Long accustomed to basing its reputation on the grandeur of its old buildings, the city now finds it almost impossible to agree on how to build new ones.
In recent months, traditionalists have blocked efforts to introduce contemporary architecture in the historic core [...]. Modernists are rolling their eyes at new buildings that copy traditional styles, arguing that they pervert a record of architectural progress long documented in mortar and stone.
— nytimes.com
Don't miss these heated discussions on the subject matter:
167 Comments
"But to characterize the cities' desire for new buildings to blend in as a "stage-set", you distance yourself from an architectural tradition as old as urbanism."
New buildings, even the ones that work so hard to blend in receive attention because they're new. And eventually, even for the "splashy" buildings, that attention always fades.
This is one of the reasons I love New York City. It is constantly evolving, constantly absorbing disruptions and receiving new ideas. Its character is directly linked to its capacity for change. Those who argue that Charleston is so fragile that it cannot accept a design like the Clemson building are revealing their lack of faith in Charleston's intellectual capacity for change and growth.
"EKE, the Clemson design itself exhibits a whole range of sensitivity/sensibility. It readily shows that the architects took great care in putting it together to achieve (an institutional) quality. A building of quality is invariably an asset to its environment, more so than a building whose first (and perhaps only) priority is to "fit in." "
I'm sorry, but this is a non-answer. You have identified no specific feature in the proposed Clemson building that demonstrates any "sensitivity" to the architectural character of historic Charleston. Basically you are saying that as long as the building is of a certain level of "quality', that's all that is necessary to be able to build appropriately in a historic district.
---------
"Fineprint is exactly right. The Allied Works design was a sensitive design in its scale, relationship to the street and material choices. It was also undeniably contemporary, which should be ok."
By the way...I have a problem with the word "contemporary" used in this manner, since contemporary means "occurring in the present time". Everything I design is "contemporary", by definition, since I am a currently-practicing architect. The word you are looking for is really "modernist", meaning "aligned with the artistic philosophy of Modernism".
You certainly can see that the neighborhood character, the aesthetic qualities which define the "sense of place" of historic Charleston, the qualities that so many people want to conserve there, are defined by much, much more than street alignments and building height. The really important part of the definition of "there" in Charleston has to do with all of the other stuff. Yes...elements of regional style. If you were to replace all of the traditional buildings in Charleston with variations of the proposed Clemson building, while keeping the scale and street relationship the same, it would no longer be Charleston.
I've changed my mind. In the spirit of growth and change, I've decided that we can't keep using the old, classic languages. That would be retrograde, conservative, and the result would be kitchy pastiche. So from now on, I'm going to invent my own, personal language to post here. It will use the same characters, in order to show some sensitivity to context, but it will be decidedly contemporary and visionary.
G;lkkv[od haksdhliuhgo8arglk ;iuadfjh j;oihhihfatafh
Ernm fin, ljhr uhb ljg k liueparg iuhh lha eiurgo wpnvj? Revb jfvb hj qwdlag Gyudi.
Kv gomb fsh! Jagstom.
EKE,
I will need time to absorb your 'disruption', but I'm sure I will be the richer for it. Just don't call me fragile.
skfkkzfdj,khdahfdh, OMG!!!!!
fineprint,
I've also noticed your inability to articulate the reasons for which you think the Clemson design "exhibits a whole range of sensitivity/sensibility".
"I'd like to see if they are indeed good enough reasons to 'allow' the existence of the Clemson design in Charleston"...please and thank you.
What is really strange here is that self-appointed experts are trying to dictate to Charlestonians what they should permit in their city. Charlestonians are sophisticated, well educated, and at home in the world's capitals. They have spent generations restoring and updating their city to make it one of the loveliest in the country. They don't really have to justify themselves to anyone but the residents of their city. It should be pointed out the main reason for the Clemson satellite campus in Charleston was to study the architecture, planning, and landscape architecture of Charleston. precisely because it is so exceptional.
To correct an unintended impression Clemson has had a presence in Charleston for years; it has allied with the University of Charleston to study architecture, planning, historical preservation, and planning. Clemson just does not have its own dedicated building in Charleston. Clemson also maintains satellite campuses in Genoa and Barcelona.
EKE,
"I have a problem with the word "contemporary" ... The word you are looking for is really "modernist", meaning "aligned with the artistic philosophy of Modernism"."
Modernism isn't the word i'm looking for. Thats too specific. I'm talking about allowing contemporary architects and clients to create contemporary buildings. If that means classical, fine. If that means modernist, fine. If that means parametricist, fine.
Volunteer, I'm glad you clarified but you're making it seem like there is an adversarial relationship between insiders and outsiders. But thats obviously inaccurate since Clemson is an insider, and they hired Allied Works.
Also, I'm glad that EKE sees the obvious linguistic connection. I actually wonder if many of these aesthetic-based restrictions are infringing on the 1st Amendment rights of clients to freedom of speech.
"EKE, please outline in specifics how the Clemson design is insensitive to the architectural character of historic Charleston. I'd like to see if they are indeed good enough reasons to deny the existence of the Clemson design in Charleston."
fonmefn.+]|. Ksdvj*\|Fbv. Di mvfkdvw.
7. Fern kedc ejfcjdchbch/)&$. Opnfvnksc.
9. Irhvhjnc
2. Ebfv]{£~?#,^X. Trkvu. Gerri?
Wow this thread is still going........I actually didn't quite understand how the Allied Works project was a good fit for Charleston to be honest, and not saying Allied Works does bad work either. Just didn't hit the mark for me on many levels - all white? Subtle parametric like curves and cuts that don't appear to serve a "contextual" purpose, like a Cristo project which is never really related to the site anyway.............. I watched that last debate here and just couldn't figure out why everyone was so exited.....granted the 'tradionalists' always make a good showing on archinect...............also it's pretty obvious that there are a few here who make little effort to respond to the opposing party when being challenged - like partisan politics, which leads me to believe 'style' is like 'religion'. BLIND FAITH. Even if I offered a rational language to connect the two through 'material placement and performance' only,which is 'outside' style, apparently that was offensive as well......... .........Thayer-d. I know you disagree, but for example take a single brick and place it in an all white studio and tell me what style the brick is? Thanks.
We're seeing architecture criticism/rhetoric reflecting partisan politics because, frankly, politics is easier than Architecture. Its much easier to create a simplistic dichotomy and form two camps than to understand the complicated history and theories of Architecture. Its easier to say "I like what I like" than to understand the historical basis for a style, form or technique.
davvid, it's unfortunate, sometimes these debates start off really interesting and then someone just decides to start screaming and ignoring everything and everyone on the basis of garbage they can't defend and don't care to.
Chris,
I think this debate is still going on because it never was fully resolved by the modernist revolution 90 years ago nor with the re-introduction of "history" by the advent of post-modernism. It's still going on as the increasingly improved production of "traditionalist" work makes evident. As for the "good showing" of traditionalists on this site, if you mean folks who look at architecture traditionally (ie, not philosophically), then guilty as charged. But as I've made clear several times before, I enjoy designing something modernist as well as traditionalist or something in between, simply because I love design, and no language has the market cornered on being able to define beauty. That being said, I think the success rate of modernism to produce beauty is dismally low, not impossible, but not impressive. Clearly, that's because many practitioners of that style (or whatever you want to call it) aren't as concerned about beauty as others, but most surveys will bear this out.
As to your claim that "that there are a few here who make little effort to respond to the opposing party when being challenged - like partisan politics, which leads me to believe 'style' is like 'religion'. BLIND FAITH." You should have been around for some other exchanges, the longest one topped 1600 comments, although most where no where as civil as you and davvid, so my hat's off to you for keeping this what it is, simply a matter of taste. Your brick analogy is fallacious simply because style has little bearing on the material employed. Many are bedeviled by this question of style, and that's unfortunate. Most deride the term to gain a rhetorical advantage without actually addressing the substance of the debate, which I think is where you're at.
davvid, I think you hit upon one of the stumbling blocks of this debate.
"Its much easier to create a simplistic dichotomy and form two camps than to understand the complicated history and theories of Architecture. Its easier to say "I like what I like" than to understand the historical basis for a style, form or technique."
It is easier, but it's also more important in the end. I assume we've all read the treatises and manifestos of our trade, but some of us move on from the implied importance of having to justify aesthetics out side of aesthetics. If you assume that tastes vary, then it's of little (or lesser) importance what complicated theories of architecture underlay the work. This is where I think we talk past each other. Most traditionalists believe in the dictum, firmness, commodity, and delight, which have no political/stylistic bearing, as much as some would like it to have. Yet, many modernists think to the contrary. Please note that I wasn't absolute in my terms knowing that there are many who see across this spectrum. Like politics, I'd like our leaders to get off their soap boxes and fix stuff. Well, at the risk of sounding like dilettante, I feel the same way about architecture. Understand that this is beyond the discussions of place making, zoning, sustainability and the like which legitimately cross over into politics. But when it comes down to the simple pleasure of aesthetics, we, as a profession invest way too much energy in theories.
"davvid, it's unfortunate, sometimes these debates start off really interesting and then someone just decides to start screaming and ignoring everything and everyone on the basis of garbage they can't defend and don't care to."
Who's the one playing that role in this thread, Chris?
EKE, not you, if you really need to ask. It's further up a bit, when I got busy with work and then read through everything just to see a few people asking the other for specifics and neither responding....
Thayer-D: To simplify - theory or style? Time better spent on 'style' than theory'?
I missed that 1600 count thread, finally figured out that was what Miles was referencing the other day somewhere...
so Thayer-D - What is style?
I've already essentially identified 'style' as myth and preference without reflection, and for the most part 'not important' and completely without substance. A lazy, naive, and ignorant method for producing architecture.
When does a brick to have style?
"Thayer-D: To simplify - theory or style? Time better spent on 'style' than theory'?
Again, way to reductive. A false choice with no nuance. If you like theory, have at it hoss, but don't expect the public to 'read' it in your building. They might be able to identify it's style and definitely how it feels, if that's ok w/ you.
What is style? Just look it up. As I've repeatedly said, I prefer to use language as closely as it's understood by the most people.
"just to see a few people asking the other for specifics and neither responding...."
"When does a brick to have style?"
Just a little consistency. Not a lot to ask for, is it?
I know Thayer-d, why are you so obtuse? You still haven't told me when a brick obtains style and you avoid responding through stating my propositions are false choices not followed by proposed acceptable choices, you also did not once response to Davvid or fineprint..... .......................Here, I googled the definition of style and will now answer for you. Anything beyond this answer would be theory, correct?...................style - noun- a manner of doing something.......style - verb - design or make in a particular form...................now some theory, lets see if you can engage - so to be a 'stylized' as 'traditionalist' or 'modernist' you must consistently perform the making of a form in a manner for doing, that makes a particular form. This means there is a method for achieving a form. Since we are architects here (I think you are at least) our manner of doing occurs and is embedded in the tools we use for representation of presentation of our thoughts on architecture. This means the hand or the computer can heavily influence the style of the architecture. For example 'parametricism'. Furthermore, since our tool is not an actual method of 'construction' we can easily disregard reality and make forms as based on our methods within our tool. See Michael Graves as a perfect example of hand drawings using standard icons of presentation as actual architecture, cartoon as reality. The lack of substance in architecture style is an obvious outgrowth its detachment from actual building. Maybe I should of been a builder or maybe I too believe like Mies van der Rohe via critique by Sola- Morales that ultimately the physics and chemistry of the imagined material decides it's placement or as Lou Kahn famously said "what does a brick want to be.".......................... If you read Vitruvius within his historical context, same with Adolf Loos, and now Deleuze via Delanda via any 'contemporary' 'cutting edge' architect, they too are more concerned about a method true to building according to guidelines well outside of socialy defined 'style'. I will add the DARISTS as well to this (mvdvr, koolhaasish)........which makes Frank Gehry even more interesting. You ask, does Gehry think about building? My favorite example and thayer-d you should appreciate this, it's hardly theory he apparently does think about building, and when pondering on how to create the swooping shapes he referenced the scale of a fish (see formic fish lamp) Not a lot theory there,but based on reality.............. Which is why I wonder 'shutters that don't move' and plastic 'doric' whatever can have any substance or any real reason for existing beyond copy paste methods of creating architecture by imitating style as many are representing Charleston is describing style..............somewhere in Edmund Bacon's book on urbanism he shows the facades of buildings in Savannah,GA over time and he clearly points out the architect of today doesn't understand the already given language of the city. The images all appear in the 'style' of 'traditional' architecture. Besides I think Notre Dame and maybe American University who in the country teaches how to be a 'classicist' or 'traditional architect''? And is it relevant as a method of producing architecture, or is it simply copy paste of something long outdated? Please note with regard to trying to match form created in a much different 'zeitgeist' so to can 'modernism' be a style of copy paste.
Not only does Charleston imitate styles, largely the Federal and Greek Revival, it innovates on those styles, so the choice is not between a Federal style of 200 years ago and Gehry. In Charleston the shutters do shutter and the columns aren't plastic so you have no point there. The homes are a blend of styles adapted to the needs and wants of their occupants who like them very much as do the city's sophisticated visitors. In Bilbao neither the curators of Gehry's museum, nor the neighbors, nor the museum visitors seem to like it very much. And it requires a full-time crew just continually maintain the falling apart titanium-clad roof. So basically you can build something outside of the norm that is hideously expensive, impossible to maintain, has no context to the history and heritage of the place it was built, and detested by it's owners, occupants, and visitors. In the face of this you seem to imply that the detractors must be mouth-breathing semi-literates with no taste? And that classical architects working within broad guidelines never have an original idea in their life.
A brick doesn't have style, any more than a single atom of an element exhibits the entire spectrum of characteristics of a chemical compound. However, as soon as I use a brick, in a certain way, as an element in an aesthetic composition, then it becomes part of the grammar of the language of architecture. It begins to contribute to an identifiable aesthetic language, one that may be part of a living regional tradition. Really, that's all a style is...an aesthetic language. Doesn't sound so scary, does it?
Chris, I think you just went off the rails. Whatever theory, style or manner you chose to approach your work is not as important as your personal inclinations and outlook.
If I had to attach a label to a theory I work within, it would be these three words.
Firmness, commodity, and delight.
Between those three poles, there are endless permutations, depending context, budget, and personal tendencies. The reason I keep it simple is that I'd rather concentrate on the architecture than the literature, but to each his/her own.
Volunteer,
In neotraditionist circles there is originality but its in the context of venerating the logic of preexisting forms. Its sort of like a Bible class at a Baptist church, as opposed to a theology course on the Bible in a secular context. Its not like people are not asking questions in a church Bible Class, its just that they're probably not going to deconstruct too much of the preexisting logic.
The winds are shifting in architecture right now...can't you feel it?
All of these articles in the mainstream design and popular press, either suggesting that capital 'A' architecture is falling short, or people like Aaron Betsky irritably defending the status quo, in a tone that smacks of fear. That's why the modernist vs traditionalist threads go on for hundreds of posts.
No matter what point of view you subscribe to, is seems as through people are yearning for more meaning from their architecture, and that the blinders are starting to come off.
Davvid, in modernist circles it is the same thing. The forum is a good example. As soon as someone here questions the theology of modernist theory, or starts to drill in too deeply and deconstructs the preexisting logic, it results in a freak out that usually ends in someone posting "can we stop talking about this now, it's not productive" or something rational and nuanced like, "Andres Duany is a douche".
Aaron Betsky had the same freakout, only he did it on the pages of a national magazine.
it's the 'delight' part that's in question right? i mean really, you can scrap firmness and commodity because that's engineer's stuff, and neither firmness nor commodity are being scrutinized here.
so to define 'delight,' we can only build stuff that you think looks neat? that makes sense to you, because you represent 'the public,' and 'the public' will like what you tell them, right?
if chris likes something different than you, his opinion doesn't count, and that's why you think the government and courts should interfere in the ability of clemson university, the charleston board of architectural review, and allied works architecture, all of whom approved the design in question here, to get this building built.
but, you know you can't really say on here that the whole world revolves around you. even though you might believe it, you know it would make you look kind of dumb. so, you say it's the citizens of charleston that object to the design. there were, after all, two neighborhood associations who opposed the design. since their opinion matches yours, they're right and everyone else is wrong. is that an accurate statement? or do you give equal credibility to those who might prefer allied works design?
Rick Goodstein said "We promised from the very beginning that we would be good neighbors" and they stopped the direction of the allied works architecture design "in the interest of finding a solution acceptable to all parties."
here's where i want to how you decide who's opinion is right, if you don't think the world should revolve around you. if they come up with a design you find adequately traditional, why wouldn't allied architects sue to stop it? apparently they like their design, and would prefer to see it get built rather than something you might prefer. they're an interested party now, so if the goal is to find a solution to all parties, designing something 'traditional' isn't going to work. you would have to say 'a solution to all parties that want a traditional design,' which is not what they said.
so everyone should sue to stop construction if a building isn't dressed up the way they like? or only the 'traditionalists' should sue, and what you consider 'modernists' should accept that the world is better off living in the past? volunteer, maybe you can sue aspen to get rid of the museum you don't like. after all, government and the courts exist to make you happy.
maybe the difference between 'traditional' and 'modern' doesn't have anything to do with style. maybe it's that 'traditionalists' are whiny brats who throw tantrums when they don't get their way, and modernists are those who have outgrown that and now have to deal with moving forward despite your pouting?
EKE,
I'm not "freaked out" by neotraditionalism generally. I'm "freaked out" by laws and lawsuits that restrict what architects and their clients (we too often focus on the architect and ignore the client) can do architecturally. Its fine if you want to create a neoclassical building, but don't impose that philosophy onto entire neighborhoods and cities. The pluralism cartoon you posted earlier is what I am absolutely opposed to.
I'm also noticing a strong current of anti-intellectualism in the pro-revival/neotraditionalist argument. That sort of freaks me out. Ignoring History and theory is a risky approach in any field. Everything we've discussed has been described and debated by architects and writers in more detail and nuance than we are capable of. I can't ignore that history of human thought.
Back to history... There was a time when Modernist was highly dogmatic. It was a situation that was unsustainable and it was eventually challenged. We're now about 50 years down the post-modernist road that explored semiotics, historical references, double coding, phenomenology, generative architecture etc. It wasn't a total rejection of Modernism but it liberated it from an institutional rigidity, It also kept architecture in step with developments in other areas of society - philosophy, art, technology etc. Now we're in 2015. We're driving less. We're moving into cities. We're very anxious about global warming and the limitedness of our oil supply. We're anxious over terrorism. We're anxious over extreme income inequality. We're extremely globally connected. We have more people from more countries contributing to the cultural sphere than ever before. Technology is developing at an extremely fast rate. We're probably on the verge of breakthroughs in augmented reality and self driving cars. How should we understand Charleston in that context?
Keep in mind that the rejection of the Allied Works Clemson building is now a historic event. The Times article also shapes to the historical context. Like Complexity and Contradiction did in the 60s, I think these events along with Venice Biennial, along with the demolition of the Folk Art Museum and other Modernist buildings, along with OMA's cronocaos exhibition are all forming a criticism that begs for a more appropriate approach to preservation and change.
The people who live in Charleston thought that Clemson could do better and Clemson agreed. As for the Aspen Art Museum the residents didn't want it but the self-styled elite who are going to benefit financially from several side real-estate deals tied to the museum did. Democracy in Charleston, autocracy in Aspen; take your pick.
Traditionalists are anti-intellectual? I am not the one who is arguing that we discard the collective intelligence of mankind in favor of the flavor-of-the-week. Nor am I the one who is calling the other side brats and douches.
davvid, i am afraid your arguments fall apart upon examination. The historical area of a city is not one building., it is how the buildings and gardens and parks and people interact. Paris inside the old walls is pretty much an historical area, with a few exceptions. The downtown areas of Charleston and Savannah are functioning cities along with being historical areas. The idea that anyone should be allowed to build anything that suits them anywhere they want is very strange. If someone wanted to commission Gehry to build a giant crematorium along Charleston's Battery they should be allowed to? Because the owner has the money and a thing for Gehry and crematoria?
Volunteer, The criticism of the Clemson design was not about "doing better". It was about style and not sufficiently blending in.
As for the Aspen Art Museum, its not a breakthrough design but its still very nice. I don't really see how Ban was supposed to counter the elites in Aspen through his architecture. The anti-elite, anti-billionaire argument is a political one that Aspen needs to settle for itself. A japanese architect is not going to take care of that.
As far as physical context goes, its surrounded by lesser achieving contemporary buildings.
"Traditionalists are anti-intellectual?"
At times, yes. Not always.
Your cartoons are simplistic and misleading. Why?
Thayer quotes:
"Nobody gives a shit about these debates other than architects and a few intellectuals."
" But when it comes down to the simple pleasure of aesthetics, we, as a profession invest way too much energy in theories."
"As I've repeatedly said, I prefer to use language as closely as it's understood by the most people."
"Postmodernism, modernism, irony, innocence. When do humans actually buy into this kind of world view? How about post-bullshit? Any person who can't say 'I love you' because somebody has already written it has bigger problems than any ism can cover."
Volunteer,
"The idea that anyone should be allowed to build anything that suits them anywhere they want is very strange."
I know.
I've already said (I directed it at EKE though) that its reasonable to restrict things like building use, scale, height, building to lot ratios, even things like material reflectivity. The real issue is with providing enough freedom. Are you allowing clients and architects enough freedom to achieve what they want to achieve? I'm not anti-zoning or anti-planning.
The Leon Krier cartoons I posted are direct and symbolic, as are most cartoons, but are not simplistic, and are certainly not misleading. You just don't like the message, Davvid. Read Krier's "Architecture: Choice or Fate", and then look me in the face and tell me it's anti-intellectual.
One can argue for engaging the taste of the common man with our architecture, and for working within the local traditions which people love, and for appealing to the sensual, without abandoning the layers of intellectual rationale which might underpin it.
"And if you take the time to look closely at the Clemson design you'd see that the architects indeed learned from and in turn were sensitive to the context."
Can you describe what you think the architects learned from the neighborhood, and how they showed sensitivity to the context?
Davvid: What do you think is the purpose of an architectural theory? Why produce architecture that has a philosophy behind it?
volunteer, are you saying everyone in clemson was opposed to the clemson design and everyone in aspen was opposed to the aspen museum? the objections to these buildings were unanimous? there were no opinions of people who liked the building, or didn't care?
but we know there are people who supported the clemson building, because we know it was reviewed and approved.
so what we have is some people agree with your opinion, other people have a different opinion.
now you're getting into thayer's territory, where you seem to think only those member's of the public who agree with you count.
"The people who live in Charleston thought that Clemson could do better" -- some did. why not consider other people's opinions?
"As for the Aspen Art Museum the residents didn't want it" -- again, we know there are some people who didn't like it, and that's ok. but, there are also some people who do like it
http://www.denverpost.com/music/ci_26295404/how-heidi-zuckerman-jacobsen-turned-aspens-art-scene
there is an article about the museum curator. obviously she likes it, right?
what makes you get to pick which people count and which don't? as with most 'modernists,' i'm not telling you to stop designing traditional buildings. i'm asking you to stop pretending you're the voice of the 'the public,' and stop telling other people that what they're doing is wrong.
your statements as to what the people of charleston want and what the people of aspen want are not universal. what you're saying is patently false.
that's the 'modernist' maturity i was talking about. the ability to to view this in a context outside of one's own personal agenda. in the analogy brought up before, the brick doesn't start as 'traditional.' it's already been stated that it's how you put together the bricks. at some point that assembly of bricks can become either 'traditional' or 'modern' based on the interpretation of a 'traditionalist.' of course the 'modernist' isn't going to view it that simplistically.
my 'brat' comment is to suggest that it is not the assembly of bricks that differentiates 'traditional' architecture from 'modern' architecture, or greek pediments, or renaissance rustication, or roman arches. the point at which one style splits from the other is based on the observer. saying a building shouldn't be built because it's not 'traditional' like charleston simply means the observer lacks the maturity or general architectural education to understand the context. 'traditionalist,' in the context of these forums, seem to be the people who think the world revolves around them. doesn't that seem childish?
F of F:
Nothing is pure, of course. What you say is probably true, that the norm, certainly in America, is more Krier's "False Pluralism" than "True Pluralism". In my opinion that's too bad. I live in Los Angeles, and vast swaths of this city are the result of people building whatever is fashionable at the moment, and then either letting it decay away when it is no longer considered appealing, or tearing it down and building something that is closer to the flavor-of-the-week. There are moments...historic districts of Pasadena, Hancock Park, Santa Monica, etc. (and these are examples of Krier's True Pluralism, since they have local architectural review which will prevent you from building a white ice cube there). And there are super eclectic areas that work as well. Abbot Kinney St. in Venice, my neighborhood, is an example of a great street that is an eclectic blend of modernist and traditional buildings.
But, worldwide, Krier's "True Pluralism" is both an ideal, and a reality. Sienna, Nantucket, Santa Barbara, Santa Fe, Bath... to name just a few...I could go on. These are places where the architecture is consistent and adheres to a local tradition that is long-standing. Krier's point is simply that we should look to the city as the proper individuation level for urban design, not the building. Otherwise, eventually, every place starts to looks like every other place.
Take Bath, England as an example. It is architecturally super-coherent, and the place is loved by many because of it. If you don't like Georgian architecture rendered in cream limestone, Bath is not a place for you. Go live in another English town where the type of architecture is more to your liking. This is true choice of PLACE. The alternative is to have places like Bath, or Charleston for that matter, have their sense of place wash away over time, and become like every other place.
"The façade of the Clemson building works nicely with the rhythm of the building façade across the street it aligns with. Likewise, the color of the new design blends in, and a nice completion of the intersection is also achieved."
You know what might also work nicely with the rhythm of the building facades in the first historic district in the United States? A building in a local historic style, appropriately scaled, detailed, and well crafted. Why is that a problem? Because modernist ideologues can't see anything beyond their prescribed modes of thinking. Do you think any 'traditionalist' here is going to say boo about Antoine Predock's new Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winniped, Manitoba? Of course not, because it's in a wasteland context. Cars fly by at 55 mph on one side and a sea of parking on the other.
There's ample room for both modes of expression and anything in between in this big planet of ours. Modernists just can't take the leveling of the field because they know where the public stands (in general) on this debate and how precipitously their stock will fall if both views are legitimatized in academia.
Chris said he can't believe how this debate is still going on, and then does his part to keep it going. Tell you the truth, these are debates one couldn't have in school, so it's a pleasure to have them out in the open without any pressure or censure. We won't agree, that's fine, there's no need to, but it's illuminating to at least be able to have this discussion in the open air, rather than have it artificially stifled in studio classes. I look forward to keeping this conversation going, as Robert Ivy says.
Architectural theory is an ongoing well-informed discussion (verbal and written) about architecture.
Why produce architecture with some basis in philosophy? Because philosophy is the study of questions related to our existence. Whether or not the architect is aware of it, every piece of architecture is dealing with matters of philosophy.
"Tell you the truth, these are debates one couldn't have in school"
All the figures we've named (Krier, Stern, Duany etc) have all lectured at Architecture, Planning and Preservation schools. And Stern of course is dean of Yale SOA.
What can't really happen in academia is the solipsism of "I like what I like". You'll have to scrutinize architecture in terms of its historical context.
I never said, "I like what I like". Thayer, did you say "i like what I like"? Volunteer?
Because modernist ideologues can't see anything beyond their prescribed modes of thinking.
but the so-called 'modernists' aren't telling you what to do or what to like. you're telling them what to do. the 'modernists' are just asking that you quit throwing tantrums and suing people when you don't get your way. that difference should be taken into consideration, especially when throwing out words like 'ideologue' that are kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.
it was the public that got the clemson museum approved. not all of the public, but some of it. then the public stopped it, because some of the public decided they didn't like it.
it was the public that got the aspen museum built. not all of the public, but some of it. then some of the public opposed it.
if your goal is to stop every building that doesn't appeal to all people, then that ends architecture as a profession, new construction, and significant renovations. if it's just to stop buildings in areas you wouldn't refer to as "wastelands," like manitoba, then it severely limits where an architect should be allowed to practice.
it's still ridiculous that you think you somehow speak for everyone. you don't. neither do I. there is no single thought, style, or person that decides what everyone in the public wants. that's the sort of immature, childish thought that might get one labeled as 'brat.' just saying, i think that's an appropriate term and shouldn't be considered name calling or insulting in this specific context.
There is a middle ground between the two poles of "stop every building that doesn't appeal to all people" and "anything goes, no restrictions on the architect". That middle ground depends on architect recognizing the importance of a sense of place, especially in areas that have long standing urban traditions that people love. That the "where" of these kind of places in much more important than the "when".
EKE, The "when" matters very much. Thats a huge part of context. Thats history.
so you're going to say that charleston is off-limits to certain sorts of design.
there is something in charleston that has to stop. you probably wouldn't agree with saying it's innovation, or progress. i have trouble understanding exactly what it is, but something 'new' can't be there.
this city is different because in this city, time stops. it's essentially a museum. but it isn't genuinely historic artifacts. rather, new interpretations of those artifacts, right? not pomo interpretations of course, but only literal interpretations. there has to be new building on occasion in order to keep the city functioning. your saying that in this city, we need to restrict that new construction to imitations of old.
sounds like an amusement park, which is fine. it works for vegas. how many cities do we have to set aside though? volunteer wants to set aside aspen. are there any limitations on what cities are allowed to change, or to move forward with time as it changes? do you think everyone else needs to be confined to what thayer calls a 'wasteland?'
What I've characterized as "I like what I like" is the point of view that wishes architecture wasn't tethered to history and change.
Curt, I am saying that if the people of Charleston is interested in keeping intact the "Charlestonian" character of the place, and it seems that they are, they should definitely avoid building certain kinds of buildings, yes.
You guys have bought into a fallacious notion of some sort of historical "ladder of progress".
EKE, Not a "ladder of progress". We're talking about history and change.
Davvid, in your opinion, are there any human values that we should endeavor to maintain, and hold as constants, in the face of history and change?
Do you think that there is such a thing as "human nature"?
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.