CanadianNational
Senior Member
^
Well said, BuildTO.
I'm glad that Hume wants to get in one last boost, but I can't agree, really, with a lot of what he writes in this article.
..."but let's be honest, in the 21st century the fight for height has become degraded, ersatz and rather tasteless, even tacky."
This is almost verbatim of the quotes levelled at the new New York skyscrapers produced before and during the depression-era, when the commercial and cultural fascination with the skyscraper (and impetus behind it) was at a height not seen again for quite some time.
Well, the quest for spectacular new heights in buildings has always been open to this charge. The Eiffel Tower, notably, was reviled and hated by a great deal of the cultural lions of the time, called, "truly tragic street lamp," a "mast of iron gymnasium apparatus, incomplete, confused and deformed.", "A high and skinny pyramid of iron ladders, [a] giant ungainly skeleton upon a base that looks built to carry a colossal monument of Cyclops, but which just peters out into a ridiculous thin shape like a factory chimney."
Hume's description of the Burj Dubai sounds reminiscent of this to me. So far,
I think the Burj is unexpectedly delicate looking in aspects. It has a complex and shifting silhouette which might be confounding our received notions of what is desirable to represent a supertall building. I think we're more used to bestowing the notion of monumentality on buildings that are more visually and structurally somewhat more simple and more easily visually 'grasped'. But so what? The programmatic and structural elaborateness of the Burj is it's unique beauty.
I don't buy the notion that the Burj or The Russia Tower or The Shanghai World Financial Centre are or will be less iconic or beautiful or fascinating buildings than the New York giants of the 20th century. They'll be objects of fascination and adoration in turn.
In fact, although I love the CN Tower greatly - it essentially got me into architecture, and in its way opened doors of possibility and wonder to me, there are plenty of skyscraper fans who would dismiss it as an icon - or even a building - altogether.
That he calls The Burj Dubai, Petronas Towers and Tapiei 101 "The three ugly sisters" is consummately ridiculous and absolutely wrong. I'm not a fan of Tapei 101 at all, but there it and beloved by many, nonetheless. And Petronas towers are gorgeous buildings by any standard. And what's with that dig at Calatrava? Especially pre-Chicago Spire? That's awfully irresponsible.
The CN Tower is a breathtaking piece of engineering that's good enough to be awesome architecture. It stands strongly, simply enough on its own - it doesn't need cheap shots to defend it.
30 years.....wow. Who woulda thunk?
Well said, BuildTO.
I'm glad that Hume wants to get in one last boost, but I can't agree, really, with a lot of what he writes in this article.
..."but let's be honest, in the 21st century the fight for height has become degraded, ersatz and rather tasteless, even tacky."
This is almost verbatim of the quotes levelled at the new New York skyscrapers produced before and during the depression-era, when the commercial and cultural fascination with the skyscraper (and impetus behind it) was at a height not seen again for quite some time.
Well, the quest for spectacular new heights in buildings has always been open to this charge. The Eiffel Tower, notably, was reviled and hated by a great deal of the cultural lions of the time, called, "truly tragic street lamp," a "mast of iron gymnasium apparatus, incomplete, confused and deformed.", "A high and skinny pyramid of iron ladders, [a] giant ungainly skeleton upon a base that looks built to carry a colossal monument of Cyclops, but which just peters out into a ridiculous thin shape like a factory chimney."
Hume's description of the Burj Dubai sounds reminiscent of this to me. So far,
I think the Burj is unexpectedly delicate looking in aspects. It has a complex and shifting silhouette which might be confounding our received notions of what is desirable to represent a supertall building. I think we're more used to bestowing the notion of monumentality on buildings that are more visually and structurally somewhat more simple and more easily visually 'grasped'. But so what? The programmatic and structural elaborateness of the Burj is it's unique beauty.
I don't buy the notion that the Burj or The Russia Tower or The Shanghai World Financial Centre are or will be less iconic or beautiful or fascinating buildings than the New York giants of the 20th century. They'll be objects of fascination and adoration in turn.
In fact, although I love the CN Tower greatly - it essentially got me into architecture, and in its way opened doors of possibility and wonder to me, there are plenty of skyscraper fans who would dismiss it as an icon - or even a building - altogether.
That he calls The Burj Dubai, Petronas Towers and Tapiei 101 "The three ugly sisters" is consummately ridiculous and absolutely wrong. I'm not a fan of Tapei 101 at all, but there it and beloved by many, nonetheless. And Petronas towers are gorgeous buildings by any standard. And what's with that dig at Calatrava? Especially pre-Chicago Spire? That's awfully irresponsible.
The CN Tower is a breathtaking piece of engineering that's good enough to be awesome architecture. It stands strongly, simply enough on its own - it doesn't need cheap shots to defend it.
30 years.....wow. Who woulda thunk?
the base of the CN looks like the flux capacitor.
