Wimps!
Wimps!
Are you asking why are these stories are particlarly attractive, and others are not? Your question seems a little confusing to me?
'Attractive', in the sense of their historic importance - that grouping also includes projects of modernity. Some buildings, or even fragments of buildings, capture the zeitgeist of the day, and so, are important historic markers to be protected and preserved.
I don't think I've answered your question, can you give me another example?
Sorry; Yes, I am asking why stories rooted at a particular time are so attractive ie., what is so good about their particular stories and hence what's so good about old buildings.
There are modern buildings that have stories to tell too but there are not that many willing to listen.
The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click
Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
canals to view its modern museum describing
how it once was?
Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK
Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition
Behave yourself!
div>
The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click
Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
canals to view its modern museum describing
how it once was?
Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK
Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition
Thanks for re-phrasing.
Interesting point. It's almost like there's a moment when an ordinary object ceases to be just a useful utensil; it's no longer just a fork, or a cart, or a foot-scraper, it transends it's original function, and somehow becomes art - and is raised to the level of artefact - an object worthy of special care, consideration and study. And yes, the value that we'd originally assigned to something like, a six-storey Victorian warehouse, has now changed. Although in recent history 'no value' [in the case of Liverpool City Council] was assigned to these things, and were casually erased from the city's memory.
The value that we assign to these places now, is very different. There's a statue of an eagle on the side of one of the buildings in Paradise Street. Why isn't it removed? What purpose does it now serve? Some objects in the city, [whether it's buildings or fragments] anchor the spirit of the times, the zeitgeist of the day, and express a different value to what they held in their useful life.
Whatever the answer is - identity, learning, memory, welbeing, understanding, community, society, continuity has something to do with it?
Yes indeed all those things are admired and that's to be expected but there are some for whom these things mean nothing. So maybe it's only grumpy old fogeys who like old buildings because of what they see in them, despite the fact they often represent the architecture of autocracy, power and 'oppression'.
Whereas more democratic but modern buildings are roundly reviled.
Take the Shell Centre on the South Bank; voted worst building in London about a million years ago but I'm starting to like it...
I now see where you're coming from. Your main objection, is a criticism of the totalitarian structures that errected them in the first place? How could we hold so much affection for say, the pyramids - after so many innocents had been enslaved, toiled and died following the whims a tyrannical ruler?
What about the athenian Parthenon, completed in 432BC [a fairly old building] and is based around democractic principles of high Greek society?
Do you have a merit system, based on who built them?
BTW The Shell Centre may have been democratically built, but I feel it was done by committee. It's hideous to look at, and functions like a turd. And whoever thought about placing a 23 storey tower, on a 'corridor in the sky' wants their head examined! I used to walk through this space from Waterloo station and around Feb/ March [the windy months], you can't move, in fact it's dangerous. Bad design, the pedestrian links are a joke, and very little thought was give about the impact that the building would have on the surrounding area. Yes, architect's do fcuk up at times. And you haven't got to walk too far down the South Bank to find another crappy example.
I guess you can say that this building is on my Shiit-list.
Perhaps all this vitriol will forgotten by generations to come? Wow, what a perfect example of 60's architecture!
Bookmarks