Maritime Hotel

Whatever the given context is, keeping it is not, at least, minus. Even though its historical background ((It was once the headquarters for the National Maritime Union.)), makes those nautical element cheesier, its history and memory could be delivered to the new design in 2004. I appreciate the successor to keep the element. The new designer seemed to have few choices ((Behind the panel, it’s still porthole-like window.)), though. However, it seems like he/she kept design language, I doubt that just using same circle guarantee the continuity of design. Simply bring its superficial elements and decorate them with recent material and fashionable manner will be another old-fashioned in future. – Actually it looks already out of fashion.

Then, what? If the portholes or nautical element, whatever is not the essential point of the design, what can be? I think it is its evenness and flatness. Imagine the portholes to square or triangle. I don’t think it will change that much. That means the circle shape is not crucial point of design. They kept parts, and changed body. – Of course I believe body and parts are equally important.

However if I design,  I’ll do the same thing. It would be easier to persuade the client. Moreover, being fashionable or doing fashionable is more selective, for it brings next consumption. – I should learn fashion.

One response to “Maritime Hotel”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.