or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › The Architecture Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Architecture Thread - Page 184

post #2746 of 3501

While I suspect that this is but an interregnum from the reign of terror, perhaps we should make the most of it.

 

Who will join me in considering the humble apartment block? Given modern economies of scale, should it be so humble? 

 

We might as well start with Frank Gehry's 8 Spruce Street since it's recently come up in passing. We all know Gehry is a gimmick architect, regardless of talent. With some of his projects the gimmick actually works, and I think it works quite well here. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm also a big fan of the Marina City Towers in Chicago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So? Any takers? What apartment blocks do you like? 

post #2747 of 3501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post

While I suspect that this is but an interregnum from the reign of terror, perhaps we should make the most of it.

Who will join me in considering the humble apartment block? Given modern economies of scale, should it be so humble? 

We might as well start with Frank Gehry's 8 Spruce Street since it's recently come up in passing. We all know Gehry is a gimmick architect, regardless of talent. With some of his projects the gimmick actually works, and I think it works quite well here
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)














I'm also a big fan of the Marina City Towers in Chicago.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)






















So? Any takers? What apartment blocks do you like? 

Why do you say that?
post #2748 of 3501
I know what I like. From some angles it looks like a waterfall suspended in the sky, from others, a giant furled mainmast. It plays with the shape of Manhattan. Coming out of the City Hall subway station, it's one of the first things you see and it's pretty impressive to me.



What do you think about it?
post #2749 of 3501
I think it is interesting in the sculptural sense, but I have a hard time understanding form for the sake of form.
post #2750 of 3501
I take a little issue with the term gimmick, as it implies an affectation, and I honestly think Gehry's style is genuine.
Form follows function is not a rule. I don't think it hurts to have buildings as sculptures, or sculptures as buildings...habitable sculptures if you will.

I'm possibly being a little biased, as I am holding my breath on the approval of his Mirvish towers here in my town. Although I am generally a fan of the modernist apartment blocks from the 50's - 70's, from international style to the more flamboyant neo-baroque style of Morris Lapidus.
post #2751 of 3501
I appreciate his approach, but I much prefer design grounded in classical proportion. Interesting use of simple geometry and proportion do more for me than abstract forms.

I also do not like the effect it has on the interior spaces, creating a lot of very odd little spaces. I'd rather it end up having a fantastic interior than an interesting shape on the exterior. Those interior spaces are really dull.
post #2752 of 3501
Completely agree with Skinny. I think it's extremely pretentious and impractical to live in an abstract sculpture. Those interior spaces are really very poor in terms of usability, dimensions, proportions, and so forth. The fenestration is also inelegant and the glazing stingy, which looks bad on both the inside and outside. That's typical of pretentious architecture: all of the budget is used up on formal abstraction, and you end up with shitty windows.

Besides, I don't think Gehry's building works as a sculpture at all. It is top-heavy and extremely clumsy, and there is nothing clever or thought-provoking about it. I would be impressed if someone could explain the rationale behind as it a sculpture, let alone as a building.
Edited by Loathing - 2/21/14 at 12:39pm
post #2753 of 3501
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba View Post

I appreciate his approach, but I much prefer design grounded in classical proportion. Interesting use of simple geometry and proportion do more for me than abstract forms.

I also do not like the effect it has on the interior spaces, creating a lot of very odd little spaces. I'd rather it end up having a fantastic interior than an interesting shape on the exterior. Those interior spaces are really dull.

 

Having been in the building I partially agree. I was surprised at how drab the common hallways were. Indeed the lobby and hallways are rather dark. But I attributed it to being "a New York" thing at the time. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post

Completely agree with Skinny. I think it's extremely pretentious and impractical to live in an abstract sculpture. Those interior spaces are really very poor in terms of usability, dimensions, proportions, and so forth. The fenestration is also inelegant and the glazing stingy, which looks bad on both the inside and outside. That's typical of pretentious architecture: all of the budget is used up on formal abstraction, and you end up with shitty windows.

Besides, I don't think Gehry's building works as a sculpture at all. It is top-heavy and extremely clumsy, and there is nothing clever or thought-provoking about it. I would be impressed if someone could explain the rationale behind as a sculpture, let alone as a building.

 

I was actually impressed with the window views, but that was from about halfway up. One thing: I have a bit of thing about heights. I don't freeze up but when ever I'm looking out over a tall view I still get that flight response twinge in the calves, and it can distract from appreciating the view. I didn't have that feeling at all looking out from the 40th floor of Spruce Street, and I'd attribute that to the set-in fenestration. 

 

In any case, floor plans are also seen as problematic with Marina City. 

 

 

 

I also found a rather hokey industrial film about the construction of Marina City. The details of how the project was put up are interesting, as well as the whole aspirational "America-Before-We-Fucked-Up" narrative of the piece. In the beginning, there is some snark about how the floorplans "vanquish the dilemma posed by corners."

 

post #2754 of 3501
post #2755 of 3501
Quote:
Interesting use of simple geometry and proportion do more for me than abstract forms.

I like both

I also think Manhattan can handle it.

Quote:
Those interior spaces are really very poor in terms of usability, dimensions, proportions, and so forth.

On the contrary, I think bay windows in highrise residential buildings is a luxury, and a welcome change to the usual floor-to-ceiling flat window wall.


Quote:
The fenestration is also inelegant and the glazing stingy

As opposed to what...the usual cheap ass green glass spandrel fest?


Hating Gehry with such gusto is just too trendy for me. (and so is defending him too probably)
post #2756 of 3501
So... I guess SH has bounced?
post #2757 of 3501

I'm on team StephenHero. 

post #2758 of 3501
Definitely on team Daedalus.
post #2759 of 3501
What he writes is generally annoying but the fact that he finds and posts stuff is what keeps the thread going.
post #2760 of 3501

I get that sweat equity begets respect, but you get more respect by not being a prick.  If he continues with his embar-ego trip, the expertise and enthusiasm will and should be missed. But I suspect the attitude will not be. It's not like I'm magically asserting control of this thread. 

 

Last year, Canadian architect Michael Green suggested we consider making tall buildings from wood. At least one big firm is championing the idea. 

 

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/science/appeal-of-timber-high-rises-widens.html?_r=1&

 

http://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/nine-storey-apartment-built-of-wood-in-nine-weeks-by-four-workers.html

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › The Architecture Thread