed by the space. I've brought people into the building who've gasped. This is architecture at its peak, where you don't need any theories to understand and enjoy. A great street is the same way. There's just as much a visual element as there is a functional one. Shops to look into. People milling. Greenery. Architecture can contribute to this. One of the things that makes Baltimore such a compelling street is the presence of the New York Life Building. It has zero ground floor action, yet the street would be far worse if it were gone.



Modernism wasn't just a style that came and went. It's a paradigm that we haven't left since the 50s. It has shifted and evolved, but the main tenet, the rejection of ornament, still dictates each design, and I believe that is holding the entire art back. But as much influence as architects have, it will ultimately, as ever, be up to those who control the money to decide the fate of it all.

[flyingember]

In response to the claim that tech can replace ornament, I don't see how they can't exist at once. Tech and ornament existed together before. In Union Station, for instance, the chandeliers have exposed bulbs because electricity was a luxury in 1914 and so it was flaunted.

You have this backwards. Older styles of ornamentation existed because of a lack of technology.

Modernism and post-modernism exists because technology made different shapes possible. Architects weren't limited to carvings defining a style.

The curtain wall building became very popular because they were an affordable way to provide an office with tons of natural light.

You can see this in your so-called bad apartment buildings where windows dominate the design.

[chaglang]

Marquee buildings have always been showpieces because they have that kind of budget. Common buildings are where budgets get squeezed the most and are those most prone to having to cut nonessentials, even machine-made or mass-produced ornamentation. The economics are pretty simple. My takeaway is that this kind of thing isn't as valued by many clients as people think.

[TheLastGentleman]

You have this backwards. Older styles of ornamentation existed because of a lack of technology.

Not really. If anything technology produced more ornament. Mass produced terra cotta is a good example, as is cast iron latticwork like that found in New Orleans, or the metal elements of the Chrysler and ESB. All these wouldn't have been possible without the industrial revolution.

Modernism and post-modernism exists because technology made different shapes possible. Architects weren't limited to carvings defining a style.

Both those styles used pretty conventional shapes most of the time. Modern buildings were boxes, and postmodern buildings were boxes with hats. Buildings all the way back in the early 1900s were already being designed with elaborate and unusually shaped crowns. It wasn't a new thing when postmodernism did it.

The curtain wall building became very popular because they were an affordable way to provide an office with tons of natural light.

Yes, but it took until the demand was high enough and the industry developed enough for it to become affordable. For a while only the most expensive and highest profile buildings could have walls of glass, such as the Seagram Building, the Lever House, ect. These influential projects started the trend, and once the industry was in place, it became so cheap that it became the go to material for designing buildings as cheaply as possible. So, yes, cost had a part in it, but only because glass had become fashionable.

It's similar to the electric lighting example. Bulbs were impressive and rare when they were new, but, as they came into demand and the industry expanded, everyone could suddenly afford them. Like glass, they became a mundane and established technology.

Would terra cotta have become affordable in the early 20th century if there wasn't a huge industry and a huge demand?

You can see this in your so-called bad apartment buildings where windows dominate the design.

Ignoring the middle-left building's corner curtain walls, the windows don't dominate those designs much more than they did in many prewar buildings. Some Chicago-style buildings had larger windows, in fact. The Hampton in at 8th and Walnut, for instance, has a huge amount of its surface area dedicated to windows. That's not even mentioning the Boley Building, which managed the incredible feat of having both glass walls and ornament, and that was back in 1909.

Marquee buildings have always been showpieces because they have that kind of budget. Common buildings are where budgets get squeezed the most and are those most prone to having to cut nonessentials, even machine-made or mass-produced ornamentation. The economics are pretty simple. My takeaway is that this kind of thing isn't as valued by many clients as people think.

Then why is ornament so ubiquitous in prewar architecture, even in common buildings? What drove them to spend the extra money on ornament? How could they afford it? Even warehouses had ornament, just look at the West Bottoms. They didn't need ornament, so why is it there?

[wahoowa]

SHOUTS OUT TO THE BOLEY BUILDING man i knew there was a reason i was reading this thread

[TheLastGentleman]

SHOUTS OUT TO THE BOLEY BUILDING man i knew there was a reason i was reading this thread

Most underrated building in KC

[AlbertHammond]

TheLastGentleman - Bravo to all your comments and rebuttals. All arguments against you are merely uninformed excuses. Great points.

Ornament or other human scale details are critical to making buildings worth caring about. Every building that is built that lacks that detail will never make the city more loved. This detail is no longer taught or admired in the design professions and is making our world less satisfying.

[horizons82]

TheLastGentleman - Bravo to all your comments and rebuttals. All arguments against you are merely uninformed excuses. Great points.

Ornament or other human scale details are critical to making buildings worth caring about. Every building that is built that lacks that detail will never make the city more loved. This detail is no longer taught or admired in the design professions and is making our world less satisfying.

Oh for god's sake. Designers of today were taught and understand "the detail", they just don't practice in the way you would like. If you asked most competent architects to design a Beaux Arts building, they could do it. One style of architecture isn't inherently better than another.

I've been receptive to the arguments for more buildings with classical ornamentation. Varitety is the spice of life. But there's an underlying current here that people discount the minimalism or intricacy of modern works too. Visit Zaha Hadid's MAXXI in Rome, Peter Zumthor's Therme Vals in Switzerland, or heck Steven Holl's Bloch Building here in KC. If you can't appreciate what the modern architect can do with light, volume, finish, nature, and massing, that's a true shame.

The banality of your typical new midrise has always been there in every age. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Past is prologue and eventually contemporary architecture will be whittled back to structures like those I highlighted.

Then why is ornament so ubiquitous in prewar architecture, even in common buildings? What drove them to spend the extra money on ornament? How could they afford it? Even warehouses had ornament, just look at the West Bottoms. They didn't need ornament, so why is it there?

I would argue this is an indictment of American capitalism and how we handle real estate today; more than it is one of architecture and design.

At one time, building ownership was far more decentralized than today. Today a few key players run many markets. Many companies owned their own buildings. Today you have a property built by a developer, sold at completion to an ownership group, managed by a separate conglomerate, that then leases space to some employer. The incentive to create a personal showpiece, a statement of success, has been stripped from your typical building.

[flyingember]

TheLastGentleman - Bravo to all your comments and rebuttals. All arguments against you are merely uninformed excuses. Great points.

Ornament or other human scale details are critical to making buildings worth caring about. Every building that is built that lacks that detail will never make the city more loved. This detail is no longer taught or admired in the design professions and is making our world less satisfying.

You both have missed the point.

It’s not the buildings that people care about, it’s the functionality of the buildings.

The Sprint Center has nearly no ornamentation on it. Would it serve it’s purpose better if it wasn’t all glass?

If someone said they were going to build 500 stories worth of affordable housing buildings (5x 10 stories) but they couldn’t afford fancy ornamentation most people would go crazy if they were turned down by the city over their ornamentation level.

[FangKC]

However, if you study what HUD has been doing in recent decades, you will see that they moved from non-descript, cheap, dormitory-type buildings to building communities that are more traditional-looking, and that look like homes instead of motels.

[marieantoinette]

[/quote]
You both have missed the point.

It’s not the buildings that people care about, it’s the functionality of the buildings.

The Sprint Center has nearly no ornamentation on it. Would it serve it’s purpose better if it wasn’t all glass?

If someone said they were going to build 500 stories worth of affordable housing buildings (5x 10 stories) but they couldn’t afford fancy ornamentation most people would go crazy if they were turned down by the city over their ornamentation level.
[/quote]

I would have to *strongly* disagree. People care about buildings that currently have no function, just because of the unique architecture or other aesthetic benefits. In terms of why we love a place/city, I think it goes deeper than functionality, or maximizing the utility of land.

Not to say unused old buildings should exist for the sake of existing, but perhaps people don't want to lose these charming old buildings because today's development is typically not very charming or interesting at all - and at little fault of the designers, I believe. Someone mentioned that clients just don't care to pay for these extra details... and why would they?

I don't disagree that our urban land should certainly have a purpose. However, purpose is not the only component that makes a place worth caring about. 135th Street corridor has its purpose, but is also a total abomination.