Protest over St Petersburg tower

[Dahak]

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

*cough* Dresden and Waldschlößchenbrücke, thus losing World Heritage status? *cough*

[Thanas]

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

*cough* Dresden and Waldschlößchenbrücke, thus losing World Heritage status? *cough*

The courts are still juding that one, aren't they? I expect a final decision in about five years.

[Dahak]

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

*cough* Dresden and Waldschlößchenbrücke, thus losing World Heritage status? *cough*

The courts are still juding that one, aren't they? I expect a final decision in about five years.

World Heritage is already lost, so the damage is done, no matter what the final decision will be.
So Germany has its own cases of ruining the historical look of cities. It's not like they are above stupid city planners by law.

[Big Orange]

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."

What I dislike the most about that museum wing is its gaping, angular entrance. What decade was this built in? I can tolerate most modern buildings from the late 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s, because they are generally better than the ugly, monolithic concrete ass that was thrown up in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s.

I mean look at these examples of really crappy "Brutalist" architecture from Bristol:

Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4
Pic 5
Pic 6

You can see in Pic 1 and 6 how the crappy 1960s buildings clash so horribly with the much more handsome building from perhaps the 1930s.

[Simon_Jester]

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 catch is that one style shouldn't completely fuck up the other just by existing. If people want to start building crystal spires in my historic neoclassical city, fine, as long as they're small enough that I have the choice not to look at them. I'd like to be able to take pictures of my family in front of the National Art Museum of Art or whatever without a giant glass penis towering over all of us in the background.

That's the problem here: the building doesn't just clash with the style of the other buildings; it overpowers them. If someone wanted to do the same thing in, say, a city full of elegant Gothic-style skyscrapers from the 1920s and '30s, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. It would be out of place, and the styles would clash, but it wouldn't be a distracting element in the overall pattern because it would be surrounded by other buildings of comparable size. In St. Petersburg it looms over everything else like a mountain unless they decide to completely raze the historic city center and build a 'skyscraper core' there.

[Thanas]

World Heritage is already lost, so the damage is done, no matter what the final decision will be.
So Germany has its own cases of ruining the historical look of cities. It's not like they are above stupid city planners by law.

Well, if the final decision is "you have to tear the whole thing down", world heritage regained.

[salm]

The catch is that one style shouldn't completely fuck up the other just by existing. If people want to start building crystal spires in my historic neoclassical city, fine, as long as they're small enough that I have the choice not to look at them. I'd like to be able to take pictures of my family in front of the National Art Museum of Art or whatever without a giant glass penis towering over all of us in the background.

That's the problem here: the building doesn't just clash with the style of the other buildings; it overpowers them. If someone wanted to do the same thing in, say, a city full of elegant Gothic-style skyscrapers from the 1920s and '30s, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. It would be out of place, and the styles would clash, but it wouldn't be a distracting element in the overall pattern because it would be surrounded by other buildings of comparable size. In St. Petersburg it looms over everything else like a mountain unless they decide to completely raze the historic city center and build a 'skyscraper core' there.

Well, that´s pretty much what i meant whith the whole "corporation trying to strongarm" thing.

What I dislike the most about that museum wing is its gaping, angular entrance. What decade was this built in? I can tolerate most modern buildings from the late 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s, because they are generally better than the ugly, monolithic concrete ass that was thrown up in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s.

I mean look at these examples of really crappy "Brutalist" architecture from Bristol:

Looks pretty new. Maybe a decade old or two.

However. There´s some really awesome brutalist stuff out there. That museum isn´t brutalist, though.

[Jade Falcon]

Some of the older art deco style buildings in Glasgow and Renfrew were left to rot, would you believe this lay derelict and in disrepair until a few years back.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/re_teacher/35527605/

In fact, this link shows you the state it was in

http://www.ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/ ... tower.html

I have to agree though regarding the Gazprom building, its just too much and too overpowering though. I'm not a fan of a lot of modern architecture although there are exceptions, but its different if these are in areas where they blend in.

[Norseman]

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."

What I dislike the most about that museum wing is its gaping, angular entrance. What decade was this built in?

This one, the museum opened in 2007, why did it look like some God forsaken relic of the past?

I can tolerate most modern buildings from the late 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s, because they are generally better than the ugly, monolithic concrete ass that was thrown up in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s.

Try the US embassy in Oslo, I always said that if you wanted a building that screamed Evil that one would be it.

[salm]

This is real Brutalism. Personally i love it but i can understand how some people might not appreciate it. Fairfaced concrete can be turned into truely fascinating constructions.

[Big Orange]

This one, the museum opened in 2007, why did it look like some God forsaken relic of the past?

Ok, calm down. I assumed it was built somewhere between 1987 and 2007, I thought it was built considerably earlier due to the concrete.

Here are some of the more recent buildings and spaces erected in Bristol:

The plaza area:
Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4

People who whined about the plaza the most are the drunk people blundering into its water feature.

The modern buildings around the docks:
Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4

I'm not so sure about that last photo featuring the dockside apartment complex, reminds me of something from Miami Vice and Terry Pratchett described that bit as "Legoland".

[salm]

Legoland is cool. The rest is pretty lame.

[Big Orange]

Most of the modern buildings in Bristol come across as a little uninspired rather than actively repulsive, but at least most of them don't overtake the surrounding old buildings. The plaza has grown on me and looks more continental and spacious.

London has its fair share of ugly modern architecture:

MI6 Headquaters and St. George's Wharf

The MI6 building (left) looks like a bulky Art Deco Lego set with pillbox windows (another picture), but in defense of the MI6 building, function is very much more important than form, it houses a quasi-military organization for Christ's sake and you don't want a broad, airy atrium for a truck laden with semtex to crash into. I dislike the hidious St. Geroge's Wharf more and its a yuppie nest (here's a scathing essay on that unpleasing heap of steel and glass), it's perhaps comparable to the Trump Tower in New York.

The MI5 Headquarters is awsome though (but there was little doubt it was seen as ugly at the time, it looks more austere than MI6).