on 2014-12-15 23:09 John wrote
On 12/15/2014 10:06 PM, steve harley wrote:
however, i happen to be a bit suspicious of architectural review boards
too (being the son of an architect and being an homeowner within a
locally and nationally designated "landmark district")
Also moot because none of the buildings were any kind of new
construction. They were built before architectural review boards came
along to ensure new construction would maintain the distinct character
of the neighborhood.
the concept was raised only to describe a reaction to the buildings
photographed; it doesn't matter when they were built or whether review
boards could have been involved
In fact, they're the kind of buildings architectural review boards would
reference to determine that distinct character.
for #6 & #3, perhaps… #6 stands apart — not beautiful, but has integrity;
mission revival would put it before 1920 in Denver; California's probably
different
#3 may be historic, but the sign just ruins it for me
the rest are an example of what a review process (when done well) could
avoid: "Disneyification"; #5 looks like to me like contemporary Vail (high-$
pastiche of "Alpine" styles) to me, but i suppose it could be original
i do appreciate the irony that old "fake" buildings are valued more than new
(in part because they were better built); it's also interesting to get a
visitor's reaction to American architecture
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
