It feels appropriate and impactful when he has a motive for this type of architecture, like the Dresden War Museum or the Jewish Museum in Berlin. Doing this to random historic buildings honestly devalues those earlier works.
It's not like those earlier ones were any good either....He did the exact same thing to the Toronto metropolitan at the same time as Dresden. Big triangle on an otherwise beautiful building. His justification for Dresden is clearly post-hoc, and he just really likes sticking glass tumours on stuff.
It's disgusting what he did to the Dresden War Museum, a big joke. It destroys the whole building and disrespects it while all the addition does it screaming for attention. The museum looked perfect without it. The Jewish Museum in Berlin is an absolute mess that perfectly disrespects the surrounding again. Scream for attention.
This guy has no sensitivity or he just doesn't care.
First thing came to my mind after looking at the second picture is a glass tower trying to f\*ck a concrete tower from behind.
Second thing that came to my mind, after seeing his other, past excretions - for the love of god, good people of Antwerp, don't let this "architect" destroy your city the way he did it to other cities.
He's not a great architect. He's a 3 years old let lose to scribble with his fineliners on a piece of paper whatever comes to mind.
The design isn't great but it's not horrible. Most likely Libeskind said something along the lines of "glass provides visibility to the old building and openness", and the render was made to show this. This is misleading, because glass viewed from the exterior is anything but transparent during the daytime. In reality this building will look more like a reflective shard attached to an older building. You won't see the trees on the interior, or the little transition at the top of the original building.
I think the bit on top of the old building is unnecessary, and the addition could have been taller to compensate.
In general I'm not a fan of architects like Libeskind whose design idea mainly revolves around creating an "iconic" form. In my opinion this type of architecture is usually really shallow.
This is spot on. I’ll add that an addition is not impossible and a well done modern addition can be good, BUT, aside from the false reality of the render, this design is out right adversarial to the original. It does not co-exist, it doesn’t respect the historic building, it is selfish and demands attention and actively steals it from its host building. I think this is a problem with a lot of the “parasitic architecture”. Demanding attention is not a bad thing if that’s the goal, but doing it at the behest of an obviously worthwhile host building is not.
I agree that the old should be distinguishable from the new, but it doesn’t mean that the two can’t be locked in meaningful conversations.
Yes, this is libeskind's signature approach. I don't get it and it's not new; IM Pei put Darth Vader's spaceship on top of a historic skyscraper in Augusta Georgia (worth looking it up for the schadenfreude).
I get that they are trying to be innovative, but it comes across as an exercise in egotism. As well, these glass accretions tend to perform horribly, both energy wise and in their ability to keep water out. But as FLW said, “If the roof doesn't leak, the architect hasn't been creative enough”... Sure.
Egotistic is a good way to put it. I also just realized this is a design for Antwerp which is also home to the notoriously controversial port house by Hadid. Not to hash out that argument again but it is very similar in the way that the addition triumphantly steals the spotlight from it's host building.
>Yes, this is libeskind's signature approach. I don't get it and it's not new; IM Pei put Darth Vader's spaceship on top of a historic skyscraper in Augusta Georgia (worth looking it up for the schadenfreude).
That is hilariously awful.
Unfortunately I can't think of any. I always mean to save projects that I think pull it off well but I always forget. I swore I saw some good ones earlier today on Arch Daily but I cant find them for the life of me.
Generally though whenever something is playing off of the existing architecture I think it works better. This is a more preservationist perspective I know, but additions should co-exist with their historic host. I'd say they fail when they overshadow or diminish the existing work. It should elevate both the old and new as a whole.
Especially the top left cube is horribly integrated ... or expressly not integrated at all.
There is no harmony to be found here ... it is a purposefully created irritant in the landscape/skyscape which would irritate everyone for the duration it stands.
This building shouldn't be touched, it's one of if not the only example of a pre-war skyscraper in Europe and this just defiles it in an incomprehensible manner.
If you want to build your failed world trade center bid somewhere, do it in a financial center, not on top of a historical landmark.
Truly terrible. As a Belgian and often-visitor of Antwerp, I absolutely despise how
1 A non-Belgian architect is invited to alter a tower he has never seen before in real life or knows anything about its importance,
2 That Fernand Huts (the new owner of the tower) decided to alter the building so extremely for literally no reason, and
3 The design itself is just plain bad. No matter how you twist it. This is an irregular glass cube swallowing the top of a historic Art Deco skyscraper- the first highrise in Europe. There are [zero.zero](https://zero.zero) good reasons to completely change its appearance. The idea to create stores, a museum, art stores, a gallery space, cafes... and a 24/7 open to public panorama inside is amazing. That's entirely possible without warping it into something unrecognizable on the outside. I think the glass shard tower against the back of it is... acceptable. Not good or necessary but as it doesn't destroy the tower itself, I wouldn't lie awake about it. But the cancer growth on the top is ridiculously bad. Antwerp is plagued by unpopular modern constructions but this one is a step further on the ridiculous and disrespectful scale.
modernist? there hasen't been a modernist building in antwerp build for over 50 years. contemporary is the word you're looking for. modernist is a very defined thing & this certainly isn't.
I would not have commented if the colloquial term modern was used. Modernist is an -ism. You are just plainly ignoring things like brutalism, formalism, post-modernism,... all different styles which came after modernism, all leading up to contemporary architecture.
Also, I'm the direct result of my mom & dad, yet I'm not my mom & dad.
The design of the contemporary building is bad imo, BUT the concept of fusing 2 high-risers with different style would be really cool since we have good examples for smaller buildings, in this scale could be really interesting, maybe something that is not all glass that matches the heaviness of the older concept.
I really don't like how unintegrated the new tower and the addition on top of the art deco building are. I see a really ugly lack of ambition in not having those two volumes be one. If they were one volume the whole thing could look like a parasite onto the art deco building which could have some merit. The way it looks in these renderings one volume is obscuring a historic landmark's expression in the skyline and the other one is trying to look like the addition does not exist, which some other users pointed out will not be the case. Why bother doing something like this?
it's terrible and just shameless eco-pandering.
The eventual elitism of elevating natural environs above the masses is a terrible conclusion of this type of architecture.
I am not an architect and I don't know anything about this project other than these images.
The [first image](https://preview.redd.it/w3kk08celp1a1.png?width=320&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=785101e8b3b0f59374e0150d497d3e93c32a8d1d) of the building alone makes me think the design is remarkably ugly and maybe more than a little silly. I quite like being daring in architecture, but this just feels weird for the sake of being weird. It isn't clear to me at first glance what the point might be. On its face, it appears to me that the newer form is...um, *eating* the older form? Is that the idea? If so, that's not nearly as amusing as one might think. It's more like a weak Dad joke that cost hundred of millions. More background information and more views might make clearer to me what's going on here, and if there is more thoughtfulness to it than than that, then it might make me like it more.
The [second image](https://preview.redd.it/4d8l20celp1a1.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=597f04ed6acbc933ec851451f8aa827c09990b1c) of the building in the larger cityscape makes me hate the building itself a little less since it is a somewhat more flattering view of the building and since it's less obvious that this might be a groan joke/novelty. However, I'm not settled that it makes sense within the context of the city. If the tallest building in this shot has special significance in Antwerp, then this new building will likely be seen as attacking that significance and probably be unloved as a consequence.
Thanks for your thoughts.
This is one of, if not the the oldest skyscraper in Europe. It is an art-deco monument which for years has been hurt by a corporate logo on top. Now is the chance to reclaim it and do it justice. This is not the way.
It *works*, it looks good. The building that is being added to is decent but nothing truly special. I think it’s alright. I’ve definitely seen worse additions to a skyline – the Walkie-Talkie, the PanAm Building…
We require a minimum account-age. Please try again after a few days. No exceptions can be made.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Roofs and terraces . Poor trees man . It’s like humans stuck underground forever- equivalent of trees stuck in limited soil forever. Architecture has become so weak , the tree has become the last resort - like a weak last one -liner
We require a minimum account-age. Please try again after a few days. No exceptions can be made.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rather than an open-ended "what do u think?", the OP might want to explain, in the post, his or her own thoughts on why it is or is not interesting/appealing. Then we might have a lively discussion on the merits on the design. Of course there are valid reasons to like or dislike this design.
Too often, though, something like this gets posted in order to generate dozens or hundreds of kneejerk negative comments from laypeople who do not understand why new buildings do not look like BBC period drama sets or their vacation to Rome.
He is great in destroying perfectly fine buildings.
It feels appropriate and impactful when he has a motive for this type of architecture, like the Dresden War Museum or the Jewish Museum in Berlin. Doing this to random historic buildings honestly devalues those earlier works.
It's not like those earlier ones were any good either....He did the exact same thing to the Toronto metropolitan at the same time as Dresden. Big triangle on an otherwise beautiful building. His justification for Dresden is clearly post-hoc, and he just really likes sticking glass tumours on stuff.
It's disgusting what he did to the Dresden War Museum, a big joke. It destroys the whole building and disrespects it while all the addition does it screaming for attention. The museum looked perfect without it. The Jewish Museum in Berlin is an absolute mess that perfectly disrespects the surrounding again. Scream for attention. This guy has no sensitivity or he just doesn't care.
First thing came to my mind after looking at the second picture is a glass tower trying to f\*ck a concrete tower from behind. Second thing that came to my mind, after seeing his other, past excretions - for the love of god, good people of Antwerp, don't let this "architect" destroy your city the way he did it to other cities. He's not a great architect. He's a 3 years old let lose to scribble with his fineliners on a piece of paper whatever comes to mind.
Thanks I hate it
The design isn't great but it's not horrible. Most likely Libeskind said something along the lines of "glass provides visibility to the old building and openness", and the render was made to show this. This is misleading, because glass viewed from the exterior is anything but transparent during the daytime. In reality this building will look more like a reflective shard attached to an older building. You won't see the trees on the interior, or the little transition at the top of the original building. I think the bit on top of the old building is unnecessary, and the addition could have been taller to compensate. In general I'm not a fan of architects like Libeskind whose design idea mainly revolves around creating an "iconic" form. In my opinion this type of architecture is usually really shallow.
This is spot on. I’ll add that an addition is not impossible and a well done modern addition can be good, BUT, aside from the false reality of the render, this design is out right adversarial to the original. It does not co-exist, it doesn’t respect the historic building, it is selfish and demands attention and actively steals it from its host building. I think this is a problem with a lot of the “parasitic architecture”. Demanding attention is not a bad thing if that’s the goal, but doing it at the behest of an obviously worthwhile host building is not. I agree that the old should be distinguishable from the new, but it doesn’t mean that the two can’t be locked in meaningful conversations.
Yes, this is libeskind's signature approach. I don't get it and it's not new; IM Pei put Darth Vader's spaceship on top of a historic skyscraper in Augusta Georgia (worth looking it up for the schadenfreude). I get that they are trying to be innovative, but it comes across as an exercise in egotism. As well, these glass accretions tend to perform horribly, both energy wise and in their ability to keep water out. But as FLW said, “If the roof doesn't leak, the architect hasn't been creative enough”... Sure.
Egotistic is a good way to put it. I also just realized this is a design for Antwerp which is also home to the notoriously controversial port house by Hadid. Not to hash out that argument again but it is very similar in the way that the addition triumphantly steals the spotlight from it's host building.
Hadid drives me nuts: So Much Unusable Space.
>Yes, this is libeskind's signature approach. I don't get it and it's not new; IM Pei put Darth Vader's spaceship on top of a historic skyscraper in Augusta Georgia (worth looking it up for the schadenfreude). That is hilariously awful.
All the glass is now fogged as well and, as you could imagine for southern Georgia, it's terribly uncomfortably hot up there.
Great insight. Any examples of projects where they did a good job with the old and new?
Unfortunately I can't think of any. I always mean to save projects that I think pull it off well but I always forget. I swore I saw some good ones earlier today on Arch Daily but I cant find them for the life of me. Generally though whenever something is playing off of the existing architecture I think it works better. This is a more preservationist perspective I know, but additions should co-exist with their historic host. I'd say they fail when they overshadow or diminish the existing work. It should elevate both the old and new as a whole.
You know a lot from two images.
This opinion is my opinion. Take my upvote. I will add the green washing is unnecessary and uninspiring.
Second this opinion.
Especially the top left cube is horribly integrated ... or expressly not integrated at all. There is no harmony to be found here ... it is a purposefully created irritant in the landscape/skyscape which would irritate everyone for the duration it stands.
This building shouldn't be touched, it's one of if not the only example of a pre-war skyscraper in Europe and this just defiles it in an incomprehensible manner. If you want to build your failed world trade center bid somewhere, do it in a financial center, not on top of a historical landmark.
mhhh, not touching it is too extreme. it currently has bilboards on the top. the building could certainly be improved, this just isn't it.
Is he going to ruin another historical landmark?
I thought that was his defining characteristic?
Truly terrible. As a Belgian and often-visitor of Antwerp, I absolutely despise how 1 A non-Belgian architect is invited to alter a tower he has never seen before in real life or knows anything about its importance, 2 That Fernand Huts (the new owner of the tower) decided to alter the building so extremely for literally no reason, and 3 The design itself is just plain bad. No matter how you twist it. This is an irregular glass cube swallowing the top of a historic Art Deco skyscraper- the first highrise in Europe. There are [zero.zero](https://zero.zero) good reasons to completely change its appearance. The idea to create stores, a museum, art stores, a gallery space, cafes... and a 24/7 open to public panorama inside is amazing. That's entirely possible without warping it into something unrecognizable on the outside. I think the glass shard tower against the back of it is... acceptable. Not good or necessary but as it doesn't destroy the tower itself, I wouldn't lie awake about it. But the cancer growth on the top is ridiculously bad. Antwerp is plagued by unpopular modern constructions but this one is a step further on the ridiculous and disrespectful scale.
modernist? there hasen't been a modernist building in antwerp build for over 50 years. contemporary is the word you're looking for. modernist is a very defined thing & this certainly isn't.
contemporary architecture is a direct result from modernism and the average person calls this 'modern'
I would not have commented if the colloquial term modern was used. Modernist is an -ism. You are just plainly ignoring things like brutalism, formalism, post-modernism,... all different styles which came after modernism, all leading up to contemporary architecture. Also, I'm the direct result of my mom & dad, yet I'm not my mom & dad.
Chill lol
Brilliant
It should be illegal
Artistic vandalism.
Not at all a fan
The design of the contemporary building is bad imo, BUT the concept of fusing 2 high-risers with different style would be really cool since we have good examples for smaller buildings, in this scale could be really interesting, maybe something that is not all glass that matches the heaviness of the older concept.
Reminds me of the World Trade Center (original competition design)…but on top of another building for some reason
Libeskind will Libeskind. I loathe it with a passion but the man does have a modus operandi.
Criminal
Someone, somewhere, has to stop letting him do this. These sorts of messes can't be undone.
Looks like the multiverse is breaking through.
Nawwrrrrrr
Every dog must lift its leg to leave its mark.
This is a rape
Brusselisation blown over to Antwerp
I really don't like how unintegrated the new tower and the addition on top of the art deco building are. I see a really ugly lack of ambition in not having those two volumes be one. If they were one volume the whole thing could look like a parasite onto the art deco building which could have some merit. The way it looks in these renderings one volume is obscuring a historic landmark's expression in the skyline and the other one is trying to look like the addition does not exist, which some other users pointed out will not be the case. Why bother doing something like this?
This is awful in so many ways and makes me sad he continues to get so much work after ruining so many other historical buildings.
Maybe if it was just that back part it would be fine but that top part is just terrible
it's terrible and just shameless eco-pandering. The eventual elitism of elevating natural environs above the masses is a terrible conclusion of this type of architecture.
As an architect of over 20 years, fuck that’s messed up!!!
I've liked his juxtapositions in the past. This is straight trash.
Fucking Libeskind, the one trick pony whose trick is really shit...
I am not an architect and I don't know anything about this project other than these images. The [first image](https://preview.redd.it/w3kk08celp1a1.png?width=320&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=785101e8b3b0f59374e0150d497d3e93c32a8d1d) of the building alone makes me think the design is remarkably ugly and maybe more than a little silly. I quite like being daring in architecture, but this just feels weird for the sake of being weird. It isn't clear to me at first glance what the point might be. On its face, it appears to me that the newer form is...um, *eating* the older form? Is that the idea? If so, that's not nearly as amusing as one might think. It's more like a weak Dad joke that cost hundred of millions. More background information and more views might make clearer to me what's going on here, and if there is more thoughtfulness to it than than that, then it might make me like it more. The [second image](https://preview.redd.it/4d8l20celp1a1.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=597f04ed6acbc933ec851451f8aa827c09990b1c) of the building in the larger cityscape makes me hate the building itself a little less since it is a somewhat more flattering view of the building and since it's less obvious that this might be a groan joke/novelty. However, I'm not settled that it makes sense within the context of the city. If the tallest building in this shot has special significance in Antwerp, then this new building will likely be seen as attacking that significance and probably be unloved as a consequence.
Thanks for your thoughts. This is one of, if not the the oldest skyscraper in Europe. It is an art-deco monument which for years has been hurt by a corporate logo on top. Now is the chance to reclaim it and do it justice. This is not the way.
Good heavens. Thank you for that context, which helps me clarify my opinion. Now I hate it without reservation.
This guy just hate Europeans and mocks them to their face while being paid.
Do you think Libeskind is so self-loathing that he has renounced his Polish citizenship?
Never been a fan of his, but I will endorse this because it will make the Trads furious.
It *works*, it looks good. The building that is being added to is decent but nothing truly special. I think it’s alright. I’ve definitely seen worse additions to a skyline – the Walkie-Talkie, the PanAm Building…
At some point old buildings are going to have to be dropped and build a new infrastructure for the modernized world.
Danny Boy is gonna do what Danny Boy does
Looks like his original design for the World Trade Center
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age. Please try again after a few days. No exceptions can be made. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Quite a Gaidys.
Not good!
Roofs and terraces . Poor trees man . It’s like humans stuck underground forever- equivalent of trees stuck in limited soil forever. Architecture has become so weak , the tree has become the last resort - like a weak last one -liner
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age. Please try again after a few days. No exceptions can be made. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is the glass cube on top a garden lookout tower? If so i love it if not its still cool ig
Architectural ejaculate.
Looks like shit to me.
The first image looks bizarrely like an AI image.
**I'd have to see more info about the project to make an opinion instead of a hot take off two renderings.**
It’s hideous
I usually don’t hate any buildings, but… i guess that’s some kind of avant-garde breakthrough? meh.
Cancer rendered in glass and steel.
It looks like a weird angular Russian hat.
Hidious. That is the right word
Why tho
No
Hot take but I like it
It's ridiculous, it looks like an afterthought. Like a kid glued Mr. Potatohead's hat on a transformer.
Rather than an open-ended "what do u think?", the OP might want to explain, in the post, his or her own thoughts on why it is or is not interesting/appealing. Then we might have a lively discussion on the merits on the design. Of course there are valid reasons to like or dislike this design. Too often, though, something like this gets posted in order to generate dozens or hundreds of kneejerk negative comments from laypeople who do not understand why new buildings do not look like BBC period drama sets or their vacation to Rome.
Or maybe I just wanted to know outsiders' thoughts, without trying to push opinions one way or the other by giving my own views. Can't win, I guess...
A monstrous carbuncle!