- New Classical Architecture -

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by CGII

You think Marcel Breuer's work at BCC was 'terrible?' Those are really some fine buildings.




tom stoelker

The above are ugly and terrible.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

The above are ugly and terrible.

Your mom is ugly and terrible.

[jetsetter]

When I look at the buildings you posted I see an ugly concrete unsymmetrical mess. Perhaps their only positive quality is that they let me imagine what superior building could be constructed in their place when they are torn down.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

When I look at the buildings you posted I see an ugly concrete unsymmetrical mess. Perhaps their only positive quality is that they let me imagine what superior building could be constructed in their place when they are torn down.

You would make a great architect.

[ThatOneGuy]

I really like those buildings above. A nice example of brutalism. But I guess one needs to understand art and architecture a bit better to appreciate them.

[jetsetter]

Oh, I understand art and architecture. Make no mistake, I am a fan of some modernist architecture in some specific settings. However, in my opinion, Brutalism in all of its various forms is reprehensible.

[vid]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Oh, I understand art and architecture. Make no mistake, I am a fan of some modernist architecture in some specific settings. However, in my opinion, Brutalism in all of its various forms is reprehensible.

Then you don't understand art and architecture.

[jetsetter]

It's a subjective matter of taste of course. I see few redeeming qualities in Modernism as a whole, even less in Brutalism.

Look, you defend these buildings because you find them aesthetically pleasing or because you consider them inspired works of art. I do not. To me they are ugly and unsymmetrical abortions bereft of any positive qualities.

[Tyler Xyroadia]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

It's a subjective matter of taste of course. I see few redeeming qualities in Modernism as a whole, even less in Brutalism.

Look, you defend these buildings because you find them aesthetically pleasing or because you consider them inspired works of art. I do not. To me they are ugly and unsymmetrical abortions bereft of any positive qualities.

AH! A curmudgeon after my own heart! Yes thats it! let disdane and contempt flow through you!

Let us be hounest. In the 60's and 70's people began to hink of buildings as "Art" and not in the good way. Now, I am fairly open when it comes to 'real' art. The type you stuff in a museum. If you want to pile up some trash bags and jam some spikes into it and call it "Art" well, that is fine, it doesn't hurt me.

But if you want to make a BUILDING based off that (cough Gehry cough) well bloody hell stay out of it then!
Because that is what happened. When you see those above 'buildings' you don't think "Ah, that is a good space to live and work" you think. "Bloody hell, that is a surreal concrete sculpture... Building? Seriouslly?"

Now, I know "some" people seeit and say "Ah! How daring! How creative! How bold!" And once again, for "art" that is fine. But NOT for buildings. These "things" belong in MOMA, not with peole inside them.

[vid]

I'll agree that a lot of what Ghery produces is impractical and that much of it isn't very aesthetically pleasing, but to throw the entire genre of modern architecture under the bus is extremely ignorant.

At least make an attempt to learn why they designed the buildings the way they did, and what their goal was. You don't seem to like architecture to me. You simply like plain symmetrical buildings with every square inch covered in art (often mass produced art; most historic buildings in smaller cities in North America have stock sculptures, and the ironwork is almost always mass-produced, not artesanal) to hide how impractical that forced symmetry was on the building's occupants.

You are casting aside all of the modern buildings that are a pleasure to experience, and ignoring all of the classical ones that aren't.

[ThatOneGuy]

Why does everyone ignore all the ugly or mediocre old buildings?

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

AH! A curmudgeon after my own heart! Yes thats it! let disdane and contempt flow through you!

Let us be hounest. In the 60's and 70's people began to hink of buildings as "Art" and not in the good way. Now, I am fairly open when it comes to 'real' art. The type you stuff in a museum. If you want to pile up some trash bags and jam some spikes into it and call it "Art" well, that is fine, it doesn't hurt me.

But if you want to make a BUILDING based off that (cough Gehry cough) well bloody hell stay out of it then!
Because that is what happened. When you see those above 'buildings' you don't think "Ah, that is a good space to live and work" you think. "Bloody hell, that is a surreal concrete sculpture... Building? Seriouslly?"

Now, I know "some" people seeit and say "Ah! How daring! How creative! How bold!" And once again, for "art" that is fine. But NOT for buildings. These "things" belong in MOMA, not with peole inside them.

The majority of the discourse would tend to believe that 'conceptual architecture's' birth was at Palladio's Villa Rotunda; a philosophical and artistic statement which is almost completely unlivable as a house.


wikipedia.org

[vid]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

Why does everyone ignore all the ugly or mediocre old buildings?

Because it doesn't conform to their idea that everything old is exalted.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by vid

Because it doesn't conform to their idea that everything old is exalted.

vid vid vid..........VID!

Wake up!

Its not the age for classicism necessarily its scale/proportion/detail and execution. Thats why I believe its possible to create new buildings that are well done in a classical style. It does happen. You are correct, there are more old examples, simply a math issue though.
Same formula for modern or contemporary architecture: scale/proportion/detail and execution. There are lots of great, I say contemporary, meaning modern day.
Brutalist like above, for me, doesnt follow this formula, but is more akin to what an abstract painter might do. It doesnt create the love and admiration that other styles might. Sure they will have their quarky fans, thats fine, the good thing is that we dont have entire cities built that way. Small doses are key.

[vid]

Then what about Romanesque architecture, with hand railing that are far too large to be used as handrails, its thick walls and tiny windows? Victorian architecture with it's total lack of symmetry and wide variety of architectural features with no purpose? How many Victorian era houses are there in the US with doors to nowhere, again?

The scale of railway stations and churches are intended to make humans feel small. The scale of the main, brutalist style building at my city's university is much better in proportion to humans than the giant cavern that is the inside of Grand Central Station. Classic architecture has doors that are 30 feet high! To what exactly is that in proportion? A brutalist building covered in plants with all of its hidden features and corners, shapes and textures, landscaping and ponds, is actually a lot of fun to explore. Moreso than a palace like Versaille where the wide, symmetrical facade lays everything out in front of you, leaving little mystery. They're very natural, that is "like nature", while classicism, with its strict rules regarding lines and proportion, is unnatural and man-made.

A lot of classical architecture is just taking a symmetrical box and sticking fancy statues and carvings all over it.

No city should be built uniformly in one architectural style. Modernist buildings in historic cores in Europe add a lot of excitement to those neighbourhoods. The presence of a modern building surrounded by classic ones only emphasizes its architecture more. That contrast is important.

Keep in mind that most of the criticisms you have of brutalist architecture with regard to its scale, proportion, detail, and suitability for human occupation were made 50 years ago against Victorian era architecture. These same arguments about architecture led to the architecture you're arguing against now!

(Just want to note that I don't dislike Grand Central or Versailles at all, they're both magnificent examples of their architectural styles, I was simply using them as examples in the argument.)

[ardecila]

People love to conflate issues of taste and function. I don't like the way the Breuer buildings look, so they must be uncomfortable, poorly-functioning, drafty buildings inside.

Reality doesn't care about personal tastes, though. Many modern architects were extremely attentive to the way their buildings would be used by people, and some even designed their buildings to be flexible so the use could evolve over time. By contrast, I've been in a ton of Victorian-era buildings that function terribly because they were designed by incompetent architects with a pattern book, even though all sorts of people adore Victorian buildings.

In Chicago, we're having a huge debate over Bertrand Goldberg's Prentice Pavilion, which was designed as a maternity ward for a hospital yet has the flexibility to house almost anything with minor renovations. It's owner (Northwestern Memorial Hospital) has decided that the building is ugly and does not match the bland, flavorless Postmodernism of their other buildings. Magically, in NMH's public statements, "this building is ugly" becomes "this building is obsolete". Nothing could be further from the truth.

[vid]

The wide variety of issues taken into account when designing modern buildings and how architects and engineers respond to those issues is a main reason that modern buildings do appear so plain. We spend so much time, money and effort into making them suitable for whatever tasks we're using the building for that we can't afford to stick a bunch of sculptures on to make them pretty. The best architects can work those solutions into the architectural design in an aesthetically pleasing way.

[Tyler Xyroadia]

Vid let me start again to better explain myself.
To start, I am not so far gone as to think that ALL Old builds = exalted. There are many old buildings I find trite, souless, unlivable or just plain ugly. In fact on Romanesque architecture I am in total agreement. It in it's way is the old version of Brutalism. It is often cold, overstated, like a fortress. There is also a lot of Baroque architects that, while a wonderful 'work of art' I find tacky over done and far far too busy (plus it has inspired countless and simply Ghastly McMansions in modern times)

Keep in mind I am also fully aware that the exact same points I am using against current Modern architecture are the same as those used to tare down great buildings of the past.

After all my views are just that "MY VIEWS"
I am a bloody curmudgeon who thinks that the height architecture peaked in the 1940's and went down hill from there.
Do I think ALL modern works are bad? Of course not, there are many I quite enjoy. And of course if everything was the same it would be dreadfully dull.

But the large majority of Brutalist buildings I DO find outright ugly. SLO Said it quite well, I do not know if he is joking, but calling them like abstract painting is correct. They do have a place in the art world, and some of them can be, interesting. But I would not wish to live or work in one.

Vid I do not know much about you, but I am curious what shapped your views of architecture. To many, public buildings are grand and large because they are meant to fell Grand, like a temple or church. All thos train stations and banks that are massive and huge are meant to impress people, to give a sense of awe and wonder.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

After all my views are just that "MY VIEWS"
I am a bloody curmudgeon who thinks that the height architecture peaked in the 1940's and went down hill from there.

It went downhill and bottomed out in the late 1970s, at the height of the "If Pei can do it, so can we, and for 87% less!" wave of bland, uninspired, very cheap corporate architecture. It's rising again. The past decade has produced some amazing architecture that we couldn't even imagine in the last century.

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

Brutalist buildings ... do have a place in the art world, and some of them can be, interesting. But I would not wish to live or work in one.

I won't disagree that many brutalist buildings aren't very practical or aesthetically pleasing and I wouldn't miss them if they were gone, but I do appreciate those that have succeeded at being practical and pleasing buildings and on the few occasions I've been in the well-designed brutalist structures, I've enjoyed being there. Similarly, I enjoy the grand classics as well but some historic buildings needed to go. They were impractical from the start, and often were built without considering that things change overtime (although I understand that changes were far more gradual in the past than they are today).

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

Vid I do not know much about you, but I am curious what shapped your views of architecture.

I was always interested in architecture, so I read books about it. Without having anyone give me opinions about what was good or bad architecture prior to that, I went into my self-education of architecture with no bias against any kinds of architecture.

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

To many, public buildings are grand and large because they are meant to fell Grand, like a temple or church. All thos train stations and banks that are massive and huge are meant to impress people, to give a sense of awe and wonder.

Any building can give a sense of awe and wonder. Train stations, banks, churches and seats of government power were meant to imply power, permanence and tradition. Most modern buildings don't effectively imply power or permanence, and they certainly don't imply tradition. But they can imply awe and wonder. Look at Burj Khalifa or Selfridges Birmingham.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by vid

Any building can give a sense of awe and wonder. Train stations, banks, churches and seats of government power were meant to imply power, permanence and tradition. Most modern buildings don't effectively imply power or permanence, and they certainly don't imply tradition. But they can imply awe and wonder. Look at Burj Khalifa or Selfridges Birmingham.

I agree with you here, however, most buildings that are pleasing have a scale and order to them. Architecture is not meant to be haphazard in a way many brutalist buildings or deconstructionist buildings are.

In regard to your comment on scale of larger old buildings, its still about proportion scaled up and down. Public buildings were not meant to relate as much to the individual as to the city (or God).
The other reason is that most traditional details you see were initially a solution to a problem; arch's as a structural item, window panes, thick walls, groin vaults. They were born out of necessity, but used in a way that has become revered as traditional architecture. Your other point about architects finding creative ways to account for modern infrastructure, thats true, but doesnt matter what style it is. Contemporary architecture can be great, but scale and proportion is always important. Buildings like Burj Khalif (and most highrises) give a sense of awe, but many disappoint at street level......maybe they need bigger doors