21–30 of 75 posts
On the same vein, US embassy in Tunis is closer to a fortification than to a diplomatic building. It even has a turret. It seems that other US embassies around the world became fortifications after 2001.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diplomatic buildings have often been strong points designed to keep staff safe in uncertain times. This is true even in safer locations; the new US embassy in London is very much a fort although the defensive features (like the water-filled moat/pond, and bollards hidden in the hedges) are well integrated into the landscaping. The new site is probably considerably harder to assault than their old building, even thoug…
Some people are unable to recognize great architecture when they see it. Saarinen's building is applauded as one of the finest modernist structures in Britain and is rightly Grade II listed. https://www.economist.com/prospero/2017/09/26/the-american-e...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's anachronistic in the sense that it was largely made obsolete by artillery advances during the 19th century, replaced by polygonal forts (which could even adapt to high-explosive payloads, and actually proved their worth in both world wars), as well as the more modern bunkers & fortified emplacements. It makes a lot of sense when unlikely to face artillery and bombers though, as it's pretty straightforward and ch…
The decorative aspect is actually a major piece of it's function here. It's intended to be highly visible, and maintaining a highly visible military presence is part of counterinsurgency tactics. It's also a very French thing to do.
Other nations built castles in Afghanistan using the same HESCO bastion [1] techniques shown in the article, don't think they were as interesting shapes though. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesco_bastion
Though the enemy in Iraq did have a lot of mortars so the patrols stationed did see causalities from indirect fire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diplomatic buildings have often been strong points designed to keep staff safe in uncertain times. This is true even in safer locations; the new US embassy in London is very much a fort although the defensive features (like the water-filled moat/pond, and bollards hidden in the hedges) are well integrated into the landscaping. The new site is probably considerably harder to assault than their old building, even thoug…
Some people are unable to recognize great architecture when they see it. Saarinen's building is applauded as one of the finest modernist structures in Britain and is rightly Grade II listed. https://www.economist.com/prospero/2017/09/26/the-american-e...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diplomatic buildings have often been strong points designed to keep staff safe in uncertain times. This is true even in safer locations; the new US embassy in London is very much a fort although the defensive features (like the water-filled moat/pond, and bollards hidden in the hedges) are well integrated into the landscaping. The new site is probably considerably harder to assault than their old building, even thoug…
Some people are unable to recognize great architecture when they see it. Saarinen's building is applauded as one of the finest modernist structures in Britain and is rightly Grade II listed. https://www.economist.com/prospero/2017/09/26/the-american-e...
Yes because taste is totally not subjective...
Why not just share that you think it's beautiful instead? Does everyone have to agree with you?
> While the design ... appears anachronistic Nothing anachronistic about it; this is likely an optimal design when considering how to maximise the effective coverage of guns. This is good design for a fortification that is meant to be held. This design is relatively quite modern and is a direct response to the introduction of artillery to warfare. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gunpowder#Changes_t... .…
It's anachronistic in the sense that it was largely made obsolete by artillery advances during the 19th century, replaced by polygonal forts (which could even adapt to high-explosive payloads, and actually proved their worth in both world wars), as well as the more modern bunkers & fortified emplacements. It makes a lot of sense when unlikely to face artillery and bombers though, as it's pretty straightforward and ch…
The design is also effective to conduct psychological warfare for some of the reasons that they become tourist attractions in Europe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The decorative aspect is actually a major piece of it's function here. It's intended to be highly visible, and maintaining a highly visible military presence is part of counterinsurgency tactics. It's also a very French thing to do.
It’s also in a theater of asymmetric warfare. It’s not like the enemy has (serious) artillery, much less air power.
European Renaissance civilization... And noone is asking what the french are doing there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_the_Maghreb_(200...