Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
from anywhere in the world, of any type.
(well, I like it).
(I live over the road - you can't really see what it's like from this picture but it's quite extraordinary inside).
Ugly as sin and I love it.
I think I like ugly buildings.
preston bus station is amazing, not ugly at all imo. the strangest part is that it doesn't look like they've changed the interior since it was built - it's like stepping back in time.
that is awful. the only acceptable use for would be a parade for the heroes of intergalactic war.
that's why it's great
holocaust history museum
Those are amazing. And to think i was just going to make a facetious link to some ugly building.
That said, that photo is quite stretched out which probably doesn't help.
just wanted to innnocently share a nice building with us and now suddenly people are saying rude things about it
But I can't quite put my finger on why.
whatever you want.
The thing is that I don't really like 'iconic' architecture at all. So things like the Guggenheim, or The Gherkin, or The Shard, or the CCTV building do nothing for me.
I'd go with Zumthor's Therme Vals: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7fiGp0QZyH4/T8yMpbwxsfI/AAAAAAAAABw/dwQy-2IFj04/s1600/Therme_Vals_6.jpg
Tadao Ando's Church Of The Light: http://c1038.r38.cf3.rackcdn.com/group1/building2976/media/media_70924.jpg
Chipperfield's Neues Museum restoration: http://www.mimoa.eu/images/15103_l.jpg
And FCB's Accordia housing scheme: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01951/2008-accordia_1951388i.jpg
Bear in mind that my favourite buildings of all time are probably Louis Kahn's Kimbell Art Gallery: http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/texas/ftworth/kimbell/int2.jpg
and Carlo Scarpa's Castellovecchio restoration: http://cdn.indulgy.com/Uf/e7/ZT/312437911346875812chYdKNKc.jpg
My taste is for low key, but materially rich buildings that work with their context and history. I'm not sure that these are always considered 'great' buildings.
It looks a bit like my accommodation last year.
Speaking of Uni accommodation, MIT has some really interesting blocks, such as Simmons Hall: http://cdn.indulgy.com/Uf/e7/ZT/312437911346875812chYdKNKc.jpg
and Baker House: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Baker_House,_MIT_-_IMG_5563.JPG
But (in layman's terms) what about the second one there is particularly interesting?
A building of curved, brick walls (giving each room a view of the river) hadn't really been seen on that scale before, and Alvar Aalto designed everything - building up from the individual rooms to the communal spaces and facilities.
Context is everything I guess.
I find it difficult to appreciate architecture in any real sense beyond that-building-is-satisfying-to-look-at but it's a subject I'd like to know more about. It's difficult when you don't know the background or importance of anything though.
I sometimes wish important/interesting buildings had little explanation cards on them somewhere like in art galleries.
someone give me reading please
Outside of that, the first year Architectural History texts, I guess, such as Spiro Kostof's A History Of Architecture (Setting and Rituals) for a broad brush picture going back to prehistoric times and William Curtis's Modern Architecture Since 1900. These are mainly exploratory texts - neither go too far into critical analysis, but they're excellent if you want to get an idea of context and things, especially the Curtis book.
If you want to go further, Banister Fletcher's History Of Architecture is huge, but it might be best to get this out of a library as it's very expensive, and if you want to get into the criticism/theory side of things then people like Reyner Banham, Kenneth Frampton, Colin Rowe, Christopher Alexander and Steen Rasmussen are good places to get started, before you get into the writings by individual architects (eg Le Corbusier or Rem Koolhaus) or philosophers who have discussed architecture (eg Plato, Heidigger, Wittingstein, Zizek etc).
Shame that so many new football stadiums are so insipid internally despite how good they look on the outside.
Populous (who used to be Lobb and HOKSport), even though other firms may do the conceptual stuff (eg Fosters at Wembley).
Still think the proposed Portsmouth one would've been great:
And say what you will about how fucking ludicrous and corrupt it all is but at least Qatar 22 is going to have some good looking stadiums:
Perhaps not quite what we had in mind for the thread though.
is noone tries to like them, they don't get improved. If they just cleaned some of these concrete monstrosities and jazzed up the shops in them, maybe planted some plants around them, they would look fine. It is when they are a grubby litter strewn mess that people whinge about that makes it all go wrong. They demolished a load of Bristol city centre and replaced it with what now looks lovely - Cabot Circus. But give it 10 years and it will look tired and crap like the Galleries which looked lovely when it opened. And it will carry on like that forever.
it looks stunning now that it's been cleaned up.
The problem with a lot of 'modern' architecture was that they didn't really understand how concrete would weather, plus they also assumed that it would be maintained to the same levels as when it was constructed in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
Does this count? It's still being built
I can't be the only one that thinks it's ever so slightly tacky, though?
Whenever I see that building I'm in awe: it's tremendous
you all like it when buildings are really boring
also modernism ended in 1945