RE: Corn Penetration. How Corporation Damages a UNESCO Heritage City
I think that both of the new buildings are beautiful and can fit into the Saint Petersburg skyline. The trick, I think, is to be able to honour both new and old architecture. If the new buildings are of a quality that is meant to last forever---rather than the disposable type of buildings that seem to be built these days-- then I believe that the new additions reveal that Saint Petersburg remains a living, functioning city that transcends centuries of social change and political upheaval.
Perhaps what is important is to ensure that the new buildings do not block the heritage buildings from view of the sea. If I was in charge of things, I would make sure that any new buildings came with the price of the developer setting aside funding for the maintenance and repairs of the heritage buildings.
Many people think in the same way. And I understand it.
Still, I believe the modern times are not about half-kilometre tall buildings only. Here, there are many beautiful modern buildings, large bridges, there are reclaiming territories from the sea, etc. But no reason to build the tallest buildings in Europe in the least appropriate place, the UNESCO city where the skyline is a part of historical heritage.
I described how they cared about the look of the historical part of the city. It is not just an old city without tall buildings in the historical part because the city is old. They could construct tall buildings in XIX-XX cc., but they cared about the architectural harmony. Without this aesthetic attitude (shared by many regular townspeople today too), unique for disorderly Russia, we would live in another ugly post-Soviet city.
Are post-Soviet cities ugly?
Yes, you have a good point. The buildings do not have to be so ridiculously tall. It is kind of funny how tall buildings have always been a project of rich industrialists. Are they symbolic of something?
This is a symbol of exorbitant ambition and disregard for traditions ... увы
I was thinking more about some small body part they are sad about. :-p
Simply, there are some "small pieces" that are particularly dear :-)
Simply, there are some "small pieces" that are particularly dear :-)
Are post-Soviet cities ugly?
Too many of them.
But WHY are they ugly? I am curious. I know that brutalist Soviet architecture is considered ugly, but what is happening in the post Soviet era that makes everything ugly?
Generally, as I see, you can say the city is nice in the ex-Soviet space when it has a good historical part, core, city centre. This is how many people see things in Russia, for example. Not many ex-Soviet cities have old blocks.
Mostly because these cities appeared or grew large during urbanisation in 1960-1980. Too many old unattractive apartment buildings there.
From Russian wiki, google translated:
Most Russian cities appeared in this grey time. Of course, Soviet capitals and several major cities like Leningrad had some space for experiments with arcihtectural styles and there are samples of very interesting Soviet archirecture, etc.
New construction in 1990-2020s didn't always make a city nice, mostly not. Many people say that Moscow lost much of its charm, old districts, due to uncontrolled contruction.
And not possible to talk about all cities together, every place has its own situation.
Actually, this is a large topic about history, mentality, politics.
What I get from this is that the architecture of Imperial Russia was wonderful, but the Soviet era was bad and the post Soviet era is even worse.
I would argue that unbridled capitalism does NOT lend itself to the beautification of public spaces or to the quality of architecture. Western architecture since the 1980s has declined terribly---actually all production has declined.
Housing and commercial buildings are made of the cheapest materials and are not built to last more than a couple of decades. Houses are built on increasingly small lots and lately the lots are so small that it is impossible to plant a tree on them. Yet, these new subdivisions are surrounded by open fields waiting for future development. There is no reason that the building lots are so small--except for profits. It used to be the norm for each house to be built on a 60X120 foot lot. Plenty of room for the dwelling, a vegetable garden, trees for shade, a place to park the car, room for children to play... . Now the norm seems to be a 30X30 foot lot. Just enough to accommodate the footprint of the house itself. These neighbourhoods soon turn into slums because the homes are too close together and the streets are filled with cars.
https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2019/02/city-has-tough-decisions-on-affordable-housing-bond/
A neighbourhood like this has up to 4 dwellings per building. These are duplexes and each side likely has a basement suite for the homeowner to rent out. No trees for cover, nowhere to accommodate vehicles, nowhere to grow a few vegetables for food, nowhere for kids to play.
I didn't say that you did! That was me adding the component of ideology to the discussion. :-D Unfortunately, it is difficult to completely divorce ideology from the art and technology that humans produce. The function of the objects we create is shaped by our values.
That neo classical subway station is interesting. On one hand it is derivative as all "neo" types of architecture are, but on the other hand it is built of quality materials meant to last AND will continue to be beautiful no matter how old it gets. I will take that over particle board flooring any day.
It is not whether capitalism is good or bad--or if capitalism is more or less authoritarian than communism. It is just simply fact that architecture is on the decline in countries with advanced capitalism. Not in decline based on style--but based on the materials used and the longevity of the structure. Our objects are becoming less functional.
I personally appreciate brutalist architecture, even the soul destroying uber-bureaucratic style of administrative buildings that some people complain about. Give me a huge block of unadorned concrete in exchange for a building that will crumble within a single generation.
some examples of brutalism
Even an abandoned building, as long as it is of quality construction, can be refurbished and brought back into use.
These days, they build endless strip malls that are constructed of steel studs on a concrete slab. The studs are then clad with plywood which is then finished with some stucco and decorative veneer masonry. It is sort of like the old west where a primitive log building was covered in a fancy facade--only in this case the log building is superior to what they are using now.
The inside is finished to the specifications of the tenants. Needless to say, these structures are not built to last or to withstand extreme weather events. In a sense, they are temporary structures and meant to be that way.