hear, hear, miles! i've said it before - probably in this thread - when you stand in front of the bauhaus in dessau, it's clear that gropius grew out of the classical tradition via behrens & schinkel. unavoidable.
eke, i would say the "good" "modern" designers also spend a lot of time self-teaching themselves. you still got some sort of foundation related to architecture in school, and hopefully the tools and training to self-teach yourself. that's the foundation colleges should be providing students. students shouldn't just leave college thinking they know what they're doing, they should leave college expecting to spend the rest of their careers learning how to be better architects.
Mmmmmm, Schinkel. Such yummy, delicious, satisfying Modern Neo Classical. SO decadently restrained, so luxuriously concise.
"Schinkel's plans for the Königliches Museum, as it was then known, were also influenced by drafts of the crown prince, later King Friedrich Wilhelm IV, who desired a building that was heavily influenced by antiquity. The crown prince even sent Schinkel a pencil sketch of a large hall adorned with a classical portico."
I love reading your well reasoned appeals. It's clear they aren't making a dent with many, especially curtkram, who insists on re-writting every point to suit his argument. You can even use his own words to point out the fallacy of his arguments, to the point that he acknowledges personal preferences lay at the root of his personal preferences.
i'm just saying i like something different.
Even when Jaffe points out that the early modernists had a Beaux-Arts education and went on to design abstract minimalism, it seems that what he calls "copying other people's ornamentation" is still evident in the work of Gropius and LeCorbusier.
So by that logic (if we dare), teaching everyone in the Beaux Arts wouldn't hold any young architect back from throwing it all in the waste basket, becasue its resonance in thier future work would be "unavoidable." Afterall, nothing is quite as delicious being 'restrained decedantly'.
It'll be interesting if we can push this thread to 600 by doing more donuts in the field. Does anyone know the most comments generated on this site? In the mean time, I'll keep reading this pathetic fear of traditional architecture and all the evil it would bestow on our young minds as the ideologues guard the gates of the ivory towers against the barbarians.
that's becasue when one manages to "shake off the programming (they) received at the university" they tend to loose the ability to connect disparate ideas with-in a concept. Much like being decadent and restrained at the same time, all though there are some life style choices where that seems possible, so I stand corrected. Less is infact more, black is white, and starting pre-emptive war is promoting democracy.
thayer, i'm pretty sure i've been incredibly consistent in saying i respect the work eke does and the path he's chosen for himself. i've been consistent in saying my chosen preference towards modern design is my own taste.
i disagree with the notion that the public as a whole prefers traditional architecture. i don't think suri has the credentials to declare what public opinion is. i disagree with the notion that our schools should change how they teach to meet whatever crazy shit is in your head, that you are apparently unable to communicate, except to say it should be 'traditional.' the way architecture education is structured in america is already heavily influenced by the structure of the beaux-arts. i disagree with the notion that there is some sort inherent psychological sense of beauty that all people are born with that coincides with traditional ornamentation common in western architecture.
whether eke spent his time at a university learning modern or traditional design, i think he presents himself as an educated person with a reasonable opinion on architecture, even though he happened to arrive at a conclusion different than me. i don't think you present yourself as well as eke does. you don't seem to have any idea of what "modern" might be, and the term "traditional" seem so broad to you that it could include anything that suits you in a given moment, then exclude the same thing in the next sentence if that's what happened to suit you.
if you really think there is a fallacy in my argument due to me saying i have a personal preference, i would guess either you choose to not understand what i'm saying, or you're unable to understand what i'm saying.
"i don't think suri has the credentials to declare what public opinion is"
"i disagree with the notion that the public as a whole prefers traditional architecture"
So he dosen't, but you do? Did they teach you that in your school, "already heavily influenced by the structure of the beaux-arts"? Maybe you would you at least grant that suri has the credentials to state an opinion with a declarative sentence.
"i don't think you present yourself as well as eke does."
Here is one instance where I not only understand what you are saying, but I couldn't agree more. It might be that he knows better than I what it was like to have fallen for so much bullshit. Empathy is the hallmark of a civilized person.
Thayer-D, you're worse than suri/aojwny. Don't pretend to speak for me with quotes of things I never said, or imply things that I didn't. My comments are not to be twisted to suit whatever inane argument you are trying to make.
Even when Jaffe points out that the early modernists had a Beaux-Arts education and went on to design abstract minimalism, it seems that what he calls "copying other people's ornamentation" is still evident in the work of Gropius and LeCorbusier.
A sampling of the public as a whole or every man woman and child in society being included? These are the only two I could find (without heavy searching)
I don't suppose we will see anyone funding a full out scientific study on this anytime soon, but whenever we do see something, it suggests the obvious.
When you poll Americans what their favorite building is, they say things like "The White House because it reminds me of AmericaFuckYeah!". That's not the same as asking what kind of architecture they prefer.
Also hahahaha sorry but follow that church survey suxi linked and look at what the four choices were: a Gothic pile and three turds. Who *wouldn't* choose the Gothic pile? It's hilarious and totally not scientific or meaningful in any serious way.
Let me be clear. I don't have a problem with your personal opinions about architecture. What I have a problem with is your cheerleader-like enthusiasm based on a flawed premise e.g. you're speaking for more people than just yourself. That egotism prevents me from having any interest in discussing with you the merits of traditional vs. modern architecture.
This quote shares the obvious "The response percentages are consistent with a dozen other surveys on architecture performed elsewhere over the last thirty years, indicating that the public tends to prefer traditional styles to modern ones by a large margin, usually 3:1 or greater."
I think you guys are out of touch if this comes as a surprise to you.
Again. If you were espousing your opinions, I'd be interested. I tend to prefer classical to modern myself. Instead you're standing on a soap box fifty stories tall shouting as if you're responsible for the opinions of everyone.
Nobody asked you to go to bat for them. Take it from someone who might have agreed with you if you hadn't tried to shovel so much bullshit regarding the universal credibility of your opinion.
Here is an interesting essay titled "20th century architecture as a cult".
Here is a memorable gem "One of the slogans of the Bauhaus was "starting from zero". Its aim was a radical restructuring of human consciousness. Every incoming student was subjected to intense psychological conditioning designed to cleanse every preconception regarding architecture, so as to re-wire the student's neuronal circuits.
The studio method of architectural training lends itself perfectly as a technique for cult indoctrination. A student's project is judged -- without having a basis of proven logical criteria -- as to how far it resembles currently fashionable buildings. The student's grade is entirely up to the whim of the teacher. It is no wonder then that, despite the widely-pronounced aims of limitless creativity, all students' projects tend to look the same and to conform to stylistic dogma. Students who don't adopt the cult's beliefs are eliminated before they can get their degrees, so they never join the architectural profession."
It sounds a lot like the university environment that EKE was talking about.
notice that picture kerfuffle just linked isn't something a lower-middle class family of 4 could afford to live in.
that's because it's the US capital building.
anyway - this debate has gone into silly-land. Can we just agree that people largely dislike the LANDSCAPE that is overly car-centric? And people really just want buildings that FEEL like they did before we made drive-up and drive-thru and drive-past built environments? That dick tracy stage-set police station is a perfect example of this - we're desperately trying to recreate CIVIC buildings but can't get beyond bland surface treatment because no one can walk anywhere anymore. it's this vague idea that at one time people walked into the building off the street... now I bet the REAL entrance is off the back next to the parking lot.
THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM - not this stupid nonsense about "traditional" vs "modern."
It is not about "ornament". Unless one studies and appreciated traditional architecture he or she will be forever reinventing the wheel. A wheel that was invented and modified and adapted and changed by countless architects and builders over time.
Consider just one proposition of the modernists: all those hermitically sealed glass bulidings of Corb lined up to infinity relied on a future very cheap source of energy for heating and air conditioning. Well, that premise has pretty much been shot down. If you are going to design for energy efficiency you could take a trip to St. Augustine, Mobile, and New Orleans to look at the wrap-around balconies, tall doors and windows on the older buildings, or to Savannah and Charleston to look at the city homes and townhouses to see how they adapted to the hot climate. You could go to the hill country of Texas and look at the homes made with massive limestone walls fitted with small windows on the south side to cope with the heat. Designing for cold? Might want to see how they have coped in Minneapolis and St Paul for generations before starting design work on something that strictly reilies on modernist dicta.
anyway - this debate has gone into silly-land. Can we just agree that people largely dislike the LANDSCAPE that is overly car-centric? And people really just want buildings that FEEL like they did before we made drive-up and drive-thru and drive-past built environments?
Every incoming student was subjected to intense psychological conditioning designed to cleanse every preconception regarding architecture
suri - Your source makes the Bauhaus sound like Operation Treadstone. If you had even the beginning of a clue you would understand that the Bauhaus is rooted in the Beaux Arts including the study of classical design. But since you are unable to hear to anything other than the sound of your own voice echoing through the hollow cavity perched atop your shoulders, I humbly suggest that the inaccurately described program of education above would be highly beneficial to you.
volunteer wrote "Consider just one proposition of the modernists: all those hermitically sealed glass bulidings of Corb lined up to infinity relied on a future very cheap source of energy for heating and air conditioning. Well, that premise has pretty much been shot down. If you are going to design for energy efficiency you could take a trip to St. Augustine, Mobile, and New Orleans to look at the wrap-around balconies, tall doors and windows on the older buildings, or to Savannah and Charleston to look at the city homes and townhouses to see how they adapted to the hot climate"
__________
Well one can belabor the issue of designing inefficient and unsustainable houses regardless of architectural style or aesthetics. A tudor mansion is certainly no more efficient or sustainable than a modern house. I've seen plenty of builder homes that are air-tight and efficient as long as you don't crack a window while the A/C runs. And the floor plans aren't conducive to cross-ventilation either. A/C made a lot of things possible and much not for the better in my opinion. I've worked in traditional and "modern" office buildings and can't say that either of them were conducive to natural ventilation. One of the few exceptions was the 1900 school building that still had functional windows.
No matter how much I try convince my clients to go with natural ventilation for a house, the mere thought of suffering the summer heat with A/C is downright unthinkable, so designing a building with that function becomes a challenge unless you have a client that buys into it 100%. Heck I ran into that mindset in non-humid places like Denver, let alone New Orleans.
There is a regional architect here in Louisiana named Eddie Cazayoux who wrote a book on sustainable design in humid climates (specifically south Louisiana) and his principles - deep overhangs, site placement for prevailing breezes, designing for cross ventilation and heat exhaustion, etc.. are applicable to any style of architecture. While Cazayoux's focused on applying those principles to the traditional Creole cottage, shotgun, dogtrot or Acadian cottage, someone like Glenn Murcutt applies the same design principles and strategies to his decidedly modern residences. And the houses are pleasures to be in because of the thought and care that goes into the design, function and operability as well as attention to detail, craft and siting - regardless of the style.
I've seen poorly designed "stylized rustic" log houses in the mountains of Colorado that rely on all of the modern conveniences of HVAC, insulation and high performance glass that perform no better than a 'modern' house in the same area. I've been in "International style" buildings that leak like sieves and the steel glazing has rotted out over time. Really for me, bad design is bad design. Designing in one particular style or language makes no matter to me. If you like the strict neo-Classical style over Gothic so what. If you prefer the aesthetic of Richard Meier's "high modernism" to the regional modernism of Miller/Hull so what. I think James Cutler's new Portland office building is certainly better than Graves' Portland Building which is a hodge-podge homage to classical symbolism and doesn't function well at all.
The aesthetics of contemporary buildings that I find the most fascinating and some are quite beautiful are not in the traditional "international" style nor do they hew to traditional mannerisms either, but are derived from the client brief, are responsive to the context at both the street and building levels, are contextually sensitive but not reductive nor reproductive in "style", are attempting to be and sometimes achieving high levels of sustainability, and exhibit attention to human details and care of craft. For me it comes down to good architecture vs. bad architecture.
The aesthetics of contemporary buildings that I find the most fascinating and some are quite beautiful are not in the traditional "international" style nor do they hew to traditional mannerisms either, but are derived from the client brief, are responsive to the context at both the street and building levels, are contextually sensitive but not reductive nor reproductive in "style", are attempting to be and sometimes achieving high levels of sustainability, and exhibit attention to human details and care of craft. For me it comes down to good architecture vs. bad architecture.
Here is traditional American architecture. It is as sustainable as can be; it is fully context-independent (you move it to where you like the context, and out of where you don't); it is all function, while allowing plenty of surface for decoration. I don't even care if there's a million polls showing that people like pseudo-Greek/Roman/French/English buildings, because the vast majority of people who live in North America are blissfully ignorant of the real history and traditions of their environment. Suri is as good a self-appointed speaker for them as they will probably ever get.
All other building traditions have somewhat of a hard time fitting in on this continent.
+ iamus +Volunteer +EKE +Quondam
Detractors of Classical architectural languages seem to ignore the existence of many different forms of classicism. Indian, Japanese, Chinese, etc. that flourished with little to no cross-pollination with Greeks or Romans. Eurocentrism at its best.
Central Asia and points east were subjected to heavy Hellenic influence between 4th and 7th centuries AD. - that is following Alexander the Great's conquests, and preceding multiple Islamic empires. If you look into the history of a city like Samarkand (where one of the main influences on Taj Mahal, Tamerlan's tomb is located), you will learn that advanced masonry and plastering techniques were imported to Asia from Greece.
If you can't see the Byzantine origins of the Taj Mahal, I suggest vacating the mind of preconceived notions of originality or a visit to the optometrist.
No doubt about it there was influence. Not just architecture and trade, but even philosophy and religion. There are many clues that Buddhist monks heavily influenced early Christian thought. The Mughals brought a lot with them from the East as well. The point I was making was that, precisely, neither the Greeks nor the Romans, Etruscans, Cretians, et al had any kind of corner on the market of what we now refer to as Classical architecture.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
hear, hear, miles! i've said it before - probably in this thread - when you stand in front of the bauhaus in dessau, it's clear that gropius grew out of the classical tradition via behrens & schinkel. unavoidable.
Mmmmmm, Schinkel. Such yummy, delicious, satisfying Modern Neo Classical. SO decadently restrained, so luxuriously concise.
Let's all stop arguing for a moment to bask in its beauty...and note how it breaks every rule proffered up on this thread. Delectable.
eke, i would say the "good" "modern" designers also spend a lot of time self-teaching themselves. you still got some sort of foundation related to architecture in school, and hopefully the tools and training to self-teach yourself. that's the foundation colleges should be providing students. students shouldn't just leave college thinking they know what they're doing, they should leave college expecting to spend the rest of their careers learning how to be better architects.
Mmmmmm, Schinkel. Such yummy, delicious, satisfying Modern Neo Classical. SO decadently restrained, so luxuriously concise.
"Schinkel's plans for the Königliches Museum, as it was then known, were also influenced by drafts of the crown prince, later King Friedrich Wilhelm IV, who desired a building that was heavily influenced by antiquity. The crown prince even sent Schinkel a pencil sketch of a large hall adorned with a classical portico."
Alas. LOL
EKE,
I love reading your well reasoned appeals. It's clear they aren't making a dent with many, especially curtkram, who insists on re-writting every point to suit his argument. You can even use his own words to point out the fallacy of his arguments, to the point that he acknowledges personal preferences lay at the root of his personal preferences.
i'm just saying i like something different.
Even when Jaffe points out that the early modernists had a Beaux-Arts education and went on to design abstract minimalism, it seems that what he calls "copying other people's ornamentation" is still evident in the work of Gropius and LeCorbusier.
So by that logic (if we dare), teaching everyone in the Beaux Arts wouldn't hold any young architect back from throwing it all in the waste basket, becasue its resonance in thier future work would be "unavoidable." Afterall, nothing is quite as delicious being 'restrained decedantly'.
It'll be interesting if we can push this thread to 600 by doing more donuts in the field. Does anyone know the most comments generated on this site? In the mean time, I'll keep reading this pathetic fear of traditional architecture and all the evil it would bestow on our young minds as the ideologues guard the gates of the ivory towers against the barbarians.
Firmess, commodity, and delight. Man the towers!
Schinkel was great. Thanks for posting. I saw many of his great buildings when I was in Berlin earlier this year.
By the way, I see little connection aesthetically, and no connection philosophically between Gropius and Schinkel.
that's becasue when one manages to "shake off the programming (they) received at the university" they tend to loose the ability to connect disparate ideas with-in a concept. Much like being decadent and restrained at the same time, all though there are some life style choices where that seems possible, so I stand corrected. Less is infact more, black is white, and starting pre-emptive war is promoting democracy.
thayer, i'm pretty sure i've been incredibly consistent in saying i respect the work eke does and the path he's chosen for himself. i've been consistent in saying my chosen preference towards modern design is my own taste.
i disagree with the notion that the public as a whole prefers traditional architecture. i don't think suri has the credentials to declare what public opinion is. i disagree with the notion that our schools should change how they teach to meet whatever crazy shit is in your head, that you are apparently unable to communicate, except to say it should be 'traditional.' the way architecture education is structured in america is already heavily influenced by the structure of the beaux-arts. i disagree with the notion that there is some sort inherent psychological sense of beauty that all people are born with that coincides with traditional ornamentation common in western architecture.
whether eke spent his time at a university learning modern or traditional design, i think he presents himself as an educated person with a reasonable opinion on architecture, even though he happened to arrive at a conclusion different than me. i don't think you present yourself as well as eke does. you don't seem to have any idea of what "modern" might be, and the term "traditional" seem so broad to you that it could include anything that suits you in a given moment, then exclude the same thing in the next sentence if that's what happened to suit you.
if you really think there is a fallacy in my argument due to me saying i have a personal preference, i would guess either you choose to not understand what i'm saying, or you're unable to understand what i'm saying.
"i don't think suri has the credentials to declare what public opinion is"
"i disagree with the notion that the public as a whole prefers traditional architecture"
So he dosen't, but you do? Did they teach you that in your school, "already heavily influenced by the structure of the beaux-arts"? Maybe you would you at least grant that suri has the credentials to state an opinion with a declarative sentence.
"i don't think you present yourself as well as eke does."
Here is one instance where I not only understand what you are saying, but I couldn't agree more. It might be that he knows better than I what it was like to have fallen for so much bullshit. Empathy is the hallmark of a civilized person.
"i disagree with the notion that the public as a whole prefers traditional architecture."
Would polls or surveys convince you curt?
As soon as they include the public as a whole, I wager.
Thayer-D, you're worse than suri/aojwny. Don't pretend to speak for me with quotes of things I never said, or imply things that I didn't. My comments are not to be twisted to suit whatever inane argument you are trying to make.
Even when Jaffe points out that the early modernists had a Beaux-Arts education and went on to design abstract minimalism, it seems that what he calls "copying other people's ornamentation" is still evident in the work of Gropius and LeCorbusier.
A sampling of the public as a whole or every man woman and child in society being included? These are the only two I could find (without heavy searching)
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=27767
http://beatusest.blogspot.com/2009/11/when-survey-shows-britons-prefer.html
I don't suppose we will see anyone funding a full out scientific study on this anytime soon, but whenever we do see something, it suggests the obvious.
Evidence of proper sampling methodology besides "myself and the majority of people I have talked to about architecture".
"whenever we do see something, it suggests the obvious."
It comes as no surprise that your understanding of statistics is about as thorough as your understanding of architecture.
Exactly, SneakyPete.
When you poll Americans what their favorite building is, they say things like "The White House because it reminds me of AmericaFuckYeah!". That's not the same as asking what kind of architecture they prefer.
What you call "understanding architecture" I call indoctrination.
Just check the links Donna.
Also hahahaha sorry but follow that church survey suxi linked and look at what the four choices were: a Gothic pile and three turds. Who *wouldn't* choose the Gothic pile? It's hilarious and totally not scientific or meaningful in any serious way.
Let me be clear. I don't have a problem with your personal opinions about architecture. What I have a problem with is your cheerleader-like enthusiasm based on a flawed premise e.g. you're speaking for more people than just yourself. That egotism prevents me from having any interest in discussing with you the merits of traditional vs. modern architecture.
Here you go Donna. I encourage you to take the survey to see if its up to your standards.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/blog/en/blog/2013/10/03/architecture-palo-alto/
This quote shares the obvious "The response percentages are consistent with a dozen other surveys on architecture performed elsewhere over the last thirty years, indicating that the public tends to prefer traditional styles to modern ones by a large margin, usually 3:1 or greater."
I think you guys are out of touch if this comes as a surprise to you.
Shall we ask Mitt Romney how he feels about surveys and being out of touch?
Sure, what would he tell us?
If you only follow the polls that tell you what you want to hear you end up disappointed.
A fine point to make when the polls are in the 40 and 50 percents.
Again. If you were espousing your opinions, I'd be interested. I tend to prefer classical to modern myself. Instead you're standing on a soap box fifty stories tall shouting as if you're responsible for the opinions of everyone.
Nobody asked you to go to bat for them. Take it from someone who might have agreed with you if you hadn't tried to shovel so much bullshit regarding the universal credibility of your opinion.
http://www.intbau.org/archive/essay3.htm
Here is an interesting essay titled "20th century architecture as a cult".
Here is a memorable gem "One of the slogans of the Bauhaus was "starting from zero". Its aim was a radical restructuring of human consciousness. Every incoming student was subjected to intense psychological conditioning designed to cleanse every preconception regarding architecture, so as to re-wire the student's neuronal circuits.
The studio method of architectural training lends itself perfectly as a technique for cult indoctrination. A student's project is judged -- without having a basis of proven logical criteria -- as to how far it resembles currently fashionable buildings. The student's grade is entirely up to the whim of the teacher. It is no wonder then that, despite the widely-pronounced aims of limitless creativity, all students' projects tend to look the same and to conform to stylistic dogma. Students who don't adopt the cult's beliefs are eliminated before they can get their degrees, so they never join the architectural profession."
It sounds a lot like the university environment that EKE was talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Favorite_Architecture
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/973/Bungalows-Are-Peoples-Choice-In-England.aspx
http://bit.ly/1hI4sfK
/thread
@curtkram:I know this is a few pages back:
notice that picture kerfuffle just linked isn't something a lower-middle class family of 4 could afford to live in.
that's because it's the US capital building.
anyway - this debate has gone into silly-land. Can we just agree that people largely dislike the LANDSCAPE that is overly car-centric? And people really just want buildings that FEEL like they did before we made drive-up and drive-thru and drive-past built environments? That dick tracy stage-set police station is a perfect example of this - we're desperately trying to recreate CIVIC buildings but can't get beyond bland surface treatment because no one can walk anywhere anymore. it's this vague idea that at one time people walked into the building off the street... now I bet the REAL entrance is off the back next to the parking lot.
THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM - not this stupid nonsense about "traditional" vs "modern."
It is not about "ornament". Unless one studies and appreciated traditional architecture he or she will be forever reinventing the wheel. A wheel that was invented and modified and adapted and changed by countless architects and builders over time. Consider just one proposition of the modernists: all those hermitically sealed glass bulidings of Corb lined up to infinity relied on a future very cheap source of energy for heating and air conditioning. Well, that premise has pretty much been shot down. If you are going to design for energy efficiency you could take a trip to St. Augustine, Mobile, and New Orleans to look at the wrap-around balconies, tall doors and windows on the older buildings, or to Savannah and Charleston to look at the city homes and townhouses to see how they adapted to the hot climate. You could go to the hill country of Texas and look at the homes made with massive limestone walls fitted with small windows on the south side to cope with the heat. Designing for cold? Might want to see how they have coped in Minneapolis and St Paul for generations before starting design work on something that strictly reilies on modernist dicta.
anyway - this debate has gone into silly-land. Can we just agree that people largely dislike the LANDSCAPE that is overly car-centric? And people really just want buildings that FEEL like they did before we made drive-up and drive-thru and drive-past built environments?
Agree with that!
"this debate has gone into silly-land"
At least we've recovered slightly from the low point of yelling circumcision 100 times in a row.
"We" still have the tendency to ignore those points to which we have no answer.
Every incoming student was subjected to intense psychological conditioning designed to cleanse every preconception regarding architecture
suri - Your source makes the Bauhaus sound like Operation Treadstone. If you had even the beginning of a clue you would understand that the Bauhaus is rooted in the Beaux Arts including the study of classical design. But since you are unable to hear to anything other than the sound of your own voice echoing through the hollow cavity perched atop your shoulders, I humbly suggest that the inaccurately described program of education above would be highly beneficial to you.
Miles Jaffe: "That's like your opinion, man. You don't know what you're talking about. Bauhaus good. *insults*"
^ Where exactly did I say the Bauhaus was good?
Insults are in the ear of the beholder. Buddha would consider an empty head a blessing.
suri's cup runneth over. And over and over.
volunteer wrote "Consider just one proposition of the modernists: all those hermitically sealed glass bulidings of Corb lined up to infinity relied on a future very cheap source of energy for heating and air conditioning. Well, that premise has pretty much been shot down. If you are going to design for energy efficiency you could take a trip to St. Augustine, Mobile, and New Orleans to look at the wrap-around balconies, tall doors and windows on the older buildings, or to Savannah and Charleston to look at the city homes and townhouses to see how they adapted to the hot climate"
__________
Well one can belabor the issue of designing inefficient and unsustainable houses regardless of architectural style or aesthetics. A tudor mansion is certainly no more efficient or sustainable than a modern house. I've seen plenty of builder homes that are air-tight and efficient as long as you don't crack a window while the A/C runs. And the floor plans aren't conducive to cross-ventilation either. A/C made a lot of things possible and much not for the better in my opinion. I've worked in traditional and "modern" office buildings and can't say that either of them were conducive to natural ventilation. One of the few exceptions was the 1900 school building that still had functional windows.
No matter how much I try convince my clients to go with natural ventilation for a house, the mere thought of suffering the summer heat with A/C is downright unthinkable, so designing a building with that function becomes a challenge unless you have a client that buys into it 100%. Heck I ran into that mindset in non-humid places like Denver, let alone New Orleans.
There is a regional architect here in Louisiana named Eddie Cazayoux who wrote a book on sustainable design in humid climates (specifically south Louisiana) and his principles - deep overhangs, site placement for prevailing breezes, designing for cross ventilation and heat exhaustion, etc.. are applicable to any style of architecture. While Cazayoux's focused on applying those principles to the traditional Creole cottage, shotgun, dogtrot or Acadian cottage, someone like Glenn Murcutt applies the same design principles and strategies to his decidedly modern residences. And the houses are pleasures to be in because of the thought and care that goes into the design, function and operability as well as attention to detail, craft and siting - regardless of the style.
I've seen poorly designed "stylized rustic" log houses in the mountains of Colorado that rely on all of the modern conveniences of HVAC, insulation and high performance glass that perform no better than a 'modern' house in the same area. I've been in "International style" buildings that leak like sieves and the steel glazing has rotted out over time. Really for me, bad design is bad design. Designing in one particular style or language makes no matter to me. If you like the strict neo-Classical style over Gothic so what. If you prefer the aesthetic of Richard Meier's "high modernism" to the regional modernism of Miller/Hull so what. I think James Cutler's new Portland office building is certainly better than Graves' Portland Building which is a hodge-podge homage to classical symbolism and doesn't function well at all.
The aesthetics of contemporary buildings that I find the most fascinating and some are quite beautiful are not in the traditional "international" style nor do they hew to traditional mannerisms either, but are derived from the client brief, are responsive to the context at both the street and building levels, are contextually sensitive but not reductive nor reproductive in "style", are attempting to be and sometimes achieving high levels of sustainability, and exhibit attention to human details and care of craft. For me it comes down to good architecture vs. bad architecture.
The aesthetics of contemporary buildings that I find the most fascinating and some are quite beautiful are not in the traditional "international" style nor do they hew to traditional mannerisms either, but are derived from the client brief, are responsive to the context at both the street and building levels, are contextually sensitive but not reductive nor reproductive in "style", are attempting to be and sometimes achieving high levels of sustainability, and exhibit attention to human details and care of craft. For me it comes down to good architecture vs. bad architecture.
+++++ iamus
Here is traditional American architecture. It is as sustainable as can be; it is fully context-independent (you move it to where you like the context, and out of where you don't); it is all function, while allowing plenty of surface for decoration. I don't even care if there's a million polls showing that people like pseudo-Greek/Roman/French/English buildings, because the vast majority of people who live in North America are blissfully ignorant of the real history and traditions of their environment. Suri is as good a self-appointed speaker for them as they will probably ever get.
All other building traditions have somewhat of a hard time fitting in on this continent.
+ iamus +Volunteer +EKE +Quondam
I think by "tradition" suri means after the whites came and slaughtered the natives.
You know the "feel good" stuff.
you mean white people's architecture like this one?
Central Asia and points east were subjected to heavy Hellenic influence between 4th and 7th centuries AD. - that is following Alexander the Great's conquests, and preceding multiple Islamic empires. If you look into the history of a city like Samarkand (where one of the main influences on Taj Mahal, Tamerlan's tomb is located), you will learn that advanced masonry and plastering techniques were imported to Asia from Greece.
If you can't see the Byzantine origins of the Taj Mahal, I suggest vacating the mind of preconceived notions of originality or a visit to the optometrist.
* 4th C BC - 7th C AD
** the above was mainly aimed at trip to fame
No doubt about it there was influence. Not just architecture and trade, but even philosophy and religion. There are many clues that Buddhist monks heavily influenced early Christian thought. The Mughals brought a lot with them from the East as well. The point I was making was that, precisely, neither the Greeks nor the Romans, Etruscans, Cretians, et al had any kind of corner on the market of what we now refer to as Classical architecture.
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.