Jump to content

Belle Meade Theater Site Set to Start Early 06


smeagolsfree

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Obviously you need to travel a little bit more...this building looks absolutely nothing like any other building built at the turn of the 18th century--nor the turn of the 19th century, for that matter.

I guess I must agree that it looks nothing like any building of note from those periods, but it has hints of design aspects from many styles that are poorly reproduced poorly placed and poorly detailed. Using columns to flank the entrance (rear building) under a pedimented gable is reminiscent of Greek Revival design but without the intricate detail associated with that style, this design leaves the observer with the distinct feeling that essential elements are missing.

In the near building in the rendering, you see a formal entrance flanked by what is intended to give the impression of rusticated stone, but will most likely be tan colored split faced concrete block or oversized brick. The proportion of the elements (block vs. cut stone) will leave the observer feeling as if the building is constructed of weaker building materials because there will be an absence of visual weight in the individual elements, especially for a structure of this size.

The windows do not appear to have any character about them, much akin to an industrial style meant to be functional but not provide any visual interest.

As much as I would like to continue to pick apart the details or lack thereof, suffice it to say, I just don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TopCat, you are a smart fellow who has acquired a large measure of architectural form-analyzing power--but there are holes in your thinking that are typical of the era in which you live. Since these holes are ubiquitous all over the world, and can be traced to the currently supreme Bauhaus doctrines of future-worship and science-fiction double-speak, I think it would safe to say that you developed these Gropius-borne logical gaps in one academy or another, or perhaps through the reading of one of Rem Koolhaas' longer monologues.

I never said that the proposed building in question would be a good one--nor did I argue that this building would be an excellent example of "contemporary" classical design. In fact, I heartily agree with many of your statements, including all of the following:

I guess I must agree that it looks nothing like any building of note from those periods, but it has hints of design aspects from many styles that are poorly reproduced poorly placed and poorly detailed. Using columns to flank the entrance (rear building) under a pedimented gable is reminiscent of Greek Revival design but without the intricate detail associated with that style, this design leaves the observer with the distinct feeling that essential elements are missing.

In the near building in the rendering, you see a formal entrance flanked by what is intended to give the impression of rusticated stone, but will most likely be tan colored split faced concrete block or oversized brick. The proportion of the elements (block vs. cut stone) will leave the observer feeling as if the building is constructed of weaker building materials because there will be an absence of visual weight in the individual elements, especially for a structure of this size.

The windows do not appear to have any character about them, much akin to an industrial style meant to be functional but not provide any visual interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.