Jump to content

IN PROGRESS: Blue Cross Headquarters

mvince03

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted
That was an odd/ill thought out statement.

As to the Governor - I do very much see his point of luring an out of state firm for a tower on that site. In the ideal scenario he, and I'm sure the Mayor, would have preferred that BSBS move into the E@B tower and this site go to a new company lured in from out of state.

After all, the idea is to add to the tax base and city business activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Citydweller Unincorporated Area

Citydweller

Posted
Posted
I can see few of those exceptions in Providence, however. There are few to no areas of the city that are so drenched by historical character that nothing contempary and "fitting in" could be constructed (and before someone mentions Benefit Street, that stretch has houses of a huge variety of architectural styles built over a span of 200 or so years).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted
98% of Benefit Street is based 'traditional' design of many styles over 200 years. It is a very tender operation to insert modernist styles (which are based on fundamentally different elements) into this composition that creates an immersive environment.

And this is what Providence used to have and I feel has lost. It was one of the few immersive environments in the United States. Santa Fe has this, Nantucket, Charleston. I'm not sure why evey city has to strive towards Houston to be modern. Rome is modern in its people, work, commmunication systems, fashion, etc. without adding buildings that are radically different. (BTW, this is truly green)

While G-tech has nice glass - it seems the wrong color for this town (no, it doesn't have to be brick color) but the bigger mistake is in the lack of solid mass. Architecture should be the balance between mass and void- G-Tech goes too far into the void. What I see more than a contrast of styles is the lack of awareness of the whole city as a work of art. And sometimes that means individual buildings that are less that spectacular, but that add up to wonderful street spaces and square. Civic art is the forming of spaces, not the glorification of individual buildings (except for public buildings).

I agree that most new traditional architecture is weak - this is due to poor training (very few architects were taught the rudiments of traditional design - which even the original modernist knew how to do!). It is possible to build traditional buildings well - there are more and more being built.

And I'm also seeing some good examples of modernist buildings that contribute to the ensemble. (as well a far too many jetsons type architecture)

Just remember that ALL architecture is fake (I haven't seen too much architecture growing up out of the ground by itself - and 'truth in materials' was disproved long ago). The difficult task is to make it a good fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Garris Town

Garris

Posted
Posted
98% of Benefit Street is based 'traditional' design of many styles over 200 years. It is a very tender operation to insert modernist styles (which are based on fundamentally different elements) into this composition that creates an immersive environment.

without adding buildings that are radically different. (BTW, this is truly green)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Citydweller Unincorporated Area

Citydweller

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure we really disagree on much if we were talking face to face. I find the internet - this forum, listserves, emails, not very satisfactory for having a nuanced discussion. It's ok for Wow! Looks Great! Hate it! What and idiot! and other punchy comments... icon4.gif

There are things we do seem to disagree about and a few misunderstanding about what I said.

I didn't say anything about a Colonial Providence - my point was that unitl Moderism all styles shared a common language, even if they were radical for their time. Material, proportion, detail were very compatible. Moderism can fit in - and street like Benefit require more skill and care that areas that are more hetergeneous. On thing that many architects don't accept (that I do) is that traditional architecture is still a living language and can be used as a choice - we are not 'fated' to use the latest architectural style because it is considered 100% authentic for our time. (that is why my tongue-in- cheek comment about all architecture is fake - we should have the freedom to chose and do something well rather something that is supposed to be the embodiment of our time).

Designing new traditional architecture does not mean one is designing a theme park. Architects like Moule & Polyzoides or Dmitri Pophyrios show that range of design that is possible - from traditional to modern.

So we do disagree about the march of history theory about architecture being an authentic embodiment of our times (Greek revival copied both renaissance and greek architecture , Renaisance copeid Roman Architecture , Roman copied Greek, etc , and much present day architecture copies earlier modernist architecture). I'm not sure what is especially new and cutting edge about GTECH and how it represents our times. It has glass wall (maybe in the latest technical specs but a rather old material) help by metal in a pattern that represents ??? (the new?) attached to a steel metal frame, another technology that has been around for awhile. Typically it is the guts of a building that has the most evolved high tech stuff, and that can be surrounded by any shell. Even a spiffy new material like the titanium that Ghery uses in his poetic forms are attached to a pick-up sticks structure of typical steel framing - I'm not sure where the honesty and truth to material there is in that.

Anyway , I appreciate your thoughtful responses, and am sure we share a committment to vital urbanism.

BTW Houston at one time looked a lot more like Providence (in the 1920's- downtown and inner neighborhood -close to the size of Prov.). While the comment was meant to be extreme, I was trying to illustrate that there is no guarantee for the future of any city, and the proper care and feeding of Providence is a relentless task.

You make several interesting points...

About Benefit Street, again, some of those "traditional" designs were radical for their time, and were and are unique to the street (the Armory building, a Greek revival, etc).

I think the issue with your argument is that you're ignoring the "fit in" part of what several people have been saying. As much as I admire Frank Gehry's Disney Concert Hall, new Seattle public library, and the ICA, I don't think any of them are good urbanism at all. They'd all be more at home in a suburb surrounded by a sea of asphalt parking (as the ICA actually is) than they are in their city digs.

I don't think anything like those would "fit" into Providence at all, and I certainly don't want to see something looking like a Cylon mothership dropped onto the 195 land. However, as I'm anticipating the RISD Chase Center will show, it's possible to do something completely modern and progressive that "fits into" its streetscape, advances height and density somewhat, and can enhance and embrace an urban streetscape.

That we need more of, not more buildings that look like they were literally designed in 1885...

I agree with Cotuit about the Houston comment. It's inflammatory... No one, not even Houston, wants to be Houston anymore...

However, I certainly don't want to be any of the three municipalities you've mentioned either. All of those places have mandated that styles all be of a certain nature to manufacture and create a "feel." They're "theme cities." It works for them, and I'm glad. The absolutely beautiful Hudson River town of Cold Spring near where I grew up did the same. All design needs to look turn of the 20th century, all signs wood, historic detailing required, etc, etc. And I love all three of the places you mention and love Cold Spring, but I don't want to live in any of those places. I want to live in a "real" vibrant, evolving, progressive place.

In our case, we happen to have a lot of historic architecture that would should preserve, honor, and have our new construction "fit into" where appropriate, but when we start doing "Colonial Providence," personally, I'm outta here...

On your first paragraph, I absolutely agree. Sometimes, outright contrast is an awareness of surroundings (how many famous photos have been taken of the "Pan Am Building's" facade against the classical facade of Grand Central in NYC?"), but I agree 100% that GTECH is kind of in a neatherworld where it doesn't work as contrast or context. It's kind of just there. That said, I think the street level works quite well, and that the Frances and Waterplace aspects of the building are quite dramatic and quite good public spaces.

Regarding your "all architecture is fake," I actually disagree entirely with that "everthing is arbitrary" type of statement. I think it's been fairly well established that much of architecture is very clearly an outgrowth of the ideals and viewpoints of a society in that point in history. There's a reason why many of our early government buildings look the way they do, just as there was a philosophy behind the Brutalist Boston City Hall, all of which was 100% authentic for their times and said something about the thought processes of those cultures.

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
DaveRPI Whistle-Stop

DaveRPI

Posted
Posted
I'm not sure we really disagree on much if we were talking face to face. I find the internet - this forum, listserves, emails, not very satisfactory for having a nuanced discussion. It's ok for Wow! Looks Great! Hate it! What and idiot! and other punchy comments... icon4.gif

There are things we do seem to disagree about and a few misunderstanding about what I said.

I didn't say anything about a Colonial Providence - my point was that unitl Moderism all styles shared a common language, even if they were radical for their time. Material, proportion, detail were very compatible. Moderism can fit in - and street like Benefit require more skill and care that areas that are more hetergeneous. On thing that many architects don't accept (that I do) is that traditional architecture is still a living language and can be used as a choice - we are not 'fated' to use the latest architectural style because it is considered 100% authentic for our time. (that is why my tongue-in- cheek comment about all architecture is fake - we should have the freedom to chose and do something well rather something that is supposed to be the embodiment of our time).

Designing new traditional architecture does not mean one is designing a theme park. Architects like Moule & Polyzoides or Dmitri Pophyrios show that range of design that is possible - from traditional to modern.

So we do disagree about the march of history theory about architecture being an authentic embodiment of our times (Greek revival copied both renaissance and greek architecture , Renaisance copeid Roman Architecture , Roman copied Greek, etc , and much present day architecture copies earlier modernist architecture). I'm not sure what is especially new and cutting edge about GTECH and how it represents our times. It has glass wall (maybe in the latest technical specs but a rather old material) help by metal in a pattern that represents ??? (the new?) attached to a steel metal frame, another technology that has been around for awhile. Typically it is the guts of a building that has the most evolved high tech stuff, and that can be surrounded by any shell. Even a spiffy new material like the titanium that Ghery uses in his poetic forms are attached to a pick-up sticks structure of typical steel framing - I'm not sure where the honesty and truth to material there is in that.

Anyway , I appreciate your thoughtful responses, and am sure we share a committment to vital urbanism.

BTW Houston at one time looked a lot more like Providence (in the 1920's- downtown and inner neighborhood -close to the size of Prov.). While the comment was meant to be extreme, I was trying to illustrate that there is no guarantee for the future of any city, and the proper care and feeding of Providence is a relentless task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Cotuit Megalopolis

Cotuit

Posted
Posted

MEETING NOTICE

CAPITAL CENTER COMMISSION

Thursday, July 12, 2007

12:00 Noon

First Floor Conference Room

30 Exchange Terrace, Providence, RI

  1. Roll Call

  2. Minutes

    2. Approval of Commission Minutes of May 24, 2007

    3. Acceptance of Design Review Committee Minutes of May 8, 2007; May 15, 2007; June 5, 2007, and June 19, 2007

[*]Report of the Executive Director

[*]DRC Appointment

[*]Parcel 2C: Design Presentation <--BCBS Building

[*]FY

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
CtownMikey Burg

CtownMikey

Posted
Posted

MEETING NOTICE

CAPITAL CENTER COMMISSION

Thursday, July 12, 2007

12:00 Noon

First Floor Conference Room

30 Exchange Terrace, Providence, RI

  1. Roll Call

  2. Minutes

    2. Approval of Commission Minutes of May 24, 2007

    3. Acceptance of Design Review Committee Minutes of May 8, 2007; May 15, 2007; June 5, 2007, and June 19, 2007

[*]Report of the Executive Director

[*]DRC Appointment

[*]Parcel 2C: Design Presentation <--BCBS Building

[*]FY

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
atheorist Unincorporated Area

atheorist

Posted
Posted

Like this inconclusive discussion of modern vs. traditional architecture, I can not make up my own mind. Sometimes I feel Brussat's pain and sometimes I think he is an old fool. The curvy BCBS building might be OK. What won't be OK is the downtown Stamford effect- Boxes that look nice from the highway on top of big garages. Walk two blocks down there and you will want to demolish all of it. Gtech gets it wrong and right on different sides. From the highway you get cool corporate efficiency. Yeah, so what. Walking along Francis Street past the garage entrance you get Stamford-like dreariness. Yet at eye level, in Waterplace Park, it ties in cozily and I do not hate the mirrors above even though Brussat says I am supposed to.

The biggest problem with modern architecture is how poorly it ages. Renderings are always shiny and blemish free. Architects should be compelled to render their projects dinged up, soot stained and cheaply patched as they will inevitably be after 20 years. Traditional architecture retains its dignity even with peeling paint, dents, wear and tear. The Colosseum knocks you out half fallen apart after 2000 years. The Civic Center may have looked slick and Jetsons like when it was new but it looked like crap before it was 15 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Garris Town

Garris

Posted
Posted

Atheorist, thanks for the thought provoking post!

What won't be OK is the downtown Stamford effect- Boxes that look nice from the highway on top of big garages. Walk two blocks down there and you will want to demolish all of it. Gtech gets it wrong and right on different sides.
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.