Jump to content

IN PROGRESS: Blue Cross Headquarters

mvince03

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply
basachs Burg

basachs

Posted
Posted
"The ice cube and co-op city" :rolleyes:

Funny he should label Waterplace Co-op city, as I had always thought the towers reminded me of something but could never place it til now. They do sort of resemble it! Their design is different enough and more modern looking to not be anywhere near as ugly and blighted however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mental757 Burg

mental757

Posted
Posted

and yet again, we made it into his diatribe - "those modernist bloggers..."

so the point is that Providence should be made of all brick, is that it??

While there is clearly room for improved designs, I don't think they are that bad, but I don't have a Projo column either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

blah blah blah gtech sucks, modernism sucks, glass sucks.... another crappy brussat column.

maybe providence should just ban all building materials except red brick. all houses, buildings, skyscrapers, etc... all red brick. it'd all match nicely.

in response to liam... i've seen him, he looks like he'd look normal in an ascot. :shades:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Griswald Whistle-Stop

Griswald

Posted
Posted

I was fine with the his bashing of the designs of "Ice Cube" and "Co-op City." BUT - it really bothers me that so many people in Providence want every new building to be "traditional" and "fit in" with the historic buildings. I love historic architecture. I love the Downcity commercial district. But what so many people don't seem to understand, is that creating "historic-looking or traditional-looking" architecture is FAKE!! There's a big difference between designing new buildings to FIT IN with their surroundings, and designing new buildings to look like they might have been built 100 years ago.

The reason I don't like G-Tech in and of itself, is that it's not modern and different enough. I like it for the fact that it brings something different to the architectural fabric of Providence, but it does so without any creativity or boldness. It works because the fabric is so bland. Im not saying there's a shortage of great designs, but a shortage of different styles and eras represented. In 100 years, the only way people will be able to differentiate between the buildings designed in the 1800s-early 1900s and the ones currently being designed to look like they're that old, is that the current buildings will have crumbled because of cheap materials. That's not really my point though, my point is that we need designs that reflect the times during which they were created. If architecture is a reflection of history, then what will people in the future say about our society? "Well it looks like between 1990 and 2010, everyone was trying to re-create history, rather than build a new reality...." We have all these amazing technological advancements in the way we can build, yet we rarely take advantage of them in our designs.

My bad for being long-winded. Reading that article just set me off though. Cheers to whoever mentioned that the Projo needs someone to counter Brussat's tired opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

i would have less of a problem with traditional looking architecture if they did it with the scrutiny and design and detail that was used in the past. you rarely see detail in buildings today like the federal reserve building or the superman building or the chrysler building or our state house all have. instead, we get faux-traditional architecture that mocks the past... the mall, the westin, the courtyard... all building brussat praises in his articles, that, to me, lack vision and are designed to just sit there. the gtech building, as bland as it may be for modern architecture is bold in the context of the buildings that surround it. the westin, the mall, and the courtyard are the bland buildings (although i will say the courtyard fits in better than either the mall or the westin... and i think the new westin tower has a lot more vision than the first one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glassandsteel Whistle-Stop

glassandsteel

Posted
Posted

No offense, but some of you guys are starting to sound just as bad as the person you're bashing.

He has a point about the failings of the commission to ensure a cohesive quality of the district, and if this proposal passes as is, they failed miserably at the task they were assembled to do.

I feel that one of the debate disconnects is the difference between building within a time period and building within cultural location. Which should we adhere to? Sure, GTech fits into this time period but it doesn't fit into it's surroundings. The opposite goes for the Westin. Which matters most? Are we of this time, or are we of this consistant fabric? Last I checked, GTech is the first major project in this city to be all-glass. Technically, it doesn't fit in at all.

So how is it that there are two sides, arguing two different points, based on two different criteria altogether, and a total failure to see it as such? That's why there's so much tension. Nobody is wrong in this debate because this debate is subjective.

The underlying question we're faced with is this: "Do we want architecture that expresses our original qualities? Architecture that expresses that we have seen the decades pass and seen cities become homogenized/modernized uniformly, while we have remained as we were and shall continue to be so as to stress our differences from other American cities as our unique quality? OR Do we want architecture that expresses a desire to catch up to the international scene and embrace the visual qualities common of new, vibrant cities?

OR

I could be full of ish and maybe these aren't the real underlying issues that we're facing architecturally as a city. Either way, enough with the crap flinging and the modernist/traditionalist standoff. If I wanted to deal with that argument in non-subjective terms, I'd read Fountainhead again. But it IS subjective. Now which subjective qualities are more relevant to our identity, our prosperity, and our success as one of the "sense of place" destinations of America?

And I also want to note that there is nothing more traditional in America's "futurism" culture than the need for constant change. Sometimes sticking with one thing shows more individual integrity than changing in the name of progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Garris Town

Garris

Posted
Posted
it really bothers me that so many people in Providence want every new building to be "traditional" and "fit in" with the historic buildings.

I love historic architecture... But what so many people don't seem to understand, is that creating "historic-looking or traditional-looking" architecture is FAKE!! There's a big difference between designing new buildings to FIT IN with their surroundings, and designing new buildings to look like they might have been built 100 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

glassandsteel... i completely understand your point, but you're assuming that we can't have both modern architecture and historic architecture in the same setting and work well together (by historic, i mean actual historic, city hall, superman, federal reserve, biltmore, NOT westin, courtyard, mall). the design for the blue cross building, while not going far enough, fits in well with the 2 building it shares land with, yet it also is different enough to be it's own building and not joined together with the other 2. i like hte curve, and i think it's kind of cool that the curve is on the inside (hopefully general passersby will be able to go in between the buildings). i think the other side shoudl have the same curve (at least starting at a couple stories up).

but in my opinion there's nothing wrong with putting a building like gtech in the surroundings it's in. first of all, we must remember that, contrary to brussat, the mall, westin, and courtyard are NOT historic architecture. they were all built in the 90's, and to be honest, they are quite boring buildings if you ask me, but they do fit in and if we had continued to infill with similar architecture, the entire capital center area would have been this large non-descript sea of brick. gtech put a very abrupt end to that. while the building may not be distinctive enough and bland to others, it's the first in a city of brick. it stands out on its own merit and does quite well at that, even if it is a big glass box, but just because it's a glass box doesn't mean it doesn't belong among historic looking buildings. look at cities like philadelphia. they have some very historic buildings (city hall is the prime example) a couple blocks from very modern buildings (liberty place). should they have built the modern buildings in a more modern section of the city and only used brick in center city? i believe there's also modern architecture in philly's old city (where independence hall and the liberty bell are... in fact, i think the liberty bell building and the visitor's center are pretty modern looking compared with independence hall). we don't have to build to fit a time period and fit in a cultural location. the culture is in the difference in architecture, so long as it's not bad architecture. capital center is not a historic looking area aside from the state house and the masonic temple... the mall and the westin do not look historic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Ranger Burg

Lone Ranger

Posted
Posted

Sorry, it's just that there's only so much I can take of Brussat assaulting these buildings that he doesn't find to be "beautiful."

This is all subjective. And that is very much the point. But Brussat doesn't seem to see that. He's made his case. Many times now. At this point, it's just silliness for him to continue to reiterate his one tired pet peeve.

Put it this way: I knew this article was coming. As soon as I saw the renderings for this building, I knew exactly what Brussat would say about the proposal.

I could continue to kick the dead horse, I guess, but in that case I'm no better than Brussat. It's all rehash now, Mr Brussat. Leave be, for chrissakes.

Anyway, FWIW, Brussat says he wants new buildings to fit in, and some people here say they want new buildings to fit in, but I suspect that we're talking about very different definitions of fitting in. Keep that in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted
Anyway, FWIW, Brussat says he wants new buildings to fit in, and some people here say they want new buildings to fit in, but I suspect that we're talking about very different definitions of fitting in. Keep that in mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • 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.