Статията на българскиThe example I present in the Urban Oldies current article may sound paradoxical in regard to the series basic subject because the building is newly found. It, however, receives my prize for several reasons, the main of which is its successful offer of a modern replica of the old aristocratic urban atmosphere. Such environments likewise the traditional centers of the European cities hide fathomless dangers for the extremist designers and lovers of contemporary architecture, because drowning in cases of failure is sure and fast, and achieving skills for precise estimation and rediscovery of the Golden Mean is hard.
There are basically two approaches to eventual success. In the first case, in order to highlight its distinctive character, the building needs to contrast while at the same time takes its place with refinement, and, even putting them in shade, it has not to disturb the long-standing harmony of its neighbours. In the other case, in order to be accepted, it needs to find a common language with them, showing its similar features while at the same time reveals its individuality, being itself and exposing its youth and novelty in time. Failure in the contrast threatens to turn it into "kitsch"; failure in the harmony could rightly declare it fake and hollow, plagiarism or eclecticism. The road to success, when daring to measure strengths and to prove oneself in such conservative environment, is difficult for both approaches, because with each of them one will need maturity, experience and steady knowledge of one's place. If you doubt your qualities or if you have different goals, your experimental area is not expected here, in the old prestigious city center.
Buildings can be the same like people because they are creations of our nature, hence I suggest now that you imagine the following situations. Group of people in the raving whirl of their youth rushes in another, standing in a place they have previously assigned their own. The wise of the older group will forgive the youth for the anxiety caused, because they understand it, respect its right to take its own place and expect it to respond the same way with the time. Those running slow with the lessons of life will oppose the youth immediately because they fear its distinction, but they will not have the courage to propose dialogue either because of their weakness. Over time, if the same group of already grown up young people behave the same way as they have done before, they will have no excuse for the lack of maturity. Succeeding in showing such, with self-confidence, all will approve them. This is a metaphor about the fate of a building that has chosen to contrast in a traditional environment. Settling untactfully there, it will succeed in the beginning, venturing on its insolence, but it will not be forgiven over time. Standing, however, on a solid foundation of experience and consciousness, stating from there its difference; is it a product of its true individual qualities rather than a screen of weakness, likewise in the first case, it will receive deserved, steady in time respect.
Now imagine another situation with a young person wishing to enter into a new social group at every cost. If he or she are conscious individuals, meaning they have grown up in similar conscious families, they will want and do this for themselves, knowing perfectly well that their desired place is precisely there. Standing upon it, they will feel stable and be themselves, both in harmony with the environment and expressing their individual qualities. The same way conscious people will evaluate them from the beginning, and from the rest one will like them in moderate or utter manners, other will try to hurt them in a way. Over time, however, respect to them will remain intact because it is based on steady self-evaluation emanating from true realized qualities. This will not happen to a young person intending to enter into a group because of it or because of others, without being confident that their place is namely there. In the beginning, failing to prove themselves they will receive the conscious ones' direct attitude toward their mediocrity, and the sympathy only of those who "respect" in others not their objective qualities, but their similarities with themselves. This unstable acceptance will change with time and deepen the lack of confidence in the already grown up young person. Such building has no chance to obtain steady approval because it builds its self-evaluation over the one of others, having failed its individuality in the very beginning, because it has failed itself to believe in it.
There are basically two approaches to eventual success. In the first case, in order to highlight its distinctive character, the building needs to contrast while at the same time takes its place with refinement, and, even putting them in shade, it has not to disturb the long-standing harmony of its neighbours. In the other case, in order to be accepted, it needs to find a common language with them, showing its similar features while at the same time reveals its individuality, being itself and exposing its youth and novelty in time. Failure in the contrast threatens to turn it into "kitsch"; failure in the harmony could rightly declare it fake and hollow, plagiarism or eclecticism. The road to success, when daring to measure strengths and to prove oneself in such conservative environment, is difficult for both approaches, because with each of them one will need maturity, experience and steady knowledge of one's place. If you doubt your qualities or if you have different goals, your experimental area is not expected here, in the old prestigious city center.
Buildings can be the same like people because they are creations of our nature, hence I suggest now that you imagine the following situations. Group of people in the raving whirl of their youth rushes in another, standing in a place they have previously assigned their own. The wise of the older group will forgive the youth for the anxiety caused, because they understand it, respect its right to take its own place and expect it to respond the same way with the time. Those running slow with the lessons of life will oppose the youth immediately because they fear its distinction, but they will not have the courage to propose dialogue either because of their weakness. Over time, if the same group of already grown up young people behave the same way as they have done before, they will have no excuse for the lack of maturity. Succeeding in showing such, with self-confidence, all will approve them. This is a metaphor about the fate of a building that has chosen to contrast in a traditional environment. Settling untactfully there, it will succeed in the beginning, venturing on its insolence, but it will not be forgiven over time. Standing, however, on a solid foundation of experience and consciousness, stating from there its difference; is it a product of its true individual qualities rather than a screen of weakness, likewise in the first case, it will receive deserved, steady in time respect.
Now imagine another situation with a young person wishing to enter into a new social group at every cost. If he or she are conscious individuals, meaning they have grown up in similar conscious families, they will want and do this for themselves, knowing perfectly well that their desired place is precisely there. Standing upon it, they will feel stable and be themselves, both in harmony with the environment and expressing their individual qualities. The same way conscious people will evaluate them from the beginning, and from the rest one will like them in moderate or utter manners, other will try to hurt them in a way. Over time, however, respect to them will remain intact because it is based on steady self-evaluation emanating from true realized qualities. This will not happen to a young person intending to enter into a group because of it or because of others, without being confident that their place is namely there. In the beginning, failing to prove themselves they will receive the conscious ones' direct attitude toward their mediocrity, and the sympathy only of those who "respect" in others not their objective qualities, but their similarities with themselves. This unstable acceptance will change with time and deepen the lack of confidence in the already grown up young person. Such building has no chance to obtain steady approval because it builds its self-evaluation over the one of others, having failed its individuality in the very beginning, because it has failed itself to believe in it.
The modern replica of an old building to the right attached to an authentic traditional one. The miserable condition of the latter underlines the qualities in the implementation of the first. It is built at the place of one-storey structures of no value for the urban environment, which is a plus. The minus is the cut backyard tree during its construction. Other faults are the disproportions of the entry level and the lack of horizontal correspondence of the new facade toward the neighbouring.
The building is administrative, a host of offices, although in the structure of its volume and space it looks more like residential.
The facade of the building replicates the old traditional urban architecture via its ornamentation, decoration and the composition of its elements along the floors.
The entry level has modern minimalism-alike design. In fact, with its less detail and apparent aesthetic look, I could see the entire building in the same style.
The graphite is typical of the minimalist style, but at the same time the grey colour successfully unites the parts of the entire building.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment