Swan Falls Dam Old vs. New

Old

New

Swan Falls Dam is along the Snake River Birds of Prey Conservation area. They point out in the signs that the old historic power plant sits right next to the smaller, more efficient modern one. But the old one certainly looks much better. This reminded me of Mr. Jalopy's presentation at Maker Day, where he showed the the packaging for everyday things decades ago was clearly superior in its aesthetic sense.

Note added later: One thing that's cool about this is that they KEPT the older structure; I think you can arrange tours of it. When it comes to dams, I'm more of an Abbey-ist anyhow.

This photo has notes. Move your mouse over the photo to see them.

To take full advantage of Flickr, you should use a JavaScript-enabled browser and
install the latest version of the Macromedia Flash Player.

Comments

joe holmes says:

The big issue is usually that it's very expensive to build like they did back then. Worth it in my opinion, but when budgets are strained, the beauty is the first thing to be cut...
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

terriem says:

Oh sure, I realize that the cost is undoubtedly the issue that would be cited.

But to say that is like saying that money was no issue when the first one was built. They just had oodles and oodles of "extra" to throw around to pay people to design aesthetically pleasing things.

And I don't believe that was true.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

wintersweet says:

Yeah, I think it's relatively easy to make things somewhat aesthetically pleasing without much of an increase in the budget. You just get a sense that most modern building planners (or whoever's responsible) just aren't even trying.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

lavardera says:

It was not true. I can guarantee you that the old power plant was built with the same austerity and lack of aesthetic concern for the context of its time as the new power plant. In fact I'm sure that the builders of the original power plant would have taken advantage of more efficient building techniques that would have rendered an "uglier" building if it had been available.

For instance why does the old plant have lovely windows, and the new plant none? I'll guess. Artificial lighting was not nearly as bright, nor as efficient as it is today and in fact those windows were necessary to achieve good lighting levels in the plant, at least during the day. In the new plant no doubt it is fit out with sufficient light fixtures to serve it 24hours a day. At that point wouldn't nice windows be an extravagant luxury? They would not be needed for lighting, even during the day. Do we really expect the plant to be fitted with windows because it would look nice, any more than we would expect the turbines to be fit with lace doilies?

We all bring an incredible amount of cultural baggage to critiques like this. The challenge is to take a step back and consider each in the context in which it was created.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

baboval says:

I think that you could combine windersweet and lavardera's takes and still come up with something in the realm of reality.

It hardly matters that it costs only a little more to make something significantly more attractive, but when you decide on the project based on which solution was the lowest bid, not only do you ignore solutions that might be better looking simply because they cost slightly more, but you also discourage engineers who need to feed their families from designing the nicer looking solution in the first place.

I can sympathize with the fact that older building methods produce structures we find more aesthetically pleasing simply because we are more familiar with them, but even at the low level of detail available in this photograph, it is clear that some elements were added to the original building for purely aesthetic reasons. Tiny details like that go a long way. Some very small details in the concrete work of the new structure could have gone as far.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

ny156uk says:

I'm not convinced that the right side is more ugly. I've never really understood why industry is considered ugly, to me it is a sign of intelligence, power, strength and development. Form follows function, and from the functionality of the right-side (for me at least) comes its form.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

lavardera says:

The further back you go the harder it is to divide "purely aesthetic" details from status quo common practice. If this was an opera house the question would be different. But on a powerplant, any ornament that was there was not because the agenda was to make the building look nice - it was because that was the only way they knew how to build, be it industrial or otherwise. There was no tradition of industrial buildings to draw on - they used the techniques from other building types.

We are always going to look back on older structures and be taken with them. They almost always include a degree of hand work that is unaffordable today. This cycle will always repeat, and someday people will look back at the new power plant with nostalgia. Its fine if you want to allow yourself to be caught up in that, but remember - its these same sentiments that have saddled us with acres of lame pseudo traditional mcmansions all across america. I think we are all better served by stepping outside this line of thinking.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

stevend.schmitt says:

senses of modern, conventional and attractive change over time. the presiding design concept for the old and new building are the same - practicality. both were obviously designed and built to accomplish a purpose or task rather than to be admired for line, harmony, color, rythm etc - the things we consider visual design elements, visual elements that are present in both structures. there are limitations to construction materials and methods available or known to previous builders too. just be careful not to confuse "beauty" with "nostalgia".
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Ace_Cage says:

now it looks like a half-life 2 map. is that so bad? probably...
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Seany2000 says:

the tour in the old plant is actually quite cool. They kept most of the old machinery inside to show
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

drewish says:

I'll throw out another example for discussion. Here in Portland they built the Marquam Bridge as cheaply as possible and people hated how it looked. So when they got ready to build another bridge the Portland Art Commission was invited to help design a more ascetically pleasing bridge... it ended up costing six times as much but it is a beautiful bridge.

flickr.com/search/?q=marquam+bridge+portland& z=t

flickr.com/search/?q=freemont+bridge+portland &z=t

You can read about it in the Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Bridge_(Portlan d)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquam_Bridge
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

thisisfrommarty says:

To be honest, drewish, and that entails dismissing the easy assumption that the Polaroid is the older version and that the HDR is the newer, I cannot tell which is the newer and prettier.

And lavardera, your points are taken (with a big 19th-century grain of salt), but what is missing is that in a truly globalized marketplace, the pressure of choosing the absolute cheapest way of doing things usually wins. Perhaps when the original plant was built there were but 2 or 3 regional bidders with fine reputations for quality and craftsmanship -- bidders with ties to the community. Nowadays as an official you might feel pressure to give the contract to build to a cost-cutting, no-frills, fly-by-night "company" that will disappear tomorrow and will leave you with a sheer, nakedly functional structure that will injure everyone's aesthetic sense -- but at 20% savings.

Moreover, to follow up your point, why are there ever newly built windows? We should remove them forever, for now we have artificial light (um, creating the need for more and more eyesore power plants?) Ugh.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

thisisfrommarty says:

p.s. Regarding the larger debate, that somewhere around WWII American architecture subordinated aesthetics for efficiency, I have to paraphrase one of my favorite authors, Robert Parker of "Spenser for Hire" fame. Looking at the original Copley library in Boston next to its (1970s?) addition, "It's like caviar next to Mr. Pibb."
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Kris Kros says:

Best shot.

Found on explore.

Seen in a darckr view of your pictures (mine, ?).
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

bwillen says:

I think that the overall point of this post shouldn't be: "old is better than new." LIke some of the other posters pointed out, it's generally no longer possible or practical to build contemporary structure the same way they would have been built 100 years ago. The real issue should be trying to build something using contemporary techniques and aesthetics that is beautiful in a contemporary way, rather than a pastiche of old architecture. A well built and designed building from any generation will stand out.

Below is a waste treatment plant in Brooklyn which is a striking industrial building with a modern design.

Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

brookelynn23 says:

Nice shot !
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

drewish says:

thisisfrommarty, my point wasn't to compare the two photos, i just pulled two out at random that showed the full spans. i put the two search links so that you could browse a larger collection of the images if you were so inclined.

the two bridges were built roughly 10 years apart. the first bridge was built as cheaply as possible the second was more focused on aesthetics. i think it's a germane example.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Griever says:

I think both are kind of boring, but together they are great. I agree with the people who said that in 50 years people may look at the "new" plant and say, "man why don't we build like that anymore?" It's easy to like "old" cause usually it's also scarce and scarcity=cooler in society.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Griever says:

And TOTALLY Half-Life 2! Right on it Ace!
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

bergre says:

HDR or not HDR ?
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

rrrarch says:

Lavadera is very much correct in saying the earlier building represents the efficient building practices of the time. I would add that the more recent power plant, and just about anything else built today, would benefit from having a talented architect involved in the design from the beginning. Projects such as the Golden Gate Bridge and Boulder (Hoover) Dam benefited from having good architects collaborating with their engineers. Nowadays it is the rare exception for public projects to allow skilled designers anywhere near the process for fear of cost over runs or a design that might alienate some small part of the public.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Would you like to comment?

[?]

	terriem's photostream
		3,675 uploads

This photo also belongs to:

	CA-OR-ID-NV Raptor Roadtrip (Set)
		85 items
	Part of: Vacations and Trips

9 people call this photo a favorite

Additional Information

Some rights reserved Anyone can see this photo

Taken with a Fujifilm FinePix F31fd.
More properties
Taken on October 3, 2007
Viewed 9,676 times

Add to your map

Yay location removed

...

(Some formats are OK.)

Or, remove it from the map.

Go to the map

You	Sign in \| Create Your Free Account
Explore	Places \| Last 7 Days \| This Month \| Popular Tags \| The Commons \| Creative Commons \| Search
Help	Community Guidelines \| The Help Forum \| FAQ \| Sitemap \| Get Help

Swan Falls Dam Old vs. New

Comments

joe holmes says:

terriem says:

wintersweet says:

lavardera says:

baboval says:

ny156uk says:

lavardera says:

stevend.schmitt says:

Ace_Cage says:

Seany2000 says:

drewish says:

thisisfrommarty says:

thisisfrommarty says:

Kris Kros says:

bwillen says:

brookelynn23 says:

drewish says:

Griever says:

Griever says:

bergre says:

rrrarch says:

Would you like to comment?

terriem's photostream

CA-OR-ID-NV Raptor Roadtrip (Set)

Tags

Additional Information