suri...your latest post with that picture sums up exactly what the people asked for. A "traditional" piece of architecture. Of course I can't tell if you approve of it or not.
Someone earlier wrote this: "Most of the world lives in traditional buildings..."
If that is the case and the majority of the buildings out there, including 95% of the residential, is constructed in the "traditional" style then why are you complaining? Is your complaint that it's bad or not "traditional" enough?
It seems for most, the issue isn't that there isn't enough traditional architecture it's that is isn't GOOD traditional architecture. Personally to me that police station is an affront to good architecture. It's "traditional" in that it has the signs people associate with traditional but it's a mish-mash.
When I ask a person what they mean by "traditional" architecture they can't readily point to any particular style per se but the resulting mishmash of style elements they like. Thus we see houses that are described as contemporary-Acadian-style with Italianate & Renaissance flourishes. But how is a 2012 home built in the 'New England Georgian' style more traditional than say a house built 1930 in the International style which isn't "new". It's been around for close to 100 yrs. So at what point does a style become "traditional"?
EKE pointed out that in their practice, the classical / traditional homes are equal to or less in cost to the modern ones because there are greater demands for quality control and tighter tolerances that can't be covered up by cornices and trim work. The converse is true in the commercial arena in many respects.
In fact, several of the projects I work on where modifications, alterations and additions are made to historically registered building, we're required to not duplicate or replicate or make it look like it's a part of the historic structure. This isn't just state historic preservation practice but national parks policy as well.
Someone can create a contemporary building that respects adjacent historical buildings and do so with thought-out proportions, scale, materials, contemporary detailing and demand quality craftsmanship that doesn't have to look like a replication of an 18th century brownstone and can be it's own building that is remarkable, singular and adds to the dynamic fabric of a city.
Suri, do you think that police station (or whatever it is) was a product of just an architects imagination, or was it a compromise between what the public wanted and what the construction budget was?
I suspect you have never built anything in your life and have never managed a project. There is a reason why you will not answer my questions.
well, we have now identified what we think 'bad' traditional is. i wonder why they didn't put some sort of pseudo-capital type thing? my school taught me there should be something up there, even if it's just a couple lines.
so, suri, how do you think that happened? the architect did that for spite?
Precisely, Miles Jaffe. Hence the clear distinction between modern and Modernist. Those buildings are all historical today, just like today's buildings will be tomorrow. Modern is not a style. You could have a modern building in a classical design and a Modernist building that is historic.
Iamus, that was my comment. The fact that most people naturally inhabit traditional dwellings does not in any way take away from the fact that many, or probably most, public and commercial buildings these days are not built using many, if any, of the concepts handed down by tradition pre-Bauhaus and pre-CIAM. I thought this was all common knowledge.
Well, just to add to the fun, there is a (private commercial) building in my city that tries to merge traditional and modern, what do you think?
'traditional' farmhouse meets office complex.
Personally I think it is interesting, although I have seen better fusions of styles....
I also happen to like both contemporary and traditional styles, which is great as my city is full of examples of both.
for the traditionalists, here is your next home, just sold recently in my city for 10.35 mill, features a carriage house and a yoga studio!
or if you do prefer modern (or contemporary as is the more appropriate term), this gem sold for 11.5 mill
if those are to ritzy, this one is only 1.1 million and is traditional from 1951:
With average home prices in my city around 450K, and that is for a 'traditional' home detailed by a draftsman, you need to pony up a lot of cash to get an architect involved...
I don't disagree that 'traditional' architecture can resonate with people. I also feel that 'modern' designs can also resonate and inspire. My education taught me to design, to work on the problem regardless of style. I think all (most for sure) architects should be able to design competent spaces that are phenomenological. I ask you to look at what it is about the architecture and world around you that make you inspired, what is the poetry of the space that draws you in? Does the articulation of structure and reinforcement of shelter from traditional styles make you feel secure and sheltered from a hostile outside world? Does the clean lines and open spaces full of light in contemporary designs make you feel connected to the outside, framing and directing views and experiences?
No one design fits all, no one design is correct. All design styles have virtues and issues. Construction can be good or bad regardless of how the materials fit together, this is true now as it was historically.
If the 'public' feels that architects are not serving their desires, maybe the 'public' should become more engaged, should become more educated to how things in the business of building has changed drastically over the last 100 years and how the roles architects have traditionally done have increasingly been relegates to other professions due to economics, politics and changes in complexity. Maybe we need a discussion more on why architects are losing their involvement in the built environment more-so than a tit-for-tat over modern vs traditional, might actually get more interesting no?
the difference between modern and modernist? your just mincing words to confuse things.
when suri, who is speaking for all of the public, says he wants all architecture to be in a traditional style, surely he doesn't mean all buildings should be old? we can't build old buildings. that doesn't even make sense. once we build a new building, it's new.
we could just end the profession. no new buildings at all. that would meet our goal of preserving the traditional character of our cities, and would be good for the environment too.
this is a great "historic" building, but i'm pretty sure it's not what suri is talking about:
I think it's plain to see which building followed the rich continuum of human tradition, and which one was an austere showcase of materiality of the day, but with less impetus placed on enhancing the full user experience. I personally don't mind the Bauhaus building, as a utilitarian structure in a rather suburban design it's not terrible. Nobody but art and architecture geeks actually want to go see it, though.
Non Sequitor, the building originally dates back to 1918. Gehry did a decent job in the conversion. The building is basically what it was in 1918 as far as the architecture goes, however. It's a traditional historic (1918) building with a decon/flavor-of-that-bygone-day historic (2005) addition. I also bet it's one of the few of his projects that wont fail in properly keeping water from collecting where it shouldn't. ;)
I'd take all these buildings over bizzaro stuff like Steven Holl's Qingdao Culture and Art Center entry that looks like a built version of abstract art, or just abour every glass office building from about 1950 to today. "Look at the curtain wall connection!!!" Please, you can't make a meal out of a morsel.
The original Bauhaus building, I'll take it! While it's not a deep read, it at least has some deco styling and some interesting volumetric play at the entrance. But no, I wouldn't want to live in it if I can get my wall of glass broken up with strips of wall like a warehouse. I'd like to hang up my borgoise prints if you don't mind and sometimes I walk around in my birthday suit.
The Monadnock addition...all...day...long. When they say Chicago has character, that's what they mean. Not that a Perkins and Will can't contribute. 516 North Wells Chicago is a very interesting building, just not sure how many of those (type) can be fitted into one street in the sculptural sense, but at least interesting visually. Where Perkins and Will go off the rails is on stuff like 235 Van Buren. Now that's a street killer. I guess back on topic, teaching traditional architecture would at least inform architects how to do interesting buildings in a tight urban context, becasue don't always get sites that allow for a volumetric dance to make up for the lack of details that interest the eye.
The last one with its mix of contemporary is cool too only becasue of the old part though. That cornice and skirt are cartoonishly out of scale. Looks like what a modernist does when they don't want to get called out for being historicist and are giving you one of those "so I reinterpreted the tradition in a contemporary way".
But all three are better than your typical minimalist abstract work that says, "i'm more civilized than you becasue I don't need to dance, sing, or have sex". Great, now get me the hell out of here to a place where actual humans dwell!!! Although, the best way to make some taught minimalist work look good is in the compaly of some festive buildings. Problem being, too many architects striking that pose leads to a dull environment, and many a developer will take you up on the supposed hipness becasue they see dollar signs when two details are required for the facade.
Nobody but art and architecture geeks actually want to go see it, though.
So I compare this statement to something like this: Nobody but lawyers and constitutional scholars want to read Supreme Court transcripts. No one else could possibly have any reason to understand contemporary law practice.
Donna, that's an excellent point. Why aren't we having similar discussions about other professions? "Why won't you (doctors) do traditional medicine like we (the public) want?"
drrrrr....cuz that'd be stupid. But there are tons of (the public) who are suspicious of modern medicine. Look at the scare-mongering around vaccines for example.
we do get into "why don't you (polititcians) do your job like traditional conservatives (quit skipping work to complain and blame and write a budget that can pass the senate)"
surely you're not suggesting doctors still take the same oath written by hippocrates in around 400BC? you can't believe that medicine hasn't changed fairly noticeably in that time?
i'm afraid your notion of beauty is based on a false remembrance of a past you didn't live through, and the importance you place on that 'beauty' is preventing you from applying the best materials and tools to achieve the "utilitas" and "firmitas" required in the age you actually live in. keystones and cornerstones aren't used in steel frames or concrete footings. i'm not saying you can't stick a keystone on a building, but i am saying that pretending it has some sort of meaning because of the way it was practically applied long before you were born is a lie. the truth is, steel works different than stone, and if you ask W-beam what W-beam wants to be, it will not say the same thing brick said.
we should never forget that we've accomplished a lot since the time of vitruvious. as newton suggested, we're just dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants. by ignoring the last 80 or 100 years, or 2,000 years as has been mentioned previously, or however far back it is you're going, you cutting those giants off at the knees. (or the neck, for those who think we're using the same 'language' as 2,000 years ago).
I thought Po-Mo was supposed to save humanity from the crimes against nature that Modernism rained down upon the unwashed masses by reintroducing the very tenets of Classical architecture back into Architecture. It's ironic that the symbolism and excess that was once associated with power, money and prestige became the unsung architecture of the proletariat and the once Socialist-based idealism that was embedded in the early Modernist and Bauhaus movement (the idea of creating an architecture for the general population) over time was transformed into the symbolic style of the social elites and powerful. Even Charles Mackintosh was trying to find a way to fuse the craftsmanship of the old with a style that was new and Modern (gasp). His Willows Tearoom building is a great example of converting a warehouse into a "modern" edifice by stripping out the elaboration and pomp of the old yet still respectful of the context.
Complaining about no good office buildings having been built since the 1950s seems to be a matter of taste. One could take the position that the complaint should fall squarely upon all of those captains of industry that trampled over the masses to the doors of corporate firms like SOM in order to have them design new monuments to Capitalism. Much like Sullivan and H.H. Richardson did in their day. Except instead of capitals, wrought iron and rusticated bases, SOM employed the abstracted version of those in the form of aluminum mullions. Of course we realize that SOM wasn't really forcing Modernism down the throats of the powered business elites. Those rotten architects were giving the people (public) what they wanted! (Shakes fist at the sky in futile gesture of rage)
That the Modernism that birthed itself in America after WW2 was lacking the decorative language of before wasn't an accident but neither was it some nefarious scheme by a few German ex-pats to force Modernism upon the unsuspecting masses of America. The banal modernism of the 1950s-on, that several posters here seem to cry into their tea cups over, reflected the very desires and aspirations of the population post-WW2. We were celebrating American victory, know-how, industry, ingenuity, and really the birth of arts and architecture that were uniquely more American. Thus the ubiquity of Lever House knock-offs soon after. That became the language of the America. In fact after WW2 the capability to build buildings like the Empire State or Chrysler buildings weren't discarded by Architects but by America itself. Perhaps because that is so, we appreciate the buildings of the Art Deco era so much better.
While America was drunk in its cups after WW2, the majority of Europe lay in ruins. The resulting architecture to come out of that was an effort to rebuild both what was before in an attempt to recapture the past that had been systematically destroyed and simultaneously come up with something new that would help them move past the horrors of WW2. Cities like Hamburg had to be rebuilt and in some cases replicated and yet have great examples of contemporary Modern architecture. Berlin, Madrid and other European cities and towns don't have this uneasiness of mixing the old with the new that America seems to have. They celebrate and protect the important buildings while also moving forward. Foster's Reichstag dome is a great example of this. The new dome reflects the tenets of a democratic Germany. Replicating the 1894 dome would only be to replicate the past of the former pomp and circumstance of the Bismarck reign.
The notion that teaching someone "traditional" architecture would make someone a better architect looses the bigger picture. Corbusier was taught in the "traditional" style and look what he did. His desire to reinvent himself during the early 1900s was a reflection of the times.
America has been tearing down and rebuilding itself since its founding. Forever looking towards the mythical (future) West with a sense of inventiveness and possibility while simultaneously looking back to the lost (but invented) past of pastoral simplicity and tradition. The same can be said for our art and architecture. Maybe the confused banality of our built environment is a direct reflection of our society & culture more so than the reflection of the desires of a few architects.
"so, suri, how do you think that happened? the architect did that for spite?"
Inability, incompetence, fear of being ridiculed by their peers? Budget is no excuse. I can barely even imagine how someone could have the balls to hand over a blueprint which looks like that. Who knows, you as an architect would know best. How does a building like that happen, and why do I see them everywhere I go?
we should never forget that we've accomplished a lot since the time of vitruvious. as newton suggested, we're just dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants. by ignoring the last 80 or 100 years, or 2,000 years as has been mentioned previously, or however far back it is you're going, you cutting those giants off at the knees. (or the neck, for those who think we're using the same 'language' as 2,000 years ago).
This is precisely so. Couldn't agree more. The whole umbrage people take with the Modernist approach is that it self-proclaimed itself as a new start, tabula rasa, clean slate, watershed moment where anything before was irrelevant.
Many modernists believed that by rejecting tradition they could discover radically new ways of making art.[citation needed] Arguably the most paradigmatic motive of Modernism is the rejection of the obsolescence of tradition and its reprise, incorporation, rewriting, recapitulation, revision and parody in new forms.[5][6]"
The bitter irony in the end is that the ones living in the past are the ones still making "unique" and "modern" glass boxes 100 years later.
people make glass different than they did 100 years ago. it's floated different, so it can be bigger. there have been huge advances related to tempering glass, heat-strengthening glass, insulating glass by having a space between 2 pieces of glass filled with argon or something similar, manipulating the spectrum of light that's allowed to pass through it with the addition of materials like silver, etc. etc. etc. the framing systems are just as different. codes and regulations have also changed. you can't really believe that people are repeating 100 year old designs of glass boxes. that is such a willful rejection of the obvious that's it hard for me to understand.
are you an architect trip, or here as a hobbyist? if you use 'traditional' materials the way that suits the 'traditional' material, and 'new' materials like glass, steel, and reinforced concrete the way they that suits them, you're probably going to be more of a modern architect than a "traditional" architect.
"i'm afraid your notion of beauty is based on a false remembrance of a past you didn't live through,"
Funny how modernists who insist their 'revivalist' buildings aren't fake versions of some old European style without acknowledging that Modernism is on old European style. Must be that confusion with the actual meaning of modern vs. modernist.
"and the importance you place on that 'beauty' is preventing you from applying the best materials and tools to achieve the "utilitas" and "firmitas"
Yeah, cause only a bunch of fuddy duddy traditionalists worry about beauty, the rest of humanity is on a hill top chanting. It's either function or beauty, never both.
"we should never forget that we've accomplished a lot since the time of vitruvious"
We've accomplished even more when they said 'do on to others', but whatev...
"by ignoring the last 80 or 100 years, or 2,000 years as has been mentioned previously, or however far back it is you're going, you cutting those giants off at the knees."
Where glass, steel, concrete, skeleton frames and open plans invented in the last 100 years??? Man, crack a book now and then. It's you who are ignoring 2000 years, I've got no problem with air conditioning. Why are we going organic with food today? Is it cause we are ignoring the magic of procesed food that science gave us or is it becasue science has evolved to discover that organic food is better for us?
trip to fame - "The whole umbrage people take with the Modernist approach is that it self-proclaimed itself as a new start, tabula rasa, clean slate, watershed moment where anything before was irrelevant."
Wiki is sometimes a good and bad source. The Modernist movement wasn't simply limited to architecture only. The notion of the New infused society as a whole throughout Europe and America. The poetry, literature, art and architecture of the 18th century represented to many, the art and architecture of the upper classes and oligarchy of America and Europe. The influence of Japanese design, infused with simplicity and efficiency, heavily influenced designers like Mackintosh, Wright, Corbu and others. That the Modernist movement also came to fruition during the explosive growth of a middle class that suddenly had more money and leisure time is no coincidence.
The tenets of Modernism, when conceived at the birth of the 20th century was an attempt to find a new language that represented the modern era of machines, communication, transportation and the social disruption they represented.
Modernism / International Style as practiced today, most assuredly in residential, is a "style" now. Just like other historical styles like Georgian and Colonial.
The biggest complaints from folks on this thread seem to be over poorly executed architecture. Even Suri admits his example is bad "traditional" architecture. As any architect knows, every design is a compromise and collaborative effort. If suri operates under the assumption that we practice like a fictional Howard Roark that's his prerogative. But it seems to be the complaint is really over bad architecture. I walk around and see far more examples of bad traditional architecture than bad "modern" architecture.
The traditionalists here fault "modern" architects for creating designs that are these one-off monuments to self and ego without having their notion of beauty. Yet any criticism that traditionalists suffer from the same is met with the chirping of crickets or the defensive postured assertion that it is what the people want and because one used a pattern book and googled the Parthenon that it's better architecture. Ain't necessarily so.
Great architecture is great architecture regardless of style. Bad architecture is bad architecture regardless of style.
suri, i can't think of any building in my area that's quite the same as the picture you posted.
there are often several interested parties involved in the design of a building. perhaps there was a representative from the police department with one view, a representative from the city council or city controller or some other office with a primarily financial interest, a representative from the planning department, and a representative from the architect's office.
this could be a case of 'design by committee,' where different people push the building in different directions. maybe it started as a nice, simple, brick building, but the planning department said they need to break up the facade. maybe the architect actually had those nice cast stone capitals on the columns, but the city manager cut them due to budget overruns.
according to trip, modernism is a new start. according to thayer, it's a bunch of "revivalist" styles. let's be clear, 'good' architecture that is well designed in the time period we are living in is typically of a modern style. sometimes there are good designs with 'traditional' ornamentation, and sometimes there are bad designs. architecture doesn't need tacky ornamentation to be beautiful. you guys are defending antiqued methods of construction that are not in use today. you're going to keep changing the definition of "modern" and "traditional" so you can justify what i'm pretty sure is just your misunderstanding of how buildings are built.
'do on to others' -- google that and let it autocorrect for you.
i just went over some pretty big improvements to glass over the last 100 years. do i really need to do that with all of the other materials architects tend to include in building? if you really don't understand how the design and construction of buildings has changed in 100 years, your education was a failure.
Every new movement in architecture is supposed to save us from the previous one. Unfortunately, more concern is given to style than function (for marketing purposes) so every new movement is a failure.
Emotionally void (and largely dysfunctional) modernism led to post [gag] modernism (applying cheap illusions of classical detail to otherwise modern buildings), the failure of which led to [choke] deconstructivism (where bullshit reigns supreme) and [barf] parametricism (architecture because we can).
If any of these movements worked there wouldn't be a return to the so-called classical style that really isn't.
"I thought Po-Mo was supposed to save humanity from the crimes against nature that Modernism rained down upon the unwashed masses by reintroducing the very tenets of Classical architecture back into Architecture."
Is that what you thought? That explains a lot.
"While America was drunk in its cups after WW2, the majority of Europe lay in ruins. The resulting architecture to come out of that was an effort to rebuild both what was before in an attempt to recapture the past that had been systematically destroyed and simultaneously come up with something new that would help them move past the horrors of WW2."
So Corb proposes to finish the job that not even Hitler could get himself to do, which was to destroy the center of Paris for a projects. Becasue nothing get's the horrors of WWII out of your mind like the orwellian towers on the outskirts of most modernist cities. Too bad the Poles decided to rebuild thier center curly que for curley que. They must still be lost in a sea of horrors!
"The notion that teaching someone "traditional" architecture would make someone a better architect looses the bigger picture. Corbusier was taught in the "traditional" style and look what he did. His desire to reinvent himself during the early 1900s was a reflection of the times."
Actually, his desire to reinvent himself was a great marketing strategy. Jeanerret to Le Corbusier. Does kind of fancy it up. "Le" is a great ornament.
"America has been tearing down and rebuilding itself since its founding. Forever looking towards the mythical (future) West with a sense of inventiveness and possibility while simultaneously looking back to the lost (but invented) past of pastoral simplicity and tradition." Yeah, cause when they wrote our founding documents they said fuck Locke, Hume, Rouseau, and all those pasty Europeans with their enlightment crap. Let's pull our selves up by our own bootstraps. Hey, France, could you lend us a hand? Or FLW, and his birthing the Prairie style out of thin air. Any one for a bridge?
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
suri...your latest post with that picture sums up exactly what the people asked for. A "traditional" piece of architecture. Of course I can't tell if you approve of it or not.
Someone earlier wrote this: "Most of the world lives in traditional buildings..."
If that is the case and the majority of the buildings out there, including 95% of the residential, is constructed in the "traditional" style then why are you complaining? Is your complaint that it's bad or not "traditional" enough?
It seems for most, the issue isn't that there isn't enough traditional architecture it's that is isn't GOOD traditional architecture. Personally to me that police station is an affront to good architecture. It's "traditional" in that it has the signs people associate with traditional but it's a mish-mash.
When I ask a person what they mean by "traditional" architecture they can't readily point to any particular style per se but the resulting mishmash of style elements they like. Thus we see houses that are described as contemporary-Acadian-style with Italianate & Renaissance flourishes. But how is a 2012 home built in the 'New England Georgian' style more traditional than say a house built 1930 in the International style which isn't "new". It's been around for close to 100 yrs. So at what point does a style become "traditional"?
EKE pointed out that in their practice, the classical / traditional homes are equal to or less in cost to the modern ones because there are greater demands for quality control and tighter tolerances that can't be covered up by cornices and trim work. The converse is true in the commercial arena in many respects.
In fact, several of the projects I work on where modifications, alterations and additions are made to historically registered building, we're required to not duplicate or replicate or make it look like it's a part of the historic structure. This isn't just state historic preservation practice but national parks policy as well.
Someone can create a contemporary building that respects adjacent historical buildings and do so with thought-out proportions, scale, materials, contemporary detailing and demand quality craftsmanship that doesn't have to look like a replication of an 18th century brownstone and can be it's own building that is remarkable, singular and adds to the dynamic fabric of a city.
I suspect you have never built anything in your life and have never managed a project. There is a reason why you will not answer my questions.
well, we have now identified what we think 'bad' traditional is. i wonder why they didn't put some sort of pseudo-capital type thing? my school taught me there should be something up there, even if it's just a couple lines.
so, suri, how do you think that happened? the architect did that for spite?
Well, just to add to the fun, there is a (private commercial) building in my city that tries to merge traditional and modern, what do you think?
'traditional' farmhouse meets office complex.
Personally I think it is interesting, although I have seen better fusions of styles....
I also happen to like both contemporary and traditional styles, which is great as my city is full of examples of both.
for the traditionalists, here is your next home, just sold recently in my city for 10.35 mill, features a carriage house and a yoga studio!
or if you do prefer modern (or contemporary as is the more appropriate term), this gem sold for 11.5 mill
if those are to ritzy, this one is only 1.1 million and is traditional from 1951:
With average home prices in my city around 450K, and that is for a 'traditional' home detailed by a draftsman, you need to pony up a lot of cash to get an architect involved...
I don't disagree that 'traditional' architecture can resonate with people. I also feel that 'modern' designs can also resonate and inspire. My education taught me to design, to work on the problem regardless of style. I think all (most for sure) architects should be able to design competent spaces that are phenomenological. I ask you to look at what it is about the architecture and world around you that make you inspired, what is the poetry of the space that draws you in? Does the articulation of structure and reinforcement of shelter from traditional styles make you feel secure and sheltered from a hostile outside world? Does the clean lines and open spaces full of light in contemporary designs make you feel connected to the outside, framing and directing views and experiences?
No one design fits all, no one design is correct. All design styles have virtues and issues. Construction can be good or bad regardless of how the materials fit together, this is true now as it was historically.
If the 'public' feels that architects are not serving their desires, maybe the 'public' should become more engaged, should become more educated to how things in the business of building has changed drastically over the last 100 years and how the roles architects have traditionally done have increasingly been relegates to other professions due to economics, politics and changes in complexity. Maybe we need a discussion more on why architects are losing their involvement in the built environment more-so than a tit-for-tat over modern vs traditional, might actually get more interesting no?
4 teardowns and a deletion. What an embarassing "profession".
the difference between modern and modernist? your just mincing words to confuse things.
when suri, who is speaking for all of the public, says he wants all architecture to be in a traditional style, surely he doesn't mean all buildings should be old? we can't build old buildings. that doesn't even make sense. once we build a new building, it's new.
we could just end the profession. no new buildings at all. that would meet our goal of preserving the traditional character of our cities, and would be good for the environment too.
this is a great "historic" building, but i'm pretty sure it's not what suri is talking about:
Is that an Argentine prison?
"Is that an Argentine prison?"
:)
Nope. It's a dry ice factory. Good place to get some thinking done.
Just so nobody here is confused:
modern = of the present day, contemporary
Modernist = belonging to or adhering to the tenets of Modernism and the Modern movement in architecture and the arts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism
How about this one Suri? Do you like it?
Is that what you mean?
Flying buttresses were once terrifyingly modern and new. Now they just make my ten year old son laugh because they contain the word butt.
How about this one, it's a mix of traditional and contemporary.
Non Sequitor, the building originally dates back to 1918. Gehry did a decent job in the conversion. The building is basically what it was in 1918 as far as the architecture goes, however. It's a traditional historic (1918) building with a decon/flavor-of-that-bygone-day historic (2005) addition. I also bet it's one of the few of his projects that wont fail in properly keeping water from collecting where it shouldn't. ;)
I think this basically summarizes what Sury was getting at.
Who dosn't love a butt reference!
I'd take all these buildings over bizzaro stuff like Steven Holl's Qingdao Culture and Art Center entry that looks like a built version of abstract art, or just abour every glass office building from about 1950 to today. "Look at the curtain wall connection!!!" Please, you can't make a meal out of a morsel.
The original Bauhaus building, I'll take it! While it's not a deep read, it at least has some deco styling and some interesting volumetric play at the entrance. But no, I wouldn't want to live in it if I can get my wall of glass broken up with strips of wall like a warehouse. I'd like to hang up my borgoise prints if you don't mind and sometimes I walk around in my birthday suit.
The Monadnock addition...all...day...long. When they say Chicago has character, that's what they mean. Not that a Perkins and Will can't contribute. 516 North Wells Chicago is a very interesting building, just not sure how many of those (type) can be fitted into one street in the sculptural sense, but at least interesting visually. Where Perkins and Will go off the rails is on stuff like 235 Van Buren. Now that's a street killer. I guess back on topic, teaching traditional architecture would at least inform architects how to do interesting buildings in a tight urban context, becasue don't always get sites that allow for a volumetric dance to make up for the lack of details that interest the eye.
The last one with its mix of contemporary is cool too only becasue of the old part though. That cornice and skirt are cartoonishly out of scale. Looks like what a modernist does when they don't want to get called out for being historicist and are giving you one of those "so I reinterpreted the tradition in a contemporary way".
But all three are better than your typical minimalist abstract work that says, "i'm more civilized than you becasue I don't need to dance, sing, or have sex". Great, now get me the hell out of here to a place where actual humans dwell!!! Although, the best way to make some taught minimalist work look good is in the compaly of some festive buildings. Problem being, too many architects striking that pose leads to a dull environment, and many a developer will take you up on the supposed hipness becasue they see dollar signs when two details are required for the facade.
trip to fame,
that image nails it. Allthough your inviting another round of "the masses are dumb asses"
I always say, "ask your mama" cause we all know she ain't no dummy. Can't write off people if you love them.
Flying butts. Great visual.
modern = of the present day, contemporary [destined to become either historic or passé]
Modernist = belonging to or adhering to the tenets of Modernism and the Modern movement [a historic period]
And now we have Modernist Revival. Excuse me while I ... <heave>.
Nobody but art and architecture geeks actually want to go see it, though.
So I compare this statement to something like this: Nobody but lawyers and constitutional scholars want to read Supreme Court transcripts. No one else could possibly have any reason to understand contemporary law practice.
Unless i am mistaken the new Dallas Cowboy Stadium has four flying butresses, two at each end, to, er, hold the building up?
Donna, that's an excellent point. Why aren't we having similar discussions about other professions? "Why won't you (doctors) do traditional medicine like we (the public) want?"
drrrrr....cuz that'd be stupid. But there are tons of (the public) who are suspicious of modern medicine. Look at the scare-mongering around vaccines for example.
"Why won't you (doctors) do traditional medicine like we (the public) want?"
Let me try to answer that one...
A: Becasue someone choosing a house won't die if they make a bad decision.
B: Becasue you're comparing people's aesthetic choices to scientific facts.
C: Becasue everyone lives in the built envirionment yet only doctors live in a medical one.
Thank you for playing Bad Analogies......Stephanie Miller
The public has access and frequently employs traditional medicine.
Big Pharma is actually always trying to cash in on traditional medicine and claim it as their own:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/22/india-protect-traditional-medicines
we do get into "why don't you (polititcians) do your job like traditional conservatives (quit skipping work to complain and blame and write a budget that can pass the senate)"
Answers A-C are false.
D: Buildings can kill more people faster than doctors can.
It's a good thing doctor's no longer take the traditional Hippocratic oath. Oh, wait, never mind.
If only architects would take the wisdom of Vitruvius to heart in the same way.
Rigid adherence to Vitruvius?
Really?
Vitruvius was a modernist. He was born too early.
surely you're not suggesting doctors still take the same oath written by hippocrates in around 400BC? you can't believe that medicine hasn't changed fairly noticeably in that time?
Rigid adherence to Vitruvius?
Really?
You added the word "rigid".
Which of the Vitruvian principles do you think we as a profession should eliminate?
Functionality
Durability
Beauty
i'm afraid your notion of beauty is based on a false remembrance of a past you didn't live through, and the importance you place on that 'beauty' is preventing you from applying the best materials and tools to achieve the "utilitas" and "firmitas" required in the age you actually live in. keystones and cornerstones aren't used in steel frames or concrete footings. i'm not saying you can't stick a keystone on a building, but i am saying that pretending it has some sort of meaning because of the way it was practically applied long before you were born is a lie. the truth is, steel works different than stone, and if you ask W-beam what W-beam wants to be, it will not say the same thing brick said.
we should never forget that we've accomplished a lot since the time of vitruvious. as newton suggested, we're just dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants. by ignoring the last 80 or 100 years, or 2,000 years as has been mentioned previously, or however far back it is you're going, you cutting those giants off at the knees. (or the neck, for those who think we're using the same 'language' as 2,000 years ago).
I thought Po-Mo was supposed to save humanity from the crimes against nature that Modernism rained down upon the unwashed masses by reintroducing the very tenets of Classical architecture back into Architecture. It's ironic that the symbolism and excess that was once associated with power, money and prestige became the unsung architecture of the proletariat and the once Socialist-based idealism that was embedded in the early Modernist and Bauhaus movement (the idea of creating an architecture for the general population) over time was transformed into the symbolic style of the social elites and powerful. Even Charles Mackintosh was trying to find a way to fuse the craftsmanship of the old with a style that was new and Modern (gasp). His Willows Tearoom building is a great example of converting a warehouse into a "modern" edifice by stripping out the elaboration and pomp of the old yet still respectful of the context.
Complaining about no good office buildings having been built since the 1950s seems to be a matter of taste. One could take the position that the complaint should fall squarely upon all of those captains of industry that trampled over the masses to the doors of corporate firms like SOM in order to have them design new monuments to Capitalism. Much like Sullivan and H.H. Richardson did in their day. Except instead of capitals, wrought iron and rusticated bases, SOM employed the abstracted version of those in the form of aluminum mullions. Of course we realize that SOM wasn't really forcing Modernism down the throats of the powered business elites. Those rotten architects were giving the people (public) what they wanted! (Shakes fist at the sky in futile gesture of rage)
That the Modernism that birthed itself in America after WW2 was lacking the decorative language of before wasn't an accident but neither was it some nefarious scheme by a few German ex-pats to force Modernism upon the unsuspecting masses of America. The banal modernism of the 1950s-on, that several posters here seem to cry into their tea cups over, reflected the very desires and aspirations of the population post-WW2. We were celebrating American victory, know-how, industry, ingenuity, and really the birth of arts and architecture that were uniquely more American. Thus the ubiquity of Lever House knock-offs soon after. That became the language of the America. In fact after WW2 the capability to build buildings like the Empire State or Chrysler buildings weren't discarded by Architects but by America itself. Perhaps because that is so, we appreciate the buildings of the Art Deco era so much better.
While America was drunk in its cups after WW2, the majority of Europe lay in ruins. The resulting architecture to come out of that was an effort to rebuild both what was before in an attempt to recapture the past that had been systematically destroyed and simultaneously come up with something new that would help them move past the horrors of WW2. Cities like Hamburg had to be rebuilt and in some cases replicated and yet have great examples of contemporary Modern architecture. Berlin, Madrid and other European cities and towns don't have this uneasiness of mixing the old with the new that America seems to have. They celebrate and protect the important buildings while also moving forward. Foster's Reichstag dome is a great example of this. The new dome reflects the tenets of a democratic Germany. Replicating the 1894 dome would only be to replicate the past of the former pomp and circumstance of the Bismarck reign.
The notion that teaching someone "traditional" architecture would make someone a better architect looses the bigger picture. Corbusier was taught in the "traditional" style and look what he did. His desire to reinvent himself during the early 1900s was a reflection of the times.
America has been tearing down and rebuilding itself since its founding. Forever looking towards the mythical (future) West with a sense of inventiveness and possibility while simultaneously looking back to the lost (but invented) past of pastoral simplicity and tradition. The same can be said for our art and architecture. Maybe the confused banality of our built environment is a direct reflection of our society & culture more so than the reflection of the desires of a few architects.
"so, suri, how do you think that happened? the architect did that for spite?"
Inability, incompetence, fear of being ridiculed by their peers? Budget is no excuse. I can barely even imagine how someone could have the balls to hand over a blueprint which looks like that. Who knows, you as an architect would know best. How does a building like that happen, and why do I see them everywhere I go?
Curtkram, as you write:
we should never forget that we've accomplished a lot since the time of vitruvious. as newton suggested, we're just dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants. by ignoring the last 80 or 100 years, or 2,000 years as has been mentioned previously, or however far back it is you're going, you cutting those giants off at the knees. (or the neck, for those who think we're using the same 'language' as 2,000 years ago).
This is precisely so. Couldn't agree more. The whole umbrage people take with the Modernist approach is that it self-proclaimed itself as a new start, tabula rasa, clean slate, watershed moment where anything before was irrelevant.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism#Rejection_and_detournement_of_tradition:
"Rejection and detournement of tradition[edit]
Many modernists believed that by rejecting tradition they could discover radically new ways of making art.[citation needed] Arguably the most paradigmatic motive of Modernism is the rejection of the obsolescence of tradition and its reprise, incorporation, rewriting, recapitulation, revision and parody in new forms.[5][6]"
The bitter irony in the end is that the ones living in the past are the ones still making "unique" and "modern" glass boxes 100 years later.
gruen, I like many art nouveau and art deco buildings, I also like frank lloyd wright and some other modern architects.
people make glass different than they did 100 years ago. it's floated different, so it can be bigger. there have been huge advances related to tempering glass, heat-strengthening glass, insulating glass by having a space between 2 pieces of glass filled with argon or something similar, manipulating the spectrum of light that's allowed to pass through it with the addition of materials like silver, etc. etc. etc. the framing systems are just as different. codes and regulations have also changed. you can't really believe that people are repeating 100 year old designs of glass boxes. that is such a willful rejection of the obvious that's it hard for me to understand.
are you an architect trip, or here as a hobbyist? if you use 'traditional' materials the way that suits the 'traditional' material, and 'new' materials like glass, steel, and reinforced concrete the way they that suits them, you're probably going to be more of a modern architect than a "traditional" architect.
"i'm afraid your notion of beauty is based on a false remembrance of a past you didn't live through,"
Funny how modernists who insist their 'revivalist' buildings aren't fake versions of some old European style without acknowledging that Modernism is on old European style. Must be that confusion with the actual meaning of modern vs. modernist.
"and the importance you place on that 'beauty' is preventing you from applying the best materials and tools to achieve the "utilitas" and "firmitas"
Yeah, cause only a bunch of fuddy duddy traditionalists worry about beauty, the rest of humanity is on a hill top chanting. It's either function or beauty, never both.
"we should never forget that we've accomplished a lot since the time of vitruvious"
We've accomplished even more when they said 'do on to others', but whatev...
"by ignoring the last 80 or 100 years, or 2,000 years as has been mentioned previously, or however far back it is you're going, you cutting those giants off at the knees."
Where glass, steel, concrete, skeleton frames and open plans invented in the last 100 years??? Man, crack a book now and then. It's you who are ignoring 2000 years, I've got no problem with air conditioning. Why are we going organic with food today? Is it cause we are ignoring the magic of procesed food that science gave us or is it becasue science has evolved to discover that organic food is better for us?
this is fun.
trip to fame - "The whole umbrage people take with the Modernist approach is that it self-proclaimed itself as a new start, tabula rasa, clean slate, watershed moment where anything before was irrelevant."
Wiki is sometimes a good and bad source. The Modernist movement wasn't simply limited to architecture only. The notion of the New infused society as a whole throughout Europe and America. The poetry, literature, art and architecture of the 18th century represented to many, the art and architecture of the upper classes and oligarchy of America and Europe. The influence of Japanese design, infused with simplicity and efficiency, heavily influenced designers like Mackintosh, Wright, Corbu and others. That the Modernist movement also came to fruition during the explosive growth of a middle class that suddenly had more money and leisure time is no coincidence.
The tenets of Modernism, when conceived at the birth of the 20th century was an attempt to find a new language that represented the modern era of machines, communication, transportation and the social disruption they represented.
Modernism / International Style as practiced today, most assuredly in residential, is a "style" now. Just like other historical styles like Georgian and Colonial.
The biggest complaints from folks on this thread seem to be over poorly executed architecture. Even Suri admits his example is bad "traditional" architecture. As any architect knows, every design is a compromise and collaborative effort. If suri operates under the assumption that we practice like a fictional Howard Roark that's his prerogative. But it seems to be the complaint is really over bad architecture. I walk around and see far more examples of bad traditional architecture than bad "modern" architecture.
The traditionalists here fault "modern" architects for creating designs that are these one-off monuments to self and ego without having their notion of beauty. Yet any criticism that traditionalists suffer from the same is met with the chirping of crickets or the defensive postured assertion that it is what the people want and because one used a pattern book and googled the Parthenon that it's better architecture. Ain't necessarily so.
Great architecture is great architecture regardless of style. Bad architecture is bad architecture regardless of style.
suri, i can't think of any building in my area that's quite the same as the picture you posted.
there are often several interested parties involved in the design of a building. perhaps there was a representative from the police department with one view, a representative from the city council or city controller or some other office with a primarily financial interest, a representative from the planning department, and a representative from the architect's office.
this could be a case of 'design by committee,' where different people push the building in different directions. maybe it started as a nice, simple, brick building, but the planning department said they need to break up the facade. maybe the architect actually had those nice cast stone capitals on the columns, but the city manager cut them due to budget overruns.
The discourse is a hobby that informs that practice.
http://www.capecodfd.com/Police/PD%20Denn%20new%20Sta%20080309%209316.JPG
How many more of these should I post? I can find them all day, they are everywhere.
The discourse is a hobby that informs that practice.
according to trip, modernism is a new start. according to thayer, it's a bunch of "revivalist" styles. let's be clear, 'good' architecture that is well designed in the time period we are living in is typically of a modern style. sometimes there are good designs with 'traditional' ornamentation, and sometimes there are bad designs. architecture doesn't need tacky ornamentation to be beautiful. you guys are defending antiqued methods of construction that are not in use today. you're going to keep changing the definition of "modern" and "traditional" so you can justify what i'm pretty sure is just your misunderstanding of how buildings are built.
'do on to others' -- google that and let it autocorrect for you.
i just went over some pretty big improvements to glass over the last 100 years. do i really need to do that with all of the other materials architects tend to include in building? if you really don't understand how the design and construction of buildings has changed in 100 years, your education was a failure.
I thought Po-Mo was supposed to save humanity
Every new movement in architecture is supposed to save us from the previous one. Unfortunately, more concern is given to style than function (for marketing purposes) so every new movement is a failure.
Emotionally void (and largely dysfunctional) modernism led to post [gag] modernism (applying cheap illusions of classical detail to otherwise modern buildings), the failure of which led to [choke] deconstructivism (where bullshit reigns supreme) and [barf] parametricism (architecture because we can).
If any of these movements worked there wouldn't be a return to the so-called classical style that really isn't.
I can't type fast enough to keep up with this thread.
That's probably a good thing.
There is a return to the classical style? It must still be on the drawing boards because I have yet to see the buildings. Here is hoping though.
"I thought Po-Mo was supposed to save humanity from the crimes against nature that Modernism rained down upon the unwashed masses by reintroducing the very tenets of Classical architecture back into Architecture."
Is that what you thought? That explains a lot.
"While America was drunk in its cups after WW2, the majority of Europe lay in ruins. The resulting architecture to come out of that was an effort to rebuild both what was before in an attempt to recapture the past that had been systematically destroyed and simultaneously come up with something new that would help them move past the horrors of WW2."
So Corb proposes to finish the job that not even Hitler could get himself to do, which was to destroy the center of Paris for a projects. Becasue nothing get's the horrors of WWII out of your mind like the orwellian towers on the outskirts of most modernist cities. Too bad the Poles decided to rebuild thier center curly que for curley que. They must still be lost in a sea of horrors!
"The notion that teaching someone "traditional" architecture would make someone a better architect looses the bigger picture. Corbusier was taught in the "traditional" style and look what he did. His desire to reinvent himself during the early 1900s was a reflection of the times."
Actually, his desire to reinvent himself was a great marketing strategy. Jeanerret to Le Corbusier. Does kind of fancy it up. "Le" is a great ornament.
"America has been tearing down and rebuilding itself since its founding. Forever looking towards the mythical (future) West with a sense of inventiveness and possibility while simultaneously looking back to the lost (but invented) past of pastoral simplicity and tradition." Yeah, cause when they wrote our founding documents they said fuck Locke, Hume, Rouseau, and all those pasty Europeans with their enlightment crap. Let's pull our selves up by our own bootstraps. Hey, France, could you lend us a hand? Or FLW, and his birthing the Prairie style out of thin air. Any one for a bridge?
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.