Fix it. Restore it. 
If you lived in my city
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
More efficient? It's a fountain! How can you make something decorative more efficient?
Anyway, I say restore it. It looks kitschy right now, but in another forty years it'll be heritage. We have a bad habit of destroying our urban past before we begin to cherish it, and right now I find that extends very strongly to buildings and infrastructure from the 50s–70s. Destroy it, and we'll regret it when we no longer have it.
It was actually a subtle Trek reference. Obviously a little too subtle.
Yeah, that one went right by me. What were you thinking of?
Data and his dad talking about why humans are attached to the past and like old things.
I LOVE fountains but that one.......... EESSH. It looks cheap and badly made. It really doesn't have any character. I say bulldoze it, trim the trees, plant some flowers and put some nice benches around it. It should reflect the character of the city and be an open friendly little park.
It should be something you could put on a postcard, not some weird-looking eyesore.
It should be something you could put on a postcard, not some weird-looking eyesore.
The traffic circle looks nice, but, as others have said, they can do better with the fountain in the middle.
Was the architect drunk, or was Tim Burton called in to design it?While we are talking about Hobart I might as well get people's opinion on a building that is currently nearing completion not far from the fountain.
It will house both our School of Medicine and the Menzies Research Institute.
1. Regarding the fountain - I say restore it...even though it does look somewhat dated. History is nice. Fountains are nice. And if they tear it down, who knows what they will put there and if it will look any better.
2. Regarding the building above...looks like someone has studied Gaudi...but only briefly. And while drunk.
Only in movies and tv series (Dark Angel comes to mind now), and I always hoped it was some kind of SFX.
As a student of preservation I have to remind myself in this situation that it's not about how nice the thing looks, it's about its historical/architectural value. We have a tendency to think that the styles that were popular about 75-100 years ago are the most historically significant and worthy of being saved. And those things for which the older generations now living actually experienced, about 50-75 years ago, are considered tacky, ugly, and not worth keeping around. But then just a few years later we realize "oh shit, that was historical too, too bad we bulldozed so much of it." Which is why you should be trying to preserve what you think will have enduring value for the future, not just what is of value at this current point in time.
Stuff from the 1960s is now being considered really hideous and outdated, and I have to agree that the style is really ugly. I don't like it at all. But I think it should be preserved because it clearly has a distinct character that you can really only find in that era. It says something about our culture, our priorities at that time, and how that translated into architecture, even for something so seemingly simple as a fountain.
Of course, I don't know the particulars of that community, so that could make a difference. If this type of architecture is found on every street corner then this may not be the best example to keep around and maybe something new should be built. So my first inclination is that it is hideous. My second inclination is that it should be preserved. And my third is that I could not make a conclusive decision without further serious research of this property and the surrounding community.
(I guess my assimilation into the Historian collective is now complete.
)
Stuff from the 1960s is now being considered really hideous and outdated, and I have to agree that the style is really ugly. I don't like it at all. But I think it should be preserved because it clearly has a distinct character that you can really only find in that era. It says something about our culture, our priorities at that time, and how that translated into architecture, even for something so seemingly simple as a fountain.
Of course, I don't know the particulars of that community, so that could make a difference. If this type of architecture is found on every street corner then this may not be the best example to keep around and maybe something new should be built. So my first inclination is that it is hideous. My second inclination is that it should be preserved. And my third is that I could not make a conclusive decision without further serious research of this property and the surrounding community.
(I guess my assimilation into the Historian collective is now complete.
)
Why classical, though? What makes classical a style that's inherently better than retro-futurist? Nothing, really.
In fact, I would argue that the current fountain is better than any sort of pseudo-Greek or Roman fountain that you could put up there, simply because it's different and (at least when it was built) new. Classical and neoclassical architecture produced some great buildings and infrastructure, but that doesn't make it any better or more valuable than something different.
I like the fountain and move to restore it. A simple solution to the whole problem of spraying mist in the winter time is to turn it off during the cold and inhospitable months. That is actually a common practice in many places.
As for the building with the odd mesh-skin around it, I personally think it's fairly cool. I give it a 7 of 10 on my like-o-meter. It reminds me of something that a TOS away team might beam down in front of.
As for the building with the odd mesh-skin around it, I personally think it's fairly cool. I give it a 7 of 10 on my like-o-meter. It reminds me of something that a TOS away team might beam down in front of.
As a student of preservation I have to remind myself in this situation that it's not about how nice the thing looks, it's about its historical/architectural value. We have a tendency to think that the styles that were popular about 75-100 years ago are the most historically significant and worthy of being saved. And those things for which the older generations now living actually experienced, about 50-75 years ago, are considered tacky, ugly, and not worth keeping around. But then just a few years later we realize "oh shit, that was historical too, too bad we bulldozed so much of it." Which is why you should be trying to preserve what you think will have enduring value for the future, not just what is of value at this current point in time.
Stuff from the 1960s is now being considered really hideous and outdated, and I have to agree that the style is really ugly. I don't like it at all. But I think it should be preserved because it clearly has a distinct character that you can really only find in that era. It says something about our culture, our priorities at that time, and how that translated into architecture, even for something so seemingly simple as a fountain.
Of course, I don't know the particulars of that community, so that could make a difference. If this type of architecture is found on every street corner then this may not be the best example to keep around and maybe something new should be built. So my first inclination is that it is hideous. My second inclination is that it should be preserved. And my third is that I could not make a conclusive decision without further serious research of this property and the surrounding community.
(I guess my assimilation into the Historian collective is now complete.
I could not have worded it better myself. The fountain needs to be repaired and restored to it's former glory.
That building, however, needs to be bulldozed and redesigned. It nauseates me just to look at it.
Oh, it is quite real.
How odd. It's probably Seattle's most recognizable landmark, a relic of the World's Fair:
Though they use a fair bit of trickery to make it appear much taller than it actually is -- the city's skyscrapers stand high above it.
I just like classical fountains. No other reason for my suggestion.
I tend to like classical too and that would be my reason to favor it. But classical is also a safe choice. Designs from long ago remain popular, while fads come and go. This fountain screams 60s. It's a design we don't use today and it comes off looking cheap.
Now I think it's possible they could go for a space-y futuristic design like they were trying for here. But it would have to have the aesthetic qualities we prefer today and it would probably look dated anyway in 30 years.
Now I think it's possible they could go for a space-y futuristic design like they were trying for here. But it would have to have the aesthetic qualities we prefer today and it would probably look dated anyway in 30 years.
The whole preservation at all costs argument rings a little hollow. You don't need to preserve everything from an era to retain enough historical data to allow for future study. England resolves these issues (badly, to be honest, but it's a reasonable "least-worst" attempt, when all's said & done) through the process of "listing". I live in a grade II listed building myself and on balance, the restrictions help more than hinder (for instance, it saves me from the temptation of getting satellite TV... 
).
Of course, we have a rather larger inventory of historically important buildings than the newer countries but still, I think there's scope for a similar process to be put in place to try to streamline the work. Even in younger countries, with less history, over time the same sort of problems will arise.
). Of course, we have a rather larger inventory of historically important buildings than the newer countries but still, I think there's scope for a similar process to be put in place to try to streamline the work. Even in younger countries, with less history, over time the same sort of problems will arise.
Well, I was only kinda joking about the SFX part: I've seen it on tv some times, but I didn't actually know where it was before I google it for this thread. I suppose that Seattle is not really high on the tourists' list in Europe: I will have real problems naming sightseeing places in the US outside NY, Washington and LA. No offense to your city, obviously!
