Protest over St Petersburg tower

[phred]

I don't think it looks that horrible. OTOH it doesn't belong in St Petersburg. I'm with the 'find it a nice modern city to build in' crowd.

[fgalkin]

I am suddenly glad that germany has laws against ruining the historical look of cities.

So did St. Petersburg- historically, it has been illegal to build buildings taller than the spire of the Peter and Paul Cathedral in the historical center of the city. This has managed to survive even the Soviet megalomania largely intact, only to be violated by the giant Gazprom Penis. Yay capitalism?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Attractive? Maybe to a three-mile-tall woman in need of immediate sexual gratification. Seriously, it looks like an enormous glass dildo, and would make zero sense being placed among the rest of St. Petersburg's architecture.

Whether it's attractive or not is a subjective matter, and as I said in the post you quoted, it's clearly unsuitable for St Petersburg.

[Pick]

Urgh, this building is completely inappropriate for the site.

[FSTargetDrone]

This looks as if it would compliment the Ryugyong Hotel (if it's ever finished). Of course, in Pyongyang, it might help matters as far as aesthetics go.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think it looks that horrible. OTOH it doesn't belong in St Petersburg. I'm with the 'find it a nice modern city to build in' crowd.

It looks like something out of Star Trek: a graphic artist's abortion with no consideration given whatsoever to the idea of treating it as a human community.

[Frank Hipper]

The phrase "Turd in a Punchbowl" doesn't even begin to describe how that thing would look.

It would be like putting neon underglow lights on a 1933 Cadillac V16 Town Car...

[K. A. Pital]

I'm reminded of the Shrek line: "Do you think maybe he's... compensating for something?" *facepalm* I hope they never get the funds to lay the first stone of that abortion of a building. Or the public finally grows a spine.

*thinks about the historical writer's sanctuary being now demolished for the sake of oligarch's cottages in the Moscow region*

Or maybe not.

[Norseman]

This whole project hits the modernist trifecta: it's arrogant (ignores the site, makes no attempt to fit in), it's overscaled, and it looks like complete shit.

Lord yes! We've had some "architects" vandalize a historical site where I live, absolutely horrible. They built that thing next to a 11th Century church (for the oldest part) and a historical estate that dates back at least to the 17th Century. So yes I have a thing against modernists utterly spoiling the look of any site they get to work with, bleaugh!

[Gil Hamilton]

So did St. Petersburg- historically, it has been illegal to build buildings taller than the spire of the Peter and Paul Cathedral in the historical center of the city. This has managed to survive even the Soviet megalomania largely intact, only to be violated by the giant Gazprom Penis. Yay capitalism?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

That's capitalism for you. It's all fun and games until your city gets fucked by a giant corporate phallus.

[Big Orange]

Lord yes! We've had some "architects" vandalize a historical site where I live, absolutely horrible. They built that thing next to a 11th Century church (for the oldest part) and a historical estate that dates back at least to the 17th Century.

That space aged museum wing is by no means amazing, but at least they built most of it underground and tried to make it more in proportion to the rest of the historical site. If it had been essentially a bunker, made from sandy stone blocks, and lots of wood with no unfortunate "ET" windows, it wouldn't been so bad. Foster's Reichstag dome is perhaps modern to old architecture done better.

[Winston Blake]

That'd be a nice tower, in almost every other city. But I agree it doesn't fit with St. Petersburg at all. Why don't they build it in Moscow, for example?

They need to finish City 17 first. Moscow is scheduled to become City 18.

---
The tower was apparently originally called 'Gazprom City'. I kid you not. Welcome to turgid, glistening Gazprom City.

It looks like something out of Star Trek: a graphic artist's abortion with no consideration given whatsoever to the idea of treating it as a human community.

In the bright, glorious future, everyone will live in crystal spires. And wear togas.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah. It could actually work, with a bit less active phallusy, in an entire city of similar buildings. While the practical aspects of "crystal spires" architecture might leave something to be desired, it doesn't have to be hideous, as any number of bits of art from Golden Age sci-fi demonstrate. But to have only ONE such building, the size of the world's largest skyscrapers, towering over everything else for miles? That's just wrong.

[Starglider]

That museum looks fine. The notion that all buildings in an area have to have exactly the same style is ridiculous. The primary problem with the glass spire is that the size is overpowering, largely because the city does not have any intermediate scale buildings.

[Norseman]

Lord yes! We've had some "architects" vandalize a historical site where I live, absolutely horrible. They built that thing next to a 11th Century church (for the oldest part) and a historical estate that dates back at least to the 17th Century.

That space aged museum wing is by no means amazing, but at least they built most of it underground and tried to make it more in proportion to the rest of the historical site.

Did you check both of the links? Because it's *not* underground, they carved a large slot out of the mountainside (that's the only way to describe it) and then plunked the building inside. Seriously it's twice the size of the Church worse yet the roof is leaking! The municipality actually sued the architects because of that. This is typical of the sort of garbage that Norwegian politicians pay for because they want to be "modern."

EDIT: Maybe I'm oversensitive. It's just that we see this sort of thing everywhere! Instead of getting buildings of a design that people want to see, government officials keep on being suckered into getting these abstract monstrosities that utterly clash with the surroundings. If anyone objects they are labelled a phillistine.

[RedImperator]

That museum looks fine. The notion that all buildings in an area have to have exactly the same style is ridiculous. The primary problem with the glass spire is that the size is overpowering, largely because the city does not have any intermediate scale buildings.

Why? Why should a style of architecture which explicitly and deliberately rejects historical associations get any consideration in historical areas?

[Darth Wong]

I think the question can be boiled down to: does this proposed new structure look like it belongs in this city, or does it look like some sort of alien invasion?

No one is saying that a city should never undergo any changes whatsoever, but any new developments should not be such a huge departure from the surrounding landscape that it looks ridiculous.

[K. A. Pital]

The notion that all buildings in an area have to have exactly the same style is ridiculous.

Why is stylistic unity ridiculous? Architecture incorporates aesthetic principles as well as utility considerations. The city of Petersburg would not have any large buildings not only because it will completely ruin the historical landscape and skyline (or would you propose a giant glass penis to be also built right next to the National Mall in Washington DC), but also because it's swampy grounds forbid the construction of skyscrapers en masse.

Hence, it's absolutely certain that this tower, if built, will be the only skyscraper in the city and will remain an overpowering element over the skyline for ages. It will completely ruin a historical architectural environment preserved for 300 years, and now part of the UNESCO cultural heritage.

That is unacceptable. Even our spineless Minister of Culture said that he would never allow this to be built right after it was authorized by Petersburg asshole governor.

[Vympel]

Point taken / conceded re: it's size being inappropriate (to me that's the only thing that could be really said to be wrong with it, I think it looks good otherwise) - however, what happened here, did Gazprom find one of thew few bits of ground in Petersburg that wasn't swampy?

[Marko Dash]

This is reminding me strongly of mercenaries 2 where the oil corporation also has built a huge monolith dominating the sky of a much smaller town.

I'm having a hard time finding a picture of the place

[Winston Blake]

Point taken / conceded re: it's size being inappropriate (to me that's the only thing that could be really said to be wrong with it, I think it looks good otherwise) - however, what happened here, did Gazprom find one of thew few bits of ground in Petersburg that wasn't swampy?

Perhaps they plan to expand their portfolio by refining the swampiness from St Petersburg and exporting it to drought-ridden countries such as Australia, thus giving Russia political leverage by causing us to become hopelessly dependent on them. I hear they want to buy our beaches on the cheap, or else they'll 'turn off the taps'.

[salm]

While i do find this particular proposal very ugly i don´t agree with the statement that you shouldn´t ever build completely different building styles within one area. If done correctly the contrast between two or more clashing styles can be a very interesting element in a city.

The main problem i see with this gigantic Gazprom penis is that Gazprom tries to strongarm themselves into having the only skyscraper in St. Petersburg. It´ s a gigantic display of corporate power which i personally wouldn´t really want to have in my city. Kind of reminds me of the Combine Tower in Half Life² albeit Gazprom has a lot less taste than the Combine.

[TheLostVikings]

Point taken / conceded re: it's size being inappropriate (to me that's the only thing that could be really said to be wrong with it, I think it looks good otherwise) - however, what happened here, did Gazprom find one of thew few bits of ground in Petersburg that wasn't swampy?

It's simply a matter of engineering. If Dubai can build gigantic skyscrapers on what is essentially loose sand the Russians can surely do it too.

[Thanas]

Swamp does not equal desert.

[Serafina]

IIRC, sand can actually be fairly stable, as long as it is dry. But water and loose material are a BAD combination.