Re: Plaza move-ins (ongoing)
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:15 pm
MLK Jr. Bowl?
Do you have stats to back those averages?AlbertHammond wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:23 pmI think my statement is very accurate.flyingember wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:02 pmYou were doing so good and then it became subjective.The problem is that most new buildings are uglier, less interesting/ornamented and degrade the public realm/neighborhood more than the old building
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.
Ummm....let's see here....where did I leave my ugly measurement tool....chaglang wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:48 amDo you have stats to back those averages?AlbertHammond wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:23 pmI 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.
Multifamily rental margins can be surprisingly low. Ornamentation (or lack) is almost entirely driven by cost - especially in a market such as KC.flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:42 pm 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.
Because beauty is useless:normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:01 am 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.
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.TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:54 pm 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
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.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.”
You have this backwards. Older styles of ornamentation existed because of a lack of technology.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.
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.flyingember wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:29 amYou have this backwards. Older styles of ornamentation existed because of a lack of technology.
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.flyingember wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:29 amModernism and post-modernism exists because technology made different shapes possible. Architects weren't limited to carvings defining a style.
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.flyingember wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:29 amThe curtain wall building became very popular because they were an affordable way to provide an office with tons of natural light.
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.flyingember wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:29 amYou can see this in your so-called bad apartment buildings where windows dominate the design.
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?chaglang wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:17 amMarquee 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 - Bravo to all your comments and rebuttals. All arguments against you are merely uninformed excuses. Great points.
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.AlbertHammond wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:51 pm 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.
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.TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:39 pmThen 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?
You both have missed the point.AlbertHammond wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:51 pmTheLastGentleman - 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.