LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteThere was an international contest with really great ideas. Unfortunately Gazprom chose a banal corn ear as its future headquarters.
I don't know why the new can't co-exist alongside the new. I think the design looks incredibly neat. This is a problem all over the world where there are "historic" areas that people want to maintain ad infinitum. In DC here, buildings are restricted to the height of the Capitol dome.
BBC NEWS | Europe | Protest over St Petersburg towerProtest over St Petersburg tower
About 3,000 people have rallied in St Petersburg against plans to build a huge skyscraper in Russia's former imperial capital.
Demonstrators voiced anger at the city council's decision to approve construction of the 400m (1,312 ft) Okhta Centre for the gas giant Gazprom.
They said the tower would spoil the city's historic skyline.
The UN cultural body, Unesco, has said building the tower could endanger the city's status as a world heritage site.
On Saturday, demonstrators chanted "No to the tower!" and "History is more important than money!" at the rally in central St Petersburg.
"This action will destroy my city, the city where I grew up, and the city that I want to save for my grandchildren," Galina Safronova, aged 55, was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.
Russia's culture ministry is also objecting to the building of the needle-like glass tower.
The ministry has asked prosecutors to examine whether last month's official approval of the project violates Russia's federal law.
The skyscraper has been designed by British firm RMJM and would cost some $2.4bn (£1.5bn) to build.
There was an international contest with really great ideas. Unfortunately Gazprom chose a banal corn ear as its future headquarters.
...
,,,
It’s rarele mentioned that St.Petersburg is younger than New York. But Peresburg is perceived as an old city unlike New York which is eternally young.
I see the creeping conservationism, in time NYC will end up stagnant as well. Some historic preservation is good, too much is bad, just like everything else.Originally Posted by andrew
A few thoughts:
1- the tower chosen is by far the best, both for its design and for its integration with the environment.
2 - the integration looks like it will be successful for similar reasons the pyramid at the Louvre was successful: to start with, glass and stone when properly used can integrate very well, even centuries apart:
3 - Talking about Paris, this project reminds me of the Eiffel Tower, a clear example that the old and new can coexist if it is done properly. The trick is not to de-naturalize the historic parts of the cities. Obviously the skyscrapers of La Defense which can be seen in the background are better off at some distance from Paris itself (I believe around 2 Km)
La Defénse, with future buildings in second image:
4 - Very different is to de-naturalize the historic landscapes with stuff that clearly doesn't belong there, and my city - Madrid - has very many examples, most of them perpetrated by the saviors of the fatherland in the 60s and 70s.
Plaza de Colón (Columbus) before and after:
I never understood why some people can be so conservative when it comes to certain things. All those ancient buildings that people want to "keep" were also once "new buildings that would change the skyline" do you think back then people complained about these buildings which ruined the traditional existing skyline.
No they didn't, because they'd be impaled on a stick if they tried.
It's all ok when they built a massive church hundreds of years ago but building today when they're alive, no they don't like that. Idiots.
What makes a city historic? In a few hundred years they'll be calling the NYC skyline historic if it's still there. All these new buildings, they're still part of our culture and civilisation.
The palace that can be seen in one of the corners of the square was actually demolished to make way for that...thing....and in front of those atrocious buildings is the National Library, which fortunately still stands:
Why is it that something new is seen as unnatural whereas old is seen as natural and historic. Why is it that old is only seen as cultural and part of civilisation and new as "Alien" and "Wrong" and that the new has to blend in with the old. Do you think they thought about that nonsense when they were building the "old historic" buildings?
This has always confused me. Some people seem to forget that they are living on this same planet and world as the people before them were, and that everything is part of the continuation of history, culture and civilisation.
Who are you to say that something doesn't belong there. I just don't understand some people. You would have probably said the same shit you are saying today about modern buildings if you were alive when all your historic beloved buildings were being built centuries ago. You would probably be like "but this new palace/church/cathedral is not fitting in with the ancient Roman buildings" or something.
As far as I can tell you need to educate yourself in Grammar, Syntax, Architecture, Urbanization & Urbanity.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: