Painful architecture - it hurts to look at it

[jaysizzles]

I guess I'm pretty much the only one who thinks many of these buildings are beautiful.

I like most of them too...you're not alone. I appreciate the old and new, and as I said earlier, I like contrast when old/new are mixed together. I especially like how fun, colorful and creative some of the buildings are....especially the sculptural ones.

I dislike the the utilitarian look of LilBits multistory school...and similar types. Also, not a fan of Michael Graves generally speaking (even though I did buy one of his clocks for my kitchen.) Some of his stuff, like the Disney Dolphin Hotel, is classic and whimsical, but the Denver library is just too haphazard and pointlessly contrasting, even for my taste.

 

[mxpxl199]

This monstosity is located in Glen Burnie, MD. The town is considered a lower class town, but there are a lot of nice homes and good people mixed in with some trash. But it has no chance of getting any respect with this out-of-place eyesore in the center of town.

 

[bankside]

Some of those buildings would look great out on their own 'campus' with broad grounds around them. The problem isn't so much that they look ugly, but that they clash with what's around them -- and would probably clash with anything put around them.

And that reminds me of a thought when I saw the first museum pic in this thread: an honest critic commented on one -- and it may have been that very museum -- that museums should house works of art, not try to be works of art.

I understand the argument about not trying to be a work of art. Yet that would imply that the only appropriate way for architects to create a building that stands on its own, so to speak, would be to design an empty building with no regular purpose other than being viewed as such.

I suppose that tradition exists in the "architectural folly," but I see a greater role for impressive architecture in every aspect of our lives other than just purpose-built curiosities. Actually it makes me think of west-coast haida art. An everyday cooking vessel could also be a carver's masterpiece. It seems brutish to say that a cooking pot should limit itself to cooking gastronomic art, not try to be art.

1. The original work never came to an end. When Gaudí passed on, the original financiers of the project did not trust that another architect could pull off Gaudí's final idea of how the Sagrada Familia should look and decided to stop building, and therefore remain with the original central towers, leaving Gaudí's masterpiece Unfinished. It was not until a large petition was signed by over 300, 000 people in the City of Barcelona, that the government searched for not just one architect, but a group of over 20, to come together and follow Gaudí's plans, By the book until it is finally completed.

2. Our government has not financed the building of the cathedral, not even one cent. The building finances itself, without the original financiers, through the amount that tourists pay to visit it, and through charitable donation from the public. In one day, the cathedral can raise over €5,000 with the cost of entering the cathedral, and climbing the spires up to and including €30 per person.

So I think that the Spirit of Gaudí lives on as long as people are willing to finance the completion of his final masterpiece.

Sorry, I just love Gaudí!!

I do too; it was mind-blowing when I first saw photos of his work. I have yet to see it in person. And I'm glad they're finishing it. So many grand european churches took at least a century to finish; this timeframe is also part of the tradition for a building like that.

 

[curiousunistudent]

I do too; it was mind-blowing when I first saw photos of his work. I have yet to see it in person. And I'm glad they're finishing it. So many grand european churches took at least a century to finish; this timeframe is also part of the tradition for a building like that.

Indeed, The Duomo Di Milano for example took 6 centuries, so it's not ridiculous to re-start construction after 60 years. By the way, what's your favourite Gaudí designed building or landscape? I know this is meant to be painful architecture, but I'm sure somebody will find it painful. My favourite building for example is a choice between:

The Episcopal Palace of Astorga

Bodegas Güell, which is inside the beautiful Gaudí designed Park Güell

Casa Milà

I think it would be amazing to own Casa Milà. That Atrium is simply stunning!!

Sorry for the long post. TLDR, I LIKE GAUDÍ!!!!

 

[Swellegant]

You know, it seems that there are an awful lot of people in the world who believe that aesthetics is purely subjective, and that functionality is the antithesis of art.

That's simply not true. There are such things as perfect forms, there are such things as universal beauties; all art should have a function, and that function should be served before the muse... and maybe I'm an idealist, but I do believe that if an object's only function is to provoke thought, the thought it provokes should not be "what the hell is that?"

Fashion becomes a problem with art when the people who are looking at it aren't trained to see it, they're only trained to either see what they expect to see and become enraged when their expectations are challenged or else to nod knowingly and say "I don't understand it, so it must be profound."

There are modern buildings that are breathtakingly beautiful; there are ancient buildings that are unforgivably ugly. There are buildings which depend completely on their context in order to be beautiful (think of the Forbidden City, bog-standard Chinese architecture elevated to the sublime by sheer scale) and buildings that are so pleasing to the eye that they look good anywhere (your basic Palladian four-square house, for example, suitable for town or country and any size you like).

There are shapes so beautiful that they come to symbolize entire cultures--the pyramids of Egypt, the temples of Greece and Rome, the cathedrals of medieval Europe, the pagodas of Asia, the teepees of the native American tribes--even though those forms do not represent the common architecture of those cultures.

There are things you can do with buildings that never ever look good... they certainly challenge the eye, but they do so with discomfort rather than stability: feats of engineering that make the building appear to float weightless are fascinating, but they're also terrifying to anyone who has to go up in them. They make the people who look at it every day uneasy, even if they don't know why.

For example, at SFMOMA there is a bridge over the central atrium that is made of transparent steel mesh... you walk out, you look down, and you see eighty feet of empty space terminating in a floor; and though you logically know you're perfectly safe, your body reacts anyway... it's the coolest thing I ever saw. But if I had to walk across that bridge every fucking day to get from my office to the potty, I'd be a basket case within the year.

Anyway, I could go on at this forever, but what I want to get across is that making a building a certain shape just because you can, or to challenge perception, is a waste of material. It might be terribly interesting to look at, but living in it would be a nightmare. Buildings are meant to be lived in, not just to be looked at... no matter how beautiful or interesting the form, if you can't live and work comfortably inside, then what in the world is the point?

I mean, I love a utility object that has been so cunningly designed that it is art; but an artistic dish-scrubber that doesn't scrub the dishes is useless.

 

[rocabar]

^ Beautifully and eloquently stated, Swellegant.

 

[TheOscar]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was designed by the same guy who designed the Denver Art Museum.

Oddly, it fits in fairly well with what's next door - the Denver Public Library.

Often when people first see it, they ask "Which one is the library?" To which I say "All of them."

Actually I like them both. Would I have preferred the old castle structure? Not necessarily. I do think it's silly to put one in front of the other, though.

Lex

Ahaha! I live in Colorado, too. Been to that art museum a couple of times. I like the shape, though.

And yes, people always complain about that horse. >.>





Also, I like a lot of these buildings. XD

 

[Kulindahr]

Indeed, The Duomo Di Milano for example took 6 centuries, so it's not ridiculous to re-start construction after 60 years. By the way, what's your favourite Gaudí designed building or landscape? I know this is meant to be painful architecture, but I'm sure somebody will find it painful. My favourite building for example is a choice between:

The Episcopal Palace of Astorga

That thing would make a totally rockin' 3D jigsaw puzzle!

It would also be right at home in Middle Earth.

You know, it seems that there are an awful lot of people in the world who believe that aesthetics is purely subjective, and that functionality is the antithesis of art.

That's simply not true. There are such things as perfect forms, there are such things as universal beauties; all art should have a function, and that function should be served before the muse... and maybe I'm an idealist, but I do believe that if an object's only function is to provoke thought, the thought it provokes should not be "what the hell is that?"

Fashion becomes a problem with art when the people who are looking at it aren't trained to see it, they're only trained to either see what they expect to see and become enraged when their expectations are challenged or else to nod knowingly and say "I don't understand it, so it must be profound."

There are modern buildings that are breathtakingly beautiful; there are ancient buildings that are unforgivably ugly. There are buildings which depend completely on their context in order to be beautiful (think of the Forbidden City, bog-standard Chinese architecture elevated to the sublime by sheer scale) and buildings that are so pleasing to the eye that they look good anywhere (your basic Palladian four-square house, for example, suitable for town or country and any size you like).

There are shapes so beautiful that they come to symbolize entire cultures--the pyramids of Egypt, the temples of Greece and Rome, the cathedrals of medieval Europe, the pagodas of Asia, the teepees of the native American tribes--even though those forms do not represent the common architecture of those cultures.

There are things you can do with buildings that never ever look good... they certainly challenge the eye, but they do so with discomfort rather than stability: feats of engineering that make the building appear to float weightless are fascinating, but they're also terrifying to anyone who has to go up in them. They make the people who look at it every day uneasy, even if they don't know why.

For example, at SFMOMA there is a bridge over the central atrium that is made of transparent steel mesh... you walk out, you look down, and you see eighty feet of empty space terminating in a floor; and though you logically know you're perfectly safe, your body reacts anyway... it's the coolest thing I ever saw. But if I had to walk across that bridge every fucking day to get from my office to the potty, I'd be a basket case within the year.

Anyway, I could go on at this forever, but what I want to get across is that making a building a certain shape just because you can, or to challenge perception, is a waste of material. It might be terribly interesting to look at, but living in it would be a nightmare. Buildings are meant to be lived in, not just to be looked at... no matter how beautiful or interesting the form, if you can't live and work comfortably inside, then what in the world is the point?

I mean, I love a utility object that has been so cunningly designed that it is art; but an artistic dish-scrubber that doesn't scrub the dishes is useless.

Bravo!

 

[ariesstar89]

I like some of these buildings! But some buildings you do look at, tilt your head to the side and go 'what the fuck was that guy thinking?'

 

[freefall]

When I first saw photos of La Sagrada Familia, I was horrified. Some of the details look like algal blooms or fungal growth.

But I can't stop staring, so obviously something about the building is fascinating to me.

I don't know whether to believe that Gaudi was brilliant or ridiculous for thinking to include all of that detail.

It's that Baroque[/img] style? It's wonderful, but occasionally can cause headache due to the denseness of the ornaments.

Anyway, sometimes I wonder what they were thinking when they build the Singaporean Marina Bay Hotel. The hotel's interior design is marvelous and the glass building is great, but it bugs me to actually see a ship is dislodged on the top on three pillar-like buildings

 

[TheOscar]

It's that Baroque[/img] style? It's wonderful, but occasionally can cause headache due to the denseness of the ornaments.

Anyway, sometimes I wonder what they were thinking when they build the Singaporean Marina Bay Hotel. The hotel's interior design is marvelous and the glass building is great, but it bugs me to actually see a ship is dislodged on the top on three pillar-like buildings

I think that is freaking awesome! I want to go to the top!!

 

[Kulindahr]

It's that Baroque[/img] style? It's wonderful, but occasionally can cause headache due to the denseness of the ornaments.

Anyway, sometimes I wonder what they were thinking when they build the Singaporean Marina Bay Hotel. The hotel's interior design is marvelous and the glass building is great, but it bugs me to actually see a ship is dislodged on the top on three pillar-like buildings

The Sky Park is intended to bring a ship to mind, since the thing is on the waterfront, but isn't a ship -- it's a vast park, complete with swimming pool, tree-shaded walkways, and more:




The pool alone would be worth the visit:

 

[freefall]

^I know, I've been there last year .
Like I say, it's magnificent. Still the image of a ship is highly disturbing, like it can crumble down anytime...

 

[Kulindahr]

^I know, I've been there last year .
Like I say, it's magnificent. Still the image of a ship is highly disturbing, like it can crumble down anytime...

When I watched a program on the building of the thing, I got the impression that the Sky Park was going to stick out on both ends. That would have looked more balanced. What I don't like about the ship image is that it would do better to have the stern stick out, not just the bow -- and they could have hung a giant rudder, covered with solar panels, off it, to complete the ship imagery.

This looks... unsteady or something.

 

[giddyup78]

Being an architectural student, I find that to be very appealing. The architect, I.M. Pei is a brilliant architect and one who inspires me along with Gehry, and Jacobsen. It is the modern elements of design along with that old historic ones that make this very appealing to many.

this is truly fugly...it does not belong at the Louvre

 

[LilBit]

^I have to agree, I've grown fond of the Pyramids. I think the main reason why I don't find them as objectionable as the Crystal is that they don't obscure the original architecture. They are a somewhat odd contrast, but I can live with that.

 

[teadrinker]

And now, a good news story. This following old photo shows the city of Melbourne in the late 1960's, early 1970's, with the Gas and Fuel Corporation Buildings on the right - yes, those big blocky, brown things. Cunningly sited on the banks of Melbourne's river, the Yarra, and so sited as to block out the view into the city (and St Paul's Cathedral) from across the river. An inspired example of what Bill Bryson calls the Fuck-You school of architecture.

Anyway, they were torn down in 1997 so as to make room for Federation Square, which has its faults, but at least isn't so damned awful as those old buildings.

-T.

 

[gsdx]

^I have to agree, I've grown fond of the Pyramids. I think the main reason why I don't find them as objectionable as the Crystal is that they don't obscure the original architecture. They are a somewhat odd contrast, but I can live with that.

And the pyramids aren't growing out of the original building. I could live with that, too.

 

[Lord Booticus]

Drake Circus shopping centre in Plymouth

Its a horrible miss-mass of styles combined into one building, none of them particularly appealing on their own, terrible when massed together. Got its self a Carbuncle Cup award in 2006 for worst building in Britian >_>.

The insides not too bad though.

 

[roadtripboy]

I should saw I like a lot the buildings in this thread. I like this one too. I just thought I'd post it to see what everyone else thinks. It's in Malmo, Sweden.



(click on it to enlarge)