^ Absolutely extraordinary, MicShazam,although for some reason the phrase "over the top" springs to mind when I look at your pics.
Oh I agree for sure. It would look crazy if you put one of those buildings in the middle of London. They work in the context of a different, more colorful culture, I'd say. Indian aesthetics are quite far from European aesthetics. Just look at traditional indian garments. The supremely colorful and detailed buildings above are architechture less as something stylish and subtle, and more like a fireworks explosion. I'm pretty sure my jaw would drop to the floor if I was standing in front of one of those temples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic
(Post 1878737)
I was also very interested in your photos of Aarlborg with it's mixture of old and new. It looks like an attractive city, and to me that's one of the big challenges for architects today; putting something that is clearly new into a city of old buildings and making a kind of harmonious contrast.
It's an attractive enough city in the downtown area. I'm excited about some recently revealed plans to make the down town area way more green, with more leisure areas and fewer cars. More trees, green rooftops, etc. I hope they're going to go as far as the presentation I saw of their plans.
Cuthbert
10-01-2017 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic
(Post 1878737)
^ Thanks, MLM, but I'd give the win to your Birmingham Law Courts to be honest.
More importantly, thanks for opening this thread; I also love walking around looking at buildings, so when I saw this thread I thought, "Aha! A true kindred spirit!" :thumb:
Cheers, glad it seems to have taken off. :thumb:
Quote:
On that count, I'm sorry to say that I don't share MLM's opinion of London's "Gerkin." Sorry, MLM, but it's actually one of my least favourite additions to London; the drab surface of glass, the lack of interesting detail, but mostly the shape. Bad enough that everyone immediately thinks "penis", what's worse is that it disregards all the language of straight lines with which it is surrounded. The size of it is also an issue with me; if it was shrunk down to the size of a telephone box, I think I could live with it appearing on a streetcorner, or as an ATM kiosk in front of a bank.
Even though I don't think it's bad looking, this is true, but it's why I like it. As I said, it's instantly recognisable. As soon as I see it I think 'City of London'. In the same way I think Paris if I see the Eiffel Tower, not that I'm saying it's as iconic as that, but skylines need some recognisable big hitters in them for me. I'm sure they could have built a 300m rectangular glass tower, but that would have been boring in my opinion.
Tbh people say similar things about our Selfridges store aka the 'flies eyes', not a similar style of building but it also divides opinion but I love it, because as soon as you see it, you know where it is.
Quote:
If you're going to put curves into buildings, I prefer to see them used more discreetly. This building, for example, has quite simple geometry that neatly accomodates just a couple of curves within its straight lines:-
^ I like both of those buildings, the quoted and the example you posted. I agree. Totally blocky buildings are an eyesore. Without some variance in shape I feel like I'm just looking at an icon on a smartphone. I'd like the real world and what I have to scroll through on my phone to be different. Color schemes are also really important. There's a lot of beige, gray, and black formats in newer buildings. Kinda drab. A little green or teal or yellow or something would be nice.
SF has some pretty beautiful (albeit increasingly shrouded) architecture. Edwardians, victorians, et al. I'm really fond of oceanic-inspired homes too. The types with circular windows that are reminiscent of submarines or whatever.
Lisnaholic
10-02-2017 08:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MicShazam
(Post 1878745)
It's an attractive enough city in the downtown area. I'm excited about some recently revealed plans to make the down town area way more green, with more leisure areas and fewer cars. More trees, green rooftops, etc. I hope they're going to go as far as the presentation I saw of their plans.
^ Yes, I'm always interested in schemes like that too. I hope they make some real improvements in Aarlborg. It's a pity you don't have an elevated railway:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man like Monkey
(Post 1878779)
Even though I don't think it's bad looking, this is true, but it's why I like it. As I said, it's instantly recognisable. As soon as I see it I think 'City of London'. In the same way I think Paris if I see the Eiffel Tower, not that I'm saying it's as iconic as that, but skylines need some recognisable big hitters in them for me. I'm sure they could have built a 300m rectangular glass tower, but that would have been boring in my opinion.
^ Well, I can't argue with that ! It's a really good defense of your opinion, and the world certainly doesn't need yet another rectangular glass tower.
"some recognisable big hitters" :laughing:
^ Yes, I like this building very much. It's got two advantages over the Gerkin imo:-
i) it's on an open site where you can appreciate the shape as a whole
ii) like the best buildings, it looks good from a distance, but also has intriguing details which make you want to see it up close. (In this case for instance, what have they done between one shell and the next?)
At first, I didn't like the Museum of Liverpool building, but now it looks beautiful alongside that other Shoebox - what a charmless block of flats that is!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuD
(Post 1878810)
^ I like both of those buildings, the quoted and the example you posted. I agree. Totally blocky buildings are an eyesore. Without some variance in shape I feel like I'm just looking at an icon on a smartphone. I'd like the real world and what I have to scroll through on my phone to be different. Color schemes are also really important. There's a lot of beige, gray, and black formats in newer buildings. Kinda drab. A little green or teal or yellow or something would be nice.
^ Yes, despite the example set by those Indian towers of MicShazam, most architects worldwide seem terrified of any colours except grey, silver and beige - and we have plenty of those colours already, what with the sidewalks, the tarmac, the cars, etc.
always found this apartment building to be interesting, the design is strangely similar to a stack of cargo containers. especially considering it's right on the waterfront.
^ Yes, despite the example set by those Indian towers of MicShazam, most architects worldwide seem terrified of any colours except grey, silver and beige - and we have plenty of those colours already, what with the sidewalks, the tarmac, the cars, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuD
(Post 1878810)
^ I like both of those buildings, the quoted and the example you posted. I agree. Totally blocky buildings are an eyesore. Without some variance in shape I feel like I'm just looking at an icon on a smartphone. I'd like the real world and what I have to scroll through on my phone to be different. Color schemes are also really important. There's a lot of beige, gray, and black formats in newer buildings. Kinda drab. A little green or teal or yellow or something would be nice.
In my opinion, building colors and materials should complement the environment around the building. Climate, weather, landscape, and the buildings already built around it should be a factor in any building's design. Blue and lots of glass look great in Miami, but not in England, New York City, or Shanghai. The more congested cities become, the less colorful and bright they should look. It looks more natural that way.
