Yes, they are nice buildings. I have always thought that a building should have a "hat". So many modern buildings just go up and stop, with nothing defining the top.
They are certainly grand and speak well of the era. When you look closely, they show it was a time when architects knew and appeciated the properties of materials they used and still had a sense of the grandure that was desired with so many other building near-by trying to get attention.
Personally, I like exterior of the newer buildings like the curved, warped EL??? Hotel in Dubai. - Pictures don't do it justice, but the interior feeling is good, but a little too cold and polished. - I guess that is what was desired.
COEngineeer - yes, in Vegas there are "grand" buildings - but there is an element of "cheese" associated with them - and the knowledge that the stone is really EIFS sort of drags down the grandeur a bit.
When I was a kid in Brooklyn [1940-50s] looking toward lower NY ,it was a very interesting skyline.Different sizes ,shapes,ages . In the building boom of the '60s they started tearing down the older buildings and putting up the glass/stainless steel shoeboxes.After that I never bothered to look at the skyline !! The sadly doomed WTC was the ultimate shoebox. IIRC , my favorite building,the Chrysler Building still has the original stainless steel attractive roof !
personally... I find the level of facade detail the most interesting and appealing... I think it gives a ton of personality to the building... I see a lot of this in my hometown... Boston... we don't have much in common with NY but this is certainly one thing, I think.
Where architecture is going: On the cover of the February issue of Structural Engineer magazine, I thought I was looking at a partial collapse of a steel frame building--until I put on my glasses and could see it was meant to be that way.
As soon as I read your post, I turned around and saw the issue sitting on my credenza and laughed. I hadn't thought about it as a collapsed structure - just an ugly one!
If you "heard" it on the internet, it's guilty until proven innocent. - DCS
Why they don't build them like that anymore is partly because that's how they built so many of them- got to get on to the latest thing, not the same ol' same ol'.
I have to agree with "crossframe". The first thing I thought when I saw the Feb. 2008 STRUCTURE magazine cover was,"Oh crap!! What building collapsed now & are they blaming the engineer?" I brought the cover to the attention of the other engineer in the office & on first glance, he thought it was a bridge collapse. This is aesthetic design at work?
They don't build like that anymore because few could afford it and the trades don't and couldn't perform that type of work anymore. Extremely labour intensive. Sad to say. Louis Sullivan, Mies Van de Rohe, and now Frank Gehry. What next?
Current seismic codes will soon put an end to all that. The days of intuitive knowledge are gone.
And for those who want to build old structures , should know that we have discovered a planet like earth
" few "light years away and if not that we can build structures on moon and mars..Hopefully there is no codes for building structure there,,