There are some good old and new buildings in Atlanta. I used to work in this one. Always wanted to get up on the roof to take a closer look at those two Belvederes.
I actually really like Calatrava’s designs. He uses a lot of curves, arches, spires, and it’s obvious that he derives the basis for many of his ideas from nature. He reminds me just a bit of Gaudí. But where most of Gaudí’s work (with the obvious exception of La Sagrada Família) is warmer and relatively small in scale, Calatrava’s style is much more suited to large sweeping structures.
Take a look at a gallery of Calatrava’s work linked from the article cited earlier in this thread. Those are some damn cool buildings. The natural shapes are quite beautiful and flowing, needing no ornamentation to look good. I haven’t been inside any of them, but I imagine that they feel pretty good too, besides being pleasing to the eye. While I don’t know how well designed they are from a practical point of view, he may give more thought to practicality than some of the designers mentioned in this thread, considering that he apparently thinks about wind conditions (per the Wiki article on the Chicago spire) and came up with good solutions to plumbing and wiring challenges posed by the Malmö design.
I think there are some connections to Googie, but Calatrava has access to design tools and materials that those designers could only dream of. Most of the Googie designs have aged well in that they aren’t at all offensive to modern eyes, even two or three generations later. That, to me, is a sign that they hit on some of the universal ideals of beauty. I think that Calatrava’s designs may have similar longevity.
I don’t understand the comments about how the spire is a big “screw you” to Chicago. It’s a very cool design (looks like a narwhale tooth to me) it’s probably more practical from an engineering standpoint than a rectangular building in windy conditions, and it’s going to incorporate systems that will reduce the environmental impact. He’s done his part by designing it. If the other people and organizations involved in the project can’t get their act together to finalize funding and start getting the thing built, how is that his fault? If I were him, I’d be moving on to other things until they told me that they were done screwing around and ready to get to work.
Well, this from June '07, just sounds like a teenage rant: “Nothing but an uptight, shut-in, sightless male box. This hatred for the feminine in current architectural practice has gone unremarked by anyone in the Feminist camp, by the way.”
And none of you understand me, so just SHUT UP. ::slams door::
This article seemed pretty relevant to the Gehery discussion further up-thread. Honestly, if your buildings are so strange and unconventional that they can’t handle the normal wear and tear of just a few years, then they are a failure in the most basic requirement of what a building should be.