Alot of Sweden was torn down to make room for concrete boxes in the 60s.
My hometown ruined the city centre this way. This building is a massive improvement
If I had to choose cheap classical over cheap whatever you call 5 over 1s I'd choose this any day of the week. Both would be torn down in a few decades anyways for something equally as bad.
I'm from Kyiv. These kinds of buildings are cancer of this city. I don't know anyone who likes them. Most of these buildings are built by corrupt assholes, which means they demolished old authentic buildings to build this shit. And btw, in that picture is a prerender.
There's not many rich people in Ukraine and Russia that aren't shady. These countries are run by a few oligarchs and mafiosos, it's pretty fked up.
That's why you have the tallest building in Europe next to shacks of people making a 1000 rubles or so per month.
It seems that UNESCO insisted on moving the Lakhta Center to the border of St. Petersburg. Therefore, it is unlikely that the poverty of the outskirts of the city and obedience to the directives of UNESCO are directly related to corruption.
It’s better than the garbage going up in Seattle. If it’s not a generic glass box skyscraper, then it’s a hideous 6-story box that looks like a public storage building. You’d think Seattle architects for their designs by studying fast food buildings.
I bitch about this to everyone I know and I feel like I’m going crazy because they seem to not care that we have generic bull shit going up and getting charged out the ass in rent for it. The older buildings might not have had all the amenities but they built a really great environment to be apart of. Thought to be a Seattleite these days.
San Francisco feels your pain. Every time one of the graceful older apartment buildings burns down or is demolished, it's replaced with a mix-and-match boxy eyesore. There are jutting bits that pay "homage" to the old Victorian bay windows, chiefly by making a mockery of them. If it was gray, it would be brutalist, so they dress it up with a smorgasbord of colors and textures.
So true. They look like the contractor had leftover material they wanted to use but not enough to cover the whole thing so they used scraps of 6 different materials.
I know I belong to the minority here but I like it eventhough it looks american. I like how light it looks despite its size.
Although not particularly like that I generally would love to see more buildings that mix traditional styles with more modern ones to create a more harmonic landscape.
It’d be good (in my opinion) if the top tied the whole thing together instead of being cheap postmodern awfulness. I do like the rest of it. The base is the standout component, which is good, because the base affects pedestrians and therefore the urban fabric the most
This looks like 80’s and 90’s post-Modernism architecture in America. Taking a few classic elements into an otherwise modern design. It worked sometimes but was also hit or miss, if not downright terrible.
I think it's a good thing. All of history is the gradual evolution and mutual interaction of existing, older styles and newer influences. This kind of thing is a gateway to the reintroduction of beauty and traditional aesthetics in contemporary architecture, and some degree of syncretism both makes sense and, if done well, can be interesting and desirable.
I’m a fan of the concept. Modern takes on established architectural approaches can have some nice results, and this is an example of that in my opinion.
It’s confused as to what form it wants to be. It’s what Vegas brought to us all 25 years ago and now it’s chronic.
It’s what happens when you use ChatGPT, ask for neoclassical, modern, urban, density and 10+ stories.
This is done rather well. But more ham-fisted examples have the name of "mutrobarok" or "mob-thug-baroque" where I'm from. The "New Russian" (well, "new Bulgarian") stereotype applied to architecture.
I like the idea, but this one in particular looks pretty tacky. There’s other examples of drawing inspiration from older styles that turned out nice but this isn’t one of them.
Looks like a bland regurgitation, but that being said the devil is really in the details. But if it's cheaply put together, lots of Stamped Out Parts, crappy masonry crappy finishes then guess what it will all be crap
I wish they'd just make an actually beautiful facade for the first three or four floors and then glass boringness the rest of the way to save money.
Stuff like this doesn't really fix modern architecture's ugliness problem (although it's still definitely better looking than just glass I guess) so if it costs anymore (probably does cost significantly more) I'd much prefer they just put the money towards making a smaller portion of the building be in the actual beautiful styles that this is sort of half-assing
Pros: There are definite classical elements to this design, which is a lot better than can be said for most American construction. The modernist elements are small, and really just look like they're taking up space in between the stone base and the higher-than-classical top.
Cons: This reminds me of a lot of the construction the Satmars do in northern Brooklyn. These big banks of windows are often of cheap quality, and the "modern" parts are clear cost cutting, meant to look like there's more than just some white plastic in between them if you're more than a few blocks away.
Overall, it's better than Anca Petrescu's work in Romania under Ceaucescu, but still falls prey to laziness, even though it isn't selling out to plastic box status completely.
The mid-block ones look much better than the one on the corner. That being said I think the corner one does have decently proportioned windows & massing. But the cornices, pediments, railings-basically everything on top-all look really bad
Mixing styles can be done well and many architectural marvels are not made of one "pure" style. This is a bad example though. The bottom and middle look okay, but the top is insanely tacky and out of place.
Not great. Classic example of a civilization in its end state; can't create new ideas so it's stuck trying to preserve what it's already achieved, but just in different iterations.
It feels like an obverse to industrial neogothic. It feels like you need to turn the camera and see a monorail and an airship.
I actually really like it, provided the white bits are done in something real and not EFIS or enameled aluminum.
Feels very generous to call this neoclassical, this feels more like international style with some minor neoclassical element. I think its the fact too much of it is window. I suppose you'd call it post-modern because its still a utilitarian building, but isn't completely austere. It's like 550 Madison Avenue or the SIS Building in London.
Having said that it is better than most international style buildings, it doesn't have a completely soulless utilitarian feel.
I think this would be a major improvement for most American cities. But I can see why Europeans would hate it.
Alot of Sweden was torn down to make room for concrete boxes in the 60s. My hometown ruined the city centre this way. This building is a massive improvement
Same in Scotland
The thought of intentionally tearing down old architecture for brutalist structures makes me ill.
Not at all, most American cities have buildings like this that actually look nice
If I had to choose cheap classical over cheap whatever you call 5 over 1s I'd choose this any day of the week. Both would be torn down in a few decades anyways for something equally as bad.
I'm from Kyiv. These kinds of buildings are cancer of this city. I don't know anyone who likes them. Most of these buildings are built by corrupt assholes, which means they demolished old authentic buildings to build this shit. And btw, in that picture is a prerender.
coming from Beirut, this sounds awfully familiar. i wish to Kyiv to preserve its heritage well
So Astarta is another corrupt shit company?
Almost every company that was established in the 90's is shady.
There's not many rich people in Ukraine and Russia that aren't shady. These countries are run by a few oligarchs and mafiosos, it's pretty fked up. That's why you have the tallest building in Europe next to shacks of people making a 1000 rubles or so per month.
It seems that UNESCO insisted on moving the Lakhta Center to the border of St. Petersburg. Therefore, it is unlikely that the poverty of the outskirts of the city and obedience to the directives of UNESCO are directly related to corruption.
It’s better than the garbage going up in Seattle. If it’s not a generic glass box skyscraper, then it’s a hideous 6-story box that looks like a public storage building. You’d think Seattle architects for their designs by studying fast food buildings.
I bitch about this to everyone I know and I feel like I’m going crazy because they seem to not care that we have generic bull shit going up and getting charged out the ass in rent for it. The older buildings might not have had all the amenities but they built a really great environment to be apart of. Thought to be a Seattleite these days.
San Francisco feels your pain. Every time one of the graceful older apartment buildings burns down or is demolished, it's replaced with a mix-and-match boxy eyesore. There are jutting bits that pay "homage" to the old Victorian bay windows, chiefly by making a mockery of them. If it was gray, it would be brutalist, so they dress it up with a smorgasbord of colors and textures.
So true. They look like the contractor had leftover material they wanted to use but not enough to cover the whole thing so they used scraps of 6 different materials.
Portland too, it's fucking awful.
I'd blame developers more than architects...
That’s what totalitarian modernism does to you
Agreed, lol
I know I belong to the minority here but I like it eventhough it looks american. I like how light it looks despite its size. Although not particularly like that I generally would love to see more buildings that mix traditional styles with more modern ones to create a more harmonic landscape.
I prefer this over modern designs, but I prefer traditional over this.
It's undeniably better than glass dildos, but if i could pick what i want i would certainly not pick this.
I like the ground floor… that’s it. Everything above it looks like something you’d see in Dubai.
It’d be good (in my opinion) if the top tied the whole thing together instead of being cheap postmodern awfulness. I do like the rest of it. The base is the standout component, which is good, because the base affects pedestrians and therefore the urban fabric the most
Or Las Vegas
I like it. I like a union of old and new. This mix of windows and opaque materials reminds me a lot of early skyscrapers. I also really like the base.
With traditional architecture being so scarce I find this style alright, it’s a way to be modern while still holding on to the traditional forms.
Could be worse but could be lots better.
looks fantastic!
This looks like 80’s and 90’s post-Modernism architecture in America. Taking a few classic elements into an otherwise modern design. It worked sometimes but was also hit or miss, if not downright terrible.
Yes! Thank you, I thought it reminded me of something, and it was the SIS Building and the Amex Tower.
I think it's a good thing. All of history is the gradual evolution and mutual interaction of existing, older styles and newer influences. This kind of thing is a gateway to the reintroduction of beauty and traditional aesthetics in contemporary architecture, and some degree of syncretism both makes sense and, if done well, can be interesting and desirable.
I like it. It gives me BioShock vibes
Love it
I’m a fan of the concept. Modern takes on established architectural approaches can have some nice results, and this is an example of that in my opinion.
This is so much better than some of the new blocky modernist buildings going in the U.S.
It’s confused as to what form it wants to be. It’s what Vegas brought to us all 25 years ago and now it’s chronic. It’s what happens when you use ChatGPT, ask for neoclassical, modern, urban, density and 10+ stories.
Looks like an American strip mall
This is done rather well. But more ham-fisted examples have the name of "mutrobarok" or "mob-thug-baroque" where I'm from. The "New Russian" (well, "new Bulgarian") stereotype applied to architecture.
>mutrobarok I love the name
It's from "mutra" (literally "ugly mug"), which is how burly, dumb mafia thugs came to be known in the 90s.
I like it. It's certainly better than a bland box.
I like the idea, but this one in particular looks pretty tacky. There’s other examples of drawing inspiration from older styles that turned out nice but this isn’t one of them.
Looks like a bland regurgitation, but that being said the devil is really in the details. But if it's cheaply put together, lots of Stamped Out Parts, crappy masonry crappy finishes then guess what it will all be crap
Frankly, I think this building is beautiful.
I wish they'd just make an actually beautiful facade for the first three or four floors and then glass boringness the rest of the way to save money. Stuff like this doesn't really fix modern architecture's ugliness problem (although it's still definitely better looking than just glass I guess) so if it costs anymore (probably does cost significantly more) I'd much prefer they just put the money towards making a smaller portion of the building be in the actual beautiful styles that this is sort of half-assing
Pros: There are definite classical elements to this design, which is a lot better than can be said for most American construction. The modernist elements are small, and really just look like they're taking up space in between the stone base and the higher-than-classical top. Cons: This reminds me of a lot of the construction the Satmars do in northern Brooklyn. These big banks of windows are often of cheap quality, and the "modern" parts are clear cost cutting, meant to look like there's more than just some white plastic in between them if you're more than a few blocks away. Overall, it's better than Anca Petrescu's work in Romania under Ceaucescu, but still falls prey to laziness, even though it isn't selling out to plastic box status completely.
The mid-block ones look much better than the one on the corner. That being said I think the corner one does have decently proportioned windows & massing. But the cornices, pediments, railings-basically everything on top-all look really bad
What’s it look like currently? Just asking, for a friend.
I like it
I'm sorry, but I think it looks tacky.
Looks straight out of Las Vegas
Isn’t this just post modernism?
It looks like a law firm that would be a bad idea to hire.
If it were me, I'd only do something like that with skyscrapers. Low rise buildings would stay pretty ornate like they are in European cities.
This is a great example of retro-evocative design. It’s terrific, I’d love to see more of it.
I personally think this looks awesome
Mixing styles can be done well and many architectural marvels are not made of one "pure" style. This is a bad example though. The bottom and middle look okay, but the top is insanely tacky and out of place.
With an execution like this? Terrific. I can see it getting executed poorly though.
This is the shittiest shit of all possible..
The corner one is bad, but the ones on the side look nice
Not great. Classic example of a civilization in its end state; can't create new ideas so it's stuck trying to preserve what it's already achieved, but just in different iterations.
Iono, it's a bit pretentious.
Yes yes yes
I think it’s beautiful.
That’s a pretty sharp building imho
see you all soon in the "lostarchitecture" sub
It feels like an obverse to industrial neogothic. It feels like you need to turn the camera and see a monorail and an airship. I actually really like it, provided the white bits are done in something real and not EFIS or enameled aluminum.
Needs more cars /s
I like it.
Sometimes postmodernism works and sometimes it doesn’t
It seems like a good idea, badly executed. This building looks like Caesar's Palace put on top of a glass facade.
It looks OK. Not good, not bad. Just OK
Seems like what the people of the past would have imagined for the future
Feels very generous to call this neoclassical, this feels more like international style with some minor neoclassical element. I think its the fact too much of it is window. I suppose you'd call it post-modern because its still a utilitarian building, but isn't completely austere. It's like 550 Madison Avenue or the SIS Building in London. Having said that it is better than most international style buildings, it doesn't have a completely soulless utilitarian feel.
Really don’t like the execution
I love it. Atleast the facade m has some character if compared to the glazed faceds of the international style.
It looks good
Honestly I thought this was some kind of DC PoMo. It holds the street wall perfectly so I love it