I would, however, like to join the chorus in saying that much of the modern architecture in Tartu is horrid. In every way. Beautiful streets boasting classical Estonian architecture, while strongly influenced by German and Russian styles, being immaculately restored to their original splendor, interrupted by bland, sterile cubes (or spirals) of concrete with ocean-liner portholes for windows.
There are several things we could do about this. One: continue on this path, staining the city’s “milieu” with tasteless, poor quality architecture. But then people should cease their complaints about how during the Soviet period all the bomb-damaged plots of the city were filled with tasteless, poor quality architecture. I love how people are now free to build whatever they want, yet build the same crap they say they always hated.
Three: the city government could exercise a little authority over what is allowed to be built where. But then who will teach them taste and class? They often are the same people who smack together these Borg cubes.
Modern architecture is a great thing in many cases. Generally, if it’s covered in glass, it can’t look too bad. Take the new Kaubamaja Department Store right in the middle of downtown. As it is, it’s a pale reflection of the old market, complete with columns, that was destroyed in World War Two. It looks like a public toilet, covered in grayish bathroom tiles. Yet even this box could be drastically improved by chipping off the tiles and replacing them with something glassy and classy.
The new mall across the street has no discernable shape whatsoever, but as it’s covered in shiny material, I like it. At least, it’s not offensive and embarrassing like the Snail Tower. But have you ever seen a twenty-story plus skyscraper covered in plaster? It must have been the cheapest stuff on sale.
17 comments:
Good post and all so sad but true.
It's not sad, actually. It's brilliant. You might not like the Snail Tower, but then you're not forced to live in it. It's not in the Old Town, or in any of the historic residential quarters; it's in a field by the river. That block, from Plasku through the McDonalds and Statoil, and the old Soviet brick warehouse, Aura Veekeskus and down to the power station, is an eyesore that's being built up with modern architecture. The Snail Tower may not be beautiful, but at least it's distinctive, and that's far better than the cookie-cutter glass phalluses in Tallinn (or London, or Rotterdam, or Tel Aviv).
This is our city. We live here. It's not meant to be a museum of old German and Russian buildings. If we want to build a plaster highrise, we'll build a bloody plaster highrise.
To quote James May: If there is one thing I can't stand it's beardy, sanctimonious, patronising Americans in tartan trousers coming to my country and trying to persuade us to turn it into a museum. We're not interested in the views of stupid Americans who come over here with their bi video cameras saying, "Gee, I love your history, it's just so old." SOD OFF.
Flasher t räägi enda eest! Ma olen samuti põline tartlane ja mina ei ole sinuga nõus ja palun ära pane mind ühte patta "we-ga". Mina nõustuksin siinkohal nn üleoleva ameeriklasega ja leian, et Tigutorn on üks kõige koledamaid ehitisi, mida ma elus näinud olen (siinkohal võistlevad mõned monstrumid Prantsusmaal). Teiseks Mingus ei ütle, et ta vihkab kogu moodsat arhitektuuri, seega sinu refereering nati vale (Mingus: Modern architecture is a great thing in many cases).
Kas keegi riivas su õrna kohta?
I like the new city area in Tartu, especially the Plasku and Tasku, but I have to say the Tigutorn is indeed horrid!
Wow this is great, finally a little debate! But let's remember not to behave like those people who comment over at Postimees Online or Delfi. Meaning the 'sod off' bit was a tad uncalled for.
Flasher T is absolutely right: I don't have to live in the Snail Tower. But I do have to look at it every single day, from every single place in the city.
He's right about something else as well. This is 'our' city. I've lived in it for ten years, a lot longer than a lot of Estonians, and I've paid my fair share of taxes over these years, which go directly to paying the city government to make the decisions they make. :)
I can't really comment on Tartu, but then horrible architecture blights the entire country. I went to the Architecture Museum a week or two ago and they have a display of all of the entries submitted for the new Academy of Arts building. Now, I can't say whether they all met the requirements, but boy were there about 100 more interesting and more attractive than the bland lattice-work structure that got the nod.
My general feeling is that Estonian architects - and those that judge their work - just don't have broad enough experience or taste to realise that something other than boxes can actually work and will look so much better.
Incidentally, flasher t: "The Snail Tower may not be beautiful, but at least it's distinctive" - you'd rather have an ugly building dominating the skyline than one which is functional AND looks good?
So what highrise looks good?
Seriously. In Tallinn you have the SEB tower, which was kind of interesting a decade ago, and the Swissotel twins, which are horribly bland. The Radisson? A random collection of rectangles. The City Plaza? A plain glass case.
I have seen exactly one place where highrises were done with some genuine imagination: downtown San Diego. That was so stunning because it was so rare. Modern highrise architecture is functional, and whenever architects attempt to make such a building interesting-looking, they just throw together some odd postmodern shapes so your eye trips over them.
People say the Snail Tower is ugly, but I challenge you to explain how its aesthetics are significantly less than those of the Gherkin, or anything in La Defense.
Significantly less what? Appealing? That's a matter of taste. But you yourself have just highlighted the very problem of the vast majority of architecture in Estonia these days: be it aesthetically or functionally, it is lacking. It is not just Snail Tower that suffers - the epidemic is widespread.
Why Estonia? It's not an aspect of Estonian architecture, it's a matter of modern architecture in general - and that is an extension of postmodernist graphical conventions. Where architects are allowed, by the use of high-tensile steel and pre-stressed concrete, to create almost any shape they want - separating the visuals from the necessities of the load-bearing structure, which now takes up very little of the building's volume - they will create amorphous, flowing shapes with individual details hinting at a particular effect. It's just what everyone does.
So if the Snail Tower is not demonstrably worse than the Göteborg-utkiken or Taipei 101, then the talk of crap architecture in Estonia devolves simply to that extremely annoying and useless self-deprivation that Estonians occasionally express: it's crap because it's Estonian, and foreigners do it so much better. Which is bullshit that I will not stand for.
Contemporary architecture is not supposed to be pretty, it's supposed to be grand. I really liked walking around La Defense on a Sunday morning, not because it is particularly scenic, but because it is impressive - a testament to human achievement, and a reflection of the spirit of Paris in our time. In the same way the Snail Tower could not be conceived anywhere except Tartu. It's a distinctive and modern addition to the skyline, fulfilling that great architectural challenge - a child could draw it with a few lines, and it would be unmistakably that building.
Which is why I like it.
First of all, we're only talking about Estonian architecture because this is an Estonian blog, and more specifically Tartu. Comparing it to La Defense or Taipei 101 is therefore not only laughable but also pointless.
Secondly, I'm not Estonian and I don't like Snail Tower, because I think it's ugly. I don't say that it's bad because Estonians built it, I say it's bad full stop. That's a personal view. I'm not bashing the country or the people.
Thirdly, nor am I having a go at Estonia if I say the standard of architecture in general is low, since you are probably aware that many of the new buildings being constructed these days are the work of foreign architects. Their designs might, however, be otherwise very pleasant on the eye.
The problem lies in the committees who choose which designs become the winning ones. I have not come across a public competition for a major structure in Estonia recently for which the winning design didn't leave me shaking my head in disbelief that they really thought that was the best possible design. So in essence I am laying the blame at the feet of the people who commission the work, not the people who do it.
Just to rehash something I have tried (and possibly failed) to say, I like glass. The Snail Tower doesn't have it. It doesn't even have steel or concrete. It has plaster. I will laugh when the facade starts to fall off.
Anyhow, it's not the shape of the building. It's the window shapes and facade material. Next to it is a cheap boxy mall that looks like a used Jiffy-Pop container.
As for why Estonia? It has nothing to do with Estonia. It has to do with Tartu (this is a Tartu blog). A true sign of intelligence, as I always say, is the ability to learn from others' experience. Simply doing something because it is wild and wacky and hasn't been done before is an extremely American thing that should have died out in the early 90s.
And surely there are better ways to push the envelope than with a highrise dominating the city's skyline?
Their designs might, however, be otherwise very pleasant on the eye.
Which ones? Seriously, which highrise built in Estonia after '91 was good-looking?
The problem lies in the committees who choose which designs become the winning ones.
You are aware that the Snail Tower is a private development, right? The city architect signed off on it, but he couldn't really stop it if he tried, since it's not in any sort of historic neighborhood and does not spoil an established skyline (it's off to the side from the historic bits of Tartu, be it the Old Town or Toomemäe).
I have not come across a public competition for a major structure in Estonia recently for which the winning design didn't leave me shaking my head in disbelief that they really thought that was the best possible design.
How many public tenders for developments have you looked at, and where have you seen a genuinely good design that was overlooked?
You like glass; fine; do you like the Viru Poeg thing? What about the proposed Freedom Cross monument - that's almost entirely glass?
And surely there are better ways to push the envelope than with a highrise dominating the city's skyline?
No, I don't think there are. What is the most distinctive thing about London's skyline? The Gherkin. What do you think of when you try to form a picture of Dubai? The Burj-al-Arab. The perfect reference to New York is the Empire State Building.
A distinctive building is by far the easiest thing to adapt as a city's graphical symbol.
I work in a closely-related field and come across plans and tenders on a daily basis for building stuff all across the country. I am very familiar with the processes by which designs are chosen. I personally don't have anything negative to say about any of the taller structures in Tallinn (or the ones you named), and I, surprisingly, really like the twin tower proposal for Atlantis. Twisted rectangular solid, glassy. That is also pretty distinctive.
For Tartu's museum/gallery to be built in Raadi: I know first-hand that the winner was chosen by unfair procedures. Yeah that's right, I'm saying someone was bribed. Otherwise that long, long ninety-degree monster wouldn't have made it past round one.
I think the snail tower deserves to be taken down by some psycho/macho Fight Club-inspired American types.
I can only see it not looking like an eyesore if several, less architecturally distinct buildings surround it.
Right now it looks like it belongs in Dune, not Tartu. Paging Sting and sand worms ...
Actually I like the Tigutorn.. :) It's somehow similar to the Gaudi style.. just in my opinion.
Post a Comment