AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The original was SO much better. If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Unfortunately it is literally breaking - and the fix is the problem.
AoD
The original was SO much better. If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Bigger RIP in that first pic - Temple Building
There is a difference between bringing it up to today's spec and redesigning though. The latter was unlikely needed.Unfortunately it is literally breaking - and the fix is the problem.
AoD
No. Recladdings only have to go through the Building Department, Planning didn't get a look at all.I can't help but think there were a million ways to refresh this building with a modern spin on the original design intent like using new brown glass, dark mullions and updated LED crown lighting. Instead, we got this sickly green monstrosity facing the main square.
Did this go through the DRP?
So update the original materials? Or create cladding that looks identical to what was there before. Surely this abomination wasn't necessary.Unfortunately it is literally breaking - and the fix is the problem.
AoD
So update the original materials? Or create cladding that looks identical to what was there before. Surely this abomination wasn't necessary.
Not too much damage has been done. It's reversible. Hopefully one day it can be restored to its original look.
...I'll even take ripping it down and throwing up close facsimile in its wake at this point.Though the disfigurement could also be used as an alibi for future demolition and replacement. (There've been cases like that--pioneering skyscrapers like Farmers Bank in Pittsburgh and the Pabst Building in Milwaukee that suffered recladding and/or mutilation along the way)
Easier to remember: from Brutalist to just brutal.Would it be correct to say that it has gone from a Brutalist building to a New Formalist one? I'm thinking so.