Old power plant looks good, new one looks bad
As our pal Mr. Jalopy has remarked, he's not necessarily in favor of things that are old, he's in favor of things that are better. But it often turns out that the older version of something is better.
This photo of a power plant that MAKE magazine online manager Terrie Miller took is a good example.
Swan Falls Dam is along the Snake River Birds of Prey Conservation area. They point out in the signs that the old historic power plant sits right next to the smaller, more efficient modern one. But the old one certainly looks much better. This reminded me of Mr. Jalopy's presentation at Maker Day, where he showed the the packaging for everyday things decades ago was clearly superior in its aesthetic sense.Sure, the modern one is more efficient, but why not package it in a beautiful building? Link
the latest
latest episodes
I think the issue of architectural beauty for industrial structures has more to do with the forms that are familiar than something intrinsic to the design itself. The designers of that power plant were building as utilitarian and inexpensive a structure as they knew how to build that would meet the constraints they operated under.
The old power plant in downtown Columbus is a beautiful building, with a wart of a warehouse grafted onto it filled with switching equipment. The power plant isn't in use any more but the switching equipment is, so it's not possible to do any adaptive reuse of the plant building.
It's dark red brick with soaring arched window openings and a gable roof, similar architectural style to the center section of this photo but red and only one story.
I love old buildings!
I think the two look pretty damn beautiful together.
Damn it. Someone beat me to it.
Sure, the modern one is more efficient, but why not package it in a beautiful building?
Maybe the ugly building has something to do with it's improved efficiency?
Or, it could be because tax payers throw a belligerent fit every time their government tries to spend a single cent more than the absolute minimum required to accomplish something. Probably not much room in the budget for "fancying up."
Architecture was a well-known casualty of World War II.
Look at the absolutely *magnificent* architecture of the 1920s. Attention was paid to detail, and things were built to last.
Now look at what followed: 1950-1970 produced some absolutely horrendous samples of architecture.
Today, commercial buildings are produced on an assembly line. So depressing....
At least "New Urbanism" seems to be taking hold, which has all sorts of benefits. If we can make it affordable, we might even make it out of the 20th century architectural dark age.
The whole place looks like Shawshank Prison to me.
Re #6:
Ah yes, the wonderful architecture of the 1920s and 1930s.
The grass is always greener...
Sure, the modern one is more efficient, but why not package it in a beautiful building?
What 5000! said. Why waste resources/energy/money building a pretty shell around a perfectly functional plant? Doesn't sound very green to me.
I agree with you, Brundlefly. It is just plain responsible to conserve in every responsible way possible, especially with public works.
James Howard Kunstler has written a lot about this stuff (e.g. Geography of Nowhere). I see it as a change in our society to not value the "common good" -- the modern business and political movements in the US value only the bottom line and its merely cheaper to not care how the structure ends up looking. If you look around there are eyesores everywhere. Our society needs to rediscover that there is such a thing as the "common good" and that it merits investment, to produce an environment that we will want to live in.
I find the aesthetics of some old buildings to be very pleasing. Alrthough there are old buildings ou there that look like eyesores.
With this powerplant I understand what you say aobout the older building. Comparing the two I find the older powerplant to be much nicer to look at. However given a lifetime of use what's the maintenance cost going to be on the older building versus a newer more compact building?
At least "New Urbanism" seems to be taking hold, which has all sorts of benefits. If we can make it affordable, we might even make it out of the 20th century architectural dark age.
New Urbanist architecture? OH PULEEEZE. "Put some more gingerbread on it and make sure the kitchen is out of sight so we don't have to interact with the women-folk"
I think the new plant looks good. Sure, I'm not going to reuse it and convert it to lofts, but at least it doesn't pretend to be something it's not. 200 years from now, people will look back on that and think it's pretty snazzy.
it often turns out that the older version of something is better.
It's true ... I'm way better than I was when I was younger.
Actually, I think the old building looks rather ugly compared to a mid-evil castle.
How do you define old? At what point did design jump the shark?