- New Classical Architecture -

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

I have to disagree. American collegiate gothic is a handsome style and should if anything be further propagated. I find almost all "modern" and "progressive" (what names!!!, as if trying to shove it in the face of others) architecture to be dreadful. What you see in the drawings will be loved far longer and last far longer than any example of "modern" or "progressive" architecture. Of that you can be assured.

Actually the most popular buildings on University of Chicago's campus continue to be some of the wildest Modernist buildings. For example, the Regenstein library is extremely popular with students. Part of the problem with Modernism was that a lot of "experiments" turned into complete mistakes. Remember that classical styles developed over a period of hundreds of years while Modernism came into being in about 50. There are bound to be mistakes, but when done correctly Modernist building can function so excellently that everyone who uses them loves them dearly.

Another great example of Modernist university architecture that is absolutely adored by the students who use it is the Mies masterpiece Crown Hall at IIT. It simply worships those who use it. It exists solely to make the students happy and enshrine their work.

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by Tolbert

One of the ugliest chirches i've ever seen,...

Totaly out of proportion and nothing in common with the cothic stile at all...

There is a subsection of Gothic Revival that uses brick instead of stone and it is that style that I am reminded of when I look at that church. It is not perfect but it is an admirable effort.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Actually the most popular buildings on University of Chicago's campus continue to be some of the wildest Modernist buildings. For example, the Regenstein library is extremely popular with students. Part of the problem with Modernism was that a lot of "experiments" turned into complete mistakes. Remember that classical styles developed over a period of hundreds of years while Modernism came into being in about 50. There are bound to be mistakes, but when done correctly Modernist building can function so excellently that everyone who uses them loves them dearly.

Another great example of Modernist university architecture that is absolutely adored by the students who use it is the Mies masterpiece Crown Hall at IIT. It simply worships those who use it. It exists solely to make the students happy and enshrine their work.

All I am saying is that those buildings in the "traditional" styles will last longer and be treasured longer than any building in the "modern" styles. Polls done that ask regular people, not the close minded university set, indicate that it is not the "modern" buildings that people love.

[Busy Bee]

One of the ugliest chirches i've ever seen,...

Totaly out of proportion and nothing in common with the cothic stile at all..

Possibly one of the most misspelled short sentences I've ever had the pleasure of reading on these forums.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Polls done that ask regular people, not the close minded university set, indicate that it is not the "modern" buildings that people love.

Yes, close-minded is exactly the term that comes to mind when I think of a university and university education... Especially when it comes of U of C, I mean its not like they are world renowned for regularly inventing completely new fields of study or anything... Seriously? Isn't it more "close minded" to only appreciate traditional forms of architecture and automatically write off any new styles as rubbish? Last time I checked the very nature of the battle between "Modern" styles when they first came about (see Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright and how they were written off by the establishment for years) and traditional styles was that traditionalists couldn't accept that anything other than European traditions could make for good design...

What a ridiculous statement, Universities are close-minded... Right, I'm sure Sarah Palin's very open minded, "real 'Merican" supporters agree with you...

[jens]

Tianjin Concert Hall, China

Tianjin Concert Hall is a new 650-seater concert hall built in a pastiche of classical European style in the heart of the city. It's located next to the Xiaobailou subway station on Line One and has limited underground parking. There are a number of restaurants, bars and cafes nearby.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/wmbenson/3519152165/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/chineseemma319/4200198636/


http://www.tianjinexpats.com/event-list/venueevents/894-tianjin-concert-hall/archive

[jetsetter]

What a ridiculous statement, Universities are close-minded... Right, I'm sure Sarah Palin's very open minded, "real 'Merican" supporters agree with you...

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.

[Busy Bee]

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."

[Jasoncw]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

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.

Modernists use marble (lime?)stone and brick all the time. In fact I would say that modern architecture uses marble a lot more often than traditional architecture does. The difference is that in modernism materials are used for their inherit beauty while in traditional architecture they're mainly used as a vehicle for ornament. In general, modernism has a much richer palette of materials to use, and is more free to use them. If someone is a fan of materials and their inherit qualities, then they should be a fan of modern architecture.

To criticize modern architecture as being "geometric" is both completely false (while there are a lot of "geometric" modern buildings there are also a lot of organic ones, while organic traditional architecture barely exists) and shows a misunderstanding of traditional architecture itself, since the beauty of traditional architecture is the beautiful proportions and geometric relationships.


But I think that materials and proportions are besides the point in neo-traditional architecture. Presumably this thread is for posting GOOD examples of neo-traditional architecture, but I'd say at least a third of the buildings posted here are poorly designed buildings in themselves, and also show little understanding of the traditional architecture they're based on. I would also say that in the general public internally registers properly designed neo-traditional architecture, actual historic buildings, and bad faux historic architecture (think historically themed wal-marts) more or less the same.

But the quality or accuracy doesn't matter, because the point of neo-traditional architecture isn't to make high quality architecture, it's to create traditional imagery to convey the associated traditional values. So universities use it to convey "ye olde university", a place with history and cultural traditions and the social status associated with long-lived institutions. Commercial buildings use it to convey "mainstreet USA", a place of community gathering, with family owned small businesses. Residential buildings use it to convey traditional family and community values. Likewise a university might use modern architecture to convey its cutting-edge progressiveness, etc.


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).

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Tolbert

One of the ugliest chirches i've ever seen,...

Totaly out of proportion and nothing in common with the cothic stile at all...

It doesn't look that bad to me.

[jetsetter]

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.

[Jasoncw]

[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?

[kool maudit]

that chinese thing is absurd.

[jetsetter]

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.

[Rizzo]

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.

[Jasoncw]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

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.

Originally Posted by Hayward

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.

[Tolbert]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

There is a subsection of Gothic Revival that uses brick instead of stone and it is that style that I am reminded of when I look at that church. It is not perfect but it is an admirable effort.

Its not about the brick. Brick is a common material for gothic structures in northern europe.

its the massivnes of the structure which is in direct conflict with the ideas of gothic architecture. you cannot just put a pionted arch into a wall and say "hey its gothic architecture". and thats what they did there.

Even Pointed Arches are not purely gothic,they where used in romanesque buildings long before. They just became popular with the gothic stile.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Jasoncw

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.

[Jasoncw]

Originally Posted by Hayward

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.

[Rizzo]

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?

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

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:

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.