By-the-way, interesting thought... I just spoke to a high-end residential contractor and he told me that doing a traditional interior is more difficult than doing a modern interior... kind of counter intuitive right? Well- it kind of makes sense, since you can't hide the imperfections on a clean simple surface. In a way, it takes a higher degree of craftsmanship to do something simple well...
french, italian, indian, russian, english, chinese, thai, mexican, I couldn't list them all. But all we get is japanese. Sure japanese is great, when one among all those others, but not exclusively as the sole cooking philosophy.
How can that be true if they were originally developed to thrive during a pre-petroleum era? If anything, traditional designs beget a very low usage of natural resources. On the other hand, glass curtain walls require huge amounts of resources to heat and cool because their R values generally stink in comparison to masonry.
"they are a bit*h to maintain"
Really? Most of them maintain themselves very well, and some of them have stood without maintenance for centuries. Those "ornamental features" you detest do a great job of repelling water. Meanwhile, our experimental buildings continue to develop unprecedented maintenance problems.
"can't meet building code"
That sounds ridiculous. What elements of a building code would contradict the capacity of a durably designed traditional building?
"what they want is something that looks traditional. which is lame."
Gruen says: "they are not. no one wants to own a traditional building. they suck tons of resources, are a bit*h to maintain and can't meet building code. on top of that, many of the types of buildings we build today would never fit in anything 'traditional" without looking like a cartoon.
what they want is something that looks traditional. which is lame."
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
eke, i wasn't saying your a troll. i think you have a well considered reasonable opinion, even though i disagree with it.
there are other people lumping themselves in with you're 'traditional' views who are just seeking attention and crying about how all the world is against them.
suri says "You really don't know what I am trying to say? After this many pages it isn't clear, I am THAT inarticulate?"
and we respond, yet again, saying that a lot of the public we regularly work with do not share his taste in architecture. he still hasn't even said whether it's classical, or some other traditional style, or if it's just something old that he's interested in. he still thinks that his opinion on what the public wants is the only available opinion to hold.
I have said many times what I meant by traditional, pre-modernist. You have even addressed that by saying I shouldn't be able to lump all that together, so don't say you are still waiting to hear it, you just decided to dismiss it.
I don't think mine is the only opinion to hold, I think it's a common one, which is supported by surveys.
But don't you see that, very nearly without exception, the architectural educators, and the elite architectural press, maintain exactly the sort of position that you criticize Suri for: that an avant-garde modernist approach is the only correct position to hold? We can argue what percentage of the public wants traditional or classical architecture, but it's a big percentage, yet the fact is that the schools and the press pretend that NOBODY wants it, or if they do, that they are misguided. That's the issue.
I'm a both/and guy. I'm the guy that's arguing for diversity in the profession. The schools, the press, and their philosophical fellow-travellers, are the ones arguing for a near-total hegemony for their design point-of-view.
The one thing that makes us human animals unique other than war is our insatiable appetite for novelty and innovation. To design traditional buildings or even buildings that just copy the latest trends kind of seems to deny that fundamental human trait. To me its not about new vs old. It is also not about being "of the time." it is about innovation and creativity. It is about timelessness. It is about putting together various characteristics from past and present to create something more interesting and useful. If something from history works perfect then why reinvent the wheel, but if you could improve it and maybe combine it with new things that work better than old things than imo why the fuck not. Only stray from what can be improved. Also define for your self what improve means. If the goals are purely utilitarian than follow that criteria, if the goal is more experience driven then follow that criteria.... As far as aesthetics go, I believe that aesthetics and material and structure, and technology, and building science, and art, are all intricately connected. Style is irrelevant. It is a stupid constraint and useless constraint. Trying to replicate any style past of present will never result in anything too great.
I'm a both/and too, which is what pomo pretty much is, isn't it? I went to school in the late 90's and early two thousands, we were taught to approach design from many points of view. Architects aren't trained in a style, they are trained in a way of thinking and that thinking sits of the foundation what came before, the modernists and beaux arts and everything else too. Suri, some architects produce modernist looking designs (the clean aesthetic) but we are not all disciples to that style, as you should be able to tell from the voices here. As for you articulating your point, I have read 85% of this thread and I had no idea by traditional you meant Italianate or french design. That is eye opening. I see why you have a problem with architects now. Did your architect fire you?
I like many things about pre-modern architecture better, but I also like many things about modern architecture better. There does not need to be this false dichotomy that one is right and the other is wrong.
It's fascinating that some are still trying to say this is about one or the other when time and time again we are pointing to the fact that traditional architecture is not being taught. First it was that modernism is imbued with the Beaux Arts teaching. Then it's people don't know what they want. Then it's some bizzare victimization meme. Then it's to do with ancient Greek civilization vs. an i-phone. Yet you can't get away from the basic fact that EKE once again so eloquently lays out.
But don't you see that, very nearly without exception, the architectural educators, and the elite architectural press, maintain exactly the sort of position that you criticize Suri for: that an avant-garde modernist approach is the only correct position to hold? We can argue what percentage of the public wants traditional or classical architecture, but it's a big percentage, yet the fact is that the schools and the press pretend that NOBODY wants it, or if they do, that they are misguided. That's the issue.
jla-x said,
The one thing that makes us human animals unique other than war is our insatiable appetite for novelty and innovation. To design traditional buildings or even buildings that just copy the latest trends kind of seems to deny that fundamental human trait. To me its not about new vs old. It is also not about being "of the time." it is about innovation and creativity. It is about timelessness.
So is it about timelessness or is it about our insatiable need for novelty? Could it be we crave both? Could it be that novelty is great in our youth but timelessness is more appealing in our old age? Or flip it, could it be that children need stability and routine even when they are always "board" yet older people slowly die if they don't introduce some novelty into their well tred thinking? It's not an either-question, it's a both/and. So what if suri prefers italianate or whatever scarlet letter your trying to stick on him, and so what if curtkram likes his coffee straight with no sweetners or leche? Given our modern world of choice (thank god) we should be able to accomodate both. That's what academia by and large isn't doing. I suppose this might be as futile as walking down the aisle in congress and asking everybody to get along, yet is seems worth it when most Americans don't live along ideological lines.
Opps, there I go again, speaking for the masses, who by the way, don't know what the fuck class is, then again, the elites who control capital, but maybe they are western imperialists, who prefer socialist beach houses, that form a culture of their own,.....and on and on and on
But don't you see that, very nearly without exception, the architectural educators, and the elite architectural press, maintain exactly the sort of position that you criticize Suri for: that an avant-garde modernist approach is the only correct position to hold? We can argue what percentage of the public wants traditional or classical architecture, but it's a big percentage, yet the fact is that the schools and the press pretend that NOBODY wants it, or if they do, that they are misguided. That's the issue.
i don't think this is true, at least not in the experience i have lived through and schools i went to. we had some teachers that taught modernism, or taught about frank lloyd wright, or taught about metabolists. we had other teachers who taught about the classical period, or the renaissance, or other periods. i don't think anybody has ever said modernist approach is the only correct position to hold, except maybe in some manifesto that was trying to be overly-dramatic.
i was only in college for 8 years. that is not long enough to learn about every architecture style someone might want to imitate, and also teach about the important part of architecture, which is how buildings go together and how they work. an architect gets a license to protect public health and safety, not to arrange columns in a pleasing way.
Although I agree that the building in the above image would make a pretty wicked walmart, I think the 15 truck bays and tire centre would not work well.
"I had no idea by traditional you meant Italianate or french design"
I guess you missed this, better explains the point I was making during the cooking analogy.
"french, italian, indian, russian, english, chinese, thai, mexican, I couldn't list them all."
There was no one to one correlation intended from french food to french architecture, or italian food to italian architecture. They were chosen as examples of food traditions that the public enjoys.
it is hard for me to picture what you think architects all need to be aware of that the public is lusting after, suri. Try pictures. There is a little icon above this box you can use to post pictures.
Why would you arrange columns in an unpleasing way?
As for tools becoming obsolete, really? I collect, and use, old tools: hammers, chisels, spirit levels, brace and bit, draw knife, clamps, ect. For small jobs, and the occasional big one, they are much easier and quicker to use than dragging out the electric cord or pneumatic compressor.
And who do you think did those buildings, suri, if it wasn't architects? But like curt said, we are only in school for 5-8 years and you can't study everything. I have designed a few traditionally styled buildings and I have done contemporary and I've done fusion. My education prepared me for all in that it prepared me not in style, but in consideration.
i can see how a list of the best buildings would be a good thing to emulate. if every wallmart was designed with the concern and budget that eero saarinen (who is on the list 3 times) had for the hockey rink he designed at yale, it would probably make for a better environment. i don't think the architects are entirely to blame for what walmart is though.
a lot of the environment, especially in suburbs, is filled with single family housing. it seems frank lloyd wring is the only one with single family houses on the list? or did mies get his in there? why aren't people who pay for single family houses getting architects like polshek to design something like the rose planetarium?
i have a couple of examples of architects in the list there, who are not traditional by most definitions. while i understand suri did say that "I have said many times what I meant by traditional, pre-modernist. You have even addressed that by saying I shouldn't be able to lump all that together, so don't say you are still waiting to hear it, you just decided to dismiss it," i still have no idea how those fit into "traditional." if he's saying "traditional" means "pre-modern," as in anything designed in a time before modern architecture happened, which was around let's say the 1920's, then it's literally impossible to design a new building in a traditonal style, since a new building would, by definition, have to be started in or around the year 2013 or later. i did dismiss that notion, as nobody would be dumb enough to say and architect designing a building in 2013 should travel back in time to have their building built before the 1920s.
If you really can't understand what I mean by traditional, then forget about it, feel free to replace all of my posts with this separate question just for you:
Assuming that list of favorite american architecture represents some truth, why are so few favorite buildings being built over the last 80 years (compared to how many are older than 80 years)?
If you are contradicting EKE's point that the elite architectural press maintains an avant-garde modernist approach is the only correct position to hold, you've picked the wrong site to make that claim. As for your schooling whereby various teachers taught you about modernists, renaissance architecture etc, are you refering to studio class where they actually teach design? Then you claim that nobody said the modernist approach is the only correct position to hold, except maybe in some manifesto that was trying to be overly-dramatic. Then why do you keep insisting on the opposite? Oh right, becasue we now have stick framed houses and concrete and steel. Yet we've had those way before modernists decided to be overly-dramatic? So are you dismissing the modernists as drama queens? I'd agree with you, but I think they were sincere in there reaction to their times, just wrong about the prescription, but hindsight is 20/20.
there is no there,
"But like curt said, we are only in school for 5-8 years and you can't study everything." So you stop studying after you leave school? You are aware they call it 'the practice of architecture' for a reason, right? "I have designed a few traditionally styled buildings and I have done contemporary and I've done fusion. My education prepared me for all in that it prepared me not in style, but in consideration." By that measure, there should be no qualitative difference between traditional buildings from the 1920's and the 1990's. Yet there is as is so often pointed out here with constant and deserved derrision heaped on to McMansions and post modern strip mall architecture. Somehow your preparation precluded your being sucked into the vortex of crap traditional design we see so much of. Good for you, and better for the public that has to live with it!
Ironically, most of the brownstones in Brooklyn sought after by hipsters, some of whom are card carrying modernistas, where designed by schlub builders selecting from a kit of decorations and draping them on a flat wall. Maybe it's their love of irony! Near my old school Pratt, there were several modernist project buildings with none of the historicist trappings that make modernists' skin crawl, yet funny enough, you don't see them lining up to live the dream. Another irony I guess.
Wow, the assumptions are off the wall here. I hate bragging, but one of my "traditionally" designed buildings won an award. I don't do much architecture anymore, I transferred my design skills to a different field and I study everyday.
Thayer, all things timeless were once novel but not all novelty will become timeless. It's the ability to stand out that makes something special enough to become classic. Novelty is variety. "Variety is the spice of life." We crave variety but we also crave the classics. The classics are what give us a reference point to judge from. For instance everyone is always looking for the next great band. We judge that greatness by comparing to the past greats like the Beatles, the doors, etc. however, the next great band will not be a Beatles cover band even if they can hit every note perfectly. Greatness must be original enough. It can still be inspired by the classics or even have certain similarities, but it must be new to one day become classic. Btw I heard Nirvana on the classic rock station the other day. Made me feel old.
jla-x, I enjoy the analogy and the bands you referenced. To use it further, I'd say that great new bands wouldn't replicate the Beatles' music, but they would no doubt likely have listened to the Beatles (studying historical architecutral references), played some of the similar notes (architectural language) and chords, and used similar song structure elements and compositions using chorus, verse, bridge, etc. (arches, walls, windows, corbels, formal entrance ways, sills).
Let's go with the music analogy then. The Beatles first songs borrowed heavily from American music of the South, as did many of their British counterparts. Some people will see the cultural references (styles) more than others, depending on their familiarity (education), but it will be a matter of interpretation as to which songs sound like British versions of American music and which ones are sufficiently original for the self appointed arbiters. What cultutural reference brought a bunch of Lirerpudlians to dig delta ryhthem and blues? None, except they dug the music. Where they entitled to riff and explore a sound that was even sung with an American accent? Not by the standards promoted by many on this thread. Yet do you think the masses that fell in love with their music cared where their "sound" came from? Of course not, becasue they where brilliant, and as time went on, their music evolved as they did, fusing all sorts of influences into their sound. Again, the unschooled masses still appreciated their artistry while the only ones obsessed with divining the music's geneology where scholars. That's not to say one shouldn't deconstruct to understand, but it simply is irrelevant to the appreciation of the music.
So some of you will see a classical ornament and immediatly throw up a mental wall becasue of this fetization of the original without actually understanding the aspects that most of us acknowledge are principle to excellent design work. Whether it be the spatial manipulations (melodies) or the technical precision (musicianship), or even the texture of the crafts involved (sound quality). The Beatles where a great band that began by replecating foreign music and eventually they evolved a truly original sound that was unique to them. But their ninate genius is present at all levels of their musical assimilations. Every musician starts by studying the music of the past. Through immitation and repetition, they familiarize themselves with the music phraseology that best communicates how they'd like to express themselves. When and how this process delivers a music most people would recognize as truly original will always be up for debate, but their talent will be evident early on, even in glimpses.
Music is a great analogy to understand the creative process becasue most good musicians will cop to a wide range approach that's completely alien to the ones advocated by modernists. And if classicists would arbitrarily declare modernist styles unworthy of study, they'd be just as wrong. Unlike music, architecture is rife with the moralizing of the design process or the endless jockying for intellectual superiority. When the Beatles came on the scene, I'm sure there was an outcry by many musicians who slammed their popiness, yet nowadays we (most of us?) acknowledge their music has more substance than a Katy Perry. Yet they still produced such bubble gum hits like "Love Me Do" .
I guess my point is, architects spend over 1000 comments debating the fitness of one style over another, when true artists don't give a shit and simply go where their heart takes them. If architects would follow the Beatles example and allow their work to grow organically through immitation, assimilation, and finaly creation, we'd have fewer people asking why architects don't design what (most) people seem to like.
Thirty-nine of the top 50 in the AIA survey of America's favorite buildings were built more than 80 years ago. That's pretty telling.
is it really that telling? are you sure you're not just trying to justify your bias again?
of the top 50, 22 were build before 1900. maybe 80 years isn't the right line to draw. maybe you should draw that line at the turn of the century. the split should be at 1904 instead of 1933, where half the people like old stuff and half the people like new stuff.
the buildings listed in the top 50 cover a period of architecture of 232 years. the last 80 years only cover 34% of that. the 14 buildings built in the last 80 years are underrepresented at 28%. is that really significant enough to say schools should stop teaching studios the way they are and start doing what you tell them to do?
of the 14 favorite buildings built in the last 80 years, 5 are built in a revival style (beaux-arts, italianate, or neoclassical) and 9 are built in a more modern tradition (including art deco and what wikipedia calls structural expressionism). that's only 36% of people who think buildings built in the last 80 years should mimic a style from previous generations.
i bet if i search enough, i could somehow fit 1.6 in there, but i would prefer to have volunteer do that.
If you are contradicting EKE's point that the elite architectural press maintains an avant-garde modernist approach is the only correct position to hold, you've picked the wrong site to make that claim.
what the hell are you talking about thayer? is this more of the 'woe is me, i'm such a poor vicitm' crap? put down your dwell magazine and pick up architecture digest. i'm sure that will make you feel better.
So you stop studying after you leave school?
it was specifically stated that school should be changed to teach this vague idea of traditionalism, which so far has only been explained by suri as buildings built more than 80 years ago. if you want to design neoclassical buildings, then you already have plenty of opportunity to learn how to design neoclassical buildings within the current structure of our education system. eke is proof that it can be done, since he did it. you have the same opportunity to learn how to design in gothic revival. i would say education should be more focused on how buildings go together, how to prevent them from leaking, how current mechanical systems work, and practical things like that. our schools should be teaching the next generation of architects how to be architects, not how to be artists or facade decorators.
as to this question:
Then why do you keep insisting on the opposite?
i don't. i don't care if eke designs neoclassical buildings for clients who want him to design neoclassical buildings. what i did say is that you're reading things into this that aren't there. you're making assumptions to support this ridiculous notion that your some sort of martyr. your not a martyr, and your not a victim, and nobody is out to stop the traditionalists. suri made the case that he wants architects to build his environment the way he wants it built. i'm not going to do that. i'm not going to become a traditionalist myself just because you're crying about how sad it is to be the minority that nobody in the mean architectural press gives a shit about. i don't think i have to do what suri wants me to do, and i don't think his view of public opinion is consistent with the public i regularly interact with.
"is it really that telling? are you sure you're not just trying to justify your bias again?"
I'm not sure I have to justify anything. It's right there is black and white.
What do I think this survey tells us? Speaking generally, that there is something about the buildings from, say, before WWII that people respond to and love. Something that buildings built since then do not offer as clearly or as well. I'd think architects would look at that fact and say, "wow, there's something here. Maybe I can learn what it is, so that I can make buildings and places that are loved by people besides other architects....while I'm not interested in designing in traditional styles that I view as retrograde, maybe I can try to understand what it is about that architecture that people find so appealing, and be influenced by it in my work".
Or not. Sometimes this profession seems like they have their collective fingers jammed in their ears, eyes closed, all yelling at the top of their lungs, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..... I can't hear you!"
Thayer, I agree. Good points. Do what you like and what resonates with people and fuck the ideological bullshit. Its why I consider myself an architectural atheist. I read and study theory but more like an outside observer. Like a anthropologist studying some African religion. There is no right or wrong. We must design old stuff no we must design new stuff blah blah blah. Just do what works. Alot of good things to study and get inspired by from all eras. I personally approach a design problem with a critical regionalism mindset but get my inspiration from all sorts of things. I am obsessed with early pueblo architecture. I love those old boom towns like bisbee and Jerome az. I love gothic architecture. I want to die in a Japanese garden with a fat spliff in my hand. I love lots of modern architecture Aldo, kahn, Corbu And geez, there is a lot of really great contemporary stuff out there like Sanna, Zumthor..... If you limit your pallet you limit your possibilities period.
what it says, quite clearly, is that most people want buildings built after 1933 to be in a modern style. the 'modern style' was not available to thomas jefferson when building monticello. that was a great work of architecture that deserves all of the credit it gets and it should be preserved. it's a wonderful building. we should, of course, recognize that it was built in a different time an place than the world trade center, which is also on the list. people like those different building for different reasons.
i don't think that list really means alot. i'm only using it as an example because you and suri placed a lot of importance on it, because you thought it would support whatever it is you think you're saying. eke, i think what you're saying is that people want you to design neoclassical buildings. suri is thinking buildings built tomorrow should be 80 years old. i still don't see how a 'debate' on 'modern v. traditional' has anything to do with architecture.
however, if you don't want to be the guy saying "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..... I can't hear you!" surely you would recognize:
a. if you limit the list you think represents public opinion to buildings built after 1933, the majority are in a modern style
b. if you design a building tomorrow, it would be in the category of 'buildings built after 1933.'
by the way, my data was misleading due to a typo, but it was close and i haven't changed my conclusion, which is that the list you place a great importance on suggests people want buildings built after 1933 to be of a 'modern' style.
This whole fucking thread epitomizes "mental masturbation," a term used by one of the most annoying design professors at school during a jury. However, here, the shoe fits ...
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
Wait. You mean that the only restaurants that succeed are French and Italian?
I'd better go tell the massively packed Asian restaurant down at the corner that they are OUT OF BUSINESS.
I'd better tell the fusion restaurants that they are wasting their time. No one's going in there anymore.
Those Indian mo'fo's are OUT OF A JOB! Billions of people on the Asian continent will now need to pack their bags and head to France!
I can hear what you are saying, but oddly enough you don't hear what we are saying.
By-the-way, interesting thought... I just spoke to a high-end residential contractor and he told me that doing a traditional interior is more difficult than doing a modern interior... kind of counter intuitive right? Well- it kind of makes sense, since you can't hide the imperfections on a clean simple surface. In a way, it takes a higher degree of craftsmanship to do something simple well...
french, italian, indian, russian, english, chinese, thai, mexican, I couldn't list them all. But all we get is japanese. Sure japanese is great, when one among all those others, but not exclusively as the sole cooking philosophy.
"no one wants to own a traditional building"
Really?
"they suck tons of resources"
How can that be true if they were originally developed to thrive during a pre-petroleum era? If anything, traditional designs beget a very low usage of natural resources. On the other hand, glass curtain walls require huge amounts of resources to heat and cool because their R values generally stink in comparison to masonry.
"they are a bit*h to maintain"
Really? Most of them maintain themselves very well, and some of them have stood without maintenance for centuries. Those "ornamental features" you detest do a great job of repelling water. Meanwhile, our experimental buildings continue to develop unprecedented maintenance problems.
"can't meet building code"
That sounds ridiculous. What elements of a building code would contradict the capacity of a durably designed traditional building?
"what they want is something that looks traditional. which is lame."
Finally, we get down to the meat and potatoes!
suri, you could broaden your horizons a bit, get out a bit more, don't you think? Not trying to be mean, but that is no way to enjoy life.
Wait, Mr. Ruskin, wait!
Could you come back and tell us who wins Super Bowl LXVII?
Gruen says: "they are not. no one wants to own a traditional building. they suck tons of resources, are a bit*h to maintain and can't meet building code. on top of that, many of the types of buildings we build today would never fit in anything 'traditional" without looking like a cartoon.
what they want is something that looks traditional. which is lame."
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
eke, i wasn't saying your a troll. i think you have a well considered reasonable opinion, even though i disagree with it.
there are other people lumping themselves in with you're 'traditional' views who are just seeking attention and crying about how all the world is against them.
suri says "You really don't know what I am trying to say? After this many pages it isn't clear, I am THAT inarticulate?"
and we respond, yet again, saying that a lot of the public we regularly work with do not share his taste in architecture. he still hasn't even said whether it's classical, or some other traditional style, or if it's just something old that he's interested in. he still thinks that his opinion on what the public wants is the only available opinion to hold.
I have said many times what I meant by traditional, pre-modernist. You have even addressed that by saying I shouldn't be able to lump all that together, so don't say you are still waiting to hear it, you just decided to dismiss it.
I don't think mine is the only opinion to hold, I think it's a common one, which is supported by surveys.
Curtkram-
But don't you see that, very nearly without exception, the architectural educators, and the elite architectural press, maintain exactly the sort of position that you criticize Suri for: that an avant-garde modernist approach is the only correct position to hold? We can argue what percentage of the public wants traditional or classical architecture, but it's a big percentage, yet the fact is that the schools and the press pretend that NOBODY wants it, or if they do, that they are misguided. That's the issue.
I'm a both/and guy. I'm the guy that's arguing for diversity in the profession. The schools, the press, and their philosophical fellow-travellers, are the ones arguing for a near-total hegemony for their design point-of-view.
Super Bowl? Super Bowl!
Nobody should like the Super Bowl!
Look, I know tastes differ out there, but that doesn't make them all equally right - or right at all!
Ignore the Super Bowl - watch Masterpiece Theater.
And besides, if I told you, I'd have to tell everyone and my bookie would be pissed.
The one thing that makes us human animals unique other than war is our insatiable appetite for novelty and innovation. To design traditional buildings or even buildings that just copy the latest trends kind of seems to deny that fundamental human trait. To me its not about new vs old. It is also not about being "of the time." it is about innovation and creativity. It is about timelessness. It is about putting together various characteristics from past and present to create something more interesting and useful. If something from history works perfect then why reinvent the wheel, but if you could improve it and maybe combine it with new things that work better than old things than imo why the fuck not. Only stray from what can be improved. Also define for your self what improve means. If the goals are purely utilitarian than follow that criteria, if the goal is more experience driven then follow that criteria.... As far as aesthetics go, I believe that aesthetics and material and structure, and technology, and building science, and art, are all intricately connected. Style is irrelevant. It is a stupid constraint and useless constraint. Trying to replicate any style past of present will never result in anything too great.
I'm a both/and too, which is what pomo pretty much is, isn't it? I went to school in the late 90's and early two thousands, we were taught to approach design from many points of view. Architects aren't trained in a style, they are trained in a way of thinking and that thinking sits of the foundation what came before, the modernists and beaux arts and everything else too. Suri, some architects produce modernist looking designs (the clean aesthetic) but we are not all disciples to that style, as you should be able to tell from the voices here. As for you articulating your point, I have read 85% of this thread and I had no idea by traditional you meant Italianate or french design. That is eye opening. I see why you have a problem with architects now. Did your architect fire you?
I like many things about pre-modern architecture better, but I also like many things about modern architecture better. There does not need to be this false dichotomy that one is right and the other is wrong.
It's fascinating that some are still trying to say this is about one or the other when time and time again we are pointing to the fact that traditional architecture is not being taught. First it was that modernism is imbued with the Beaux Arts teaching. Then it's people don't know what they want. Then it's some bizzare victimization meme. Then it's to do with ancient Greek civilization vs. an i-phone. Yet you can't get away from the basic fact that EKE once again so eloquently lays out.
But don't you see that, very nearly without exception, the architectural educators, and the elite architectural press, maintain exactly the sort of position that you criticize Suri for: that an avant-garde modernist approach is the only correct position to hold? We can argue what percentage of the public wants traditional or classical architecture, but it's a big percentage, yet the fact is that the schools and the press pretend that NOBODY wants it, or if they do, that they are misguided. That's the issue.
jla-x said,
The one thing that makes us human animals unique other than war is our insatiable appetite for novelty and innovation. To design traditional buildings or even buildings that just copy the latest trends kind of seems to deny that fundamental human trait. To me its not about new vs old. It is also not about being "of the time." it is about innovation and creativity. It is about timelessness.
So is it about timelessness or is it about our insatiable need for novelty? Could it be we crave both? Could it be that novelty is great in our youth but timelessness is more appealing in our old age? Or flip it, could it be that children need stability and routine even when they are always "board" yet older people slowly die if they don't introduce some novelty into their well tred thinking? It's not an either-question, it's a both/and. So what if suri prefers italianate or whatever scarlet letter your trying to stick on him, and so what if curtkram likes his coffee straight with no sweetners or leche? Given our modern world of choice (thank god) we should be able to accomodate both. That's what academia by and large isn't doing. I suppose this might be as futile as walking down the aisle in congress and asking everybody to get along, yet is seems worth it when most Americans don't live along ideological lines.
Opps, there I go again, speaking for the masses, who by the way, don't know what the fuck class is, then again, the elites who control capital, but maybe they are western imperialists, who prefer socialist beach houses, that form a culture of their own,.....and on and on and on
somebody asked for more images, I agree.
Suri, I will architect you your own Biltmore.
But don't you see that, very nearly without exception, the architectural educators, and the elite architectural press, maintain exactly the sort of position that you criticize Suri for: that an avant-garde modernist approach is the only correct position to hold? We can argue what percentage of the public wants traditional or classical architecture, but it's a big percentage, yet the fact is that the schools and the press pretend that NOBODY wants it, or if they do, that they are misguided. That's the issue.
i don't think this is true, at least not in the experience i have lived through and schools i went to. we had some teachers that taught modernism, or taught about frank lloyd wright, or taught about metabolists. we had other teachers who taught about the classical period, or the renaissance, or other periods. i don't think anybody has ever said modernist approach is the only correct position to hold, except maybe in some manifesto that was trying to be overly-dramatic.
i was only in college for 8 years. that is not long enough to learn about every architecture style someone might want to imitate, and also teach about the important part of architecture, which is how buildings go together and how they work. an architect gets a license to protect public health and safety, not to arrange columns in a pleasing way.
Although I agree that the building in the above image would make a pretty wicked walmart, I think the 15 truck bays and tire centre would not work well.
"I had no idea by traditional you meant Italianate or french design"
I guess you missed this, better explains the point I was making during the cooking analogy.
"french, italian, indian, russian, english, chinese, thai, mexican, I couldn't list them all."
There was no one to one correlation intended from french food to french architecture, or italian food to italian architecture. They were chosen as examples of food traditions that the public enjoys.
it is hard for me to picture what you think architects all need to be aware of that the public is lusting after, suri. Try pictures. There is a little icon above this box you can use to post pictures.
Picture the list that EKE posted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Favorite_Architecture
Why would you arrange columns in an unpleasing way? As for tools becoming obsolete, really? I collect, and use, old tools: hammers, chisels, spirit levels, brace and bit, draw knife, clamps, ect. For small jobs, and the occasional big one, they are much easier and quicker to use than dragging out the electric cord or pneumatic compressor.
And who do you think did those buildings, suri, if it wasn't architects? But like curt said, we are only in school for 5-8 years and you can't study everything. I have designed a few traditionally styled buildings and I have done contemporary and I've done fusion. My education prepared me for all in that it prepared me not in style, but in consideration.
Certainly architects built them, architects who are all retired or dead and are not being replaced(for the large majority of them).
Oh, I hear ya. The clients have all gone downhill too, know what I mean?
i can see how a list of the best buildings would be a good thing to emulate. if every wallmart was designed with the concern and budget that eero saarinen (who is on the list 3 times) had for the hockey rink he designed at yale, it would probably make for a better environment. i don't think the architects are entirely to blame for what walmart is though.
a lot of the environment, especially in suburbs, is filled with single family housing. it seems frank lloyd wring is the only one with single family houses on the list? or did mies get his in there? why aren't people who pay for single family houses getting architects like polshek to design something like the rose planetarium?
i have a couple of examples of architects in the list there, who are not traditional by most definitions. while i understand suri did say that "I have said many times what I meant by traditional, pre-modernist. You have even addressed that by saying I shouldn't be able to lump all that together, so don't say you are still waiting to hear it, you just decided to dismiss it," i still have no idea how those fit into "traditional." if he's saying "traditional" means "pre-modern," as in anything designed in a time before modern architecture happened, which was around let's say the 1920's, then it's literally impossible to design a new building in a traditonal style, since a new building would, by definition, have to be started in or around the year 2013 or later. i did dismiss that notion, as nobody would be dumb enough to say and architect designing a building in 2013 should travel back in time to have their building built before the 1920s.
So that's really what you think I meant huh curtkram? I'm not sure anyone will be convinced of your sincerity.
If you really can't understand what I mean by traditional, then forget about it, feel free to replace all of my posts with this separate question just for you:
Assuming that list of favorite american architecture represents some truth, why are so few favorite buildings being built over the last 80 years (compared to how many are older than 80 years)?
There are many buildings on that list that were built in the last 80 years. Like half of them.
curtkram,
If you are contradicting EKE's point that the elite architectural press maintains an avant-garde modernist approach is the only correct position to hold, you've picked the wrong site to make that claim. As for your schooling whereby various teachers taught you about modernists, renaissance architecture etc, are you refering to studio class where they actually teach design? Then you claim that nobody said the modernist approach is the only correct position to hold, except maybe in some manifesto that was trying to be overly-dramatic. Then why do you keep insisting on the opposite? Oh right, becasue we now have stick framed houses and concrete and steel. Yet we've had those way before modernists decided to be overly-dramatic? So are you dismissing the modernists as drama queens? I'd agree with you, but I think they were sincere in there reaction to their times, just wrong about the prescription, but hindsight is 20/20.
there is no there,
"But like curt said, we are only in school for 5-8 years and you can't study everything." So you stop studying after you leave school? You are aware they call it 'the practice of architecture' for a reason, right? "I have designed a few traditionally styled buildings and I have done contemporary and I've done fusion. My education prepared me for all in that it prepared me not in style, but in consideration." By that measure, there should be no qualitative difference between traditional buildings from the 1920's and the 1990's. Yet there is as is so often pointed out here with constant and deserved derrision heaped on to McMansions and post modern strip mall architecture. Somehow your preparation precluded your being sucked into the vortex of crap traditional design we see so much of. Good for you, and better for the public that has to live with it!
Ironically, most of the brownstones in Brooklyn sought after by hipsters, some of whom are card carrying modernistas, where designed by schlub builders selecting from a kit of decorations and draping them on a flat wall. Maybe it's their love of irony! Near my old school Pratt, there were several modernist project buildings with none of the historicist trappings that make modernists' skin crawl, yet funny enough, you don't see them lining up to live the dream. Another irony I guess.
Wow, the assumptions are off the wall here. I hate bragging, but one of my "traditionally" designed buildings won an award. I don't do much architecture anymore, I transferred my design skills to a different field and I study everyday.
there is no there
built in the last 80 years?
1. no
2. no
3. no
4. yes, 1939
5. no
6. no
7. no
8. no
9. no
10.yes 1982
11.no
12.no
13.no
14.yes 1965
15.yes 1935
16.no
17.no
18.no
19.yes 1966
20.no
21.no
22.yes 1998
23.no
24.no
25.no
26.no
27.no
28.no
29.yes 1935
30.no
31.no
32.no
33.yes 2000
34.yes 1937
35.no
36.no
37.no
38.no
39.yes 1947
40.no
41.no
42.yes 1970
43.no
44.no
45.no
46.no
47.no
48.no
49.no
50.no
it's funny what some people will perceive as "about half"
keep going.
You know suri, I hope at least you now have some more tools to go to your architect with to get what you want. I wish you the best.
Thirty-nine of the top 50 in the AIA survey of America's favorite buildings were built more than 80 years ago. That's pretty telling.
Thayer, all things timeless were once novel but not all novelty will become timeless. It's the ability to stand out that makes something special enough to become classic. Novelty is variety. "Variety is the spice of life." We crave variety but we also crave the classics. The classics are what give us a reference point to judge from. For instance everyone is always looking for the next great band. We judge that greatness by comparing to the past greats like the Beatles, the doors, etc. however, the next great band will not be a Beatles cover band even if they can hit every note perfectly. Greatness must be original enough. It can still be inspired by the classics or even have certain similarities, but it must be new to one day become classic. Btw I heard Nirvana on the classic rock station the other day. Made me feel old.
Let's go with the music analogy then. The Beatles first songs borrowed heavily from American music of the South, as did many of their British counterparts. Some people will see the cultural references (styles) more than others, depending on their familiarity (education), but it will be a matter of interpretation as to which songs sound like British versions of American music and which ones are sufficiently original for the self appointed arbiters. What cultutural reference brought a bunch of Lirerpudlians to dig delta ryhthem and blues? None, except they dug the music. Where they entitled to riff and explore a sound that was even sung with an American accent? Not by the standards promoted by many on this thread. Yet do you think the masses that fell in love with their music cared where their "sound" came from? Of course not, becasue they where brilliant, and as time went on, their music evolved as they did, fusing all sorts of influences into their sound. Again, the unschooled masses still appreciated their artistry while the only ones obsessed with divining the music's geneology where scholars. That's not to say one shouldn't deconstruct to understand, but it simply is irrelevant to the appreciation of the music.
So some of you will see a classical ornament and immediatly throw up a mental wall becasue of this fetization of the original without actually understanding the aspects that most of us acknowledge are principle to excellent design work. Whether it be the spatial manipulations (melodies) or the technical precision (musicianship), or even the texture of the crafts involved (sound quality). The Beatles where a great band that began by replecating foreign music and eventually they evolved a truly original sound that was unique to them. But their ninate genius is present at all levels of their musical assimilations. Every musician starts by studying the music of the past. Through immitation and repetition, they familiarize themselves with the music phraseology that best communicates how they'd like to express themselves. When and how this process delivers a music most people would recognize as truly original will always be up for debate, but their talent will be evident early on, even in glimpses.
Music is a great analogy to understand the creative process becasue most good musicians will cop to a wide range approach that's completely alien to the ones advocated by modernists. And if classicists would arbitrarily declare modernist styles unworthy of study, they'd be just as wrong. Unlike music, architecture is rife with the moralizing of the design process or the endless jockying for intellectual superiority. When the Beatles came on the scene, I'm sure there was an outcry by many musicians who slammed their popiness, yet nowadays we (most of us?) acknowledge their music has more substance than a Katy Perry. Yet they still produced such bubble gum hits like "Love Me Do" .
I guess my point is, architects spend over 1000 comments debating the fitness of one style over another, when true artists don't give a shit and simply go where their heart takes them. If architects would follow the Beatles example and allow their work to grow organically through immitation, assimilation, and finaly creation, we'd have fewer people asking why architects don't design what (most) people seem to like.
modernism is the nigger of the world?
gotta quite that traditional shit?
modernism, I need you. you didn't need meeeeeeeee.....
Thirty-nine of the top 50 in the AIA survey of America's favorite buildings were built more than 80 years ago. That's pretty telling.
is it really that telling? are you sure you're not just trying to justify your bias again?
of the top 50, 22 were build before 1900. maybe 80 years isn't the right line to draw. maybe you should draw that line at the turn of the century. the split should be at 1904 instead of 1933, where half the people like old stuff and half the people like new stuff.
the buildings listed in the top 50 cover a period of architecture of 232 years. the last 80 years only cover 34% of that. the 14 buildings built in the last 80 years are underrepresented at 28%. is that really significant enough to say schools should stop teaching studios the way they are and start doing what you tell them to do?
of the 14 favorite buildings built in the last 80 years, 5 are built in a revival style (beaux-arts, italianate, or neoclassical) and 9 are built in a more modern tradition (including art deco and what wikipedia calls structural expressionism). that's only 36% of people who think buildings built in the last 80 years should mimic a style from previous generations.
i bet if i search enough, i could somehow fit 1.6 in there, but i would prefer to have volunteer do that.
If you are contradicting EKE's point that the elite architectural press maintains an avant-garde modernist approach is the only correct position to hold, you've picked the wrong site to make that claim.
what the hell are you talking about thayer? is this more of the 'woe is me, i'm such a poor vicitm' crap? put down your dwell magazine and pick up architecture digest. i'm sure that will make you feel better.
So you stop studying after you leave school?
it was specifically stated that school should be changed to teach this vague idea of traditionalism, which so far has only been explained by suri as buildings built more than 80 years ago. if you want to design neoclassical buildings, then you already have plenty of opportunity to learn how to design neoclassical buildings within the current structure of our education system. eke is proof that it can be done, since he did it. you have the same opportunity to learn how to design in gothic revival. i would say education should be more focused on how buildings go together, how to prevent them from leaking, how current mechanical systems work, and practical things like that. our schools should be teaching the next generation of architects how to be architects, not how to be artists or facade decorators.
as to this question:
Then why do you keep insisting on the opposite?
i don't. i don't care if eke designs neoclassical buildings for clients who want him to design neoclassical buildings. what i did say is that you're reading things into this that aren't there. you're making assumptions to support this ridiculous notion that your some sort of martyr. your not a martyr, and your not a victim, and nobody is out to stop the traditionalists. suri made the case that he wants architects to build his environment the way he wants it built. i'm not going to do that. i'm not going to become a traditionalist myself just because you're crying about how sad it is to be the minority that nobody in the mean architectural press gives a shit about. i don't think i have to do what suri wants me to do, and i don't think his view of public opinion is consistent with the public i regularly interact with.
"is it really that telling? are you sure you're not just trying to justify your bias again?"
I'm not sure I have to justify anything. It's right there is black and white.
What do I think this survey tells us? Speaking generally, that there is something about the buildings from, say, before WWII that people respond to and love. Something that buildings built since then do not offer as clearly or as well. I'd think architects would look at that fact and say, "wow, there's something here. Maybe I can learn what it is, so that I can make buildings and places that are loved by people besides other architects....while I'm not interested in designing in traditional styles that I view as retrograde, maybe I can try to understand what it is about that architecture that people find so appealing, and be influenced by it in my work".
Or not. Sometimes this profession seems like they have their collective fingers jammed in their ears, eyes closed, all yelling at the top of their lungs, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..... I can't hear you!"
Thayer, I agree. Good points. Do what you like and what resonates with people and fuck the ideological bullshit. Its why I consider myself an architectural atheist. I read and study theory but more like an outside observer. Like a anthropologist studying some African religion. There is no right or wrong. We must design old stuff no we must design new stuff blah blah blah. Just do what works. Alot of good things to study and get inspired by from all eras. I personally approach a design problem with a critical regionalism mindset but get my inspiration from all sorts of things. I am obsessed with early pueblo architecture. I love those old boom towns like bisbee and Jerome az. I love gothic architecture. I want to die in a Japanese garden with a fat spliff in my hand. I love lots of modern architecture Aldo, kahn, Corbu And geez, there is a lot of really great contemporary stuff out there like Sanna, Zumthor..... If you limit your pallet you limit your possibilities period.
It's right there is black and white.
what it says, quite clearly, is that most people want buildings built after 1933 to be in a modern style. the 'modern style' was not available to thomas jefferson when building monticello. that was a great work of architecture that deserves all of the credit it gets and it should be preserved. it's a wonderful building. we should, of course, recognize that it was built in a different time an place than the world trade center, which is also on the list. people like those different building for different reasons.
i don't think that list really means alot. i'm only using it as an example because you and suri placed a lot of importance on it, because you thought it would support whatever it is you think you're saying. eke, i think what you're saying is that people want you to design neoclassical buildings. suri is thinking buildings built tomorrow should be 80 years old. i still don't see how a 'debate' on 'modern v. traditional' has anything to do with architecture.
however, if you don't want to be the guy saying "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..... I can't hear you!" surely you would recognize:
a. if you limit the list you think represents public opinion to buildings built after 1933, the majority are in a modern style
b. if you design a building tomorrow, it would be in the category of 'buildings built after 1933.'
by the way, my data was misleading due to a typo, but it was close and i haven't changed my conclusion, which is that the list you place a great importance on suggests people want buildings built after 1933 to be of a 'modern' style.
Music analogies for architecture!
I'll start: American Idol winners = architecture by public input.
This whole fucking thread epitomizes "mental masturbation," a term used by one of the most annoying design professors at school during a jury. However, here, the shoe fits ...
Miles, good one. I agree.
It might be entertaining to look at photos of American cities of yesteryear and see how many if those buildings stood the test of time.
I will still maintain what the OP is asking for is for architects to design each and every building to be a masterpiece.
Of course, we wouldn't have very many buildings if only 100 in the last 250ish years are worthy.
This thread is sophomoric.
I will still maintain what the OP is asking for is for architects to design each and every building to be a masterpiece.
actually, if this is his thesis, i kind of agree with that. just not sure how to make it happen.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.