What are your thoughts on building huge towers in historical city. Québec city is 400 years old and home to the
cap diamant's citadelle, the old city and its fortifications. Those are unique in north america and they want to build this shiny phallic tower on the left. I think it's terrible.
What are your thoughts on building huge towers in historical city. Québec city is 400 years old and home to the
Dominic Sanchez
Justin Baker
Been their and its really nothing special. Especially when its close to Montreal. Probably the most attractive city in North America (not that thats saying much)
Grayson Walker
>he thinks 400 years is old
A-user...
>What are your thoughts on building huge towers in historical city.
Absolutely disgusting, should be outlawed
Benjamin Hall
Why not. If our ancestors would've also said "we can't build that, it looks too modern compared to the stuff that's already there", we would still only have mud huts.
And I think the contrast between old and modern architecture can be quite beautiful.
Jack Perez
They're not impressive visually but amazing from an historical perspective.
Connor Rivera
>400 years old
>historic
Henry Gomez
400 years old is pretty much begining of colonisation. Events that shaped Canada and the US happened here.
Anthony Kelly
>historical city. Québec city is 400 years old
Criss t'es cave pareil, toi.
Ryder Miller
>>he thinks 400 years is old
>A-user...
how 'old' is an old building then
Wyatt Anderson
Fondée en 1608.
Alexander Peterson
Si tu reconnais pas la valeur historique de la ville de Québec, aussi bien dire que l'Amérique n'a aucune histoire.
John Taylor
The buildings aren't actually 400 years old for starters. There's a few which are 300 years old (though many of them restored over the years because of fires for example), but that's just the tiny historical core of Quebec City, the rest of the city is generic sprawling 1950's suburbian abominations like everywhere else.
And if you're really just taking the single oldest buildings (as the OP is doing), then countless European cities completely outdo Quebec City in this regard. It's not even close. I mean, for fuck's sake, you can MANY pubs in the UK which are older than the Notre-Dame-des-Victoires church in Quebec City, and that's just fucking pubs, for things like churches and cathedrals in the UK it's even more of a difference.
Ethan Allen
>the rest of the city is generic sprawling 1950's suburbian abominations like everywhere else.
Austin Garcia
>aussi bien dire que l'Amérique n'a aucune histoire
justement
Et alors ? On est sur une planche remplie d'Européens, ça t'est jamais arrivé de réfléchir un peu avant de poster quelque chose d'aussi crissement stupide ?
William Johnson
>LOL ONLY 400 YEARS IN MY CITY THERE IS AN OLD POT FROM ROMAN TIMES!!!
Sebastian Gonzalez
>when your local pub was established in 1386
Nolan Cruz
90% of European cities are build after the year 1800. If you see pictures of landmarks that are older, you won’t recognize shit as everything was different
Kayden Gomez
it must be so good having parts of your cities already been built by ancient brown people
Austin Rogers
And rebuild twice and then renovated in 2002 when it changed owners for the 100th time
Ian Smith
just make sure you put them all in one place, preferably outside of the historical center.
dumb logic, there were obviously put more work into old buildings like pic related with many details and unique styles whereas the average skyscraper is just a rectangle covered with glass
Hudson Hill
>Nothing is old because sometimes people put in new floorboards or a new like of paint
>It don't count because the landlord isn't a 700 year old peasant
Luis Campbell
>And rebuild twice and then renovated in 2002 when it changed owners for the 100th time
And you think this doesn't apply to the "old" buildings in Quebec City as well?
90% of the cities everywhere were built after 1800. But if you're comparing the historic value of cities, then Quebec City is pretty irrelevant compared to many European cities (and cities elsewhere as well, even in Mexico for that matter).
Blake Hall
>I think the contrast between old and modern architecture can be quite beautiful.
No.
Look at this image. It perfectly represents what modern architecture is. A literal cancerous growth.
I don't know. Our town hall is over 370 years old, and I live in a shitty small town. It doesn't feel old.
Grayson Hall
"can be" it has to be done with care like anything. Any moron can slap some geometric shapes a an old building and call it "bold & brave". That doesn't mean it can be done in tasteful ways that really work
Mason Mitchell
can't*
Gavin Turner
You can at least appreciate the effort to make something aesthetic, even if their sense of aesthetism is obviously complete garbage. I still think it's better than 1950's brutalism where people collectively decided that beauty shouldn't exist anywhere in the public sphere.
Brandon Rivera
show us some examples then
Samuel Bennett
*dabs*
Asher Sullivan
>Québec city
>Irrelevant
The heart of early french colonisation
The conquest wars
Ryder Sullivan
at least you don't live in the bush in northern ontario.
Luke Sanchez
Nathaniel Wood
The reichstag comes to mind
Carter Sullivan
Compared to the most historic cities elsewhere in the world, yes, that is fairly irrelevant.
Of course, on a local scale Quebec City isn't irrelevant. And note that I'm not trying to ridicule Quebec City or anything, having a historic core with 300-year-old buildings is certainly better than pretty much every single city in Canada and the US. My own city (Montreal) is also much, much better than the North American average. However, all of this is simply nothing compared to what can be found elsewhere in the world.
Jacob Perry
William Martin
>it works when contemporary architecture is as minimal as possible
oooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh MAN
Jeremiah Bennett
Gabriel Gray
he's lying
Quebec City has an urban core larger than most Australian cities, I've measured it in google maps
Colton Turner
tragic
Joseph Rivera
>larger than most Australian cities
Do you realize how meaningless a statement that is?
Pic related is a rather generous definition of Quebec City's "core". Now compare it to the entire urbanized area. Better yet, go look for yourself at street level what it actually looks like.
Lincoln Miller
The point is to be complimentary to what is already their, you make changes based on what you add, you don't try and detract by taking stuff away or going so overboard its just a modern building dumped over an old one. Its about subtlety. I wouldn't expect someone from a place where houses look like this or McMansions to understand
Anthony James
eat shit quebekike you deserve to have your shitty destroyed
Tyler Gray
>cutting out limoilou
>cutting out most of st roch
why? those are urban areas. also why make the comparison between Quebec City and Europe? no one argues that Quebec has more historicity than Europe. It's a North American city and should be judged on those standards obviously
I hate suburbs, that's why I like Quebec because Quebec City and Montreal have an immense urban core for North American standards. Same with American cities like Boston or New York. They were large, important and established cities by 1940 which is important to me
Christian Turner
>Warning, incoming game
>Warning, incoming game
>Warning, incoming game
Robert Bailey
>no one argues that Quebec has more historicity than Europe. It's a North American city and should be judged on those standards obviously
>I hate suburbs, that's why I like Quebec because Quebec City and Montreal have an immense urban core for North American standards. Same with American cities like Boston or New York. They were large, important and established cities by 1940 which is important to me
Then we're in agreement.
Though, even for cities with "an immense urban core" like Quebec City, Montreal and New York (for Boston I can't say seeing as I've never been), they still have way too much suburban sprawl for my taste. There's also the problem that those cities are mostly engineered around cars, which makes for relatively poor quality of city planning. So basically, compared to the rest of North America they're much better, but there's still a lot to improve in my view.
Carter Morgan
jej
Carter Williams
Bentley Myers
>There's also the problem that those cities are mostly engineered around cars,
try visiting LA and then you will appreciate what auto centric development on a massive scale is actually like. In Montreal, I only have to deal with the cancerous car culture on the odd occasion I need to go to the suburbs
On the west coast, its inescapable.
Aiden Sanchez
Nathan Turner
Tramway in 10 years supposedly
Joseph Gray
>destroy rotterdam, warsaw, coventry with glee
>wtf muh dresden think about the wommin and children!!! ebil allies
Lincoln Wright
tbf most european cities that this happened to were bombed to rubble in ww2
Brody Wilson
and why couldn't they rebuild it or improve it? rotterdam looks like something a bunch of 10 year olds in minecraft would build
Jaxon James
Respectfully I disagree. Geometry and its shapes are a human invention. Our sense of aesthetics however, comes from our natural surroundings, the beauty of this planet, as we too are the children of nature, and we cannot be separated from it.
Beauty is a combination of symmetry, colors, gentle curves, and small imperfections coalescing into harmony. Contemporary architecture is all about hard, straight lines, jagged edges, colors of brown and grey, perfectly measured and shaped, it is discordant and unnatural.
Leo Richardson
People were homeless and destitute, the goal was with all these new techniques and free space to simply get affordable housing for all build as soon as possible