Reply With Quote^ Of course historical styles are done all the time in Vegas... usually horribly, but the Venetian is quite amazing. The repo of the San Marco tower (inspiration for the MetLife Tower at Madison Square) is beautifully done:
What about if a company were to start mass producing thousands of different ornamental pieces made of terracotta? Other than the making of the molds, I don't see why that would be so hard, or that expensive.
Even sculpted stone pieces could be made, with laser technology, like was done for St. John the Divine in Morningside, which look almost indistinguishable from the hundred year old hand-carved pieces, albeit more clean.
^ Of course historical styles are done all the time in Vegas... usually horribly, but the Venetian is quite amazing. The repo of the San Marco tower (inspiration for the MetLife Tower at Madison Square) is beautifully done:
Last edited by Fabrizio; March 24th, 2009 at 01:14 PM.
That's done today on a limited basis. Usually special orders for restorations. There's a pretty good market for fiberglass cornices to replace lost originals. But the demand isn't big enough. At one time, these pieces weren't unique. An architect of the time could shop supplier catalogs. Like cast iron facade companies.Originally Posted by avngingandbright
Some good brick and stone work is factory assembled into panels, cutting on site costs. To me, this is where a developer can cut costs and still put up an attractive building. But it seems to me that, more often than not, the developer chooses the cheapest product, and it shows. Look at the Ritz Carlton in BPC. It's like windows. Nothing cheapens a building like bad glass.
In this case though, installation costs dominate.Even sculpted stone pieces could be made, with laser technology, like was done for St. John the Divine in Morningside, which look almost indistinguishable from the hundred year old hand-carved pieces, albeit more clean.
We just don't do it as well anymore either. Look at the new stadiums. I like them both, but would I consider them adequate examples of their respective architecture: no. They're sterile and flawless. They don't have that hand crafted patina buildings from that era have.
Working with stone and cast iron isn't what we do anymore.
The Venetian is fantastic! If buildings like that could be built in NYC of that quality, or even of the quality as, say, the Palazzo Chupi (minus the pink color), we'd be much better off.
I have a book that has a b&w pic and description of it - architects Pomerance & Breines. Pretty much as you describe. Glad it never came about.
I really like the Chupi. I think as it weathers/ages its color will become more widely appreciated.
I agree...I was by there tonight and it's anything BUT pink
Most of the colour has streaked/washed off (as was intended), and is now quite muted,
(well except under the overhangs where it's still quite bold).
The colour now blends in quite well with the other brick tones surrounding it.
It is of a human scale and its materials are warm and embracing. We can learn much from building akin to it.
1930 brought a proposal for a 100-story skyscraper on Broad Street. Initial design for the art-deco/moderne tower is by architects Holabird & Root:
Instead of that shapely, remarkable piece of architecture on the left, we got that hulking, brown, faceless Goldman Sachs trapezoid.
Of course.
Certainly an equal of the Warren & Wetmore treasure that was actually built, here is McKim, Mead & White's proposal for Grand Central:
It could have joined these other minarets in the City of Slender Towers:
I realize this is NY only but just for kicks this was going to be built in Moscow The Palace of the Soviets by Stalin
Looks like my wedding cake.
They should build it in Albany with a statue of Pataki on top. They could call it the "Freedom Tower".
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks