Architectural programs must have a course called "Shoveling BS, 101". The building looks like an ugly CGI image from a dystopian future movie. The architect describes it in terms that might best be reserved for works in the Louvre. While many architects consider impact on the area esthetic , a good number prefer to stroke their own ego.
OldDude wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:21 pm
Architectural programs must have a course called "Shoveling BS, 101". The building looks like an ugly CGI image from a dystopian future movie. The architect describes it in terms that might best be reserved for works in the Louvre. While many architects consider impact on the area esthetic , a good number prefer to stroke their own ego.
After everything that Vandy put into the development across the street, I would think that the University would have fought against this building. It pretty much wrecks the aesthetic that the school was creating there.
Johnmn555 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:44 pm
After everything that Vandy put into the development across the street, I would think that the University would have fought against this building. It pretty much wrecks the aesthetic that the school was creating there.
Maybe some of you legal scholars can opine on whether it's actionable to be stopped?
Johnmn555 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:44 pm
After everything that Vandy put into the development across the street, I would think that the University would have fought against this building. It pretty much wrecks the aesthetic that the school was creating there.
Maybe some of you legal scholars can opine on whether it's actionable to be stopped?
And just because it wasn't stopped doesn't mean the university didn't fight it. You can fight and not win on these things sometimes. I also very much doubt that you can fight about architectural design, it smore about appropriateness of use.
Johnmn555 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:44 pm
After everything that Vandy put into the development across the street, I would think that the University would have fought against this building. It pretty much wrecks the aesthetic that the school was creating there.
Maybe some of you legal scholars can opine on whether it's actionable to be stopped?
And just because it wasn't stopped doesn't mean the university didn't fight it. You can fight and not win on these things sometimes. I also very much doubt that you can fight about architectural design, it smore about appropriateness of use.
It's like a giant middle finger pointed at the school. There are plenty other spots in mid-town left to put up more big generic glass boxes. They should put one up in the middle of the 12 South District.... but you know that will never be approved. Or tear down the world's worst ghetto McDonalds on 8th and put it there.