It's unabashedly of its time, isn't it?
Makes no effort to "resorting to inventing a back-story that never occurred".
If it had just continued the same brick bay treatment for two stories, no one would be commenting negatively about it or noticing it. It would be unoriginal but acceptable.
Acceptable to us, acceptable to the public, but perhaps unacceptable to architects, ideologues and theoreticians. They're obsessed with style and its relationship to chronology.
This is modern times, they say, so we have to make things different.
Even at the cost of being "vomit-inducing."
Not exactly, scootie. It's a little more nuanced.did an architect kill your dad or what?
Seriously, ablarc, people were building similarly stripped down cheap-looking sheds in 1875...they didn't need the "vocabulary of modernism" to get away with it.he was grateful to modernism, instead, for giving him a vocabulary that allowed him to be simultaneously economical and the latest thing.
Actually, they weren't. Even tenements weren't cheap-looking.people were building similarly stripped down cheap-looking sheds in 1875...they didn't need the "vocabulary of modernism" to get away with it.
Don't know what you're talking about.I hate to be so gratingly untheoretical, but you're going to have to produce evidence of intent before you make such all-encompassing claims about the reach of modernism's deleterious effect. I'm not sure why you need to, anyway: there are plenty of real dragons to slay in that realm.
I'm not talking about Lower East Side tenements - the ones that survived. I'm talking about the cheap crap that was bound to fall apart before it was ever preserved. Behold:Actually, they weren't. Even tenements weren't cheap-looking.