Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc
Funny thing is these building are representative of their time. Just because modernism drastically changed architectural styles since the 1950s doesn't mean we're not allowed to go back to more elegant forms of architecture. Architectural styles, like so many things in our world, is cyclical.
|
I don't know if I'd consider architecture cyclical. It's evolving, and has periodic moments of absolte lunacy (as we see in this thread) but at least at the highest level is/should be breaking new ground. Relentless progress in architecture has been occuring for quite some time now, and by quite some time, I mean a few hundred years. Untill we run out of ideas, or engineering prowess, why duplicate the antiquated? You can't tell me that this "neo-classical" or "neo classical revival" if you consider the previous stage of neo classicism to be over (which I do) to be representative of our best technologies and processes?
And thanks for starting the site. Nalyds skyscraperpage was key to my success in junior high in the late 90's.