3 ms·

Some people are unable to recognize great architecture when they see it. Saarinen's building is applauded as one of the finest modernist structures in Britain a

Some people are unable to recognize great architecture when they see it. Saarinen's building is applauded as one of the finest modernist structures in Britain and is rightly Grade II listed. https://www.economist.com/prospero/2017/09/26/the-american-embassy-building-in-london-is-a-modernist-classic https://www.economist.com/prospero/2017/09/26/the-american-e...

throwanem 6y ago
Some people are unable to recognize awful architecture when they see it. I like a lot of Saarinen's work, especially his furniture, but even Homer nods, and his Grosvenor Square building looks like a cinderblock with a grudge.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bergstromm466 6y ago
> Some people are unable to recognize great architecture when they see it. Yes because taste is totally not subjective... Why not just share that you think it's beautiful instead? Does everyone have to agree with you?
eternalban 6y ago
The vocabulary he chose to express this building is rather ungraceful in concrete, quite unlike his curvilinear works. The main issue is that the post-beam elements in the facade are poorly scaled. I haven't seen the plans, nor the section, so possibly the 'masterpiece' is inner beaty, but on the outside, it is a jumble of poorly scaled elements. Also to call this, as the (know-it-all) Economist does, a "modern classic" is wrong. This is a pseudo-brutalist work, hardly high modernism. The contemporary Seagram's building (1958) is Modernism. Another contemporary work relevant here (Paul Rudolph's Yale School of Architecture, 1963) shares some of the vocabulary of this work. And Rudolph knew how to design rectilinear concrete buildings. Saarinen clearly didn't. [p.s. It is possible that the scale distortions in the front are (building) program driven, to address security considerations. The crit remains.]
exolymph 6y ago
It is telling that you had to reference the building's bona fides to make your argument. And I _like_ brutalism!

throwanem 6y ago

Some people are unable to recognize awful architecture when they see it. I like a lot of Saarinen's work, especially his furniture, but even Homer nods, and his Grosvenor Square building looks like a cinderblock with a grudge.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bergstromm466 6y ago

> Some people are unable to recognize great architecture when they see it. Yes because taste is totally not subjective... Why not just share that you think it's beautiful instead? Does everyone have to agree with you?

eternalban 6y ago

The vocabulary he chose to express this building is rather ungraceful in concrete, quite unlike his curvilinear works. The main issue is that the post-beam elements in the facade are poorly scaled. I haven't seen the plans, nor the section, so possibly the 'masterpiece' is inner beaty, but on the outside, it is a jumble of poorly scaled elements. Also to call this, as the (know-it-all) Economist does, a "modern classic" is wrong. This is a pseudo-brutalist work, hardly high modernism. The contemporary Seagram's building (1958) is Modernism. Another contemporary work relevant here (Paul Rudolph's Yale School of Architecture, 1963) shares some of the vocabulary of this work. And Rudolph knew how to design rectilinear concrete buildings. Saarinen clearly didn't. [p.s. It is possible that the scale distortions in the front are (building) program driven, to address security considerations. The crit remains.]

exolymph 6y ago

It is telling that you had to reference the building's bona fides to make your argument. And I _like_ brutalism!