Comments on: New Bell Tower Design

By: Freddie

Freddie — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:11:00 +0000

I've finally made up my mind. I like this thing. I think it was just a bit of a shock at first, but after staring at it long enough, I've finally decided I really like it. Unlike most buildings that serve a business purpose only, this one also serves as art – art that people will stare at for a long time and form opinions about.

By: TONY in the house

TONY in the house — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 04:53:00 +0000

As an internet experiment, I thought it was useful and necessary to allow every comment to post. "Anonymous" didn't seem any different to me than made-up registered names. But, in practice, people on the internet are often much ruder, and much less sensible, than in real life. So, even though I think it's a control worthy only of children, requiring a registration seems necessary at this point. If only to stem the slide.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 03:37:00 +0000

Denver has finally found it's iconic building! The architecture is sleek and bold at the same time. A modern, sexy building at the base of the Mile High City with a great story under it's feet (literally) – This piece of land IS where Denver started… Denver was found on this piece of land! Although, I'm sure some won't be as interested in the deep roots of the project… The park complex will have a great story and one with meaning… Which thickens the wealth of this prime location.

I feel that those who understand this address, will see this is the place where history and the future meet… and this will definitely keep Denver on the map in terms of being a World Class City!

I cannot wait to see this project started, I think the translucent design give the city a breath of fresh air. I'm excited to find out more as the project progresses. Once approved, I think this project will be icing on (Denver's) cake.

By: KCollins

KCollins — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 02:52:00 +0000

As one of the uneducated masses when it comes to technical terms for building styles, all I have to say is that I like this design a lot more than the origional. Even if they still decide to change the tower, I hope they retain the green color; it's a fresh departure from the traditional Denver brown.

By: historymystery

historymystery — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:35:00 +0000

Beyonddc: what I don't like about "historicist" design is when the architect tries to evoke a nostalgic feeling by using design elements that connote some earlier period of history, a la Walt Disney Main Street USA. This is not to say I don't like contextual buildings. To me, Sugar Cubed (and next time you're here, do check it out now that it's nearly complete) is a perfect example of a building that is respectfully contextual to its setting next to the original Sugar Building but that avoids using elements from the Sugar Building other than the general massing and brick color. I know you like 16 Market Center across Blake from Sugar Cubed because I seem to remember you saying so some months ago. I don't mind that building, even though it does use design elements that are less contemporary than Sugar Cubed, because the architect seemed to know what he was doing and was restrained in aiming for a historic effect. In reacting to the original Fentress design of the office building portion of the Bell Tower project, I was basing my feelings on the model rather than a finished building–not always smart to do–and I really disliked those arched windows because to me they were of a dumbed-down, nostalgic historicism. The new version seems better because it is simpler, and while it's no Sugar Cubed it's far better than it was (again, relying on the model photos so thoughtfully posted on this website).

By: Dergs

Dergs — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:08:00 +0000

Now this is an interesting dialog! 1LP is most definitely Post Modern and therefore, unremarkable other than it is dated yet not even finished. The Bell Tower design is caught somewhere between Super Modernism (OMA, MVRDV, etc.) and Critical Regionalism (think of RPBW's elegant Cultural Centre in New Caledonia). Fentress has plied this middle "style" before at DIA and CCC with successful results. They call it "Regional Contextualism" and I suspect this project is another example.

I agree with many of the eariler comments about the apparent randomness of the tower. Floor plates and curtainwall seem to embrace randomness as a virtue. In nature randomness can be a virtue, but it is always ordered when one looks deeper. It seems to me that this is not only likely to be unnecessarily expensive to build, but is also lacking design rigor. Keep the twisting feel and the oversized balconies, but apply some design logic to the floor plates and curtainwall to produce something that is simultaneously more elegant and more responsible to the owner. And I would suspect, more succesful as a building and a financial enterprise.

By: jellyneck

jellyneck — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:18:00 +0000

Too true about deconstructivism DC - just like some types of art, such as cubism... but architecture isn't art right?

Besides, deconstructivism isn't all that deconstructed. It's a style with an appointed name and one day it will be out of style and all the historic agencies will rush to save the buildings that represented the turn of the millennium while the next new style elicits praise and criticism alike. But style thought it may be, i still like it! And I still don't like pinstriped suits which went out of style with post modernism.

A Stranger With Candy gave me my name! Good Times!

By: BeyondDC

BeyondDC — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:53:00 +0000

>but historicism on a building built in our time in this setting next to a historic district is unwise - anon 8:43

Fair enough. I assume you feel the same about the faux warehouse style popular all over Denver, including much of LoDo, since y'know, it's also a form of historicism.

>Art is subjective. Hence the word art can be spelled from the word Architecture. -italiaboy9

Hiya bud. Actually I don't think architecture qualifies as art. Or shouldn't, anyway. Art is purely about abstract beauty, while architecture is about making functional parts of life beautiful. Unlike artists, who only have to make something pretty, architects have the added responsibility of making something that is both functional and pretty. IMO that makes architects artisans rather than artists. I don't think it's a semantic difference.

>Would you all agree this design is deconstructivism? And One Lincoln Park, same "school"? - bruce quackenbush

I wouldn't call 1LP deconstructivist. It's not distorted enough from "regular" architecture. I'd characterize 1LP as postmodern. The only other deconstructivist building I can think of in Denver is Libeskind's art museum.

Anyway, deconstructivism's big problem is that it relies on being unique to be interesting, which means that it must always remain unique or it will cease to be interesting. Every new deconstructivist building reduces the value of the entire brand by making the style more commonplace, and therefore less shocking.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 04:29:00 +0000

RIP Anonymous.

By: Johnnie

Johnnie — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:02:00 +0000

Maybe jellyneck a quadriplegic or something. Anyways, I think there's actually a company called Star Architects doing some sort of project in South Korea.

This is off the topic but is anyone going to the Puttin Pub Crawl?