andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2019-01-13 11:00 am
claudeb: A white cat in purple wizard robe and hat, carrying a staff with a pawprint symbol. (Default)

[personal profile] claudeb 2019-01-13 01:17 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, that's what people do in my neck of the woods. Sadly, they do this with historical monuments of actual value, that really deserve a better fate.

The building in the story doesn't qualify. It's yet another of those giant Modernist/Brutalist piles of concrete that can only be described as megalomaniac, designed to look good on the architectural plan and in photos, but not to be, you know, at all friendly to the human beings who were going to use it. Possibly without much of a choice. No wonder the style was mostly favored by Communist regimes: it's fundamentally anti-human.

Note: I say this as a visual artist who grew up immersed in exactly this kind of architecture (and urbanism), and found it fascinating enough to try and explore it in my art. But after a point they all look the same. The traits the article calls unique/distinctive? They are in fact so typical for this kind of building, I almost yawned.

Nowadays the same thing is happening all too often with office towers and luxury high-rises. People stubbornly refuse to learn, now do they.
cmcmck: (Default)

[personal profile] cmcmck 2019-01-13 05:00 pm (UTC)(link)
It's what I like about Erno Goldfinger's work- a modernist but one who insisted that his buildings were liveable.

He spent some months living in each of his projects once completed.
claudeb: A white cat in purple wizard robe and hat, carrying a staff with a pawprint symbol. (Default)

[personal profile] claudeb 2019-01-13 06:01 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh! I've heard of Trellick Tower before, and 2 Willow Road looks very unusual. Thanks for the pointer!