New "old" highrises. Or "30s highrises" built in the XXI Century!

[Arriviste]

Originally Posted by CGII

I'd rather live in the Bateman. Kinkade is a commercial hack.

bwhahaha
I was detecting sarcasm there,correct? Or am I laughing at you?

[X-fib]

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

Personally, I don't see it as "inept," I see it as a desire to build something in a more elegant style. I think a lot of the modern buildings praised by a lot of people on this forum are pretty danged hideous. That's why I skip past them.

I just think that architectually we need to stop reviving the past and start inventing the present.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by X-fib

I just think that architectually we need to stop reviving the past and start inventing the present.

Why? The buildings of the past worked and considering the I-wanna-be-a-European mindset of most any urban-minded American, those buildings are still working. They're also working great in America's historic areas, like Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and the old parts of all our major cities.

More often than not, modern buildings don't work. They're ugly, they're alienating, and they usually replaced something really nice, which gives people even more reason to hate them.

That, and historic buildings were designed for their climates and surroundings. As out of place as a fancy British building might look in Mumbai, India, or Singapore, that building was still functional in a hellish climate, as were the early buildings of America's uncomfortable areas such as Arizona and Florida. If the power goes out and you're in an old building in one of those areas, you're still okay. Open the windows. Let the summer heat rise and flow out the windows in the dome. If you're in a modern building, not only is it designed with little more than the architect's ego in mind, you're screwed. Work lets out early because otherwise you'll bake in your glass and steel box.

Perhaps modernist architecture would work if it was designed to still function in primitive surroundings, but it's not. It's either designed as a dismally boring plain box determined to show the world that it was built on a budget or alternately in the case of high-concept modern architecture, it's designed to make a boorish statement, or perhaps as a challenge to the architect -- "How many uneccesary curves and needless angles can I work into this baby? Awkward floorplates are teh good!" At least in the case of old buildings, that decoration served a purpose toward looking pretty. Modern buildings with enough curves and angles and twists and turns to look like a large-scale model of the digestive tract just serve the purpose of informing the public that the architect paid attention during the classes that talked about cantilevering.

[X-fib]

Frank Lloyd Wright would disagree with everything you just said.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by X-fib

Frank Lloyd Wright would disagree with everything you just said.

And as Frank Lloyd Wright's work is getting up there in years, you seem to be of the opinion that Prairie Style should be scrapped too, in favor of more Kunsthaus Graz. Or at least, that appears to be what you're saying -- that old styles, no matter how graceful, should be forgotten simply because they're old; that new styles, no matter how grotesque, are superior just for being new.

[X-fib]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

And as Frank Lloyd Wright's work is getting up there in years, you seem to be of the opinion that Prairie Style should be scrapped too, in favor of more Kunsthaus Graz. Or at least, that appears to be what you're saying -- that old styles, no matter how graceful, should be forgotten simply because they're old; that new styles, no matter how grotesque, are superior just for being new.

Old styles and trends had their place in history, for good or bad. Thirties style modernisn was mostly the later and had little to speak for it. For the most part it represented by bland slabs of concrete more reminisant of a grave stone than a building. So I ask why is that some architects seem so intent on bringing it back? Wright's designs were and are brilliant but that doesn't mean that we should build copies of Taliesan just for the sake of it. By the way. If you want to see progressive modern architecture successfully built in a climate challenged region visit Chicago.

[the dude]

hey, "LostInTheZone." i suppose you realize how offensive your cat and the reference to the NSDAP might be, huh? if it's a joke then you might reconsider your sense of humour. if you're just hateful then so be it.

[vid]

"Thirties style modernisn was mostly the later and had little to speak for it."

Really?


McGraw Hill Building, New York by dct66 | flickr

That is 1930s modernism. I think it is pretty bold, especially the colour. At a time when almost every building was brown brick, and heavily ornamented, this building was a bold new concept. Green, and lightly ornamented. Now, the modernism from the late fifties through to the mid 80s was trendy, and mass produced, with little meaning. Not that the era didn't have it's share of significant buildings (Sears, Hancock, IDS in mpls, Seagram, all great examples of Modernism) but there was a lot of fluff. But then when you look at a lot of the old buildings we're trying to save, they have little going for them other than their age. And the modern buildings in many ways are just severely distorted same-old same-old from the 70s. Set Malmö's Turning Torso straight and it's actually a pretty ugly building. The original Freedom Tower Design with the big ugly cage on top (and the new one with the big blank slab on the bottom) fit into your definition of 'new and more relevant than anything else' and they are, frankly, hideous pieces of shit. I guess I'm between you and hhnc. I don't entirely hate modern buildings, but I can admit that a lot of them are absolute tripe. And I can agree that a lot of buildings being re-done in architectural styles of the past are 'morally wrong' and just shouldn't be. But I don't think we should forget the past - we should draw on it for inspiration. But we shouldn't look to the past for all the answers either, there is a lot of inspiration in the future as well.

The present is where the past and future meet, make it so. And personally, I think the most timeless architecture is that 60s/70s modernism, which still has stray examples dotting the 21st century. Done right, it can be quite good.

If architecture is supposed to reflect our culture, reviving architectural styles of old presents a present yearning for the past.

(Now, how incoherent was that? )

[X-fib]

Don't get me wrong there IS a good share of trash being built today that isn't revilalist. But why add to it by copying something from the 1920s/30s?

A description of Chicago schools philosophy: "....free of subservience to the past, combined with work that expressed the metal frame as a source of order..." Later this was extended to also include being devoid of ornamentation.

I can see a need to duplicate historic designs where historic district zoning requires it, such as in my town's National Historic District composed mostly of mid to late 1800s Italianate and Queen Anne style homes. But its revilvalsion by choice that I fine offensive. We don't need more overdecorated concrete.

[vid]

Well we don't need under-decorated concrete either. Except in the case of brutalism, which is one of my favourite styles, but I understand why many people hate it. It's an acquired taste.

As long as the revivalism is done correctly, I see no problem with it. It's when it's done with shoddy materials that it becomes offensive, an insult to the era it is trying to recreate.

[Jonitecture]

Well we don't need under-decorated concrete either. Except in the case of brutalism, which is one of my favourite styles, but I understand why many people hate it. It's an acquired taste.

As long as the revivalism is done correctly, I see no problem with it. It's when it's done with shoddy materials that it becomes offensive, an insult to the era it is trying to recreate.

i agree, in most cities in north america, too much historic architecture has been lost to pointless buildings that will be torn down in thirty years that have no architectural beauty or destinction. so why not bring back old styles that have ornimentation and will be new icons. styles like brutalism, which i dont like, but can appreciate, my city(saskatoon) has too many of them littering our downtown core. with buildings that revisit older styles, it brings something to a city that may have been lost or a city never had. we should move forward while remembering and acknowledging our past.

[detroit_alive]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

If you're in a modern building, not only is it designed with little more than the architect's ego in mind, you're screwed. Work lets out early because otherwise you'll bake in your glass and steel box.

Not necessarily true, especially of European architecture. Many new buildings, skyscrapers included, are being designed with operable windows and passive cooling systems.

I draw a line somewhere in the middle of the International Style movement. On one hand you have some very impressive and revolutionary buildings, architecture. On the other you have formulaic buildings built to maximize profit, development. There is a line and it was crossed. The modern movement never died, it was just perverted and exploited.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by X-fib

I just think that architectually we need to stop reviving the past and start inventing the present.

this is nothing new. pretty much all of our state capitols, court buildings as well as most federal buildings were contemopray reproductions of classical styles. to me architecture doesn't have an expiration date and nor should a certain style be regulated to a brief period.

[lawsond]

Are future generations going to be able to look at a building and say "this is early 21st century"?

sure they will. just like they look at the british houses of parliament and say "victorian" even though they are "retro" gothic.
styles ebb and flow.
we shd never be afraid to do makeovers.
if it works, build it.

[lawsond]

this is the 48 storey uptown residences under construction in midtown toronto. very deco-retro-yoyo.

[Trantor]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

If the power goes out and you're in an old building in one of those areas, you're still okay. Open the windows. Let the summer heat rise and flow out the windows in the dome. If you're in a modern building, not only is it designed with little more than the architect's ego in mind, you're screwed. Work lets out early because otherwise you'll bake in your glass and steel box.

99% of buildings in Brazil, even the most modern, all stylish glass highrises, have openable windows.

Brazilians just consider fresh air healthier than air conditioning. Of course, opening windows does not contributes much for the air conditioning efficiency.

[borgo100]

Originally Posted by lawsond

this is the 48 storey uptown residences under construction in midtown toronto. very deco-retro-yoyo.

i love this building, but the site is a sad story

"The site was sold to developers who planned to replace it with a condo. On December 2003 Priestly Demolition was engaged in demolishing the structure,(Uptown Theater) when a large section of the building collapsed. A large shovel had been excavating around the base of the structure, when the operator accidentally clipped a pair of steel support beams. No workers were hurt, but the piles of bricks fell on the neighbouring Yorkville English Academy. Fourteen people in the school were injured and one, Augusto Cesar Mejia Sous, a 27 year old Costa Rican, was killed. After a government investigation lasting almost a year, six charges were laid in the incident."

[northbay]

Originally Posted by JMancuso

this is nothing new. pretty much all of our state capitols, court buildings as well as most federal buildings were contemopray reproductions of classical styles. to me architecture doesn't have an expiration date and nor should a certain style be regulated to a brief period.

well said! i agree wholeheartedly.