14 replies to this topic

[cberen1]

I was driving by the Grandmarc at TCU and I was pretty diappointed with the lack of detail in the design. The East face in particular is just a big flat graham cracker pierced by occassional windows and tiny balconies. It made me wonder if all buildings lose detail as they get larger? Maybe it's a dumb question.

It seems like buildings like Burnett Plaza, City Center and Carter Burgess have no design elements smaller than a volkswagon. Some of it is the style of architecture. Some of it is probably economic. Is some of it that you just can't focus on a lot of design details when you've got forty floors of building to worry about?

So, what I really care about, I guess, is this. Will we ever again see a time where very large buildings have all the wonderful detailed stylings found in art deco and victorian buildings of the past? Will the market ever value that again?

[vjackson]

I was driving by the Grandmarc at TCU and I was pretty diappointed with the lack of detail in the design.

No offense, but look around, you're in Fort Worth. Look at what's built in other cities. Like the new sleek designs of the 1180 Peachtree office tower in Atlanta or the 1930's inspired design of the Ritz Carlton in Dallas. For some reason developers do not go the extra mile in Fort Worth. For a city that boast of its great art, it certainly doesn't show in most of its architecture.

[gdvanc]

I think there are examples of buildings larger than 40 stories with wonderful detail. I consider the 77-story Chrysler Building and the 102-story Empire State Building, for instance, to be reasonably ornate. Clearly it's possible.

Often with a larger building, the detail will be greatest at the bottom and top, with the middle of the building offering less detail. In such cases the building takes on the form of a column (although sometimes a rather squatty column). This is probably done for visual reasons as much as economic ones. But even these have more detail in the middle than some of the things we're seeing now.

Buildings such as Grandmarc (from what I've heard) and the new Bank One Box (from what I've seen) can be so frustrating because the renderings look pretty cool but when they get built they just look so FLAT. When I see the Bank One Building, I always think of the Trompe-l'œil nonsense on the Civil Courts Building. It looks a little like it might have some detail until you get close to it. Then it just looks FLAT. FLAT, FLAT, FLAT! I don't hate the building, but I am a bit disappointed.

Are these buildings flat for stylistic reasons or monetary reasons? Probably a bit of both. We did narrowly escape a "flat is phat" minimalist period in architecture and we're still suffering the effects of that. However, I believe the reasons for what we're experiencing in our new buildings are more economical. One reason may be that there is more scrutiny on cost for almost all businesses than there was in the zenith of decorative architectural style.

I don't think we'll see a widespread resurgence in deco or victorian, but hopefully we'll see the growth of something intresting. Maybe it's already happening in other more worldy cities. I'm pretty sure I've seen examples of such somewhere. Perhaps Uptown in Dallas. (How much heat would vjackson have received for saying something like that?)

Does anyone have examples of recently constructed large-ish buildings with good non-modern design?

[gdvanc]

VJ, I waited too long to hit submit on that last message. I thought you might have examples from downstream.

My opinion, for what it's worth:

They (Peachtree and Ritz) are competing in and for an entirely different (more upscale, snooty, high-tone, high-speed, high-maintenance) office/hospitality market than what exists in Fort Worth right now. Spending on the extra mile of pizazz is easier to justify in those markets as there is more obvious demand for that. I don't blame the developers for not wanting to take that risk here. They don't see the demand. If it's here, it's not obvious.

If you were to build a tower in Fort Worth with the intent to lease (that is, you're not XTO building a shiny new tower for your own use), it may not make sense to build something that's head and shoulders beyond existing space in terms of style. Doing so likely would not increase your occupancy and lease rates enough to pay for the added costs. In parts of Atlanta and Dallas, however, the bar is set higher by existing properties. It will take time for Fort Worth to develop that kind of market.

Fort Worth is justifiably proud of its art, but that doesn't automatically translate into demand for large upscale office projects. Apples to bicycles there.

[Fort Worthology]

I was driving by the Grandmarc at TCU and I was pretty diappointed with the lack of detail in the design. The East face in particular is just a big flat graham cracker pierced by occassional windows and tiny balconies. It made me wonder if all buildings lose detail as they get larger? Maybe it's a dumb question.

It seems like buildings like Burnett Plaza, City Center and Carter Burgess have no design elements smaller than a volkswagon. Some of it is the style of architecture. Some of it is probably economic. Is some of it that you just can't focus on a lot of design details when you've got forty floors of building to worry about?

So, what I really care about, I guess, is this. Will we ever again see a time where very large buildings have all the wonderful detailed stylings found in art deco and victorian buildings of the past? Will the market ever value that again?

Well, a lot of it has to do with changing styles. Details became very "out," especially so in the '70s (when, for example, Burnett Plaza was designed). By the time the '70s rolled around, architectural design had taken a nosedive IMHO - not just in terms of details, but also in terms of street & pedestrian interaction, warmth & friendliness, overall sense of style, that sort of thing. Again, Burnett Plaza comes to mind - cold and unfriendly at street level, with nothing about the design that makes you feel welcomed. Oh, and let's bury all the retail underground while we're at it, giving the lobby nothing enticing at all. Compare this to, well, heck, its neighbors across the park, the Electric Building and the Neil P., both of which feel infinitely more welcoming to passers by - a not insignificant reason being their ornate details at street level adding "interestingness" to the sidewalks.

It's very possible to do large buildings with great details. Just that not many people do it, for a variety of reasons - and yeah, I'd be willing to bet that economics has something to do with it, too. Back when everybody was doing it, I'm sure it wasn't as costly - or if it was costly, you still did it, because everybody did it. Just think, though, for one example - today's plain dropped ceiling panels, or yesteryear's ornate tin ceiling panels? At one point in time, the detailed old panels were mass-produced...

I think that while we've improved since the '70s, we are still far behind and inferior to what our ancestors were doing, and the modernist style movement still has its tentacles in today's buildings - as even our nicer buildings of today are still mostly devoid of detailing. Standards might just not be as high as they were back then - certainly that's apparent in, say, today's pop culture, so I'm willing to bet it plays a roll in our architecture as well.

[cberen1]

I think there are examples of buildings larger than 40 stories with wonderful detail. I consider the 77-story Chrysler Building and the 102-story Empire State Building, for instance, to be reasonably ornate. Clearly it's possible.

I thought of mentioning both of those buildings as examples of what's missing today. There are some wonderful older buildings with great details in the design.

No offense, but look around, you're in Fort Worth. Look at what's built in other cities. Like the new sleek designs of the 1180 Peachtree office tower in Atlanta...

I think in your hurry to dog on FW architecture you accidentally supported by argument. Look at the design of 1180 Peachtree. It is slick. I think it is a beautiful building. But I couldn't find a single photo that showed attention to small details. It's almost like it is designed with the idea that style is only important when the building can be viewed as a whole.

In the great art deco buildings there are intricate designs in the floors, walls, light fixtures, elevator doors, etc. You can take a picture of a sconce or a doorway and it is beautiful in isolation or in context. It is obvious that these elements were important to the architect. Even in a beautiful building like 1180 Peachtree, the little details appear unimportant to the architect.

So, when looking at what's built in other cities, I see the same thing. It turns out that this isn't a question whose answer is " ...cause FW sucks..." because the question has nothing to do with FW.

[Fort Worthology]

I think in your hurry to dog on FW architecture you accidentally supported by argument. Look at the design of 1180 Peachtree. It is slick. I think it is a beautiful building. But I couldn't find a single photo that showed attention to small details. It's almost like it is designed with the idea that style is only important when the building can be viewed as a whole.

In the great art deco buildings there are intricate designs in the floors, walls, light fixtures, elevator doors, etc. You can take a picture of a sconce or a doorway and it is beautiful in isolation or in context. It is obvious that these elements were important to the architect. Even in a beautiful building like 1180 Peachtree, the little details appear unimportant to the architect.

So, when looking at what's built in other cities, I see the same thing. It turns out that this isn't a question whose answer is " ...cause FW sucks..." because the question has nothing to do with FW.

You're very right on this point - even pretty buildings today are still mostly devoid of ornament. They're designed to look good as a whole, but the details are still mostly as plain as the modernist slabs. For a Fort Worth example, I like Pier 1 Place. It's cool looking. It still doesn't even come close to comparing to, say, the Sinclair Building or the T&P terminal. It looks cool as a whole, but falls flat in the details.

Whatever the reason (and I'm sure it's a combination of things), at some point we as a society decided that attention to detail and making even small parts and things beautiful and well-crafted wasn't important anymore. Buildings aren't the only things that have suffered - they're just very obvious examples.

[vjackson]

If you were to build a tower in Fort Worth with the intent to lease (that is, you're not XTO building a shiny new tower for your own use), it may not make sense to build something that's head and shoulders beyond existing space in terms of style. Doing so likely would not increase your occupancy and lease rates enough to pay for the added costs. In parts of Atlanta and Dallas, however, the bar is set higher by existing properties. It will take time for Fort Worth to develop that kind of market.

Sooo...who or when is the change going to take place. Someone has to start it. Also good architecture does not have to be tall nor does it have to be office space. A cool well designed shopping center for FW would be great...we've seen what happened with Montgomery.

[hooked]

Does anyone have examples of recently constructed large-ish buildings with good non-modern design?

I like the Bank of America Center in Houson, and I REALLY like the new courts building.

[vjackson]

"Does anyone have examples of recently constructed large-ish buildings with good non-modern design?"

It's 2006... how can any building be built today not have any modern touches to it?? You'll find buildings that pay homage to the days of yesterday, but they're still going to be modern buildings.

Not every developer is going to build an ode to yesterday nor would I expect them to. But if you're going to build a modern tower, build a good one. Newer cities like those in the south and southwest, fell in love with glass skyscrapers in the 80's. Not all are great, but many were and the skylines prove it. Fort Worth seemed to only build bad ones. Now with the move back to urban core, you're seeing modern designs with attention being paid to what's at street level, taking a hint from older stuctures. Victory in Dallas comes to mind, as does Mockingbird station. Although I hate the fact that MS allowed cars to drive through it and too much front-end parking, I love the award-winning architecture.
Several projects in Seattle, Atlanta, Houston, and Miami, come to mind that have modern architecture, that is pedestrian friendly. Most taller stuctures built in newly urbanized areas of these cities now have street level retail and restuarants that are very pedestrian friendly. Although I like Pier One, this is where they dropped the ball, IMHO . At a time when FW is attempting to urbanize, the building should not have been set so far back off the street.

Don't forget, at one time, Art-Deco was new and modern. Architecure, like all forms of art, evolves and changes. A modern architecturally interesting city is a good mix of both..old and new.

[gdvanc]

yes, yes. at one time, a thatched roof would have been bracingly modern.

what i meant, and should have typed, was "non-Modern" or, if you prefer, "non-Modernist". either is still fairly broad yet more specific than simply "non-new".

by Modern, i mean that "ornament is bad; history is bad; complexity is bad; absence is completeness; sterile is beauty; life is icky" period where architecture turned its back on humanity as being too chaotic and organic. Terminator 3: Highrise of the Machines, where the Mies van der Rohbot travels sideways in time to destroy beauty.

by non-Modern, i mean the opposite of that.

i think an efficiency of design fetish got us here and an efficiency of capital fetish keeps us here. efficiency in all its forms has its place, but it alone is rarely sublime.

one statement i made earlier: "I don't think we'll see a widespread resurgence in deco or victorian, but hopefully we'll see the growth of something interesting." what i'm trying to say is that i don't expect a wholesale return to the style of some particular pre-Modern period, but I would like to see some new style develop that moves us away from the post-war (post-War?) sterility we've endured.

i don't hate all Modern[ist] architecture; some of it looks nice from a distance. however, it does not in general create an inviting street-level environment; its stark forms and cold materials that were once considered by some to be daring in their simplicity have become simply boring. minimalism has its limits.

[fwpcman]

Does anyone think that Atlanta has gone overboard with all of the pointed top buildings? From a distance several of them look very simular.

[Now in Denton]

Does anyone have examples of recently constructed large-ish buildings with good non-modern design?

I like the Bank of America Center in Houson, and I REALLY like the new courts building.

WOW ! This is a very handsome building!

[John T Roberts]

I wanted to say that I really appreciate the intelligence of the discussion on this thread.

The older Neo-Classical skyscrapers were indeed designed with the building having the parts of a classical column - a base, a shaft, and a top (capital). Each element of these has a base, a shaft, and a top. Then each element with these usually had the same characteristics, and so forth.

The modernist movement removed all of the decoration and skyscraper design came to a point where the glass buildings, especially, were viewed as pieces of sculpture. I think Pier 1 Place falls into this category.

Donnie, you talked about how the Chase Building (formerly Bank One Building) is flat. This was created by two things. One is that the building is "Post Modern", where a mixed bag of elements of old are placed into new buildings with modern design techniques. Post Modern buildings tend to be much flatter because that is one of the holdovers from the modernist era. The second thing is cost. I applaud Schwarz for putting so many different colors of brick on the building. That alone raised the cost of just a standard "blend" of brick on a facade, or just using one color. If that building was done in the 1920's or 30's, each brick that was a different color from the field of the building would have been either set forward and/or backward from the facade. Some of those bricks might have even been "corbeled". Corbeled brick is where the brick steps out several times in a series. Laying bricks in a designed pattern adds to the cost of the building, but projecting and recessing them is much more labor intensive. I'm sure this increased the cost of the facade of the building so much that it probably was considered too expensive.

[vjackson]

I forgot to mention if any of you have ever been to Kansas City, MO, take notice that in the late 80's a developer built the cities tallest skyscraper. Made mostly of glass it was actually modeled after the 1930's art deco City Hall building. Both structures are prominant in the city's skyline. It's pretty awesome. I'll try to find some pics to post.