# Out of Place Architecture - Old vs. New



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

In many cities, new buildings don't seem to blend in well with their older neighbors. This is especially the case in Europe, where new skyscrapers have become more and more bold, while the traditional architecture of the old city remain. Show some examples!

*Pompidou Centre, Paris*
A large square greets this ultra-modern building while older rowhouses sit around it.




























*Swiss Re, London*
I would've never expected a structure like that to pop up in the City, although after a few skyscrapers in the area, a tall building wasn't a surprise anymore. Norman Foster's design was certainly bold and daring.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

I have mixed feelings with the Pompidou Centre. Honestly I find it ok though it's probably the height why it doesn't blend too well with the classical Parisian architecture.

The Swiss-Re, it may not blend with other London scrapers but shows London's becoming a bit of a futuristic city!


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Personally, I have no problems with the Pompidou Centre. To me it works as a perfect justuxposition between old and new. The architects, Renzo Piano, Richard Rogers and Gianfranco Franchini knew this when they designed it, and deliberately tried not to "blend" in with the surrounding buildings. And it has worked.

Again, the Swiss Re building does fit in at street level, and there is no problems from a distance. After all, from a distance, all cities show great differences in design and construction.

Another example could be the two Dresdner bank buildings here in Frankfurt. I took this photo as commissioned work for the architectural firm that designed the new Dresdner Bank tower in the background.









I think they work perfectly together.

There are of cause some instances where they don't, but for me, what is worse is a solitary skyscraper surrounded by low rises. To me, in most cases, I prefer clusters of skyscrapers.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

How the Freedom Tower in NY?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

No doubt the juxtaposition of some old and new buildings can create some nice contrasts. Here's one from Paris that I particularly hate though - *Tour Montparnasse* :










Although the view from the top is stunning and unobstructed.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Mar 29, 2005)

yes Tour Montparnasses location is horrible. It was the biggest mistake to built it there.


----------



## Dan1987 (Mar 28, 2004)

I watched a programme on BBC2 one time that said the French people hated Tour Montparnasse so much that the government made it so no building could be made taller than it, it this true?


----------



## Oriolus (Feb 4, 2004)

Here's an example of new on TOP of old. It's the 40s/165m Ernst & Young Centre in Melbourne, built on top of the Herald Sun building, connected by yellow "cheese sticks"

See the project thread for more photos. This one's by mugley


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

In Singapore, they're numerous modern projects that involves old heritage row buildings called Shophouses here.

The shophouses were integrated into new developments.
4 projects involve entire rows of them. 2 of which had the entire streets closed off in steel and glass canopies, creating internal malls.

By the way, Bugis Junction is fake.

The real shophouse developments are at Far East Square, China Square, Grand Plaza Parkroyal Hotel and Albert Court.


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

*Capital Square* 










*China Square* 
























That blue glass tower is part of the same redevelopment of the worse slums of Singapore. 









*Far East Sqaure, encased streets*


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

Generally I find that new buildings tend to look more out of place in cities with a unifed older style like Paris rather than ones that were already a mix of different eras like London.


----------



## Marco_ (Jan 15, 2006)

Picture made by Jan


----------



## Rene Nunez (Mar 14, 2005)

I hate it!!!!!!!!!! It looks awful I hate everything modern in paris.even the art deco buildings look out of place.and that goes for london.


----------



## Tazmaniadevil (Dec 23, 2003)

The Merchandise Mart building on Madison Square between the New York LIfe and Metropolitan Life Life buildings in NYC is the ugliest, most out of place building in the world.
Chase Manhattan downtown, when it first went up in 1960, was the most out of place building until other boxes went up. When you look at old photos of downtown NYC before 1960, you can see how magical that skyline was.


----------



## Urban Dave (Apr 18, 2004)

I think there is no architecture out of place. We are at XXI century and we don't have to build folowing the old constructions sorrounding us.


----------



## whatever... (Feb 23, 2006)

Urban Dave said:


> I think there is no architecture out of place. We are at XXI century and we don't have to build folowing the old constructions sorrounding us.



i agree with you if those "old" buildings are form 40's, but imho a modern highrise poping up inside oldtown of Prague, Krakow, Vilnius, Riga, etc.. among breathtaking churches, palace's, castle's and other buildings from 14th-16th century would be a catastrophe :runaway:


----------



## Marcanadian (May 7, 2005)

Toronto's flatiron building, European architecture and the big city.









Steam Whistle brewery in Toronto with the Rogers Center and Cityplace









Canada life old and new. Cant find a pic of both of em together.








This a render of it though


----------



## CborG (Dec 2, 2003)

The Hague:




























Rotterdam:










source: www.skyscrapercity.info


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Redevelopment brings contrast in *Hong Kong* :


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

The scene below is my favourite 'juxtaposition' in London.

The church in the foreground is nearly 500 years old - it survived both the Great Fire of London *and* the bombings of WW2! Next to the futuristic SwissRe, the contrast between old and new is incredible:


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

wjfox2002 said:


> The scene below is my favourite 'juxtaposition' in London.
> 
> The church in the foreground is nearly 500 years old - it survived both the Great Fire of London *and* the bombings of WW2! Next to the futuristic SwissRe, the contrast between old and new is incredible:


Wow, great image!

Here's one more London contrast, the London Eye and County Hall - London Aquarium:


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

^^Excellent shot. I look forward to visiting London soon, having some family over there, I might be able to get free rooming 
*
TORONTO*









Whitney Block, Ontario Legislature Building, CN Tower









Queen St E. & Victoria


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Prague*



















Source : http://www.pbase.com/burciny


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

^ I'm not a fan of that Ginger and Fred building, or whatever it is called. Too gimmicky and trying to hard to be "unique". Once the craze for novelty buildings passes, they start to look _"over the top"_.


----------



## stevensp (May 7, 2010)

out of place out of place...

I just love all these examples!


----------



## Metropolitan 3.0 (Jan 14, 2010)

LuckyLuke said:


> yes Tour Montparnasses location is horrible. It was the biggest mistake to built it there.


Actually, the location of Tour Montparnasse makes a lot of sense. The big problem with the building is that it is awfully ALONE!

If there were 3 to 5 buddies around Tour Montparnasse, it would make a skyline, and it would work. It's technically very easy to build skyscrapers in the area. There's a train station nearby and a lot of awful modern blocks around that could be scraped without bothering anyone.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Well, the biggest crime was demolishing the original train station and building the insult to humanity that is currently there. The skyscraper itself is ok, and I agree with Metropolitan 3.0, it's only main fault is that it is alone. Building skyscrapers on their own rarely ever works and it works even less in Europe when they drop them in the middle of a historical neighbourhood. Why they keep doing this when nearly everyone hates this, and why so many places avoid clusters, when again, almost all disdain for skyscrapers evaporates when people see them in clusters, I just will never understand.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Well, Tour Montparnasse looks ugly, but its location is quite far from the main historic sights, so I guess it's not so bad after all!


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Justme said:


> Well, the biggest crime was demolishing the original train station and building the insult to humanity that is currently there. The skyscraper itself is ok, and I agree with Metropolitan 3.0, it's only main fault is that it is alone. Building skyscrapers on their own rarely ever works and it works even less in Europe when they drop them in the middle of a historical neighbourhood. Why they keep doing this when nearly everyone hates this, and why so many places avoid clusters, when again, almost all disdain for skyscrapers evaporates when people see them in clusters, I just will never understand.


Churches were always alone. Skyscrapers too work when they are alone, but only if they are not blocky like Montparnasse, but slender, elegant and resembling church spire like Swiss-Re or Shard, or Bishopsgate.


----------



## Carlota II (Oct 27, 2008)

MEXICO CITY.


----------



## Diego N (Apr 1, 2010)

Yeah, the skyscrapers should be more near of each other, to make a better view.
How did they let to build something like that in the old Paris? Totally strange, even for you, parisians, and for the tourist, maybe something they try to hide on the pictures!


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

Rene Nunez said:


> I hate it!!!!!!!!!! It looks awful I hate everything modern in paris.even the art deco buildings look out of place.and that goes for london.


How could art deco be out of place in Paris? After all, art deco originated in that city! The most beautiful examples in the world for this particular style can be found in Paris, and many are relatively integrated with their surroundings.


----------



## Quall (Feb 15, 2006)

I love Tour Montparnasse. It reminds me of those evil headquarters you see in movies.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

El_Greco said:


> Churches were always alone. Skyscrapers too work when they are alone, but only if they are not blocky like Montparnasse, but slender, elegant and resembling church spire like Swiss-Re or Shard, or Bishopsgate.


Well, churches are a different thing. I have yet to meet anyone that has ever said how they hate to see churches. Skyscrapers, especially in Europe is rather different. Sure, I've met other people like yourself that don't mind them standing alone, but most I meet think they are out of place and should never be there. However, when those same people see a cluster, they tend to be more positive.

The odd thing for me is, that although I personally generally don't like to see single skyscrapers and much prefer clusters, I actually am quite fond of Tour Montparnasse. I don't know why, I just somehow like it. (Station aside)


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

How are churches different? Both are tall buildings, both overshadow their neighbours, the difference is simply in the fact that one was built for the worship of God while the other for worship of money.

It is all about architecture ; if its beautiful, imaginative and elegant building, then why surround it with weeds? Show it off! Indeed I couldnt imagine Shard or Turning Torso standing in a cluster, it would ruin them. 

Clusters rarely look good (exceptions being Seattle and Singapore). For me a good skyline is not about number of skyscrapers, but about aesthetics. The skyline should be pleasing to the eye. Thats why I (and I suspect many people) like old European skylines with their church spires and turrets, which spread out over large area, punctuate the scenery for you and add drama.


----------



## socrates#1fan (Jul 1, 2008)

St Patrick's NYC USA


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

El_Greco said:


> How are churches different? Both are tall buildings, both overshadow their neighbours, the difference is simply in the fact that one was built for the worship of God while the other for worship of money.
> 
> It is all about architecture ; if its beautiful, imaginative and elegant building, then why surround it with weeds? Show it off! Indeed I couldnt imagine Shard or Turning Torso standing in a cluster, it would ruin them.
> 
> Clusters rarely look good (exceptions being Seattle and Singapore). For me a good skyline is not about number of skyscrapers, but about aesthetics. The skyline should be pleasing to the eye. Thats why I (and I suspect many people) like old European skylines with their church spires and turrets, which spread out over large area, punctuate the scenery for you and add drama.


Hey, you and I have something in common. We frequent a skyscraper forum and we are Europeans. That is not really a common thing. Most Europeans I know don't like skyscrapers ;O) And most Europeans I know love historical architecture.

I remember when I came over to live in London years and years ago, I was showing my flatmates some photos and had the Sydney skyline in the background. All of them, and all their spouses all said the same thing. Lovely harbour, and would be a nice place except for those hideous high buildings. I couldn't believe it as I loved the skyline of Sydney. But hey, that's how it is.

Go almost anywhere else in the world and the population usually love and are proud of their skyline and you would be hard pressed to find someone who hates skyscrapers. Europe is a different place though.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Personally I dont really care whether its a skyscraper or not, for me the most important thing is whether it is good architecture. Skyscrapers abroad are usually boxy and ugly things and are seen as an indicator of how developed you are, so the more you have the better. 
It is interesting to note that while Europe is not home to the highest skyscrapers in the World, it is home to some of the best ones architecturally. Everyone loves Swiss-Re, Turning Torso or Messeturm. We Europeans demand quality and have something no-one else has or appreciates - heritage. Europe always has been home to architectural masterpieces and nowhere in the world has such well preserved cities and towns. At the same time we are inventive and forward looking. We dont need skyscrapers to feel better about ourselves, it is good that our cities have not become clone-towns full of car-parks and concrete tower blocks. Moreover they are seen as an American invention and we naturally are suspicious of anything American. Then again having seen their other contributions to the World who can blame us?


----------



## Metropolitan 3.0 (Jan 14, 2010)

Justme said:


> Well, the biggest crime was demolishing the original train station and building the insult to humanity that is currently there. The skyscraper itself is ok, and I agree with Metropolitan 3.0, it's only main fault is that it is alone. Building skyscrapers on their own rarely ever works and it works even less in Europe when they drop them in the middle of a historical neighbourhood. Why they keep doing this when nearly everyone hates this, and why so many places avoid clusters, when again, almost all disdain for skyscrapers evaporates when people see them in clusters, I just will never understand.


That's actually a quite interesting observation you did here.

Indeed, most people I know here in Paris hates skyscrapers, and usually take the example of Tour Montparnasse to explain their dislike. However, they generally like cities such as NYC or HK, which are filled with them. When I tell them that, they don't know how to answer and generally just say that they like them in dedicated cities, but not in Europe.

Personally, I believe that stand alone skyscrapers can't work because they look out of scale. Furthermore, a skyscraper is not a public building, it is a private building. Churches don't bother because they are public places, open to everyone. They represent a common good.

Grouped together in a cluster, skyscrapers are more accepted by Europeans because there's not the same feeling of domination of a single building over the rest of the city. Furthermore, a cluster generally marks a neighbourhood, which is also open to everyone (like the church). So even if the buildings are private, the fact they are grouped together is perceived as marking the interest of the neighbourhood as a whole.

In this context, it's indeed very weird that so many skyscrapers are built in Europe standing alone. I guess it comes from the fact we have old city centres that we want to preserve, so we scatter them around in the peripherical areas. But it's totally counter-productive.

The current mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoë, wants to build highrise buildings in Paris. However, as he knows they aren't popular, he wants to build them all far from the centre, nearby the Périphérique motorway. I don't get this. We already have many highrise around the Périphérique, and no matter their quality (most are crap, but some are actually decent), it just doesn't work!

In my humble opinion, it would be better to destroy the awful shopping centre near the Montparnasse tower (a big blockhaus which could have been built during WW2) and rebuild instead new commercial blocks, with pedestrian streets. This would also give the opportunity to add one or two smaller highrise buildings from 140m to 180m to put an end to the awful isolation of the tower.

This is probably the best thing which could happen to the district. I even believe the success would lead to the construction of other highrise buildings later in the long term. That neighbourhood isn't really historical. Building more skyscrapers there wouldn't be a problem for Paris. And concentrating them in a single neighbourhood would be far better than scattering them around as it is currently sponsored by politicians.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Is it because in France, skyscrapers are associated with public housing, where crime rates are higher and quality of life lower?


----------



## Quall (Feb 15, 2006)

..


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

@Metropolitan 3.0, very interesting post. What amazes me sometimes in Europe is here, at least in Germany, you often have a small town in the countryside which has an ugly highrise apartment building in the middle of it. Why these get built always surprises me. Why build a single highrise apartment block in a small town in the countryside. Sure, in most cases these towns are surrounding a larger city and part of the commuter belt, but there are still far more urban places nearby where they should have been built. 

@hkskyline. I think you are right there. Whilst many other places around the world build their first skyscrapers as office towers, usually built on a grand scale. In most of Europe, the first highrises were socialist housing blocks and of very poor quality built by councils on the cheap and in a hurry, often in places where they really stand out and look quite ugly. This has given highrises a bad name. Things have changed in Europe these days, with many of these old council highrises being demolished and few low income council highrises are built anymore, most being more luxurious apartment towers or of course quality office towers. But old hates take a long time to change.


----------



## z0nnebril (May 2, 2010)

hkskyline said:


> *Prague*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How can you call the Dancing House miss placed! It's the same hight and has beautifull decorations, just like all the other buildings in Prague...

yes, it isn't a reconstruction and they choose to build a very modern building...but they build the best building for that place


----------



## OakRidge (Mar 9, 2007)

It is misplaced because it is ugly. Just another one of Frank Gehry's abominations.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Gehry is a genius.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Sure, the height is similar, but the form is nowhere like its other more historical neighbours.


----------



## Apoc89 (Mar 4, 2010)

Being in a completely neutral position, I quite like the Dancing House. It somehow seems to stand out while still integrating with the buildings surrounding it. It catches your eye, but doesn't dominate the surroundings. I can definitely see how it can be controversial in a city like Prague though.

Anyways a couple from Cardiff:

The Pierhead Building, built in the 1890s, stands next to the ultra-modern Senedd in the middle of the redeveloped Cardiff Bay:

















The Golden Cross, an old pub from the 1830s or 40s that's apparently become a gay bar now.(I couldn't find a decent image so I'm using Google Street View)
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&l...4mUZAhR6Hc1ZEblG2723A&cbp=12,291.56,,0,-13.42

And I'm surprised no one's mentioned the Tower of London yet. You have a 900+ year old castle sitting on the outskirts of one of the world's most important(arguably _the_ most important) financial centers.


----------



## Ramses (Jun 17, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> *Prague*


Some of those old buildings are indeed very misplaced beside the magnificent Gehrybuilding...

Come on. It is a beautiful peace of architecture which fits in perfectly. It shows very much respect to the old buildings because it has the same height, same colour as its neighbour, just as much decorations, little turret on the corner (just like the buildings on the other side of the street). Gehry proves a new style building can fit in easily in an old environment, it is special but it doesn't scream for attention.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

The Coops (Melbourne Central) Shot Tower, built in 1890, is a 50m building located in the heart of the Melbourne CBD. The historic building was saved from demolition in 1973 when it was decided that it would be incorporated into the massive Melbourne Central complex (built 1991) underneath an 84m high conical glass roof.









http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4138458992/sizes/l/in/photostream/








http://www.flickr.com/photos/markbroadhead/2640865710/sizes/l/in/photostream/


----------



## Ramses (Jun 17, 2005)

^Saved from demolition, but also imprisoned for the rest of its life. I wonder what is worse.

But it looks kinda cool. Any more pics?


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

^^Indeed it is prisoned. Here's some more pictures









http://www.flickr.com/photos/benjamin_b/3726395184/sizes/l/in/photostream/








http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4194916003/sizes/l/in/photostream/








http://www.flickr.com/photos/ghee/3240721412/sizes/o/in/photostream/


----------



## 1+1=3 (Apr 10, 2010)

hkskyline said:


> *Prague*


Before the WW2 this house was standing on the place









but was destroyed during air strike in WW2, few people in the house died









so there were many objections against the construction of new building and probably are until now


----------



## Cyrus (Jan 28, 2005)

*Shah-Goli Palace in Tabriz*:










That is alone!


----------



## FlavioJosefo (Aug 14, 2010)

Gehry's building (Dancing House) is certainly missplaced, like a contorsionist that suddenly appears between the members of a marching band. It is also a missed opportunity, of course, since it would have been a piece of art if he had managed to make it different, modern, and still fitted in the context.


----------



## Mithril Cloud (Aug 13, 2006)

*DLS-CSB School of Design and Arts Campus in Manila*



















A huge modern building built in the middle of old low-rise houses and uninspired buildings. The architect hopes it could spark a revolution of modernism in this area.


----------



## dars-dm (Oct 13, 2007)

Moscow arch. misplacement:


----------



## Ramses (Jun 17, 2005)

FlavioJosefo said:


> Gehry's building (Dancing House) ... It is also a missed opportunity, of course, since it would have been a piece of art if he had managed to make it different, modern, and still fitted in the context.


...and so Gehry did. What else do you want?


----------



## z0nnebril (May 2, 2010)

Ramses said:


> Some of those old buildings are indeed very misplaced beside the magnificent Gehrybuilding...
> 
> Come on. It is a beautiful peace of architecture which fits in perfectly. It shows very much respect to the old buildings because it has the same height, same colour as its neighbour, just as much decorations, little turret on the corner (just like the buildings on the other side of the street). Gehry proves a new style building can fit in easily in an old environment, it is special but it doesn't scream for attention.


True!  I love that building!


----------



## OakRidge (Mar 9, 2007)

Ramses said:


> ...and so Gehry did. What else do you want?


It is an ugly abomination (much like Gehry's other works) and most likely poorly designed to function as an actually building (see the Stata Center).


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

True! Being a Gehry, it's not supposed to 'blend in'.


----------

