Need for better-quality architecture in new developments downtown

[gman430]

I really like the ONE plaza. Different strokes for different folks I guess. However, the buildings could have been done better. 

Edited May 6, 2019 by gman430

[motonenterprises]

2 hours ago, gman430 said:

I really like the ONE plaza. Different strokes for different folks I guess. However, the buildings could have been done better. 

Same here.

[CLT_sc]

One does not bother me at all.  Camperdown and River Place are certainly not examples of good architecture.  The new federal courthouse is terrible.

[gman430]

2 hours ago, CLT_sc said:

One does not bother me at all.  Camperdown and River Place are certainly not examples of good architecture.  The new federal courthouse is terrible.

Are you talking about the old federal courthouse rendering or the new one? The building has been completely redesigned. 

[goodbye]

9 hours ago, gman430 said:

Are you talking about the old federal courthouse rendering or the new one? The building has been completely redesigned. 

I don't think they did much to "redesign" the courthouse but they changed the facade material and removed the cupola-like pinnacle.

[gman430]

32 minutes ago, Skyliner said:

I don't think they did much to "redesign" the courthouse but they changed the facade material and removed the cupola-like pinnacle.

Fair assessment. Just changing the materials to what they did from what it was originally makes a huge difference in my opinion. 

[goodbye]

I do wonder how much the problem of today's bland/generic architectural design is related to material cost (construction financing, economy, possibly even corporate greed) and how much is simple laziness derived from trends in popular culture/education and diminished or distorted standards of creativity/artistry.

[GvilleSC]

13 minutes ago, Skyliner said:

I do wonder how much the problem of today's bland/generic architectural design is related to material cost (construction financing, economy, possibly even corporate greed) and how much is simple laziness derived from trends in popular culture/education and diminished or distorted standards of creativity/artistry.

I’m intrigued by this. Because there is such thing as bad design, lazy design, and simply being cheap. There is also such thing using modern day materials, efficiency, and technology. There’s no reason to build with old traditions when other systems have proven to be more efficient or economical.

This is a rather nuanced conversation, but there’s lots of broad stroking going on. Camperdown and One are not poorly designed or built, IMO. But i would say that the hotel at Main/Elford is poorly done. 

[CLT_sc]

3 hours ago, Skyliner said:

I do wonder how much the problem of today's bland/generic architectural design is related to material cost (construction financing, economy, possibly even corporate greed) and how much is simple laziness derived from trends in popular culture/education and diminished or distorted standards of creativity/artistry.

Some of the poor designs and materials are also driven by expected income the building will generate.  

[Exile]

10 hours ago, CLT_sc said:

Some of the poor designs and materials are also driven by expected income the building will generate.  

Not sure why the downvote, since this seems to me to be patently true.

But anyway, I don't see why you can't combine contemporary efficiencies with lasting aesthetics. Seems to me that BOA in CLT is an example of this, as is CNL Center in Orlando, several buildings in midtown ATL, and so on. These buildings are definitely in the minority, but it's a significant enough minority to suggest that a lot of what passes for architecture today is driven by a particular theory of aesthetics--one that IMO reflects a virtual collapse in aesthetic standards.

And if you're in the market for a depressing exercise, I recommend going to a major city's "List of Tallest Buildings..." page in Wikipedia, and sorting them by completion year.

[goodbye]

13 hours ago, CLT_sc said:

Some of the poor designs and materials are also driven by expected income the building will generate.  

This is true, and would be included in my reference to economy.  On the other hand, as Exile indicated, aesthetic standards in architectural design are not always dictated by economy.  One example of this reality is the new AC Hotel in Spartanburg, which I mentioned in an earlier post.

[goodbye]

On 4/28/2019 at 2:50 PM, PuppiesandKittens said:

Most of the pre-1950s buildings downtown are OK.  The ugly  buildings downtown seem to be from the 1960s.  The newer ones are better-looking but I just am not sure how they will be viewed in 40 years.  Riverplace will be viewed as OK but just typical early 2000s construction.  The new apartment buildings and hotels might be viewed as ugly in 40 years, particularly as I see that they’re cheaply built and their styles aren’t time-tested.

Thus I’d prefer something older-looking, even if unexceptional.

One example of architectural design that I find truly revolting (I have even looked away while passing by) is South Ridge.  I like the massing, but its aesthetic quality is truly uninspiring -- even depressing -- not even taking into account the hideous overhead power poles and lines.

[GVLover]

My two cents, but I wish more buildings downtown at least had the quality of “Falls Park Place.” It’s an attractive building, seems to have quality materials and though not tall, it’s wonderful at street level. 

 

[CLT_sc]

11 hours ago, GVLover said:

My two cents, but I wish more buildings downtown at least had the quality of “Falls Park Place.” It’s an attractive building, seems to have quality materials and though not tall, it’s wonderful at street level. 

 

This is a cool building.   But, I think more attention could have been paid to the windows.  The windows look like costs were cut here.

Edited May 12, 2019 by CLT_sc

[GvilleSC]

4 hours ago, GVLover said:

My two cents, but I wish more buildings downtown at least had the quality of “Falls Park Place.” It’s an attractive building, seems to have quality materials and though not tall, it’s wonderful at street level. 

 

It’s great to have local developers who care. 

[vicupstate]

7 hours ago, Skyliner said:

This is true, and would be included in my reference to economy.  On the other hand, as Exile indicated, aesthetic standards in architectural design are not always dictated by economy.  One example of this reality is the new AC Hotel in Spartanburg, which I mentioned in an earlier post.

I don't have a lot of specifics but I read in the Spartanburg forum that the AC Hotel received considerable incentives. 

 

7 hours ago, Skyliner said:

One example of architectural design that I find truly revolting (I have even looked away while passing by) is South Ridge.  I like the massing, but its aesthetic quality is truly uninspiring -- even depressing -- not even taking into account the hideous overhead power poles and lines.

In order to bury those lines the whole street would have to be buried. That came up when the streetscaping was done. It would have doubled the cost of that project.    

[goodbye]

17 hours ago, vicupstate said:

I don't have a lot of specifics but I read in the Spartanburg forum that the AC Hotel received considerable incentives. 

Yes, it did, as did "The George" and a few significant developments in Greenville.  I'm not a fan of the ONE buildings' architectural design (phase II is better than phase I, in my opinion), but I do love the vitality of One City Plaza.

[PuppiesandKittens]

One example of good architecture (in my view) is the Pinnacle Bank building at McBee Station.  Solid-looking, inoffensive and traditional (enough).

[goodbye]

2 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

One example of good architecture (in my view) is the Pinnacle Bank building at McBee Station.  Solid-looking, inoffensive and traditional (enough).

I agree that it is a fairly solid design.