i have a hunch that designing custom traditional residential architecture for wealthy clients can be a well-paying and steady type of work compared to working for a contemporary or cutting-edge type firm.
In my limited experience so far, the firms that do high-end residential work seem to be able to take good care of their employees. Whereas the more modern firms work crazy hours, dont pay as much or both.
Some firm comparisons could be:
Robert Stern vs Canon Design
BIG vs Fairfax Sammons
Duany-Plater Zyberk vs Zaha Hadid
Michael Graves vs Daniel Libeskind
Think of all those laypeople that imagine their dream house as some rustic, southern-looking mansion. I see dollars $$$. Am I jumping to conclusions? or does being a classicist pay off?
here locally, stuart silk and george suyama have done some uber expensive 'traditional' projects that they did well with. but neither would consider themselves a classicist.
I can't agree, working in very expensive projects does not mean higher salaries.
You forget that architects doing "traditional" houses are often more right-wing/liberal orientated. So they will probably think it is perfectly honest to pay peanuts to their employees while they struggle deciding whether to buy either a new $100k Porsche or Mercedes with the fees or their "uberexpensive" projects. Also, since most of those architects come from very affluent backgrounds (hence the connections to design such kind of houses), they will hardly sympathize with their "poor" employed architects. You will be more of a commodity, like his maid or his gardener. He just needs to pay you more because it is harder to get a good architect... oh well I forgot we are in 2010, he does not need to do that anymore. Probably he thinks that paying you a gardener-salary, you should be extremely happy since he is taking you out of unemployment!
Working with starchitects you are paid less because part of your salary is the "name".
For my experience, the better salaries and better office-treatment is working for people from middle-class backgrounds who have been in your situation before. They will sympathize more with you and they will understand that your hard work needs a good compensation.
One of the best-known local architects in Los Angeles who designs very high-end custom houses in elaborate traditional styles is gay, partnered, and quite left of center.
What's with the entire overemphasis on money? Why make that the main motivator, instead of doing something where you can put your heart into? To me, it sounds rather soulless to compromise yourself, solely because there's more monetary gain. If you are into traditional things, do that. If you are into modernist stuff, go that direction.
And if you only want to make the most money, start trafficing drugs from Colombia - there's more money to be made doing that than in architecture...
A lot of traditional firms are right-wingers. The appreciation for tradition and history can easily go hand in hand with conservatism, Stern is doing the Bush library! But of course there are a few exceptions.
Im thinking in some ways traditional architecture can be easier because you have a kit of parts to design from, hence why some of these firms dont make their employees work crazy hours as if it was a university studio. And it seems to me like they do pay better and have lower stress compared to the Steven Holl's and OMA's
Well I'm dissapointed. I was hoping that you were going to reveal this clever revision to what traditional meant justfying calling Danny and Zaha traditionalists, but it turns out that you are just badly informed.
Modern architecture, a kit of parts that is only 70 years old, is a much simpler kit of parts to learn to use in the traditional manner than most of the specific styles which might fall into your category of traditional. How many of the classical orders do you know? Piranesi documented more than 300 of them.
Then again, by the time you are done with the second masters in restoration and the PhD in classics that makes you competitively qualified as a traditionalist, you've missed out on a lot of income.
classical, traditional.. you know what im talking about..
i wasnt labeling zaha or libeskind as traditionalists. and its not "my category", you should be able to understand what im talking about by seeing the firms I listed.
I would tone down the intellectualism, your lingustic tactics are confusing at best. When I say traditional, i mean rooted in pre-modernist history, classical. Not modern classic, or modern traditional or whatever else.. again look at the firm list.
And I was talking about CONTEMPORARY architecture not MODERNIST architecture. Who still designs as a modernist disciple? Richard Meier? I would try compare him to a pure classicist like Dimitri Porphyrios, but their firm sizes are different... please keep in mind that most of the NY5 went their own way, mayber modernism equates to freedom.
In my time working for contemporary firms, the work has been more demanding of the imagination than designing gambrel roof structures for a traditional firm, and there is a popcorn fart of a difference between those, even there are 3000 types. I feel a pressure to design "cool" "innovative" buildings at a contemporary firm. It just seems more difficult in a sense.
In my time working for "traditional" firms the pay has been better, and not nearly as demanding of my imagination. The pressure to stand out is less than would happen at a contemporary firm, because in a way most of it has been done before. I feel creative, but not nearly as much as I would if I were at a contemporary firm.
To further elaborate from the list, let's look at
BIG vs Farifax Sammons
-both firms are of a similar size
-vastly different approaches (notice FS's motto "traditional architecture for the modern world")
Now between those 2 I wonder who works their ass off more? Who is making a struggle to push the profession a little further? who pays in peanuts? Who still drafts by hand? who gets a little more time to themselves? I would run the same analysis on any of the other firms listed above.
What's the market like for both types? Do most people like traditional for residential and modern for commercial and public? Or is it more complicated than that?
fade - i think the larger distinction that could be made is this: firms that tend to think of themselves as 'artistic' in the sense of someone striving to reinvent 'x,y,z' on each project (no matter what aesthetic stripe) tend to have offices that work harder and longer, since it's the pursuit of originality alone that drives the work. there are, to me, some traditional/classicist firms which fall into that camp, but many of those firms (and i know a lot of these people personally from early in my career) are more content to mine a middle ground - originality on smaller scales and definitely no imperative to reinvent the wheel each time out (in fact, that last point is probably the single biggest factor between a profitable firm and one which is not).
purely in terms of statistics, you're correct that a vast majority of the 1M+ homes being designed by architects are more traditional (and i'd distinguish that from classical), hence if you're looking to do a practice focusing on single family, well, you don't have to be a math major to know what types of work are going to be more available.
after that, it's all up to you to determine the firm culture (hours, stress levels, etc.)
and politics have nothing to do with this. the three best traditional architects i know of (and all three are doing better work than most of what passes through record) are all left leaning. maybe their clients are or aren't - i don't really care.
one firm i know, in tampa, who's done tons of work all over florida, his typical house breaks out as follows:
sf - 4000
cost/sf - 300 (he's done as high as 600-1000)
avg fee - his is 8-10%, not including interior decorator or structural. he used to do structural himself, before florida upped the need to have a licensed engineer. total design fees were around 12-15%, including the decorator's time. most of the time, mep, a/v, etc. were all design/build on the ground, so not in his fees. landscape and civil weren't under his contracts.
i will say, he spent the time on the designs. incredibly elegant and livable homes, with tons of custom millwork, built-ins, etc. he'd source every single hinge, etc. and do a lot of time in ca to make sure they'd come out right. with one person helping on drafting, he could do about 5 houses a year.
i completely agree outed, high-end residential is probably my favorite project type right now, design work can be great, and I get to experience the full life of a project.
I can also agree that traditional is used more for residential,
and modern for commercial and public,
I think there are a lot of terms and definitions getting mixed up like traditional vs. modern.
I'm not familiar with the work of all the architects listed, but I can identify with the comment regarding the link between classicism and conservatism in architecture. Then again, I could probably make an argument for a link between modernism and conservatism as well. I think conservatives tend to be deductive thinkers, while ideologically they often believe that the answer to contemporary problems lie in the past. This is probably obvious to everyone though right?
I dont see the connection between conservatives and rate of pay/quality of life for employees. Republicans tend to be capitalists, as do many dems and librals, but republicans are not always conservatives. I guess that's the connection there.
My boss is a conservative and I would define myself as a liberal, but not necessarily a progressive. My work I'm discovering tends to be relatively conservative or traditional though I don't necessarily adhere to the tenets of modernism. What am I?
I alway love to see the ultra modern car parked in the garage of a classic home. Why do people feel comfortable with an ultra modern car and yet want to live in a decorator's box?
I liked it when someone suggested that people in general prefer contemporary arch for public and commercial building typologies, but not residential. Wonder why
mperdi
The article you mention in the S.F. Chronicle is a good start for a new discussion thread. Why is America reluctant to embrace modernism?
Why is there no optimism for the future? What is this nostalgia for a romantic past all about? In the 50's Americans were optimistic about the future; technology would bring vast improvements to our way of life. We were proud to exhibit TV antennas on our roofs. Now we want to hid PV cells so it doesn't look like we live in the here & now. "WE WANT TO GO HOME TO GRANDMA'S HOUSE."
The recent article in Architecture was in interesting:
"Joy in modern architecture is a learned response. Joy in traditional architecture is instinctive".
There's some truth to that. American's are inherently lazy and simply want what they feel comfortable with. Sadly, this is a self fulfilling prophecy as people continue to equate McMansion Spanish villas as something to dream for.
If someone built 500000 modern homes in one city, people would probably see that, then feel 'comfortable' with it, and want that. This has happened with lofts, to some degree. People are 'comfortable' with modern lofts vs. traditional.
Advertising takes care of this for cars, gadgets, etc.
Oh, and there's also that just because most architects (and designers) think they are good, does not make that so. Easier to copy a villa that has stood the test of time than come up with something that is "new" and also "good".
Industrial design weeds 'bad' things out pretty quickly, then we forget about it and only remember what is 'good' and successful. With architecture, it is a one-off, more or less, and we are stuck with whatever anyone builds for decades.
Architectural styles are languages. Why is it necessary for us to invent a new language every time I want to tell an architectural story?
"Traditional" architectural styles are not museum pieces, or fossils from the past that people only resurrect out of some sad nostalgia for a bygone era. That's the modernist myth of "the Ladder of Progress" that has been taught to you. These are living traditions that have survived through time because people find the language engaging, evocative, and beautiful.
In my opinion, it's very cynical to say that people who enjoy traditional or vernacular languages in architecture are lazy, or thoughtlessly nostalgic.
The "classic” architecture has been ingrained in the popular genetic memory for several hundred or thousands of years as a symbol of wealth, prosperity and a comfortable shelter for the “gods”.
Modernism is still very new, and some people think that it’s “cold” or it will not be a good fit if the design is not customized for their life style.
People forget that even the renaissance was a lie, all the way up to the late 1800's everything was a lie.
Then what we now call Modernism developed and was practiced until the late 1960's we could say it ended with Mies Van der Rohe's death in 1968.
After that we have nothing but chaos, until today. terms were coined.
Now Zaha Hadid and her minions want to attack Modernism, but what they do not realize is that they are actually attacking what happened between 1968 to now.
Even the word Modernism is a misnomer.
and it only flowered until 1968. It was really something new. just as when the Greeks came up with their architecture it was something new.
Zaha Hadid, trying to put herself and her minions on the level of the Greeks and Modernists by attacking them? even an architecture student still in college should easily see through that farce.
"People forget that even the renaissance was a lie, all the way up to the late 1800's everything was a lie.
Then what we now call Modernism developed and was practiced until the late 1960's we could say it ended with Mies Van der Rohe's death in 1968.
After that we have nothing but chaos, until today. terms were coined.
Now Zaha Hadid and her minions want to attack Modernism, but what they do not realize is that they are actually attacking what happened between 1968 to now.
Even the word Modernism is a misnomer.
and it only flowered until 1968. It was really something new. just as when the Greeks came up with their architecture it was something new.
Zaha Hadid, trying to put herself and her minions on the level of the Greeks and Modernists by attacking them? even an architecture student still in college should easily see through that farce. "
In regards to this: "People forget that even the renaissance was a lie, all the way up to the late 1800's everything was a lie. "
There's some truth to it. The European Renaissance was actually a pretty limited cultural development in Europe.
There's two specific renaissance periods-- I'll call the first one the Little Renaissance and the second one the Florentine Renaissance.
The first Little Renaissance was more northerly distributed. The conquests of William the II (in addition to the conquests of Charlemagne 3 centuries earlier [the brief Carolingian Renaissance]), the reintroduction of "Latin" culture into the North Sea area and the increased influence of Moorish Spain in Europe (Thanks to France) redistributed a lot of intellectual knowledge.
Firstly, the introduction of "non-vulgar" Latin in Europe via the Byzantine Empire, Islamic Empire and also Spain (Moorish Spain-- for sake of argument, I'm really not going to get into the full breakdown of who owned Spain whether it was the Byzantine Empire, Almoravid dynasty, Caliphates et cetera) lead to more ancient texts to be accurately translated.
Secondly, construction techniques and the manufacturing of certain materials (namely glass) lead to the development of the Gothic era.
Lastly, the short-lived peace and spread of 'intellectualism' and values lead to various cultural shifts changed the course of Europe. France and the Holy Roman Empire has stabilized the region enough to were international trade had picked up. The Hanseatic league was formed. It was essentially the first functioning European Union.
During this time, massive urban developments formed along the entire rim of the North Sea, in South England, in Northern France, along coastal Spain and from the Riveria to the Baltics. Industrial output at this time was more or less as efficient as it was during the Industrial Revolution.
Then the plague hit. And then came the crusades.
The Florence Renaissance was obviously centered around Florence and in Venice as well.
The primary "Why?" here is that the rising (Ottoman Turks) and falling empires (Byzantine, Kingdom of Hungary, Islamic Empire, Serbian Despotate) along the Meditation left a power vacuum in Florence and Venice that allowed them to have autonomy outside of the influence of the Holy Roman Empire.
The plague had pretty much ravaged Europe as a whole and was spreading eastwards. Despite this, Florence and Venice had both maintained their populations (somewhat) due to various border controls put in place-- both states freely gave refuge to asylum seekers all over Europe who did not want to participate in the religious and political climate of Europe.
On top of that, both regions were economic epicenters of the medieval world-- primarily the banking and investment strategies developed by the Medici family was the basis for the Renaissance. The Medici family could be considered one of the first organizations that played an active role in planned urban developments.
By supporting the arts and architecture, they created a livable city with diverse employment opportunities. The more you invest, the more returns (and larger returns) you receive on those investments.
And adding to the wealth creation spurred by public investment, the reintroduction of the "original" Greek bible and vast amounts of knowledge from the Roman era rocked the Catholic church (and many kingdoms in Europe). The second bible had pretty much started the idea that the bible wasn't infallible as there was two of different versions of them.
So, pretty much... the conclusion of the Florentine Renaissance is that you have a highly secular focus on the arts, architecture and the condition of cities. The rigidity of the church was waning and the introduction of knowledge from the Middle East was starting to prove that there was an actual world outside of Europe and that Europe itself use to be a more "harmonious" place.
That was the cliff notes version of Europe from 1000-1500.
But why would all of this be a lie?
Because much of this didn't travel very far at all. While all these coastal (and some inland cities like Florence) were making rapid improvements culturally, economically and aesthetically, very little of this actually traveled outside of these areas.
During the 1300s-1500s, about 40% of Europe's population was living in these cities. However, there was still an entire other Europe out there.
And many parts of Europe never really experienced the Renaissance (any of them), the Scientific Revolution or the Enlightenment. By the time Gothic architecture had penetrated far into the continent, 3 to 4 centuries had already passed.
So, in a sense, gothic architecture was considered relatively phony and cheesey by the "in vogue" crowd who were snickering that these backwoods "hillbillies" were finally getting around to the 13th century.
style is not so important, except maybe to those who have not yet made up their own minds.
i don't think traditional architecture is instinctively more easy to enjoy than contemporary architecture and the idea that the Renaissance was anything but a remarkable time for western culture is silly. no matter how uneven it was.
not that any of that has anything to do with the topic. there is nothing wrong with recognising the ease of making a living building vernacular architecture, even if the vernacular is mcmansion. it is certainly a fair observation that if you want to do housing there is a larger market in the USA if you specialise in pseudo-fake historical pastiche. why not do it with pride?
but if we are playing the games of the splitting hairs, i think zaha is continuing early modernism, not attacking it. she is picking up where the german expressionists left off, just as rem koolhaas picked up where the russian avant-garde dropped their bags. they are both looking backwards to the future. but you know, in a cool way.
"So you are saying that the common historical perception of a pan-European Renaissance was not entirely true."
Well, in modern perspective, it would be like trying to make the claim the rebirth of late 20th century New York has had a profound impact on rural Kansas.
Obviously, New York is one of the epicenters of the United States economically and culturally. So, anything done there will impact the rest of the country.
But as far as direct impacts? Unlikely.
The trade offs are usually more economic than cultural. Cities like New York depends on places like rural Kansas for food and raw materials. Likewise, rural Kansas depends on New York for its industrial and intellectual output.
That's more or less the point here-- perception.
Many people like to believe that Europe is this pastoral fairytale continent of humble people working in farms and fields all day long.
This is just as much of a lie that Europe is a fantasy land filled full of tyrannical kings, princesses and fortresses.
And that is also just as much of a lie that Europe is a place filled with tiny little villages, towns and cities. As much as all of these things are lies, they're also half true.
When we talk about cultural concepts, the 'general' history of Europe and all of these movements, they more or less take place in urban Europe. And while urban Europe has not been the 'majority' of Europe for long periods of time, it has been more or less a significant portion of Europe.
People tend to still hold onto this false belief that Europe post-Rome was one giant farm filled with slaves and everyone was miserable.
"there is nothing wrong with recognising the ease of making a living building vernacular architecture, even if the vernacular is mcmansion. it is certainly a fair observation that if you want to do housing there is a larger market in the USA if you specialise in pseudo-fake historical pastiche. why not do it with pride?"
Is all work employing traditional languages, other than languages originating since 1920 or so, by definition "pseudo-fake" or "pastiche"?
And please, can someone tell me what a "mcMansion" is? Is it simply a large traditional house?
I've always thought McMansions were over-sized houses made of low-quality materials - typical suburban tract development, except the houses are twice as big.
and I wouldn't call McMansions "traditional" because they're made out of plastic, and their interiors usually have some very modern open-plan things going on.
It is a mass produced, lower quality version of a "mansion". Something generally oversized, generic, cookie cutter design (copied, pasted, plop).
This is what much of suburbia is these days - too large, too fake, too much.
Design wise, they are generally mimicking Spanish Med styles or fake stone/stucco variants. While true that the plans are not traditional, they are meant to resemble more traditional designs.
I'd go so far as to say this largely contributed to the housing crisis - people kept wanting more and more, thinking (naively) that there was actual 'value' in these places. But in reality, they, generally speaking, were too large, inefficient and a waste of space (not to mention the costs of upkeep, heating/cooling, etc). Think Hummer.
So why, when an architect wants to be critical of "traditional" architectural styles, do they always seem to mention "pastiche" and "McMansion". As if that kind of house is somehow typical of the overall state of traditional design in the US. The same architects would never characterize the state of modernist design by the absolute lowest level possible.
Because that is the state of design in the US. It is cookie cutter generic suburbia. Nothing original, nothing unique, just copied and pasted generic designs all over the place!
You can say that about modern/contemporary design once we see thousands and thousands of (virtually) the same design slapped across the country.
In a very interesting way, those "cookie-cutter suburban" designs were spawned by the Modernist movement in the USA.
1. No matter what the architectural style of the individual buildings, American suburbia is the product of automobile-centric modern (post WWII) city planning.
2. The arrival of Walter Gropius and other early Modernists in the USA, and their take over of the architecture schools here, resulted in a complete washing away of any curriculum in traditional design. The Bauhaus emphasis on "wiping the slate clean" pretty thoroughly interrupted an educational continuum that had persisted for hundred of years. This monopoly persists to this day, with a few exceptions.
As a result, architects educated after the 1920s received no formal education in any traditional architecture form, language or values. Yet as professionals, they were met by a public who still valued classical and vernacular architecture. Is there any wonder why the neo-traditional builders buildings of today are so badly designed? You can thank Herr Gropius.
Look at "builders houses" built in the 1930s and 40's, and compare them to the same sort of product today. There is no comparison in quality. I believe the reason is that the modernist stranglehold on the schools has ensured that nobody learn how to do them well.
I'm not a professor, I'm did not make a comment to start a debate, just stating facts and have no interest in teaching. So, please read up on what Frank L. Wright, and Mies van der rhoe had to say. My answer to your questions will be better answered by them.
There are some good utube FLW videos. and also recommend you buy The Mike Wallis interview of FLW.
Ror Mies I recommend you buy a book titled " The artless word".
Unicorn, thanks for explaining a little bit of what i was talking about.
EKE,
you should remember that the word Modernism is a label created by the mobocracy.
good luck to you all
PS. Zaha H.'s only Partner gave a lecture at USC, in which he made it clear what they are against. cant remember his name somthing something Patrick. the guy is certifiable.
so why, when an architect wants to be critical of "traditional" architectural styles, do they always seem to mention "pastiche" and "McMansion".
architects are not being critical of "traditional" styles, they are being critical of thoughtless throw-away design that masquerades as "traditional."
"traditional," at least to me, means a vernacular and building techniques that are passed down through generations and reflective of a particular region, climate, and/or culture. There are a few rare examples in the states still being built, but many of the "traditional" techniques (which includes everything from native american to colonial to those brought here by various immigrant populations) were lost after WWII.
what we have today isn't "traditional" it's pastiche, kitsch, fake. modern boxes wrapped in plastic made to look like hand-cut wood or stone.
most of us still love styles and buildings of past eras - but there is an honesty (and with great structures, there is experimentation) with materials, and construction. I personally have no problem with people borrowing from or working in particular styles, but at least be aware of the limitations of modern materials and how that might change things - and really understand the style you are borrowing from so you get the proportions and scale right.
"what we have today isn't "traditional" it's pastiche, kitsch, fake. modern boxes wrapped in plastic made to look like hand-cut wood or stone."
That's a pretty broad statement. I would say, "Some is." However there is a large community of thoughtful practitioners doing quality work using traditional languages.
Where? One of the simple facts is that craftsmanship cannot be had for the cost/value that was once available. This has led to fake columns, fake stone, fake details, fake everything to mimic the past in a cost effective way.
Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but there is a reason the term "McMansion" was created.
the problem of fake nostalgia manifested in mcmansions today is not necessarily due to post WWII automobile dominance. Americans have a love affair with re-creating physical symbols of bygone eras. There's a long tradition of borrowing and bastardizing to express some semblance of wealth and/or power. it's the whole reason why sullivan and wright were disgusted with the greek revival at the 1893 columbian exposition.
It certainly is available, and being employed on thoughtful traditional buildings around the country. Elaborate hand cut stone on large, expensive buildings with large budgets, and wood and plaster details on more humble, vernacular buildings. Just as it has always been. The goal is to select materials that are honest, weather well and last a long time. Often this means using traditional materials and details, but sometimes, this can mean using a new material that is superior to the old.
The thoughtful classicist doesn't "mimic" the past. They use a traditional language to create buildings that have relevance to people and places now.
traditional vs contemporary in practice
i have a hunch that designing custom traditional residential architecture for wealthy clients can be a well-paying and steady type of work compared to working for a contemporary or cutting-edge type firm.
In my limited experience so far, the firms that do high-end residential work seem to be able to take good care of their employees. Whereas the more modern firms work crazy hours, dont pay as much or both.
Some firm comparisons could be:
Robert Stern vs Canon Design
BIG vs Fairfax Sammons
Duany-Plater Zyberk vs Zaha Hadid
Michael Graves vs Daniel Libeskind
Think of all those laypeople that imagine their dream house as some rustic, southern-looking mansion. I see dollars $$$. Am I jumping to conclusions? or does being a classicist pay off?
here locally, stuart silk and george suyama have done some uber expensive 'traditional' projects that they did well with. but neither would consider themselves a classicist.
what an interesting list of comparisons! It is like a rubix cube of contrasts. Are we supposed to read it as profitable vs. not, or more 1980s?
Doing work that people like and want to pay you for pays off.
I can't agree, working in very expensive projects does not mean higher salaries.
You forget that architects doing "traditional" houses are often more right-wing/liberal orientated. So they will probably think it is perfectly honest to pay peanuts to their employees while they struggle deciding whether to buy either a new $100k Porsche or Mercedes with the fees or their "uberexpensive" projects. Also, since most of those architects come from very affluent backgrounds (hence the connections to design such kind of houses), they will hardly sympathize with their "poor" employed architects. You will be more of a commodity, like his maid or his gardener. He just needs to pay you more because it is harder to get a good architect... oh well I forgot we are in 2010, he does not need to do that anymore. Probably he thinks that paying you a gardener-salary, you should be extremely happy since he is taking you out of unemployment!
Working with starchitects you are paid less because part of your salary is the "name".
For my experience, the better salaries and better office-treatment is working for people from middle-class backgrounds who have been in your situation before. They will sympathize more with you and they will understand that your hard work needs a good compensation.
Why would you think that working on projects using "traditional" languages means that someone is more likely to be "right-wing" politically?
Why would you think that someone who is "right-wing" would be less likely to pay higher salaries?
One of the best-known local architects in Los Angeles who designs very high-end custom houses in elaborate traditional styles is gay, partnered, and quite left of center.
Time to rethink those stereotypes, Hawkin.
Hawkin, lol? Such random generalizations to make...
What's with the entire overemphasis on money? Why make that the main motivator, instead of doing something where you can put your heart into? To me, it sounds rather soulless to compromise yourself, solely because there's more monetary gain. If you are into traditional things, do that. If you are into modernist stuff, go that direction.
And if you only want to make the most money, start trafficing drugs from Colombia - there's more money to be made doing that than in architecture...
i've looked into drug trafficking .. but the risk/reward is not worth it
:'(
All drug trafficking is digital now anyways.
A lot of traditional firms are right-wingers. The appreciation for tradition and history can easily go hand in hand with conservatism, Stern is doing the Bush library! But of course there are a few exceptions.
Im thinking in some ways traditional architecture can be easier because you have a kit of parts to design from, hence why some of these firms dont make their employees work crazy hours as if it was a university studio. And it seems to me like they do pay better and have lower stress compared to the Steven Holl's and OMA's
Well I'm dissapointed. I was hoping that you were going to reveal this clever revision to what traditional meant justfying calling Danny and Zaha traditionalists, but it turns out that you are just badly informed.
Modern architecture, a kit of parts that is only 70 years old, is a much simpler kit of parts to learn to use in the traditional manner than most of the specific styles which might fall into your category of traditional. How many of the classical orders do you know? Piranesi documented more than 300 of them.
Then again, by the time you are done with the second masters in restoration and the PhD in classics that makes you competitively qualified as a traditionalist, you've missed out on a lot of income.
classical, traditional.. you know what im talking about..
i wasnt labeling zaha or libeskind as traditionalists. and its not "my category", you should be able to understand what im talking about by seeing the firms I listed.
I would tone down the intellectualism, your lingustic tactics are confusing at best. When I say traditional, i mean rooted in pre-modernist history, classical. Not modern classic, or modern traditional or whatever else.. again look at the firm list.
And I was talking about CONTEMPORARY architecture not MODERNIST architecture. Who still designs as a modernist disciple? Richard Meier? I would try compare him to a pure classicist like Dimitri Porphyrios, but their firm sizes are different... please keep in mind that most of the NY5 went their own way, mayber modernism equates to freedom.
In my time working for contemporary firms, the work has been more demanding of the imagination than designing gambrel roof structures for a traditional firm, and there is a popcorn fart of a difference between those, even there are 3000 types. I feel a pressure to design "cool" "innovative" buildings at a contemporary firm. It just seems more difficult in a sense.
In my time working for "traditional" firms the pay has been better, and not nearly as demanding of my imagination. The pressure to stand out is less than would happen at a contemporary firm, because in a way most of it has been done before. I feel creative, but not nearly as much as I would if I were at a contemporary firm.
To further elaborate from the list, let's look at
BIG vs Farifax Sammons
-both firms are of a similar size
-vastly different approaches (notice FS's motto "traditional architecture for the modern world")
Now between those 2 I wonder who works their ass off more? Who is making a struggle to push the profession a little further? who pays in peanuts? Who still drafts by hand? who gets a little more time to themselves? I would run the same analysis on any of the other firms listed above.
What's the market like for both types? Do most people like traditional for residential and modern for commercial and public? Or is it more complicated than that?
fade - i think the larger distinction that could be made is this: firms that tend to think of themselves as 'artistic' in the sense of someone striving to reinvent 'x,y,z' on each project (no matter what aesthetic stripe) tend to have offices that work harder and longer, since it's the pursuit of originality alone that drives the work. there are, to me, some traditional/classicist firms which fall into that camp, but many of those firms (and i know a lot of these people personally from early in my career) are more content to mine a middle ground - originality on smaller scales and definitely no imperative to reinvent the wheel each time out (in fact, that last point is probably the single biggest factor between a profitable firm and one which is not).
purely in terms of statistics, you're correct that a vast majority of the 1M+ homes being designed by architects are more traditional (and i'd distinguish that from classical), hence if you're looking to do a practice focusing on single family, well, you don't have to be a math major to know what types of work are going to be more available.
after that, it's all up to you to determine the firm culture (hours, stress levels, etc.)
and politics have nothing to do with this. the three best traditional architects i know of (and all three are doing better work than most of what passes through record) are all left leaning. maybe their clients are or aren't - i don't really care.
oh, and fade, to put some real numbers on things:
one firm i know, in tampa, who's done tons of work all over florida, his typical house breaks out as follows:
sf - 4000
cost/sf - 300 (he's done as high as 600-1000)
avg fee - his is 8-10%, not including interior decorator or structural. he used to do structural himself, before florida upped the need to have a licensed engineer. total design fees were around 12-15%, including the decorator's time. most of the time, mep, a/v, etc. were all design/build on the ground, so not in his fees. landscape and civil weren't under his contracts.
i will say, he spent the time on the designs. incredibly elegant and livable homes, with tons of custom millwork, built-ins, etc. he'd source every single hinge, etc. and do a lot of time in ca to make sure they'd come out right. with one person helping on drafting, he could do about 5 houses a year.
i completely agree outed, high-end residential is probably my favorite project type right now, design work can be great, and I get to experience the full life of a project.
I can also agree that traditional is used more for residential,
and modern for commercial and public,
I think there are a lot of terms and definitions getting mixed up like traditional vs. modern.
I'm not familiar with the work of all the architects listed, but I can identify with the comment regarding the link between classicism and conservatism in architecture. Then again, I could probably make an argument for a link between modernism and conservatism as well. I think conservatives tend to be deductive thinkers, while ideologically they often believe that the answer to contemporary problems lie in the past. This is probably obvious to everyone though right?
I dont see the connection between conservatives and rate of pay/quality of life for employees. Republicans tend to be capitalists, as do many dems and librals, but republicans are not always conservatives. I guess that's the connection there.
My boss is a conservative and I would define myself as a liberal, but not necessarily a progressive. My work I'm discovering tends to be relatively conservative or traditional though I don't necessarily adhere to the tenets of modernism. What am I?
I alway love to see the ultra modern car parked in the garage of a classic home. Why do people feel comfortable with an ultra modern car and yet want to live in a decorator's box?
I liked it when someone suggested that people in general prefer contemporary arch for public and commercial building typologies, but not residential. Wonder why
cognitive dissonance i suppose?
reminds me of the article I saw in the SF Chronicle
http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-08-03/living/17505595_1_gruen-gruen-associates-home-models-homebuyers
mperdi
The article you mention in the S.F. Chronicle is a good start for a new discussion thread. Why is America reluctant to embrace modernism?
Why is there no optimism for the future? What is this nostalgia for a romantic past all about? In the 50's Americans were optimistic about the future; technology would bring vast improvements to our way of life. We were proud to exhibit TV antennas on our roofs. Now we want to hid PV cells so it doesn't look like we live in the here & now. "WE WANT TO GO HOME TO GRANDMA'S HOUSE."
The recent article in Architecture was in interesting:
"Joy in modern architecture is a learned response. Joy in traditional architecture is instinctive".
There's some truth to that. American's are inherently lazy and simply want what they feel comfortable with. Sadly, this is a self fulfilling prophecy as people continue to equate McMansion Spanish villas as something to dream for.
If someone built 500000 modern homes in one city, people would probably see that, then feel 'comfortable' with it, and want that. This has happened with lofts, to some degree. People are 'comfortable' with modern lofts vs. traditional.
Advertising takes care of this for cars, gadgets, etc.
Oh, and there's also that just because most architects (and designers) think they are good, does not make that so. Easier to copy a villa that has stood the test of time than come up with something that is "new" and also "good".
Industrial design weeds 'bad' things out pretty quickly, then we forget about it and only remember what is 'good' and successful. With architecture, it is a one-off, more or less, and we are stuck with whatever anyone builds for decades.
Architectural styles are languages. Why is it necessary for us to invent a new language every time I want to tell an architectural story?
"Traditional" architectural styles are not museum pieces, or fossils from the past that people only resurrect out of some sad nostalgia for a bygone era. That's the modernist myth of "the Ladder of Progress" that has been taught to you. These are living traditions that have survived through time because people find the language engaging, evocative, and beautiful.
In my opinion, it's very cynical to say that people who enjoy traditional or vernacular languages in architecture are lazy, or thoughtlessly nostalgic.
BTW...what is a "McMansion"?
The "classic” architecture has been ingrained in the popular genetic memory for several hundred or thousands of years as a symbol of wealth, prosperity and a comfortable shelter for the “gods”.
Modernism is still very new, and some people think that it’s “cold” or it will not be a good fit if the design is not customized for their life style.
People forget that even the renaissance was a lie, all the way up to the late 1800's everything was a lie.
Then what we now call Modernism developed and was practiced until the late 1960's we could say it ended with Mies Van der Rohe's death in 1968.
After that we have nothing but chaos, until today. terms were coined.
Now Zaha Hadid and her minions want to attack Modernism, but what they do not realize is that they are actually attacking what happened between 1968 to now.
Even the word Modernism is a misnomer.
and it only flowered until 1968. It was really something new. just as when the Greeks came up with their architecture it was something new.
Zaha Hadid, trying to put herself and her minions on the level of the Greeks and Modernists by attacking them? even an architecture student still in college should easily see through that farce.
Correction: Mies van der Rohe died in 1969, i was off by one year.
"People forget that even the renaissance was a lie, all the way up to the late 1800's everything was a lie."
What do you mean by this?
"People forget that even the renaissance was a lie, all the way up to the late 1800's everything was a lie.
Then what we now call Modernism developed and was practiced until the late 1960's we could say it ended with Mies Van der Rohe's death in 1968.
After that we have nothing but chaos, until today. terms were coined.
Now Zaha Hadid and her minions want to attack Modernism, but what they do not realize is that they are actually attacking what happened between 1968 to now.
Even the word Modernism is a misnomer.
and it only flowered until 1968. It was really something new. just as when the Greeks came up with their architecture it was something new.
Zaha Hadid, trying to put herself and her minions on the level of the Greeks and Modernists by attacking them? even an architecture student still in college should easily see through that farce. "
What do you mean by this?
In regards to this: "People forget that even the renaissance was a lie, all the way up to the late 1800's everything was a lie. "
There's some truth to it. The European Renaissance was actually a pretty limited cultural development in Europe.
There's two specific renaissance periods-- I'll call the first one the Little Renaissance and the second one the Florentine Renaissance.
The first Little Renaissance was more northerly distributed. The conquests of William the II (in addition to the conquests of Charlemagne 3 centuries earlier [the brief Carolingian Renaissance]), the reintroduction of "Latin" culture into the North Sea area and the increased influence of Moorish Spain in Europe (Thanks to France) redistributed a lot of intellectual knowledge.
Firstly, the introduction of "non-vulgar" Latin in Europe via the Byzantine Empire, Islamic Empire and also Spain (Moorish Spain-- for sake of argument, I'm really not going to get into the full breakdown of who owned Spain whether it was the Byzantine Empire, Almoravid dynasty, Caliphates et cetera) lead to more ancient texts to be accurately translated.
Secondly, construction techniques and the manufacturing of certain materials (namely glass) lead to the development of the Gothic era.
Lastly, the short-lived peace and spread of 'intellectualism' and values lead to various cultural shifts changed the course of Europe. France and the Holy Roman Empire has stabilized the region enough to were international trade had picked up. The Hanseatic league was formed. It was essentially the first functioning European Union.
During this time, massive urban developments formed along the entire rim of the North Sea, in South England, in Northern France, along coastal Spain and from the Riveria to the Baltics. Industrial output at this time was more or less as efficient as it was during the Industrial Revolution.
Then the plague hit. And then came the crusades.
The Florence Renaissance was obviously centered around Florence and in Venice as well.
The primary "Why?" here is that the rising (Ottoman Turks) and falling empires (Byzantine, Kingdom of Hungary, Islamic Empire, Serbian Despotate) along the Meditation left a power vacuum in Florence and Venice that allowed them to have autonomy outside of the influence of the Holy Roman Empire.
The plague had pretty much ravaged Europe as a whole and was spreading eastwards. Despite this, Florence and Venice had both maintained their populations (somewhat) due to various border controls put in place-- both states freely gave refuge to asylum seekers all over Europe who did not want to participate in the religious and political climate of Europe.
On top of that, both regions were economic epicenters of the medieval world-- primarily the banking and investment strategies developed by the Medici family was the basis for the Renaissance. The Medici family could be considered one of the first organizations that played an active role in planned urban developments.
By supporting the arts and architecture, they created a livable city with diverse employment opportunities. The more you invest, the more returns (and larger returns) you receive on those investments.
And adding to the wealth creation spurred by public investment, the reintroduction of the "original" Greek bible and vast amounts of knowledge from the Roman era rocked the Catholic church (and many kingdoms in Europe). The second bible had pretty much started the idea that the bible wasn't infallible as there was two of different versions of them.
So, pretty much... the conclusion of the Florentine Renaissance is that you have a highly secular focus on the arts, architecture and the condition of cities. The rigidity of the church was waning and the introduction of knowledge from the Middle East was starting to prove that there was an actual world outside of Europe and that Europe itself use to be a more "harmonious" place.
That was the cliff notes version of Europe from 1000-1500.
But why would all of this be a lie?
Because much of this didn't travel very far at all. While all these coastal (and some inland cities like Florence) were making rapid improvements culturally, economically and aesthetically, very little of this actually traveled outside of these areas.
During the 1300s-1500s, about 40% of Europe's population was living in these cities. However, there was still an entire other Europe out there.
And many parts of Europe never really experienced the Renaissance (any of them), the Scientific Revolution or the Enlightenment. By the time Gothic architecture had penetrated far into the continent, 3 to 4 centuries had already passed.
So, in a sense, gothic architecture was considered relatively phony and cheesey by the "in vogue" crowd who were snickering that these backwoods "hillbillies" were finally getting around to the 13th century.
So you are saying that the common historical perception of a pan-European Renaissance was not entirely true.
I don't believe that is what displacedarchitect is saying.
good is good.
bad is bad
style is not so important, except maybe to those who have not yet made up their own minds.
i don't think traditional architecture is instinctively more easy to enjoy than contemporary architecture and the idea that the Renaissance was anything but a remarkable time for western culture is silly. no matter how uneven it was.
not that any of that has anything to do with the topic. there is nothing wrong with recognising the ease of making a living building vernacular architecture, even if the vernacular is mcmansion. it is certainly a fair observation that if you want to do housing there is a larger market in the USA if you specialise in pseudo-fake historical pastiche. why not do it with pride?
but if we are playing the games of the splitting hairs, i think zaha is continuing early modernism, not attacking it. she is picking up where the german expressionists left off, just as rem koolhaas picked up where the russian avant-garde dropped their bags. they are both looking backwards to the future. but you know, in a cool way.
"So you are saying that the common historical perception of a pan-European Renaissance was not entirely true."
Well, in modern perspective, it would be like trying to make the claim the rebirth of late 20th century New York has had a profound impact on rural Kansas.
Obviously, New York is one of the epicenters of the United States economically and culturally. So, anything done there will impact the rest of the country.
But as far as direct impacts? Unlikely.
The trade offs are usually more economic than cultural. Cities like New York depends on places like rural Kansas for food and raw materials. Likewise, rural Kansas depends on New York for its industrial and intellectual output.
That's more or less the point here-- perception.
Many people like to believe that Europe is this pastoral fairytale continent of humble people working in farms and fields all day long.
This is just as much of a lie that Europe is a fantasy land filled full of tyrannical kings, princesses and fortresses.
And that is also just as much of a lie that Europe is a place filled with tiny little villages, towns and cities. As much as all of these things are lies, they're also half true.
When we talk about cultural concepts, the 'general' history of Europe and all of these movements, they more or less take place in urban Europe. And while urban Europe has not been the 'majority' of Europe for long periods of time, it has been more or less a significant portion of Europe.
People tend to still hold onto this false belief that Europe post-Rome was one giant farm filled with slaves and everyone was miserable.
"there is nothing wrong with recognising the ease of making a living building vernacular architecture, even if the vernacular is mcmansion. it is certainly a fair observation that if you want to do housing there is a larger market in the USA if you specialise in pseudo-fake historical pastiche. why not do it with pride?"
Is all work employing traditional languages, other than languages originating since 1920 or so, by definition "pseudo-fake" or "pastiche"?
And please, can someone tell me what a "mcMansion" is? Is it simply a large traditional house?
I've always thought McMansions were over-sized houses made of low-quality materials - typical suburban tract development, except the houses are twice as big.
and I wouldn't call McMansions "traditional" because they're made out of plastic, and their interiors usually have some very modern open-plan things going on.
McMansion = "Mc", as in "McDonald's"
It is a mass produced, lower quality version of a "mansion". Something generally oversized, generic, cookie cutter design (copied, pasted, plop).
This is what much of suburbia is these days - too large, too fake, too much.
Design wise, they are generally mimicking Spanish Med styles or fake stone/stucco variants. While true that the plans are not traditional, they are meant to resemble more traditional designs.
I'd go so far as to say this largely contributed to the housing crisis - people kept wanting more and more, thinking (naively) that there was actual 'value' in these places. But in reality, they, generally speaking, were too large, inefficient and a waste of space (not to mention the costs of upkeep, heating/cooling, etc). Think Hummer.
So why, when an architect wants to be critical of "traditional" architectural styles, do they always seem to mention "pastiche" and "McMansion". As if that kind of house is somehow typical of the overall state of traditional design in the US. The same architects would never characterize the state of modernist design by the absolute lowest level possible.
Because that is the state of design in the US. It is cookie cutter generic suburbia. Nothing original, nothing unique, just copied and pasted generic designs all over the place!
You can say that about modern/contemporary design once we see thousands and thousands of (virtually) the same design slapped across the country.
That is not the state of traditional design in the US. That may be the state of cookie-cutter suburbia.
In a very interesting way, those "cookie-cutter suburban" designs were spawned by the Modernist movement in the USA.
1. No matter what the architectural style of the individual buildings, American suburbia is the product of automobile-centric modern (post WWII) city planning.
2. The arrival of Walter Gropius and other early Modernists in the USA, and their take over of the architecture schools here, resulted in a complete washing away of any curriculum in traditional design. The Bauhaus emphasis on "wiping the slate clean" pretty thoroughly interrupted an educational continuum that had persisted for hundred of years. This monopoly persists to this day, with a few exceptions.
As a result, architects educated after the 1920s received no formal education in any traditional architecture form, language or values. Yet as professionals, they were met by a public who still valued classical and vernacular architecture. Is there any wonder why the neo-traditional builders buildings of today are so badly designed? You can thank Herr Gropius.
Look at "builders houses" built in the 1930s and 40's, and compare them to the same sort of product today. There is no comparison in quality. I believe the reason is that the modernist stranglehold on the schools has ensured that nobody learn how to do them well.
Well,
I'm not a professor, I'm did not make a comment to start a debate, just stating facts and have no interest in teaching. So, please read up on what Frank L. Wright, and Mies van der rhoe had to say. My answer to your questions will be better answered by them.
There are some good utube FLW videos. and also recommend you buy The Mike Wallis interview of FLW.
Ror Mies I recommend you buy a book titled " The artless word".
Unicorn, thanks for explaining a little bit of what i was talking about.
EKE,
you should remember that the word Modernism is a label created by the mobocracy.
good luck to you all
PS. Zaha H.'s only Partner gave a lecture at USC, in which he made it clear what they are against. cant remember his name somthing something Patrick. the guy is certifiable.
please excuse my typing errors i'm juggling my one year old son on my lap
architects are not being critical of "traditional" styles, they are being critical of thoughtless throw-away design that masquerades as "traditional."
"traditional," at least to me, means a vernacular and building techniques that are passed down through generations and reflective of a particular region, climate, and/or culture. There are a few rare examples in the states still being built, but many of the "traditional" techniques (which includes everything from native american to colonial to those brought here by various immigrant populations) were lost after WWII.
what we have today isn't "traditional" it's pastiche, kitsch, fake. modern boxes wrapped in plastic made to look like hand-cut wood or stone.
most of us still love styles and buildings of past eras - but there is an honesty (and with great structures, there is experimentation) with materials, and construction. I personally have no problem with people borrowing from or working in particular styles, but at least be aware of the limitations of modern materials and how that might change things - and really understand the style you are borrowing from so you get the proportions and scale right.
"what we have today isn't "traditional" it's pastiche, kitsch, fake. modern boxes wrapped in plastic made to look like hand-cut wood or stone."
That's a pretty broad statement. I would say, "Some is." However there is a large community of thoughtful practitioners doing quality work using traditional languages.
Where? One of the simple facts is that craftsmanship cannot be had for the cost/value that was once available. This has led to fake columns, fake stone, fake details, fake everything to mimic the past in a cost effective way.
Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but there is a reason the term "McMansion" was created.
eke,
the problem of fake nostalgia manifested in mcmansions today is not necessarily due to post WWII automobile dominance. Americans have a love affair with re-creating physical symbols of bygone eras. There's a long tradition of borrowing and bastardizing to express some semblance of wealth and/or power. it's the whole reason why sullivan and wright were disgusted with the greek revival at the 1893 columbian exposition.
It certainly is available, and being employed on thoughtful traditional buildings around the country. Elaborate hand cut stone on large, expensive buildings with large budgets, and wood and plaster details on more humble, vernacular buildings. Just as it has always been. The goal is to select materials that are honest, weather well and last a long time. Often this means using traditional materials and details, but sometimes, this can mean using a new material that is superior to the old.
The thoughtful classicist doesn't "mimic" the past. They use a traditional language to create buildings that have relevance to people and places now.
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.