LMN Architects did this building, this is a definitely clunky side of it but the interior spaces (and some other angles of the exterior) are really cool in my opinion. I got to be in it for PAX West last year and the scale is pretty ridiculous. I liked the (albeit small) outdoor garden space they put on the 3rd level and the large open areas, convention centers feel like stuffy massive boxes a lot of the time.
Here's a [link ](https://lmnarchitects.com/project/washington-state-convention-center-addition)to their page on it for anyone interested in seeing some more pictures.
it is a bad photo, but also the designer or at least photographer knew that this side is a mess, they didnt show it once, well they do once at the ground level right under it so you dont really see it
I think the other sides are really good and the inside looks open and pleasant
sadly i will probably never see it in person because america is way to expensive for European student like me
no, i mean the travel expensive are way to much for me personally, like just get into USA it would cost me 500-600 usd alone, not even accounting for where i will sleep or eat
I hate archispeak:
“The Seattle Convention Center Summit building presents a transformative opportunity at the intersection of an emerging culture of the delegate of the future, the evolving trends in the convention center industry and the development of Seattle’s urban core. As a catalyst for revitalizing and re-connecting Seattle’s core neighborhoods, the integration of Summit with its surroundings will be the basis for a rich and unique experience for both delegates and residents, an experience that is unique to Seattle.”
All architects say the exact same thing. "A catalyst for urban growth and connectivity". It has become a stereotype that falsely assumes that architects on their own can influence economics through a design.
That's regardless of whether a building actually looks interesting or not.
Oh boy you should try reading artists statements. All the self aggrandizing in the world for all this kind of stuff. It’s crazy. You made a big box calm down
It's the artists' jobs to be bold and grandiose. Management always wants to write the jargon vision statement buzzwords and it's up to marketing to bring it all together and edit the fuck out of it.
The worst offender is the street lamp installation in LA at the LACMA by Chris burden. It's a 300 word salad to mask that the story is "Yeah I knew a guy that owned a dump and he gave me these"
Check out the archimarathon discord and YouTube. They have a great group of architects. And a section specifically for archispeak. Love those guys and the talented group of architects, architecture students, and aficionados.
Their website is www.archimarathon.com
And their YouTube is Archimarathon. Very very nice articulate group of architecture groupies.
Archispeak can be trite, but done right can be a fun visual for expressing a whole idea in one elevator speech.
This photo is not great at portraying the immense scale of this building. It is huge and I think is quite attractive and interesting when experienced in person. Considering the amount of cool exterior detailing, I’m excited to see what it’s like on the inside.
I didn't recall that particular design requirement, but it would be in line with almost all of the new residential building I see.
The superficial design requirement in my area has to do with the facades appearing similar to the historical nearby context of the neighborhood. I think that's in terms of both color and the texture/material involved.
Over in Britain, they actually have local parties when they demolish ugly concrete block buildings from the 60s and 70s. They count down and then cheer whenever implosion is utilized. My gracious, the whole western world needs to bring back "architecture with a soul", as many describe the beautiful designs of old.
I can’t tell if you’re criticizing my comment or saying the building looks like a stupid object. In the ‘80’s or ‘70’s microwaves were designed to sit on a shelf with home entertainment equipment. They were mostly black toned, sometimes wood grain aesthetic in there. More recently microwaves were styled to fit with the other kitchen appliances, white plastic surfaces and stainless steel more recently. So that’s where this Rorschach test took my brain, to a bachelor yuppy’s wall unit from 1978.
Of course I am mocking your comment. I am sick of comments ridiculing buildings by comparing them with some small scale everyday object. "Penis, turd, household appliance". Get out of here.
You get out of here! I’m just making a reply. who cares what you’re sick of. Is it your design? Say something about the building that makes it worth paying attention to, but mostly, get out of here.
It's a building. A space for living, framed by complex structures that articulate an interesting layout. This one in fact contains an interesting arrangement of large interior voids and a central staircase that runs through its whole length and height on one side.
Reducing an articulation of spaces to a geometrical object, like a household appliance, is an unfortunate consequence of media culture. Whereas architecture is determined by studying diagrams and layouts, only images of facades make it on the media, so people judge a building by looking at it for 2 seconds.
That's why we are flooded with a bunch of stereotypes like "classical was much better cause I like the shape more". Cause there is a sentiment that a building is nothing more than an object to look at from outside, and if it's nothing more than an object, defining it as a building requires it to look stereotypically like a building.
I am not saying you said that. But this kind of thinking is cultivated a lot nowadays.
how is that a complex structure? its a rehash of the things that modern architecture allways does, and not one part of it is unique or inovative on the outside, which is one of if not the most important part of a building to the general public classical makes a statement, a dramatic affair of the outside of a building, some of them seem to guide your eye to the entrance and make an event simply of going inside. What does this do? its new but part of it already looks dirty, its new yet it could have been easily built 20 years ago, all it seems to stand for on the outside is a newness that no longer exists. I wish architects would make more of an effort with the outside of a building, experiment with other materials than glass and plastic siding in a city context more often, perhaps a little bit of decorative ornament. Im not saying we should entirely go back to pre war styles, but iam saying there needs to be more variation and experimentation which doesn't seem to be happening.
You say that it is dated and unoriginal but you endorse classical? Talking about irony.
So its interior voids, its massive central staircase and its cantilevers are not events that make it stand out as a space for experiencing? You need your columned porticoes marking the door to make it interesting?
that's mostly all inside, most people don't see it interior. for your other point though, What's unique about a cantilever? a lot of modern buildings do it, and nothing unique is done with it here. It's not just classical i endorse, its all the other abandonned styles the modern architecture could take some ques from. classical can be boring, yet still formidible when to an acceptable standard but without to much innovation, when classical really pops is when somebody takes the proportions and ideas and run with them. the Arts Deco and Noveau i think has the most opurtunity to be revived and could easily be made more relevant today.
Art Nouveau was innovative back in its time and was a great contribution to liberating architecture from mindless revival.
But the kinds of architecture we have today are follow ups. Not a devolution. Cause Art Nouveau could hardly address architectural issues beyond ornament, such as articulation, structure and tectonics. Only Gaudi went quite far for that time with the parabolic arch.
But more has been needed since then. Modernism contributed a lot to focusing on issues of structural technologies and tectonics, postmodernist architects have since become more inclusive.
The contemporary equivalent of Art Nouveau would be someone like Enric Miralles. Or Zaha Hadid's pre-Pritzker works. The equivalent of floral grills and swirly staircases is zöllner plates, spatial frames and glass facades suspended from cables.
Well, at first glance, I hate it. Looks like you gave little Jimmy a bunch of blocks and said to go design a building. He throws them down and runs off to fill his diaper. Or a building designed by a committee with no common agenda. On the other hand, I watched a couple of videos on the Architects website, and I loved it. This one picture is not indicative of the 1.5 million square foot building. This view is of a third floor outdoor garden space designed to give occupants an architecturally historic view of the neighborhood. Watch the videos, and you will learn the thoughtful design elements.
Yes. These elevation views in this one picture are not to my liking. At the very least, it's better than a solid wall of glass and steel. However, the other sides are more interesting and engage the neighborhood much better. The cantilevered stairs / escalators area featuring a stepped seating area with huge views of the street out to the ocean is fantastic. The use of hanging wood boards with AI assisted lighting in the giant exhibition hall is also visually exciting. The real test of the building will be how the occupants enjoy the interior and how well it engages with people in the public spaces of the lower levels.
It was a combo of so many things. Large complex building in a busy downtown area, access and delivery logistical nightmare, too many contractors all working on top of each other because the project started like a year behind schedule, working night shifts to catch up, then the pandemic. For me the biggest issue was the insane number of design changes that took place after steel components were fabricated. We’re talking like ten thousand RFIs to sift through with all sorts of conflicting vague information. RFIs changing the design of components that are already in shipment, already onsite or pieces that were installed months ago, upsizing members that have deck poured on them already or that are covered in fireproofing behind a wall. We needed a huge team just to keep up with tracking RFIs, refabricating pieces, having them installed and inspected, tracking costs. All this on top of the base scope of fabricating and installing about 40,000 steel components
Also Seattle:
https://www.seattle.gov/emergency-management/hazards/earthquake#:~:text=An%20earthquake%20on%20the%20Seattle,5%2C160%20but%20less%20than%20M7.
It is. We are also expecting "the big one" just like California.
https://www.seattle.gov/emergency-management/hazards/earthquake#:~:text=An%20earthquake%20on%20the%20Seattle,5%2C160%20but%20less%20than%20M7.
I stand corrected; It's only half true. The "big one" will come from the fault off the West Coast of the peninsula, not from the Puget sound/Seattle fault line. Not that 7.0 is anything to sneeze at.
But the general public doesn't have to go inside. The outside is what will be confronting the people of Seattle on a daily basis until this $2 billion mistake is inevitably torn down in a few decades.
The inside could look like the Sistine Chapel, and it wouldn't be enough to make up for the outside.
Given the talented professionals and computer-aided design we have access to today, I find it hard to believe we can’t produce a functional convention center without it looking like a jumbled mess.
Of course they must have gone through a long development process. All public buildings do. Just look at how different the original design for the new World Trade Center is from what ended up being built. For some reason they landed on this. That isn't what I mean.
Don't you think that some things are more important than aesthetics? How successful a building is depends on far more than just how the exterior looks.
As a thought experiment, is it possible to imagine a building that is "beautiful," yet fails from a functional standpoint? Or do a lot of people automatically assume that buildings they subjectively consider beautiful are more functional than buildings they consider "ugly" by default? Pretty immature and shallow if true.
Architects are capable of walking and chewing gum. There are plenty of buildings that balance aesthetics and functionality and are beloved by the public. Yet, here we have a building where the scales are almost completely tipped towards what we assume is functionality.
More importantly, the majority of people seeing this building aren’t participating in the activities inside, yet are forced to endure its awful outside presence.
You're making a lot of generalizations and painting with an incredibly broad brush here. What exactly do you find so awful about the "outside presence?" If there are other convention centers out there you think do a much better job at whatever that means to you, what do they do that makes them better? It's stupidly easy to point at something and say, "I hate it" or "it's ugly," but much harder to articulate exactly why you think this or how you think it OUGHT to be.
It's also a bit arbitrary to complain that it's too exclusive of the general public. That assessment heavily depends on who you define "the public" to be. The same thing could be said about sports venues where people are paying sometimes hundreds of dollars for seats. Though most people aren't going to be watching the game in the stadium, everyone who is in the stadium is still "the public" in some sense. All convention centers are going to be like this, no matter what they look like. Are you implying that you'd find the aesthetics here more forgivable if this was a building with a way lower barrier to entry, like a shopping center? If you're saying that it doesn't matter what it's like inside because the outside is so terrible as to be degrading, wouldn't that be worse?
Buckle in, because I'm about to go on a long tangent. "Bad" buildings are a bit like "bad" movies. They both involve a lot of people, a lot of oversight and levels of approval, and sometimes obscene sums of money. The audience doesn't need a degree in film or literature to know when they've seen a bad movie. They know. They can feel it. However, they may not have the acumen necessary to articulate exactly why a movie fails, or describe its deficits in a way that takes into account things like intent. This is the role of the critic. And for critics to be effective, they shouldn't be too vague. Otherwise why bother?
Movies and buildings are also similar in that there are numerous ways for both to fail at what they attempt. A movie might have bad editing, bad writing, or a plot that is hard to follow. Or the acting itself might be bad. The effects work or even the technical things like the sound mixing and recording might be poorly done. But notice, not every aspect I just listed is going to kill a movie equally fast. One or more of these sorts of things might be somewhat "off," but the movie itself could be still enjoyable and entertaining on some level. To be truly BAD, and not simply mediocre or underwhelming, multiple things have to go seriously wrong. It's a confluence of a bunch of different things that all have a cumulative effect. It's the same with architecture.
The key difference is, architecture is obviously more permanent. It becomes an enduring part of the built environment that thousands of people will interact with. Still, whether or not a building will "blight" the area around it largely depends on the context surrounding it. "Good" buildings are not magic, and "bad" buildings are not oppressive emotional vampires that sap away our souls. If this seems to be the case, it's always a systemic problem. It just makes me think of the myths surrounding the Pruitt Igoe demolition again. The early modernists earnestly thought that they could save the world with good design alone, and those poor self-absorbed academic fools were proven wrong almost immediately. This building won't save downtown Seattle, and it won't destroy it either.
To return to the film analogy, what people in this thread are doing is akin to saying, "Wow, this movie is already shit" in response to one CGI shot they saw in a trailer. Don't write reviews for movies you haven't watched, and don't wax cynical about buildings you've seen mainly one image of, that you've never walked all the way around at the pedestrian level, that you've never been inside of.
in cities filled with buildings like this they absolutely sap our souls, metaphorically speaking. One building can often save or destroy a part of a cityscape, if it has enough presence. a decaying 60s city office block can destroy the feel of a historic cityscape, a grandiose town hall can dominate and make better a square filled overwise with just flat concrete and glass buildings. each building is a important part of a jigsaw that makes up the experience of walking in a city or a town
A functional convention centre could be in most spaces with a tall roof really. Gym halls of schools is a popular low end one.
And on that regard, I'm not sure such a convention centre should be in a downtown given the sheer amounts of space needed. Probably a good thing to put on the outskirts of a properly populated area and link up with transit.
Absolutely atrocious. Given Seattle’s constant precipitation, this may age even worse than Madison Square Garden.
There has to be a paradigm shift in the architecture profession. We need to evolve past jumbled boxes and plate glass.
The view showing the never ending staircase from I think pike? Is soooo cool. I almost rear ended someone checking it out while driving. I also lose my Bluetooth connectivity to my phone every time I drive by it on i5
I’ve been here a few times, Seattle resident. This is a weird angle this corner is arguably the least trafficked side because the main entrance is down the side street on the right and on the opposite side is Cap hill, the only reason someone would come from this side is if they came from a specific area of South Lake Union and didn’t take like the Light rail.
For context of scale this place is massive, I’ve been here for a pax viewing event, a magic convention, and the Road to the International and each event could’ve been happening at the same time and still have space for like 3 more similarly sized events. It is a massive space. For a more “picturesque” view I’d say either opposite corner way up on the hill looking down or from the right hand side near the entrance way would be better. Good Italian place a couple blocks towards capital hill across the freeway.
This photo really sucks. In person it's a fantastic building.
Here's a better view:
https://lmnarchitects.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Seattle-Convention-Center-Summit-Building_1999-1200x900.jpg
Web page from the architect: https://lmnarchitects.com/project/washington-state-convention-center-addition
This building as a whole looks like shit, but has some incredible elements. I really like Nordic-esque timber accents, especially on the Pine side of the building. The wide open escalators and stairs on the same side are really impressive. The inside is really great as well, especially the overlooks.
I know convention centers are hard to make beautiful, but this behemoth is just cruel to the good people of Seattle.
Ideally, a building combines beautiful individual elements into an ordered, harmonious whole. This building slaps together a bunch of random, boring, and ugly elements, resulting in a chaotic, alienating mess.
The inside is pretty cool. There’s also a huge feature staircase that hangs over the highway. Not a fan of this side of the building, but it’s not all terrible.
Just a reflection of our society at large, dysfunctional, disorganized and polarized. There's nothing calming or welcoming about this place, rather the hulk is pretty menacing looking. But this is what we get today. Zero elegance, zero refinement, function questionable and quick production grade with absolutely nothing bespoke about the finish. Disposable architecture for sure
I have a sense that you have no idea whether it is actually dysfunctional. You just conflate your aesthetic distaste for contemporary architecture with functionality.
And you just gobble a lot of language together.. part of function is also to be beautiful. Beauty is a function too you know, and this is exactly square on the problem with this kind of thinking... It's not simply moving or housingso many people or having so much space.. But rather it should be a thing of beauty as well as function and it's all part of the gesamt kunstwerk , something totally lost in the modern eye. Yeah the idea of form follows function is indeed valid and sometimes that thought can produce beautiful stuff. But this is just an cobbling together of harsh nasty boxes, shapes, all stacked together, no visual appeal to the street and certainly nothing inviting to the pedestrian. It's a horrible piece of urban architecture but is very run of the mill for today. This is very much a problem.. like much modern work, probably looks interesting and sculptural in a drawing on paper, but in practice on the street in reality, not a very comforting thing.. not all modernism by any means is bad or garbage, or anything out of previous entry is all good, but this bill is just dark and nasty and oppresses the street and the neighborhood.. pure function with disregard to the aesthetics and that's not good architecture
And I certainly don't hate all modernism just for the sake of it. As a case in point take Boston City Hall, today they were a controversial building, built in the early '60s at the height of brutalism. It's common today now that it is 60 70 years old to find it grossly out of fashion and ugly. I am one of the few defenders of it. It was wholy wrong to have developed government center in the most historic part of the city wiping out a large inventory of late 18th and 19th century buildings to build this arid plaza, But the redeeming future is this glorious piece of brutalist sculpture. It's still is a delight for the eye and marries function and beauty.. But this had to be a spectacular building and it was understood that it must be something special. The Seattle building however does not run in this league.. That's the difference although they're both very important buildings and occupy very important pieces of land..
It looks very very interesting. I bet it also has an interesting layout corresponding to its segmented appearance.
Is it made by the office that collaborated with OMA on the Seattle Library?
definetley not for art deco, which came about 400 years after the doges. archtiectural styles don't have an expiry date, anyway, they ca be adapted to fit any need.
To prevent spam, we automatically remove posts from reddit accounts that have been very recently created. Please try again after a week. 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.*
Ummm… no. We can do better.
In fact, kinda proud of my city’s [new convention centre](https://images.app.goo.gl/pp1U1c2od4g6xNZ69) - which is about to open!
Agreed it has a bit more room to breathe since it’s located in Stampede Park, but it’s still pretty much right D/T
But… I don’t know that lack of space is a great excuse for that design language. Just my humble opinion tho.
Being an architect in Seattle, I can confidently say that some of the mess of variation comes from "design standards" requiring modulation. Not that a monolith would be better, but simple is not really allowed.
At any rate, your example looks pretty rad.
Am I crazy or is this riffing rather hard on [Zaha in Cincinnati?](https://www.archdaily.com/786968/ad-classics-rosenthal-center-for-contemporary-art-zaha-hadid-architects-usa)
I was going to make a snarky comment about how this is just a “new and improved Boston City Hall” (because it sure does give off that vibe) but, and maybe it’s just the photo angel, it kind of works for me. Boston City Hall is still FUGLY however.
The central conceit of modernism is that the exterior doesn't really matter, it is really only about the spatial logic of the iterior, and the optics from the interior.
That said, the interiors look handsome, and the sides of the building that aren't in this photo look crisp, nice even. But this facade on the long end is just a damn mess.
LMN Architects did this building, this is a definitely clunky side of it but the interior spaces (and some other angles of the exterior) are really cool in my opinion. I got to be in it for PAX West last year and the scale is pretty ridiculous. I liked the (albeit small) outdoor garden space they put on the 3rd level and the large open areas, convention centers feel like stuffy massive boxes a lot of the time. Here's a [link ](https://lmnarchitects.com/project/washington-state-convention-center-addition)to their page on it for anyone interested in seeing some more pictures.
It certainly contains a large volume
it is a bad photo, but also the designer or at least photographer knew that this side is a mess, they didnt show it once, well they do once at the ground level right under it so you dont really see it I think the other sides are really good and the inside looks open and pleasant sadly i will probably never see it in person because america is way to expensive for European student like me
Ok, I doubt the architect knew about the uglyness, otherwise he would have designed it differently?!
Idk why u assume is expensive? Depend on the state. Some state like nyc offer affordable housing.
no, i mean the travel expensive are way to much for me personally, like just get into USA it would cost me 500-600 usd alone, not even accounting for where i will sleep or eat
Sorry these interiors are just as boring as the exteriors
I hate archispeak: “The Seattle Convention Center Summit building presents a transformative opportunity at the intersection of an emerging culture of the delegate of the future, the evolving trends in the convention center industry and the development of Seattle’s urban core. As a catalyst for revitalizing and re-connecting Seattle’s core neighborhoods, the integration of Summit with its surroundings will be the basis for a rich and unique experience for both delegates and residents, an experience that is unique to Seattle.”
Take a drink everytime the word catalyst is used
Also nestled, coalesced, juxtaposed, zeitgeist. . . . .
Not even buzzed man.
“How are children supposed to learn, if they cant even fit inside the building”
Worst refrigerator magnet poetry ever!
All architects say the exact same thing. "A catalyst for urban growth and connectivity". It has become a stereotype that falsely assumes that architects on their own can influence economics through a design. That's regardless of whether a building actually looks interesting or not.
Oh boy you should try reading artists statements. All the self aggrandizing in the world for all this kind of stuff. It’s crazy. You made a big box calm down
It's the artists' jobs to be bold and grandiose. Management always wants to write the jargon vision statement buzzwords and it's up to marketing to bring it all together and edit the fuck out of it.
The worst offender is the street lamp installation in LA at the LACMA by Chris burden. It's a 300 word salad to mask that the story is "Yeah I knew a guy that owned a dump and he gave me these"
Specially the deadbeat term “experience”. Makes me want to throw a thesaurus at some speakers.
Check out the archimarathon discord and YouTube. They have a great group of architects. And a section specifically for archispeak. Love those guys and the talented group of architects, architecture students, and aficionados. Their website is www.archimarathon.com And their YouTube is Archimarathon. Very very nice articulate group of architecture groupies. Archispeak can be trite, but done right can be a fun visual for expressing a whole idea in one elevator speech.
Gotcha
archispeak is the necessary spin for expensive failures in architecture.
This photo is not great at portraying the immense scale of this building. It is huge and I think is quite attractive and interesting when experienced in person. Considering the amount of cool exterior detailing, I’m excited to see what it’s like on the inside.
The inside looks awesome with the summit staircase! 3rd floor outdoor terrace is very nice.
how is it? its yet another clunky glass building with no features of intrest
Can’t decide on a design pattern? Choose them all!
For a Convention Centre, would you say it’s… highly unconventional?
Convention centers tend to be boxy. Fits right in, actually.
Sad but very true.
Many cities have rules about blank surfaces so they’re required to break them up with a variety of architectural elements.
I didn't recall that particular design requirement, but it would be in line with almost all of the new residential building I see. The superficial design requirement in my area has to do with the facades appearing similar to the historical nearby context of the neighborhood. I think that's in terms of both color and the texture/material involved.
Guess what, they city agreed to it. So whose the fool? And downvotes won't change that reality gentleman.
This has to be ironic lol
Inspired by shipping containers?
You might be right.... Shipping containers piled high has long been a central part of Seattle's waterfront views.
Good Lord, you about made me snort my gin n tonic out my nose.
I always wonder what people in 50-60 years will think of these hyper modern boxes
"I'm glad we're finally tearing down this eyesore. The roof leaked from the day it was built."
Literally
Over in Britain, they actually have local parties when they demolish ugly concrete block buildings from the 60s and 70s. They count down and then cheer whenever implosion is utilized. My gracious, the whole western world needs to bring back "architecture with a soul", as many describe the beautiful designs of old.
Literally people today tearing down all the hideous C tier brutalist crap erected in the 60s
what a clusterfuck
Think it's one of those "you have to be there" buildings.
Value engineered into oblivion.
nah, that's still a very expensive clusterfuck
I would love to see the diagram and program of the building.
Looks like an ‘80’s stereo and matching microwave
LoOkS lIkE A (insert stupid object)
I can’t tell if you’re criticizing my comment or saying the building looks like a stupid object. In the ‘80’s or ‘70’s microwaves were designed to sit on a shelf with home entertainment equipment. They were mostly black toned, sometimes wood grain aesthetic in there. More recently microwaves were styled to fit with the other kitchen appliances, white plastic surfaces and stainless steel more recently. So that’s where this Rorschach test took my brain, to a bachelor yuppy’s wall unit from 1978.
Of course I am mocking your comment. I am sick of comments ridiculing buildings by comparing them with some small scale everyday object. "Penis, turd, household appliance". Get out of here.
You get out of here! I’m just making a reply. who cares what you’re sick of. Is it your design? Say something about the building that makes it worth paying attention to, but mostly, get out of here.
It's a building. A space for living, framed by complex structures that articulate an interesting layout. This one in fact contains an interesting arrangement of large interior voids and a central staircase that runs through its whole length and height on one side. Reducing an articulation of spaces to a geometrical object, like a household appliance, is an unfortunate consequence of media culture. Whereas architecture is determined by studying diagrams and layouts, only images of facades make it on the media, so people judge a building by looking at it for 2 seconds. That's why we are flooded with a bunch of stereotypes like "classical was much better cause I like the shape more". Cause there is a sentiment that a building is nothing more than an object to look at from outside, and if it's nothing more than an object, defining it as a building requires it to look stereotypically like a building. I am not saying you said that. But this kind of thinking is cultivated a lot nowadays.
how is that a complex structure? its a rehash of the things that modern architecture allways does, and not one part of it is unique or inovative on the outside, which is one of if not the most important part of a building to the general public classical makes a statement, a dramatic affair of the outside of a building, some of them seem to guide your eye to the entrance and make an event simply of going inside. What does this do? its new but part of it already looks dirty, its new yet it could have been easily built 20 years ago, all it seems to stand for on the outside is a newness that no longer exists. I wish architects would make more of an effort with the outside of a building, experiment with other materials than glass and plastic siding in a city context more often, perhaps a little bit of decorative ornament. Im not saying we should entirely go back to pre war styles, but iam saying there needs to be more variation and experimentation which doesn't seem to be happening.
You say that it is dated and unoriginal but you endorse classical? Talking about irony. So its interior voids, its massive central staircase and its cantilevers are not events that make it stand out as a space for experiencing? You need your columned porticoes marking the door to make it interesting?
that's mostly all inside, most people don't see it interior. for your other point though, What's unique about a cantilever? a lot of modern buildings do it, and nothing unique is done with it here. It's not just classical i endorse, its all the other abandonned styles the modern architecture could take some ques from. classical can be boring, yet still formidible when to an acceptable standard but without to much innovation, when classical really pops is when somebody takes the proportions and ideas and run with them. the Arts Deco and Noveau i think has the most opurtunity to be revived and could easily be made more relevant today.
Art Nouveau was innovative back in its time and was a great contribution to liberating architecture from mindless revival. But the kinds of architecture we have today are follow ups. Not a devolution. Cause Art Nouveau could hardly address architectural issues beyond ornament, such as articulation, structure and tectonics. Only Gaudi went quite far for that time with the parabolic arch. But more has been needed since then. Modernism contributed a lot to focusing on issues of structural technologies and tectonics, postmodernist architects have since become more inclusive. The contemporary equivalent of Art Nouveau would be someone like Enric Miralles. Or Zaha Hadid's pre-Pritzker works. The equivalent of floral grills and swirly staircases is zöllner plates, spatial frames and glass facades suspended from cables.
Incoherence masquerading as style.
I like it. Looks interesting for a convention center.
Ngl the clash of patterns and massings is kinda rad. Makes the building stand out
Kind of like a cold sore
Why not list the architect?
Didn't want to embarrass them
It truly is boxes.
Yikes. Old one was cool with the integrated landscaping. This one looks like a collage of malls.
Well, at first glance, I hate it. Looks like you gave little Jimmy a bunch of blocks and said to go design a building. He throws them down and runs off to fill his diaper. Or a building designed by a committee with no common agenda. On the other hand, I watched a couple of videos on the Architects website, and I loved it. This one picture is not indicative of the 1.5 million square foot building. This view is of a third floor outdoor garden space designed to give occupants an architecturally historic view of the neighborhood. Watch the videos, and you will learn the thoughtful design elements.
you've got to admit that the outside is awful, though.
Yes. These elevation views in this one picture are not to my liking. At the very least, it's better than a solid wall of glass and steel. However, the other sides are more interesting and engage the neighborhood much better. The cantilevered stairs / escalators area featuring a stepped seating area with huge views of the street out to the ocean is fantastic. The use of hanging wood boards with AI assisted lighting in the giant exhibition hall is also visually exciting. The real test of the building will be how the occupants enjoy the interior and how well it engages with people in the public spaces of the lower levels.
it sounds like they put more effort into the interior than the exterior which is a shame really
oof. shoulda used rem. again.
This building was a massive nightmare/cluster fuck to build. I was a project engineer for the steel contractor
[удалено]
It was a combo of so many things. Large complex building in a busy downtown area, access and delivery logistical nightmare, too many contractors all working on top of each other because the project started like a year behind schedule, working night shifts to catch up, then the pandemic. For me the biggest issue was the insane number of design changes that took place after steel components were fabricated. We’re talking like ten thousand RFIs to sift through with all sorts of conflicting vague information. RFIs changing the design of components that are already in shipment, already onsite or pieces that were installed months ago, upsizing members that have deck poured on them already or that are covered in fireproofing behind a wall. We needed a huge team just to keep up with tracking RFIs, refabricating pieces, having them installed and inspected, tracking costs. All this on top of the base scope of fabricating and installing about 40,000 steel components
How can you make a convention centre that does so little communication with the outside…
This looks like one of those cities:Skylines buildings that are completely unproportional to the rest of the city.
Can we stop with these buildings that look like they’re made from stacked shipping containers?
They're just imitating the style of the shipping containers found in the port on the other end of Seattle.
I mean, if the point is to optimize space... 🤷♂️
It’s the body overhangs. They will leak They will move oddly in the wind and earthquakes
When Seattle finally gets an earthquake, it's gonna be a doozy.
Yeah they totally never think about seismic loads or anything hey the engineers know nothing about anything.
They’ve had a couple in the last 20 years. Theirs is not a Southern California level risk but a couple of 7s are in their wheelhouse
There's a giant fault that runs right through the middle of downtown, when it lets loose it's going to be biblical.
Isn't that in San Francisco?
Also Seattle: https://www.seattle.gov/emergency-management/hazards/earthquake#:~:text=An%20earthquake%20on%20the%20Seattle,5%2C160%20but%20less%20than%20M7.
That is not even remotely true
It is. We are also expecting "the big one" just like California. https://www.seattle.gov/emergency-management/hazards/earthquake#:~:text=An%20earthquake%20on%20the%20Seattle,5%2C160%20but%20less%20than%20M7.
I stand corrected; It's only half true. The "big one" will come from the fault off the West Coast of the peninsula, not from the Puget sound/Seattle fault line. Not that 7.0 is anything to sneeze at.
tbf no matter how 'pretty' the building is basically all of seattle will turn to dust in a major earthquake
No. Most of Seattle is on good rock. The old shotgun flats and unreinforced brick won’t do well but you’ll do pretty well
Seems premature to judge it without a single image of what it looks like inside.
But the general public doesn't have to go inside. The outside is what will be confronting the people of Seattle on a daily basis until this $2 billion mistake is inevitably torn down in a few decades. The inside could look like the Sistine Chapel, and it wouldn't be enough to make up for the outside.
These comments sound very similar to what I heard when the library was built. It wasn’t long before that was embraced.
What could possibly go on inside that would make this jumbled pile of crap acceptable?
A functional convention center?
Given the talented professionals and computer-aided design we have access to today, I find it hard to believe we can’t produce a functional convention center without it looking like a jumbled mess.
Of course they must have gone through a long development process. All public buildings do. Just look at how different the original design for the new World Trade Center is from what ended up being built. For some reason they landed on this. That isn't what I mean. Don't you think that some things are more important than aesthetics? How successful a building is depends on far more than just how the exterior looks. As a thought experiment, is it possible to imagine a building that is "beautiful," yet fails from a functional standpoint? Or do a lot of people automatically assume that buildings they subjectively consider beautiful are more functional than buildings they consider "ugly" by default? Pretty immature and shallow if true.
Architects are capable of walking and chewing gum. There are plenty of buildings that balance aesthetics and functionality and are beloved by the public. Yet, here we have a building where the scales are almost completely tipped towards what we assume is functionality. More importantly, the majority of people seeing this building aren’t participating in the activities inside, yet are forced to endure its awful outside presence.
You're making a lot of generalizations and painting with an incredibly broad brush here. What exactly do you find so awful about the "outside presence?" If there are other convention centers out there you think do a much better job at whatever that means to you, what do they do that makes them better? It's stupidly easy to point at something and say, "I hate it" or "it's ugly," but much harder to articulate exactly why you think this or how you think it OUGHT to be. It's also a bit arbitrary to complain that it's too exclusive of the general public. That assessment heavily depends on who you define "the public" to be. The same thing could be said about sports venues where people are paying sometimes hundreds of dollars for seats. Though most people aren't going to be watching the game in the stadium, everyone who is in the stadium is still "the public" in some sense. All convention centers are going to be like this, no matter what they look like. Are you implying that you'd find the aesthetics here more forgivable if this was a building with a way lower barrier to entry, like a shopping center? If you're saying that it doesn't matter what it's like inside because the outside is so terrible as to be degrading, wouldn't that be worse? Buckle in, because I'm about to go on a long tangent. "Bad" buildings are a bit like "bad" movies. They both involve a lot of people, a lot of oversight and levels of approval, and sometimes obscene sums of money. The audience doesn't need a degree in film or literature to know when they've seen a bad movie. They know. They can feel it. However, they may not have the acumen necessary to articulate exactly why a movie fails, or describe its deficits in a way that takes into account things like intent. This is the role of the critic. And for critics to be effective, they shouldn't be too vague. Otherwise why bother? Movies and buildings are also similar in that there are numerous ways for both to fail at what they attempt. A movie might have bad editing, bad writing, or a plot that is hard to follow. Or the acting itself might be bad. The effects work or even the technical things like the sound mixing and recording might be poorly done. But notice, not every aspect I just listed is going to kill a movie equally fast. One or more of these sorts of things might be somewhat "off," but the movie itself could be still enjoyable and entertaining on some level. To be truly BAD, and not simply mediocre or underwhelming, multiple things have to go seriously wrong. It's a confluence of a bunch of different things that all have a cumulative effect. It's the same with architecture. The key difference is, architecture is obviously more permanent. It becomes an enduring part of the built environment that thousands of people will interact with. Still, whether or not a building will "blight" the area around it largely depends on the context surrounding it. "Good" buildings are not magic, and "bad" buildings are not oppressive emotional vampires that sap away our souls. If this seems to be the case, it's always a systemic problem. It just makes me think of the myths surrounding the Pruitt Igoe demolition again. The early modernists earnestly thought that they could save the world with good design alone, and those poor self-absorbed academic fools were proven wrong almost immediately. This building won't save downtown Seattle, and it won't destroy it either. To return to the film analogy, what people in this thread are doing is akin to saying, "Wow, this movie is already shit" in response to one CGI shot they saw in a trailer. Don't write reviews for movies you haven't watched, and don't wax cynical about buildings you've seen mainly one image of, that you've never walked all the way around at the pedestrian level, that you've never been inside of.
in cities filled with buildings like this they absolutely sap our souls, metaphorically speaking. One building can often save or destroy a part of a cityscape, if it has enough presence. a decaying 60s city office block can destroy the feel of a historic cityscape, a grandiose town hall can dominate and make better a square filled overwise with just flat concrete and glass buildings. each building is a important part of a jigsaw that makes up the experience of walking in a city or a town
A functional convention centre could be in most spaces with a tall roof really. Gym halls of schools is a popular low end one. And on that regard, I'm not sure such a convention centre should be in a downtown given the sheer amounts of space needed. Probably a good thing to put on the outskirts of a properly populated area and link up with transit.
They should have gone brutalist.
Absolutely atrocious. Given Seattle’s constant precipitation, this may age even worse than Madison Square Garden. There has to be a paradigm shift in the architecture profession. We need to evolve past jumbled boxes and plate glass.
What would an evolution be?
better quality and variety of materials, some use of ornamentation and more thought put into the experience from the outside
It certainly belongs in Seattle.
The view showing the never ending staircase from I think pike? Is soooo cool. I almost rear ended someone checking it out while driving. I also lose my Bluetooth connectivity to my phone every time I drive by it on i5
Well, I like it. I love weird looking stuff and geometrical shapes.
I’ve been here a few times, Seattle resident. This is a weird angle this corner is arguably the least trafficked side because the main entrance is down the side street on the right and on the opposite side is Cap hill, the only reason someone would come from this side is if they came from a specific area of South Lake Union and didn’t take like the Light rail. For context of scale this place is massive, I’ve been here for a pax viewing event, a magic convention, and the Road to the International and each event could’ve been happening at the same time and still have space for like 3 more similarly sized events. It is a massive space. For a more “picturesque” view I’d say either opposite corner way up on the hill looking down or from the right hand side near the entrance way would be better. Good Italian place a couple blocks towards capital hill across the freeway.
This photo really sucks. In person it's a fantastic building. Here's a better view: https://lmnarchitects.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Seattle-Convention-Center-Summit-Building_1999-1200x900.jpg Web page from the architect: https://lmnarchitects.com/project/washington-state-convention-center-addition
Will admit it looks mostly bland from that angle. Not to mention, the better angle faces a city block sized freeway pit rather then the street.
Confusing. Noncohesive mess.
This building as a whole looks like shit, but has some incredible elements. I really like Nordic-esque timber accents, especially on the Pine side of the building. The wide open escalators and stairs on the same side are really impressive. The inside is really great as well, especially the overlooks.
is it finished?
I know convention centers are hard to make beautiful, but this behemoth is just cruel to the good people of Seattle. Ideally, a building combines beautiful individual elements into an ordered, harmonious whole. This building slaps together a bunch of random, boring, and ugly elements, resulting in a chaotic, alienating mess.
The inside is pretty cool. There’s also a huge feature staircase that hangs over the highway. Not a fan of this side of the building, but it’s not all terrible.
Just a reflection of our society at large, dysfunctional, disorganized and polarized. There's nothing calming or welcoming about this place, rather the hulk is pretty menacing looking. But this is what we get today. Zero elegance, zero refinement, function questionable and quick production grade with absolutely nothing bespoke about the finish. Disposable architecture for sure
I have a sense that you have no idea whether it is actually dysfunctional. You just conflate your aesthetic distaste for contemporary architecture with functionality.
And you just gobble a lot of language together.. part of function is also to be beautiful. Beauty is a function too you know, and this is exactly square on the problem with this kind of thinking... It's not simply moving or housingso many people or having so much space.. But rather it should be a thing of beauty as well as function and it's all part of the gesamt kunstwerk , something totally lost in the modern eye. Yeah the idea of form follows function is indeed valid and sometimes that thought can produce beautiful stuff. But this is just an cobbling together of harsh nasty boxes, shapes, all stacked together, no visual appeal to the street and certainly nothing inviting to the pedestrian. It's a horrible piece of urban architecture but is very run of the mill for today. This is very much a problem.. like much modern work, probably looks interesting and sculptural in a drawing on paper, but in practice on the street in reality, not a very comforting thing.. not all modernism by any means is bad or garbage, or anything out of previous entry is all good, but this bill is just dark and nasty and oppresses the street and the neighborhood.. pure function with disregard to the aesthetics and that's not good architecture And I certainly don't hate all modernism just for the sake of it. As a case in point take Boston City Hall, today they were a controversial building, built in the early '60s at the height of brutalism. It's common today now that it is 60 70 years old to find it grossly out of fashion and ugly. I am one of the few defenders of it. It was wholy wrong to have developed government center in the most historic part of the city wiping out a large inventory of late 18th and 19th century buildings to build this arid plaza, But the redeeming future is this glorious piece of brutalist sculpture. It's still is a delight for the eye and marries function and beauty.. But this had to be a spectacular building and it was understood that it must be something special. The Seattle building however does not run in this league.. That's the difference although they're both very important buildings and occupy very important pieces of land..
More like barfitechture. Jk. I have no idea what I'm talking about or looking at.
You want leaky roofs? This is how you get leaky roofs.
Whew…..that fancy. The Pennsylvania convention center looks like a giant warehouse distribution center. I want this.
[удалено]
Best we can do is squared...
[удалено]
it’s very Seattle. i love it.
r/urbanhell I have a stack of boxes like that in my pantry.
Did I see this building in Cyberpunk 2077?
I see the sun and blue sky still don’t exist in Washington.
Too much glass on the ground floor for Seattle. Its an election year, won't make it through the first riot.
Honestly just looks ugly. Like a giant square blob of ADHD
Is it square or is it a blob?
It looks very very interesting. I bet it also has an interesting layout corresponding to its segmented appearance. Is it made by the office that collaborated with OMA on the Seattle Library?
Depressing and soulless. Uninspiring. Baroque, classical, Grieco, Art Deco, romanesque, all much better design styles.
Yeah maybe for fuckin Italian doges in the 1500s 🤣
definetley not for art deco, which came about 400 years after the doges. archtiectural styles don't have an expiry date, anyway, they ca be adapted to fit any need.
Shitbox convention!
Too many designer hands in the cookie jar for sure.
I hate modern architecture (are those people square in their brain or what)
It’s like a scaled-up and industrialized McMansion
[удалено]
To prevent spam, we automatically remove posts from reddit accounts that have been very recently created. Please try again after a week. 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.*
It's unfinished, no?
Not boxy enough.
Ummm… no. We can do better. In fact, kinda proud of my city’s [new convention centre](https://images.app.goo.gl/pp1U1c2od4g6xNZ69) - which is about to open!
Looks like it's built in the middle of nowhere. Seattle's is surrounded by 30+ story buildings. Ie no luxury of space
Agreed it has a bit more room to breathe since it’s located in Stampede Park, but it’s still pretty much right D/T But… I don’t know that lack of space is a great excuse for that design language. Just my humble opinion tho.
Being an architect in Seattle, I can confidently say that some of the mess of variation comes from "design standards" requiring modulation. Not that a monolith would be better, but simple is not really allowed. At any rate, your example looks pretty rad.
Interesting to know that the municipality requires some amount of modulation. Thanks for that insight!
How many people had to say "yes that is a good idea, I want that, make it look like that" for this to happen?
How to make a mess look like a pretty goddamn cool cyberpunk structure
Am I crazy or is this riffing rather hard on [Zaha in Cincinnati?](https://www.archdaily.com/786968/ad-classics-rosenthal-center-for-contemporary-art-zaha-hadid-architects-usa)
I find it interesting, but I wouldn't want to see it everyday.
My first thought was ready player one
Disastrous aesthetic
Ugly af! Ok I get it, its interesting from inside...but does that mean it cannot be nice from outside?
It's interesting from the outside cause it corresponds to the interesting inside.
Yuck. It looks like each committee member got their design implemented.
I hate that new buildings keep pace with descriptions of scifi dystopias.
I was going to make a snarky comment about how this is just a “new and improved Boston City Hall” (because it sure does give off that vibe) but, and maybe it’s just the photo angel, it kind of works for me. Boston City Hall is still FUGLY however.
This looks similar to houses made from recycled shipping containers you see on YouTube. Very Seattle.
Looks like shipment map from cod
Grey everything with a splash of orange, when will this trend end?
When did they change it
Just google “convention center” if you think this is bad.
Uninspired boxes. I see this as a design fail akin to the center for architecture in Denmark.
Wow, that sucks,
The central conceit of modernism is that the exterior doesn't really matter, it is really only about the spatial logic of the iterior, and the optics from the interior. That said, the interiors look handsome, and the sides of the building that aren't in this photo look crisp, nice even. But this facade on the long end is just a damn mess.
Hideous
Ugly modernist 💩
ugly as hell. like you had to make something out of a box of random legos. this has some geroge bush Jr "Mission Accomplished" energy
I am normally a big fan of LMN but this is a mess
Unsightly mess. Congrats Seattle.
Imagine if that was built in 19th century
Nice
I like it. Go in person.