OFFICIAL - IRS HQ construction

[KansasCityCraka]

I was at liberty memorial today just sitting on one of the benches and was watching the cranes move back and forth today it was pretty cool to see 4 tower cranes and 2 other cranes all working together in such a small space.

[Critical_Mass]

earth to Michael--

a "lack of vision" didn't prevent the IRS from commisioning a building of that caliber. It's called cash. To build that today would cost many many times more than the budget they are spending on their project. They could have built 30 IRS centers for the cost of that building pictured. You'll never see anything at all built like that EVER AGAIN. It's a relic from another time that cannot be produced today.
That is why preservation is so important...

[KCPowercat]

what is that building....looks so MEAN.

[GRID]

That's pretty cool, but we are getting this:

[Long]

I like how architects and clients don't have the "vision" to photocopy buildings out of history books.

[Gladstoner]

I like how architects and clients don't have the "vision" to photocopy buildings out of history books.

The new IRS building is a photocopy of its older neighbor, but the paper got jammed in the machine.

[Gladstoner]

earth to Michael--

a "lack of vision" didn't prevent the IRS from commisioning a building of that caliber. It's called cash. To build that today would cost many many times more than the budget they are spending on their project. They could have built 30 IRS centers for the cost of that building pictured. You'll never see anything at all built like that EVER AGAIN. It's a relic from another time that cannot be produced today.
That is why preservation is so important...

I agree about preserving old buildings, but I predict such ornate architecture will be feasible again in the future. The reason it isn't now is because there aren't nearly as many artisans today that can do that kind of work. It's the old supply and demand thing.

Eventually, though, they will likely be able to design an ornate facade on a computer and then fashion out the cladding components by some automated process, perhaps something akin to lasik eye surgery on a larger scale, or something entirely different. What may be possible could produce results on a larger scale and higher degree of intricacy than our forebearers could have dreamed of. And the materials used could likely be superior to terra cota, etc.

[macnw]

Is it the same to copy previous styles? What makes the previous styles of architecture something to admire is the thought and workmanship that went into producing structures. I don't think that's the same as doing it on a computer.

[Long]

I agree about preserving old buildings, but I predict such ornate architecture will be feasible again in the future. The reason it isn't now is because there aren't nearly as many artisans today that can do that kind of work. It's the old supply and demand thing.

Eventually, though, they will likely be able to design an ornate facade on a computer and then fashion out the cladding components by some automated process, perhaps something akin to lasik eye surgery on a larger scale, or something entirely different. What may be possible could produce results on a larger scale and higher degree of intricacy than our forebearers could have dreamed of. And the materials used could likely be superior to terra cota, etc.

They can already do this. I don't know the specifics, but a similar technique is used in restoring old buildings, to recreate missing or damaged stonework details. I believe they can basically "scan" a piece of stonework, then a computerized cutting machine fabricates a mold. Then they pour plaster, a plastic composite, or something similar into the mold, and there you go.

People just want to live in the past (by replicating old buildings) because they feel guilty about tearing down the real thing. I would suggest that THIS is the real lack of vision-- believing that we can't do anything better than what we've torn down. Yes, some architects that dare to be different do produce ugly buildings. It happens. But many times that ugly building is the result of a TRUE VISION that is watered down and squashed by clients and builders who are too afraid to try something they don't know. Most times cost is the factor, but many clients and builders are not interested in really working WITH the architect to produce a building of real vision that is also cost effective. They are more interested in beating on the architect until it is under budget, easy to build, and isn't taking too many chances.

[Deleted User]

.

[Gladstoner]

Most historical buildings were modeled after structures of antiquity anyway. They ripped off other styles such as Classical, Romanesque, Gothic, Italian Renaissance, etc. The old post office is supposed to resemble something on the Acropolis. At what point did it become tacky to borrow from these older styles?

Also, very similar buildings can be found in nearly every city in the country, if not in many places across the world. Apparently, someone came up with a cool design, and everyone else copied them. Why can't this be done through time as well?

What would make a borrowing of a historical theme "ok"? Training more artisans or ponying up more money so the existing ones can get to work? Or does it neccessarily have to be made by hand? Why not a computerized process, if the source of the design was a human architect?

Even if all existing structures were preserved, what about new construction? Would it all have to be curtain-walled boxes in order to fit in with the times? Is any kind of fine ornamentation now off limits?

It seems like in order for modern architecture to be "interesting", it has to be like some kind of wild Gehry concoction (hint: Butler building) to avoid copying some older style. Otherwise, it's back to the glass box or the brick prison highrise.

These questions are all rhetorical. Even to me it sort of seems tacky when a new building is made to look like something old. I just wonder why it seems that way.

My point with the computer thing was that the whole matter of cost of such construction could come down in the future and no longer be an inhibiting factor, assuming that's the reason modern buildings have boring detailing.

[Long]

I think part of it is, instead of "borrowing" from the Acropolis, we are now interested in reproducing from the building that was borrowing from the Acropolis.

As for buildings being copied across the country, maybe part of the reason this doesn't work so well is because of how much easier it is to travel to and communicate with different cities now.

I really don't think the process of generating the stonework or whatever details, by computer or by hand, really makes the difference. What is most important is how well the work is done, if high quality materials are used. If the level of craftsmanship is high in the end, I don't think it matters how we got there, and really it only makes sense to use the most efficient production techniques available to us.

But I think the biggest difference is the idea of "borrowing cues from" historic buildings versus trying to make a scaled down replica, or trying to reproduce a building from 100 years ago that was borrowing from something older.

And, there are good modern buildings. There just aren't that many of them, because a lot of people don't understand how to really do modernism correctly. They confuse modern with cheap and simple. Doing modernism correctly requires just as much attention to detail as any old building. A lot of times it is more difficult to do something simple (and do it well) than it is to do something complex.

And I'm not quite getting the correlation between Gehry and a Butler Building. I'm sure you're not suggesting you find similarities between the Guggenheim Bilbao and a metal manufacturing building?

[Gladstoner]

As for buildings being copied across the country, maybe part of the reason this doesn't work so well is because of how much easier it is to travel to and communicate with different cities now.

It's certainly true that because of travel and telecommunication, one has to be more innovative to compete in this modern world. That goes with all areas.

I really don't think the process of generating the
stonework or whatever details, by computer or by hand, really makes the difference. What is most important is how well the work is done, if high quality materials are used. If the level of craftsmanship is high in the end, I don't think it matters how we got there, and really it only makes sense to use the most efficient production techniques available to us.

Again, my point was that if the reason we don't use cool terra cotta detailing because of cost concerns, there are alternatives. If they just choose not to, that's fine too.

But I think the biggest difference is the idea of "borrowing cues from" historic buildings versus trying to make a scaled down replica, or trying to reproduce a building from 100 years ago that was borrowing from something older.

True. I must say I have seen recent spectacular examples of post-modern skyscrapers that use modern materials and more or less subtle historical themes. Something along those lines may be the best solution for smaller scaled building such as the ones that are going into P&L district.

And, there are good modern buildings. There just aren't that many of them, because a lot of people don't understand how to really do modernism correctly. They confuse modern with cheap and simple. Doing modernism correctly requires just as much attention to detail as any old building. A lot of times it is more difficult to do something simple (and do it well) than it is to do something complex.

I agree. Modernism, especially minimalism, requires artistic ability to create. I've heard the Seagram building in NYC is an example. The problem is all of the me-too's that follow. You end up with blocks and blocks of boxes with sterile plazas. It's also like those bare-bones Japanese gardens. They are pleasing to the eye because of the composition, but if I tried to reproduce it at home, it would be a disaster. My solution would be to add ornamentation (plant more crap).

And I'm not quite getting the correlation between Gehry and a Butler Building. I'm sure you're not suggesting you find similarities between the Guggenheim Bilbao and a metal manufacturing building?

I was just making a smart @$$ comment about the Nelson expansion. My point was that both the Nelson and Gehry's works are bold departures from the historical.

[kevink]

It always amuses me that somehow copying historic styles is considered "wrong" (mostly by architects), but copying modernism, from any of its eras, or copying the latest building in Architectural Record, is OK.

Modernism is 100 years old - it's also an historic style by now. There are good buildings and bad buildings, period. Get over the style nonsense.

As for this building, its biggest problem is not the elevations. Of course, we've only seen one blurry elevaton, so it's hard to judge.

Rather, the biggest problem is that we will now cover six city blocks with a federal fortress, and not a single entry at the street. How anyone thinks this project does ANYTHING for downtown baffles me. If the whole site was a federal prison, would we like it?

[Long]

It always amuses me that somehow copying historic styles is considered "wrong" (mostly by architects), but copying modernism, from any of its eras, or copying the latest building in Architectural Record, is OK.

Modernism is 100 years old - it's also an historic style by now. There are good buildings and bad buildings, period. Get over the style nonsense.

As for this building, its biggest problem is not the elevations. Of course, we've only seen one blurry elevaton, so it's hard to judge.

Rather, the biggest problem is that we will now cover six city blocks with a federal fortress, and not a single entry at the street. How anyone thinks this project does ANYTHING for downtown baffles me. If the whole site was a federal prison, would we like it?

"Copying" isn't a good thing anytime. . . just because some architects are doing it doesn't make it right.

If you just keep reproducing buildings from the past, every building starts to lose its identity. The new building blends in so much that you don't even notice it after it is finished (see the "juicer" building on the plaza, west of Barnes & Noble) and the old buildings lose their uniqueness because what made them special is no longer specific to that building.

This project is good for downtown because it brings a lot of workers downtown. Last time I checked, this was a good thing. Not a single entry at the street? Who is going to enter this building from the street?

[Tosspot]

Not a single entry at the street? Who is going to enter this building from the street?

You have got to be kidding me. By that train of thought, we might as well just bulldoze downtown tomorrow and erect some auto-centric JoCo style strip mall power centers in it's place.

[Gladstoner]

Rather, the biggest problem is that we will now cover six city blocks with a federal fortress, and not a single entry at the street. How anyone thinks this project does ANYTHING for downtown baffles me. If the whole site was a federal prison, would we like it?

A six block IRS complex? Sounds like a federal prison to me. Maybe they could save some money by auditing people and incarcerating them at the same site.

[ozone84]

A six block IRS complex? Sounds like a federal prison to me. Maybe they could save some money by auditing people and incarcerating them at the same site.

I think it will be about as welcoming as a prison. Not that an IRS facility would be a big attraction anyway but at least some visible activity from the street would be nice.

At least it will generate lots of property taxes, economic activity taxes, etc right?

[macnw]

Look at the big picture. The IRS facility itself may not be architectually significant. However, what kind of effect will it have on Union Station? Crown Center? Penn Valley Park? Freighthouse District? Six thousand workers don't happen that often. Having a beautiful building would be great. Having six thousand workers filling our streets and underutilized parks is even better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Long]

You have got to be kidding me. By that train of thought, we might as well just bulldoze downtown tomorrow and erect some auto-centric JoCo style strip mall power centers in it's place.

Um, no. . . the IRS building is a private office building (federal, yes, but still not open to the public) in an area with no foot traffic. There is no ground level retail or office space where patrons walk in through the front door, etc. etc. That is a little different than downtown.

Slapping a street frontage onto a building that has no use for one will not make people and activity magically appear on the street.