E is winning because of the scale IMO. It’s essentially the footprint of a large home.
I agree, society and official rules could converge on demanding or incentivizing better architecture and more quality finishes. However, that doesn’t touch the soul of the beast. As you know, the amount of risk, work, time, and capital required to push these projects through rezoning and site plan approval creates an incentive structure that maximizes profit and minimizes cost, for completely understandable reasons. Why else would anyone bother with all the effort?
Require higher quality architecture and we’d see even less projects in that overly burdensome pipeline.
to me A and C seem most sidewalk friendly, D and E perhaps for more subdued ground level-urban living, F, G and B…i would likely just walk by them not noticing much.
I was gonna reply to this a couple months ago but forgot… To me, it’s not the “trendiness” of buildings like The Ellis that is problematic or makes them prone to aging worse – they look like shit already, because the design is bad today.
I know you acknowledged that your comparison isn’t apples to apples, and while I get where you’re coming from, I think it sort of conflates trends with quality. The Bank of America tower was designed by a world-famous architect at the peak of his fame in the 90s, and it is also peak-90s post-modernism. Like, it would’ve been a noticeably trendy design at the time of its completion. Most low-quality PoMo by less skilled hands has not aged as well.
The Ellis, by contrast, is just… disposable architecture by a firm that largely does developer-driven work. I think we’ll see that buildings by skilled architects that use “trendy” design cues but are intentional in their design will stand the test of time much better. Balance, thoughtful composition, and quality materials are timeless!
I think generally we are saying the same thing. Designs can be influenced by present trends, but if as many corners are cut as possible and everything ends up just being a cheap facade, then those designs will not age well. Quality designs will age much better even if there are certain design cues that point to a specific era. I would argue that with the prevalence of social media, appearances today seem to matter more than anything else at any point in history, so you end up with things are designed for today without any regard for how they will appear tomorrow. Then you combine that with all the publicly-held companies that have to appease their shareholders above all else, and it’s no wonder why as many corners are cut as possible to portray the illusion of today’s trend while maintaining a certain level of ROI…which of course more often than not ends up with a final product that looks like complete shit.
As a gearhead, I look at something like the E39 BMW M5, a design that is more than two decades old at this point, yet still radiates a feeling of class and just general badass-ness that is notably absent from the upcoming G90 M5. Sure, the G90 is better at nearly everything on paper…but in ten years, I don’t think we’ll look back on the new model with the same admiration. Within real estate development, it feels like more and more buildings are following a similar path, where all the on-paper specs are better than ever, but less and less importance seems to be given to the more subjective things…and they quickly look and feel like shit the older they get.
Luckily that designer was just fired, beyond just the hideous appearance of the G90 M5, it sounds like a minivan. I despise it’s allowed to wear the M badge at all, and sadly the designs of Dukec will continue until 2029 since they were finalized before he got the boot.
I am almost afraid to type these words. But I hope they don’t use seafoam green as a cost saving measure. I feel like it was such a design flop that it may now be on the discount table at Lowes.
E92 M3 was imo the last truly great BMW design. One of those rare designs that is devastatingly elegant yet powerfully muscular under its skin…almost on the level of Aston Martins from the late 2000s/early 2010s. Has aged so well that I think it could still be sold new today without any changes.
I’m trying to think of some recent developments that we’ll look back on 10 or 15 years from now and think “wow, they got that right”. We get so much value-engineered shit here in Charlotte, but I think Space Craft is one of the rare developers who is able and willing to look past the numbers on the proforma, and actually build something to be proud of. Yes, their designs are a bit minimalistic, but there’s a simple elegance to them, and the sense that they go above and beyond to ensure that their developments contribute to the neighborhood as much as possible.
There’s a reason Lever House and the Seagrams Building are universally beloved despite being rectangles. They’re just perfect. Minimalism is totally fine if you put in the work to do it right.
(Seagrams of course is famous for having “structural” bracing that is completely decorative - it’s sneakily heavily designed)
I mean, I like Seaboard as an urban concept, and I’ve enjoyed living in a very similar 5-over-1, but visually that building looks like the definition of value engineered materials slapped on a surface with little thought.
What is happening with the left side of the brick section? Why are there four shades of grey? Why does all of it just lazily end at the top except the tower on the left?
Yeah sorry but these types of apartment buildings just look like $h!t, flat out. I appreciate what they add to the street-level (…when they add to the street-level) experience, and the addition of downtown residents leading to more foot traffic, etc. But they look terrible lol
In the near future, this is a side of the building that will face another building. Only the two corners will be really visible to passersby. It makes sense that those are the parts given a nicer treatment. The middle part is… fine? Everything’s lined up, the proportion of window/balcony openings to wall seems OK, the windows themselves have a neat geometry to them, it’s not all kinds of “look at me.” It’s a background building. Middle-class housing isn’t the place for architectural statements.
The architecture of individual buildings matters much less when those buildings are smaller. The only reason why “articulation / break up the mass” became important was entirely because typical new buildings are so large. And US mid-rise residential buildings won’t get smaller until single-stair designs are legal.
Mid-rise architecture in Europe isn’t “better” than here; here’s a new waterfront area of Copenhagen:
The block length, the height (almost), the windows, the stacked balconies, the lack of cornices – all the same as the Seaboard building lamented above. The main difference is that it’s at a smaller scale (broken up into multiple buildings), so no individual building’s oddities or mistakes overwhelm.
Same goes for Asia – it was a trip to Japan that made me realize that small scale is the defining feature of urbane architecture. Is any of this great or even high-quality architecture? Absolutely not. Is it better urbanism than anything in North America? You bet. Does it outperform North American urbanism in public health, safety, and welfare outcomes (the ostensible reason why we have zoning and building laws which outlaw everything you see here)? By leaps and bounds.
as a cost saving measure. I feel like it was such a design flop that it may now be on the discount table at Lowes.
for 20 characters?
