New-build classical architecture (evoking old styles)

bdurden said:
163 W 122 Street, Harlem is fantastic contextualism while being fresh and interesting. In general, this era of NYC infill architecture is enviable not just to Boston but virtually any city. In the case of Boston, there just aren't that many infill opportunities in brownstone neighborhoods as they are already largely intact.
Click to expand...
Most of the Harlem Buildings were perfect!
 
Another good example of a new build, that looks new and isnt trying to copy an older style or be faux historic, yet it blends perfectly into the existing built environment in nyc and feels like a modern evolution of early 20th century buildings. This looks like what someone in the 30’s would imagine a modern evolution of those buildings would look like, compared to how in reality “modern” buildings just ended up being blue glass boxes which had no design lineage that traced back to early skyscrapers. Something like this continues on the design language and lineage of early high/mid rises right to the current day but with modern materials and larger modern windows. I hope that made sense.

Basically what I’m saying is buildings like this are clearly new/modern yet share an obvious lineage all the way back through the earliest high rises with their massing, color, visual weight, set backs, and I think thats what makes them fit in so well and also feel more recognizable and familiar. Our cities need a lot more of this in my opinion to bring back the warmth and charm thats been lost to anonymous architecture. This building also looks like it belongs in nyc and regional architecture coming back would be a good antidote to the anonymizing that has happened to architecture.

1779134416745.jpeg

1779134655867.jpeg

1779134722142.jpeg

1779134691913.jpeg

1779134743119.jpeg


 
stick n move said:
Another good example of a new build, that looks new and isnt trying to copy an older style or be faux historic, yet it blends perfectly into the existing built environment in nyc and feels like a modern evolution of early 20th century buildings. This looks like what someone in the 30’s would imagine a modern evolution of those buildings would look like, compared to how in reality “modern” buildings just ended up being blue glass boxes which had no design lineage that traced back to early skyscrapers. Something like this continues on the design language and lineage of early high/mid rises right to the current day but with modern materials and larger modern windows. I hope that made sense.

Basically what I’m saying is buildings like this are clearly new/modern yet share an obvious lineage all the way back through the earliest high rises with their massing, color, visual weight, set backs, and I think thats what makes them fit in so well and also feel more recognizable and familiar. Our cities need a lot more of this in my opinion to bring back the warmth and charm thats been lost to anonymous architecture. This building also looks like it belongs in nyc and regional architecture coming back would be a good antidote to the anonymizing that has happened to architecture.

View attachment 72710
View attachment 72711
View attachment 72713
View attachment 72712
View attachment 72714

Click to expand...
Good grief. What a boring beige, stepped-back, green-glazed punishment of mediocre MEH. Give me a spoon to cut my face off, won't, ya?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top