Skyscrapers and high rise buildings represent large investments and therefore should demand the very best of architectural criticism. In a jarring experience last week I was reminded that sometimes websites rush to feed the content treadmill before considering the reader. All readers are of immense value and I'm grateful for each. Now more than ever tall structures need our scrutiny. London has something like 119 applications in the pipeline (thought it's expected not all will be built) and juggernauts like Gehry and Foster are facing off in downtown Toronto. Who's the one who's going to go out on a limb and pick favourites?
Skirting the economic issues we return to the aesthetic. It pains me greatly such a great symbol of human's propensity to create is so flawed. And specifically, if we must accept some flaws to just get anything built, then can't we at least push the design further? Foster's daigrid skyscrapers to the center and and right fair much better against Eric Parry Architects' 1 Undershaft. The pressure from the developers here is very evident. One can imagine design meetings where the developer, in this case representatives from Singapore property developers Aroland Holdings, is basically giving ultimatums to Eric Parry to maximize the floor plate no matter what. That's how we end up with a boring rectangular prism for our great expense. I guess staying positive there could be awesome interior design and retail architecture. Plus one can at least still implement some sustainable technology.
In the running for best daigird high rise is Hearst Tower out of New York. I've always felt a bit iffy about the structure's connection to the historic base but at least above there is a lot going on. At least there trying something here. In case you'd like to see more urban high rise architecture, please check out the excellent feed of @tectonicphoto!
No comments:
Post a Comment