Quote:
Originally Posted by Arriviste
/\--- Just not my cup of tea I guess. Never will understand this "neo" nonsense.
|
What I meant was, it's called Neo-Classical because it copied the Classical style of architecture. Neo-Classical is a copy. Neo-gothic is a copy of gothic. Neo-(Insert Architectural Style Here) means that it is a newer rendition of an old style. Romanesque architecture built in the United States are copies of past architectural styles. Canada's Parliament, Alberta's Parliament, The US Capitol Building and almost every other capitol building on the continent, is a copy of an architectural style that is around 1000 years old. Gothic architecture of the 1300s begat neo-gothic architecture of the 1910s, and we're seeing that come back in Post Modernism 'replicas', a neo-neo-gothic if you will. So it is cyclical, and architecture of the future will be heavily influenced by architecture of the past.
I think the duplicating is representative of our time. Let's not forget that many of Mies buildings were adorned with Shag carpets back in the good ol' 70s.
And even if the inside it cozy, you can't put a throw rug and some pillows on a buildings façade to 'warm' it up, I also admire the TD Centre in Toronto, but I'll be one of the first to admit that many people will find it a very cold place. The dark lines and dominating buildings do that, compared to a nice warm stone chiseled, glowing-in-the-sunset masterpiece that is the Woolworth Building in New York. Not only is the exterior a masterpiece of the 1910s, it's interior is probably quite modern, and more to your liking. Though that in no way makes the other building better or worse than it.
The reason these revivals are so terrible is, as niwell pointed out, their massing is grossly off-scale. They have to be done properly to get the right effect, otherwise, yes, they are po-mo pieces of crap.