Buildings that Soar

[ablarc]

BUILDINGS THAT SOAR

For Scotty?

A building that soars and simultaneously billows:

Buildings shaped like Dumbo, but still able to soar:

Grunting and clambering skyward, a grudging soar, but a soar nonetheless:

A collection of tall buildings who all refuse to soar:

Some do and some don?t?

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Wow, I feel so at home.

 

[czsz]

Wait, all those buildings seem to have something in common, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[kz1000ps]

They're all from Spokane, Washington?

 

[JohnAKeith]

That first one makes me laugh every time I walk by it. It's on Eighth Ave in midtown Manhattan.

It's distinguishable not only because it's tall and very thin but because it seems as if there's never any work being done on it. I'll check the progress, this Wednesday.

 

[ablarc]

^

September 2008:

December 24, 2008:

A few more buildings that soar:

Soaring is a state of mind, huh?

 

[bdurden]

Soar, you ask?

This building is 4 years old.

 

[KentXie]

^^Godly. Powerful, Beautiful

Here's another one that soars:

 

[kennedy]

That's probably one of my favorite newer buildings in Boston. Hey, does Northeastern ever plan to have a sailing team? It'd be really nice b/c the only schools in Boston that have sailing and architecture are MIT and Harvard and Tufts (I think). And unfortunately, I don't have a 4.5/2400/36.

 

[KentXie]

^^I think Northeastern University does have a sailing team. Here's the home page:
http://www.gpenterprisednn.com/neusailing/Home/tabid/426/Default.aspx

 

[Suffolk 83]

Will NYC slurping ever get old? I'm not talking about here, but in the country in general. Its nauseating and stale.

 

[KentXie]

Will NYC slurping ever get old? I'm not talking about here, but in the country in general. Its nauseating and stale.

Probably not. NYC did something I wish Boston will someday do. Instead of being conservative all the time, they constructed bold towers. They constructed towers that in the future are worth saving, like the many historical buildings that we strive to save. Unlike the brutalist style that was utilized here that symbolizes power that resemble those of totalitarian regimes, they utilized art-deco that resembles the power of the Greeks.

 

[czsz]

Boston would not be Boston if it were art deco-cized in the 20s and 30s.

London is probably a better model for Boston, both culturally and architecturally.

 

[ablarc]

Boston would not be Boston if it were art deco-cized in the 20s and 30s.

^ A tautology.



Here's another one: "A thing is what it is."

 

[czsz]

I can see how that phrasing comes out tautologically. I was trying to say something more akin to: Boston would not be unique among American cities if it had been plastered in art deco as had New York, San Francisco, et al.

One of the more consistent tropes in architectural praise of Boston has been its juxtaposition of 18th and 19th century architecture with relatively contemporary works (post-1970). In New York, art deco and early international style buildings modulate this contrast. Both cities achieve drama, but in very different ways.

 

[kennedy]

I have to agree with cz on this one. If Boston had been 'art deco-cized,' it would be a much less interesting city today. If only today's developers had the foresight to build for the future, rather than for the now. I would say that 70% of everything built this decade is going to be regretted by future generations, the way we regret much of what was built in the middle to late end of the 20th century (Pru, CRP, Gov't Center-not necessarily City Hall).

 

[KentXie]

I think the dull-boxy Boston towers of the 70s made it less interesting.

 

[kennedy]

Yes, but the abundance (maybe on the endangered species list) of pre-war architecture is wonderfully contrasted by more modern works. Even the majority of buildings built in the 20th century suck, there's plenty of work afoot to make that change. Those buildings (only a very select few) usually don't harm Boston too much as a whole.