Report a Comment

I remember when I was studying for my degree in Kingship, I used to spend a lot of time studying buildings that were meant to be temporary, especially Modernist and Baroque structures. In many of these cases, the building was just meant to be there for its useful life of far less than 50 years. Can this not be applied here? Isn't a building designed for commerce and efficiency meant to be replaced or gut-renovated when it has failed some criterion of its value?

Consider the Berlaymont building, where the European Commission meets. A handsome, but not great 1950s structure by a more notable architect was re-skinned and renovated in such a way that it kept many of the good qualities of the old building. Staying within a modern vocabulary, it was made environmentally friendly, fresh, and more integrated into the surroundings.

by The King of Spain on Jul 24, 2008 3:01 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam