is just being old enough to make it great architecture?
NO. Some buildings were obviously far better than others, just as is the case today.
is historic enough ? Historic is enough to justify preservation but does not necessarily mean that the building has architectural or artistic merit. If an important event occurred in a building, the building may merit preservation however for historical and not architectural reasons.
is being decorated enough? No. Some styles of architecture are highly elaborate (baroque - rococo) while others are more minimalist. Certainly the Empire State Building would be considered great architecture however it is far from "decorated" or ornamental. The Kavanagh Building on Florida next to the Plaza San Martin is another architecturally interesting building (the first skyscraper in BA) that is far from "decorated", though I find its lines lack a certain grace.
could it have something to do with style? There are many styles of architecture and each has its merits.
we could start with the chorizo. not the sausage or the steak.
it is old, it is historic, there are many of them. but is it great architecture? I wouldn't consider it great architecture however I would say that it is significant as a part of the architectural tradition of the city and thus deserves a degree of preservation.
I don't quite agree with Ries regarding apartment buildings in the US from the 30's vs those of Buenos Aires. He implies that elaborate ornamentation is somehow better architecture. Buenos Aires traditionally modeled itself after Paris and built many apartment buildings in the Belle Epoque style - even well after the period had passed in Europe. Cities like New York followed another style. Many great homes, mansions, along 5th Avenue, Madison Avenue and environs eventually gave way to apartment buildings (as they did in BA) however most, if not all, of these New York buildings were very solidly built of stone - not always brick - and along very grand lines with impressive lobbies, wide halls and many amenities. New York and other cities in the US built extraoirdinary mansions - every bit, if not more elaborate, than those that were built on Avenida Alvear and elsewhere in BA.
I agree that La Plata cathedral is a fine cathedral, quite pure (uncluttered by junk as is the case with the Lujan cathedral) and beautifully maintained, in general a rarity for churches in Argentina. It is well worth a visit. La Plata is close to BA and easily accessible by bus or train. There is also an old fashioned natural history museum and an impressive performing arts complex (dreadful on the exterior but impressive inside) called the Teatro Argentino de la Plata where you can see good productions of opera, ballet as well as some orchestra concerts. Now that the Teatro Colon is closed many music lovers are making the trip to La Plata. The theatre runs special buses from BA than connect with the performances and take you back after the performance.
NO. Some buildings were obviously far better than others, just as is the case today.
is historic enough ? Historic is enough to justify preservation but does not necessarily mean that the building has architectural or artistic merit. If an important event occurred in a building, the building may merit preservation however for historical and not architectural reasons.
is being decorated enough? No. Some styles of architecture are highly elaborate (baroque - rococo) while others are more minimalist. Certainly the Empire State Building would be considered great architecture however it is far from "decorated" or ornamental. The Kavanagh Building on Florida next to the Plaza San Martin is another architecturally interesting building (the first skyscraper in BA) that is far from "decorated", though I find its lines lack a certain grace.
could it have something to do with style? There are many styles of architecture and each has its merits.
we could start with the chorizo. not the sausage or the steak.
it is old, it is historic, there are many of them. but is it great architecture? I wouldn't consider it great architecture however I would say that it is significant as a part of the architectural tradition of the city and thus deserves a degree of preservation.
I don't quite agree with Ries regarding apartment buildings in the US from the 30's vs those of Buenos Aires. He implies that elaborate ornamentation is somehow better architecture. Buenos Aires traditionally modeled itself after Paris and built many apartment buildings in the Belle Epoque style - even well after the period had passed in Europe. Cities like New York followed another style. Many great homes, mansions, along 5th Avenue, Madison Avenue and environs eventually gave way to apartment buildings (as they did in BA) however most, if not all, of these New York buildings were very solidly built of stone - not always brick - and along very grand lines with impressive lobbies, wide halls and many amenities. New York and other cities in the US built extraoirdinary mansions - every bit, if not more elaborate, than those that were built on Avenida Alvear and elsewhere in BA.
I agree that La Plata cathedral is a fine cathedral, quite pure (uncluttered by junk as is the case with the Lujan cathedral) and beautifully maintained, in general a rarity for churches in Argentina. It is well worth a visit. La Plata is close to BA and easily accessible by bus or train. There is also an old fashioned natural history museum and an impressive performing arts complex (dreadful on the exterior but impressive inside) called the Teatro Argentino de la Plata where you can see good productions of opera, ballet as well as some orchestra concerts. Now that the Teatro Colon is closed many music lovers are making the trip to La Plata. The theatre runs special buses from BA than connect with the performances and take you back after the performance.
