revolutionary absolutely revolutionary. This is the answer to the problems so many communities face especially those that suffer from gang violence, drug issues, poor public education, taking care of children while trying to find work. This is the next step in bettering our impoverished communities.
I'm sorry, I don't like it. I grew up in the Washington Heights area where Sugar Hill is. The aesthetics of the exterior of this building stick out like a sore thumb.
I live in Vancouver Canada in a mixed use development, with affordable housing and expensive penthouses and owned condos mixed with senior housing and rentals. There is a bakery, drugstore, shops and community centre, and village square, parks and walking paths, integrating various aspects of what people need, beyond just being sheltered. I hope the developers in all big cities get the message that it can't just be a high rise cut off from actual community life. The high rise is isolating and causes social problems while inclusive "villages" within cities create neighbourhoods and connections. It gives people a feeling of belonging and dignity.
My question is, where is architectural value in this project? Aesthetic value is what turns a building into architecture!!! On the other hand, beauty is the most critical criterion that makes building longstanding. Since when people like something, they do their best to protect it; in this term, this building is not even sustainable because it's ugly. However, I genuinely appreciate the aim & concept of the project, which provides affordable houses for the middle class of society. It's holistic! But at the same time, we should be legit and loyal to our profession, architecture! When I consider Le Corbusier designing "Unite d' Habitation" in the 1920s, I'll say for sure with today's technology and experiences, we could do away BETTER! Frankly speaking, I don't know how the municipality permitted this ugly building. At first, I presume it's an old interview of an old building related to the brutalism era. Thank You.
My question is, where is architectural value in this project? Aesthetic value is what turns a building into architecture!!! On the other hand, beauty is the most critical criterion that makes building longstanding. Since when people like something, they do their best to protect it; in this term, this building is not even sustainable because it's ugly. However, I genuinely appreciate the aim & concept of the project, which provides affordable houses for the middle class of society. It's holistic! But at the same time, we should be legit and loyal to our profession, architecture! When I consider Le Corbusier designing "Unite d' Habitation" in the 1920s, I'll say for sure with today's technology and experiences, we could do away BETTER! Frankly speaking, I don't know how the municipality permitted this ugly building. At first, I presume it's an old interview of an old building related to the brutalism era. Thank You.
I believe the architectural value in this project is from the balance between decoration and efficiency of form. With this form, David Adjaye has managed to combine three different types of spatial program into a single concise and effective building, but he also has not fallen into the simplistic and pragmatic design solutions of the 1950s to the 1970s where efficiency is number one. The staggered form of the residential part of the building abstractly references to the surrounding staggered row houses of Sugar Hill and if you look more closely at the facade you can see that the rose embossed tinted graphite cladding creates an ornamental effect by playing with the light reflecting the rich culture and history of Harlem. So clearly the decorations David Adjaye placed on the building carries a lot of meaning and are specific to that of the surrounding site. It certainly beats the very generic Polo Grounds Tower Housing Project next to the Sugar Hill building!! or any social housing project done in the few decades back. If you also look at the interior, you can see that David Adjaye has chosen light colour or texture material as well as placing skylights in critical areas to brighten up the space people would generally linger. And tbh, I would spend hours in the spaces shown here because of it. These aspects are what I believe constitutes as the architectural value of this project. Thank you.
revolutionary absolutely revolutionary. This is the answer to the problems so many communities face especially those that suffer from gang violence, drug issues, poor public education, taking care of children while trying to find work. This is the next step in bettering our impoverished communities.
I'm sorry, I don't like it. I grew up in the Washington Heights area where Sugar Hill is. The aesthetics of the exterior of this building stick out like a sore thumb.
I live in Vancouver Canada in a mixed use development, with affordable housing and expensive penthouses and owned condos mixed with senior housing and rentals. There is a bakery, drugstore, shops and community centre, and village square, parks and walking paths, integrating various aspects of what people need, beyond just being sheltered. I hope the developers in all big cities get the message that it can't just be a high rise cut off from actual community life. The high rise is isolating and causes social problems while inclusive "villages" within cities create neighbourhoods and connections. It gives people a feeling of belonging and dignity.
Great job David adjeye
windows are too small, almost like the ones in a prison cell.
This is beautiful ❤️
Nice video. Adjaye is a brilliant black architect
Adjaye is a brilliant architect.
@@eg-g
From ghana
Ugly Building, Nice concept but, there's no aesthetic value in it.
My question is, where is architectural value in this project?
Aesthetic value is what turns a building into architecture!!!
On the other hand, beauty is the most critical criterion that makes building longstanding. Since when people like something, they do their best to protect it; in this term, this building is not even sustainable because it's ugly.
However, I genuinely appreciate the aim & concept of the project, which provides affordable houses for the middle class of society. It's holistic!
But at the same time, we should be legit and loyal to our profession, architecture!
When I consider Le Corbusier designing "Unite d' Habitation" in the 1920s, I'll say for sure with today's technology and experiences, we could do away BETTER!
Frankly speaking, I don't know how the municipality permitted this ugly building. At first, I presume it's an old interview of an old building related to the brutalism era.
Thank You.
@@parsapouya9014 have u build any thing ?
My question is, where is architectural value in this project?
Aesthetic value is what turns a building into architecture!!!
On the other hand, beauty is the most critical criterion that makes building longstanding. Since when people like something, they do their best to protect it; in this term, this building is not even sustainable because it's ugly.
However, I genuinely appreciate the aim & concept of the project, which provides affordable houses for the middle class of society. It's holistic!
But at the same time, we should be legit and loyal to our profession, architecture!
When I consider Le Corbusier designing "Unite d' Habitation" in the 1920s, I'll say for sure with today's technology and experiences, we could do away BETTER!
Frankly speaking, I don't know how the municipality permitted this ugly building. At first, I presume it's an old interview of an old building related to the brutalism era.
Thank You.
I believe the architectural value in this project is from the balance between decoration and efficiency of form. With this form, David Adjaye has managed to combine three different types of spatial program into a single concise and effective building, but he also has not fallen into the simplistic and pragmatic design solutions of the 1950s to the 1970s where efficiency is number one. The staggered form of the residential part of the building abstractly references to the surrounding staggered row houses of Sugar Hill and if you look more closely at the facade you can see that the rose embossed tinted graphite cladding creates an ornamental effect by playing with the light reflecting the rich culture and history of Harlem. So clearly the decorations David Adjaye placed on the building carries a lot of meaning and are specific to that of the surrounding site.
It certainly beats the very generic Polo Grounds Tower Housing Project next to the Sugar Hill building!! or any social housing project done in the few decades back. If you also look at the interior, you can see that David Adjaye has chosen light colour or texture material as well as placing skylights in critical areas to brighten up the space people would generally linger. And tbh, I would spend hours in the spaces shown here because of it. These aspects are what I believe constitutes as the architectural value of this project.
Thank you.