In reading a post by 'threeewizmen' in another thread I though it would be iteresting to have a forum that shows weathered, beaten, dilapidated examples of architecture, and how it's failed to stand the test of time. He mentioned photos of a litter-strewn Hadid building, I have some pics of the American Center by Gehry in Paris where it looks like it's gotten the crap beat out of it, I'll put them up later.
The State of Illinois building by Jahn is looking particulary grimy and the salmon panels look sunfaded after 20 yrs. Theres plywood where some have popped out, garbage cans to collect the dripping condensation, and my favorite the "natural green roof" where treelings and weeds are growing over the entry canopy.
I remember walking thru it that building 12 years ago and thinking....it sure don't match up with alot of other buildings
I have been in....well in Chicago.
I will say in its defense - its still a spatialy dynamic domed space even if its essentially a giant food court and transit hub. I think people are working in there doing whatever it is the State of Illinois does. Im going over there to get some pix - be back soon.
heres the entry side - note the plants growing out of the canopy drain. @ weeks ago they were taller - must be the cold weather
Heres an example of the spandral glass in various locations around the building
Typical column cover
the building is still a great space, unfortunately the closed on Saturday - but note the surface rusting around the recessed fixtures in the soffit - this is directly below the trench drain where the weeds are sprouting - clearly water is getting into the fixture housings or soffit - also some pitting on some of the retail storefront tubes.
Two especially egregious examples, to my mind: OMA's Educatorium and MVRDV's VPRO building. Both are already showing significant signs of deterioration... which begs the question: how long were they intended to last? Perhaps the architecture is intended to be disposable.. 20-30 years and then destined to be replaced by something else. Architecture isn't, to my mind, purposed to be monumental... and buildings have finite lifecycles, that designers do and should exploit. Designing for decline and then reuse adaptability is probably a good goal.
I sort of agree Urbanist. Part of the modernist ideology is that architecture is exspresive and a product of the manufacturing of systems and components. Panels and glazing are meant to be systematized and replaced. However, I think that whats happened over the last 40 years is that people being people try to maxumize the value and extende the lifecycles of failing components, thus creating more and more problems. The result is tarnished looking buildings. One thing you can say about 19th and early 20th century masonry construction is that it appears to weather well. Even if there are critical failures happening, its percieved as "charming" or old, whereas modern deterioration is viewed as "cheap" or nasty. Maybe its the failure of expectations in our faith in technology that scares us so we feel particularly angry by modern messes.
Oct 20, 07 1:43 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
The Ugly Side of Architecture
In reading a post by 'threeewizmen' in another thread I though it would be iteresting to have a forum that shows weathered, beaten, dilapidated examples of architecture, and how it's failed to stand the test of time. He mentioned photos of a litter-strewn Hadid building, I have some pics of the American Center by Gehry in Paris where it looks like it's gotten the crap beat out of it, I'll put them up later.
This building failed the test of time the minute it hit the drawing board.
The State of Illinois building by Jahn is looking particulary grimy and the salmon panels look sunfaded after 20 yrs. Theres plywood where some have popped out, garbage cans to collect the dripping condensation, and my favorite the "natural green roof" where treelings and weeds are growing over the entry canopy.
but can we ever really say that the jahn building looked good to begin with?
I remember walking thru it that building 12 years ago and thinking....it sure don't match up with alot of other buildings
I have been in....well in Chicago.
I will say in its defense - its still a spatialy dynamic domed space even if its essentially a giant food court and transit hub. I think people are working in there doing whatever it is the State of Illinois does. Im going over there to get some pix - be back soon.
heres the entry side - note the plants growing out of the canopy drain. @ weeks ago they were taller - must be the cold weather
Heres an example of the spandral glass in various locations around the building
Typical column cover
the building is still a great space, unfortunately the closed on Saturday - but note the surface rusting around the recessed fixtures in the soffit - this is directly below the trench drain where the weeds are sprouting - clearly water is getting into the fixture housings or soffit - also some pitting on some of the retail storefront tubes.
typical column cover
Two especially egregious examples, to my mind: OMA's Educatorium and MVRDV's VPRO building. Both are already showing significant signs of deterioration... which begs the question: how long were they intended to last? Perhaps the architecture is intended to be disposable.. 20-30 years and then destined to be replaced by something else. Architecture isn't, to my mind, purposed to be monumental... and buildings have finite lifecycles, that designers do and should exploit. Designing for decline and then reuse adaptability is probably a good goal.
I sort of agree Urbanist. Part of the modernist ideology is that architecture is exspresive and a product of the manufacturing of systems and components. Panels and glazing are meant to be systematized and replaced. However, I think that whats happened over the last 40 years is that people being people try to maxumize the value and extende the lifecycles of failing components, thus creating more and more problems. The result is tarnished looking buildings. One thing you can say about 19th and early 20th century masonry construction is that it appears to weather well. Even if there are critical failures happening, its percieved as "charming" or old, whereas modern deterioration is viewed as "cheap" or nasty. Maybe its the failure of expectations in our faith in technology that scares us so we feel particularly angry by modern messes.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.