HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 3:43 PM
Zerton's Avatar
Zerton Zerton is offline
Ω
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetsetter View Post
They are close minded in that they only accept "modern" designs, designs by others like them in universities like theirs. A "traditional" design would be out of question for them. Any new building has to be glass, steel, and geometric. There is little room for marble, stone, and brick in their world. To use any of the classical design elements would be unthinkable. That is a closed mind. Unwilling to think out of their little modernist box.
Not to be rude, but do you have a decent understanding of the history of modernism? You seem to be speaking in terms I don't think you understand.

for example:
Quote:
I like attention to detail. You can look at some "traditional" buildings and see details located high off the ground for nobody to see but the architect still took the time. I like to look at a building and be able to trace its design elements back thousands of years. To see the history of a civilization in a structure is something that appeals to me. I like materials with warmth, steel should be out sight and glass used primarily for small windows. I like context, to place a "modernist" structure among "traditional" structures shows a lack of thought and awareness of surroundings.
I'll use the building I basically live in, Crown Hall (1956), as an example.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/30982458@N00/704429560/

http://www.dailyicon.net/2008/06/ico...-van-der-rohe/


There is a classical (Greek) temple element here. This modern building didn't arise from nothing, it has ancient roots. Look at the columns, the use of the golden ratio in the fenestration.


http://www.aiachicago.org/special_fe....asp?imgID=701

Here is the detail, the intricacies of the structure. There might not be gargoyles but materials and color can be very expressive.

There is more to modernism than probably meets the eye for you, but in the end it is a matter of personal taste.
__________________
If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. -Orwell

Last edited by Zerton; Jun 2, 2010 at 3:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 13, 2023, 1:24 AM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,164
Ludwig-Thoma-Strasse 57
Unterbachern, Germany
Under Construction
https://www.peuker-architektur.com/galery-1









Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 30, 2010, 6:35 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
just a pool of mushy goo
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,552
No, that's a trendy mind. Remember that universities themselves are huge marketing tools. Modern design is new and young, to many schools traditional design is viewed as rigid and stodgy and does little to help the image of the school appear "cutting-edge."
__________________
Everything new is old again

Trumpism is the road to ruin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 31, 2010, 1:41 AM
jetsetter's Avatar
jetsetter jetsetter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Occident
Posts: 424
Quote:
The Sarah Palin analogy is always in the back of my head, although I avoid it since imo comparing anything with Sarah Palin is a low blow, but since it's already brought up... I would say that Sarah Palin is to political science as neo-traditional architecture is to architecture (intellectually vacant, but very popular among the public). And I would further say that Sarah Palin is to Ben Franklin as neo-traditional architecture is to traditional architecture (related on the surface, but actually completely unrelated and intellectually opposed).
And I would have to disagree, again. "Neo-traditional" architecture as you call it does not exist. And to call it "intellectually vacant" shows a lack of understanding. As it is widely acknowledged, there are poor examples of all forms of architecture.

I really do not know why we are having this argument. In the end, really, it is personal choice and preference. I like attention to detail. You can look at some "traditional" buildings and see details located high off the ground for nobody to see but the architect still took the time. I like to look at a building and be able to trace its design elements back thousands of years. To see the history of a civilization in a structure is something that appeals to me. I like materials with warmth, steel should be out sight and glass used primarily for small windows. I like context, to place a "modernist" structure among "traditional" structures shows a lack of thought and awareness of surroundings.
__________________
"If there is anything to be gained by honesty, then we shall
be honest; if we must dupe, then let us be scoundrels.”
- Frederick the Great
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2010, 12:23 AM
Jasoncw's Avatar
Jasoncw Jasoncw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 402
[q]And I would have to disagree, again. "Neo-traditional" architecture as you call it does not exist. And to call it "intellectually vacant" shows a lack of understanding. As it is widely acknowledged, there are poor examples of all forms of architecture.[/q]

If you open up a history book, you'll read about the different architecture movements from across the world since the last few thousand years, and you can read about all of the historical forces, and all of the ideas and ideologies and beliefs the architects had and how they were embodied in their architecture. Architecture is an intellectual activity. What are the ideas behind neo-traditional architecture?

[q]To see the history of a civilization in a structure is something that appeals to me.[/q]

I like seeing the history embodied in buildings too, which is why I like historical buildings. In 100 years from now, when today is "history" what will the people have from 2010 that embodies today? How does neo-traditional architecture reflect today, or tell a story? Or does it only loosely repeat a story that happened in an unrelated place and an unrelated time? Does the average person know enough about architectural history to be able to infer the story behind a building?


[q]I like context, to place a "modernist" structure among "traditional" structures shows a lack of thought and awareness of surroundings.[/q]

What does contextualism really mean? Gothic architecture is from the middle ages, and classical architecture is far older. Neither of those even existed in North America. How were those styles contextual in places where they flat out never existed? How are they contextual in suburbs among mcmansions and strip malls?

How is neo-traditional architecture contextual in a downtown with a diverse collection of architecture? How is neo-traditional architecture contextual in a downtown which has very little diversity (for example a (neo?)-neo-gothic building, on a campus where there were never neo-gothic buildings)?

The original traditional architecture was rarely even contextual itself. Medieval European cities were made up of small blocks defined by twisting roads, jam packed with wood frame structures with tiny windows. How is a gothic church, which takes up an entire massive block, is orthogonal, is several times taller than anything else in the city, and is made of massive blocks of stone and enormous glass windows, contextual with anything around it? The gothic churches had no respect for the scale, materials, or forms of the cities they were built in.

[q]You can look at some "traditional" buildings and see details located high off the ground for nobody to see but the architect still took the time.[/q]

I've heard this before and I used to believe it, but I think it's a misconception. I can't think of any examples of ornament (modernism obsesses over details, so you probably don't really mean details in the general sense) being located in an unseen area. Can you post an example?

[q]I like materials with warmth, steel should be out sight and glass used primarily for small windows.[/q]

What is more "cold", a room that is next to a lush outdoor garden, but has a stone wall and small windows in between, or one where there is floor to ceiling glass which makes the garden an extension of the room and which lets in a lot of natural light? Why is limestone warm and concrete cold, even though they're essentially the same material? Why is marble warm and steel hard, even though both are cold and hard to the touch? Are these preconceptions which limit how we can use materials?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2010, 1:23 AM
kool maudit's Avatar
kool maudit kool maudit is offline
video et taceo
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 13,916
that chinese thing is absurd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2010, 3:43 AM
jetsetter's Avatar
jetsetter jetsetter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Occident
Posts: 424
Jasoncw, are we trying to convince each other because I believe it is not working. You will not change your opinions and I will not change mine in this regard. Arguing is pointless.
__________________
"If there is anything to be gained by honesty, then we shall
be honest; if we must dupe, then let us be scoundrels.”
- Frederick the Great
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2010, 6:23 AM
Jasoncw's Avatar
Jasoncw Jasoncw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetsetter View Post
Jasoncw, are we trying to convince each other because I believe it is not working. You will not change your opinions and I will not change mine in this regard. Arguing is pointless.
I'm not trying to make you say, "omg neo-traditional architecture is wrong what have I been thinking all these years!?!" but to see architecture as ideas, and not just appearance, and to help you appreciate modernism, so that you can enjoy it. My mind can be changed, 5 years ago I thought modernism was bad and neo-traditional was the way to go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
I hate these types of debates. When you get deep into the profession you'll discover that alot of architecture is personal preference. Clients will seek out firms or individuals that will create the product to their tastes. Some firms deliver a modern approach while others are more traditional.

What is important is execution, not style. I find alot of faux traditional in Chicago an abomination because the chunky cornices and jumbo brick are poor interpretations. But I've also seen some beautifully done examples too.
Clients preferring something doesn't make it right, it makes it profitable. And the clients for those poorly done faux traditional buildings are probably very happy with what they got, and can probably only barely distinguish their poorly done building with a well done one. The firms who produce that are probably doing better financially than the firms doing the real deal, because they can do it cheaper and most clients don't really notice the difference or understand that the difference is important.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2010, 1:01 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasoncw View Post
Clients preferring something doesn't make it right, it makes it profitable. And the clients for those poorly done faux traditional buildings are probably very happy with what they got, and can probably only barely distinguish their poorly done building with a well done one. The firms who produce that are probably doing better financially than the firms doing the real deal, because they can do it cheaper and most clients don't really notice the difference or understand that the difference is important.


Jason, c'mon man how you cant make an assumption like this. You and I know that you are saying this from a complete armchair perspective. The basis you make thus far is based off your own values and opinions. I started to see some good points when you discussed materiality, but when all is said and done clients will be attracted by the type of work a firm does. There is no righteous god of architecture firms, and you couldn't be more off when it comes to "who is profitable." It's the areas of expertise that have save firms, not their hand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2010, 9:46 PM
Jasoncw's Avatar
Jasoncw Jasoncw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
Jason, c'mon man how you cant make an assumption like this. You and I know that you are saying this from a complete armchair perspective. The basis you make thus far is based off your own values and opinions. I started to see some good points when you discussed materiality, but when all is said and done clients will be attracted by the type of work a firm does. There is no righteous god of architecture firms, and you couldn't be more off when it comes to "who is profitable." It's the areas of expertise that have save firms, not their hand.
Saying that they're armchair positions, and that they're subjective anyway, doesn't make them any less or more true. Anyone is welcome to defend my critiques of neo-traditional architecture. I (I only have the benefit of having the perspective and knowledge of myself, which is why discussions are important) can't think of any good answers to those questions, and so those are my conclusions. If architecture is only a matter of applying styles, then all of my criticisms are non-issues, and that's the only way that I can think of where neo-traditional is ok.

Clients/the general public/the market preferring something doesn't make something right or wrong either. If that was the case then exurban mcmansion suburbs are clearly the most justifiable things around. But we know that even though they're wildly popular, they're not the way things should be done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 4:54 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,289
Perhaps you didn't read what I posted. No matter how you word your argument, you are still obsessed with style. What is "right" to you may be wrong to someone else. No building is perfect. Some excel in areas where others fail. This is like passing value judgments on art or music. You can hate hip hop but love classical, but when it comes to execution you see value in both genre.

In all due respect, you know I value your opinions. But if it's all subjective then why come into this discussion. Do you expect to enlighten us or just want to hear all the push-back?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2010, 3:56 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,289
I hate these types of debates. When you get deep into the profession you'll discover that alot of architecture is personal preference. Clients will seek out firms or individuals that will create the product to their tastes. Some firms deliver a modern approach while others are more traditional.

What is important is execution, not style. I find alot of faux traditional in Chicago an abomination because the chunky cornices and jumbo brick are poor interpretations. But I've also seen some beautifully done examples too.

I think all architecture should push the envelope to explore new technologies and environmental sustainability. At the same time, it should be conscious of whats around it and take some note of our past. We shouldn't try to be literal, but original. Using that framework we can explore many possibilities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 3:53 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,430
Quote:
see architecture as ideas, and not just appearance, and to help you appreciate modernism, so that you can enjoy it.
This is a big problem. Architecture is not art. Architecture has real constraints based on actual programmatic, functional needs of habitation and urbanism.

I am extremely cautious of anyone who tells me that aesthetically speaking, architecture isn't about style. Architecture is never abstract. Sculpture is abstract, but architecture must first be functional. Architects are artisans, charged with making functional items beautiful, not artists, who are charged with creating abstract beauty from nothing. The difference is not semantic. You can include abstract art in architecture, but the bottom line is that whatever art you include has to be just another kind of style, or else you're not doing architecture, you're doing sculpture.

Occasionally sculpture writ large is the functional program. The Sydney Opera House is more valuable as an iconic sculpture than it ever will be as an Opera House. In those very rare cases, it is acceptable to put art first. For most buildings, it isn't appropriate to go beyond style.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 4:35 PM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Architecture is not art.
You can't be serious. I'm a 'form follows function' guy all the way, and I despise most modern architecture, but come on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 9:01 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,430
I am totally serious. Art is part of architecture, but architecture is not art. That difference is absolutely essential.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 9:58 PM
jetsetter's Avatar
jetsetter jetsetter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Occident
Posts: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
I am totally serious. Art is part of architecture, but architecture is not art. That difference is absolutely essential.
Indeed. Many of Frank Gehry's buildings are "art" (terrible art at that but I digress) and because of that fact or perhaps because of his incompetence many of those buildings are falling apart or are maintenance nightmares due to bad design. For him it is just a piece of large sculpture.

Look, this whole thing is about legitimacy. I feel that a new building in the gothic style is just as legitimate as a building constructed centuries ago in the gothic style. That is what I believe.
__________________
"If there is anything to be gained by honesty, then we shall
be honest; if we must dupe, then let us be scoundrels.”
- Frederick the Great

Last edited by jetsetter; Jun 2, 2010 at 10:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2010, 10:35 AM
JHoward88's Avatar
JHoward88 JHoward88 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
I am totally serious. Art is part of architecture, but architecture is not art. That difference is absolutely essential.
I suggest that existence is itself a form of artistic expression. Thus even the simplest housing constructed for the sole purpose of protecting its inhabitant from the elements is reflective of rational philosophy.

Anything that employs the process of changing matter from one form into a more advanced form is art. Inasmuch as our existence is itself an ongoing phase of evolution and gradual progressive change, we and all that we do, including architecture, is art. The two cannot be separated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2010, 9:50 AM
TANGELD_SLC's Avatar
TANGELD_SLC TANGELD_SLC is offline
The World Is Welcome Here
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SL,UT
Posts: 884
My own philosophy is ANYTHING that mankind creates or designs is an art-form and expression, so architecture is no exception. It might be BAD art, but it is still art.
__________________
Espavo!

Plyg, Metrosexual, & AVENian
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 9:50 PM
jetsetter's Avatar
jetsetter jetsetter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Occident
Posts: 424
Quote:
Classical Architecture: Three Fallacies
7 May, 2010 | By Robert Adam

Classicism has been wronged, argues Robert Adam. Although its longevity proves people still want classical buildings, three fallacies about style, relevance and authenticity are used to justify the hostility it receives from the profession

In Europe, the Americas, the Antipodes and even India you can’t get away from classical architecture. It’s been around for 2,000 years and has had an unbroken run in Europe for 500 years. Classical forms are so deeply lodged in our collective subconscious that every time an architect designs a building with a row of columns, square or round, and puts a beam over them, there seems to be something classical about it. Some contemporary architects, like Eric Parry, say this is deliberate, while others, like David Chipperfield, claim it isn’t. Classicism can even be attributed to its antagonists: RoberVenturi claims that Mies van der Rohe was a classicist and architectural historian Colin Rowe famously linked Le Corbusier’s houses with Palladio’s villas.

For all this, 60 years of anti-traditional architectural education have created profession largely ignorant of the history and vocabulary of classical architecture. Although they don’t know much about them, few architects will condemn great buildings of the past. To give their designs some sort of classical pedigree, architects sometimes claim they’ve used classical proportions (often of dubious provenance) or have drawn inspiration from the abstract qualities of a classical building. When dealing with literal new-classical designs, however, there’s little sympathy, and they’re frequently attacked as being ‘pastiches’ or ‘not of our time’.

Justifying this hostility, and fuelled by ignorance, architects entertain three common fallacies about classical architecture. The first is that classicism is just one style. While there is a common ancestry in ancient Greece and Rome, the differences between the renaissance, baroque, rococo and early 20th-century ‘Swedish Grace’ styles (to name only the most obvious) are profound and very visible. Use-types have moved from temples to churches, huts to palaces, and offices to airports. Following the single-style fallacy is the idea that classicism inevitably represents some distasteful political regime that corresponds with one period in its history. But such is the variety, flexibility and ubiquity of the type that it has, in its time, been used to express democracy in the USA, autocracy in Nazi Germany, civic pride in the 19th century, paganism in antiquity, Christianity from the renaissance onwards, and much more besides.

The second fallacy is that, due to its antiquity and origins in ancient building technology, classicism simply doesn’t belong in the modern world
. But this can only be claimed if you have some determinist theory of what the modern world ought to be. Classical architecture is a part of the modern world. It continues to be widely demanded and supplied (both well and badly) around the world. It’s never been limited to one form of construction: the ancient Greeks imitated wood; the Romans not only added the arch, but made brick structures look like marble; renaissance domes introduced tension members and the industrial revolution cast-iron; early skyscrapers were classical; and glass walls date back to the 16th century. Now, to the surprise of many, the traditional construction at the source of classical design turns out to be the most sustainable.

The idea of obsolescence often leads to a comparison with dead languages – usually Latin. As any linguist will tell you, however, a language is only dead if no one uses it.

Most architects may have abandoned it,but in the wider world the classical language is alive and well. The overwhelming desire for traditional and classical houses has been established beyond doubt and the sale of classical cast stone, plaster mouldings and plastic details (regardless of how well they are produced) continues apace. These things mean something to those who want them. Research would be required to find out what this might be, but we can be fairly sure it’s not an association with the Greek Dorian tribe or animal sacrifice. In all languages meanings change, but this doesn’t mean the language has died. In fact it is exactly this quality that gives languages their richness and complexity.

The third fallacy is that it’s no longer possible to build ‘proper’ classical buildings, due to a lack of skills or the expense of decoration. In the first place, the skills are available and modern technology helps to deliver what was once complicated and labour-intensive. Classical buildings need be no more or less expensive than any building. In the second place, and most significantly, a lack of design practice has led to the idea that classicism is only the application of decoration, and the more of it the better. In fact, classical design is as much about what’s omitted as what’s included. Due to its complete familiarity, when decoration is stripped away there’s still the lingering impression that it could be put back. This gives classical design great flexibility, but it can also lead people to believe that buildings such as Foster + Partners’ Carré d’Art (1993) in Nîmes, France, are classical when they’re not.

This ambiguity is evidence of the underlying persistence of the classical ideal, which should be exploited rather than ignored. The architectural establishment often freezes out the few practising classicists or locks them safely in a box marked ‘reproduction’. For their part, too many classicists see modernity as the enemy. Neither attitude is healthy. A public desire for both the benefits of modernity and the depth of tradition is commonplace. A liberal profession should accept and even combine the energy of invention and the wisdom of classicism. The creative potential is enormous.

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/b...217216.article
...................
__________________
"If there is anything to be gained by honesty, then we shall
be honest; if we must dupe, then let us be scoundrels.”
- Frederick the Great
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 10:39 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,164
.

Last edited by Hed Kandi; Jun 29, 2016 at 3:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:17 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.