Over at TheStar.com is a maddening article (
Concrete's liberating allure) on the beauty of concrete architecture. The section that got me was:
First off, the buildings they use as examples are attractive. But for ALOT of concrete buildings, it is easy to say why people hate them. They are visually uninteresting buildings. Often time they look decrepit and on their way to crumbing. Worse, they are massive, making them hard to ignore.
Second, there is the maddening twisted logic of architects who say these buildings are "democratic" but "most people will say they hate them". How can they be democratic then? More likely "autocratic" or "technocratic".
Give me buildings that are either visually interesting or use the vernacular.
Concrete's liberating allure) on the beauty of concrete architecture. The section that got me was:
But we hate concrete these days – don't we? There's that prejudice again. McClelland points out that the same design team that conceived new city hall also hatched the Sheraton Centre across the street – a much-maligned structure that looms close to Queen St. and University Ave. "With these kinds of buildings, most people will say that they hate them, but they can't say why," McClelland shrugs.
First off, the buildings they use as examples are attractive. But for ALOT of concrete buildings, it is easy to say why people hate them. They are visually uninteresting buildings. Often time they look decrepit and on their way to crumbing. Worse, they are massive, making them hard to ignore.
Second, there is the maddening twisted logic of architects who say these buildings are "democratic" but "most people will say they hate them". How can they be democratic then? More likely "autocratic" or "technocratic".
Give me buildings that are either visually interesting or use the vernacular.
1 comment:
Bernie, I think part of the issue is that the writer is confusing intent with execution. Concrete is interesting partly because it is cheap and partly because it encourages simplicity. That could have led to a proliferation of great buildings. Instead, we ended up with a lot of concrete bunkers that, as you pointed out, did not age well.
As a material, concrete has strengths and weaknesses. New manufacturing techniques such as 3D spraying vastly increases the shapes of concrete buildings. Unfortunately, concrete is a major contributor of CO2 emissions, and does not recycle well. Maybe the challenge should be coming up with ways of working with existing buildings to make them both visually and functionally pleasing.
Lastly, the users of the buildings should have a bigger say. At the end of the day, the value of a building is how well it works.
Norbert
Post a Comment