5 ms·
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 p
by 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 agoCan you provide a single good example? Every example I know of is bad for building occupants and looks terrible at street level.
- brainwad 7y agoThis one in Seattle was pretty good, I think: https://goo.gl/maps/9vaMWncm1m6SA96F9 https://goo.gl/maps/9vaMWncm1m6SA96F9.
- optimiz3 7y agoSeattle is pretty great about it; nearly all historic facades are incorporated into new construction.
- maximuspro 7y agoIt'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 agoSt. 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 agoBS. 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.