Ms. Scott, while I agree with you that it's neat to see little ornaments on buildings, I could not disagree more with your assessment of the two bank towers. Just as the old building you reference reflects the design aesthetics of its time, so do the two towers on Gay Street. Moreover, to say that they ignore the sky is to ignore the fact that they were purposefully designed to be the sky. They reflect the sky and present it to the observer. The nutshell of my comment is that you are comparing apples and oranges. One building was designed in an era when architectural style was emoted through ornamentation. The other two buildings were designed in an era when architectural style was emoted through the function of the design.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
UTLawDawg writes:
Ms. Scott, while I agree with you that it's neat to see little ornaments on buildings, I could not disagree more with your assessment of the two bank towers. Just as the old building you reference reflects the design aesthetics of its time, so do the two towers on Gay Street. Moreover, to say that they ignore the sky is to ignore the fact that they were purposefully designed to be the sky. They reflect the sky and present it to the observer. The nutshell of my comment is that you are comparing apples and oranges. One building was designed in an era when architectural style was emoted through ornamentation. The other two buildings were designed in an era when architectural style was emoted through the function of the design.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.