Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRitsman
I don't agree that all modern ages quickly. To me it's about identifying fads, versus architecturally significant motifs that won't expire. The work of Frank Lloyd Wright for example was modern at the time it was being built, and yet it has aged incredibly well. Valuable architecture comes from attempting to emulate art through design. The issue is that much of our modern architecture is based off a utilitarian or financially related cause.
|
Glass over class as I say. When all new builds are just boxy jutouts or glass boxes over steel its no longer architecture, it's just ikea buildings..
the 80s modern esp aged horribly - the trend now seems to be very stark design elements - I tell people - you know a good build when it will be eligible for heritage protection 100 years from now.
Franks stuff is.. debateable, some has, some hasn't. I like his stuff that has more flowing lines and curves. It just feels these days it's all about max profit for little to no craftsmanship - and the architect in me dies when I see that - it doesn't even need a ton of elements for me - a pediment above a window here, a slightly fancy cornice there, something to tie it in better.
New builds feel like they're pulled from a template, esp stuff like vranich's vs any actual unique design elements of their own - I mean thank god for liuna and core urban, esp core urban for giving us some diversity. I wish core urban had designed the podium and these architects had designed the towers.