Suri, who are you to say what someone else should do with his/her money and or property?
If I happen to be your neighbour and decide to paint all my window trims bright yellow and install some gaudi concrete fountain in the driveway, that's my business.
Actually you wouldn't be allowed to do that in my neighborhood. If you do that in some other neighborhood where it's legal, good for you, the world does need a sense of humor after all.
I find places that limit what people do to their houses and property to be depressing places. I would not be proud to claim that as a good thing. But then again, I value freedom of expression. You only care about your own narrow values.
on that first house, it originally had composite columns tacked on to a victorian house with those awkward broken pediments on the gables.
are you saying the original house was a horrible screwed up renovation, or the remodel of the renovation? imho, the remodel helped a fair bit, though didn't quite fix all that needed fixing. the author of that article seemed to think killing a victorian house by gluing on fake columns was a good thing.
Suri, The value of your property is not my or anyone else's responsibility. You cannot dictate what someone else does with their land as long as it conforms to the local zoning. Don't like the zoning, then move into a gated community with all grey garage doors and identical houses.
There is a beautiful name for selfish fools like yourself... I believe it starts with a Not-In-My something... I forget, but it will come back to me.
Hopefully you'll mature enough to see this when you are old enough to own property.
Though the term 'traditional' could mean different things depending on context, within the practice of architecture I tend to adopt some simple parameters:
1) Traditional architecture is influenced by how humans perceive the forces of load and support in its most natural, pre-industrial state. For about 99.9% of human history, all that was available to build shelter for ourselves was plant matter (wood) and stone. Very early on, we learned and mastered the physical properties of those two kinds materials and eventually codified our understanding about them into proportional rules as to ensure that no beam, column or wall was too skinny or too fat, but just right (i.e. Proportion). After thousands of years of trial and error, and much mathematical refinement, some civilizations achieved an agreed method in articulating load and support that would be reproduced over and over; hence a tradition was established. Egyptians, Mesopotamians Indians, Chinese and Greeks all created architectural traditions that reflect their preferences about how load and support should be expressed, given the materials at hand (wood and stone) and the functional requirements.
2) Traditional architecture incorporates ornament in various degrees. For almost every culture. It wasn't enough to simply size beams and columns correctly, It seemed important to embellish the relationship between load and support, to express values and symbols important to that culture. Once a culture gets to the point where it tries to record everything it does, it establishes a system of rules in the use of ornament, and thus become their own kind of tradition, some lasting forever and others being forgotten after a few years (fads). Each ornamental tradition says something unique about the times and the people that created and used it- renaissance, baroque, rococo, neo-classical, etc)
3) Because of its emphasis on following rules and adopting an approved form of syntax, traditional architecture is inherently self-effacing. Except for some of the more recent traditions that emerged in times when ego began to matter (after the Renaissance) We know little about the individuals who contributed greatly to the development of the tradition itself. It wasn't because there were others who didn't want them to know, or that it wasn't written down but rather because that wasn't deemed important anyway. Buildings represented the community it served, and it belonged collectively to the people who identified with the culture that influenced the building's design. It was understood by all that preservation of one's cultural identity by sustaining his culture's tradition was more important than anything else, and that the arts had an extremely important role to play. Designing a structure using tradition rules is very humbling. It took tremendous skill to follow those rules and still add a personal touch that is appropriate and quite moving at the same time.
Basically anything that went against the way things were done and agreed upon by the cultural community is what I would call modern: expressing load and support is relative to what the architect feels, not what his culture's established rules and traditions dictate; that ornament is not necessary in helping embellish the relationship between load and support. That what the designer feels is far more important than what his community and culture shares as its ideals (this didn't begin in the 1920s, but rather when the modern era began during the Renaissance). Steel, glass and concrete has a lot to do with this, since it up-ended our natural perception on how load and support, which was based since as long as we can remember on the physical properties of stone and wood. Humanism severed the relationship of the individual to his native cultural group, instilling in him an ego and a more abstract and rational view of his relationship to the world at large. This would enable a new sense of freedom for everyone, but it would also instill a feeling of anxiety at the same time, as the comfort of certainty, purpose and meaning provided by tradition was being stripped away. We can tell ourselves that traditions are nothing but convenient little fictions until we're blue in the face, but for most of us, our traditions form a core part of our humanity.
The way I see it, when people demand that they want something traditional, they are probably expressing a desire to feel rooted to a place, to connect themselves to an idealized time in the past of which they have no real knowledge but still feel that is important to their sense of happiness. Having been removed from a life in which everything revolved around tradition, they have no way of knowing how traditional design works to fulfill their sense of well-being. They just know that the modern alternative doesn't fulfill this need. It doesn't for help for architects to tell them that they're stupid and don't know what's good for them. Our role should be for us to understand the kind of vision that they are attracted to, to ask them why a traditional design would help them, and to inform them that traditional design follows rules that may or may not suit some of things they want in their building.. Clients should also understand the traditional design is a serious discipline, and to apply in the most superficial way will cheapen their home and distance them further away from what they're after.
"Suri, The value of your property is not my or anyone else's responsibility. You cannot dictate what someone else does with their land as long as it conforms to the local zoning. Don't like the zoning, then move into a gated community with all grey garage doors and identical houses."
"If you do that in some other neighborhood where it's legal, good for you, the world does need a sense of humor after all."
Thanks for providing that useful contribution of exactly what I just said not half a dozen posts ago.
"Actually you wouldn't be allowed to do that in my neighborhood. If you do that in some other neighborhood where it's legal, good for you, the world does need a sense of humor after all."
I would agree with almost everything homme du jura said above except that the architect's ego came about as an important factor around the Renaissance. I would guess the increasing interest in science vs. religious superstition had something to do with that perception. Also, the printing press that made an artists creation known much further a field would have contributed to this perception. But egotism has been with us since the advent of modern man, we are all guity and benefit from it at various times. To my mind, the idea that an architect was resopnsable for more than the client's bottom line or his/her own ego, that seems to be the watershed point, but I wouldn't insist on this point.
This break seems to occure with the advent of modernism. Infact the evidence can be seen quite redily in the founding arguments. This statement is usually taken to mean modernism sucks and that's it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Modernist ideology sucks, but modernism is simply a style and a quite elegant one when well done. One only has to look at the houses published in architectural periodicals before and after WWII to see what I and EKE have been talking about. Before the war, they looked like much fancier versions of what your average person was living in. After the war they looked nothing like what average people lived in, and it's still true to this day.
But I think the way you've described the creatioin of a tradition is sopt on, and the importance to people's emotional well being is also spot on. Like Christmas or Thanksgiving, or even phrases that come in and out of fashion, traditions place us in the continuum of time, without which, it would seem like a very strange world.
thayer, what's your take on suri's idea of traditionalism, as displayed in a house that was victorian, had neoclassical glued to it, then became something a bit more toned down but still retained it's neo-eclectic style?
You really are hung up on my age aren't you non sequitur, I've noticed that you bring it up whenever you start to get frustrated. For the record I am 30.
Why is a 30 year old programmer from Minnesota trolling here? You clearly have already made up your views of design, and when you abandon the idea of design having an intrinsic value for the public, you resort to the monetary investment value. How many architect's offices have you been in? How many client meetings? How many town hall meetings? How many design review boards? Have you ever seen members of the public cry because they are so thankful for the designs and intervention of architects designing for the public?
You seem to assume architects have the final say in everything that gets built, and that everything that gets built is designed by an architect.
victorian isn't an architectural style, many victorian houses have neoclassical elements (like this one). I agree that the flat columns on the corners (quions/whatever)probably aren't original, but to suggest that they ruined the house and these new utterly pathetic renovations did not, spare us your feigned sincerity. i'm reminded of a child writing a school essay on why sweets are in fact good for you, it's not convincing anyone. choose your battles.
I recall bringing it up twice, but after 1200 posts, who can keep track of it all. Your ignorant position on a domain you are rather insultingly unaware of suggests an age of a spoiled 12 year old, but, I guess some never grow up and make something out of their lives.
Nevertheless, my point remains. Maybe you should go outside for a while and check-up on your neighbour's lawns to verify their neatness. While you're at it, don't forget to remind them to back their cars into their lane-ways because seeing the tail-pipe or rear of a vehicle is offensive to sophisticated folks like yourself.
Why do you have a problem with a neighborhood enacting regulations? No one is forcing anyone to move there. Should a town be able to enact regulations? How about a state? A country? I believe that the more localized regulations are, the better they serve their purpose with the least amount of collateral damage.
but brick really does tend to add value to a house. like, the appraised value, not some unmeasurable sentimental thing. i'm pretty sure a faux-column does not typically add much value (again, referencing the appraised value rather than the sentimental value).
chime in thayer. suri says victorian is not an architectural style, and neoclassical elements on a victorian house are a good thing. is this the traditional you were hoping for?
chime in thayer. suri says victorian is not an architectural style, and neoclassical elements on a victorian house are a good thing. is this the traditional you were hoping for?
I'd be happy to, except you aren't actually debating any points I've made, you're simply flailing about. Keep it up, we might beat the record Donna mentioned. 1500 comments. Can we do it?
One of the curious subtopics of this thread is the difference between residential architecture and larger structures.
The public immediately assumes that architects are involved with homes, because homes are what the public is most familar with.
However, the reality is that most architects spend most of their time with larger structures, because what the law defines as architects' job is protecting the health and wellbeing of the public. In this sense, our "jobs" as the law defines, is more akin to a fire marshal or building inspector. Design is secondary to these important functions under the law.
The public does not see this generally, unless there is a disaster, which is the way it should be. The things that keep me up nights shouldn't concern the public on an everyday basis. I do not want my buildings creating disasters.
Of course, in the United States we have a curious situation where residential structures may be designed by individuals who are not architects. I believe this has to do with individual choice - it would simply be unamerican for the law to dictate what a person can do with their personal property, unless that would negatively impact the public wellbeing.
Suri's question about what is allowed and what is not allowed in a locale shows a lack of understanding of the process and the involvement various decision makers have in the process. If Suri lives in a community where the regulate design (I doubt he does, but perhaps it is so) then it would not be allowed, for example, to make your home look like a jack-o-lantern.
But I suspect that the reason there is conformity has more to do with the self organizing elements of homeowners protecting their property values. If one homeowner chose to paint their home orange with black trim, then there may be little that could be 'done' about it. Regardless, it's doubtfull that an architect would have anything to do with it at all.
I've asked this question several times, but the OP refuses to respond: what architect did the OP hire to design the home they live in, how much did they pay the architect, how much did they pay per square foot for their home and were they satisfied with the result?
I suspect that the OP has never been personally involved the process and thusly does not know. That's not a bad thing, most people are not involved in the proces and it's easy to hurl stones from the outside.
I could suggest at least one talented architect who designs traditional structures that trancend style (In other words, if you removed the ornament, they'd stil be interesting). Of course, these homes are extremely expensive as is the architect himself. The client list is only the very wealthy.
My argument is still that the OP is simply asking for better design in the environment. I'd love for that to happen too and if anyone has clever ideas about how to pull this off, I'd love to hear it.
Giving a blanket statement that buildings older than 80 years are automatically better than new ones ignores the fact that very few of us are older than 80 years and thusly we cannot remember all the crap buildings that were built 80 years ago that simply have disappeared. The list of america's favorite buildings could simply have been titled "some buildings that were done well in the first place, for big budgets and stuck around for some time".
Thanks for your comments. Could you explain a bit more clearly to me about what had changed in the early twentieth century with regards to the role of ego in architecture? I agree with you that ego has always been an important feature to humans, but what I was referring to was the celebration of the individual artist that emerged during the renaissance. Wasn't it Alberti and his contemporaries who espoused the importance of individual genius in creating art and architecture, and that these were disciplines that required advanced learning and study best left to a kind of intellectual elite? Isn't there a reason that the first architect hero we can remember is Brunelleschi and not one Gothic masters that were possibly just as inventive, but too dedicated to monastic tradition to care to get any attention? I like your point about the emergence of printing, which in my view was when architects (if they even considered themselves that at that point in time) started to understand individual branding.
Ryu, many of my favorite buildings are inspired by gothic manor houses. I'm thinking in particular of the swedish institute building in minneapolis and the house used in the steven king movie rose red.
this is still suri's thread, and we were discussing his assertion that architects should be designing in traditional styles, because he says that's what the public wants. you were supporting that position. he provided a picture of a victorian house with faux-composite columns glued on the outside as a picture of the traditional architecture he likes. i was just hoping you would provide your opinion on that particular house.
your opinion is yours to hold. i may disagree with you on many things, and i may disagree with the reasons you provide to back up your opinion (such as the relevance of a survey at a baptist church), but you are still entitled to an opinion even if it is different than mine, and i have no right to tell you that you have to hold some other opinion.
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!
I feel I should explain, at least a bit.
- they suck tons of resources/bitch to maintain - have you ever done a rehab of an old structure? Yes, masonry lasts, unless water's done its work, in which case you are spending a mountain on rebuilding and repointing. Wood rots unless properly maintained via painting on a regular basis. Have you ever priced out a slate roof replacement, rebuilding of copper or lead details? This is just the maintenance costs. These old buildings are not insulated, and although you suggest they are comfortable without modern heat and cooling, I'd be suprised if many building owners would suggest building a new structure with centuries old heating (or cooling) technology. We are too spoiled to live in those structures any more. Maybe you mean we should design new buildings with new technology that look like old buildings?
- can't meet building code - well, I might have stretched the truth on that one. I suppose you could design a building in any style to meet code. However, what I meant was that many building types today do not have an analogue in historical styles. Buildings & programs today are much larger and have fire resistant requirements that traditional buildings did not have. Can you imagine building a 12 story urban hospital in a west coast seismic zone at 700,000 square feet with timber and masonry? It simply isn't possible. You will be doing a steel structure, concrete. Maybe you can clad it in a 'traditional" exterior, but it will look stupid because there never was a building that large back "then". Again, you want something at "looks" traditional but isn't.
Yeah, so I find people who want things that 'look' traditional but still want to have their play stations and electric light to be kinda lame. History is a moving target.
I could see why some Modernists might try to expropriate Gothic architecture, but it's an outlandish claim no matter how serious-faced one is while making it.
"he provided a picture of a victorian house with faux-composite columns glued on the outside as a picture of the traditional architecture he likes" keep spinning, its pretty much all you have at this point.
Btw, are you still going to suggest that victorian architecture is an architectural style and that neoclassicism isn't part of it? I have a couple of books of victorian house plans to offer you in case you would like to brush up.
Funny how suri abandoned the thread where Jean Nouvel challenged him to give a specific example. I wonder why he hasn't abandoned this one yet - too much fun trolling?
suri, you provided two examples of what gets built when - according to you - the public is not involved. JN challenged you to give examples of what gets built when the public is involved, and you failed to provide any.
Are you as full of shit in real life as you are on this forum?
I think "Victorian" is normally short-hand for the Queen Anne Style. Gothic Revival was also big in the Vicrorian era, which is why Oxford and Cambridge look like Oxford and Cambridge. And a hundred US colleges copied them in turn.
"Could you explain a bit more clearly to me about what had changed in the early twentieth century with regards to the role of ego in architecture? I agree with you that ego has always been an important feature to humans, but what I was referring to was the celebration of the individual artist that emerged during the renaissance. "
I agree with you about the emergence of the individual artist emerging at this point in history. In fact many a respected historians would claim that the modern world began with the Renaissance, but it all depends on ones criteria. I would tend to agree in as much as the scientific revolution of the 1600's had it's origins in the Renaissance. Once empirical evidence begins to eclipse pure faith, the modern era began, even though history shows this change to be evolutionary and in fits and starts. But just to be clear, this dosen't change how man percieves the world through the senses, simply through the intellect, which must be learned a new with every generation. As for the change in the early 20th century, it can be found most clearly in the manifestos that called for a radical change in the architect's relationship with the public. The interpreter of zeitgeist vs. an organic extension of the larger community and in my view a more accurate guage of the era's temperment. Finally, the built record speaks loudest as to the new additude of modernist architects to the public. Before and after the educated saw themselves as above the rabble, no doublt, infact that sentiment is still alive and well as one can see here. But if the public at large hated your work in 1600's Rome, chances are you wouldn't get another commission. Infact, people like Bramante where the stars of their era. Today who know's LeCorbusier outside the architectrural commiunity? That might not say much, but what does speak volumes is what people think about his and many other modernists output.
"Wasn't it Alberti and his contemporaries who espoused the importance of individual genius in creating art and architecture, and that these were disciplines that required advanced learning and study best left to a kind of intellectual elite?"
I'd agree with that, but again, did they actually dictate a new way of living from above or where they simply stating the obvious, that mastery requires study of advanced learning? Look at their work vs. the immediatly preceeding one, late gothic. Both era buildings stand side by side in pure sympathy, except for the most ideological of us.
"Isn't there a reason that the first architect hero we can remember is Brunelleschi and not one Gothic masters that were possibly just as inventive, but too dedicated to monastic tradition to care to get any attention?"
Yes, but the same can be said of other fields in society. The rise of the merchant class formed another power base beyond the prince and priest who where the only ones whose ego was worth touting. Anyone else found outside the station they where born to would be put back in place. This rise of a meritocracy as much as it was, represents the first time many self made men had a chance for immortality.
Gothic = thin walls and enormous glass. What's not modern about that? Simply limited by the era they were born in, if it were today, they would be modern. Same that baroque would have been parametricists.
i think the modern architects wanted to give architecture to the people, whereas it was limited to wealthy patrons, the church, and government before the modernists and their crazy manifestos.
the medicis did not build for the public. they built for the medicis. the catholic church doesn't design gilded altars for orphanages. government spends money on design if it's the reichstag, parliament, or a memorial. they tend to skimp on the ornament when throwing together public housing. it was the modernists, like corbu, who wanted to change the dialog from government grandiose to public housing. not that he did a great job of it, but at least he tried.
the built record speaks loudest because your judging their civilization by their temples. the worker's housing is gone. it was not built to last. you're judging today's architecture by the worker's housing. which will not last. in the 'classical' era with its nice columns and such, there were more slaves than free citizens. i don't think those slaves had as much involvement as you think in the design of their communities. the modern world is far better.
who was commissioning great architecture in 1600s rome? that was the baroque period, right? wouldn't a lot of that been paid for by the pope? do you really think the pope ever cared whether the public at large approved of his artistic and architectural decisions? it's not really an position elected by the public. you can't say the college of cardinals represents the public in the architectural discourse.
bramante died in 1514, before rome saw the 1600s. many of his architectural commissions were through the church too, right? were those grand overblown symbols of the church's wealth, or the sort of thing the public could actually use, like housing and orphanages and such? i would think the church in that period wanted a superstar so they could show the protestants how much wealth and power they wielded. unfortunately, the protestants didn't much care and were probably more concerned about supporting their parish instead of their monuments.
tl;dr, the modernist manifestos weren't to pull architects away from the rabble. those manifestos were to bring the public into the dialogue, where they had always been excluded.
The Medici's built the Ufizzi for the elite. The public enjoys it today, and presumably enjoyed looking at it 500 years ago. Will the same said for the modernist governmental offices of Rockefeller Plaza in Anbany? How about the SW quadrant of DC? Everyone knows architecture is a rich person's endevor, but like many other things, it tends to trickle down, or in the case of the project buildings a la Villa Radieuse, dumps down. "not that he did a great job of it, but at least he tried." Yeah, he should get a medal just for participating. Good idea Corbi, now move along and build your crap in the suburbs so we can stuff the colonials in there.
the worker's housing is gone. it was not built to last. If you've studied traditional architecture with any depth, you'll infact notice that whole sought after districts in our great cities are traditional worker housing.
"do you really think the pope ever cared whether the public at large approved of his artistic and architectural decisions?" Who do you think knocked off Bernini's donkey 'ears' on the Pantheon?
those manifestos were to bring the public into the dialogue, where they had always been excluded. So what happened? Have they been included? I know, let's do some surveys and include them that way. Let's try to understand what they aspire to and try to provide it to them in an elegant and sustainable way, without political considerations. Great idea!
Nov 18, 13 8:25 pm
Gothic = thin walls and enormous glass. What's not modern about that? Simply limited by the era they were born in, if it were today, they would be modern. Same that baroque would have been parametricists.
Some Gothic architecture, especially certain Rayonnant structures, definitely made beautiful use of dominant glass walls. A very solid, opaque base, however, made for a great contrast. Did some of the early Modernists look in that direction for cues and reference? I could certainly see it. Though of course, that would mean they were backwards looking, nostalgic, and perhaps not the genius from scratch that they and others claimed to be, no? Who needs history, right?
Don't forget about the White House. Modernists enjoy white plaster, no?
Good thing the Gothic did away with all ornamentation, also, right? ;)
Odd, no one ever asks the people what they want. You have the Connecticut architect living in a beautiful old well-landscaped stone house commuting to his school where he loudly preaches to everyone else they must live in what ever socialist "manifesto" is making the rounds this month. Parametricism being the current buzzword. Gag.
Good idea Corbi, now move along and build your crap in the suburbs so we can stuff the colonials in there.
so, you don't want to learn from what he proposed, what he did, and what he wrote? this is one of those cases where learning from history is opposed to your traditions? is it just because he didn't glue faux-columns to his boxes, like on the traditional house suri pointed to earlier? here you go, here's your public forum where you can be involved.
as you said, "Everyone knows architecture is a rich person's endevor." keep dreaming about rome 500 years ago. the rest of us will carry on with our public forums and architectural dialogue that doesn't ingnore the past 50 years.
so, you don't want to learn from what he proposed, what he did, and what he wrote?
Actually, many people have learned from LeCorbusier, which is why they don't like to repeat the same mistakes. It's people like you who don't seem to be able to look past dogma and take the good while leaving the bad. Infact, trip to fame puts up a couple of photos that would inform your rants, yet you blithely ignore them and march off to battle with the ghosts you where told are out there. And I know you have manners, becasue you snapped into formation once Donna stopped you from trying to identify me. Be assured, I have no power, I hate fighting, and I like pretty things. I'm hardly a threat. By the way, beautiful picture.
the rest of us will carry on with our public forums and architectural dialogue that doesn't ingnore the past 50 years.
Ahh, the sweet smell of ostracization. Whoever agrees with you is "the rest of us", yet so many on this post have chimed in against your vision. Facts be dammed. Incase you didn't get the memo, we all got your version of hisroty, it's called architectuer school. I'll leave you with this riddle. What makes a person modern?
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
"I just want to know whose fault this is"
Whoever he is, he's probably in cahoots with this guy.
http://www.scoutingny.com/?p=5641
(yeah the owners are mostly to blame in this one)
http://p.rdcpix.com/v03/lcd947743-m0m.jpg
another favorite
the best part is that the dormers in the back are peaked, while rounded in the front. (the other images weren't available on the listing anymore)
Suri, who are you to say what someone else should do with his/her money and or property?
If I happen to be your neighbour and decide to paint all my window trims bright yellow and install some gaudi concrete fountain in the driveway, that's my business.
Actually you wouldn't be allowed to do that in my neighborhood. If you do that in some other neighborhood where it's legal, good for you, the world does need a sense of humor after all.
I find places that limit what people do to their houses and property to be depressing places. I would not be proud to claim that as a good thing. But then again, I value freedom of expression. You only care about your own narrow values.
"You only care about your own narrow values."
along with the value of my home
When someone puts up a clown house, those are real dollars they are stripping off of their neighbors home values.
on that first house, it originally had composite columns tacked on to a victorian house with those awkward broken pediments on the gables.
are you saying the original house was a horrible screwed up renovation, or the remodel of the renovation? imho, the remodel helped a fair bit, though didn't quite fix all that needed fixing. the author of that article seemed to think killing a victorian house by gluing on fake columns was a good thing.
the brick was a nice addition imho.
Suri, The value of your property is not my or anyone else's responsibility. You cannot dictate what someone else does with their land as long as it conforms to the local zoning. Don't like the zoning, then move into a gated community with all grey garage doors and identical houses.
There is a beautiful name for selfish fools like yourself... I believe it starts with a Not-In-My something... I forget, but it will come back to me.
Hopefully you'll mature enough to see this when you are old enough to own property.
Though the term 'traditional' could mean different things depending on context, within the practice of architecture I tend to adopt some simple parameters:
1) Traditional architecture is influenced by how humans perceive the forces of load and support in its most natural, pre-industrial state. For about 99.9% of human history, all that was available to build shelter for ourselves was plant matter (wood) and stone. Very early on, we learned and mastered the physical properties of those two kinds materials and eventually codified our understanding about them into proportional rules as to ensure that no beam, column or wall was too skinny or too fat, but just right (i.e. Proportion). After thousands of years of trial and error, and much mathematical refinement, some civilizations achieved an agreed method in articulating load and support that would be reproduced over and over; hence a tradition was established. Egyptians, Mesopotamians Indians, Chinese and Greeks all created architectural traditions that reflect their preferences about how load and support should be expressed, given the materials at hand (wood and stone) and the functional requirements.
2) Traditional architecture incorporates ornament in various degrees. For almost every culture. It wasn't enough to simply size beams and columns correctly, It seemed important to embellish the relationship between load and support, to express values and symbols important to that culture. Once a culture gets to the point where it tries to record everything it does, it establishes a system of rules in the use of ornament, and thus become their own kind of tradition, some lasting forever and others being forgotten after a few years (fads). Each ornamental tradition says something unique about the times and the people that created and used it- renaissance, baroque, rococo, neo-classical, etc)
3) Because of its emphasis on following rules and adopting an approved form of syntax, traditional architecture is inherently self-effacing. Except for some of the more recent traditions that emerged in times when ego began to matter (after the Renaissance) We know little about the individuals who contributed greatly to the development of the tradition itself. It wasn't because there were others who didn't want them to know, or that it wasn't written down but rather because that wasn't deemed important anyway. Buildings represented the community it served, and it belonged collectively to the people who identified with the culture that influenced the building's design. It was understood by all that preservation of one's cultural identity by sustaining his culture's tradition was more important than anything else, and that the arts had an extremely important role to play. Designing a structure using tradition rules is very humbling. It took tremendous skill to follow those rules and still add a personal touch that is appropriate and quite moving at the same time.
Basically anything that went against the way things were done and agreed upon by the cultural community is what I would call modern: expressing load and support is relative to what the architect feels, not what his culture's established rules and traditions dictate; that ornament is not necessary in helping embellish the relationship between load and support. That what the designer feels is far more important than what his community and culture shares as its ideals (this didn't begin in the 1920s, but rather when the modern era began during the Renaissance). Steel, glass and concrete has a lot to do with this, since it up-ended our natural perception on how load and support, which was based since as long as we can remember on the physical properties of stone and wood. Humanism severed the relationship of the individual to his native cultural group, instilling in him an ego and a more abstract and rational view of his relationship to the world at large. This would enable a new sense of freedom for everyone, but it would also instill a feeling of anxiety at the same time, as the comfort of certainty, purpose and meaning provided by tradition was being stripped away. We can tell ourselves that traditions are nothing but convenient little fictions until we're blue in the face, but for most of us, our traditions form a core part of our humanity.
The way I see it, when people demand that they want something traditional, they are probably expressing a desire to feel rooted to a place, to connect themselves to an idealized time in the past of which they have no real knowledge but still feel that is important to their sense of happiness. Having been removed from a life in which everything revolved around tradition, they have no way of knowing how traditional design works to fulfill their sense of well-being. They just know that the modern alternative doesn't fulfill this need. It doesn't for help for architects to tell them that they're stupid and don't know what's good for them. Our role should be for us to understand the kind of vision that they are attracted to, to ask them why a traditional design would help them, and to inform them that traditional design follows rules that may or may not suit some of things they want in their building.. Clients should also understand the traditional design is a serious discipline, and to apply in the most superficial way will cheapen their home and distance them further away from what they're after.
I see, so the column quoin things killed it but that most recent renovation didn't...it in fact improved it. I couldn't make this up
another one for the log of shame
"Suri, The value of your property is not my or anyone else's responsibility. You cannot dictate what someone else does with their land as long as it conforms to the local zoning. Don't like the zoning, then move into a gated community with all grey garage doors and identical houses."
"If you do that in some other neighborhood where it's legal, good for you, the world does need a sense of humor after all."
Thanks for providing that useful contribution of exactly what I just said not half a dozen posts ago.
"Actually you wouldn't be allowed to do that in my neighborhood. If you do that in some other neighborhood where it's legal, good for you, the world does need a sense of humor after all."
I think you meant your parent's neighborhood.
I would agree with almost everything homme du jura said above except that the architect's ego came about as an important factor around the Renaissance. I would guess the increasing interest in science vs. religious superstition had something to do with that perception. Also, the printing press that made an artists creation known much further a field would have contributed to this perception. But egotism has been with us since the advent of modern man, we are all guity and benefit from it at various times. To my mind, the idea that an architect was resopnsable for more than the client's bottom line or his/her own ego, that seems to be the watershed point, but I wouldn't insist on this point.
This break seems to occure with the advent of modernism. Infact the evidence can be seen quite redily in the founding arguments. This statement is usually taken to mean modernism sucks and that's it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Modernist ideology sucks, but modernism is simply a style and a quite elegant one when well done. One only has to look at the houses published in architectural periodicals before and after WWII to see what I and EKE have been talking about. Before the war, they looked like much fancier versions of what your average person was living in. After the war they looked nothing like what average people lived in, and it's still true to this day.
But I think the way you've described the creatioin of a tradition is sopt on, and the importance to people's emotional well being is also spot on. Like Christmas or Thanksgiving, or even phrases that come in and out of fashion, traditions place us in the continuum of time, without which, it would seem like a very strange world.
which quion things?
brick can add 6% value to a home.
thayer, what's your take on suri's idea of traditionalism, as displayed in a house that was victorian, had neoclassical glued to it, then became something a bit more toned down but still retained it's neo-eclectic style?
You really are hung up on my age aren't you non sequitur, I've noticed that you bring it up whenever you start to get frustrated. For the record I am 30.
Why is a 30 year old programmer from Minnesota trolling here? You clearly have already made up your views of design, and when you abandon the idea of design having an intrinsic value for the public, you resort to the monetary investment value. How many architect's offices have you been in? How many client meetings? How many town hall meetings? How many design review boards? Have you ever seen members of the public cry because they are so thankful for the designs and intervention of architects designing for the public?
You seem to assume architects have the final say in everything that gets built, and that everything that gets built is designed by an architect.
victorian isn't an architectural style, many victorian houses have neoclassical elements (like this one). I agree that the flat columns on the corners (quions/whatever)probably aren't original, but to suggest that they ruined the house and these new utterly pathetic renovations did not, spare us your feigned sincerity. i'm reminded of a child writing a school essay on why sweets are in fact good for you, it's not convincing anyone. choose your battles.
I recall bringing it up twice, but after 1200 posts, who can keep track of it all. Your ignorant position on a domain you are rather insultingly unaware of suggests an age of a spoiled 12 year old, but, I guess some never grow up and make something out of their lives.
Nevertheless, my point remains. Maybe you should go outside for a while and check-up on your neighbour's lawns to verify their neatness. While you're at it, don't forget to remind them to back their cars into their lane-ways because seeing the tail-pipe or rear of a vehicle is offensive to sophisticated folks like yourself.
Why do you have a problem with a neighborhood enacting regulations? No one is forcing anyone to move there. Should a town be able to enact regulations? How about a state? A country? I believe that the more localized regulations are, the better they serve their purpose with the least amount of collateral damage.
surixurient, could you name some architects you like?
but brick really does tend to add value to a house. like, the appraised value, not some unmeasurable sentimental thing. i'm pretty sure a faux-column does not typically add much value (again, referencing the appraised value rather than the sentimental value).
chime in thayer. suri says victorian is not an architectural style, and neoclassical elements on a victorian house are a good thing. is this the traditional you were hoping for?
That is a common victorian porch....so yes neoclassical elements on a Victorian house is a good thing.
Ryu, I don't know many names of architects. Most of the celebrity architects whose names I know are modernists.
Do you have actual buildings that you favor then? (Not images used for an argument.)
chime in thayer. suri says victorian is not an architectural style, and neoclassical elements on a victorian house are a good thing. is this the traditional you were hoping for?
I'd be happy to, except you aren't actually debating any points I've made, you're simply flailing about. Keep it up, we might beat the record Donna mentioned. 1500 comments. Can we do it?
YES WE CAN!
One of the curious subtopics of this thread is the difference between residential architecture and larger structures.
The public immediately assumes that architects are involved with homes, because homes are what the public is most familar with.
However, the reality is that most architects spend most of their time with larger structures, because what the law defines as architects' job is protecting the health and wellbeing of the public. In this sense, our "jobs" as the law defines, is more akin to a fire marshal or building inspector. Design is secondary to these important functions under the law.
The public does not see this generally, unless there is a disaster, which is the way it should be. The things that keep me up nights shouldn't concern the public on an everyday basis. I do not want my buildings creating disasters.
Of course, in the United States we have a curious situation where residential structures may be designed by individuals who are not architects. I believe this has to do with individual choice - it would simply be unamerican for the law to dictate what a person can do with their personal property, unless that would negatively impact the public wellbeing.
Suri's question about what is allowed and what is not allowed in a locale shows a lack of understanding of the process and the involvement various decision makers have in the process. If Suri lives in a community where the regulate design (I doubt he does, but perhaps it is so) then it would not be allowed, for example, to make your home look like a jack-o-lantern.
But I suspect that the reason there is conformity has more to do with the self organizing elements of homeowners protecting their property values. If one homeowner chose to paint their home orange with black trim, then there may be little that could be 'done' about it. Regardless, it's doubtfull that an architect would have anything to do with it at all.
I've asked this question several times, but the OP refuses to respond: what architect did the OP hire to design the home they live in, how much did they pay the architect, how much did they pay per square foot for their home and were they satisfied with the result?
I suspect that the OP has never been personally involved the process and thusly does not know. That's not a bad thing, most people are not involved in the proces and it's easy to hurl stones from the outside.
I could suggest at least one talented architect who designs traditional structures that trancend style (In other words, if you removed the ornament, they'd stil be interesting). Of course, these homes are extremely expensive as is the architect himself. The client list is only the very wealthy.
My argument is still that the OP is simply asking for better design in the environment. I'd love for that to happen too and if anyone has clever ideas about how to pull this off, I'd love to hear it.
Giving a blanket statement that buildings older than 80 years are automatically better than new ones ignores the fact that very few of us are older than 80 years and thusly we cannot remember all the crap buildings that were built 80 years ago that simply have disappeared. The list of america's favorite buildings could simply have been titled "some buildings that were done well in the first place, for big budgets and stuck around for some time".
Thayer-D
Thanks for your comments. Could you explain a bit more clearly to me about what had changed in the early twentieth century with regards to the role of ego in architecture? I agree with you that ego has always been an important feature to humans, but what I was referring to was the celebration of the individual artist that emerged during the renaissance. Wasn't it Alberti and his contemporaries who espoused the importance of individual genius in creating art and architecture, and that these were disciplines that required advanced learning and study best left to a kind of intellectual elite? Isn't there a reason that the first architect hero we can remember is Brunelleschi and not one Gothic masters that were possibly just as inventive, but too dedicated to monastic tradition to care to get any attention? I like your point about the emergence of printing, which in my view was when architects (if they even considered themselves that at that point in time) started to understand individual branding.
Ryu, many of my favorite buildings are inspired by gothic manor houses. I'm thinking in particular of the swedish institute building in minneapolis and the house used in the steven king movie rose red.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CmqvG8PTJd4/UBKsB9uw7NI/AAAAAAAAARE/m5RY1Z_KNLE/s1600/American+Swedish+Institute.jpg
http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk248/silverfairiewing1/thornewood-castle-secretgardensmall.jpg
http://www.intltravelnews.com/images/2013/02/big/skurdenis_dingle3.jpg
But in general I like most architecture that is not influenced by modernism (and even some that is like the following)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Mayan_Theater_Los_Angeles_California.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Ennis_House_front_view_2005.jpg
i wasn't debating you thayer.
this is still suri's thread, and we were discussing his assertion that architects should be designing in traditional styles, because he says that's what the public wants. you were supporting that position. he provided a picture of a victorian house with faux-composite columns glued on the outside as a picture of the traditional architecture he likes. i was just hoping you would provide your opinion on that particular house.
your opinion is yours to hold. i may disagree with you on many things, and i may disagree with the reasons you provide to back up your opinion (such as the relevance of a survey at a baptist church), but you are still entitled to an opinion even if it is different than mine, and i have no right to tell you that you have to hold some other opinion.
emmexxthree asked:
"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!
I feel I should explain, at least a bit.
- they suck tons of resources/bitch to maintain - have you ever done a rehab of an old structure? Yes, masonry lasts, unless water's done its work, in which case you are spending a mountain on rebuilding and repointing. Wood rots unless properly maintained via painting on a regular basis. Have you ever priced out a slate roof replacement, rebuilding of copper or lead details? This is just the maintenance costs. These old buildings are not insulated, and although you suggest they are comfortable without modern heat and cooling, I'd be suprised if many building owners would suggest building a new structure with centuries old heating (or cooling) technology. We are too spoiled to live in those structures any more. Maybe you mean we should design new buildings with new technology that look like old buildings?
- can't meet building code - well, I might have stretched the truth on that one. I suppose you could design a building in any style to meet code. However, what I meant was that many building types today do not have an analogue in historical styles. Buildings & programs today are much larger and have fire resistant requirements that traditional buildings did not have. Can you imagine building a 12 story urban hospital in a west coast seismic zone at 700,000 square feet with timber and masonry? It simply isn't possible. You will be doing a steel structure, concrete. Maybe you can clad it in a 'traditional" exterior, but it will look stupid because there never was a building that large back "then". Again, you want something at "looks" traditional but isn't.
Yeah, so I find people who want things that 'look' traditional but still want to have their play stations and electric light to be kinda lame. History is a moving target.
Gothic is modern.
"Gothic is modern."
Are you reciting beat poetry gruen?
The effect of the statement is ruined without a good pair of congo drums trip.
"he provided a picture of a victorian house with faux-composite columns glued on the outside as a picture of the traditional architecture he likes" keep spinning, its pretty much all you have at this point.
Btw, are you still going to suggest that victorian architecture is an architectural style and that neoclassicism isn't part of it? I have a couple of books of victorian house plans to offer you in case you would like to brush up.
Funny how suri abandoned the thread where Jean Nouvel challenged him to give a specific example. I wonder why he hasn't abandoned this one yet - too much fun trolling?
I responded by suggesting that when the public is involved in a project they push towards nothing being built at all.
suri, you provided two examples of what gets built when - according to you - the public is not involved. JN challenged you to give examples of what gets built when the public is involved, and you failed to provide any.
Are you as full of shit in real life as you are on this forum?
darth vader's head + this:
Btw, are you still going to suggest that Victorian architecture is an architectural style and that neoclassicism isn't part of it?
bit of word salad
=
wordbot out of words.
sounds like one of miles' jargon generators for traditional-speak.
I think "Victorian" is normally short-hand for the Queen Anne Style. Gothic Revival was also big in the Vicrorian era, which is why Oxford and Cambridge look like Oxford and Cambridge. And a hundred US colleges copied them in turn.
"Could you explain a bit more clearly to me about what had changed in the early twentieth century with regards to the role of ego in architecture? I agree with you that ego has always been an important feature to humans, but what I was referring to was the celebration of the individual artist that emerged during the renaissance. "
I agree with you about the emergence of the individual artist emerging at this point in history. In fact many a respected historians would claim that the modern world began with the Renaissance, but it all depends on ones criteria. I would tend to agree in as much as the scientific revolution of the 1600's had it's origins in the Renaissance. Once empirical evidence begins to eclipse pure faith, the modern era began, even though history shows this change to be evolutionary and in fits and starts. But just to be clear, this dosen't change how man percieves the world through the senses, simply through the intellect, which must be learned a new with every generation. As for the change in the early 20th century, it can be found most clearly in the manifestos that called for a radical change in the architect's relationship with the public. The interpreter of zeitgeist vs. an organic extension of the larger community and in my view a more accurate guage of the era's temperment. Finally, the built record speaks loudest as to the new additude of modernist architects to the public. Before and after the educated saw themselves as above the rabble, no doublt, infact that sentiment is still alive and well as one can see here. But if the public at large hated your work in 1600's Rome, chances are you wouldn't get another commission. Infact, people like Bramante where the stars of their era. Today who know's LeCorbusier outside the architectrural commiunity? That might not say much, but what does speak volumes is what people think about his and many other modernists output.
"Wasn't it Alberti and his contemporaries who espoused the importance of individual genius in creating art and architecture, and that these were disciplines that required advanced learning and study best left to a kind of intellectual elite?"
I'd agree with that, but again, did they actually dictate a new way of living from above or where they simply stating the obvious, that mastery requires study of advanced learning? Look at their work vs. the immediatly preceeding one, late gothic. Both era buildings stand side by side in pure sympathy, except for the most ideological of us.
"Isn't there a reason that the first architect hero we can remember is Brunelleschi and not one Gothic masters that were possibly just as inventive, but too dedicated to monastic tradition to care to get any attention?"
Yes, but the same can be said of other fields in society. The rise of the merchant class formed another power base beyond the prince and priest who where the only ones whose ego was worth touting. Anyone else found outside the station they where born to would be put back in place. This rise of a meritocracy as much as it was, represents the first time many self made men had a chance for immortality.
i think the modern architects wanted to give architecture to the people, whereas it was limited to wealthy patrons, the church, and government before the modernists and their crazy manifestos.
the medicis did not build for the public. they built for the medicis. the catholic church doesn't design gilded altars for orphanages. government spends money on design if it's the reichstag, parliament, or a memorial. they tend to skimp on the ornament when throwing together public housing. it was the modernists, like corbu, who wanted to change the dialog from government grandiose to public housing. not that he did a great job of it, but at least he tried.
the built record speaks loudest because your judging their civilization by their temples. the worker's housing is gone. it was not built to last. you're judging today's architecture by the worker's housing. which will not last. in the 'classical' era with its nice columns and such, there were more slaves than free citizens. i don't think those slaves had as much involvement as you think in the design of their communities. the modern world is far better.
who was commissioning great architecture in 1600s rome? that was the baroque period, right? wouldn't a lot of that been paid for by the pope? do you really think the pope ever cared whether the public at large approved of his artistic and architectural decisions? it's not really an position elected by the public. you can't say the college of cardinals represents the public in the architectural discourse.
bramante died in 1514, before rome saw the 1600s. many of his architectural commissions were through the church too, right? were those grand overblown symbols of the church's wealth, or the sort of thing the public could actually use, like housing and orphanages and such? i would think the church in that period wanted a superstar so they could show the protestants how much wealth and power they wielded. unfortunately, the protestants didn't much care and were probably more concerned about supporting their parish instead of their monuments.
tl;dr, the modernist manifestos weren't to pull architects away from the rabble. those manifestos were to bring the public into the dialogue, where they had always been excluded.
Modernist Social Housing
Social housing before Modernism came about
New non-Modernist social housing
The Medici's built the Ufizzi for the elite. The public enjoys it today, and presumably enjoyed looking at it 500 years ago. Will the same said for the modernist governmental offices of Rockefeller Plaza in Anbany? How about the SW quadrant of DC? Everyone knows architecture is a rich person's endevor, but like many other things, it tends to trickle down, or in the case of the project buildings a la Villa Radieuse, dumps down. "not that he did a great job of it, but at least he tried." Yeah, he should get a medal just for participating. Good idea Corbi, now move along and build your crap in the suburbs so we can stuff the colonials in there.
the worker's housing is gone. it was not built to last. If you've studied traditional architecture with any depth, you'll infact notice that whole sought after districts in our great cities are traditional worker housing.
"do you really think the pope ever cared whether the public at large approved of his artistic and architectural decisions?" Who do you think knocked off Bernini's donkey 'ears' on the Pantheon?
those manifestos were to bring the public into the dialogue, where they had always been excluded. So what happened? Have they been included? I know, let's do some surveys and include them that way. Let's try to understand what they aspire to and try to provide it to them in an elegant and sustainable way, without political considerations. Great idea!
gruen (History|Contact)
Nov 18, 13 8:25 pm
Gothic = thin walls and enormous glass. What's not modern about that? Simply limited by the era they were born in, if it were today, they would be modern. Same that baroque would have been parametricists.
Some Gothic architecture, especially certain Rayonnant structures, definitely made beautiful use of dominant glass walls. A very solid, opaque base, however, made for a great contrast. Did some of the early Modernists look in that direction for cues and reference? I could certainly see it. Though of course, that would mean they were backwards looking, nostalgic, and perhaps not the genius from scratch that they and others claimed to be, no? Who needs history, right?
Don't forget about the White House. Modernists enjoy white plaster, no?
Good thing the Gothic did away with all ornamentation, also, right? ;)
Odd, no one ever asks the people what they want. You have the Connecticut architect living in a beautiful old well-landscaped stone house commuting to his school where he loudly preaches to everyone else they must live in what ever socialist "manifesto" is making the rounds this month. Parametricism being the current buzzword. Gag.
Good idea Corbi, now move along and build your crap in the suburbs so we can stuff the colonials in there.
so, you don't want to learn from what he proposed, what he did, and what he wrote? this is one of those cases where learning from history is opposed to your traditions? is it just because he didn't glue faux-columns to his boxes, like on the traditional house suri pointed to earlier? here you go, here's your public forum where you can be involved.
as you said, "Everyone knows architecture is a rich person's endevor." keep dreaming about rome 500 years ago. the rest of us will carry on with our public forums and architectural dialogue that doesn't ingnore the past 50 years.
so, you don't want to learn from what he proposed, what he did, and what he wrote?
Actually, many people have learned from LeCorbusier, which is why they don't like to repeat the same mistakes. It's people like you who don't seem to be able to look past dogma and take the good while leaving the bad. Infact, trip to fame puts up a couple of photos that would inform your rants, yet you blithely ignore them and march off to battle with the ghosts you where told are out there. And I know you have manners, becasue you snapped into formation once Donna stopped you from trying to identify me. Be assured, I have no power, I hate fighting, and I like pretty things. I'm hardly a threat. By the way, beautiful picture.
the rest of us will carry on with our public forums and architectural dialogue that doesn't ingnore the past 50 years.
Ahh, the sweet smell of ostracization. Whoever agrees with you is "the rest of us", yet so many on this post have chimed in against your vision. Facts be dammed. Incase you didn't get the memo, we all got your version of hisroty, it's called architectuer school. I'll leave you with this riddle. What makes a person modern?
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.