I know its a less than inspiring picture but its purpose is to show a newer (mid 20C?)brick multi-family home right next to an older (late 19C) brick multifamily dwelling. Both have pretty bad street frontages, i.e. high brick walls smothered with ivy, but at least is fairly uniform - for example the side walk is the same and as you walk in front of the houses basically what you see is the brick fence wall and green top. Really the only difference is the flat roof and the internal steps are clad in glass. There is a lot of this new v. old in neighbourhoods in London. Perhaps because I'm a pedestrian here I notice it more than in the states. I think its because the city is older and has had reason to replace housing. I admire the fact that they kept the building palette similar (brick and white) and that the size of the buildings are similar. This weekend I'll try and get some more pictures of this infill at different scales, it looks like it will be a nice couple of days - or at least it won't be raining the entire weekend!
1 comment:
Well, how would you define "good"? By good, do you mean that it should match what is there? Or good that it fulfills the same purpose in the same space? I think that we are at a hyper sensitive point where aged things are imbued with a sort of "charm" simply because of their age. While the old house, in my eyes, is cuter and sweeter, it doesn't mean that the severe angles of the house on the left won't eventually become more appealing with the passage of time.
So, I think that this is good infill because it doesn't harm, because it fills its space with the same mass, purpose, use, and similar materials. At the very least it isn't bad infill.
Post a Comment