i would rather have the high density low rise nature of boston over height or "architecture" any day.
back to the topic on hand, it is a great looking building from stuart/kneeland. from the north or south it is rather obese
Density vs Height vs Design (from the W Thread)
- Thread starter daimio1
- Start date
i would rather have the high density low rise nature of boston over height or "architecture" any day.
back to the topic on hand, it is a great looking building from stuart/kneeland. from the north or south it is rather obese
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,185
- Reaction score
- 744
Re: W Hotel
I find this surprising. Most forumers here hold "architecture" a.k.a. design in high standard.
I find this surprising. Most forumers here hold "architecture" a.k.a. design in high standard.
kennedy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,820
- Reaction score
- 7
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,966
- Reaction score
- 1,587
Re: W Hotel
it's boring daimio1. look at the proposal to tear down Shreve, Crump and Lowe building......... YES! Tear it down and build what they are proposing, another glass box...the entire city should be glass boxes.
maybe you're right, W is MUCH better visually. smooth glass, no detail, bland it's the 'IN' thing.. my bad. Even I can be an architect! Just give me a straight edge..
it's boring daimio1. look at the proposal to tear down Shreve, Crump and Lowe building......... YES! Tear it down and build what they are proposing, another glass box...the entire city should be glass boxes.
maybe you're right, W is MUCH better visually. smooth glass, no detail, bland it's the 'IN' thing.. my bad. Even I can be an architect! Just give me a straight edge..
Re: W Hotel
I am not saying we need loads of fantastic high rises...but we have no signature buildings...do we? am i missing it? um..thinking......squares and circles is the best we can do? ..can't we just get one or two awesome buildings in our skyline..is that too much to ask? please? We have a wonderful city...make a mark on the world visually, from a distance..we already have it at street level..
I am not saying we need loads of fantastic high rises...but we have no signature buildings...do we? am i missing it? um..thinking......squares and circles is the best we can do? ..can't we just get one or two awesome buildings in our skyline..is that too much to ask? please? We have a wonderful city...make a mark on the world visually, from a distance..we already have it at street level..
Re: W Hotel
like i said, it is great from stuart/kneeland. great massing, great height, streetwall over parking lot..nothing "in" about that. is it boring from an aesthetic point of view? and are you implying that architecture is meant to be viewed only as an aesthetic?
i never mentioned shreve, and certainly dont advocate for tearing it down and replacing the city with glass boxes, hence the low rise/high density part on my comment. any city can have height and architecture, but very few cities can have the density and activity that the neighborhoods of boston have. sure atlanta can have height and "attractive" architecture, so can cincinnati or billings montana or anywhere if someone is willing to foot the bill, but these places will ever be able to create a northend, or a harvard sq, or a davis sq, or fenway (hood not ballpark), or maverick, or south boston, or etc....
i would gladly take these so called boring background infill projects over some screaming over designed style du jour tower anyday.
like i said, it is great from stuart/kneeland. great massing, great height, streetwall over parking lot..nothing "in" about that. is it boring from an aesthetic point of view? and are you implying that architecture is meant to be viewed only as an aesthetic?
i never mentioned shreve, and certainly dont advocate for tearing it down and replacing the city with glass boxes, hence the low rise/high density part on my comment. any city can have height and architecture, but very few cities can have the density and activity that the neighborhoods of boston have. sure atlanta can have height and "attractive" architecture, so can cincinnati or billings montana or anywhere if someone is willing to foot the bill, but these places will ever be able to create a northend, or a harvard sq, or a davis sq, or fenway (hood not ballpark), or maverick, or south boston, or etc....
i would gladly take these so called boring background infill projects over some screaming over designed style du jour tower anyday.
Re: W Hotel
nope. look at london. not a single fantastic signature "world class" skyline building, but one of the most perfectly functional cities in the world.
nope. look at london. not a single fantastic signature "world class" skyline building, but one of the most perfectly functional cities in the world.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,185
- Reaction score
- 744
Re: W Hotel
Actually they have the St. Mary Axe tower that can be considered a signature tower and they are currently building the London Shard tower and the Bishopgate Tower.
Why can't Boston get something like this? Even our planned 1000 ft tower is a box....
Actually they have the St. Mary Axe tower that can be considered a signature tower and they are currently building the London Shard tower and the Bishopgate Tower.
Why can't Boston get something like this? Even our planned 1000 ft tower is a box....
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,185
- Reaction score
- 744
Re: W Hotel
Since Boston, as you said, already have the density and activity that hardly any city have, why doesn't it try to height and architecture as well? Can both not exist at the same time? Why not have high rise/high density?
Also architecture's main purpose is about safety, usage, and aesthetics. It exist to ensure a structurely sound building that allows the maximum amount of space of usage while retaining aesthetic beauty. Why else do people design buildings of different shapes and design? A box gives the most space and is probably one of the most structurely sound design. Nowadays it seems developers care more about the 2nd of the three purposes.
Since Boston, as you said, already have the density and activity that hardly any city have, why doesn't it try to height and architecture as well? Can both not exist at the same time? Why not have high rise/high density?
Also architecture's main purpose is about safety, usage, and aesthetics. It exist to ensure a structurely sound building that allows the maximum amount of space of usage while retaining aesthetic beauty. Why else do people design buildings of different shapes and design? A box gives the most space and is probably one of the most structurely sound design. Nowadays it seems developers care more about the 2nd of the three purposes.
Patriots_1228
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 1
