i've already justified this elsewhere here. its not about a box; its about a more accurate description of the intention and design process. you can't just put a pitched roof on anything and call it traditional. you have no discrimination, no distinguishing faculty. you can't put architecture in one of two boxes.
don't denigrate my posts in a besides-the-point manner and we'll stay on the point.
tammuz, aside from being both sexist and homophobic, and trying to make metaphors out of such nonsense, you fail to recognize the long tradition of homosexuality that dates back millennia. Which is of course much better than modern or even contemporary homosexuality.
i don't fancy whitman college much personally (judging from the picture). the intersection of the masses is just nill. ..is that a faux-extension? (as in, it was contemporaneous with the design - looks that way- and made to mimic how churches/buildings sometimes grew over history?) no...
no, and stylistically different elements look like they're deployed alongside each other. no, i don't likey. something else perhaps?
@trip, Graves, really? the Seaside chapel actually seems quite nice (for a white church). The photo makes it look like it's something a John Pawson would do if they wanted to make a 'fussy' building :) I'd be more interested in non-ecclesiastical examples, since I think christian churches tend to default into a kind of conservative 'classical' expression...
thayer, are you really just trying to say you're an internet troll that doesn't understand there are more than 2 styles in the history of architecture?
to suri...you're nothing more than an internet troll trying to get a rise out the people of this forum. for you to pretend you're anything more than that is ridiculous.
Curtkram, you're like the person who goes all in on an ideology that has just been proven to be false. Now you're flailing to give everything you've learned the same currency you where told it would be worth. Unfortunatly, the public has no interest in your intellectual games, and worse yet, they do nothing for your actual skills as an architect. The same is true for many others who seem to go bananas if someone notices that people like decorations. Have you ever looked at how people dress or even talk? Unless you see everyone in a burlap sack speaking in a monotone, you'll notice that decoration is just another way we express ourselves...so why wouldn't we decorate our buildings?
You can decorate your buildings anyway you like, or not decorate it and tell yourself that all aesthetic decisions where a result of what you found off the shelf, or the inexorable result of your concept, or whatever. All anyone else is talking about is to have their own say as to how they want to decorate the environment. You can have all the theorizing you like, no one should begrudge you that, but why do you insist that others fall in line with the crap you were fed in school? That's a rhetorical question. Smell the coffee dude, this is a heterogeneous world, pluralistic, mixed, ect. Is it that scary to work alongside others who don't think like you?
Donna said, "curtkram your stamina is amazing. And of course you're right." This is the person you appologized to after you made a stink about "outing" me, becasue I dared to not agree with your world view. So I know you like to take orders, but you're fighting a non-existent war. Take a breath and try to enjoy your work instead of worrying about how many people agree with you. Like you said earlier "i should focus more on working on architecture instead of theorizing architecture." You'll be amazed what you'll see if you shed your ideological blinders and look at the world a fresh. There's a lot of beauty if you allow yourself to see it.
Threadkilla, the chapel at Seaside is nondenominational. Thanks for posting the images. Will take a look. Just at first glance, (like te built logical conclusion of all that is wrong with the Athens Charter.
Tammuz, yes, sometimes these building complexes were built over time. Not always, though. Other factors for this type if clustering included economics (individual buildings are by and large less expensive), programming (refectory was purposefully housed in a separate building than the chapel or the library), scale, and composition (the individual buildings would often creat pleasing exterior spaces such as courtyards and gardens).
Whitman college successfully uses individual building elements to separate programmatic elements and help these be expressed as distinct forms from the exterior.
I don't recognize (a), but I enjoy its use of punches openings for scale (albeit, rather square in proportion) and its use of a ground level loggia (though it's difficult to gauge it's depth). Almost has a Scandanavian quality to it, though I could be completely off. I generally don't find it the least bit offensive judging just from that one picture.
I don't believe their are two styles presently in the world of architecture, modernist and traditional. There are many styles, and many design approaches. I do believe, however, that broadly speaking there are several design philosophies or theories that most architects operate out of.
I would generally say that there are some architects who prefer an approach that does not look back at all (basically rejecting what has gone before in the search for something new and original), then there are some who prefer to look back, learn from the past, and use what they have learned from the past in their current work, and then there is a third group who is basically comfortable with both approaches, whether philosophically or practically (as in, they do have clients who want something based in the past). The level of education of the third group is one of the main issues I have tried to raise, saying there needs to be some teaching in the schools to address this need in the profession, as, at least on the East Coast and other places where there is a lot of earlier architecture, there are a significant number of clients who want this kind of design, and my contention is that they are ill-served by many architects today who are not confident in producing such design, and the result is rather dismal (such as the Versace store in Jeddah: http://www.flickr.com/photos/60197026@N00/10812813216/in/photolist-htuuE5-88WaHH-8hZyx4-7zZx3M-g5XDjD)
We have discussed the term traditional architecture, and I have used the term to describe what the second group in my list of architectural philosophies above produces. I agree it is not always the best term, but neither is modernism, but no one has really come up with some better way of distinguishing the two different approaches that I can see, thus my continued use of the term. And I can see why some of you would not describe (or label) some of the buildings recently posted as being traditional, but I think the lack of better terminology may be hindering some of our discussion. I myself do like a mix of what I consider traditional with elements that are more contemporary, thus my great enjoyment of Venturi's work at Princeton, for instance. And likewise my enjoyment of Charles Moore's playful post-modern columns at Williams College, but also my dislike of the stucco box he put on top of those columns, for me at least, shows that there are limits to how well such work comes off.
Agreed aojwny. I think of them more as philosophical and practical approaches rather than styles. Traditional or Modernist. Styles are more superficially applied.
i don't think a practicing architect can really operate exclusively on one end of the spectrum. it's impractical to ignore all of history, context, and the world around you. on the other hand, it's also impractical to ignore the fact that buildings are not building the same way today as the were 100 or 1,000 years ago.
i don't know what's 'traditional' in the building you linked aojwny. the pointy arch is reminiscent of 'gothic,' which is a more specific style than 'traditional.' i'm not sure what style the crown would be, but those are certainly common. maybe those brackets are supposed to be some sort of style? is gingerbread a style? perhaps that's supposed to be victorian?
anyway, how do you fix that with schools? i had history classes where i learned about various old buildings, and i learned the difference between gothic and renaissance architecture. i figured that was an NAAB thing we should have all had (that's american-centric. not sure about architecture schools under different jurisdictions). the problem with saying we should learn more 'traditional' architecture, is that it's too broad to be useful. should we be learning to properly design in a gothic revival style? should we be learning to properly design victorian revival? should we limit it to only learning how to design neoclassical revival? if we taught every valid style in school, there wouldn't be any time left to teach structures or HVAC or generally how buildings go together.
it's my opinion that the education is already there, and what students choose to do with that education is up to them. if you want to be an expert in neoclassical design, or arts and crafts revival, or any other style, it's going to take effort on your part outside of the university. either way, don't forget to learn how buildings are actually built. with that fundamental knowledge, you're more of a facade decorator than an architect.
maybe i misunderstood then. what, specifically, is different between a traditional and modern approach? you're phrasing it such that traditionalists do what they do because they learned from the past, and modernists do what they do in a bubble, actively ignoring the past.
does that mean traditionalists stick with a mayline while modernists can use a computer? do traditionalists reject astm standards and aisc steel tests since that's not what the great masters of old relied on? or do modernists reject those things since they were developed in the past? honestly, the idea that a 'traditional' architect actually approaches design different makes no sense to me.
Agreed, Curt, that the three types I mentioned are really a spectrum, and the Zahas and Gehrys may be at one end, and the Quinlan Terrys at the other. I work in a more modernist way when requested by the client (a church I am working on wants to present a contemporary image, not a traditional image, for instance).
I disagree, however, that one survey course in architectural history is sufficient to teach some of the principals of the "traditional" (for lack of a better term) approach. I think the proof is in the pudding, that is, the number of egregious examples of poor "traditional" design. I am not saying students should be taught how to design in each historic style, no more than they should be taught specifically how to design in a style such as "blobitecture." But an openness of mind to learning from the past, and seeing how that might inform current design, I believe can be taught, and in general is not being taught, or encouraged, or even considered a valid approach in many schools.
In the Jeddah example I believe the architect was making reference to traditional Islamic architecture, and that's where the pointed arch came from. The client apparently said, please design something that relates to our culture heritage here in Jeddah, a very historic city.
I would generally say that there are some architects who prefer an approach that does not look back at all (basically rejecting what has gone before in the search for something new and original), then there are some who prefer to look back, learn from the past,
While this is generally understood to be the difference between modernist and traditional, it dosen't make sense. Everything beyond the immediate present is the past, so whether one looks back ten years, 100 years or more, they are looking back. If one conciously neglects certain parts of history for solutions that might inform current problems is their perogative, but it is completely illogical. The romance of the unsullied mind free of pre-conceptions is a fiction born of the turn of the 20th century Europe. The degree to which someone's work bears a similarity to other work isn't even a clear meter of originality, as there's so much more to architecture than aesthetic choices. This fetishizing of originality is, I believe, at the root of what's wrong with architectural education where by students worry more about how 'traceable' thier design's aesthetic origins are than actually solving the problem given to them. If you want to play for a particular team or ideology, I don't see how that's a problem. Afterall, when a client want's a certain look, they might approach the architect who's shown proficiency in that style, kind of like a niche market. But for students who presumably don't know that much about architecture beyond liking it, it's a disservice not to prepare them adequatly for the world they will enter. Considering our responsability to address climate change, the fact we are still engaged in these style wars is incredible.
Maybe tammuz will prefer this photo of the Maitland Library by Quinlan Terry as the earlier one where he didn't like the proportions may have been a bit distorted from being taken from closer up: http://www.flickr.com/photos/60197026@N00/10839281594/
I went to a lecture on The History of Spanish Architecture two nights ago. It's a bit of a misnomer to call it a "lecture" as it was mainly a slightly more formal exhibition of vacation photographs. But the speaker covered all of the history of the Iberian peninsula from the Roman Empire forward.
What struck me was that in my Architectural History course, which cover four semesters of undergraduate school, only touched very lightly on the Moorish influence in architecture but focused much more on the influence of European cultures, aka Western.
My point being when someone says "traditional" the best response is probably "whose tradition"?
But I also want to point out that learning about architectural history definitely does not only happen in arch history courses. Design studio and building technology courses also cover a lot of it (or did when I was in school), so even if someone doesn't learn the specific proportional rules of this or that style in a history course they are learning about them through comparison in other coursework.
And PS I love that Seaside chapel. I loved it when it was published but had forgotten about it until you posted it, trip to fame. admittedly, it's pretty fetishistic, but beautiful.
In general, Donna, I believe those who have made an intense study of proportional systems believe that there are underlying principles, and rules even, that are universal. At least that was the case with the instructor I had when I took a short course in proportion last year with architect Steve Bass. Here is a link describing the course, although this link is from when he taught it in Denver: http://www.classicist.org/programs/lectures-tours-events/detail/rocky-mountain-chapter-theory-of-proportion-with-steve-bass/ Oh, and I never learned any of these proportional ideas in school, even though my school at the time (Penn, early 1980s) was relatively sympathetic to traditional design.
I'm not sure that much historical architecture is brought in to today's studios, except as context for a design problem, and then often to be ignored, rather than related to or learned from.
On a slightly different subject, my digital copy of the November issue of Architect magazine arrived in my inbox today, and there is an interesting article on Poundbury by Witold Rybzinski: http://mydigimag.rrd.com/publication/?i=182258
The whole November issue of Architect is a quite fascinating example of some of the things we have been talking about in this thread, from blobitecture divorced from any sense of connection to historic context, to a brief review inside the rear cover of the 1984 PA Award winning scheme for the Seaside town plan. The Seaside item includes a wonderful aerial photo of the center of the town, with the chapel which Donna likes at the top of the view.
aojwny, I still feel the proportion of the porte cochère relative to the building proper is off and the overlay of that doric style element on the facade doesn't really work. i think to some extent its also the nonchalant or nondescript array/proportioning/stylization of windows. when you look at palladian vilas with that sort of porte cochère, the backgroud wall gives the impression of a large expanse of solidity with sensitively laid out and proportioned apertures . and palladian buildings exhibit to-die-for proportions, they display finesse and muscilarity.
with this building, even more so, with the rather somber and primaeval doric element, there is a sort of muscularity that has to be accomodated for. yes, i think there`s a proportional and perhaps a stylistic clash. then again, someone might have another take on this. the building proper seems nice proportioned through.
but my impression here has nothing to do with traditional vs modern. i am not for or against that building for such reasons.
I think its clear that when the talks centers around specific buildings in this thread, there is an opportunity for better dialogue.
++ Donna
@Suri: there are four images and four plans on the previous page. For each one, please identify whether it s a "Like" and / or "Dislike", "Mod" and / or "Trad", and any other opinions. I have chosen the examples very carefully and need to know what the 'public opinion' of them is.
aojwny, your 'classical' architecture is specific to a place and period of time (around italy during the height of the greek and roman civilizations). am i right in thinking you shouldn't use "traditional" and "classical" interchangeably? i don't think ancient societies, native americans, medieval architects, gothic architects, japanese architects from the same time period, etc., really stuck to classic proportion systems. granted, that was a huge part of history for architecture and worth studying, but if the message that some people are trying to get across is that they would like to see a new neoclassical revival, then maybe "another new neoclassical revival" is a more clear way to say that.
establishing a term to include all architecture that is not "modern," and further defning modern in a broad manner that incorporates all architecture you don't like (which is an opinion, not a rational category, only serves to starting an "us v. them" fight. there is no "us v. them." we're all in this together.
suri may not like his environment, but i don't really give a shit what suri thinks. his environment is still a lot better than a good portion of the world. i'm more than happy discussing why i hold the opinion i do, and i'm happy to listen to why you hold the opinions you do. that's not what this is about though. this is about drawing an unreasonable and fictitious line in the sand and saying 'this side is yours and this side is mine, now let's fight over it.'
in your downing college picture, they spread the columns farther apart in the center. isn't that against the proportions established in classical architecture? anyway, i don't know Quinlan Terry or Frank Gehry, so i don't know what their design process is, or even if it's different. the end product is certainly different, but as far as i can tell, both are focused on decorating the shed instead of form follows function.
"in your downing college picture, they spread the columns farther apart in the center. isn't that against the proportions established in classical architecture?"
No, it's not. This is very common in classical architecture, in both antiquity and later. Especially in the Doric, where the spacing of the triglyphs in the frieze determine the column location. It's a frequently seen variation of the tetrastyle temple portico. Vitruvius showed it in his archetype of the simple Tuscan and Doric temple.
By the way, I have met Quinlan Terry, had a chance to talk with him at some length, and I have closely studied his work and the conceptual foundations of his work. I can assure you that both "decorating the shed" and "form follows function" are at the bottom of his hierarchy of values.
a)modern and is completely unmemorable
b)modern and looks rediculous
c)traditional asian which has many of the same principles of modernism, its ok but id much prefer a traditional western interior (like the thorne miniature rooms)
d)you've got to be kidding, is a human being expected to live in that?
e)modern/utilitarian, its ok, i wouldn't want to live in it but as a work studio it would be great.
As for the floorplans, they don't tell me much, ceiling height and shape, doorways, windows, are all too important so I don't know if I would like those environments or not.
@suri : I see the doorways and windows in those plans just fine. Plans are fundamentally about organizing spaces and/or activities - they always either allow or preclude certain forms of human occupancy. Don't tell me the differences between 3) and 4) are all about whether they use wood or aluminum casement windows.
To me, as an architect, your *ahem* 'public opinion' on those plans is of more import than the images, because I know that at the end of the day 'the public' tends to make purchasing decisions based on things like number of bed- and bathrooms, closet space, and the proximity of the garage to the kitchen. The absence of a garage in the provided plans should be a good starting point for reading them and making judgements...
thanks for the responses, I'll hold off on my own answers and identifying the buildings until the evening - I feel the blind 'test' is showing some revealing advantages...
I'm trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. Just assume you can have any doors and windows, or finishes and fixtures you want, anytime you are unsure of what the plan is suggesting. One of them spells out floor finishes - please feel free to replace them with your own preference and comment on those decisions.
The only thing I am certain on is that number 4 is a traditional design, being all old plans look like that with the thick walls. beyond that, architecture is not simply floorplans, I can't tell from a floorplan if I would like the place, so I don't see the relevance of the exercise.
for the plans, i didn't look very close, but they're all residential. i didn't get that at first, so that sort of context helps.
no. 1 is pretty simple. i like simple, and i'm comfortable in simple.
no. 2 is disorganized. seems if you wanted to go somewhere, you would have to find your way. i think the scale of this one is a bit bigger than the others, so that kind of makes it a little misleading. of course i already know what the building looks like too.
no. 3 i could live there. the big circle in the middle is kind of stupid imho. would be nice if the kitchen opened up a bit into the living room. i like having a deck. having said that, i know what this plan is. say what you want, it was designed as a place where people might want to actually spend their lives.
no. 4 i like simple, but this is getting claustrophobic.
@ suri Are you saying that (for example) a place could require you to go up/down the stairs to get a book from 'the library' to read in 'the reading room', or have a single lavatory which opens into the kitchen, and you wouldn't mind so long as the windows were 'traditional'? The relevance (beyond weeding out those who can't read plans and should therefore tread carefully when discussing architecture) is in determining the levels of awareness when it comes to traits of 'trad' and 'mod'.
When you hire an architect, you will primarily be purchasing sets of plans. Yes, many other kinds of documents, probably including door and window schedules, but you just can't build anything at all without some kind of plan. The only exception seems to be when you are the sole designer, builder, and client. Your bank will want to see the plans, the city will want to see the plans, plan + exterior shot are the most common advertising package for residential projects, and most others for that matter.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
i've already justified this elsewhere here. its not about a box; its about a more accurate description of the intention and design process. you can't just put a pitched roof on anything and call it traditional. you have no discrimination, no distinguishing faculty. you can't put architecture in one of two boxes.
don't denigrate my posts in a besides-the-point manner and we'll stay on the point.
tammuz, aside from being both sexist and homophobic, and trying to make metaphors out of such nonsense, you fail to recognize the long tradition of homosexuality that dates back millennia. Which is of course much better than modern or even contemporary homosexuality.
i'm gay (try another card)
Whitman College in Princeton by Demitri Porphyrios
gay I have no problem with. Stupid, arrogant or just full of shit is a different matter. Especially when combined.
you are your own problem then, Miles Jaffe. and spiteful as well, you forgot that.
LOL Who said I was talking about you?
i don't fancy whitman college much personally (judging from the picture). the intersection of the masses is just nill. ..is that a faux-extension? (as in, it was contemporaneous with the design - looks that way- and made to mimic how churches/buildings sometimes grew over history?) no...
no, and stylistically different elements look like they're deployed alongside each other. no, i don't likey. something else perhaps?
let's play the traditional or modern guess-game, or the good vs bad game on these:
a)
c)
d)
e)
let's do some plans too
1)
2)
3)
4)
@trip, Graves, really? the Seaside chapel actually seems quite nice (for a white church). The photo makes it look like it's something a John Pawson would do if they wanted to make a 'fussy' building :) I'd be more interested in non-ecclesiastical examples, since I think christian churches tend to default into a kind of conservative 'classical' expression...
thayer, are you really just trying to say you're an internet troll that doesn't understand there are more than 2 styles in the history of architecture?
to suri...you're nothing more than an internet troll trying to get a rise out the people of this forum. for you to pretend you're anything more than that is ridiculous.
Curtkram, you're like the person who goes all in on an ideology that has just been proven to be false. Now you're flailing to give everything you've learned the same currency you where told it would be worth. Unfortunatly, the public has no interest in your intellectual games, and worse yet, they do nothing for your actual skills as an architect. The same is true for many others who seem to go bananas if someone notices that people like decorations. Have you ever looked at how people dress or even talk? Unless you see everyone in a burlap sack speaking in a monotone, you'll notice that decoration is just another way we express ourselves...so why wouldn't we decorate our buildings?
You can decorate your buildings anyway you like, or not decorate it and tell yourself that all aesthetic decisions where a result of what you found off the shelf, or the inexorable result of your concept, or whatever. All anyone else is talking about is to have their own say as to how they want to decorate the environment. You can have all the theorizing you like, no one should begrudge you that, but why do you insist that others fall in line with the crap you were fed in school? That's a rhetorical question. Smell the coffee dude, this is a heterogeneous world, pluralistic, mixed, ect. Is it that scary to work alongside others who don't think like you?
Donna said, "curtkram your stamina is amazing. And of course you're right." This is the person you appologized to after you made a stink about "outing" me, becasue I dared to not agree with your world view. So I know you like to take orders, but you're fighting a non-existent war. Take a breath and try to enjoy your work instead of worrying about how many people agree with you. Like you said earlier "i should focus more on working on architecture instead of theorizing architecture." You'll be amazed what you'll see if you shed your ideological blinders and look at the world a fresh. There's a lot of beauty if you allow yourself to see it.
Whitman college successfully uses individual building elements to separate programmatic elements and help these be expressed as distinct forms from the exterior.
I don't believe their are two styles presently in the world of architecture, modernist and traditional. There are many styles, and many design approaches. I do believe, however, that broadly speaking there are several design philosophies or theories that most architects operate out of.
I would generally say that there are some architects who prefer an approach that does not look back at all (basically rejecting what has gone before in the search for something new and original), then there are some who prefer to look back, learn from the past, and use what they have learned from the past in their current work, and then there is a third group who is basically comfortable with both approaches, whether philosophically or practically (as in, they do have clients who want something based in the past). The level of education of the third group is one of the main issues I have tried to raise, saying there needs to be some teaching in the schools to address this need in the profession, as, at least on the East Coast and other places where there is a lot of earlier architecture, there are a significant number of clients who want this kind of design, and my contention is that they are ill-served by many architects today who are not confident in producing such design, and the result is rather dismal (such as the Versace store in Jeddah: http://www.flickr.com/photos/60197026@N00/10812813216/in/photolist-htuuE5-88WaHH-8hZyx4-7zZx3M-g5XDjD)
We have discussed the term traditional architecture, and I have used the term to describe what the second group in my list of architectural philosophies above produces. I agree it is not always the best term, but neither is modernism, but no one has really come up with some better way of distinguishing the two different approaches that I can see, thus my continued use of the term. And I can see why some of you would not describe (or label) some of the buildings recently posted as being traditional, but I think the lack of better terminology may be hindering some of our discussion. I myself do like a mix of what I consider traditional with elements that are more contemporary, thus my great enjoyment of Venturi's work at Princeton, for instance. And likewise my enjoyment of Charles Moore's playful post-modern columns at Williams College, but also my dislike of the stucco box he put on top of those columns, for me at least, shows that there are limits to how well such work comes off.
Agreed aojwny. I think of them more as philosophical and practical approaches rather than styles. Traditional or Modernist. Styles are more superficially applied.
i don't think a practicing architect can really operate exclusively on one end of the spectrum. it's impractical to ignore all of history, context, and the world around you. on the other hand, it's also impractical to ignore the fact that buildings are not building the same way today as the were 100 or 1,000 years ago.
i don't know what's 'traditional' in the building you linked aojwny. the pointy arch is reminiscent of 'gothic,' which is a more specific style than 'traditional.' i'm not sure what style the crown would be, but those are certainly common. maybe those brackets are supposed to be some sort of style? is gingerbread a style? perhaps that's supposed to be victorian?
anyway, how do you fix that with schools? i had history classes where i learned about various old buildings, and i learned the difference between gothic and renaissance architecture. i figured that was an NAAB thing we should have all had (that's american-centric. not sure about architecture schools under different jurisdictions). the problem with saying we should learn more 'traditional' architecture, is that it's too broad to be useful. should we be learning to properly design in a gothic revival style? should we be learning to properly design victorian revival? should we limit it to only learning how to design neoclassical revival? if we taught every valid style in school, there wouldn't be any time left to teach structures or HVAC or generally how buildings go together.
it's my opinion that the education is already there, and what students choose to do with that education is up to them. if you want to be an expert in neoclassical design, or arts and crafts revival, or any other style, it's going to take effort on your part outside of the university. either way, don't forget to learn how buildings are actually built. with that fundamental knowledge, you're more of a facade decorator than an architect.
Modernism is not a style
Classicism is not a style
maybe i misunderstood then. what, specifically, is different between a traditional and modern approach? you're phrasing it such that traditionalists do what they do because they learned from the past, and modernists do what they do in a bubble, actively ignoring the past.
does that mean traditionalists stick with a mayline while modernists can use a computer? do traditionalists reject astm standards and aisc steel tests since that's not what the great masters of old relied on? or do modernists reject those things since they were developed in the past? honestly, the idea that a 'traditional' architect actually approaches design different makes no sense to me.
Agreed, Curt, that the three types I mentioned are really a spectrum, and the Zahas and Gehrys may be at one end, and the Quinlan Terrys at the other. I work in a more modernist way when requested by the client (a church I am working on wants to present a contemporary image, not a traditional image, for instance).
I disagree, however, that one survey course in architectural history is sufficient to teach some of the principals of the "traditional" (for lack of a better term) approach. I think the proof is in the pudding, that is, the number of egregious examples of poor "traditional" design. I am not saying students should be taught how to design in each historic style, no more than they should be taught specifically how to design in a style such as "blobitecture." But an openness of mind to learning from the past, and seeing how that might inform current design, I believe can be taught, and in general is not being taught, or encouraged, or even considered a valid approach in many schools.
In the Jeddah example I believe the architect was making reference to traditional Islamic architecture, and that's where the pointed arch came from. The client apparently said, please design something that relates to our culture heritage here in Jeddah, a very historic city.
I would generally say that there are some architects who prefer an approach that does not look back at all (basically rejecting what has gone before in the search for something new and original), then there are some who prefer to look back, learn from the past,
While this is generally understood to be the difference between modernist and traditional, it dosen't make sense. Everything beyond the immediate present is the past, so whether one looks back ten years, 100 years or more, they are looking back. If one conciously neglects certain parts of history for solutions that might inform current problems is their perogative, but it is completely illogical. The romance of the unsullied mind free of pre-conceptions is a fiction born of the turn of the 20th century Europe. The degree to which someone's work bears a similarity to other work isn't even a clear meter of originality, as there's so much more to architecture than aesthetic choices. This fetishizing of originality is, I believe, at the root of what's wrong with architectural education where by students worry more about how 'traceable' thier design's aesthetic origins are than actually solving the problem given to them. If you want to play for a particular team or ideology, I don't see how that's a problem. Afterall, when a client want's a certain look, they might approach the architect who's shown proficiency in that style, kind of like a niche market. But for students who presumably don't know that much about architecture beyond liking it, it's a disservice not to prepare them adequatly for the world they will enter. Considering our responsability to address climate change, the fact we are still engaged in these style wars is incredible.
Curt, a Quinlan Terry definitely approaches design differently than a Frank Gehry, absolutely no question.
Maybe tammuz will prefer this photo of the Maitland Library by Quinlan Terry as the earlier one where he didn't like the proportions may have been a bit distorted from being taken from closer up: http://www.flickr.com/photos/60197026@N00/10839281594/
I went to a lecture on The History of Spanish Architecture two nights ago. It's a bit of a misnomer to call it a "lecture" as it was mainly a slightly more formal exhibition of vacation photographs. But the speaker covered all of the history of the Iberian peninsula from the Roman Empire forward.
What struck me was that in my Architectural History course, which cover four semesters of undergraduate school, only touched very lightly on the Moorish influence in architecture but focused much more on the influence of European cultures, aka Western.
My point being when someone says "traditional" the best response is probably "whose tradition"?
But I also want to point out that learning about architectural history definitely does not only happen in arch history courses. Design studio and building technology courses also cover a lot of it (or did when I was in school), so even if someone doesn't learn the specific proportional rules of this or that style in a history course they are learning about them through comparison in other coursework.
And PS I love that Seaside chapel. I loved it when it was published but had forgotten about it until you posted it, trip to fame. admittedly, it's pretty fetishistic, but beautiful.
Lets play a drinking game with how many times tammuz will profess his butthurt over the anglo-saxon race. were going to get loaded.
butthurt, huh?
are you sure you shouldnt be rating dicks on 4chan?
In general, Donna, I believe those who have made an intense study of proportional systems believe that there are underlying principles, and rules even, that are universal. At least that was the case with the instructor I had when I took a short course in proportion last year with architect Steve Bass. Here is a link describing the course, although this link is from when he taught it in Denver: http://www.classicist.org/programs/lectures-tours-events/detail/rocky-mountain-chapter-theory-of-proportion-with-steve-bass/ Oh, and I never learned any of these proportional ideas in school, even though my school at the time (Penn, early 1980s) was relatively sympathetic to traditional design.
I'm not sure that much historical architecture is brought in to today's studios, except as context for a design problem, and then often to be ignored, rather than related to or learned from.
On a slightly different subject, my digital copy of the November issue of Architect magazine arrived in my inbox today, and there is an interesting article on Poundbury by Witold Rybzinski: http://mydigimag.rrd.com/publication/?i=182258
Is that what goes on boy? Thanks for sharing your world with us.
The whole November issue of Architect is a quite fascinating example of some of the things we have been talking about in this thread, from blobitecture divorced from any sense of connection to historic context, to a brief review inside the rear cover of the 1984 PA Award winning scheme for the Seaside town plan. The Seaside item includes a wonderful aerial photo of the center of the town, with the chapel which Donna likes at the top of the view.
aojwny, I still feel the proportion of the porte cochère relative to the building proper is off and the overlay of that doric style element on the facade doesn't really work. i think to some extent its also the nonchalant or nondescript array/proportioning/stylization of windows. when you look at palladian vilas with that sort of porte cochère, the backgroud wall gives the impression of a large expanse of solidity with sensitively laid out and proportioned apertures . and palladian buildings exhibit to-die-for proportions, they display finesse and muscilarity.
with this building, even more so, with the rather somber and primaeval doric element, there is a sort of muscularity that has to be accomodated for. yes, i think there`s a proportional and perhaps a stylistic clash. then again, someone might have another take on this. the building proper seems nice proportioned through.
but my impression here has nothing to do with traditional vs modern. i am not for or against that building for such reasons.
I think its clear that when the talks centers around specific buildings in this thread, there is an opportunity for better dialogue.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/Hans_Hofmann%27s_painting_%27The_Gate%27%2C_1959%E2%80%9360.jpg presenting this as art is fine and dandy when its 2 feet tall and hanging on a wall somewhere. When its 500 feet tall, has completely replaced this http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~ndonofrio100/a3REAL/images/neoclassical-sabine.jpg, ,is everywhere you look, and you are expected to live and work in it and like it to boot, then we have a problem.
that comment is almost as inane as your use of the word butthurt.
Oh god yes I would *much* rather live in the midst of a naked battle than in a composed arrangement of pleasingly-colored forms!
++ Donna
@Suri : there are four images and four plans on the previous page. For each one, please identify whether it s a "Like" and / or "Dislike", "Mod" and / or "Trad", and any other opinions. I have chosen the examples very carefully and need to know what the 'public opinion' of them is.
aojwny, your 'classical' architecture is specific to a place and period of time (around italy during the height of the greek and roman civilizations). am i right in thinking you shouldn't use "traditional" and "classical" interchangeably? i don't think ancient societies, native americans, medieval architects, gothic architects, japanese architects from the same time period, etc., really stuck to classic proportion systems. granted, that was a huge part of history for architecture and worth studying, but if the message that some people are trying to get across is that they would like to see a new neoclassical revival, then maybe "another new neoclassical revival" is a more clear way to say that.
establishing a term to include all architecture that is not "modern," and further defning modern in a broad manner that incorporates all architecture you don't like (which is an opinion, not a rational category, only serves to starting an "us v. them" fight. there is no "us v. them." we're all in this together.
suri may not like his environment, but i don't really give a shit what suri thinks. his environment is still a lot better than a good portion of the world. i'm more than happy discussing why i hold the opinion i do, and i'm happy to listen to why you hold the opinions you do. that's not what this is about though. this is about drawing an unreasonable and fictitious line in the sand and saying 'this side is yours and this side is mine, now let's fight over it.'
in your downing college picture, they spread the columns farther apart in the center. isn't that against the proportions established in classical architecture? anyway, i don't know Quinlan Terry or Frank Gehry, so i don't know what their design process is, or even if it's different. the end product is certainly different, but as far as i can tell, both are focused on decorating the shed instead of form follows function.
"in your downing college picture, they spread the columns farther apart in the center. isn't that against the proportions established in classical architecture?"
No, it's not. This is very common in classical architecture, in both antiquity and later. Especially in the Doric, where the spacing of the triglyphs in the frieze determine the column location. It's a frequently seen variation of the tetrastyle temple portico. Vitruvius showed it in his archetype of the simple Tuscan and Doric temple.
By the way, I have met Quinlan Terry, had a chance to talk with him at some length, and I have closely studied his work and the conceptual foundations of his work. I can assure you that both "decorating the shed" and "form follows function" are at the bottom of his hierarchy of values.
threadkilla,
dislike, dislike, like, dislike, like
i don't think i'm prepared to say on the plans.
Yes, most would Donna, only not sarcastically.
These are my ideas on those images threadkilla
a)modern and is completely unmemorable
b)modern and looks rediculous
c)traditional asian which has many of the same principles of modernism, its ok but id much prefer a traditional western interior (like the thorne miniature rooms)
d)you've got to be kidding, is a human being expected to live in that?
e)modern/utilitarian, its ok, i wouldn't want to live in it but as a work studio it would be great.
As for the floorplans, they don't tell me much, ceiling height and shape, doorways, windows, are all too important so I don't know if I would like those environments or not.
@suri : I see the doorways and windows in those plans just fine. Plans are fundamentally about organizing spaces and/or activities - they always either allow or preclude certain forms of human occupancy. Don't tell me the differences between 3) and 4) are all about whether they use wood or aluminum casement windows.
To me, as an architect, your *ahem* 'public opinion' on those plans is of more import than the images, because I know that at the end of the day 'the public' tends to make purchasing decisions based on things like number of bed- and bathrooms, closet space, and the proximity of the garage to the kitchen. The absence of a garage in the provided plans should be a good starting point for reading them and making judgements...
thanks for the responses, I'll hold off on my own answers and identifying the buildings until the evening - I feel the blind 'test' is showing some revealing advantages...
Knowing where the doors and windows are doesn't tell me if Id like them or not.
I'm trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. Just assume you can have any doors and windows, or finishes and fixtures you want, anytime you are unsure of what the plan is suggesting. One of them spells out floor finishes - please feel free to replace them with your own preference and comment on those decisions.
The only thing I am certain on is that number 4 is a traditional design, being all old plans look like that with the thick walls. beyond that, architecture is not simply floorplans, I can't tell from a floorplan if I would like the place, so I don't see the relevance of the exercise.
for the plans, i didn't look very close, but they're all residential. i didn't get that at first, so that sort of context helps.
no. 1 is pretty simple. i like simple, and i'm comfortable in simple.
no. 2 is disorganized. seems if you wanted to go somewhere, you would have to find your way. i think the scale of this one is a bit bigger than the others, so that kind of makes it a little misleading. of course i already know what the building looks like too.
no. 3 i could live there. the big circle in the middle is kind of stupid imho. would be nice if the kitchen opened up a bit into the living room. i like having a deck. having said that, i know what this plan is. say what you want, it was designed as a place where people might want to actually spend their lives.
no. 4 i like simple, but this is getting claustrophobic.
@ suri Are you saying that (for example) a place could require you to go up/down the stairs to get a book from 'the library' to read in 'the reading room', or have a single lavatory which opens into the kitchen, and you wouldn't mind so long as the windows were 'traditional'? The relevance (beyond weeding out those who can't read plans and should therefore tread carefully when discussing architecture) is in determining the levels of awareness when it comes to traits of 'trad' and 'mod'.
When you hire an architect, you will primarily be purchasing sets of plans. Yes, many other kinds of documents, probably including door and window schedules, but you just can't build anything at all without some kind of plan. The only exception seems to be when you are the sole designer, builder, and client. Your bank will want to see the plans, the city will want to see the plans, plan + exterior shot are the most common advertising package for residential projects, and most others for that matter.
We live in 3 dimensions threadkilla, lets see the elevations. No one chooses a house from a floor plan.
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.