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

[Arriviste]

/\--- Just not my cup of tea I guess. Never will understand this "neo" nonsense.

[jetsetter]

There is no forward or backward in architecture. Sure new styles may be developed but all styles are game.

[kznyc2k]

Originally Posted by Arriviste

/\--- Just not my cup of tea I guess. Never will understand this "neo" nonsense.

When 99.9% of the best technologies in use today (e.g. glass and steel) give off a sterile, cold and overall life-stifling feeling, can you really blame human beings for wanting buildings that recall a time when they were designed in a friendlier way? I'm talking about a very basic gut-level reaction here, but I don't understand the "nonsense" that the future has to be so damn alienating. We are still animals, after all.

[Arriviste]

I just don't feel that steel and glass are allt hat sterile. I think witht he right vision, you can build a very comfortable structure. Its all about what YOU bring to the structure IMO. A modernist bulding designed well, furnished, and decorated comfortably can be absolutely delightful. Modernist buuildings are like a blank canvas, they just need a bit of paint. Whereas the neo-classical examples are Robert Bateman prints. Anyway, thats just my opinion, so its really just a matter of taste

[LostInTheZone]

^it really is a matter of taste, which is why the achitecture community should stop giving it a moralist dimension. I for one like both; the most important things in architecture are proportion, scale, and attention to detail- whether that detail is a butter-smooth polished concrete wall that conforms perfectly to phi, or a series of gargoyles over window arches.

I think the reason that so many architects are drawn to modernism is that, the more you learn about architecture, the more you start seeing a building for its essential elements. But I think schools should be teaching form, scale, and massing, rather than stressing innovation uber alles. Not everyone is a transcendant genius, and what we've really lost is the ability to turn out common, vernacular structures. Most city buildings by their nature are going to be simple boxes, butting up against simple boxes, so they beg for decoration.

I've made the analogy that modernism goes for the spare, barren beauty of the desert, while a lot of traditional architecture goes for the lush beauty of the forest. Both are indeed beautiful, but one is much more amenible to life. I live in a house full of interesting clutter, which at first seems chaotic but on further study is actually pretty ordered and complex. Modernist-decorated apartments always seem too highly ordered, fussy and sterile, even if my first impression on walking in is "wow! this place is gorgeous!", it never feels fully lived in.

As has been said before, architecture is not art, it's space for people, and people are messy, chaotic, and drawn toward adorning ourselves and the things around us. Modernism is a refined taste, and there's nothing wrong with it. But architects need to stop fighting the rest of us.

[niwell]

^Indeed.

While I enjoy contemporary architecture properly done, I find it often sacrifices such necessities as proper massing and scale to be 'original'. There seems to exist a need among architects to prove that they are not borrowing anything from existing styles. This is great from an art perspective and all, and probably a good thing for some landmarks, but I also don't find it's doing much for our average buildings.

IMO, massing, form, scale and relation to the streetscape should be first and foremost for our average buildings. Maybe I'm approaching this from an urban planning perspective alone, but I do feel it is more important.

[vid]

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.

[AnotherPunter]

Originally Posted by trvlr70

Actually, this is the Elysian which is under construction. But, it is located in Chicago's Gold Coast/Near North side.

oops. quite right... mea culpa. still--kind of nostalgic for my taste, though in that neighborhood; perfectly appropriate.

[AnotherPunter]

.

[Arriviste]

Originally Posted by vid

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.

Sorry Vid, I should have been more clear. I do understand it perfectly in theory, just not in application. (Im doing a minor in Architecture, and am starting my masters next year. ) Just so yah know it's not a matter of actual mis-understanding. Quite the opposite actually.

[vid]

Well there we go. The End.

[trvlr70]

Originally Posted by vid

"why duplicate the antiquated?"

Ask that to the people that designed skyscrapers in the early 20th century. There is a reason it's called 'neo' after all.

Sometimes it is necessary so that a new building can fit into an established neighborhood and be cohesive with the existing architecture.

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by trvlr70

Sometimes it is necessary so that a new building can fit into an established neighborhood and be cohesive with the existing architecture.

Indeed. The Carnegie (building I posted earlier in rendering form) will be right next door to this:


Photo by John T. Roberts of http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com

The historic YWCA building from 1928. Since the Carnegie is also using buff brick with limestone trim, it will fit right in with the old YWCA building next door.

Context isn't everything, but it is quite important IMHO.

[gertt510]

Grand Bourg

City: Buenos Aires
Country: Argentina
Finished: 2005
Floor Count: 15
Height: 58.2 m
Floor Area: 11,882 m²

[X-fib]

Historicism, classicism, retroism, what ever you want to call it, are merely attempts to revive past styles. Are we so architectually inept as to be unoriginal? What does it say about the culural direction we are heading if we can only duplicate the past? Are future generations going to be able to look at a building and say "this is early 21st century"?


ON WISCONSIN - GO BADGERS!

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by X-fib

Historicism, classicism, retroism, what ever you want to call it, are merely attempts to revive past styles. Are we so architectually inept as to be unoriginal? What does it say about the culural direction we are heading if we can only duplicate the past? Are future generations going to be able to look at a building and say "this is early 21st century"?

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.

[Arriviste]

Architecture is art. Some people like Kinkade or Bateman, other's like Rothko or Jasper Johns.

[LostInTheZone]

eh, I'll live in the Thomas Kinkade painting. Seems busier. I'll just make sure my house isn't decorated with Thomas Kinkade paintings- they're a bit tacky.

[CGII]

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

[Comrade]

There is the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City:



I don't hate the tower, but it's not one of my favorties.