Fair enough yes, it's not like we're opposed on 90% of things. Nor are we opposed to saving the actually good stuff, it's just that that you have a more expansive view of what old architecture should be preserved than I. And you know what, I could live with that. It would still be a pretty good society, even if I roll my eyes at some of thing things that are protected.
That building (the one opposite the Mint) is so generic, lol, that I didn’t realise, but in fact, I don’t think that was there, yet, when the kebab incident happened… Or indeed I didn’t notice it, if so…
But if you think that’s bad, look up the “Icon” Lego building on St Kilda road in Melbourne…
It’s like that, but much, much worse…
No doubt the architects thought they were being “cool” and “trendy”, mimicking stacked shipping containers…
It is amazingly ugly, in person. Like, “iconic”, sure, but very much in a bad way…
look up the “Icon” Lego building on St Kilda road in Melbourne…
Of course it's melbourne. Gross.
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the building you deride lasted as long as it did, let’s put it that way… We just don’t build with that sort of longevity (as pointed out by the architect in the article) or “adaptability” anymore.
But this I do agree with, partially. The ones that were built to last were the ones that did, there is some survivorship bias here. But yeah the old stuff was built with real materials, and adaptable, you may just have shiftied my opinion of the old cube up a notch, just a smidge, because it also had those qualities. As far as ugly cubes go, it's got that going for it.
I once was so broke, walking past that building, that I ordered a kebab, realised I couldn’t afford it, and skipped the bill (well, I didn’t go back for my order, so not sure if it counts… Just meant that they made it, and didn’t get to serve it)…
It was a bad time. But also representative of how fucked my entire life has been, tbh, lol…
So yeah, I know the building you speak of.
Agree on the rest. But these (contemporary) buildings were never built to last, anyway. They’re all just built to last 20 years or so, then be abandoned by the company, sold off, and then torn down…
What you’re missing about Hendersons is that it was adaptable, and had been successfully “reused” multiple times.
These giant modern glass buildings are not like that. Even the hotels are very hard to adapt into residential (just ask the people in Caracas who live in a giant half-built tower, lol).
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the building you deride lasted as long as it did, let’s put it that way…
We just don’t build with that sort of longevity (as pointed out by the architect in the article) or “adaptability” anymore.
But again, agree to disagree.
Inherently, it doesn’t matter what I think anyway. It doesn’t change anything. But it is worthy of discussion, I guess.
I wish to tear down some of that too. Look at this trash across from the Perth Mint.
If it makes it to 100, 200 even, I'll still be in favour of tearing it down.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/East+Perth+WA+6004/@-31.9574169,115.8692202,3a,75y,189.11h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNE64SXyVHITh_wcMuYlv9_rCLrHFuYivEKcwbt!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNE64SXyVHITh_wcMuYlv9_rCLrHFuYivEKcwbt%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya24.095488-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352!4m9!3m8!1s0x2a32ba4c864c8a1d:0x504f0b535df4380!8m2!3d-31.957186!4d115.8761576!10e5!14m1!1BCgIgARICCAI!16zL20vMDdwbWw0?hl=en&entry=ttu
Fair enough yes, it's not like we're opposed on 90% of things. Nor are we opposed to saving the actually good stuff, it's just that that you have a more expansive view of what old architecture should be preserved than I. And you know what, I could live with that. It would still be a pretty good society, even if I roll my eyes at some of thing things that are protected.
That building (the one opposite the Mint) is so generic, lol, that I didn’t realise, but in fact, I don’t think that was there, yet, when the kebab incident happened… Or indeed I didn’t notice it, if so…
But if you think that’s bad, look up the “Icon” Lego building on St Kilda road in Melbourne…
It’s like that, but much, much worse…
No doubt the architects thought they were being “cool” and “trendy”, mimicking stacked shipping containers…
It is amazingly ugly, in person. Like, “iconic”, sure, but very much in a bad way…
Of course it's melbourne. Gross.
But this I do agree with, partially. The ones that were built to last were the ones that did, there is some survivorship bias here. But yeah the old stuff was built with real materials, and adaptable, you may just have shiftied my opinion of the old cube up a notch, just a smidge, because it also had those qualities. As far as ugly cubes go, it's got that going for it.
I once was so broke, walking past that building, that I ordered a kebab, realised I couldn’t afford it, and skipped the bill (well, I didn’t go back for my order, so not sure if it counts… Just meant that they made it, and didn’t get to serve it)…
It was a bad time. But also representative of how fucked my entire life has been, tbh, lol…
So yeah, I know the building you speak of.
Agree on the rest. But these (contemporary) buildings were never built to last, anyway. They’re all just built to last 20 years or so, then be abandoned by the company, sold off, and then torn down…
What you’re missing about Hendersons is that it was adaptable, and had been successfully “reused” multiple times.
These giant modern glass buildings are not like that. Even the hotels are very hard to adapt into residential (just ask the people in Caracas who live in a giant half-built tower, lol).
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the building you deride lasted as long as it did, let’s put it that way… We just don’t build with that sort of longevity (as pointed out by the architect in the article) or “adaptability” anymore.
But again, agree to disagree.
Inherently, it doesn’t matter what I think anyway. It doesn’t change anything. But it is worthy of discussion, I guess.