Except Hed Kandi is only just beginning his knowledge of architecture while Adrian has an almost too in depth knowledge of the philosophical underpinnings and history of design.

Hotel Ostrovskogo Square - St. Petersburg, Russia

http://www.archi.ru/files/img/news/large650/48923.jpg

http://www.archi.ru/files/img/news/large650/48919.jpg

http://www.archi.ru/files/img/news/large650/48925.jpg

But that building has aluminium framed glass windows? Why aren't you put off by that? Those things are super ugly even on modern buildings.

Seriously, how can you find this acceptable and the ornate metal frames on the glass on the other building hideous?

http://www.archi.ru/files/img/news/large650/48919.jpg
archi.ru

AND that glass is heavily glazed...

An absolutely worthwhile exploration of sustainable building systems design using traditional building materials and techniques.

Not everybody knew how to build (or had access to) stone.

Yes, I quite agree. I think Hed Kandi's definition is much too narrow, and as such, is really only suited to those places where traditional architecture didn't change to conform to certain new materials. OTOH, would a new building built in an authentic Georgian or Federal style be considered traditional in his sense?

^^^ He doesn't have a definition for the word traditional. He just thinks its a good word to describe buildings he likes. What he really seems to like is buildings that look like they are from video games, then again he appears to have given up explaining any of his thoughts to us, so how are we to know for sure...

god what hath we wrought -- Chicago's enfant terrible is now world (in)famous ... :haha:

Temple of the Vedic Planetarium - Mayapur, India (Planned)
http://tovp.org/index.php?lang=en-GB

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/796...t1253x940b.jpg

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/3...iew1253x94.jpg

Bai Dinh Temple Spiritual and Cultural Complex - Ninh Binh, Vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai_Dinh_Temple


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3649/...2d3ce291_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue0pal/3325194589/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2435/...d4f03f13_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tranct/3553998451/

^Methinks you're going to find architecture school a tad frustrating...

.

This looks like the planet Naboo from Star Wars.

Well it is hard to say in words, but the two threads you have started and the idea you have for practicing architecture is where you will find the answer to that question.

Seriously, I cant stress this anymore than this, go visit architecture departments...figure out which colleges that are close to use and visit them. Use naab.org to get an understanding of what is offered. And the most important thing is to have an open mind when it comes to learning architecture. You wouldnt go to Med School and tell the teacher you know how to medically treat patients, and you wouldnt go to an architecture school and tell your teacher you know how to design architecture. Being a fan of styles and knowing how to practice it are two different things.

'New Development' - Nesvizh, Belarussia

http://i003.radikal.ru/0912/75/7455f385c717.jpg


http://s56.radikal.ru/i151/0912/ce/94dfd77112da.jpg


http://s45.radikal.ru/i110/0912/93/f49288240c61.jpg

^Good to see that Russian neo-neo-classicists are also terrible at scale.

Robertson Partners and Francis Johnson & Partners are the two neoclassical firms that come to mind.

The execution of that Mansard roof is nothing less than offensive. Seriously, how can you have that in a thread about traditionalism? Not only does it not adhere to very set principles about proportion and application of ornament, it is also of strikingly poor craft and modern construction.

15 CPW looks pre-war, but the windows are maybe a little big.

The ne plus ultra in new buildings in traditional style:

Poundbury:

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3799

via wirednewyork and ablarc.

.

As mentioned above, I would definitely toss 15 Central Park West in there as a good one.