scale is independent of style. Venice has a scale. Paris has a scale. London has a scale. Historic cities have lessons re: scale and they are very important and to be thoughtfully digested. And they can be easily applied in your decon, your blobitecture, your parametric, etc etc. scale is a quality of things to be thoughtfully addressed in design. historic/traditional yadda yadda barks the question up the wrong tree.
So you ackowledge all the assets that traditional architecture has, yet refuse to study it based on an ideological notion that it's not "of our time". It reminds me of the republicans who like an idea until the democrats embrace it, and then it's ideologically tainted. Solutions don't care about team sports and people don't care about this traditional vs. modernist fight either, they simply want good housing. How do you explain the cost of traditional archtiecture in our revitalizing cities? You can't without acknowledging what most people know intuitivley. Then again, your intuition went out with your tution payment that taught you how to tell others what they really want. How do you apply scale to blob, parametric, and decon? You simply say it, but you can't actually show it. There's what the priest says, and then there's what the priest does. Which one are you going to believe?
thayer, are you saying the only way to apply scale is to glue a fake stone lintel over the steel plate you're using to span a punched opening and glue a fake capital on a column that doesn't actually support any load? if you're not doing those things, and instead are designing something a decon parametric blob, you think it is not possible to have a scale?
curtkram, are you saying that the only way to do traditional architecture is to glue a fake stone lintel over the steel plate you're using to span a punched opening and glue a fake capital on a column that dosen't acctually support any load? And if structural integrity is the measure of truth in architecture, are you telling me that any of the wrapped skeletal structures modernists do are any different than wrapping a skeleton in brick? Do you hear how you asked that question and how incredibly uneducated and/or bigoted it sounds?
I think some people don't get that the size of modern buildings and / or wind/seismic requirements drive the structural systems and thusly the detailing of many buildings today. Yes, to do "traditional" it needs to be "fake".
Quondam, People tend to want healthy food for their children, yet in a "food desert" does that mean the people who feed their children junk food don't want healthy food? To answer your question, most people want a house that not only functions well and advertises their status, but that feels like a home, so developers/builders slather on the cheesy decals. Working from your observation that most of this housing is developer designed, why don't architects design more of it? Becasue they aren't taught how to in thier schools, and in the circular state of this phenomena, young architects think of track housing as shit work. Now developers have always designed most of the track housing historically, but one has to delve into what makes an architect. Is it a specific training or is it the fact of doing architecture? To my mind it's who ever is doing architecture, some better than others, but it's still architecture. Why do people seem to find pre-WWII homes more attractive than post war housing? I think it's becasue the trained architects who are hired by the rich where trained to produce beauty over concept, beauty being easily seen where concept lays burried in someone's manifesto. So when the builder/architect went to copy the fancy designs, their versions (aesthetically) had some of the skilled design that people tend to find attractive while after WWII, with all the trained modernist architects shitting on traditional architecture, the builder who was still trying to satisfy this desire for a "homey" look had to do it in the dark. I hope that answers your first question.
So I am blaming architects and thier education as are many others who seem to share my perspective. I'm an architect and was educated in similar circumstances than most here (I assume) so I remember very well prevailing attitudes.
But do I want to see modernism eradicated? You might want to characterize my position that way to dismiss these points, and that would be your perogative, but that isn't my intention. The way modernists tried unsuccessfully to eradicate not only traditional architecture, but even traditional cities, it would be crazy to repeat that mistake. Infact, the only AIA award I have recieved was for a modernist design. I'm speaking about reforming an education that seems to discount what is apparent to most people's eyes. That people are social beings, and as such come with a history. This society has traditions through which they communicate and express themselves. To deny this is to deny humanity, which the modernist revolution failed to do, but in any liberal and progressive society, everyone's voice should be allowed expression. This is what's not happening in most of our architectural schools.
As some of you know, Mr. "form follows function" Mies' Seagram Building, that sacred cow of modernist architecture education, has I-beams attached decoratively to the facade. So much for austere.
"I think some people don't get that the size of modern buildings and / or wind/seismic requirements drive the structural systems and thusly the detailing of many buildings today. Yes, to do "traditional" it needs to be "fake"."
So the reason traditional buildings need to be fake is becasue of the size of modern buildings? What is your definition of fake and what is this obsession with fakeness? Are Mies's steel columns on the Seagram fake? Is the white flat roofed mediteranean look of LeCorbusier's studio buildings in Northern France not fake? More importantly, do you think the public cares about this supposed fakeness?
what he's saying thayer, is that the traditional lintel or column you see in traditional architecture is not the same carved stone that was actually acting as a lintel or column back in the good old days. it's just applied ornament. the architect who is focused on applied ornament instead of architecture is more of a decorator.
i think it's odd that you're all proud of your stylistic bias, but can't understand why mies would put that beam there. sometimes, making a building look simple is actually fairly difficult. arriving at the point where people can look at your design and think that what you did is so simple that it's the only think that makes sense is often a very cumbersome process and still requires a few iterations and refinements. making it look easy is the hard part.
i always thought rich people who preferred traditional architecture were just trying to build a make-believe land where they get to own slaves, so they try to build an environment that reinforces that fantasy. there are also rich people who prefer well-designed modern homes, but modernism tends to be a bit socialist in nature, in that modernists think people should have to opportunity to work for their own profit and own their own houses.
a faux-column does not make a house a home. a family makes a house a home.
"what he's saying thayer, is that the traditional lintel or column you see in traditional architecture is not the same carved stone that was actually acting as a lintel or column back in the good old days. it's just applied ornament."
Are you aware that the Romans build concrete walls with applied stone decorations? Are you aware that Alberti plastered a coloseum facade worth of orders onto a medeaval stone box? One of the buildings that sparked the Renaissance? It's incredibly ironic that modernists obsess over these "fake" decorations without noticing everything else that's going on in the building. Or for that matter, taking this barometer of truthiness to all other aspects of culture without understanding the importance of symbolism in culture. The architect as mere "decorator" is Michelangelo outfitting the Campedoglio with new facades that every archtiectural student still studies. How can it be!
"sometimes, making a building look simple is actually fairly difficult." Yet making it something it's not is somehow not fake? It reminds me of my eight year old struggling with nuance.
"but modernism tends to be a bit socialist in nature, in that modernists think people should have to opportunity to work for their own profit and own their own houses." You sound like you're still living in the 1930's. How on earth are all those Hampton modernist beachhouses socialist? You simply refuse to understand that to most people, all these intellectual gyrations you've been taught in school are irrelevant. There's room for every aesthetic, but to think that most people want austerity is not to be present in the modern world.
"a faux-column does not make a house a home. a family makes a house a home." Absolutley true, but then please try to square what Morrissey was getting at when he lamented the destruction of his Victorian home for a truthfull modernist housing block.
Rem Koolhaas eventually made the painful admission that he lives in a traditional Victorian flat in London. Yet another case of hypocrisy vis-a-vis the dreaded public vice/private virtue.
Of course Rem Koolhass lives in a traditional Victorian flat. He's not an idiot. So did all my modernist professors at Pratt. Stone colonials in Connecticut, Richardsonian Romanesque warehouses in Soho, Greek Revival rowhouses in the Village, BeauxArt's Office buildings in the Flat Iron district. Do as I say, not as I do.
Well, just to answer Miles Jaffe and gruen, I'm not sure why they think my saying I believe traditional design should be taught in architecture schools today so that we can avoid many of the architectural disasters spread around our landscapes designed for clients who wanted something traditional by architects who had no idea how to do that. Perhaps you think those clients are trolls. I am an advocate for traditional architecture, and it does not have to mean "gluing crap to a lintel" as curt is fond of repeating. Sometimes it is just expressing the lintel at all, instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
can you go back to what you're trying to say thayer? you previously said:
"Why do people seem to find pre-WWII homes more attractive than post war housing? I think it's becasue the trained architects who are hired by the rich where trained to produce beauty over concept, beauty being easily seen where concept lays burried in someone's manifesto."
then you said
"How on earth are all those Hampton modernist beachhouses socialist?"
so, what i learned from your comments is that people don't actually want traditional pre-war housing, they want want modern beach homes. i can no longer follow the message your trying to convey. some people like traditional ornament, others like modern simplicity. you have a bias towards traditional ornament and like to pretend there is some sort of thought-out reasoning behind that bias? clarify and restate your thesis.
by the way, Michelangelo was a painter. if i'm stuck in the 30s, you're apparently stuck in the 1400s.
First, it's not just "scale". Sure, many modernist buildings have "human scale", in the sense that they have forms that have elements which are near to the physical size of people. But where they are falling short is in engaging detail at the scale of a few meters. Take any Frank Gehry public building, or any Hadid or Foster or Calatrava for that matter. They address the very large extremely articulately. But zoom in to a few meters away, they are literally BLANK. Cold metallic machine surfaces, aluminum storefront, reflective glass, etc. No attention is given to creating articulate detail at this range. It is simply not considered to be important by these architects.
Regarding the state of education, I believe this is where the problem lies. I have said it before...the public is demanding traditional architecture, yet the educational elite in this country have refused to train their young architects to provide it. Those that attempt to give the public what they are asking for have to self-educate in traditional languages, which is a dreadful way to learn. The results are bad traditional buildings, which the Modernist elite, who created the situation in the first place, point to with derision. Its a racket, plain and simple.
But Thayer is correct. The winds are shifting to a more inclusive point of view. The ICAA is thriving, with chapters all across the nation, teaching the knowledge that up to 100 years ago, all architects had access to. The University of Colorado had added a concentration in Classical Design, and soon, Mississippi State will be doing the same. The professors who made this happen simply appealed to the university administrators in the pocketbooks. There is a demand for students trained in this knowledge. These graduates will be in demand. These programs will succeed in the same way as ND and Miami have.
It may take awhile to bring this type of coursework to many of the schools, as there is still opposition to this. I proposed to teach a traditional design course at my local architecture school, and the dean was sympathetic, but the architecture department chair was not interested.
"so, what i learned from your comments is that people don't actually want traditional pre-war housing, they want want modern beach homes. i can no longer follow the message your trying to convey. some people like traditional ornament, others like modern simplicity."
Yes, people like both, as I actually do to. I've said that many times, yet you still want to re-state my position, becasue it suits your argument. I tend to like traditional work, like most people, and that's empirically evident, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. But like I said, I recieved an AIA award from a modernist job. Do you think I drew that up while hating it?
The point is to train architects to be good at composition while training them at all the other skills important to our profession. And that means not just abstraction, which is empty if one hasn't even mastered what they are supposed to be abstracting.
"curtkram, are you saying that the only way to do traditional architecture is to glue a fake stone lintel over the steel plate you're using to span a punched opening and glue a fake capital on a column that dosen't acctually support any load?" You answered, YES.
Sounds like you're the one that needs to clarify your thesis. Mine's inclusive, while your's is not. And I hate to say this, but if your actually stand behind your above statement, you don't know a thing about architecture.
Michaelangelo was much more than a painter! The ignorance is appaling I'm sorry to say.
It just further reinforces in my mind the conviction that I made the best decision when I transferred from a typical dogmatic Modernist architecture program to one that was more diverse and actually taught proper architecture history. Until that point, I felt much like others here that are almost indoctrinated to shun the past and cuddle "minimalism" as a security blanket to protect against the looming fact that one simply is afraid of what one doesn't know how to do.
If anyone is in need of a dead horse for a beating, I know which discussion to direct them to.
I have a few large scale public buildings under my belt that pundits would deem "modernist", without "scale", "untraditional", etc, etc, etc... at nauseum. The fun thing is, there was a great deal of thought put into those projects to specifically add human scale and good civic design values. The above critics are simply too far removed from the design world to see this.
But, perhaps if I add a gabled roof to this community centre and perhaps a few barrel vaults in this office space, then that will shut these arm-chair "architects" up. I doubt it though.
"I felt much like others here that are almost indoctrinated to shun the past and cuddle "minimalism" as a security blanket to protect against the looming fact that one simply is afraid of what one doesn't know how to do." I couldn't have said it better...ever. Like the fear of a brown america, this reactionary stance is a product of fear of the unknown. The thought process seems to be 'if I allow a traditional perspective in academia, it will devalue everything I've championed since I left school.' It is a frightening thought, but it's never too late to open up.
"Michelangelo was a painter." absolutley stunning!
"But, perhaps if I add a gabled roof to this community centre and perhaps a few barrel vaults in this office space, then that will shut these arm-chair "architects" up. I doubt it though."
Again, living in an alternate reality. I've been an architect for 20 years. Also, your parody proves the point many have been trying to make here. Perhaps if I add a gabled roof or barreled vault. That's why so much traditional work is kitsch today. Becasue this lack of training leaves archtiects who's clients insist on a traditional look groaping for a solution. As if it where simply a matter of grafting on traditional elelments. Ignorance is rampant.
"If there are now more schools where traditional architecture is being taught, then why are there still so many complaints. Is it because (you believe) all architects should be trained in traditional architecture?"
When are you actually going to argue the points being made instead of an alternate reality? More schools are gong traditional, but proportionally, it's still negligable. Archtiects shoud be trained in Archtiecture, not ideology. I sense this pattern though that the black and white thinkers are unable to see a middle ground.
One style is no worse than another. Poorly done "traditional" is just as bad as a poorly done modern. Most of the so-called traditional designs being built today aren't. They are illusions to the past, adorned with a combination of fake detail and over-the-top "amenities" for marketing purposes and have nothing in common with real classical styles. Most of the modern is emotionally vacant and technically problematic. The real shame is that so much importance is placed on subjective styling and so little on function and building performance - including human factors. And that doesn't even begin to address economic issues ... Or the unreality of lifestyles and consumption in consumer society that everyone is arguing about the styling of.
"My ignorance is rampant? Please... I think you should contact "Pratt" and ask for a refund, they owe you a pretty penny." I loved my experience at Pratt. It taught me to see through arguments like yoursk, plus there where some modernists who didn't try to beat you with a piloti, but actually recognized that some people had differeing tastes. It's about incusivness for Pete (Mondrian)'s sake. You give me lemons, I'll produce some lemonade. The real education of Pratt is being in one of the greatest cities in the world with all the architecture anyone could dream of. It also displayed the hypocracy of your position, which you still seem unable to answer.
"Most of the so-called traditional designs being built today aren't. They are illusions to the past," How isn't the same not true for the mid-century revivalists? It's this obssecion with "authenticity" that's simply a byproduct of an ideologically based education. I tend towards pragmatism, maybe that's the split.
"The real shame is that so much importance is placed on subjective styling and so little on function and building performance" True! Then why do you go on about styling's authenticity? How about artistic merit, regardless of style?
Miles, your patience on this subject is commendable. Many commentators here appear like they just woke up from under a bridge to a old copy of J.H.Kunstler's Home from Nowhere.
I have not had any client, both private and government, ask for true, historically accurate traditional style buildings. Not. a. single. one. Perhaps that is a factor of my local market. I have, as you've described it, had to fight to convince clients against the glued "traditional" aesthetic, but only on a few occasions.
What I have noticed with my larger projects is that more and more, large clients and government projects insist on design that branches away from the traditional this suddenly "huge" public wants. I've stood in front of the pitch forks on controversial projects and those who screamed for a return to the ol'days are not as numerous as the above comments indicate.
i've actually seen those 'perhaps if you put a gabled roof' comments. those don't come from the architect or client though, they come from the planning department. an armchair architect that didn't have the education or credentials real architects tend to have. perhaps there are people that come to you as an architect and tell you they want a "traditional" building, but i haven't seen that yet.
i would rather live in a environment with nice smooth surfaces and storefronts instead of feeling the need to carve pagan gods everywhere. i just don't need that sort of ornament in my environment, at any scale. that opinion does not come from ignorance. i assure you i'm as well educated as anyone here. this forum attracts architects, most of whom are well educated. you don't have any greater understanding of the of the past than the rest of us. you're not any wiser, any smarter, or any better than any one else here.
why do you think my opinion comes from ignorance? the difference between modern architecture and traditional architecture has nothing to do with a ratio between length, width, and height. it has nothing to do with scale. if you prefer to be around buildings with decoration that includes find detail that can only be seen from a few feet away, that's just an opinion and isn't worth any more than any other opinion. i don't need that crap cluttering my environment, which is also an opinion.
i would add to that, as an architect i do see things at a fine scale that a lot of people might miss. since i've spent time trying to figure out how a material wraps a corner or how different materials intersect, i look at those details. if done well in modern architecture, people typically don't see them because they're designed to be simple. you can just forget about them, because in the end the best solution is the one that seems obvious. as an architect, i know that it is often difficult to find the detail that looks obvious. i would consider tossing up some bulky classical molding to cover a gap as a failure to think through the detail.
i can do a google search on my phone. michaelangelo was never able to master that. do you really not understand how profoundly different the practice of architecture is in in the 21st century when compared with the 15th century? or do you just pretend that things are still the same?
"Why won't you design what we the 'public want?" asked the rhetorical troll
"Even people in Hell want ice water" replied the Man.
surixurient's ad hominem attacks about how architects "don't know squat" about traditional architecture and then proceeds to lecture us on the lack of details and craftsmanship in today's builder homes or worse implied meaninglessness of public buildings built within the last 80 years. How does one debate with someone who makes statements like these?
"The buildings of history on the other hand actually had meaning, they followed a language, one defined and built up for centuries, and a language even the common man could understand and value.Now, every generation of designers throws away whatever they inherited and arrogantly declares themselves as the enlightened generation, the true builders. Useless and self absorbed virtues like 'originality' 'rule breaking' 'wave making' rule the day."
The level of self-unawareness in this statement is outstanding. Does surixurient actually believe that the buildings of yesteryear weren't monuments to ego and arrogance? That he/she proclaims the Vanderbilt's houses as exemplary models of traditional architecture (nothing short of the American version of Versaille) that the middling and working classes can aspire to. One wonders if surixurient ever cracked a history book and read the fine print beyond the glossy pictures.
Lamenting the lack of Classical or Renaissance or Rococo or Revival Empire decorative details in todays architecture as the sole fault of lazy architects with their modern education shows a clear misunderstanding of both history and architecture. Classical architecture was built by and for the most powerful people. Those particular projects were buildings of their time. That every building built before 1950 is somehow a precious jewel is wishful thinking at best for a past that never, ever existed. Does surixurient think that Mt. Vernon is a piece of crap because it's made of wood and lacks the authoritative details of the palaces...er...summer cottages built by the oligarchs of the Gilded Age? Mt Vernon's vernacular was the "contemporary" interpretation of traditional English manor homes but instead of being built out of brick and stone was constructed out of wood. Even the "stone" is shaped wood siding painted with sand to look like stone. Even the interior trim and walls were faux painted to look like more expensive wood.
America's early architecture was made of wood because that was our most abundant material. There didn't exist the vast quarries of Italian marble and limestone that existed in Europe for hundreds of years. No was there wasn't the vast pool of classically trained artisans that could do stone carving, gilding, and the like. Even when those skills became abundant enough in America, the patrons of those "classical" monuments of capitalism, narcissism, ego and greed actually imported the labor from Europe along with the actual disassembled buildings. Even today, the clients that can afford such luxurious detailing are the wealthiest segment of society.
If anything American architecture by and large is staid, conservative and heavily reliant upon "classical" and "traditional" motifs from public buildings like a courthouse to the local Rite-Aid to your latest builder house.
Surixurient's lamentations aside, the reality is finding craftspeople that have the requisite skills to replicate the very Classical decorative details in wood let alone stone or plaster is difficult and very expensive.
Here in New Orleans we have 20 historic districts filled with buildings that are 100-200+ years old. And few have the level of craftsmanship that surixurient desires. Those that do require an endless supply of money and maintenance for upkeep and that isn't just the old stone and brick buildings but the wood buildings too. The few buildings having any high level of "classical" or "traditional" detailing were built by families of means not your average everyday dock worker. Those folks were lucky to have a single shotgun built out of recycled boat wood and finished with lap siding, wall paper and maybe splurging for some wood Doris columns.
Plenty of residential clients and public clients want 'traditional' architecture and they get it in spades. They just don't get high quality stuff because few can afford it and few builders can actually build it. So they resign themselves to pressboard mouldings, fiberglass columns, vinyl Palladian windows and cheap Chinese-made brass chandeliers.
The few exemplary buildings of historical value are saved already and few exemplary 'International Style' buildings are being saved as well for being historically unique in that few were built or remain. Great architecture is and will remain the preview of the wealthy and powerful. The rest of us have to make do with the pragmatic. Aesthetics has little to do with skill, craft, taste or money.
And the next person that makes the uninformed "they don't make 'em like that anymore" comment I'm going to smack. I have a house that was built in 1905 and the quality of construction wasn't anybetter or worse than today's. The house was built by laymen, not skilled artisans and the details were quite ordinary yet by today's standards almost contemporary in their plain-ness. If anything it's a counter-point to the notion that everything built back then was overtly ornate, classical and well constructed.
"I have not had any client, both private and government, ask for true, historically accurate traditional style buildings. I have had to fight to convince clients against the glued "traditional" aesthetic, but only on a few occasions." thus the name, non Sequitur.
"i would rather live in a environment with nice smooth surfaces and storefronts instead of feeling the need to carve pagan gods everywhere. i just don't need that sort of ornament in my environment, at any scale" Good for you. But stop trying to enforce your spartan idealism on those that like decoration, whether it be pagan or with clothing, or in landscaping...
"do you really not understand how profoundly different the practice of architecture is in in the 21st century when compared with the 15th century?" Do you really not understand that human nature hasn't significantly changed in the last 2000 years despite the latest technology?
"Lamenting the lack of Classical or Renaissance or Rococo or Revival Empire decorative details in todays architecture as the sole fault of lazy architects with their modern education shows a clear misunderstanding of both history and architecture." Paraphrasing all the previous arguments into a lazy and simplistic statement shows a clear unwillingness to face facts that are evident to most satient beings.
"And the next person that makes the uninformed "they don't make 'em like that anymore" comment I'm going to smack." Oh, so your the "smacking" type! Got it. Enjoy your fake 1905 house, just like Remmy Coolhouse.
If there are now more schools where traditional architecture is being taught, then why are there still so many complaints. Is it because (you believe) all architects should be trained in traditional architecture?
If there is such a big market for traditional architecture, then the capitalist system of the US will more than likely cater to that market. More than anything else, the built environment of the US is a fairly clear represention of its concurrent market economy.
there are people who know how to design correctly. which i indicated a couple of hundred comments ago. quondam's right on.
i can believe this conversation's still kicking...
Architects design and are educated for the times in which they live and try to push the profession forward. We look look backward to history for clues but don't try to copy other styles. Our profession would be dead if we didn't continue to push it forward.
Thayer, you are fun to argue with but you kinda went off the deep end with that last post. no one is "forcing" spartan idealism on anyone. As has been said here frequently, if the public truly wants traditional architecture then they'll hire someone to design it for them. From the responses here the demand isn't terribly high, though it does exist.
And iamus' house is ACTUALLY from 1905, it's not fake. I think you're speed-reading.
Do you really not understand that human nature hasn't significantly changed in the last 2000 years despite the latest technology?
i do not understand that. human nature has changed considerably. the age of enlightenment has come and gone since then. how we communicate has changed. where we communicate has changed. where we congregate has changed. how we go about finding food and shelter has changed. how we organize into communities and governments has changed. a lot has changed, not the least of which is that we no longer build pyramids by stacking large stones on top of each other.
"Paraphrasing all the previous arguments into a lazy and simplistic statement shows a clear unwillingness to face facts that are evident to most satient beings."
your position on "traditional" architecture continues to be simplistic. there isn't any more 'meaning' behind 'traditional' architecture than there is behind modern architecture or even behind a walmart box store. if you want to glue a carved styrofoam lintel onto your steel angle, go ahead and do that. i'm not saying you can't or shouldn't. i'm saying there isn't anything special or better about doing that. to pretend like there is some sort of greater meaning is wrong. decoration is decoration and it will never be anything more than that, no matter how convinced you are that you know something the rest of us don't.
i don't think you're fooling anyone but yourself when you extoll the virtues of "traditional" architecture.
Hi Curt, I see you are brining out your favorite stuck-on lintel argument again. Often in modern brick veneer construction (used for sontemporary traditional and contemporary modern buildings) the lintel is hidden and ignored. It is a poor detail because even if the lintel is galvinized it often will begin to rust within 40 years or so. I was just taking a look at a fine period campus (from the 1960s) where the modern architecture (built with brick veneer) is beginning to deteriorate dur to the steel lintels over the openings rusting. Had a lintel been used that could have been expressed (such as a precast lintel) there would not have been a weak link in the facade system causing this premature deterioration. But, you see, a precast lintel wouldn't have worked because the windows are strip windows, a favorite modern design feature, and therefore there had to be a steel lintel which could be attached to the steel frame to hold up the brick above the strip window.
To my mind a traditional design would have prevented this problem, typically using a punched opening instead, and thus the ability to use an arch or a lintl which would not rust and cause problems down the road. I don't think I'm fooling myself that a traditional design would last longer than a modern one, and that that is one os its virtues (there are others).
But as I also said previously, I do modern design when the client asks for it, and do my best to detail it in such a way that it will last as long as possible, but I just don't think, in general, that it will last as long as a traditional design, and thus will not be as sustainable a building.
I feel we should give clients what they are looking for, in general, and usually they want a handsome building, which can mean different things to different people. If you, as an architect, have a client who wants a traditional design do you turn them away, or work with them? My problem is that I have seen too many buildings where the client said they wanted a traditional style building but the architect didn't know how to do that well, and so we have to see these ugly supposedly traditional buildings not at all infrequently. That is why I am advocating for teaching traditional design in schools today, not to replace the emphasis on modern design, but so that architects are more versatile in giving the client what they ask for.
the lintel was not ignored. a steel lintel was used, because that was the best way to get the brick to bear on something over the ribbon window.
the angle shouldn't have been retaining water in a way that causes it to rust, especially if it was galvanized. there is a pretty good chance this happened because the brick wasn't weeped properly. i'm pretty sure if you fail to weep your brick, it will fail in traditional design too. shit in == shit out. style is irrelevant in those situations.
No need to fool anyone, Curtkram. There is tremendous demand for architecture done in traditional languages, and that demand exists not because people are foolish or unsophisticated. It exists because these buildings connect with people in ways that avant-garde modernist buildings generally do not. Modernism CAN connect with people and provide them with loveable architecture, but the way to do that is not to imagine that the public is less sophisticated than is necessary to understand how wonderful our modern buildings are. In my opinion, the profession needs to take seriously the public's love of traditional architecture, try to understand why they love those buildings, and craft a modernism that addresses their preferences.
You are right, the lintel was there, by ignoring it I meant that it was hidden, was not expressed, and thus visually it was wished away. In this case it may not have been properly detailed, as you say the weeps may not have been properly installed, they may have become blocked (with insects, dirt, etc), there may have been no flashing over the lintel behind the brick. All quite possible, hard to say without disassembling part of the wall; but where a precast lintel (ort an arch) could have been used in a traditional design (with the usual punched opening), a steel lintel, prone to rusting even if just from moisture in the air (this is not a desert here in upstate New York) would not be necessary.
Donna said, "As has been said here frequently, if the public truly wants traditional architecture then they'll hire someone to design it for them. From the responses here the demand isn't terribly high, though it does exist."
A message board for architect intellectuals is not the best place to take a public opinion poll on the relative general popularity of traditional architecture, I'm afraid. :)
Truth is, there ARE lots of architects who are hired to design traditional buildings. But the architectural educators have failed them miserably.
This whole debate is in the deep end, but that said, I like that we can keep it light, even though we don't agree. I may have mispoke if you thought I said Curtkram was "forcing" spartan idealism" on people. I was saying that if he prefered that aesthetic then "good for him", but that this anti-decorative ethos that his comments represent and that modernists espouse ought not be forced on to archtiecture students since we all appreciate decoration in one form or another, whether restrained, over the top or simply one large object as ornament.
Also, while I was speed reading a bit, my joke about enjoying a "fake" 1905 house was that houses before WWII employed some form of historicism, so by the standards of the debate as perpetuated by some here, it would be fake. Even Lou Reed RIP employed influence from Bob Dylan, but that didn't make him fake. Infact, most everything after the Greeks would be fake since so much of history after that is borrowed and evolved from previous periods, and if you ask some archeologists, even the Greeks are a bunch of fakers. That is the fallacy of the modernist obsession with authenticity, becasue as a human race, we are all fakes by that standard, when infact that's how we develope a shared culture.
Again, what I, aojwny, EKE and others seem to keep saying is...
"That is why I am advocating for teaching traditional design in schools today, not to replace the emphasis on modern design, but so that architects are more versatile in giving the client what they ask for." "the architectural educators have failed them miserably."
I don't know what about that makes so many modernists afraid? Actually I do, but it does show a lack of conviction.
i think you're using the term "intellectuals" loosely, though i stand by what i said before that anyone here who is an architect is probably well educated due to that being one of the requirements to become an architect. there isn't any reason be calling someone "ignorant" for disagreeing with you ('you' only applies to the people it applies to), since they're probably not ignorant. i'm sure there are lots of architects hired to design "traditional" buildings. i'm sure there are a lot of architects hired to design neo-eclectic crap that mixes and matches styrofoam historic styles, because sometimes that's what the client wants. as far as i'm concerned, "traditional" still just means gluing ornament onto a box. there is nothing wrong with having a precast or stone lintel in a building just as there is nothing wrong with a steel angle being used for a lintel. if you want the concrete people to cast some pagan gods or masonic symbols into the lintel, that's fine but pretending it's something other than ornament seems disingenuous. the difference between a steel angle and precast lintel is not, in my opinion, the difference between 'traditional' and 'modern.' the good designer will know how to detail either, and then just hope it's installed close to right.
i like modern architecture because i like it. because of that, i'm going to enjoy designing in that style more, and ultimately will probably do a better job due to the interest. also, your assertion that "the public" or "lots of people" or "anyone" are asking architects to design in a 'traditional' style is not really common in my life. i accept that may be a common occurrence in your life. if that's the case, then it would be good for you to learn about those traditional styles.
i think all naab accredited universities have history classes that teach about historic architecture. i think there are significant differences between greek, roman, and renaissance architecture even though i think you lump all of those into the single category of 'traditional.' i don't think schools need to teach any more than they already are.
A neat summation of this AND the starbucks thread: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/architecture_public_responsibi.html#.Um-asx41Jyo.twitter
I strongly believe that a survey of the history of architecture, such as that taught in nearly every school in the nation, in not sufficient if you want to design thoughtful classical buildings. It may be enough if you want to design modernist buildings which have no connection to any history before 1900.
Designing classical buildings is a discipline, one which takes years of education immersed in the culture, literature and philosophy of classicism. Or decades of self-education and groping, which is what I had to do. It's a "way of seeing", an integrated approach to architecture and art that must be acquired over time. It is a "worldview". This is true of the Bauhaus "way of seeing" as well.
I'm not saying every school should teach this. I don't expect Harvard or SciArc or RISD to teach classical design. I'd be happy if 10% of the universities in the country did.
"Paraphrasing all the previous arguments into a lazy and simplistic statement shows a clear unwillingness to face facts that are evident to most satient beings." Actually paraphrasing all of the previous lazy and simplistic arguments is the best way to clearly illustrate your opinion posing as "fact."
Much as everyone here has an opinion, stating one's aesthetic predilection for classical or modern architecture has no relevance as to whether or not a building is designed and constructed well.
As to whether or not old buildings, using the materials & methods of their time, were or are better than today's buildings gets lost among the posts of whether or not the public wants or demands traditional/historical/classical architecture over international/modern/contemporary/french country or transitional. People are conflating aesthetics with quality and craftsmanship.
That surixurient and Thayer seem to think or at least imply that any architectural aesthetic or construction proposition that doesn't involve classical training, methods or aesthetics is not worthy of being called architecture and that the fundamental education of architecture over the last 100 years should be struck from the record while, without any irony, assert that any modernist claiming classical architecture is bad is being closed minded, simplistic, ignorant or an aggrandizing bore.
How many people on this board actually work on historic preservation or restoration? I have worked on several over the years from restorations to adaptive reuse. I'm working on a complex here in New Orleans that consists 7 buildings that span a timeframe of 150 years. The first building dating to 1857 and last in 1960. Ironically, the building from 1857 is in worse condition than the 1960 building.
Well from the assertions of Surixurient and Thayer the 1857 Gothic style chapel building should last forever because back then they knew how to build and design stuff. But the reality is the building has suffered from years of neglect, poor maintenance and questionable alterations. The building is on the verge of collapsing from neglect. The 1960 CMU block & brick building is structurally sound, doesn't leak and is ugly as shit. The style of the building has NOTHING to do with quality. Older buildings leak as much as new ones, old buildings are energy hogs equally as much as new ones. What separates the good buildings from the bad are quality of construction and craftsmanship coupled with a good design and detailing.
Again, the issue of aesthetics & style has nothing to do with quality of construction. Nor does the age of the building have anything to do with quality of construction. Stop conflating the two.
EKE "designing classical buildings is a discipline, one which takes years of education immersed in the culture, literature and philosophy of classicism."
Actually designing great architecture regardless of style requires discipline, years of education, professional practice and immersion in culture, literature and philosophy. Designing a classically styled building in a particular historical style requires a study of history but it doesn't require you to re-enact living in the Victorian era. People forget sometimes that the meanings of the symbolic emblems and embellishments on those historical buildings weren't readily known to the laymen. They were known to the client / patron the architect and perhaps the tradesmen.
Designing a complex, contemporary building today requires as much, maybe more research, understanding and cultural immersion to design a building that resonates with the client and end users. Modern architecture's "symbolism" is implied through the abstraction, clarity & simplicity of detailing, as well the spaces defined by light, color, flatness and transparency.
Most architecture programs don't concentrate on teaching the design of classical details and construction anymore because the nature of architectural education changed. Just as all of the arts surrounding architecture changed at the turn of the 20th century so to did the nature and direction of architecture. Robert Hughes' 'Shock of the New' does an excellent job of illustrating the psychological turmoil and anxiety that was expressed throughout the arts in the early 1900s. It's a clear dividing line between the New and the Old. That...as this discussion illustrates, affects our way of seeing, viewing, living and interacting with the world. Try as we might, wishing for the pastoral past we think existed won't bring it to fruition.
Maybe instead of forcing architecture students to learn classical architecture or modern architecture we teach them how to detail buildings, design functional spaces and resolve the clients' needs regardless of style. Teach them how to run a business. Teach them the art of craftsmanship. Teach them a building trade. Teach them how to do great architecture regardless of style. In the end, we'll all be better for it.
"That surixurient and Thayer seem to think or at least imply that any architectural aesthetic or construction proposition that doesn't involve classical training, methods or aesthetics is not worthy of being called architecture"
You can alter my position all you like to suit your point, but I have not said anything of the like. It does betray a "azy and simplistic" train of thought though.
"the issue of aesthetics & style has nothing to do with quality of construction. Nor does the age of the building have anything to do with quality of construction. Stop conflating the two."
I've not done such a thing although there are certain issues I have with the modernist aesthetic that seem to produce more functional problems than necessary like glass buildings or flat roofs. I personally saw many a decaying brownstone in Brooklyn that had newspaper stuffed in the walls for insulation or when they would lay the sandstone skin facing out so that it would spall terribly, leading to failure. Greed is one of those elements of human nature that dosen't change with time or technology, but so is sensibility, which is why modernists have never been able to get the public on the whole, to buy into their abstract minimalist aesthetic. There's a whole vat of science that explains why, should science be your thing, but don't take a scientist's opinion, just ask yo mama. Better yet, ask Remmy Coolhouse what kind of domecile he chose for himself.
"Maybe instead of forcing architecture students to learn classical architecture or modern architecture we teach them how to detail buildings, design functional spaces and resolve the clients' needs regardless of style. Teach them how to run a business. Teach them the art of craftsmanship. Teach them a building trade. Teach them how to do great architecture regardless of style. In the end, we'll all be better for it."
Now that sounds like a good start, except, architecture is an art, for better or for worse, so I think you might as well throw in some liberal arts, conposition, light and shade, programing, history...
"Robert Hughes' 'Shock of the New' does an excellent job of illustrating the psychological turmoil and anxiety that was expressed throughout the arts in the early 1900s"
Actually, what he shows really well is how many a cool avant guard boys got a lot of attention with their rants. There has always been turmoil and anxiety in society, it's just that the modernists chose to celebrate it rather than try to sooth it.
Another good start would be to employ the kind of vocabulary that our clients use, with such dirty words like ...beauty, style, ornament, decorative...you get the picture.
I never said that designing good modernist building didn't require the same kind of discipline. On the contrary. I noted that the Bauhaus educational model is an equally comprehensive "way of seeing". But it is decidedly different, and someone educated at the Bauhaus was clearly ill-equipped to design classical building, just as a graduate of the Ecole was not prepared to design in the International Style.
BTW, who suggested that designing classical buildings means we should reenact living in the Victorian period? I didn't say that at all. Learning from the past doesn't mean living in the past. But a history of architecture class does not equip someone to design classical buildings. There is a deep and nuanced aesthetic and philosophical body of knowledge which underlies classical design.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
nope.
its just an appreciation for scale.
scale is independent of style. Venice has a scale. Paris has a scale. London has a scale. Historic cities have lessons re: scale and they are very important and to be thoughtfully digested. And they can be easily applied in your decon, your blobitecture, your parametric, etc etc. scale is a quality of things to be thoughtfully addressed in design. historic/traditional yadda yadda barks the question up the wrong tree.
So you ackowledge all the assets that traditional architecture has, yet refuse to study it based on an ideological notion that it's not "of our time". It reminds me of the republicans who like an idea until the democrats embrace it, and then it's ideologically tainted. Solutions don't care about team sports and people don't care about this traditional vs. modernist fight either, they simply want good housing. How do you explain the cost of traditional archtiecture in our revitalizing cities? You can't without acknowledging what most people know intuitivley. Then again, your intuition went out with your tution payment that taught you how to tell others what they really want. How do you apply scale to blob, parametric, and decon? You simply say it, but you can't actually show it. There's what the priest says, and then there's what the priest does. Which one are you going to believe?
thayer, are you saying the only way to apply scale is to glue a fake stone lintel over the steel plate you're using to span a punched opening and glue a fake capital on a column that doesn't actually support any load? if you're not doing those things, and instead are designing something a decon parametric blob, you think it is not possible to have a scale?
curtkram, are you saying that the only way to do traditional architecture is to glue a fake stone lintel over the steel plate you're using to span a punched opening and glue a fake capital on a column that dosen't acctually support any load? And if structural integrity is the measure of truth in architecture, are you telling me that any of the wrapped skeletal structures modernists do are any different than wrapping a skeleton in brick? Do you hear how you asked that question and how incredibly uneducated and/or bigoted it sounds?
Just ask'n.
yes
no
no
ok
Quondam, People tend to want healthy food for their children, yet in a "food desert" does that mean the people who feed their children junk food don't want healthy food? To answer your question, most people want a house that not only functions well and advertises their status, but that feels like a home, so developers/builders slather on the cheesy decals. Working from your observation that most of this housing is developer designed, why don't architects design more of it? Becasue they aren't taught how to in thier schools, and in the circular state of this phenomena, young architects think of track housing as shit work. Now developers have always designed most of the track housing historically, but one has to delve into what makes an architect. Is it a specific training or is it the fact of doing architecture? To my mind it's who ever is doing architecture, some better than others, but it's still architecture. Why do people seem to find pre-WWII homes more attractive than post war housing? I think it's becasue the trained architects who are hired by the rich where trained to produce beauty over concept, beauty being easily seen where concept lays burried in someone's manifesto. So when the builder/architect went to copy the fancy designs, their versions (aesthetically) had some of the skilled design that people tend to find attractive while after WWII, with all the trained modernist architects shitting on traditional architecture, the builder who was still trying to satisfy this desire for a "homey" look had to do it in the dark. I hope that answers your first question.
So I am blaming architects and thier education as are many others who seem to share my perspective. I'm an architect and was educated in similar circumstances than most here (I assume) so I remember very well prevailing attitudes.
But do I want to see modernism eradicated? You might want to characterize my position that way to dismiss these points, and that would be your perogative, but that isn't my intention. The way modernists tried unsuccessfully to eradicate not only traditional architecture, but even traditional cities, it would be crazy to repeat that mistake. Infact, the only AIA award I have recieved was for a modernist design. I'm speaking about reforming an education that seems to discount what is apparent to most people's eyes. That people are social beings, and as such come with a history. This society has traditions through which they communicate and express themselves. To deny this is to deny humanity, which the modernist revolution failed to do, but in any liberal and progressive society, everyone's voice should be allowed expression. This is what's not happening in most of our architectural schools.
As some of you know, Mr. "form follows function" Mies' Seagram Building, that sacred cow of modernist architecture education, has I-beams attached decoratively to the facade. So much for austere.
"I think some people don't get that the size of modern buildings and / or wind/seismic requirements drive the structural systems and thusly the detailing of many buildings today. Yes, to do "traditional" it needs to be "fake"."
So the reason traditional buildings need to be fake is becasue of the size of modern buildings? What is your definition of fake and what is this obsession with fakeness? Are Mies's steel columns on the Seagram fake? Is the white flat roofed mediteranean look of LeCorbusier's studio buildings in Northern France not fake? More importantly, do you think the public cares about this supposed fakeness?
what he's saying thayer, is that the traditional lintel or column you see in traditional architecture is not the same carved stone that was actually acting as a lintel or column back in the good old days. it's just applied ornament. the architect who is focused on applied ornament instead of architecture is more of a decorator.
i think it's odd that you're all proud of your stylistic bias, but can't understand why mies would put that beam there. sometimes, making a building look simple is actually fairly difficult. arriving at the point where people can look at your design and think that what you did is so simple that it's the only think that makes sense is often a very cumbersome process and still requires a few iterations and refinements. making it look easy is the hard part.
i always thought rich people who preferred traditional architecture were just trying to build a make-believe land where they get to own slaves, so they try to build an environment that reinforces that fantasy. there are also rich people who prefer well-designed modern homes, but modernism tends to be a bit socialist in nature, in that modernists think people should have to opportunity to work for their own profit and own their own houses.
a faux-column does not make a house a home. a family makes a house a home.
"what he's saying thayer, is that the traditional lintel or column you see in traditional architecture is not the same carved stone that was actually acting as a lintel or column back in the good old days. it's just applied ornament."
Are you aware that the Romans build concrete walls with applied stone decorations? Are you aware that Alberti plastered a coloseum facade worth of orders onto a medeaval stone box? One of the buildings that sparked the Renaissance? It's incredibly ironic that modernists obsess over these "fake" decorations without noticing everything else that's going on in the building. Or for that matter, taking this barometer of truthiness to all other aspects of culture without understanding the importance of symbolism in culture. The architect as mere "decorator" is Michelangelo outfitting the Campedoglio with new facades that every archtiectural student still studies. How can it be!
"sometimes, making a building look simple is actually fairly difficult." Yet making it something it's not is somehow not fake? It reminds me of my eight year old struggling with nuance.
"but modernism tends to be a bit socialist in nature, in that modernists think people should have to opportunity to work for their own profit and own their own houses." You sound like you're still living in the 1930's. How on earth are all those Hampton modernist beachhouses socialist? You simply refuse to understand that to most people, all these intellectual gyrations you've been taught in school are irrelevant. There's room for every aesthetic, but to think that most people want austerity is not to be present in the modern world.
"a faux-column does not make a house a home. a family makes a house a home." Absolutley true, but then please try to square what Morrissey was getting at when he lamented the destruction of his Victorian home for a truthfull modernist housing block.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2013/10/legacy-urban-renewal-helped-make-morrissey-sad/7364/
Everybody knows what makes a good home cooked meal. When Mamma makes it. But if she made it with delicious ingredients, it might taste better. Nuance.
Rem Koolhaas eventually made the painful admission that he lives in a traditional Victorian flat in London. Yet another case of hypocrisy vis-a-vis the dreaded public vice/private virtue.
Of course Rem Koolhass lives in a traditional Victorian flat. He's not an idiot. So did all my modernist professors at Pratt. Stone colonials in Connecticut, Richardsonian Romanesque warehouses in Soho, Greek Revival rowhouses in the Village, BeauxArt's Office buildings in the Flat Iron district. Do as I say, not as I do.
Well, just to answer Miles Jaffe and gruen, I'm not sure why they think my saying I believe traditional design should be taught in architecture schools today so that we can avoid many of the architectural disasters spread around our landscapes designed for clients who wanted something traditional by architects who had no idea how to do that. Perhaps you think those clients are trolls. I am an advocate for traditional architecture, and it does not have to mean "gluing crap to a lintel" as curt is fond of repeating. Sometimes it is just expressing the lintel at all, instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
can you go back to what you're trying to say thayer? you previously said:
"Why do people seem to find pre-WWII homes more attractive than post war housing? I think it's becasue the trained architects who are hired by the rich where trained to produce beauty over concept, beauty being easily seen where concept lays burried in someone's manifesto."
then you said
"How on earth are all those Hampton modernist beachhouses socialist?"
so, what i learned from your comments is that people don't actually want traditional pre-war housing, they want want modern beach homes. i can no longer follow the message your trying to convey. some people like traditional ornament, others like modern simplicity. you have a bias towards traditional ornament and like to pretend there is some sort of thought-out reasoning behind that bias? clarify and restate your thesis.
by the way, Michelangelo was a painter. if i'm stuck in the 30s, you're apparently stuck in the 1400s.
Wow. Great conversation. Love this.
A couple personal observations:
First, it's not just "scale". Sure, many modernist buildings have "human scale", in the sense that they have forms that have elements which are near to the physical size of people. But where they are falling short is in engaging detail at the scale of a few meters. Take any Frank Gehry public building, or any Hadid or Foster or Calatrava for that matter. They address the very large extremely articulately. But zoom in to a few meters away, they are literally BLANK. Cold metallic machine surfaces, aluminum storefront, reflective glass, etc. No attention is given to creating articulate detail at this range. It is simply not considered to be important by these architects.
Regarding the state of education, I believe this is where the problem lies. I have said it before...the public is demanding traditional architecture, yet the educational elite in this country have refused to train their young architects to provide it. Those that attempt to give the public what they are asking for have to self-educate in traditional languages, which is a dreadful way to learn. The results are bad traditional buildings, which the Modernist elite, who created the situation in the first place, point to with derision. Its a racket, plain and simple.
But Thayer is correct. The winds are shifting to a more inclusive point of view. The ICAA is thriving, with chapters all across the nation, teaching the knowledge that up to 100 years ago, all architects had access to. The University of Colorado had added a concentration in Classical Design, and soon, Mississippi State will be doing the same. The professors who made this happen simply appealed to the university administrators in the pocketbooks. There is a demand for students trained in this knowledge. These graduates will be in demand. These programs will succeed in the same way as ND and Miami have.
It may take awhile to bring this type of coursework to many of the schools, as there is still opposition to this. I proposed to teach a traditional design course at my local architecture school, and the dean was sympathetic, but the architecture department chair was not interested.
curtkram,
"so, what i learned from your comments is that people don't actually want traditional pre-war housing, they want want modern beach homes. i can no longer follow the message your trying to convey. some people like traditional ornament, others like modern simplicity."
Yes, people like both, as I actually do to. I've said that many times, yet you still want to re-state my position, becasue it suits your argument. I tend to like traditional work, like most people, and that's empirically evident, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. But like I said, I recieved an AIA award from a modernist job. Do you think I drew that up while hating it?
The point is to train architects to be good at composition while training them at all the other skills important to our profession. And that means not just abstraction, which is empty if one hasn't even mastered what they are supposed to be abstracting.
"curtkram, are you saying that the only way to do traditional architecture is to glue a fake stone lintel over the steel plate you're using to span a punched opening and glue a fake capital on a column that dosen't acctually support any load?" You answered, YES.
Sounds like you're the one that needs to clarify your thesis. Mine's inclusive, while your's is not. And I hate to say this, but if your actually stand behind your above statement, you don't know a thing about architecture.
Michaelangelo was much more than a painter! The ignorance is appaling I'm sorry to say.
It just further reinforces in my mind the conviction that I made the best decision when I transferred from a typical dogmatic Modernist architecture program to one that was more diverse and actually taught proper architecture history. Until that point, I felt much like others here that are almost indoctrinated to shun the past and cuddle "minimalism" as a security blanket to protect against the looming fact that one simply is afraid of what one doesn't know how to do.
If anyone is in need of a dead horse for a beating, I know which discussion to direct them to.
I have a few large scale public buildings under my belt that pundits would deem "modernist", without "scale", "untraditional", etc, etc, etc... at nauseum. The fun thing is, there was a great deal of thought put into those projects to specifically add human scale and good civic design values. The above critics are simply too far removed from the design world to see this.
But, perhaps if I add a gabled roof to this community centre and perhaps a few barrel vaults in this office space, then that will shut these arm-chair "architects" up. I doubt it though.
"I felt much like others here that are almost indoctrinated to shun the past and cuddle "minimalism" as a security blanket to protect against the looming fact that one simply is afraid of what one doesn't know how to do." I couldn't have said it better...ever. Like the fear of a brown america, this reactionary stance is a product of fear of the unknown. The thought process seems to be 'if I allow a traditional perspective in academia, it will devalue everything I've championed since I left school.' It is a frightening thought, but it's never too late to open up.
"Michelangelo was a painter." absolutley stunning!
"But, perhaps if I add a gabled roof to this community centre and perhaps a few barrel vaults in this office space, then that will shut these arm-chair "architects" up. I doubt it though."
Again, living in an alternate reality. I've been an architect for 20 years. Also, your parody proves the point many have been trying to make here. Perhaps if I add a gabled roof or barreled vault. That's why so much traditional work is kitsch today. Becasue this lack of training leaves archtiects who's clients insist on a traditional look groaping for a solution. As if it where simply a matter of grafting on traditional elelments. Ignorance is rampant.
"If there are now more schools where traditional architecture is being taught, then why are there still so many complaints. Is it because (you believe) all architects should be trained in traditional architecture?"
When are you actually going to argue the points being made instead of an alternate reality? More schools are gong traditional, but proportionally, it's still negligable. Archtiects shoud be trained in Archtiecture, not ideology. I sense this pattern though that the black and white thinkers are unable to see a middle ground.
My ignorance is rampant? Please... I think you should contact "Pratt" and ask for a refund, they owe you a pretty penny.
One style is no worse than another. Poorly done "traditional" is just as bad as a poorly done modern. Most of the so-called traditional designs being built today aren't. They are illusions to the past, adorned with a combination of fake detail and over-the-top "amenities" for marketing purposes and have nothing in common with real classical styles. Most of the modern is emotionally vacant and technically problematic. The real shame is that so much importance is placed on subjective styling and so little on function and building performance - including human factors. And that doesn't even begin to address economic issues ... Or the unreality of lifestyles and consumption in consumer society that everyone is arguing about the styling of.
"My ignorance is rampant? Please... I think you should contact "Pratt" and ask for a refund, they owe you a pretty penny." I loved my experience at Pratt. It taught me to see through arguments like yoursk, plus there where some modernists who didn't try to beat you with a piloti, but actually recognized that some people had differeing tastes. It's about incusivness for Pete (Mondrian)'s sake. You give me lemons, I'll produce some lemonade. The real education of Pratt is being in one of the greatest cities in the world with all the architecture anyone could dream of. It also displayed the hypocracy of your position, which you still seem unable to answer.
"Most of the so-called traditional designs being built today aren't. They are illusions to the past," How isn't the same not true for the mid-century revivalists? It's this obssecion with "authenticity" that's simply a byproduct of an ideologically based education. I tend towards pragmatism, maybe that's the split.
"The real shame is that so much importance is placed on subjective styling and so little on function and building performance" True! Then why do you go on about styling's authenticity? How about artistic merit, regardless of style?
Miles, your patience on this subject is commendable. Many commentators here appear like they just woke up from under a bridge to a old copy of J.H.Kunstler's Home from Nowhere.
I have not had any client, both private and government, ask for true, historically accurate traditional style buildings. Not. a. single. one. Perhaps that is a factor of my local market. I have, as you've described it, had to fight to convince clients against the glued "traditional" aesthetic, but only on a few occasions.
What I have noticed with my larger projects is that more and more, large clients and government projects insist on design that branches away from the traditional this suddenly "huge" public wants. I've stood in front of the pitch forks on controversial projects and those who screamed for a return to the ol'days are not as numerous as the above comments indicate.
i've actually seen those 'perhaps if you put a gabled roof' comments. those don't come from the architect or client though, they come from the planning department. an armchair architect that didn't have the education or credentials real architects tend to have. perhaps there are people that come to you as an architect and tell you they want a "traditional" building, but i haven't seen that yet.
i would rather live in a environment with nice smooth surfaces and storefronts instead of feeling the need to carve pagan gods everywhere. i just don't need that sort of ornament in my environment, at any scale. that opinion does not come from ignorance. i assure you i'm as well educated as anyone here. this forum attracts architects, most of whom are well educated. you don't have any greater understanding of the of the past than the rest of us. you're not any wiser, any smarter, or any better than any one else here.
why do you think my opinion comes from ignorance? the difference between modern architecture and traditional architecture has nothing to do with a ratio between length, width, and height. it has nothing to do with scale. if you prefer to be around buildings with decoration that includes find detail that can only be seen from a few feet away, that's just an opinion and isn't worth any more than any other opinion. i don't need that crap cluttering my environment, which is also an opinion.
i would add to that, as an architect i do see things at a fine scale that a lot of people might miss. since i've spent time trying to figure out how a material wraps a corner or how different materials intersect, i look at those details. if done well in modern architecture, people typically don't see them because they're designed to be simple. you can just forget about them, because in the end the best solution is the one that seems obvious. as an architect, i know that it is often difficult to find the detail that looks obvious. i would consider tossing up some bulky classical molding to cover a gap as a failure to think through the detail.
i can do a google search on my phone. michaelangelo was never able to master that. do you really not understand how profoundly different the practice of architecture is in in the 21st century when compared with the 15th century? or do you just pretend that things are still the same?
"Why won't you design what we the 'public want?" asked the rhetorical troll
"Even people in Hell want ice water" replied the Man.
surixurient's ad hominem attacks about how architects "don't know squat" about traditional architecture and then proceeds to lecture us on the lack of details and craftsmanship in today's builder homes or worse implied meaninglessness of public buildings built within the last 80 years. How does one debate with someone who makes statements like these?
"The buildings of history on the other hand actually had meaning, they followed a language, one defined and built up for centuries, and a language even the common man could understand and value.Now, every generation of designers throws away whatever they inherited and arrogantly declares themselves as the enlightened generation, the true builders. Useless and self absorbed virtues like 'originality' 'rule breaking' 'wave making' rule the day."
The level of self-unawareness in this statement is outstanding. Does surixurient actually believe that the buildings of yesteryear weren't monuments to ego and arrogance? That he/she proclaims the Vanderbilt's houses as exemplary models of traditional architecture (nothing short of the American version of Versaille) that the middling and working classes can aspire to. One wonders if surixurient ever cracked a history book and read the fine print beyond the glossy pictures.
Lamenting the lack of Classical or Renaissance or Rococo or Revival Empire decorative details in todays architecture as the sole fault of lazy architects with their modern education shows a clear misunderstanding of both history and architecture. Classical architecture was built by and for the most powerful people. Those particular projects were buildings of their time. That every building built before 1950 is somehow a precious jewel is wishful thinking at best for a past that never, ever existed. Does surixurient think that Mt. Vernon is a piece of crap because it's made of wood and lacks the authoritative details of the palaces...er...summer cottages built by the oligarchs of the Gilded Age? Mt Vernon's vernacular was the "contemporary" interpretation of traditional English manor homes but instead of being built out of brick and stone was constructed out of wood. Even the "stone" is shaped wood siding painted with sand to look like stone. Even the interior trim and walls were faux painted to look like more expensive wood.
America's early architecture was made of wood because that was our most abundant material. There didn't exist the vast quarries of Italian marble and limestone that existed in Europe for hundreds of years. No was there wasn't the vast pool of classically trained artisans that could do stone carving, gilding, and the like. Even when those skills became abundant enough in America, the patrons of those "classical" monuments of capitalism, narcissism, ego and greed actually imported the labor from Europe along with the actual disassembled buildings. Even today, the clients that can afford such luxurious detailing are the wealthiest segment of society.
If anything American architecture by and large is staid, conservative and heavily reliant upon "classical" and "traditional" motifs from public buildings like a courthouse to the local Rite-Aid to your latest builder house.
Surixurient's lamentations aside, the reality is finding craftspeople that have the requisite skills to replicate the very Classical decorative details in wood let alone stone or plaster is difficult and very expensive.
Here in New Orleans we have 20 historic districts filled with buildings that are 100-200+ years old. And few have the level of craftsmanship that surixurient desires. Those that do require an endless supply of money and maintenance for upkeep and that isn't just the old stone and brick buildings but the wood buildings too. The few buildings having any high level of "classical" or "traditional" detailing were built by families of means not your average everyday dock worker. Those folks were lucky to have a single shotgun built out of recycled boat wood and finished with lap siding, wall paper and maybe splurging for some wood Doris columns.
Plenty of residential clients and public clients want 'traditional' architecture and they get it in spades. They just don't get high quality stuff because few can afford it and few builders can actually build it. So they resign themselves to pressboard mouldings, fiberglass columns, vinyl Palladian windows and cheap Chinese-made brass chandeliers.
The few exemplary buildings of historical value are saved already and few exemplary 'International Style' buildings are being saved as well for being historically unique in that few were built or remain. Great architecture is and will remain the preview of the wealthy and powerful. The rest of us have to make do with the pragmatic. Aesthetics has little to do with skill, craft, taste or money.
And the next person that makes the uninformed "they don't make 'em like that anymore" comment I'm going to smack. I have a house that was built in 1905 and the quality of construction wasn't anybetter or worse than today's. The house was built by laymen, not skilled artisans and the details were quite ordinary yet by today's standards almost contemporary in their plain-ness. If anything it's a counter-point to the notion that everything built back then was overtly ornate, classical and well constructed.
"I have not had any client, both private and government, ask for true, historically accurate traditional style buildings. I have had to fight to convince clients against the glued "traditional" aesthetic, but only on a few occasions." thus the name, non Sequitur.
"i would rather live in a environment with nice smooth surfaces and storefronts instead of feeling the need to carve pagan gods everywhere. i just don't need that sort of ornament in my environment, at any scale" Good for you. But stop trying to enforce your spartan idealism on those that like decoration, whether it be pagan or with clothing, or in landscaping...
"do you really not understand how profoundly different the practice of architecture is in in the 21st century when compared with the 15th century?" Do you really not understand that human nature hasn't significantly changed in the last 2000 years despite the latest technology?
"Lamenting the lack of Classical or Renaissance or Rococo or Revival Empire decorative details in todays architecture as the sole fault of lazy architects with their modern education shows a clear misunderstanding of both history and architecture." Paraphrasing all the previous arguments into a lazy and simplistic statement shows a clear unwillingness to face facts that are evident to most satient beings.
"And the next person that makes the uninformed "they don't make 'em like that anymore" comment I'm going to smack." Oh, so your the "smacking" type! Got it. Enjoy your fake 1905 house, just like Remmy Coolhouse.
There are two versions of that saying.
"they don't make 'em like that anymore"
and
"thank goD they don't make 'em like that anymore"
If there are now more schools where traditional architecture is being taught, then why are there still so many complaints. Is it because (you believe) all architects should be trained in traditional architecture?
If there is such a big market for traditional architecture, then the capitalist system of the US will more than likely cater to that market. More than anything else, the built environment of the US is a fairly clear represention of its concurrent market economy.
there are people who know how to design correctly. which i indicated a couple of hundred comments ago. quondam's right on.
i can believe this conversation's still kicking...
Architects design and are educated for the times in which they live and try to push the profession forward. We look look backward to history for clues but don't try to copy other styles. Our profession would be dead if we didn't continue to push it forward.
Thayer, you are fun to argue with but you kinda went off the deep end with that last post. no one is "forcing" spartan idealism on anyone. As has been said here frequently, if the public truly wants traditional architecture then they'll hire someone to design it for them. From the responses here the demand isn't terribly high, though it does exist.
And iamus' house is ACTUALLY from 1905, it's not fake. I think you're speed-reading.
Do you really not understand that human nature hasn't significantly changed in the last 2000 years despite the latest technology?
i do not understand that. human nature has changed considerably. the age of enlightenment has come and gone since then. how we communicate has changed. where we communicate has changed. where we congregate has changed. how we go about finding food and shelter has changed. how we organize into communities and governments has changed. a lot has changed, not the least of which is that we no longer build pyramids by stacking large stones on top of each other.
"Paraphrasing all the previous arguments into a lazy and simplistic statement shows a clear unwillingness to face facts that are evident to most satient beings."
your position on "traditional" architecture continues to be simplistic. there isn't any more 'meaning' behind 'traditional' architecture than there is behind modern architecture or even behind a walmart box store. if you want to glue a carved styrofoam lintel onto your steel angle, go ahead and do that. i'm not saying you can't or shouldn't. i'm saying there isn't anything special or better about doing that. to pretend like there is some sort of greater meaning is wrong. decoration is decoration and it will never be anything more than that, no matter how convinced you are that you know something the rest of us don't.
i don't think you're fooling anyone but yourself when you extoll the virtues of "traditional" architecture.
Hi Curt, I see you are brining out your favorite stuck-on lintel argument again. Often in modern brick veneer construction (used for sontemporary traditional and contemporary modern buildings) the lintel is hidden and ignored. It is a poor detail because even if the lintel is galvinized it often will begin to rust within 40 years or so. I was just taking a look at a fine period campus (from the 1960s) where the modern architecture (built with brick veneer) is beginning to deteriorate dur to the steel lintels over the openings rusting. Had a lintel been used that could have been expressed (such as a precast lintel) there would not have been a weak link in the facade system causing this premature deterioration. But, you see, a precast lintel wouldn't have worked because the windows are strip windows, a favorite modern design feature, and therefore there had to be a steel lintel which could be attached to the steel frame to hold up the brick above the strip window.
To my mind a traditional design would have prevented this problem, typically using a punched opening instead, and thus the ability to use an arch or a lintl which would not rust and cause problems down the road. I don't think I'm fooling myself that a traditional design would last longer than a modern one, and that that is one os its virtues (there are others).
But as I also said previously, I do modern design when the client asks for it, and do my best to detail it in such a way that it will last as long as possible, but I just don't think, in general, that it will last as long as a traditional design, and thus will not be as sustainable a building.
I feel we should give clients what they are looking for, in general, and usually they want a handsome building, which can mean different things to different people. If you, as an architect, have a client who wants a traditional design do you turn them away, or work with them? My problem is that I have seen too many buildings where the client said they wanted a traditional style building but the architect didn't know how to do that well, and so we have to see these ugly supposedly traditional buildings not at all infrequently. That is why I am advocating for teaching traditional design in schools today, not to replace the emphasis on modern design, but so that architects are more versatile in giving the client what they ask for.
the lintel was not ignored. a steel lintel was used, because that was the best way to get the brick to bear on something over the ribbon window.
the angle shouldn't have been retaining water in a way that causes it to rust, especially if it was galvanized. there is a pretty good chance this happened because the brick wasn't weeped properly. i'm pretty sure if you fail to weep your brick, it will fail in traditional design too. shit in == shit out. style is irrelevant in those situations.
No need to fool anyone, Curtkram. There is tremendous demand for architecture done in traditional languages, and that demand exists not because people are foolish or unsophisticated. It exists because these buildings connect with people in ways that avant-garde modernist buildings generally do not. Modernism CAN connect with people and provide them with loveable architecture, but the way to do that is not to imagine that the public is less sophisticated than is necessary to understand how wonderful our modern buildings are. In my opinion, the profession needs to take seriously the public's love of traditional architecture, try to understand why they love those buildings, and craft a modernism that addresses their preferences.
You are right, the lintel was there, by ignoring it I meant that it was hidden, was not expressed, and thus visually it was wished away. In this case it may not have been properly detailed, as you say the weeps may not have been properly installed, they may have become blocked (with insects, dirt, etc), there may have been no flashing over the lintel behind the brick. All quite possible, hard to say without disassembling part of the wall; but where a precast lintel (ort an arch) could have been used in a traditional design (with the usual punched opening), a steel lintel, prone to rusting even if just from moisture in the air (this is not a desert here in upstate New York) would not be necessary.
Donna said, "As has been said here frequently, if the public truly wants traditional architecture then they'll hire someone to design it for them. From the responses here the demand isn't terribly high, though it does exist."
A message board for architect intellectuals is not the best place to take a public opinion poll on the relative general popularity of traditional architecture, I'm afraid. :)
Truth is, there ARE lots of architects who are hired to design traditional buildings. But the architectural educators have failed them miserably.
Donna,
This whole debate is in the deep end, but that said, I like that we can keep it light, even though we don't agree. I may have mispoke if you thought I said Curtkram was "forcing" spartan idealism" on people. I was saying that if he prefered that aesthetic then "good for him", but that this anti-decorative ethos that his comments represent and that modernists espouse ought not be forced on to archtiecture students since we all appreciate decoration in one form or another, whether restrained, over the top or simply one large object as ornament.
Also, while I was speed reading a bit, my joke about enjoying a "fake" 1905 house was that houses before WWII employed some form of historicism, so by the standards of the debate as perpetuated by some here, it would be fake. Even Lou Reed RIP employed influence from Bob Dylan, but that didn't make him fake. Infact, most everything after the Greeks would be fake since so much of history after that is borrowed and evolved from previous periods, and if you ask some archeologists, even the Greeks are a bunch of fakers. That is the fallacy of the modernist obsession with authenticity, becasue as a human race, we are all fakes by that standard, when infact that's how we develope a shared culture.
Again, what I, aojwny, EKE and others seem to keep saying is...
"That is why I am advocating for teaching traditional design in schools today, not to replace the emphasis on modern design, but so that architects are more versatile in giving the client what they ask for." "the architectural educators have failed them miserably."
I don't know what about that makes so many modernists afraid? Actually I do, but it does show a lack of conviction.
i think you're using the term "intellectuals" loosely, though i stand by what i said before that anyone here who is an architect is probably well educated due to that being one of the requirements to become an architect. there isn't any reason be calling someone "ignorant" for disagreeing with you ('you' only applies to the people it applies to), since they're probably not ignorant. i'm sure there are lots of architects hired to design "traditional" buildings. i'm sure there are a lot of architects hired to design neo-eclectic crap that mixes and matches styrofoam historic styles, because sometimes that's what the client wants. as far as i'm concerned, "traditional" still just means gluing ornament onto a box. there is nothing wrong with having a precast or stone lintel in a building just as there is nothing wrong with a steel angle being used for a lintel. if you want the concrete people to cast some pagan gods or masonic symbols into the lintel, that's fine but pretending it's something other than ornament seems disingenuous. the difference between a steel angle and precast lintel is not, in my opinion, the difference between 'traditional' and 'modern.' the good designer will know how to detail either, and then just hope it's installed close to right.
i like modern architecture because i like it. because of that, i'm going to enjoy designing in that style more, and ultimately will probably do a better job due to the interest. also, your assertion that "the public" or "lots of people" or "anyone" are asking architects to design in a 'traditional' style is not really common in my life. i accept that may be a common occurrence in your life. if that's the case, then it would be good for you to learn about those traditional styles.
i think all naab accredited universities have history classes that teach about historic architecture. i think there are significant differences between greek, roman, and renaissance architecture even though i think you lump all of those into the single category of 'traditional.' i don't think schools need to teach any more than they already are.
I strongly believe that a survey of the history of architecture, such as that taught in nearly every school in the nation, in not sufficient if you want to design thoughtful classical buildings. It may be enough if you want to design modernist buildings which have no connection to any history before 1900.
Designing classical buildings is a discipline, one which takes years of education immersed in the culture, literature and philosophy of classicism. Or decades of self-education and groping, which is what I had to do. It's a "way of seeing", an integrated approach to architecture and art that must be acquired over time. It is a "worldview". This is true of the Bauhaus "way of seeing" as well.
I'm not saying every school should teach this. I don't expect Harvard or SciArc or RISD to teach classical design. I'd be happy if 10% of the universities in the country did.
"Paraphrasing all the previous arguments into a lazy and simplistic statement shows a clear unwillingness to face facts that are evident to most satient beings." Actually paraphrasing all of the previous lazy and simplistic arguments is the best way to clearly illustrate your opinion posing as "fact."
Much as everyone here has an opinion, stating one's aesthetic predilection for classical or modern architecture has no relevance as to whether or not a building is designed and constructed well.
As to whether or not old buildings, using the materials & methods of their time, were or are better than today's buildings gets lost among the posts of whether or not the public wants or demands traditional/historical/classical architecture over international/modern/contemporary/french country or transitional. People are conflating aesthetics with quality and craftsmanship.
That surixurient and Thayer seem to think or at least imply that any architectural aesthetic or construction proposition that doesn't involve classical training, methods or aesthetics is not worthy of being called architecture and that the fundamental education of architecture over the last 100 years should be struck from the record while, without any irony, assert that any modernist claiming classical architecture is bad is being closed minded, simplistic, ignorant or an aggrandizing bore.
How many people on this board actually work on historic preservation or restoration? I have worked on several over the years from restorations to adaptive reuse. I'm working on a complex here in New Orleans that consists 7 buildings that span a timeframe of 150 years. The first building dating to 1857 and last in 1960. Ironically, the building from 1857 is in worse condition than the 1960 building.
Well from the assertions of Surixurient and Thayer the 1857 Gothic style chapel building should last forever because back then they knew how to build and design stuff. But the reality is the building has suffered from years of neglect, poor maintenance and questionable alterations. The building is on the verge of collapsing from neglect. The 1960 CMU block & brick building is structurally sound, doesn't leak and is ugly as shit. The style of the building has NOTHING to do with quality. Older buildings leak as much as new ones, old buildings are energy hogs equally as much as new ones. What separates the good buildings from the bad are quality of construction and craftsmanship coupled with a good design and detailing.
Again, the issue of aesthetics & style has nothing to do with quality of construction. Nor does the age of the building have anything to do with quality of construction. Stop conflating the two.
EKE "designing classical buildings is a discipline, one which takes years of education immersed in the culture, literature and philosophy of classicism."
Actually designing great architecture regardless of style requires discipline, years of education, professional practice and immersion in culture, literature and philosophy. Designing a classically styled building in a particular historical style requires a study of history but it doesn't require you to re-enact living in the Victorian era. People forget sometimes that the meanings of the symbolic emblems and embellishments on those historical buildings weren't readily known to the laymen. They were known to the client / patron the architect and perhaps the tradesmen.
Designing a complex, contemporary building today requires as much, maybe more research, understanding and cultural immersion to design a building that resonates with the client and end users. Modern architecture's "symbolism" is implied through the abstraction, clarity & simplicity of detailing, as well the spaces defined by light, color, flatness and transparency.
Most architecture programs don't concentrate on teaching the design of classical details and construction anymore because the nature of architectural education changed. Just as all of the arts surrounding architecture changed at the turn of the 20th century so to did the nature and direction of architecture. Robert Hughes' 'Shock of the New' does an excellent job of illustrating the psychological turmoil and anxiety that was expressed throughout the arts in the early 1900s. It's a clear dividing line between the New and the Old. That...as this discussion illustrates, affects our way of seeing, viewing, living and interacting with the world. Try as we might, wishing for the pastoral past we think existed won't bring it to fruition.
Maybe instead of forcing architecture students to learn classical architecture or modern architecture we teach them how to detail buildings, design functional spaces and resolve the clients' needs regardless of style. Teach them how to run a business. Teach them the art of craftsmanship. Teach them a building trade. Teach them how to do great architecture regardless of style. In the end, we'll all be better for it.
"That surixurient and Thayer seem to think or at least imply that any architectural aesthetic or construction proposition that doesn't involve classical training, methods or aesthetics is not worthy of being called architecture"
You can alter my position all you like to suit your point, but I have not said anything of the like. It does betray a "azy and simplistic" train of thought though.
"the issue of aesthetics & style has nothing to do with quality of construction. Nor does the age of the building have anything to do with quality of construction. Stop conflating the two."
I've not done such a thing although there are certain issues I have with the modernist aesthetic that seem to produce more functional problems than necessary like glass buildings or flat roofs. I personally saw many a decaying brownstone in Brooklyn that had newspaper stuffed in the walls for insulation or when they would lay the sandstone skin facing out so that it would spall terribly, leading to failure. Greed is one of those elements of human nature that dosen't change with time or technology, but so is sensibility, which is why modernists have never been able to get the public on the whole, to buy into their abstract minimalist aesthetic. There's a whole vat of science that explains why, should science be your thing, but don't take a scientist's opinion, just ask yo mama. Better yet, ask Remmy Coolhouse what kind of domecile he chose for himself.
"Maybe instead of forcing architecture students to learn classical architecture or modern architecture we teach them how to detail buildings, design functional spaces and resolve the clients' needs regardless of style. Teach them how to run a business. Teach them the art of craftsmanship. Teach them a building trade. Teach them how to do great architecture regardless of style. In the end, we'll all be better for it."
Now that sounds like a good start, except, architecture is an art, for better or for worse, so I think you might as well throw in some liberal arts, conposition, light and shade, programing, history...
"Robert Hughes' 'Shock of the New' does an excellent job of illustrating the psychological turmoil and anxiety that was expressed throughout the arts in the early 1900s"
Actually, what he shows really well is how many a cool avant guard boys got a lot of attention with their rants. There has always been turmoil and anxiety in society, it's just that the modernists chose to celebrate it rather than try to sooth it.
Another good start would be to employ the kind of vocabulary that our clients use, with such dirty words like ...beauty, style, ornament, decorative...you get the picture.
I never said that designing good modernist building didn't require the same kind of discipline. On the contrary. I noted that the Bauhaus educational model is an equally comprehensive "way of seeing". But it is decidedly different, and someone educated at the Bauhaus was clearly ill-equipped to design classical building, just as a graduate of the Ecole was not prepared to design in the International Style.
BTW, who suggested that designing classical buildings means we should reenact living in the Victorian period? I didn't say that at all. Learning from the past doesn't mean living in the past. But a history of architecture class does not equip someone to design classical buildings. There is a deep and nuanced aesthetic and philosophical body of knowledge which underlies classical design.
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.