I agree with a1student, its a student project these are meant to start conversation and give people an idea of what could be not what will be. Hey townline, are you a current or former MUP student?
I agree with a1student, its a student project these are meant to start conversation and give people an idea of what could be not what will be. Hey townline, are you a current or former MUP student?
When I mention cutting edge design and iconic architecture, I'm not referring to the tepid angles of Toronto's ROM. (Even Torontonians have generally dismissed it.) Good architecture does not sustain itself on a 'wow' factor. The ROM and Denver's art museum (also designed by Daniel Libeskind) are not kind buildings to the respective collections and the visitor experiences are maddening.
I'm sure that many readers of this website are familiar with the small city of Columbus, Indiana, where renowned architects have made their contribution to that landscape over many years. There are no skyscrapers -- just small usable spaces that are respected and embraced by the town's citizens. It's a pleasant place to visit and their icons fit into the fabric seamlessly. What Columbus, Indiana, has achieved can be duplicated on a different scale by Buffalo. A sluggish economy and real estate market are not barriers to quality design. The misconception is that good architecture costs a lot of money, but it's just not true if it's a true collaborative process.
Yes my generation should be more wild and on drugs. By the way RisingDamp, I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic earlier when you mentioned Selfridges. Future Systems is really great and you're right - Buffalo could use a good blob.
Ontario College of Art & Design's campus building designed by Will Alsop is a great recent building that meets the needs of users, community and the surrounding neighborhood. (If anyone hasn't seen it, the building is around the corner from the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto.) In my opinion, it's the strongest new architectural statement within a short driving distance from Buffalo. There is no reason that Buffalo, too, can't take advantage of top architects to create the next generation of venerable buildings.
I think many people are taking this project too literally. Students should be encouraged to push the limits of what a 'realistic" design is at this point in our career. Through the difficult and strange ideas we propose we can learn to be creative about the solutions for many different situations. If we were taught to only design the types of buildings we all are familiar with-- perhaps new GREEN technologies of less waste and new construction would never be introduced. New buildings encourage new ways of thought and solutions to the growing problems of the past!
The trouble with Buffalo is our tepid economy and sluggish real estate market. It would be great to see new cutting edge architecture rise in our city but there has to be strong demand for the space created by this new cutting edge architecture. I would love to see a couple new skyscrapers of 30+ stories rise downtown but again we are bumping into the persistant, nagging problems of a slow economy and not enough business. There is too much empty commercial space downtown at the present time.
I think many people are taking this project too literally. Students should be encouraged to push the limits of what a 'realistic" design is at this point in our career. Through the difficult and strange ideas we propose we can learn to be creative about the solutions for many different situations. If we were taught to only design the types of buildings we all are familiar with-- perhaps new GREEN technologies of less waste and new construction would never be introduced. New buildings encourage new ways of thought and solutions to the growing problems of the past!
It's easy to be seduced by new "icons" and "cutting edge" design that on closer inspection does not compel any deeper sensual or aesthetic response: witness the mediocre parade of new building in Toronto (the addition to the ROM being the most ridiculous of these faddish jokes). Or consider just how scarce truly iconic new buildings are in this country. Icons take time to accrue resonance, usually after their textures and harmonies unfold over years of being watched and lived with. But most postmodern archictecture is content with a cheap "wow" factor, a high that wears off depressingly soon. Let's pass on that.
If only Buffalo could embrace cutting edge architecture and build icons for the new century. What is the last building of significance, large or small, that Buffalo erected? How long has it been? Good design is never elitist, but democratic in its appeal. Rebuilding the past, in either commercial or residential form, serves no one. Climate change may just be the catalyst that pushes out old thinking so that design can truly move forward without braking for nostalgic nonsense.
Looks almost as worthwhile as when the archs ripped apart phone books and called that designing in context.
MUP
I stopped reading comments after 'chris69' and decided to join Buffalo Rising as another "comment specialist". I have read comments from time to time about various subjects and generally stop reading when people begin to sound ignorant. I believe that BRO is a solid source of information and opinions. What really disappoints me is when someone blurts unfounded opinions about subjects they clearly know nothing about. chris69 writes: "The one thing that the school of architects completely fail is in their myopic elitism. They teach architects to study period buildings but never design period buildings." That just doesn't make sense. First of all the schools are Schools of Architecture, not schools of architects (they aren't architects when they are in school, i suppose those who are studying law go to schools of lawyers) anyway, What you've actually said is that the schools "fail in their myopic elitism" You've actually proven that they can see design clearly and design is for all people. Also what do you think a School of Architecture might teach? Hmmmmmm. Architecture and technically all architecture is 'period' architecture as it has to relate to a time it was built or recall a time it was built. Next, 'masonary' isn't a word. You would think that someone dropping a $10 word like 'myopic' might be able to use the word masonry correctly. And sorry to say ALL construction is expensive and masonry is still affordable if you're willing to pay for it. Sorry to pick on 'chris69', but this 'comment specialist' just happened to trip the wire..........yes I went to 'a school of architects' and yes I know what 'chris69' is trying to say, but all that I am asking is that everyone put some thought into their comments and understand the subject matter they are talking about so they can comment comprehensively and intelligently.
RisingDamp666 i´m going to have to completely disagree about the guggenheim en bilbao. having just visited it less than a week ago i thought it was a for the most part an upset as far as the façade goes. the museum is a huge pile of metal crap dropped on the outskirts of the city hiding behind a 100m wide sidewalk. but i did enjoy the back side along the river.
and downtown doesnt need its own version of amherst´s ¨lego land¨
Paul, I agree with you about respecting more intimate scales of design and setting, but that's generally not what most people look to as iconic. But I'd welcome a readjustment of our values so that smaller and more nuanced projects are appreciated.
Davvid, I don't care if a city is prosperous or not; I care about vision and taste and sensibility. Look at Bilbao, a somewhat threadbare but handsome old town that got a real blossom for a museum (as RisingDamp points out). And then look at Toronto, a city flush with investors, and the clunker they are stuck with. It seems that it's been some time since a city's architectural resume went hand in hand with its prosperity, at least in this country. Buffalo was once one of those places, and I'm proudly nostalgic for that elegance and grace. Much of it was erased, but I'm grateful every day for what endures. And I really believe that students could find more to inspire in Buffalo's past--in its richly allusive, subtly textured design-- than in the "cutting edge" of many other cities.
Thats just what we need.....a tall UB North Ellicott Residence experience downtown. ;)
In the interests of theoretical discussion:
Why does "cutting edge" have to be synonymous with "ugly" or "terrifying?" Can someone design a cutting edge building that human beings might enjoy being around? Why is everything an either-or proposition between boring and monstrous?
The building in the bottom photo looks like a Pac Man character designed to gobble up pedestrians. I'd love to live or work in that building and be forced to confront the sublime every day. But the real question is - will the thought of imminent destruction at the hands of my office building/residence make me more or less motivated at work?
Im not a big fan of legos or jinga for a building...you know the buildings that look like pieces were mysteriously removed fom the building or pieces were mysteriously added
The one thing that the school of architects completely fail is in their myopic elitism. They teach architects to study period buildings but never design period buildings.
The only place is residential. Today a FLW can easily be rebuilt, so can an EB Green (maybe not a richardson because masonary is expensive today) but beaux arts for a home is just as accepted as say the LA version of modern residential. ONE HAS TO QUSTION WHY A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CAN BE A PERIOD DESIGN BUT NOT A COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING?
The 'building' in the bottom photo actually reminds me of the NYPD Headquarters in NY, which was cutting edge design nearly forty years ago. The tall one above reminds me of an articulated version of the Humble Oil Building in Houston, which was built nearly fifty years ago. I don't think any of these approaches "cutting edge" but they unintentionally quote older modernist buildings. It would be better for these students to scale down their ambitions and scale up their ideas.
I agree with you mostly, EricOak, but you have to admit that every so often a building gets built that just has 'it". Like Bilbao. But all too often these architots go out swinging for the fences and hit it into a double play of bad design and bad taste.
"It's easy to be seduced by new "icons" and "cutting edge" design"
It seems like it would be much easier for us to be nostalgic, content with the familiar and to dismiss the achievements of more prosperous cities
Fashionably Modern, but not too modern. So kids, check out Selfridges at the "Bullring"in Birmingham England and come back and design us a 'Blob'! Buffalo needs a Blob!
@Andrew, most of the criticism I hear about Bilbao is the fact that the building so overwhelms the art inside that it becomes irrelevant. Yours is the first I've heard likening the structure to a "huge pile of metal crap"! And you know what? I can't help myself snickering!
@Davvid, Thanx for that slideshow. The Mirador Building is interesting but falls way short of the mark. it looks like Arqutitectonica on a budget. Stephen Holl's work comes to mind looking at that student's tower, but it's too timid and lame. Aren't the kids supposed to be wild and drugged up? What happened to this generation?
No sarcasm whatsoever, davvid, there isn't a decent blob anywhere in the U.S. and that gives Buffalo an opportunity. I wish the Aud were replaced by one...oh well.
Yes! on the 700 block infill idea. But, they should have used the bend of Pearl Street for inspiration and modeled a curved facade.
Report this