I'm inclined to ask those who think it would be out of place anywhere why they think this? Do you, for example, think the same is true of The Bilbao Guggenheim (http://www.guggenheim-bilbao.es/ingles/home.htm)? Can you have good architecture where it seems to be "out of place"?
Along similar lines, for the latter option, *when* must it be popular? At it's conception or building? or some time later (possibly even many years after the architect's demise)?
fair enough. So, in that case, if it's not immediately popular, does that mean that something later defined as "great architecture" (I'm taking it that you think that popular is a necessary but not sufficient condition for "great architecture") doesn't become great until it becomes popular?
I would say that if a piece of architecture is ever great, then it is always great. (This admittedly presumes that it doesn't change; if it's repaired badly, rebuilt in line with changing fashions, or simply falls down, then it might cease to be great architecture, although one might argue that the actual architecture is the design of the building and its greatness is independent of the state of repair of its physical instantiation. Rebuilding in line with changing fashions would therefore constitute a separate work of architecture which could be great or not independently of the original work.)
On that principle, if popularity at some point is a prerequisite for greatness (which I'm unconvinced that I agree with, but for the sake of argument), then a piece of architecture built now which won't be popular until 2250 can still be great architecture now (though it may not be, since popularity certainly isn't a sufficient condition for greatness even if we accept it as a necessary one). It's just that we won't be able to know it's great architecture until 2250.
It looks rather like a gigantic glass penis. I cannot think of any place where one would be appropriate, until such a time as I have locked my enemies in a space which no-one else is compelled to enter.
So, in what way do you feel it is "out of place"? I ask out of curiosity, and not to try and annoy. What sort of building would you consider "in place"? Where would you think that that building wouldn't be "out of place"?
Mainly because the style does not agree with many of the surrounding buildings. Something "in place" would have strong elements of the existing architecture of the area -- most importantly, to me, sympathetic choice of building material. For the gherkin to be in place, it wants glass-and-steel skyscrapers, or glass-and-steel curvy buildings.
I don't necessarily agree. For example, I like the new entrance to the DTI, 1 Victoria Street, which is opposite Methodist Central Hall and the great west door of Westminster Abbey. I think it "fits in", despite the complete disparity between the styles of the two buildings (I'm not sure if it would have done before they cleaned the abbey just over 10 years ago (!), but it's a hypothetical question, because the entrance wasn't built then either).
London has a large disparity in architectural styles, in the City, in Westminster, in the new developments around London Bridge, Waterloo, the list goes on and on. This is, to me, what makes the city (small 'c') such a fantastic place to live. That isn't to say, of course, that I like all the buildings that exist there, but many of them have character.
I really like it, and I'm not keen on towers in cities. What would be really impressive would be to build something like that in the middle of the countryside - I drove past the TV transmitter at Waltham (http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/waltham.asp) a few months ago and was struck by how beautiful it is, in an odd way. I know there are economic reasons for building the gherkin in central London rather than rural Leicestershire, but I'd still like to see it there.
I think it fits in lovely, but thats probably due to my hatred of the City of London and the fact that it looks like a sexual organ, so maybe I'll just get me coat.
I think it fits in lovely, but thats probably due to my hatred of the City of London and the fact that it looks like a sexual organ, so maybe I'll just get me coat.
What do you hate about "the City of London", I ask because I find it incomprehensible that you could hate everything about it, because even within the square mile, there are things to capture the imagination for everyone.
Oh, right. I should point out that I don't live or work in the City at all, and I'm not a stockbroker. I'm interested in seeing nice architecture in London because where I live is not far from the City and I'd like a nice view. Interesting buildings provide an interesting living environment, as far as I'm concerned. I find that wondering round the City is great (but best done at a weekend for the reasons that you hint at above). I love the street names and the history they imply. I think that the twisty little back streets and the multi-layer bits of the City are by far the most interesting. There is also lots of interesting stuff around the borders of the City.
I have to agree with you about the general culture thing, though; it's why I don't think I could work in the City no matter how much they paid me over my current job....
To be sure, the gherkin is better than a lot of architecture, but it's still not great. The Bilbao Guggenheim is great.
Even so, I think a lot of modern architecture is out of place in long-established cities. While there is plenty of scope for modern buildings in places like London, I think the main criterion for acceptance should be "would this building detract from the existing architecture", and I'd say the gherkin most definitely does.
The height is a big problem. Paris has got this right — there are strict limits on how tall buildings can be in the ancient city centre; skyscrapers are banished to the edges. The main such development, La Defense, is 8km from Place de la Concorde. While the Docklands redevelopment is clearly a good thing, there was no need to permit towers as tall as Canary Wharf so close both to the city centre and to Greenwich; I think I'd have preferred them to be out at least as far as Woolwich and London City Airport.
Occasionally plonking in buildings that have little or no reference to the surrounding buildings can still work. For some reason I can't quite work out, the rash of new pointy glass and steel buildings in Manchester seem to sit a lot happier next to the (often very elaborate) remaining Victorian buildings. Something most of the 60's buildings never quite managed. At a guess it's because most of the newer buildings still make an attempt to fit in with the street plans, and aren't just huge blocked-off areas, but even so.
However, my parents live on a, quite nice as these things go, new development of mainly detached brick houses, with would fit in nicely with the surrounding Victorian mainly detached red brick houses. Except that the new houses were done in that horrible yellowy-beige brick that every new development, wherever you go in the country, seemes to be done in. The contrast is pretty unplesant...
Interestingly, I was only thinking this morning, on the bus, about the way that the new steel and glass buildings in Manchester provide a pleasing contrast with the older and equally beautiful Victorian edifices.
I was also pondering some sort of course on architecture as my next set of evening classes.
Sad to say, I'm sat in one of the ugly 60's buildings.
I rather like it. Not in the same way as Ely Cathedral, mind, but nonetheless I like it. It has character and individuality, which something that cannot be said of many buildings in the City. OK, it's not the Bilbao Guggenheim, but it's not Centre Point either. And whatever would Freud have said about plonking a gigantic glass phallus slap bang in the centre of London's financial district?
It has character and individuality, which something that cannot be said of many buildings in the City.
The Lloyds Building? The Bank of England? 1 Poultry? The NatWest Tower? The various buildings at Bank Circus? The Barbican? These buildings may be ugly, but I don't think they can be said to lack character or individuality.
And, of course, Centre Point isn't in the City. :-)
London, in terms of architecture, is a place that is defined by a collection of things which out of place, so I think it fits right in, by sticking out like a sore thumb. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 05:20 am (UTC)Along similar lines, for the latter option, *when* must it be popular? At it's conception or building? or some time later (possibly even many years after the architect's demise)?
*when* must it be popular
Date: 2004-04-28 05:36 am (UTC)Re: *when* must it be popular
Date: 2004-04-28 06:08 am (UTC)Re: *when* must it be popular
Date: 2004-04-28 06:15 am (UTC)On that principle, if popularity at some point is a prerequisite for greatness (which I'm unconvinced that I agree with, but for the sake of argument), then a piece of architecture built now which won't be popular until 2250 can still be great architecture now (though it may not be, since popularity certainly isn't a sufficient condition for greatness even if we accept it as a necessary one). It's just that we won't be able to know it's great architecture until 2250.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 06:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 05:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 01:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 04:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 05:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 06:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 05:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 06:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 06:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 04:13 am (UTC)London has a large disparity in architectural styles, in the City, in Westminster, in the new developments around London Bridge, Waterloo, the list goes on and on. This is, to me, what makes the city (small 'c') such a fantastic place to live. That isn't to say, of course, that I like all the buildings that exist there, but many of them have character.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 06:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 06:15 am (UTC)Did see lightening hit it last night...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 04:15 am (UTC)What do you hate about "the City of London", I ask because I find it incomprehensible that you could hate everything about it, because even within the square mile, there are things to capture the imagination for everyone.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 04:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 04:38 am (UTC)I have to agree with you about the general culture thing, though; it's why I don't think I could work in the City no matter how much they paid me over my current job....
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 07:40 am (UTC)Even so, I think a lot of modern architecture is out of place in long-established cities. While there is plenty of scope for modern buildings in places like London, I think the main criterion for acceptance should be "would this building detract from the existing architecture", and I'd say the gherkin most definitely does.
The height is a big problem. Paris has got this right — there are strict limits on how tall buildings can be in the ancient city centre; skyscrapers are banished to the edges. The main such development, La Defense, is 8km from Place de la Concorde. While the Docklands redevelopment is clearly a good thing, there was no need to permit towers as tall as Canary Wharf so close both to the city centre and to Greenwich; I think I'd have preferred them to be out at least as far as Woolwich and London City Airport.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 07:58 am (UTC)However, my parents live on a, quite nice as these things go, new development of mainly detached brick houses, with would fit in nicely with the surrounding Victorian mainly detached red brick houses. Except that the new houses were done in that horrible yellowy-beige brick that every new development, wherever you go in the country, seemes to be done in. The contrast is pretty unplesant...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 08:25 am (UTC)I was also pondering some sort of course on architecture as my next set of evening classes.
Sad to say, I'm sat in one of the ugly 60's buildings.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 11:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 11:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 04:19 am (UTC)The Lloyds Building? The Bank of England? 1 Poultry? The NatWest Tower? The various buildings at Bank Circus? The Barbican? These buildings may be ugly, but I don't think they can be said to lack character or individuality.
And, of course, Centre Point isn't in the City. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 01:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 04:16 am (UTC)