5 ms·

I actually appreciate this. Glass and steel are nice from a distance, but when's the last time on the sidewalk you actually took a pause and leaned on one for a

by beaner 7y ago

I actually appreciate this. Glass and steel are nice from a distance, but when's the last time on the sidewalk you actually took a pause and leaned on one for a break? These new textures are cold and distant, pristine and fragile. You're not supposed to touch them. Concrete, stone and brick are the opposite. They're timeless and welcoming. You can touch them without having to worry about leaving a print. They feel like they take care of you, rather than the other way around. And aesthetically, IMO, there's nothing more incredibly boring than just sheets of untouchable glass straight down the street. There's no texture and no character. A good compromise is to allow the warmer facades of old buildings to continue to exist, and leave the new ones to the skyline, so long as they continue to be isolating.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
I'd rather they put in a building that actually uses the facade they sit behind, in keeping with the architecture they supposedly want to preserve. The examples where it's just a wall with new style building sat behind look awful, and the windows don't even line up - so probably very inconsistent light, times of deep shadow and limited views from inside. Looks more like the sort of thing your neighbour might do if they were a builder and you'd really upset them. :)
- netcan 7y ago
  Like most architecture, there are good and bad examples. Planning/regulation can't really do much about the subjective, and the nature of these tends to make permissions a central player. "Facadism" is becoming a "best practice" compromise between preservation, modernity, commercials & such. The danger there is box ticking tokenism and the ugly architecture that comes from that. Some bad architecture will always exist regardless but a lot of the bad examples in this style come from this "designed for planners" tokenism.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Can you provide a single good example? Every example I know of is bad for building occupants and looks terrible at street level.
    - brainwad 7y ago
      This one in Seattle was pretty good, I think: https://goo.gl/maps/9vaMWncm1m6SA96F9 https://goo.gl/maps/9vaMWncm1m6SA96F9.
      - optimiz3 7y ago
        Seattle is pretty great about it; nearly all historic facades are incorporated into new construction.
      - maximuspro 7y ago
        It's a very basic and simple architecture so it looks ok. What's in London is a different thing. Buildings there are much more exquisite and what's being built behind is much more uglier.
    - wlesieutre 7y ago
      St. Ann's Warehouse next to Brooklyn Bridge Park https://marvelarchitects.com/work/st-ann-s-warehouse/110 https://marvelarchitects.com/work/st-ann-s-warehouse/110
  - maximuspro 7y ago
    BS. Regulation can do whatever it wants. Facadism is not a best practice, and the result proves that. Doing what's done on most of those photos is a pure crime against the culture, heritage and architecture. Old and ancient buildings should be preserved. If you wan to build yet another gray box then build it somewhere else. There's enough place around city.
- beaner 7y ago
  I agree, I think it would be really exciting to start to see modern architecture that is warm and textured at the street level.
- deogeo 7y ago
  To go to such extreme measures to avoid the glass-and-steel look... do you think architects will take the hint and switch to a different style? Ha ha, of course not! They will invent some contrived justification for why people are wrong to dislike it. (Also everything is subjective, but you're still wrong to dislike it.)
hardlianotion 7y ago
Another thing is the intersection of the building and the pavement. All over London, this part of the building that pedestrians actually notice the most as they go past is botched and hammered-in. Turns many a mediocre building into a very poor one.
steve1977 7y ago
Not sure if I would call concrete welcoming.
asdff 7y ago
Somewhere along the way craftsmanship was traded for fast and cheap.

by beaner 7y ago

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

I'd rather they put in a building that actually uses the facade they sit behind, in keeping with the architecture they supposedly want to preserve. The examples where it's just a wall with new style building sat behind look awful, and the windows don't even line up - so probably very inconsistent light, times of deep shadow and limited views from inside. Looks more like the sort of thing your neighbour might do if they were a builder and you'd really upset them. :)

netcan 7y ago
Like most architecture, there are good and bad examples. Planning/regulation can't really do much about the subjective, and the nature of these tends to make permissions a central player. "Facadism" is becoming a "best practice" compromise between preservation, modernity, commercials & such. The danger there is box ticking tokenism and the ugly architecture that comes from that. Some bad architecture will always exist regardless but a lot of the bad examples in this style come from this "designed for planners" tokenism.
- Retric 7y ago
  Can you provide a single good example? Every example I know of is bad for building occupants and looks terrible at street level.
  - brainwad 7y ago
    This one in Seattle was pretty good, I think: https://goo.gl/maps/9vaMWncm1m6SA96F9 https://goo.gl/maps/9vaMWncm1m6SA96F9.
    - optimiz3 7y ago
      Seattle is pretty great about it; nearly all historic facades are incorporated into new construction.
    - maximuspro 7y ago
      It's a very basic and simple architecture so it looks ok. What's in London is a different thing. Buildings there are much more exquisite and what's being built behind is much more uglier.
  - wlesieutre 7y ago
    St. Ann's Warehouse next to Brooklyn Bridge Park https://marvelarchitects.com/work/st-ann-s-warehouse/110 https://marvelarchitects.com/work/st-ann-s-warehouse/110
- maximuspro 7y ago
  BS. Regulation can do whatever it wants. Facadism is not a best practice, and the result proves that. Doing what's done on most of those photos is a pure crime against the culture, heritage and architecture. Old and ancient buildings should be preserved. If you wan to build yet another gray box then build it somewhere else. There's enough place around city.
beaner 7y ago
I agree, I think it would be really exciting to start to see modern architecture that is warm and textured at the street level.
deogeo 7y ago
To go to such extreme measures to avoid the glass-and-steel look... do you think architects will take the hint and switch to a different style? Ha ha, of course not! They will invent some contrived justification for why people are wrong to dislike it. (Also everything is subjective, but you're still wrong to dislike it.)

hardlianotion 7y ago

Another thing is the intersection of the building and the pavement. All over London, this part of the building that pedestrians actually notice the most as they go past is botched and hammered-in. Turns many a mediocre building into a very poor one.

steve1977 7y ago

Not sure if I would call concrete welcoming.

asdff 7y ago

Somewhere along the way craftsmanship was traded for fast and cheap.