Posted Sep 18, 2009, 9:19 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,195
|
|
There's a huge difference between stealing and re-creating. I have nothing against (hold on, let me use everyone's description) reviving old styles, borrowing elements of past styles, resurrecting lost architectural treasures, or referencing aesthetic styles of the past. In another thread, it was suggested that Salt Lake should build an exact duplicate of something in another city, or basically just transplant something as opposed to using actual designs. Every architect and designer is inspired by something, but they can't call themselves architects or designers if they don't design anything. Stealing is not designing. But simply using basic styles is not the same as stealing. That is why I am not against going for old styles, but am opposed to building duplicates unless you're trying to copy something specifically (like Paris in Las Vegas).
I don't have anything against those styles, but as any smart design student should know, it is very rare for a modern-day building to be built to the same aesthetic standards as original examples of the style. Times have changed, as procedures in construction has changed, so have quality, effort, and attention. Furthermore, people just don't put as much money into buildings anymore. If you've ever been to DC, this is obvious. You look at buildings like the Library of Congress and are amazed by the quality and beauty of the building, and can't imagine something like it being built today. And surrounding those old, magnificent buildings, are much newer government buildings, which are bland, boring, and obviously much cheaper to build. If the government were to build something like the U.S. Capitol, Washington Monument, Supreme Court, LOC, White House, etc. today, people would be outraged, point their fingers, and complain that their money is being wasted. Even with enough money, however, I think it's just too unrealistic to expect modern day buildings to be built to the same standards as old masterpieces. The Harold Washington Library is a good example of a building designed to look old, but still utilizing more modern decoration. I think it was executed well, as many do, but many also think it is hideous. When compared to, say, Salt Lake's Library, I think most people would prefer Salt Lake's, despite the fancy ornamentation and high-quality old-looking design of Chicago's.
|
Prev
Please, why do we have to resurrect a style that is over 100 years old? Are we forward or backward thinking? Architecture shouldn't have to be hindered by nostalgia or fear of the new and modern.
Linear Mode
