Just more of today's faddish glitter to adorn a decaying 1970s architectural turd.
Monkey bars, anyone?
Just more of today's faddish glitter to adorn a decaying 1970s architectural turd.
Monkey bars, anyone?
It'll take a while to see. I see lots of neat stuff that looks pretty forward thinking, but I'm not sure all applications make sense. A lot of the time it's a fig leaf [[Ford is a huge polluter looking to score a PR win) or a gimmick [[the "green roof" might help build buzz for a Cobo deal). Or, I grant you, it could be my hyperactive cyncism hard at work.
Because I am pretty sure green roofs have been around as long as man has been constructing shelters for himself. I don't know if Terra Amata had any "green" or "living roofs" persay, but I am fairly certain that were in use at Scara Brae.It'll take a while to see. I see lots of neat stuff that looks pretty forward thinking, but I'm not sure all applications make sense. A lot of the time it's a fig leaf [[Ford is a huge polluter looking to score a PR win) or a gimmick [[the "green roof" might help build buzz for a Cobo deal). Or, I grant you, it could be my hyperactive cyncism hard at work.
That's true. But you must admit that, these days, there's a novelty factor to LEED-approved design and green roofs. Hell, work around urban planning issues long enough, and you see how faddish and fleeting all that "novelty" can be.
A short history of an American thoroughfare:
1950s: Take out the streetcar for traffic.
1960s: Widen the thoroughfare for smoother traffic.
1970s: Build out the sidewalk in hopes of attracting more shoppers.
1980s: Add a streetscape to fill the empty shopping sidewalk.
1990s: Take out the streetscape because it looks dated.
2000s: Add a median for "green space."
When I think of all the money that's spent on this "great new idea" over the last 60 years, I wonder if we shouldn't have just kept the streetcars instead of spending $50 million here and $100 million there on the latest "sure thing."
Then again, you know cynical ol' me.
That's true. But then again not a single "great new idea" listed here ever saved a penny in energy costs. This will, at least for cooling. And the insulation on the bottom will boost efficiency as well, overall.That's true. But you must admit that, these days, there's a novelty factor to LEED-approved design and green roofs. Hell, work around urban planning issues long enough, and you see how faddish and fleeting all that "novelty" can be.
A short history of an American thoroughfare:
1950s: Take out the streetcar for traffic.
1960s: Widen the thoroughfare for smoother traffic.
1970s: Build out the sidewalk in hopes of attracting more shoppers.
1980s: Add a streetscape to fill the empty shopping sidewalk.
1990s: Take out the streetscape because it looks dated.
2000s: Add a median for "green space."
When I think of all the money that's spent on this "great new idea" over the last 60 years, I wonder if we shouldn't have just kept the streetcars instead of spending $50 million here and $100 million there on the latest "sure thing."
Then again, you know cynical ol' me.
For a building that's used a few weeks out of the year ... but heated and cooled every day?
Although Cobo Arena and riverfront side are 1960... the rest is 1989.... but you do make a point. Back in the late 80's the TETRIS look was cool... not all modernism withstands the test of time well....
One day the Frank Gehry "crushed trashcan" look may get a different response... such as "what were they thinking when they built that?"
... and then there's the Scottish Parliament Building... 10 times over budget and 3 years late...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ed...2006-04-29.jpg
Not quite sure where the Scottish Parliament Building ends and the rest of Edinburgh begins...
But one equation about cutting edge buildings is often the case....
INNOVATION + COST OVERRUNS = MAINTENANCE NIGHTMARE
|
Bookmarks