More downtown condominiums

[SOCOM]

The problem I have with the 60's/early 70's era buildings is that for every landmark building (JHC, PanAM, etc) there were dozens of what I would call miserable failures (architectural speaking, of course). New York unfortuntaley bore the brunt of this with some hideous towers erected during that time. Case in point is 1 New York Plaza. I hate the building with a passion; it ruins some of the views from the harbor. It's got the ultimate "top hat" look.

[damus]

Yep, just tear down any building you don't like. That's what Hartford has done forever. This building is a classic.

Non-descript? Better look that word up before you use it. This is a bright white building covered by 25 floors of honeycombing. It is complex and simple at the same time.

And the dopiest comment is that the 60's were a non-descript era. I guess the moon landing, the civic rights movement, hippies, the British music invasion, the Cuban Mmissle crisis and the Kennedy assasination were all non-desrcipt event from that non-descript era. ROTFLMAO!

Youre wrong about that too. You're confusing your own taste with good taste.

Chill out.

[beerbeer]

I refuse to chill out especially in face of lunacy. This city has been decimated by opinions just like those being expressed in this thread. And we're supposed to be the enlightened ones.

I love when a person just repeats the same thing over and over again because they can't support their opinion.

If you want in on the debate, make an intelligent point, otherwise don't chill out, stay out.

[damus]

I refuse to chill out especially in face of lunacy. This city has been decimated by opinions just like those being expressed in this thread. And we're supposed to be the enlightened ones.

I love when a person just repeats the same thing over and over again because they can't support their opinion.

If you want in on the debate, make an intelligent point, otherwise don't chill out, stay out.

I was simply lurking on this specific thread. You're very confrontational, and your opinions were more along the lines of personal attacks which are not allowed on this site. One of them based upon what was said in a post that you didn't really read. You do not act like you want to debate, you want everyone to agree with you or shut up. I don't know who was repeating the same thing over and over again. I must not have read the thread thoroughly enough. I think you'd be better off listening to me before one of the mods gets involved.

[beerbeer]

The attacks are not of a personal nature. I try to be to stay focused on the opinions being expressed and the lack of depth of the opinions expressed. (I may not alway succeed.)

But this one just blows me away. This is a city that never met a building it didn't want to turn into a surface parking lot (including the old state house). To see that mentality perpetuated on this board is astounding.

[Lone Ranger]

The problem I have with the 60's/early 70's era buildings is that for every landmark building (JHC, PanAM, etc) there were dozens of what I would call miserable failures (architectural speaking, of course). New York unfortuntaley bore the brunt of this with some hideous towers erected during that time. Case in point is 1 New York Plaza. I hate the building with a passion; it ruins some of the views from the harbor. It's got the ultimate "top hat" look.

Oh but you can't say that, it's lunacy.

It's true, of course. Just look at this classic!

Now how can you not love a building like that?

I love when a person just repeats the same thing over and over again because they can't support their opinion.

Umm ... like you're in the process of doing? Christ fella, you call for an intelligent discussion, but you have a nasty habit of making your point with a billyclub. FWIW, all of your examples are atrocities. I say that, and I even like the PanAm building. It interests me to no end in a grotesque sort of way. But I would never call it attractive. The Hancock has a nice interior? Yay for you. It's still ugly as sin.

You're confusing your own taste with good taste.

Said the pot to the kettle. And you're confusing the age of a building with its quality, but that's a different story I suppose.

[Jerry2]

I refuse to chill out especially in face of lunacy. This city has been decimated by opinions just like those being expressed in this thread. And we're supposed to be the enlightened ones.

I love when a person just repeats the same thing over and over again because they can't support their opinion.

If you want in on the debate, make an intelligent point, otherwise don't chill out, stay out.

People are entitled to their opinions. Not only is this a democracy, but this whole site is comprised of people's opinions. You don't control the Hartford forum and anyone should be able to visit and comment ( within reason) without being chastised by your obvious impatience with anyone that doesn't agree with YOU! I second Damus.

[beerbeer]

Jerry, that's a personal attack.

If you have an intelligent opinion, then add it to the debate. That's my point. I don't care if you like my style or not, it ain't relevant.

Take Lone Ranger for example. His point is that for every great architectural achievement in the 60s, (like the incredibly unique St. Louis Arch) there was also a bad building. That's supposed to be meaningful? That statement is true in every year since two stones were put together. Bad building outweigh good building every single year, so what? That is no point at all.

And too use that nonsense to justify defacing a historic Hartford building --maybe you think that makes sense, I don't.

[Lone Ranger]

Take Lone Ranger for example. His point is that for every great architectural achievement in the 60s, (like the incredibly unique St. Louis Arch) there was also a bad building. That's supposed to be meaningful? That statement is true in every year since two stones were put together. Bad building outweigh good building every single year, so what? That is no point at all.

Don't put words in my mouth. My point is that these buildings you esteem are ugly. Butt-ugly. That's my point. If these buildings are the best of that period, then my original point stands: it was a nondescript period.

Architecurally speaking, that is. I have to remember to be specific about that, I guess, because you've already tried to distort my words once in that regard.

The Gateway Arch. Congratulations, you've now successfully named one structure that deserves applause from the period in question.

[Lone Ranger]

But this one just blows me away. This is a city that never met a building it didn't want to turn into a surface parking lot (including the old state house). To see that mentality perpetuated on this board is astounding.

And for the record, this is the most absurd brand of exaggeration. Nobody ever suggested any such thing about this building, so get a grip.

[beerbeer]

I named a half dozen buildings and there are plenty more.

You clearly don't understand the architectual significance of the Handcock Building. It's shape was quite extraordinary for a building of its size. The cross beams and the illusion they create from the ground were also groundbreaking. This structure also set the scale for the future of the Chicago skyline. The high rise building boom that followed it can be traced to this structure.

The 60's were a time of new materials being used in new ways. Buildings moved and flowed like they never had before, the Handcock is a perfect example of this. People who look at the 60s and only see the Bauhaus influence are missing a lot.

The BOA building was one of many buildings that was influence by shapes rom nature. Yeah, its a big box. But the exterior has a nice juxtiposition of intricacy and simplicity. If you think about the way Andy Warhol was using repetitive images in a single larger image, it is somewhat reflective of that.

It is interesting and historic architecture, isn't that reason enough not break up the fascade? What's next balconies on the Travellers Tower.

[SOCOM]

It is interesting and historic architecture, isn't that reason enough not break up the fascade? What's next balconies on the Travellers Tower.

For the record, I'm the only person who has mentioned a possible tweaking of the facade...and all I said was improving the facade. Never once did anyone mention tearing the building down or breaking up the facade. I will say this, you have convinced me that the facade is at the very least decent, but I still can't stand the top of the building.

You've got to let other people express their opinions without attacking them. I love the Travelers Tower - some people hate it. That's the nature of human beings; beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[beerbeer]

For the record here is my original post.

-----------------

"That exterior is a classic. A perfect example of mid 20th century high rise architecture. It would be a crime to change it.

It's amazing how folks in Hartford unvalue anything historic."

--------------------

That post is supportable, given the number of historic buildings that have been lost in the city. I thought that many of the posts in this thread actually show the mentality that has led to the city losing iconic and historic structures.

One poster went so far as to suggest nothing of note was built in the same time frame. How am I suppose to respond to such gibberish? This poster seemed unaware that a historic significant building was constructed about the same time just at the bottom of the hill?

Am I guilty of hyperbole, sure. But how else can one respond to such outrageous statements? If you look at my posts, while I respond to the posters, my arguments are directed to the posts.

There is a HUGE difference between calling some stupid and saying that they have posted something stupid. One is a personal attack, the other is deconstructing an opinion. I try to engage in the former and not the latter.

[Lone Ranger]

I named a half dozen buildings and there are plenty more.

You clearly don't understand the architectual significance of the Handcock Building. It's shape was quite extraordinary for a building of its size. The cross beams and the illusion they create from the ground were also groundbreaking. This structure also set the scale for the future of the Chicago skyline. The high rise building boom that followed it can be traced to this structure.

The 60's were a time of new materials being used in new ways. Buildings moved and flowed like they never had before, the Handcock is a perfect example of this. People who look at the 60s and only see the Bauhaus influence are missing a lot.

First of all, professor, it's H-A-N-C-O-C-K, not H-A-N-D-C-O-C-K. Hancock. John Hancock. Don't lecture me if you don't know the name of the building. Or the historical figure.

Second of all, yes, I'm aware of the JH's architectural merits in terms of materials and design. Now get this: that doesn't change a thing, I still find it to be quite ugly.

Gasp!

That possibility, it seems, hadn't occurred to you.

You can build the biggest, tallest, most complicated building in the world, and that's great, but if it's still ugly, then it's still ugly. Case in point, the World Trade towers. Complicated, controversial, iconic. And an eyesore.

One poster went so far as to suggest nothing of note was built in the same time frame.

Again, you distort my words. I called it a nondescript period. I certainly did not say that there was not a single building of worth built in that era. You twist my words to make them seem ridiculous, then you attack them as being ridiculous.

Also, you don't seem to realize it, but you have an inflammatory way of putting things.

How am I suppose to respond to such gibberish? This poster seemed unaware that a historic significant building was constructed about the same time just at the bottom of the hill?

Am I guilty of hyperbole, sure. But how else can one respond to such outrageous statements? If you look at my posts, while I respond to the posters, my arguments are directed to the posts.

There is a HUGE difference between calling some stupid and saying that they have posted something stupid. One is a personal attack, the other is deconstructing an opinion. I try to engage in the former and not the latter.

Amazing how black & white the world can be, when you want it that way. You, sir, have a deluded sense of self. I'm done with this discussion.

[beerbeer]

You've almost got it. here's where you're over the line.

It is not important what you think is ugly or beautiful. You are suggesting changing a historical and significant structure based on your personal opinion. Yes, I grasp this. Now it's time for you to grasp THIS!

Years ago, Mayor George Athenson tried to have the Calder sculpture Stegosaurous removed from the Burr Mall because he thought it was ugly. If that had happened it would have been tragic. That sculture is one of the most important pieces in the entire city.

Whether you, or I, think something is ulgy is not relevant. The real question is whether something is important or meaningful or historic and whether its loss is a loss for everyone in the community regardless of your personal opinion.

If you thought the Statue of Librerty was ugly, should we change that for you? How about the White House or the Louve?

Yes, I know that is an extreme way to look at your posts. My point is that your posts about these buildings should be a little more substantive than whether you llike chocolate or vanilla. And by the way, I loved the Trade Towers. although I agree that architectually, they were pretty bland.

[MadVlad]

I'm going to throw a hand-granade on this thread. Let's make the f'ing building even taller....

[jednc]

[Lone Ranger]

Take a poll. I could be wrong, but I don't think I'm talking about nothing but my personal opinion. Make a poll, give it enough time to build up a substantial sample size, and I assure you, you will find that people in general will call this building ugly. They won't care about its structural significance, or its significance in regards to the (un)aesthetic movement it represents. They'll simply say that it's ugly, an ugly building.

Take the damn poll, see if I'm right.

Your elitism aside, mr beer, I find it to be no mere coincidence that this period of architecture you revere also happens to represent a low point in the history of urban America, a time when people were moving out of many of our cities at an alarming (even crippling) rate. Because our cities had become playgrounds for aggressive postmodernist types like you. And yes, they were hideously ugly.

People don't like to live in ugly places, if they don't have to.

Yes, I know that's an over-simplication. Yes, I know there were many other factors at work at the same time. Oh I'm sure you'll have a field day distorting my words on this one ...

[Lone Ranger]

And for the record, I would like to state that I have not once in this thread suggested, as you so frequently imply, that I believe my personal opinion about the appearance of this building to be sufficient basis to tear it down, or blow it up, or pave it over, or deface it, or whatever else you care to imagine. Once again, that is merely you twisting my words. I get the impression that you've had this argument before, perhaps many times, and you're imputing to me the motives or statements of the people with whom you argued in the past. Well get this straight: I never said any of that. All I said in this thread, and you can go back and check the posts yourself if you like, is that it is my personal opinion that this building is an ugly building from an era predominated by ugly buildings.

So, for the sake of clarity, which seems to be very much the issue here, I'll repeat: I'm not using my opinion of this building as a basis for any desire to see it demolished, I'm only using my opinion of this building as a basis for saying that it is ugly. And if you continue to have a problem with that ... well, I guess that's just your problem.

[drc72]

I'm going to throw a hand-granade on this thread. Let's make the f'ing building even taller....

I think a grenade has already been thrown in and has exploded.

[Luca Brasi]

I like the BOA building very much. As has aklready been mentioned here, its a great example of mid-century architechture. I love the organic shapes of the windows so typical of its design period. And I think the many photos taken of The Old State House with the post modern BOA building and the pattern created by its radiator-like curtain wall as a backdrop.

Not so sure I like the idea of retrofitting it to residential. I'd rather build someting new.

[ctman987]

I like the BOA building...now I dont love and if it were to be knocked down and magically replaced with a bigger and better skyscraper in the same day I would allow that but since that is not happening anytime soon I can live with it

[Cotuit]

Do you people seriously have nothing better to do with your holiday weekends?

CHILL THE FVCK OUT!

[Lone Ranger]

Do you people seriously have nothing better to do with your holiday weekends?

I don't have to answer that.

[Bill Mocarsky]

The "BOA" building doesn't suffer as much as the Gold building, Stilts building or One Commercial Plaza (to name a few) in integrating with street level.

I like the gold building, but it looks like it sunk. I would like to see more contrast from the bottom one or two floors from the rest of the skyscraper.