I believe that our aesthetic tastes are a combination of "nature" and "nurture". In other words, some of what we find appealing aesthetically is innate, hardwired into our DNA, and some of it is cultural, and learned. "Heart and head", body and mind. I think that good architecture should operate in both realms, and appeal to both.
I think that the appreciation of the truly beautiful is innate, and is hardwired. It's part of our firmware. But architecture needs to operate on other levels, and should appeal to our mind as well. We need to find intellectual reasons to want the architecture to be the way it is, i.e. different levels of meaning beyond the beautiful. These reasons can be acquired though learning. By endeavoring to learn more about the rationale for a building design, I can discover new reasons to love the architecture.
I think that great architecture operates in both realms simultaneously. I think that unsuccessful traditional architecture often succeeds in the "heart" arena, presenting beautiful forms, but fails to engage our minds by offering intellectual reasons want them to be the way they are. Unsuccessful modernist buildings often present intriguing and appealing rationales for their design, engaging our minds, but fall short in tapping into our innate sense of the beautiful. Functionality and intellectual rigor are not substitutes for beauty.
In my opinion, great architecture of any language must do both.
What I'm saying is if I don't like the meal after I eat it, no amount of talking, reading, or education is going to change my opinion.
I agree, but do you then just go back to eating what your momma made. I would say NO. You figure out what you like and dislike and try to make something better with the ingredients and processes available. You deconstruct and reconstruct. You don't just accept that momma new best and copy her.
The problem is that the "public" does not think about architecture enough to actually deconstruct something that they like into its "ingredients." They usually just point to a certain thing and say "I want that." The job of the architect is to ask why, what do you like about it? could you name a few characteristics that are important without naming any specific building or tectonic expression? What specifically makes you feel good about it? The architect should deconstruct the logic and basic characteristics and use those to compose something better. A good architect does not meet the clients expectations they challenge them and exceed them. I would say that any building traditional or contemporary has a basic fundamental logic and some basic root elements and characteristics. For instance, Massive rammed earth walls, courtyards with creeping vines, deep recessed openings, geometric patterns in lattice structure, the way footsteps sound in a cathedral, symmetry, asymmetry, etc.......Its the ingredients and the way they are composed that make the architecture feel a certain way not the period, or the "ism," or the philosophy its tied to. However, these ingredients also have certain functions, and sometimes these functions are regionally specific. Sometimes the ingredients have to be substituted for more available, sustainable, and economic ones. Most people just want to cut and paste. They don't ever really think to deeply about what they want and need. If they did, the chances that their wants and needs would be the same as those of a 2000 year old roman is slim to none and therefore their architecture will naturally not be the same. So of course we learn from the past, of course we apply certain things we like from here and there, but in the end good design is about composing a unified whole from certain basic characteristics for a certain function (be it spiritual, practical, psychological, structural, etc...) and doing so in a regionally appropriate way.
To much emphasis on isms and eras.......I look at Aztec ruins, Corbu, Imaginary castles in movies, Japanese gardens, Ancient Rome, Tadao Ando, SANNA, Rem, everything and anything.......Absorb it all and take what you like without getting into specifics, then use those things to make something new and better, not just new for the sake of novelty, or old for the sake of nostalgia, but to improve and advance.
The problem is that the "public" does not think about architecture enough to actually deconstruct something that they like into its "ingredients." They usually just point to a certain thing and say "I want that."
In other words they say "I want a peanut butter and jelly sandwich." If they ask a chef to do this, they should be saying, "I love peanut butter and jelly now make me the best pbj like its never been made before or make me something that will satisfy a pbj craving without it actually being pbj"......or else if all they want is a regular pbj sandwich they should just ask their momma to make it because that's not what chefs do!
Are you still taking about traditional architecture with your pb and j analogy? You chefs are too advanced to bother with a gothic cathedral and we should go to ma for that kind of stuff?
when they were building gothic cathedrals back in the gothic days, they didn't have engineers and osha and such. there were often cases where they built them too tall, and they collapsed and killed the workers and whoever else might have been passing by. of course you don't always see that with a romanticized nostalgic view of the past, but as an architect, i don't want to die, i don't want to kill other people, and i don't want to get sued for designing a building that fell down.
with regards to gothic cathedrals, ma didn't always do it right.
also, we've already been over the fact that the survey you supported said that the american public prefers art deco for their 'traditional' architecture. i'm not sure why you're going off on gothic now.
"also, we've already been over the fact that the survey you supported said that the american public prefers art deco among their 'traditional' architecture."
So weren't any chefs around 100s of years ago when all these peanut butter and jellies were being built to guide and challenge the client towards what they "really wanted to build"?
Suri, I am sure there were such chefs 100 years ago exactly as you're describing... and I am sure that even then there were ignorant folks like yourself complaining that these chefs were not cooking according to what, at that time, was thought (by the lowest common denominator) to be "traditional" PB & J sandwiches.
Doubtful they would when all else is considered. There are many more factors than aesthetics when putting together construction documents and design proposals, especially those paid for by public money. But you would not know that since you've obviously never designed and completed a building. Also, a decade is still a wicked long time for a project.
Don't worry, you can keep your ignorance card, it has yet to be revoked.
you're trying to speak for the entire public again suri. what sort of credentials do you have the all of the public would agree to the terms you're setting in their name?
Btw the building and interior were actually completed and used after half a decade, and then they spend another few years completing the exterior while it was occupied. 5 years does not seem unreasonable for a skyscraper.
curtkram, because most of the buildings on that wikipedia list (and in the world) are not of the caliber of gothic cathedrals, yet they are still loved by the public. One can logically assume they would settle for less than a century long project.
Are you still taking about traditional architecture with your pb and j analogy? You chefs are too advanced to bother with a gothic cathedral and we should go to ma for that kind of stuff?
You are one stubborn son of a bitch! Yes we are too advanced to revert back to 12th century technology and build a gothic cathedral lol. Are software designers too advanced to design 1982 software?
12th century technology? How about first century technology? Researchers have recently determined that the Romans mixed small amounts of volcanic ash into their cement improving the charactistics immeasurably. The Romans also applied the cement in a diferent manner using less water in the mixture. It is supposed to be one of the reasons the Panthenon is still standing and the ancient Roman port cement breakwaters and other structures are in such good shape. A dam is under construction in Colorado using both the Roman cement mixture and applications methods.
technology is what we use to create the aesthetic you want eke.
you can design in a bubble, without regard to technology, and then fill in the gaps with technology later if you want. that is a thing that i fully accept can happen, and don't want to deter you from that course if it's what you choose. you can also apply the logic of one technology to the design, and then implement it with another technology. as i recall, some of that ancient greek architecture actually had details from wood construction carved into their stone.
for me, it's better to keep in mind what technology you will be using to create the aesthetic you want while developing said design. if the design is a building. other forms of art and aesthetics fall into the purview of people other than architects.
there was a time, back in the day of punch cards, when programmers would write their programs to accommodate the spin of the hard drive so it would run faster and more efficiently. do you do that suri? seems their way is better than tossing together a bunch of obfuscated and uncommented code snippets and just hoping for the best. of course new technology like NCQ help, if you want to accept new technology into your traditional design.
Varying arguments here have attempted to demonstrate that the public wants traditional architecture.
Other arguments have demonstrated that the public is ignorant.
Draw your own conclusions.
suri: i'm sure the public would settle for ...
curtkram: what sort of credentials do you have the all of the public would agree to the terms you're setting in their name?
suri: because most of the buildings on that wikipedia list (and in the world) are not of the caliber of gothic cathedrals, yet they are still loved by the public
my dream, i was unable to sit thorough a minute of your link. i regret that, as i'm sure it is very informative and would have been useful information if i were able to exercise a bit more patience.
i think the following more closely illustrates my experience with design development.
well. excuse me for trying to be serious about a matter and I thought that people would be competent and give a crap about the profession that we work so hard to be apart of. There are people who take architecture seriously and do care about the public and want to make a difference in people's lives. I work hard to get to keep my job and I want to worker harder to get my license. ( I don't think you take your job seriously and I think you don't deserve to be an architect.)
And for the record as insulting as that was it was pretty stupid I didn't find it funny at all, but I did try to laugh :)
my dream, you are absolutely right (except the monty python being not funny part. they're funny). i was not being sarcastic with my lack of patience remarks at the beginning. you are the better person for you desire to learn, and i commend you for that. it is admirable and nobody should tell you otherwise. i'm pretty much just old and bitter, which has dulled my ability to take my job as serious as i often should.
on another not, that youtube link went to another which went to another with i have to share now.
SURI, IT'S HARD TO BE AN ARCHITECT. YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND.
I'm getting off topic from the op and it is really not what I want to do, but really 4:55 on that video is really landing home and the ending even more. HAHAHAHA that was hilarious.
It is precisely this view that many architects have, characterized by a belief that the public is ignorant, that I believe to be so sadly misguided, and has led to what I believe is a profound estrangement between the architecture profession and the public-at-large. This thread is exactly that phenomenon, in microcosm.
I agree, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. They cut and paste modernist designs from the magazine, traditional details from Pencil Points, pb&j recipes from the NYT's and Rand Paul from Wiki. But if you are learning by imitation, like the beaux arts trained modernists, maybe it's not the worst way to learn. I'm afraid there's not much one can do for those who want to take this short cut further into their careers though. It's a matter of personality, not style.
They don't ever really think to deeply about what they want and need. If they did, the chances that their wants and needs would be the same as those of a 2000 year old roman is slim to none and therefore their architecture will naturally not be the same.
First of all, I wouldn't presume to know exactly how deeply people think about what they want or need. I've been very surprised, and you might be to if you listened for more than the catch phrases that symbolize 'educated and informed'. Secondly, if you think a classical detail found on both a roman building and a Stanford White building means that the two buildings are the same...then it seems you look at architecture with the same depth as you listen to people talk about what they like.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat."
The only part of this I don't agree with is the first sentance.
I fully agree EKE, all though I would go further to say this estrangement was and is by design. One can read it in the many comments here, which to be fair, dosen't mean those saying them are arseholes or elites, but they might not be aware of how this language of "the others" has crept into thier vocabulary. It's evident in the manifestos of early modernism that ironically where intended, at least socially, to eliminate class and nationalist distinctions. They chose to slam the "borgoise" or middle class as we say today for trying to ape the upper classes, who of course where irredeamable. Nowadays they tend to go after "the masses", people who might cop to liking Britney Spears, until some smart fellow on Slate or Salon writes about how she speaks for a generation in an ironic way, then wow, she's amazing! I remember my education sublty and not so subtly promoting this artificial gulf or as one professor said, "the fly inveariably follows shit". More recently I heard it in a crit I attended where the Dean of the Architecture School himself was promoting this sense of superiority when he wasn't busy throwing out witty quips about the student's work. For all his playful suggestions, many of which where undoubtedly intelligent, he never stopped to ask the most obvious question. What would this feel like for people who would use this building? Who cares.
Nonsense. If anyone is undermining the "public's" intelligence it is Thayer and co with this pseudo-pathetic (as in false melodrama) nonsense that sees the public as regressive and his or her tendencies are. But one's public is not everyone's public.This sickly peculiarly nglo-saxonic admixture of esoteric practice of deracinated symbolism and the "speaking for the common man".
European imperial classical architecture, historically, has always been an elitist architecture that happens irrespective of the people. Even with the Greeks, the architect did not go around asking people what they liked. The architect would depend on a certain contemporary culture of arts that was necessarily composed of an elite spear-heading the civilization. I would argue that in fact, in the case of paradigmatic shifts, it would be the society that is led to reflect its representations rather than the other way around (as was posited within the counter-argument that architecture reflects society).
It is simply absurd to have a discussion with Thayer and co on their own grounds because their premise is reliant on fabricating a specific public they start wailing for and a fake ahistoricity presented as history (i'm almost sure this point will be misunderstood) . this pseudo pathetic melodrama fronting an evangelism that really could care less about the public.
when someone starts to justify one's personal choice through resorting to a claim that this is the people's choice, as has been done insidiously and overtly here by Thayer and co...start doubting that someone's intellectual sincerity.
I question the presumption that architects who produce "Traditional Architecture" are unavailable, which is how this discussion began, I believe.
One of the foremost practices in the country does this very thing, led by one of the world's most prominent architects/educators. If you are unfamiliar, I suggest you check out the work of RAMSA: http://www.ramsa.com/en/index.html.
Robert A. M. Stern has made quite a career for himself doing largely traditional architecture and has been the dean of one of the world's most respected schools of architecture for a long time. He has a lot of influence, maybe more than just about anyone else in architecture. He is definitely not an outsider among this profession's top rank.
You may ask, "Why don't we hear more about his work and see bloggers drooling over glossy shots of his Hampty Hamps houses?" I would offer that there isn't much to say. We understand and are familiar with what he does. Most of us rather spend time looking forward and trying to understand the innovators.
We live in an age of unparalleled change in almost every endeavor - medicine, finance, design, fashion - the news tries to track this. It is called "the news" after all. Architecture and its press are no different.
Your perceptions of what is being built may be skewed by what you see discussed and promoted. But I assure you, traditional architecture is not going anywhere anytime soon. There are plenty people willing to pay for it and many architects (even prominent ones) willing and able to provide it.
Of course architecture and art has always been created by an artistic elite. This was true in antiquity, and throughout history, and remains true today. The real question is how the public feels about the art and architecture that the elite has created. Is there a real consensus in favor of it?
Now that we're over 800 posts, I suspect that all that needs to be said has been said. I'll conclude my participation by saying that despite what some here may believe, I do care very much indeed about what the public wants, and what my clients want. My highest goal is to make buildings that make people's lives better, that make them happy. Ill also say that in my opinion, you may accuse me of any number of grievances, but intellectual insincerity is certainly not one of them.
Robert A. M. Stern has made quite a career for himself doing largely traditional architecture
To call Stern traditional is to ignore a substantial portion of his <cough> work. Or to reinforce the idea that the populace is uneducated.
European imperial classical architecture, historically, has always been an elitist architecture that happens irrespective of the people.
All architecture is elitist. Created by elites for elites. The occasionally exception proves the rule. NYC's High Line - a great public space - has spurred a tremendous amount of exclusive high-end development.
I agree with Fish that architects can be found who can produce good traditional design, such as Robert Stern. My issue is that there are not enough to prevent a great deal of poorly designed traditionally styled buildings from being built today, thus the need for some training in traditional architecture in the schools today.
I know there have been requests for definitions of traditional architecture, and I copy here a definition that I wrote last year as part of a paper making the case for traditional design, which I plan to upload to my website as a result of the discussion in this thread:
"When traditional architecture is mentioned, the first thing likely to come to mind for many people is the old farmhouses they see on drives through the country. That is certainly one definition that makes sense; however, contemporary expressions of traditional architecture go far beyond that. I have chosen to call such expressions 'contemporary traditional architecture.'
"The adjective 'contemporary' clearly indicates that this type of architecture is current; it is the 'traditional' adjective that needs further definition. Traditional in this context means the designer is drawing on forms, materials, and stylistic influences that have gone before, whether from the local region, or elsewhere. Another description is that of architect Stephen Mouzan, author of The Original Green, who describes what he calls 'living tradition' in the context of sustainability as 'the collective intelligence behind . . . sustainable buildings and sustainable places.' Historic buildings and places, or new buildings and places designed using lessons learned in the past, represent this living tradition.
'When used today, this kind of design does not myopically look back at the past as some golden age (although examples of such can be found). Rather, it looks to the future, remembering the lessons of the past, and building on them. A design by Mouzan was widely touted when it was illustrated in a Wall Street Journal article titled 'The Green House of the Future' (April 17, 2009). Another example is the 2002 design by Robert A.M. Stern Architects for the International Storytelling Center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. This building responds very sensitively to its context, without copying any building that came before."
I wonder, can "the public" even tell the difference between a "poorly designed traditionally styled building" and a "traditional architecture trained designed traditionally styled building?"
Nice one Quondam. As if... The public dosen't know its head from its ass.
I wonder if the public can tell the difference between a Shingle styled house in Brookline Mass. from 1905 and a Mc Mansion with seven gables and a three car garage from 2005? I bet they couldn't tell the difference between a 1913 bungalow in Pasedena and a contemporary one with real Spanich tiles in California's Inland Empire. And it takes years of study to tell the diference between an 1895 Chateauesque mansion on Madison Ave. and the contemporary version on the Sopranos. If you have no education, it's all just historical decals. Walt Disney's main street and Racine Wisconsin's Original Main street? That one's a little harder to differenciate on the count of all those artists Disney had access to.
Speaking of differences, how about knowing which is the master piece, Mies's Seagrams or a random 1970's glass office building in Downtown Kansas City?
In this example the client was apparently looking for something that related to the history of the area. The village has a quaint historic downtown and is in an area with a good deal of historical associations. Anyway, the architect has done what he could without much understanding of classical proportions or detailing. The masssive pilasters on the tower support a plain frieze above which is a box cornice, all with no detail, and all except the cornice (which really is just a boxed eave, hardly deserves being called a cornice) out of dryvit, which gives very clumsy profiles (and is sometimes used for moldings, although not here). The dryvit bands on the pilasters are apparently meant to symbolize capitals, although that is unclear. The smaller pilasters have incised lines representing fluting (seen better here: http://www.geolocation.ws/v/P/29067935/clarence-center-fire-hall/en), and the capitals of the small pilasters are out of proportion by being too small (as well as lacking moldings, instead having some minimal banding trying to mimic typical moldings found on a capital), whereas the suggestion of capitals on the large tower pilasters are out of proportion by being too large. The entrance under the pedimented projection at the base of the tower is out of proportion by having a decently done pediment, but stubby pilasters and wall height not high enough for the size of the pediment, looking like it has been cut off at the knees.
So, to sum up, disastrous proportions and detailing and a poor use of materials combine to make an awful building. An architect trained in traditional or classical design could easily have avoided the first two problems. the choice of material may have been dictated to him. but even so, it is possible to do a better job with dryvit than this.
I have discussed this building with non-architect friends of mine, and they all find it clumsy and ugly. They know that it is not well-designed for trying to be traditional.
I was questioning the difference between two buildings both designed and built today.
Training is training, whether you had it 100 years ago or are self taught like many people that design traditional work today. Just look at the general quality of good traditional design from the Greenwich mansions to the TND cottages. People might not have the vocabulary to describe the differences, but good massing, proportions, and detailing aren't that difficult to discern. Take a 5' deep McMansion decal porch vs. a good TND bungalow porch of 8'. Or the charm of a bloated McMansion's blank sidewalls who's vynal siding sways in the Arizoa heat vs. a thick walled adobe home with passive cooling court yards. There's a lot more to good traditional design than picking a style from your favorite pattern book, assuming you've taken the time to study it.
Quondam, I take it by that response that you have not practiced or studied much traditional architecture. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Materials, proportions (especially that tower), plan, symmetry...all of these are glaringly unrefined (to put it nicely) in that firehouse. I'd be shocked if your average Joe or Jane couldn't also see that the latter two examples are vastly superior.
Also this: http://nymag.com/arts/architecture/features/robert-am-stern-2013-11/
It's more than a bit humorous how the author's description of Stern's critics resembles the stock criticisms of a few posters here.
Congratulations on the high quantity of traditional training. However, from my modest training, I look at those column "capitals" on the fire station and I am puzzled at how a traditionally trained architect could not see the issues.
To a very trained eye, the three examples are not really all that different
Where did you recieve your training, if I might ask
I'm actually beginning to like the firehouse best, exactly because of it's play with symmetry and proportion
I agree, the proportion between the tower, gable and garage doors is indeed playful. Any chance that Bon Stern also? I know he likes earth tones, and the coupola on a tower is one of his favorite mannerist moves.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
suri, I always get the two mixed up, who cares. I'm a little dickslexic my self. Remember, this is the person who had to ask what a curtain wall was.
Suri, don't flatter yourself. You've demonstrated quite clearly that you don't know much unless it's copy-pasted from wiki.
Thayer, but, it is chunky or regular peanut butter?
"It's amusing how little changes when you switch from "normal" to "dick" mode." point taken.
I'm too civil as a dick aren't I.
Thayer-D
suri, I always get the two mixed up, who cares. I'm a little dickslexic my self. Remember, this is the person who had to ask what a curtain wall was.
Check your facts and check your attitude.
chunky.
My bad pete, I know you simply mispoke.
I believe that our aesthetic tastes are a combination of "nature" and "nurture". In other words, some of what we find appealing aesthetically is innate, hardwired into our DNA, and some of it is cultural, and learned. "Heart and head", body and mind. I think that good architecture should operate in both realms, and appeal to both.
I think that the appreciation of the truly beautiful is innate, and is hardwired. It's part of our firmware. But architecture needs to operate on other levels, and should appeal to our mind as well. We need to find intellectual reasons to want the architecture to be the way it is, i.e. different levels of meaning beyond the beautiful. These reasons can be acquired though learning. By endeavoring to learn more about the rationale for a building design, I can discover new reasons to love the architecture.
I think that great architecture operates in both realms simultaneously. I think that unsuccessful traditional architecture often succeeds in the "heart" arena, presenting beautiful forms, but fails to engage our minds by offering intellectual reasons want them to be the way they are. Unsuccessful modernist buildings often present intriguing and appealing rationales for their design, engaging our minds, but fall short in tapping into our innate sense of the beautiful. Functionality and intellectual rigor are not substitutes for beauty.
In my opinion, great architecture of any language must do both.
What I'm saying is if I don't like the meal after I eat it, no amount of talking, reading, or education is going to change my opinion.
I agree, but do you then just go back to eating what your momma made. I would say NO. You figure out what you like and dislike and try to make something better with the ingredients and processes available. You deconstruct and reconstruct. You don't just accept that momma new best and copy her.
The problem is that the "public" does not think about architecture enough to actually deconstruct something that they like into its "ingredients." They usually just point to a certain thing and say "I want that." The job of the architect is to ask why, what do you like about it? could you name a few characteristics that are important without naming any specific building or tectonic expression? What specifically makes you feel good about it? The architect should deconstruct the logic and basic characteristics and use those to compose something better. A good architect does not meet the clients expectations they challenge them and exceed them. I would say that any building traditional or contemporary has a basic fundamental logic and some basic root elements and characteristics. For instance, Massive rammed earth walls, courtyards with creeping vines, deep recessed openings, geometric patterns in lattice structure, the way footsteps sound in a cathedral, symmetry, asymmetry, etc.......Its the ingredients and the way they are composed that make the architecture feel a certain way not the period, or the "ism," or the philosophy its tied to. However, these ingredients also have certain functions, and sometimes these functions are regionally specific. Sometimes the ingredients have to be substituted for more available, sustainable, and economic ones. Most people just want to cut and paste. They don't ever really think to deeply about what they want and need. If they did, the chances that their wants and needs would be the same as those of a 2000 year old roman is slim to none and therefore their architecture will naturally not be the same. So of course we learn from the past, of course we apply certain things we like from here and there, but in the end good design is about composing a unified whole from certain basic characteristics for a certain function (be it spiritual, practical, psychological, structural, etc...) and doing so in a regionally appropriate way.
To much emphasis on isms and eras.......I look at Aztec ruins, Corbu, Imaginary castles in movies, Japanese gardens, Ancient Rome, Tadao Ando, SANNA, Rem, everything and anything.......Absorb it all and take what you like without getting into specifics, then use those things to make something new and better, not just new for the sake of novelty, or old for the sake of nostalgia, but to improve and advance.
The problem is that the "public" does not think about architecture enough to actually deconstruct something that they like into its "ingredients." They usually just point to a certain thing and say "I want that."
In other words they say "I want a peanut butter and jelly sandwich." If they ask a chef to do this, they should be saying, "I love peanut butter and jelly now make me the best pbj like its never been made before or make me something that will satisfy a pbj craving without it actually being pbj"......or else if all they want is a regular pbj sandwich they should just ask their momma to make it because that's not what chefs do!
Are you still taking about traditional architecture with your pb and j analogy? You chefs are too advanced to bother with a gothic cathedral and we should go to ma for that kind of stuff?
when they were building gothic cathedrals back in the gothic days, they didn't have engineers and osha and such. there were often cases where they built them too tall, and they collapsed and killed the workers and whoever else might have been passing by. of course you don't always see that with a romanticized nostalgic view of the past, but as an architect, i don't want to die, i don't want to kill other people, and i don't want to get sued for designing a building that fell down.
with regards to gothic cathedrals, ma didn't always do it right.
also, we've already been over the fact that the survey you supported said that the american public prefers art deco for their 'traditional' architecture. i'm not sure why you're going off on gothic now.
Curt, let's not forget that we don't really want our projects to take centuries to complete.
"also, we've already been over the fact that the survey you supported said that the american public prefers art deco among their 'traditional' architecture."
I corrected it for you.
So weren't any chefs around 100s of years ago when all these peanut butter and jellies were being built to guide and challenge the client towards what they "really wanted to build"?
Suri, I am sure there were such chefs 100 years ago exactly as you're describing... and I am sure that even then there were ignorant folks like yourself complaining that these chefs were not cooking according to what, at that time, was thought (by the lowest common denominator) to be "traditional" PB & J sandwiches.
Non Sequitor, i'm sure the public would settle for a cathedral of learning, which took under a decade to complete.
"...I'm sure the public would settle..."
Doubtful they would when all else is considered. There are many more factors than aesthetics when putting together construction documents and design proposals, especially those paid for by public money. But you would not know that since you've obviously never designed and completed a building. Also, a decade is still a wicked long time for a project.
Don't worry, you can keep your ignorance card, it has yet to be revoked.
you're trying to speak for the entire public again suri. what sort of credentials do you have the all of the public would agree to the terms you're setting in their name?
Btw the building and interior were actually completed and used after half a decade, and then they spend another few years completing the exterior while it was occupied. 5 years does not seem unreasonable for a skyscraper.
curtkram, because most of the buildings on that wikipedia list (and in the world) are not of the caliber of gothic cathedrals, yet they are still loved by the public. One can logically assume they would settle for less than a century long project.
Are you still taking about traditional architecture with your pb and j analogy? You chefs are too advanced to bother with a gothic cathedral and we should go to ma for that kind of stuff?
You are one stubborn son of a bitch! Yes we are too advanced to revert back to 12th century technology and build a gothic cathedral lol. Are software designers too advanced to design 1982 software?
suri, I hear Glen Beck is building a traditional commune somewhere. Maybe you could be his architect.
Technology is not the same thing as aesthetics. Big difference. Commingling the two is a big category error.
12th century technology? How about first century technology? Researchers have recently determined that the Romans mixed small amounts of volcanic ash into their cement improving the charactistics immeasurably. The Romans also applied the cement in a diferent manner using less water in the mixture. It is supposed to be one of the reasons the Panthenon is still standing and the ancient Roman port cement breakwaters and other structures are in such good shape. A dam is under construction in Colorado using both the Roman cement mixture and applications methods.
I read the OP a while ago, and thought that this video might show the effort architects make to do just that.
I haven't watched the whole video, but I am in the process of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSLVtAdiIsk
technology is what we use to create the aesthetic you want eke.
you can design in a bubble, without regard to technology, and then fill in the gaps with technology later if you want. that is a thing that i fully accept can happen, and don't want to deter you from that course if it's what you choose. you can also apply the logic of one technology to the design, and then implement it with another technology. as i recall, some of that ancient greek architecture actually had details from wood construction carved into their stone.
for me, it's better to keep in mind what technology you will be using to create the aesthetic you want while developing said design. if the design is a building. other forms of art and aesthetics fall into the purview of people other than architects.
there was a time, back in the day of punch cards, when programmers would write their programs to accommodate the spin of the hard drive so it would run faster and more efficiently. do you do that suri? seems their way is better than tossing together a bunch of obfuscated and uncommented code snippets and just hoping for the best. of course new technology like NCQ help, if you want to accept new technology into your traditional design.
Varying arguments here have attempted to demonstrate that the public wants traditional architecture.
Other arguments have demonstrated that the public is ignorant.
Draw your own conclusions.
suri: i'm sure the public would settle for ...
curtkram: what sort of credentials do you have the all of the public would agree to the terms you're setting in their name?
suri: because most of the buildings on that wikipedia list (and in the world) are not of the caliber of gothic cathedrals, yet they are still loved by the public
Talk about deaf! LOL. Truly epic.
my dream, i was unable to sit thorough a minute of your link. i regret that, as i'm sure it is very informative and would have been useful information if i were able to exercise a bit more patience.
i think the following more closely illustrates my experience with design development.
http://youtu.be/DyL5mAqFJds
you'll notice the Georgian design, clearly the better design, did not win the award.
^ Brilliant!
well. excuse me for trying to be serious about a matter and I thought that people would be competent and give a crap about the profession that we work so hard to be apart of. There are people who take architecture seriously and do care about the public and want to make a difference in people's lives. I work hard to get to keep my job and I want to worker harder to get my license. ( I don't think you take your job seriously and I think you don't deserve to be an architect.)
And for the record as insulting as that was it was pretty stupid I didn't find it funny at all, but I did try to laugh :)
my dream, you are absolutely right (except the monty python being not funny part. they're funny). i was not being sarcastic with my lack of patience remarks at the beginning. you are the better person for you desire to learn, and i commend you for that. it is admirable and nobody should tell you otherwise. i'm pretty much just old and bitter, which has dulled my ability to take my job as serious as i often should.
on another not, that youtube link went to another which went to another with i have to share now.
SURI, IT'S HARD TO BE AN ARCHITECT. YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND.
http://youtu.be/0lOHyeuPeIk
I'm getting off topic from the op and it is really not what I want to do, but really 4:55 on that video is really landing home and the ending even more. HAHAHAHA that was hilarious.
don't worry about it my dream. this thread died after the second post. feel free to take it any direction you want.
It is precisely this view that many architects have, characterized by a belief that the public is ignorant, that I believe to be so sadly misguided, and has led to what I believe is a profound estrangement between the architecture profession and the public-at-large. This thread is exactly that phenomenon, in microcosm.
Most people just want to cut and paste.
I agree, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. They cut and paste modernist designs from the magazine, traditional details from Pencil Points, pb&j recipes from the NYT's and Rand Paul from Wiki. But if you are learning by imitation, like the beaux arts trained modernists, maybe it's not the worst way to learn. I'm afraid there's not much one can do for those who want to take this short cut further into their careers though. It's a matter of personality, not style.
They don't ever really think to deeply about what they want and need. If they did, the chances that their wants and needs would be the same as those of a 2000 year old roman is slim to none and therefore their architecture will naturally not be the same.
First of all, I wouldn't presume to know exactly how deeply people think about what they want or need. I've been very surprised, and you might be to if you listened for more than the catch phrases that symbolize 'educated and informed'. Secondly, if you think a classical detail found on both a roman building and a Stanford White building means that the two buildings are the same...then it seems you look at architecture with the same depth as you listen to people talk about what they like.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat."
The only part of this I don't agree with is the first sentance.
You don't have to go through med school to know if a doctor is a quack.
I fully agree EKE, all though I would go further to say this estrangement was and is by design. One can read it in the many comments here, which to be fair, dosen't mean those saying them are arseholes or elites, but they might not be aware of how this language of "the others" has crept into thier vocabulary. It's evident in the manifestos of early modernism that ironically where intended, at least socially, to eliminate class and nationalist distinctions. They chose to slam the "borgoise" or middle class as we say today for trying to ape the upper classes, who of course where irredeamable. Nowadays they tend to go after "the masses", people who might cop to liking Britney Spears, until some smart fellow on Slate or Salon writes about how she speaks for a generation in an ironic way, then wow, she's amazing! I remember my education sublty and not so subtly promoting this artificial gulf or as one professor said, "the fly inveariably follows shit". More recently I heard it in a crit I attended where the Dean of the Architecture School himself was promoting this sense of superiority when he wasn't busy throwing out witty quips about the student's work. For all his playful suggestions, many of which where undoubtedly intelligent, he never stopped to ask the most obvious question. What would this feel like for people who would use this building? Who cares.
You don't have to go through med school to know if a doctor is a quack.
Or a hypochondriac.
Nonsense. If anyone is undermining the "public's" intelligence it is Thayer and co with this pseudo-pathetic (as in false melodrama) nonsense that sees the public as regressive and his or her tendencies are. But one's public is not everyone's public.This sickly peculiarly nglo-saxonic admixture of esoteric practice of deracinated symbolism and the "speaking for the common man".
European imperial classical architecture, historically, has always been an elitist architecture that happens irrespective of the people. Even with the Greeks, the architect did not go around asking people what they liked. The architect would depend on a certain contemporary culture of arts that was necessarily composed of an elite spear-heading the civilization. I would argue that in fact, in the case of paradigmatic shifts, it would be the society that is led to reflect its representations rather than the other way around (as was posited within the counter-argument that architecture reflects society).
It is simply absurd to have a discussion with Thayer and co on their own grounds because their premise is reliant on fabricating a specific public they start wailing for and a fake ahistoricity presented as history (i'm almost sure this point will be misunderstood) . this pseudo pathetic melodrama fronting an evangelism that really could care less about the public.
when someone starts to justify one's personal choice through resorting to a claim that this is the people's choice, as has been done insidiously and overtly here by Thayer and co...start doubting that someone's intellectual sincerity.
I question the presumption that architects who produce "Traditional Architecture" are unavailable, which is how this discussion began, I believe.
One of the foremost practices in the country does this very thing, led by one of the world's most prominent architects/educators. If you are unfamiliar, I suggest you check out the work of RAMSA: http://www.ramsa.com/en/index.html.
Robert A. M. Stern has made quite a career for himself doing largely traditional architecture and has been the dean of one of the world's most respected schools of architecture for a long time. He has a lot of influence, maybe more than just about anyone else in architecture. He is definitely not an outsider among this profession's top rank.
You may ask, "Why don't we hear more about his work and see bloggers drooling over glossy shots of his Hampty Hamps houses?" I would offer that there isn't much to say. We understand and are familiar with what he does. Most of us rather spend time looking forward and trying to understand the innovators.
We live in an age of unparalleled change in almost every endeavor - medicine, finance, design, fashion - the news tries to track this. It is called "the news" after all. Architecture and its press are no different.
Your perceptions of what is being built may be skewed by what you see discussed and promoted. But I assure you, traditional architecture is not going anywhere anytime soon. There are plenty people willing to pay for it and many architects (even prominent ones) willing and able to provide it.
Of course architecture and art has always been created by an artistic elite. This was true in antiquity, and throughout history, and remains true today. The real question is how the public feels about the art and architecture that the elite has created. Is there a real consensus in favor of it?
Now that we're over 800 posts, I suspect that all that needs to be said has been said. I'll conclude my participation by saying that despite what some here may believe, I do care very much indeed about what the public wants, and what my clients want. My highest goal is to make buildings that make people's lives better, that make them happy. Ill also say that in my opinion, you may accuse me of any number of grievances, but intellectual insincerity is certainly not one of them.
Robert A. M. Stern has made quite a career for himself doing largely traditional architecture
To call Stern traditional is to ignore a substantial portion of his <cough> work. Or to reinforce the idea that the populace is uneducated.
European imperial classical architecture, historically, has always been an elitist architecture that happens irrespective of the people.
All architecture is elitist. Created by elites for elites. The occasionally exception proves the rule. NYC's High Line - a great public space - has spurred a tremendous amount of exclusive high-end development.
I agree with Fish that architects can be found who can produce good traditional design, such as Robert Stern. My issue is that there are not enough to prevent a great deal of poorly designed traditionally styled buildings from being built today, thus the need for some training in traditional architecture in the schools today.
I know there have been requests for definitions of traditional architecture, and I copy here a definition that I wrote last year as part of a paper making the case for traditional design, which I plan to upload to my website as a result of the discussion in this thread:
"When traditional architecture is mentioned, the first thing likely to come to mind for many people is the old farmhouses they see on drives through the country. That is certainly one definition that makes sense; however, contemporary expressions of traditional architecture go far beyond that. I have chosen to call such expressions 'contemporary traditional architecture.'
"The adjective 'contemporary' clearly indicates that this type of architecture is current; it is the 'traditional' adjective that needs further definition. Traditional in this context means the designer is drawing on forms, materials, and stylistic influences that have gone before, whether from the local region, or elsewhere. Another description is that of architect Stephen Mouzan, author of The Original Green, who describes what he calls 'living tradition' in the context of sustainability as 'the collective intelligence behind . . . sustainable buildings and sustainable places.' Historic buildings and places, or new buildings and places designed using lessons learned in the past, represent this living tradition.
'When used today, this kind of design does not myopically look back at the past as some golden age (although examples of such can be found). Rather, it looks to the future, remembering the lessons of the past, and building on them. A design by Mouzan was widely touted when it was illustrated in a Wall Street Journal article titled 'The Green House of the Future' (April 17, 2009). Another example is the 2002 design by Robert A.M. Stern Architects for the International Storytelling Center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. This building responds very sensitively to its context, without copying any building that came before."
I wonder, can "the public" even tell the difference between a "poorly designed traditionally styled building" and a "traditional architecture trained designed traditionally styled building?"
Nice one Quondam. As if... The public dosen't know its head from its ass.
I wonder if the public can tell the difference between a Shingle styled house in Brookline Mass. from 1905 and a Mc Mansion with seven gables and a three car garage from 2005? I bet they couldn't tell the difference between a 1913 bungalow in Pasedena and a contemporary one with real Spanich tiles in California's Inland Empire. And it takes years of study to tell the diference between an 1895 Chateauesque mansion on Madison Ave. and the contemporary version on the Sopranos. If you have no education, it's all just historical decals. Walt Disney's main street and Racine Wisconsin's Original Main street? That one's a little harder to differenciate on the count of all those artists Disney had access to.
Speaking of differences, how about knowing which is the master piece, Mies's Seagrams or a random 1970's glass office building in Downtown Kansas City?
Quondam, I believe the public can usually tell the difference, almost always when presented with two examples side by side.
In my paper I used an example close to me in Western New York, the Clarence Center Volunteer Fire Company.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60197026@N00/10767993384/
In this example the client was apparently looking for something that related to the history of the area. The village has a quaint historic downtown and is in an area with a good deal of historical associations. Anyway, the architect has done what he could without much understanding of classical proportions or detailing. The masssive pilasters on the tower support a plain frieze above which is a box cornice, all with no detail, and all except the cornice (which really is just a boxed eave, hardly deserves being called a cornice) out of dryvit, which gives very clumsy profiles (and is sometimes used for moldings, although not here). The dryvit bands on the pilasters are apparently meant to symbolize capitals, although that is unclear. The smaller pilasters have incised lines representing fluting (seen better here: http://www.geolocation.ws/v/P/29067935/clarence-center-fire-hall/en), and the capitals of the small pilasters are out of proportion by being too small (as well as lacking moldings, instead having some minimal banding trying to mimic typical moldings found on a capital), whereas the suggestion of capitals on the large tower pilasters are out of proportion by being too large. The entrance under the pedimented projection at the base of the tower is out of proportion by having a decently done pediment, but stubby pilasters and wall height not high enough for the size of the pediment, looking like it has been cut off at the knees.
So, to sum up, disastrous proportions and detailing and a poor use of materials combine to make an awful building. An architect trained in traditional or classical design could easily have avoided the first two problems. the choice of material may have been dictated to him. but even so, it is possible to do a better job with dryvit than this.
I have discussed this building with non-architect friends of mine, and they all find it clumsy and ugly. They know that it is not well-designed for trying to be traditional.
1916
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xoc0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q&f=false
today
http://aap.cornell.edu/arch/programs/marchcurriculum.cfm
The differences in curriculum are painfully apparent in the built environment.
I was questioning the difference between two buildings both designed and built today.
Training is training, whether you had it 100 years ago or are self taught like many people that design traditional work today. Just look at the general quality of good traditional design from the Greenwich mansions to the TND cottages. People might not have the vocabulary to describe the differences, but good massing, proportions, and detailing aren't that difficult to discern. Take a 5' deep McMansion decal porch vs. a good TND bungalow porch of 8'. Or the charm of a bloated McMansion's blank sidewalls who's vynal siding sways in the Arizoa heat vs. a thick walled adobe home with passive cooling court yards. There's a lot more to good traditional design than picking a style from your favorite pattern book, assuming you've taken the time to study it.
Also this: http://nymag.com/arts/architecture/features/robert-am-stern-2013-11/
It's more than a bit humorous how the author's description of Stern's critics resembles the stock criticisms of a few posters here.
To a very trained eye, the three examples are not really all that different
Where did you recieve your training, if I might ask
I'm actually beginning to like the firehouse best, exactly because of it's play with symmetry and proportion
I agree, the proportion between the tower, gable and garage doors is indeed playful. Any chance that Bon Stern also? I know he likes earth tones, and the coupola on a tower is one of his favorite mannerist moves.
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.