Eyesores & Architectural Blunders (ongoing thread)

[acepiloto]

My favorite pic of Pruit Igoe.
There were 33 buildings in the housing project

What saddens me about this pic is the density around it compared to now.

[FangKC]

It's amazing how some large-scale housing projects like this fail and others don't.  There are others that haven't like Stuyvesant Town, Peter Cooper Village, and Parkchester in NYC.  Stuyvesant Town is one of the more desirable large housing projects in NYC.  It has a waiting list as does Cooper Village.



Parkchester

[aknowledgeableperson]

A few years ago I came across an article about public housing.  Yes, in the 50's the in-thing was to build highrises for public housing.  Afterall rich people don't mind living that way so we will copy that for the poor.  Of course, for the most part highrise for the poor failed without a doubt.  It may have succeeded for a few places in NYC because of the housing prices.  Maybe more people with a higher level of income qualify for public housing in NYC than in most other cities.  Of course, when you look at some of the shows that take place in NYC some of those highrise public housing units are not so desirable.

(Of course, I am assuming that the three listed by FANG are true public housing for the poor as opposed to some other type of other public housing.) 

[FangKC]

Parkchester, Stuyvesant Town, and Peter Cooper Village were built and owned for many years by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company as middle class affordable housing.  For most of their history, they were rent-controlled so they remained moderately-priced.  I don't know if they remain rent-controlled now or not since I haven't lived in NYC for six years.  I seem to recall that rent contol was being phased out though.   They were never part of the NYC Housing Authority public housing projects.

I think the success or failure was based more on management that they fact that they were large, bland highrises.   Parkchester, S-Town, and PC Village were very similar to highrise towers in the NYC Housing Authority projects. In fact, some of these housing projects looked exactly the same.

The difference was management, policiing and concentrating large numbers of poor people together who had high drop-out rates, crime, poverty, and joblessness among the population.  It really had nothing to do with the architecture, landscaping, or that they were banal, repetitive rows of highrises.

I'm only mentioning this because I've read articles that blamed the failure of large-scale public housing on the design and architecture and not the demographic and societal problems of the residents.  I'm just saying that some large-scale housing projects that are very similar in design and density have been fairly successful and desirable places to live.

Had places like Wayne Minor been filled with middle income residents in another neighborhood, and managed differently, or privately, they might still be around.

The problem arises when too many low-income people with little to no education are placed together in one location.

It's not even so much a problem of density either, because there are plenty of places in NYC that are densely populated but still safe to live in.  It all comes down to the problems the residents bring to a neighborhood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_Town

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkchester,_Bronx

[Tosspot]

What is this abject dumbfuckery?

[Zorobabel]

Here's my nomination:



This has to be one of the ugliest skyscrapers I've ever seen. Looks like 1968 (when it was built) must have been some kind of architectural black hole - too late for the chiseled stone masterpiece, and too early for the glass skeleton.

TenMain Center is utterly painful to look at. The upside, though, is that it could probably be re-clad quite easily, and doing so would add a lot to the skyline. An example of good re-cladding:

Before


After


But I don't know if anyone at AMC would be interested in it.

[FangKC]

AMC doesn't own the building.

[Midtownkid]

I actually like the building as it is now.  Also, I think that re-cladding is not good.  Sure the building was a little tacky before...but it had character and definitely belonged to an era.  The 'after' is just bland and has absolutely no character.  An interesting cityscape has examples from all eras! 

[Zorobabel]

Well, it's just a matter of taste, isn't it? I much prefer the modern, glassy look, even if it doesn't have a lot of character. That's why I absolutely love Japanese and Korean cities. Endless rows of sleek glassy boxes.

[DaveKCMO]

i like the building (you'd be hard pressed to find an american city without a building that looks EXACTLY like it), but i do not like how it interfaces with the street. it's a mish-mash of steps, railings, and pointless gulches. for being the HQ of AMC, it's also way too sleepy... i suppose that has a lot to do with how they view those outside on the street.

[moderne]

I like the building. It certainly is a reminder from the sixties, and reminds me of the state of art technology of that era--computer punch cards.  Many years ago the Eva Gabor Wig Boutiques had its HQ in the building.  Eva, on the Tonight show gushed how beautiful the building in KC was.  But back then it also had that enormous crystal chandelier in the bay between the tower and garage.

[supastudio]

What an architectural blunder this is! 

[trailerkid]

What an architectural blunder this is! 

explain...

[supastudio]

explain...

Speaking only of the architecture and design itself, nothing to do with the politics of PnL, and the necessity of an arena, which has no tenant, it is average at best. 

Comparing it to other contemporary buildings in the KC area, it is boring. It is suppose to command iconic stature, but the Kauffman PAC (which had the schematic design already in place before the Sprint Center was on the drawing board)will surpass it. It has nothing new, clever or innovative, like the Nelson expansion by Steven Holl. Kemper Arena, at the time it was built , was considered architectural genius, using new and innovative structures, never used on that type of scale.  The Sprint Center has curved glass, big deal! It is done in way that says to me, "lets use curved glass, but let's not go overboard, we don't want to scare middle America"

The design, to me and my opinion only, invokes a "play it safe design". Unfortunately, I felt it was going to be "boring" when they announced who the architects were: HOK S+V+E (now Populous), Ellerbe Becket, 360 Architecture and Rafael Architects. You are all probably thinking, "wait those are all awesome design firms", and this is very true when they are individual, but once you group four architecture firms, only compromise will happen.  Once you compromise in design, forget about the chances of getting something worth while.

I have never heard of 4 large and very, very very good architecture firms group like that before and unfortunately the old cliche, "too many cooks spoil the broth" applies in this situation. I have never heard any say how "cool" the building itself is.  Does is function well for its intended purpose, yes it does, but thats about it.  Nothing is original, ingenious, progressive, or radical.

Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have the Sprint Center, but it's "newness" will fade away and will be just another arena.  Calling it an eyesore and architectural blunder is going a little too far. I didn't want to start a new thread that said "Average, Mediocre, Plain Buildings in KC".

[FangKC]

I agree with supastudio. The longer the building has been around, the more I wish we would have gotten a Frank Gehry-designed arena.  It would have probably been more stunning, and drew attention to Kansas City. We lost out big in comparison.

The other thing I wish is that the Sprint Center wouldn't have been a single-use facility. It would have been great if the structure could have been designed for more retail and commercial uses, and the lobby could have served as a multi-use space servicing those structures when the arena wasn't being used.

A Gehry-designed office building as part of Sprint Center, facing Grand and Truman, would have been a wonderful anchor if I-670 ever gets capped and Truman Boulevard realigned. A signature building might have lured Kansas City Power & Light. Imagine that thoroughfare lined with great buildings.

I also wish Grand Boulevard would have been redesigned better so that there were an island with street trees and lighting that made it more of a boulevard than just a wide-street.  The Cordish Power & Light District fronting is very badly done as well. Those buildings should have had more emphasis on Grand with wider sidewalks and outdoor seating.

We could have had something like this:

[grovester]

I will say that I appreciate the views from inside the arena, especially at night.

[trailerkid]

Speaking only of the architecture and design itself, nothing to do with the politics of PnL, and the necessity of an arena, which has no tenant, it is average at best.  

Comparing it to other contemporary buildings in the KC area, it is boring. It is suppose to command iconic stature, but the Kauffman PAC (which had the schematic design already in place before the Sprint Center was on the drawing board)will surpass it. It has nothing new, clever or innovative, like the Nelson expansion by Steven Holl. Kemper Arena, at the time it was built , was considered architectural genius, using new and innovative structures, never used on that type of scale.  The Sprint Center has curved glass, big deal! It is done in way that says to me, "lets use curved glass, but let's not go overboard, we don't want to scare middle America"

The design, to me and my opinion only, invokes a "play it safe design". Unfortunately, I felt it was going to be "boring" when they announced who the architects were: HOK S+V+E (now Populous), Ellerbe Becket, 360 Architecture and Rafael Architects. You are all probably thinking, "wait those are all awesome design firms", and this is very true when they are individual, but once you group four architecture firms, only compromise will happen.  Once you compromise in design, forget about the chances of getting something worth while.

I have never heard of 4 large and very, very very good architecture firms group like that before and unfortunately the old cliche, "too many cooks spoil the broth" applies in this situation. I have never heard any say how "cool" the building itself is.  Does is function well for its intended purpose, yes it does, but thats about it.  Nothing is original, ingenious, progressive, or radical.

Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have the Sprint Center, but it's "newness" will fade away and will be just another arena.  Calling it an eyesore and architectural blunder is going a little too far. I didn't want to start a new thread that said "Average, Mediocre, Plain Buildings in KC".

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Remember this is a venue that hosts Nickelback concerts and college basketball games. I don't think the design is out of sync at all with the caliber of events it holds or the mostly forgettable architecture around it. Getting the best sports arena architects to design the new arena seemed like a no-brainer at the time. KC could've gotten Gehry, but we didn't know the local firms would play it safe. With Gehry we know we what we were getting, but with the locals we didn't. What we got was underwhelming when you think about world architecture, but it serves its use nicely. It's rather telling to use Kemper as your "good" example when it had massive architectural failures and now sits as a vacant reminder of the folly of 1970s KC. Playing it safe isn't always a bad thing, but I generally agree with your premise. It's just impossible to know what was going to come out of the local firms.

Could they have taken more risks on Sprint Center? Absolutely. Is it an architectural blunder as a sports arena? Absolutely not. I can't think of an American sports arena that clearly surpasses Sprint Center in terms of architecture. Most arenas truly are architectural abortions.

[mykem]

The Sprint Center is one of the best arenas in the world. But I remember reading that there was not a big enough budget to do a more exotic design for the Sprint Center. Since everybody believed there was going to be a NHL team in the building officials decided to go with function over form. Since it doesn't look like KC will be getting that anchor tenant soon we could have went the opposite.
The BOK Center in Tulsa is a good example of opposite. Just by looking at it from the outside one would assume it was on the same level as the Sprint Center. The BOK Center was about 70 to 80 million dollars cheaper than the Sprint Center to build. The BOK Center holds all of the same concerts, and exhibition games as the Sprint Center. It's just not an arena designed to house a NHL or NBA team like the Sprint Center.  I'm proud of the Sprint Center. I disagree with people whom say it's boring. The design works it's perfect for DT. I believe with the budget they had to work with the DTADT did a good job ensuring KC got an arena design that was timeless, and capable of hosting a NHL, and/ or NBA team.

By the way Frank Gehry is no longer the Architect for the Barclays Center. His design proved to be way over budget.

[shinatoo]

If Kemper had been built inside the loop would it have been worth spending 150mil to bring up to date like TSC? What kind of effect would that have had on DT?

I wonder how much of the exoskeleton could have been dismantled and moved up the hill? If it was so revolutionary why haven't we seen more arenas like it? Did it inspire New Texas Stadium?

[slimwhitman]

I also wish Grand Boulevard would have been redesigned better so that there were an island with street trees and lighting that made it more of a boulevard than just a wide-street.  The Cordish Power & Light District fronting is very badly done as well. Those buildings should have had more emphasis on Grand with wider sidewalks and outdoor seating.

I totally agree that P&L seems to shun looking at the Sprint Center.  Walks are too narrow and the buildings do not address the street well.  Outdoor seating?  Woulda been nice.

As for a nice boulevard--something like 47th St on the Plaza--would have been nice also.  But that would mean trees would be planted.  Most architects I know hate trees.  How could you ever see their artpiece with trees in the way?(HA!)

I also hate all that wasted frontage on Grand & Truman around the Sprint Center.  Really?...What good is grass?  Load those areas up with retail and energize Grand a bit.  (Again, these would block the “pure beauty” that is the building, according to the architects).

Very few architects understand how to make a “place” full of vitality.  Most only know how to make an autonomous piece of sculpture (despite what they think).