who knew FLW's Oak Park wasn't traditional? Maybe it all those decorative elements that threw me, or base middle shaft compositions, or maybe the weightiness of the roman brick trimmed out with stone.
kerfuffle, i can think of a least a couple skyscrapers with that sort of detailed ornamentation (gargoyles and whatnot) hundreds of feet in the air. those are not really seen or experienced from a pedestrian level, unless you're very tall.
What is an "effluent" neighborhood? A slip of the tongue perhaps?
Actually using a rear alley eliminates the garage door in front of the house and driveway in front as well. I don't know why it would be so expensive especially if the homes on two parallel streets share an alley. The difference in cost between that and a long paved driveway if front of each house would seem to be negligible.
Volunteer, alleyways are great, I do agree. It opens the house front to be more pedestrian friendly and human scaled. Generally speaking, we are seeing a decline in the lane way due to auto-centric design that places the garage up front and places the importance of the auto connection over the human connection. There is also the fact that developers in the suburbs want to maximize their UPA and/or lot sizes, removing lane ways frees up a lot of space when multiplied over a few dozen hectares.
Not much ornamentation on his maturing prairie houses,...as opposed to the heavy traditional doo-dads and traditional plans of the victorians...nice how you deflected though to focus on materials and not the big picture..try thinking beyond face value..as in...oh, never mind...why do I get sucked into such things..
"OK, so the masses prefer traditional architecture. What exactly does that mean? That we should all gather as sheep to give the masses what they want? Are the masses always correct? Does the popular vote always give us the finest, most appropriate result? Fortunately there have been (as still are) those who really don't live for the masses. If you want traditional, there is someone out there to fill the bill, and just the opposite. Imagine Oak Park without a Frank Lloyd Wright, other examples are obvious."
No, I wouldn't say that you have to give the masses anything, you don't work for the masses but for yourself. Just don't feel like you need to defend the defacto modernism that has ruled for the last century against the coming forces of change; against programs, awards, professional organizations or institutions that would focus on the traditional. If that isn't something you personally do, excellent, you aren't part of the problem.
we don't work for ourselves. most of us work for our clients. or our bosses as the case may be. odd that you haven't picked that up yet. alot of the comments regarding why we don't do "traditional" design say that that's not what our clients want to pay for.
tell me more about how you're more in touch with the forces of change when it comes to my profession than i am.
It's quite telling that sux only responds to either folks whose viewpoints are similar or opposing views that are "easily" dismissed. All else gets ignored.
I wouldn't claim that those forces of change are breaking down your door just yet, just that they are building. And conversations like this one reaching 364 comments is a good indicator of that.
i don't think that's going to tell you much thayer, but whatever.
i also don't think my last couple comments were attacks, though i'm not saying i'm above doing that or anything.
if 150 of those 364 comments are trolls, and the other 150 comments are troll bait, what does that really indicate? i'm not saying those are the actual numbers, but anecdotally i think they should be close to accurate.
i can think of a least a couple skyscrapers with that sort of detailed ornamentation (gargoyles and whatnot) hundreds of feet in the air. those are not really seen or experienced from a pedestrian level, unless you're very tall.
I'm not sure what you're getting at - there are numerous precedents of buildings containing decorative elements that cannot be seen (or vaguely seen) by the general public (or even building users) throughout the entire history of architecture up to present day. These can be elements for religious purposes, included at the whim of designer and/or owner, or even something hidden-away by an artisan, installer, or fabricator. We've even put art on the moon.
This isn't really what I'm talking about, though - but it's interesting to think about the human desire to hide "messages" that may or may not be seen by future generations. There's something romantic about placing something on a building that only a few people have seen...
Yes. A handful of folks you have talked to and this thread are enough for you to go away and write your academic paper based on primary sources. Please let us know when it has been published so we can read it and become educated. Good luck!
kerfuffle, you were talking about pedestrian level stuff meant to be experienced on foot, by hand, and at slow speed. i was just saying there are a lot of examples where classical details were developed in such a way that would be difficult to experience in that context.
Btw I am a he, no idea how one could imagine me as a woman, but whatever. The seed was no doubt planted when someone shortened my name to that of Tom Cruises daughter.
i also read all of your comments in siri's voice (from the phone), because suri sounds a lot like siri. guess we just have to fill in the blanks when actual evidence is absent :)
Kevin W. said: "OK, so the masses prefer traditional architecture. What exactly does that mean? That we should all gather as sheep to give the masses what they want? Are the masses always correct? Does the popular vote always give us the finest, most appropriate result? Fortunately there have been (as still are) those who really don't live for the masses. If you want traditional, there is someone out there to fill the bill, and just the opposite. Imagine Oak Park without a Frank Lloyd Wright, other examples are obvious."
Here's my take. I don't think it's acting sheep-like to give people (the "masses" is so condescending) buildings that they love. That's actually what I aspire to beyond anything else.
But that does not mean giving them what they expect, and no better. That would be pandering. I do believe we should meet our clients half-way: listen to them and their hopes, goals, desires. REALLY listen to them, and try not to shoehorn them into my worldview, but try to understand their worldview. And then give them something that both subsumes their worldview and goes beyond it in meaningful ways. Buildings that are both consistent with their expectations and that exceed them. Buildings that have many levels of meaning.
So to answer your question. At a certain level, the client is always right. They are human beings, and as human beings they have certain aspirations, needs, desires hardwired into them. (I personally believe that part of that firmware is the appreciation of an objective beauty... that's another discussion). But that doesn't mean that we should pander to every whim and fancy of our clients. They have almost always have hired us to give them something extraordinary and magnificent. That requires simultaneously meeting their expectations and exceeding them.
My bad. I just remember this screed curtkram got on about the proletariat back in the low 300's.
"suri didn't tell us whether she was from a crazy rich finance family. maybe she is. i guess it's possible that's where her taste in "traditional" architecture developed."
That was one of my favorites in terms of lunacy, but not my favorite in terms of tone.
i was just saying there are a lot of examples where classical details were developed in such a way that would be difficult to experience in that context.
but they were, in fact, experienced that way before (and during) installation - often people were working on these things right out in front of the construction site.
"suri didn't tell us whether she was from a crazy rich finance family. maybe she is. i guess it's possible that's where her taste in "traditional" architecture developed."
and he still hasn't. notice that picture kerfuffle just linked isn't something a lower-middle class family of 4 could afford to live in. most of the examples of "traditional" architecture posted are not places where "the masses," or "most people" could afford to live. the medici's were being discussed back then too, who were a crazy rich family involved in both finance and the church. i can't help but think that by picking out this comment, you're trying to say that "traditional" architecture should be kept away from those of us in the middle class, but that would certainly not be consistent with your ideology.
also, i specifically said my **last couple** posts were not personal attacks, and when i suggest around 300 of the 364 posts are either trolls or troll-bait, i am certainly not saying that the 64 are reserved for me.
curtkram, we live in a larger space than the confines of our own home. We work and live among the types of buildings being posted. Whether I financed them myself, in part with my taxes, or not at all is irrelevant to their effect on my environment.
Don't you have any amount of self awareness? Why don't you go after Kevin W. who says "the masses prefer traditional architecture." when you seem to think it requires cash money to "develope a taste in traditional architecture". Right, ideologues don't go after thier own casue it's not about intellectual rigor but team sports.
i'm not really saying that you need have money develop a taste for traditional architecture, i'm saying traditional architecture costs a lot. there is a logical step you're missing, where if you grew up surrounded by money, you grew up around people who could afford to pay for traditional architecture. if all of the people in your neighborhood have a lot of money and pay for traditional architecture, then you can grow up in the neighbor suri might be trying to describe. if your neighbors sell crack, you probably don't get that environment.
i would actually add to that, there are a couple neighborhoods somewhat close to me with pretty amazing brickwork (and traditional architecture and whatnot). i mean, really great houses. but the neighborhood has become dilapidated. i'm pretty sure i saw one of these houses for sale for around $600. it was foreclosed on, abandoned, the plumbing had been removed by scavengers, and there was some fire damage. it is a shame we can't gentrify those neighborhoods and restore the houses, but i'm not going to live in that neighborhood to start it.
suri, how do you think this works? you seem to be saying here that you don't just want a house designed in a traditional style, but you want all of the houses to suit your style. if i lived in your neighborhood and wanted to paint my house a different color, you think you should get step in and tell me what color i'm going to paint it? also, please elaborate on which historical style you want the world to be. there are a lot of victorian houses. federalist can be popular in some neighborhoods. maybe they should be neoclassical? surely you're not going to mix traditional styles?
it's going to come down to money. if you don't have much, the choices for where you can live start to get really limited really fast. at some point on the poverty scale, i can pretty much promise you safety becomes more important than style. if you have tons of money, you have some opportunity to pick the style and neighborhood you want. in order for you to get to pick the architecture of an entire neighborhood, it's going to cost a lot. unless you're saying government should step in and tell people everything has to be neoclassical. if you want that to happen, elect a fypon distributor.
curtkram, you do realize that picture is of the U.S. Capitol Building, and not a private residence, under construction, right?
Back to the details of traditional design. In the case of gargoyles up in the air of, say, the Chrysler Building, don't forget that high-floor tenants of that and nearby buildings would very much appreciate the thoughtfulness of the architect including them in such a visual treat.
thayer, i looked back and did not see kevin's comment saying the masses prefer traditional architecture. i trust that you're right, and that it's there, though. i disagree with his assertion. i do not think masses prefer traditional architecture. pretty sure i've already stated that opinion.
in light of suri's recent post that it isn't his residence he's concerned about, but all the buildings he comes in contact with, then my comment of the capital building being residential isn't really on-topic. suri isn't saying someone should build him the captial building to live in, he's saying if i build a bakery somewhere he might visit, he should be able to design it like the capital building. if starbuck or mcdonalds wanted to open in his neigborhood, someone should be there to remind them their buildings are expected to look like the capital building. it is now far greater than the cost of one house.
trip, that depends on how broadly you want to define "traditional." old buildings that don't get torn down are traditional because the materials and methods of construction were different when they were built. it's great that we have them and should maintain them, i'm not saying bulldoze the past.
what i am saying is that new construction should be designed with the materials and methods that are now common, instead of the materials and methods common 100 or 1,000 years ago. we have better cranes now than the ones in the picture of the capital. the safety standards we have now are a good thing, and the way we transport material is better. etc. etc. we shouldn't go back to that picture because someone in the public is nostalgic.
i don't think most people who live in houses built in the past couple decades live in "traditional" houses. i think they live in houses designed for the time and place they were built. those are split-level and ranch houses. some of the people that do live in newer "traditional" houses have plastic mcmansions with mismatched fypon crap, which is not a good thing. i think most of us agree that what we want from "traditional" architecture is not more styrofoam mcmansions, though suri hasn't clarified which traditional he's lobbying for.
My firm has two internal studios, one lead by my partner that specializes in modernist work, and my studio which specializes in classical work. We do exclusively custom residential.
I can tell you honestly that our traditional work costs no more to build than our modernist work does. In fact, I actually think on average our modernist houses cost more on average. Getting all of those surfaces to meet perfectly with no moldings to mediate them calls for extremely tight tolerances.
I think this "we shouldn't do traditional because we can't find craftsmen, and besides it costs too much if we could" stuff is a myth promulgated by modernist true-believers who would just as soon see contemporary classical architecture go away.
The agents of the citizenry aren't really given a choice when the decision is made to build a monumental building. They are given choice 1, a flat limestone wall, choice 2, a flat glass wall, or choice 3, an exciting combo of a flat limeatone wall and a flat glass wall.
If the client did want a building on the order of the Paris City Hall no one could design or build it for any amount of money.
I think Suri is talking about the built environment in general, which does tend to affect anyone that comes into contact with it.
There seems to be a real confusion of terms thrown about. I think one needs to really get to the true meaning of the word. Traditional is not the same as Classical in not the same as Historical. A mud hut built today (an tremendously common, cheap type of housing) is considered traditional because it was built based on age-old traditions that have been passed down. The over 60 year old Farnsworth House, built in the International/Modernist style, is historical.
curtkram, you are so way off base I don't even know where to start. Do you purposely come up with these cartoon understandings of what I am saying?
You were making statements that unless one can afford to build mansions, skyscrapers and government buildings, one needn't be concerned about traditional architecture. I pointed out that everyone is connected to mansions, skyscrapers and government buildings by them making up our environment and you jump to the retarded conclusion that I am trying to dictate the character of every building I walk past.
curtkram, the faster you can move past the notion that I am looking for plastic moldings and upside down columns, the better. I don't know how you could be confused about that given what I have been saying from the beginning.
"I for one have been considering traditional to be architecture as it was practiced up until modernism, which attempted to wipe history and start over."
just flushing out some ideas suri. it does sound like you're trying to dictate the character of every building i walk past. didn't you post a picture of a building in minneapolis that you thought shouldn't be built because you didn't like the character of it, (something about eating lunch next to an interstate)? isn't the whole point of you statements that you should get to dictate what other people like?
let's go back to what i think was the first post:
-----------------
By you I don't mean the average mcmansion builder, and by what we want I don't mean wrestle some traditional features into your contemporary designs. I am asking you as the experts of the field, why won't you build what we want, traditional architecture, and build it excellently. Certainly I wouldn't expect all of you to do this, or even half of you, just some you, or any of you....
-------------
specifically to the "some of you," you have eke. so the thread is over with respect to that part. the two points in your thread that remain concerning are "what we want," which suggest that you are deciding for the public what the public wants, and "tradtional," which could mean neoclassical, or 2nd renaissance revival, or any number of things. maybe you're saying "make everything old," which is impossible, or "make everything look old," which is closer to possible, but not something I, as an architect, want to do, and it's also not something "the public" wants me to do.
i think asked you this before, but how do you think this works? you think a client hires an architect and says "i want what everyone wants, a stone column," and as an architect i say "sorry, but i can't do that. they told in me school to refuse that sort of commission?" or do you think a client hires an architect with no preconception of what they want their building to look like, and we get to make all of the design decisions ourselves? you can concern yourself with traditional architecture if you want, but you don't get to have it if you can't pay for it. it doesn't work that way.
eke, i have no problem with what you do and see nothing wrong with it. if someone wants a traditional house or addition and wants to hire you to do it, that's great. if you can do a great job of it, even better. a good modern (or contemporary) design can cost a lot too.
also, it wasn't just modernism that wiped out what you consider to be the past. it was the industrial revolution, the automobile revolution, the elevator, and a whole lot of other things that had been building up around the same time.
and in addition, it didn't wipe out the past. we still have a lot of old buildings. the past is still where it's always been, which is in the past.
Curt, referring to surixurient, said "if starbuck or mcdonalds wanted to open in his neigborhood, someone should be there to remind them their buildings are expected to look like the capital building." He clearly did not say that, nor did any of the traditional design proponents in this thread. And pretty much the main thrust of what I have said is that there are a large number of clients who want traditional design, but the majority of today's architects do not know how to give the client a well designed traditional building, which is why we end up with so much junk built in psuedo-historical garb, at least on the East Coast (maybe not in California, but then I practice in the east so that is what I see multiple times).
i'm in the midwest and never heard a client ask for any sort of traditional element or 'philosophy.'
i lived in chicago for a while, and i think there was a trend in some circles to have renaissance revival type details, but that often manifested itself as EIFS reveals being representative of stone rustication. i'm not sure how to associate that with 'traditional." in the renaissance those lines came from stacking stones. it's hard to say they were following the same "philosophy," though "pedestrian oriented" detail might be an appropriate way to explain it.
it wasn't my lack of studying history that created what ended up being created.....
curtkram, do you believe that architects have some significant level of control over the caliber and quality of the built environment (both design and execution)? If so, then it would follow that if 95% of architects were taught of the irrelevance of traditional architecture and were hostile to the very idea that the public prefers it, than we would not see much quality traditional architecture being built. I claim that this is the case, and this is what I see as the problem. Not that I don't get to decide what everyone builds, or that there aren't enough companies making plastic cornices, but that when someone tries to get a traditional building built, it is more often than not done poorly, being there is little professional interest and much hostility towards traditional architecture from architects.
i can't think of any poorly designed traditional buildings, where "traditional" was a goal, that don't include plastic cornices.
architects don't have that much control over the caliber or quality of the built environment. the people paying for it are far more influential. plastic cornices were created because people paying for cornices wanted to pay less. i don't think many architects really want plastic cornices in their design, it's just that the people who want them don't want to pay for stone. given the choice between a shitty house with an extra 2,000sf, or losing that 2,000sf, most people tend to go for bigger. there are areas where that isn't true, but i'm not typically allowed into the gate. if an owner pushes for a low-bid contractor, there isn't much we can do about the quality of construction.
The Crystal Palace, built in 1851, is widely recognized as the first modern building. This was soon followed by a number of early "curtain wall" structures with predominately glass facades.
The first iron frame building was the Ditherington Flax Mill in Shrewsbury, England (1796).
The first iron bridge was completed in Shropshire, Engalnd in 1779.
The Eiffel Tower was built much later (1889).
Every new technology is "modern" at the time it is introduced. Flying buttresses, the vault, the arch, concrete ... it all depends on your point of view.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
who knew FLW's Oak Park wasn't traditional? Maybe it all those decorative elements that threw me, or base middle shaft compositions, or maybe the weightiness of the roman brick trimmed out with stone.
kerfuffle, i can think of a least a couple skyscrapers with that sort of detailed ornamentation (gargoyles and whatnot) hundreds of feet in the air. those are not really seen or experienced from a pedestrian level, unless you're very tall.
What is an "effluent" neighborhood? A slip of the tongue perhaps? Actually using a rear alley eliminates the garage door in front of the house and driveway in front as well. I don't know why it would be so expensive especially if the homes on two parallel streets share an alley. The difference in cost between that and a long paved driveway if front of each house would seem to be negligible.
Volunteer, alleyways are great, I do agree. It opens the house front to be more pedestrian friendly and human scaled. Generally speaking, we are seeing a decline in the lane way due to auto-centric design that places the garage up front and places the importance of the auto connection over the human connection. There is also the fact that developers in the suburbs want to maximize their UPA and/or lot sizes, removing lane ways frees up a lot of space when multiplied over a few dozen hectares.
Not much ornamentation on his maturing prairie houses,...as opposed to the heavy traditional doo-dads and traditional plans of the victorians...nice how you deflected though to focus on materials and not the big picture..try thinking beyond face value..as in...oh, never mind...why do I get sucked into such things..
Kevin, Don't worry about it. You and I both like his maturing prairie houses. Who cares what label we put on them?
"OK, so the masses prefer traditional architecture. What exactly does that mean? That we should all gather as sheep to give the masses what they want? Are the masses always correct? Does the popular vote always give us the finest, most appropriate result? Fortunately there have been (as still are) those who really don't live for the masses. If you want traditional, there is someone out there to fill the bill, and just the opposite. Imagine Oak Park without a Frank Lloyd Wright, other examples are obvious."
No, I wouldn't say that you have to give the masses anything, you don't work for the masses but for yourself. Just don't feel like you need to defend the defacto modernism that has ruled for the last century against the coming forces of change; against programs, awards, professional organizations or institutions that would focus on the traditional. If that isn't something you personally do, excellent, you aren't part of the problem.
we don't work for ourselves. most of us work for our clients. or our bosses as the case may be. odd that you haven't picked that up yet. alot of the comments regarding why we don't do "traditional" design say that that's not what our clients want to pay for.
tell me more about how you're more in touch with the forces of change when it comes to my profession than i am.
It's quite telling that sux only responds to either folks whose viewpoints are similar or opposing views that are "easily" dismissed. All else gets ignored.
Like a Fox News host.
What's quite telling is how many times curtkram attacked her personally.
I wouldn't claim that those forces of change are breaking down your door just yet, just that they are building. And conversations like this one reaching 364 comments is a good indicator of that.
i don't think that's going to tell you much thayer, but whatever.
i also don't think my last couple comments were attacks, though i'm not saying i'm above doing that or anything.
if 150 of those 364 comments are trolls, and the other 150 comments are troll bait, what does that really indicate? i'm not saying those are the actual numbers, but anecdotally i think they should be close to accurate.
@curtkram:
i can think of a least a couple skyscrapers with that sort of detailed ornamentation (gargoyles and whatnot) hundreds of feet in the air. those are not really seen or experienced from a pedestrian level, unless you're very tall.
I'm not sure what you're getting at - there are numerous precedents of buildings containing decorative elements that cannot be seen (or vaguely seen) by the general public (or even building users) throughout the entire history of architecture up to present day. These can be elements for religious purposes, included at the whim of designer and/or owner, or even something hidden-away by an artisan, installer, or fabricator. We've even put art on the moon.
This isn't really what I'm talking about, though - but it's interesting to think about the human desire to hide "messages" that may or may not be seen by future generations. There's something romantic about placing something on a building that only a few people have seen...
Yes. A handful of folks you have talked to and this thread are enough for you to go away and write your academic paper based on primary sources. Please let us know when it has been published so we can read it and become educated. Good luck!
kerfuffle, you were talking about pedestrian level stuff meant to be experienced on foot, by hand, and at slow speed. i was just saying there are a lot of examples where classical details were developed in such a way that would be difficult to experience in that context.
Btw I am a he, no idea how one could imagine me as a woman, but whatever. The seed was no doubt planted when someone shortened my name to that of Tom Cruises daughter.
i also read all of your comments in siri's voice (from the phone), because suri sounds a lot like siri. guess we just have to fill in the blanks when actual evidence is absent :)
"guess we just have to fill in the blanks when actual evidence is absent"
Excellent summation of this thread.
Kevin W. said: "OK, so the masses prefer traditional architecture. What exactly does that mean? That we should all gather as sheep to give the masses what they want? Are the masses always correct? Does the popular vote always give us the finest, most appropriate result? Fortunately there have been (as still are) those who really don't live for the masses. If you want traditional, there is someone out there to fill the bill, and just the opposite. Imagine Oak Park without a Frank Lloyd Wright, other examples are obvious."
Here's my take. I don't think it's acting sheep-like to give people (the "masses" is so condescending) buildings that they love. That's actually what I aspire to beyond anything else.
But that does not mean giving them what they expect, and no better. That would be pandering. I do believe we should meet our clients half-way: listen to them and their hopes, goals, desires. REALLY listen to them, and try not to shoehorn them into my worldview, but try to understand their worldview. And then give them something that both subsumes their worldview and goes beyond it in meaningful ways. Buildings that are both consistent with their expectations and that exceed them. Buildings that have many levels of meaning.
So to answer your question. At a certain level, the client is always right. They are human beings, and as human beings they have certain aspirations, needs, desires hardwired into them. (I personally believe that part of that firmware is the appreciation of an objective beauty... that's another discussion). But that doesn't mean that we should pander to every whim and fancy of our clients. They have almost always have hired us to give them something extraordinary and magnificent. That requires simultaneously meeting their expectations and exceeding them.
My bad. I just remember this screed curtkram got on about the proletariat back in the low 300's.
"suri didn't tell us whether she was from a crazy rich finance family. maybe she is. i guess it's possible that's where her taste in "traditional" architecture developed."
That was one of my favorites in terms of lunacy, but not my favorite in terms of tone.
i was just saying there are a lot of examples where classical details were developed in such a way that would be difficult to experience in that context.
but they were, in fact, experienced that way before (and during) installation - often people were working on these things right out in front of the construction site.
I blame OSHA.
"suri didn't tell us whether she was from a crazy rich finance family. maybe she is. i guess it's possible that's where her taste in "traditional" architecture developed."
and he still hasn't. notice that picture kerfuffle just linked isn't something a lower-middle class family of 4 could afford to live in. most of the examples of "traditional" architecture posted are not places where "the masses," or "most people" could afford to live. the medici's were being discussed back then too, who were a crazy rich family involved in both finance and the church. i can't help but think that by picking out this comment, you're trying to say that "traditional" architecture should be kept away from those of us in the middle class, but that would certainly not be consistent with your ideology.
also, i specifically said my **last couple** posts were not personal attacks, and when i suggest around 300 of the 364 posts are either trolls or troll-bait, i am certainly not saying that the 64 are reserved for me.
curtkram, we live in a larger space than the confines of our own home. We work and live among the types of buildings being posted. Whether I financed them myself, in part with my taxes, or not at all is irrelevant to their effect on my environment.
Dude,
Don't you have any amount of self awareness? Why don't you go after Kevin W. who says "the masses prefer traditional architecture." when you seem to think it requires cash money to "develope a taste in traditional architecture". Right, ideologues don't go after thier own casue it's not about intellectual rigor but team sports.
i'm not really saying that you need have money develop a taste for traditional architecture, i'm saying traditional architecture costs a lot. there is a logical step you're missing, where if you grew up surrounded by money, you grew up around people who could afford to pay for traditional architecture. if all of the people in your neighborhood have a lot of money and pay for traditional architecture, then you can grow up in the neighbor suri might be trying to describe. if your neighbors sell crack, you probably don't get that environment.
i would actually add to that, there are a couple neighborhoods somewhat close to me with pretty amazing brickwork (and traditional architecture and whatnot). i mean, really great houses. but the neighborhood has become dilapidated. i'm pretty sure i saw one of these houses for sale for around $600. it was foreclosed on, abandoned, the plumbing had been removed by scavengers, and there was some fire damage. it is a shame we can't gentrify those neighborhoods and restore the houses, but i'm not going to live in that neighborhood to start it.
suri, how do you think this works? you seem to be saying here that you don't just want a house designed in a traditional style, but you want all of the houses to suit your style. if i lived in your neighborhood and wanted to paint my house a different color, you think you should get step in and tell me what color i'm going to paint it? also, please elaborate on which historical style you want the world to be. there are a lot of victorian houses. federalist can be popular in some neighborhoods. maybe they should be neoclassical? surely you're not going to mix traditional styles?
it's going to come down to money. if you don't have much, the choices for where you can live start to get really limited really fast. at some point on the poverty scale, i can pretty much promise you safety becomes more important than style. if you have tons of money, you have some opportunity to pick the style and neighborhood you want. in order for you to get to pick the architecture of an entire neighborhood, it's going to cost a lot. unless you're saying government should step in and tell people everything has to be neoclassical. if you want that to happen, elect a fypon distributor.
curtkram, you do realize that picture is of the U.S. Capitol Building, and not a private residence, under construction, right?
Back to the details of traditional design. In the case of gargoyles up in the air of, say, the Chrysler Building, don't forget that high-floor tenants of that and nearby buildings would very much appreciate the thoughtfulness of the architect including them in such a visual treat.
Most of the world lives in traditional buildings, curtkram. By your measure, most everyone is a multi-billionaire to be able to afford to do so?
thayer, i looked back and did not see kevin's comment saying the masses prefer traditional architecture. i trust that you're right, and that it's there, though. i disagree with his assertion. i do not think masses prefer traditional architecture. pretty sure i've already stated that opinion.
in light of suri's recent post that it isn't his residence he's concerned about, but all the buildings he comes in contact with, then my comment of the capital building being residential isn't really on-topic. suri isn't saying someone should build him the captial building to live in, he's saying if i build a bakery somewhere he might visit, he should be able to design it like the capital building. if starbuck or mcdonalds wanted to open in his neigborhood, someone should be there to remind them their buildings are expected to look like the capital building. it is now far greater than the cost of one house.
trip, that depends on how broadly you want to define "traditional." old buildings that don't get torn down are traditional because the materials and methods of construction were different when they were built. it's great that we have them and should maintain them, i'm not saying bulldoze the past.
what i am saying is that new construction should be designed with the materials and methods that are now common, instead of the materials and methods common 100 or 1,000 years ago. we have better cranes now than the ones in the picture of the capital. the safety standards we have now are a good thing, and the way we transport material is better. etc. etc. we shouldn't go back to that picture because someone in the public is nostalgic.
i don't think most people who live in houses built in the past couple decades live in "traditional" houses. i think they live in houses designed for the time and place they were built. those are split-level and ranch houses. some of the people that do live in newer "traditional" houses have plastic mcmansions with mismatched fypon crap, which is not a good thing. i think most of us agree that what we want from "traditional" architecture is not more styrofoam mcmansions, though suri hasn't clarified which traditional he's lobbying for.
I can tell you honestly that our traditional work costs no more to build than our modernist work does. In fact, I actually think on average our modernist houses cost more on average. Getting all of those surfaces to meet perfectly with no moldings to mediate them calls for extremely tight tolerances.
I think this "we shouldn't do traditional because we can't find craftsmen, and besides it costs too much if we could" stuff is a myth promulgated by modernist true-believers who would just as soon see contemporary classical architecture go away.
The agents of the citizenry aren't really given a choice when the decision is made to build a monumental building. They are given choice 1, a flat limestone wall, choice 2, a flat glass wall, or choice 3, an exciting combo of a flat limeatone wall and a flat glass wall. If the client did want a building on the order of the Paris City Hall no one could design or build it for any amount of money.
I think Suri is talking about the built environment in general, which does tend to affect anyone that comes into contact with it.
There seems to be a real confusion of terms thrown about. I think one needs to really get to the true meaning of the word. Traditional is not the same as Classical in not the same as Historical. A mud hut built today (an tremendously common, cheap type of housing) is considered traditional because it was built based on age-old traditions that have been passed down. The over 60 year old Farnsworth House, built in the International/Modernist style, is historical.
curtkram, you are so way off base I don't even know where to start. Do you purposely come up with these cartoon understandings of what I am saying?
You were making statements that unless one can afford to build mansions, skyscrapers and government buildings, one needn't be concerned about traditional architecture. I pointed out that everyone is connected to mansions, skyscrapers and government buildings by them making up our environment and you jump to the retarded conclusion that I am trying to dictate the character of every building I walk past.
I for one have been considering traditional to be architecture as it was practiced up until modernism, which attempted to wipe history and start over.
curtkram, the faster you can move past the notion that I am looking for plastic moldings and upside down columns, the better. I don't know how you could be confused about that given what I have been saying from the beginning.
Suri, aesthetics or business?
"I for one have been considering traditional to be architecture as it was practiced up until modernism, which attempted to wipe history and start over."
just flushing out some ideas suri. it does sound like you're trying to dictate the character of every building i walk past. didn't you post a picture of a building in minneapolis that you thought shouldn't be built because you didn't like the character of it, (something about eating lunch next to an interstate)? isn't the whole point of you statements that you should get to dictate what other people like?
let's go back to what i think was the first post:
-----------------
By you I don't mean the average mcmansion builder, and by what we want I don't mean wrestle some traditional features into your contemporary designs. I am asking you as the experts of the field, why won't you build what we want, traditional architecture, and build it excellently. Certainly I wouldn't expect all of you to do this, or even half of you, just some you, or any of you....
-------------
specifically to the "some of you," you have eke. so the thread is over with respect to that part. the two points in your thread that remain concerning are "what we want," which suggest that you are deciding for the public what the public wants, and "tradtional," which could mean neoclassical, or 2nd renaissance revival, or any number of things. maybe you're saying "make everything old," which is impossible, or "make everything look old," which is closer to possible, but not something I, as an architect, want to do, and it's also not something "the public" wants me to do.
i think asked you this before, but how do you think this works? you think a client hires an architect and says "i want what everyone wants, a stone column," and as an architect i say "sorry, but i can't do that. they told in me school to refuse that sort of commission?" or do you think a client hires an architect with no preconception of what they want their building to look like, and we get to make all of the design decisions ourselves? you can concern yourself with traditional architecture if you want, but you don't get to have it if you can't pay for it. it doesn't work that way.
eke, i have no problem with what you do and see nothing wrong with it. if someone wants a traditional house or addition and wants to hire you to do it, that's great. if you can do a great job of it, even better. a good modern (or contemporary) design can cost a lot too.
Aesthetics and philosophy.
also, it wasn't just modernism that wiped out what you consider to be the past. it was the industrial revolution, the automobile revolution, the elevator, and a whole lot of other things that had been building up around the same time.
and in addition, it didn't wipe out the past. we still have a lot of old buildings. the past is still where it's always been, which is in the past.
Curt, referring to surixurient, said "if starbuck or mcdonalds wanted to open in his neigborhood, someone should be there to remind them their buildings are expected to look like the capital building." He clearly did not say that, nor did any of the traditional design proponents in this thread. And pretty much the main thrust of what I have said is that there are a large number of clients who want traditional design, but the majority of today's architects do not know how to give the client a well designed traditional building, which is why we end up with so much junk built in psuedo-historical garb, at least on the East Coast (maybe not in California, but then I practice in the east so that is what I see multiple times).
i'm in the midwest and never heard a client ask for any sort of traditional element or 'philosophy.'
i lived in chicago for a while, and i think there was a trend in some circles to have renaissance revival type details, but that often manifested itself as EIFS reveals being representative of stone rustication. i'm not sure how to associate that with 'traditional." in the renaissance those lines came from stacking stones. it's hard to say they were following the same "philosophy," though "pedestrian oriented" detail might be an appropriate way to explain it.
it wasn't my lack of studying history that created what ended up being created.....
Classicism is not in any way inconsistent with the mod cons you listed. Lots of wonderful classical buildings accommodate automobiles, elevators, etc.
curtkram, do you believe that architects have some significant level of control over the caliber and quality of the built environment (both design and execution)? If so, then it would follow that if 95% of architects were taught of the irrelevance of traditional architecture and were hostile to the very idea that the public prefers it, than we would not see much quality traditional architecture being built. I claim that this is the case, and this is what I see as the problem. Not that I don't get to decide what everyone builds, or that there aren't enough companies making plastic cornices, but that when someone tries to get a traditional building built, it is more often than not done poorly, being there is little professional interest and much hostility towards traditional architecture from architects.
curt, the industrial revolution happened in the early 19th century...most of my favorite buildings are post industrial revolution.
i can't think of any poorly designed traditional buildings, where "traditional" was a goal, that don't include plastic cornices.
architects don't have that much control over the caliber or quality of the built environment. the people paying for it are far more influential. plastic cornices were created because people paying for cornices wanted to pay less. i don't think many architects really want plastic cornices in their design, it's just that the people who want them don't want to pay for stone. given the choice between a shitty house with an extra 2,000sf, or losing that 2,000sf, most people tend to go for bigger. there are areas where that isn't true, but i'm not typically allowed into the gate. if an owner pushes for a low-bid contractor, there isn't much we can do about the quality of construction.
this is the beginning of modern. this is not a "traditional" building.
So you have never seen a recent building built with a concrete cornice curtkram, or are you saying the ones that you saw were excellently designed?
Most communities want traditional public buildings, for example this police station. This is what they get http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Dm--8Qb0_V4/S7-XuWCzz6I/AAAAAAAAAmo/ptPgk_R8nCQ/s1600/Police+SidewalkA+040910.JPG
Hostility among architects? Never.
The Crystal Palace, built in 1851, is widely recognized as the first modern building. This was soon followed by a number of early "curtain wall" structures with predominately glass facades.
The first iron frame building was the Ditherington Flax Mill in Shrewsbury, England (1796).
The first iron bridge was completed in Shropshire, Engalnd in 1779.
The Eiffel Tower was built much later (1889).
Every new technology is "modern" at the time it is introduced. Flying buttresses, the vault, the arch, concrete ... it all depends on your point of view.
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.