[Jeeper]

It's not that hard to figure not every New Mexican is gonna like it. :tup:

Actually in 2007 a poll was conducted by the Albuquerque Journal asking New Mexicans whether or not they liked the capitol. 101% said yes, they liked it, so there. Can't argue with that.

;)

[Juelz]

Actually in 2007 a poll was conducted by the Albuquerque Journal asking New Mexicans whether or not they liked the capitol. 101% said yes, they liked it, so there. Can't argue with that.

;)

Gotta tell you, that's really hard to believe. But if New Mexican's all really like that lackluster office building, I find that pretty fascinating. :haha:

[Cirrus]

When you have defined this set of criteria, the architect should work to resolve these issues through a coherent system that creates a building. It is, in effect, designed from the inside out; the inverse of pre-modernist architecture.Absolutely none of that suggests anything about what aesthetic style in which to build the outside of the building. It is a complete fabrication to suggest that post-modernist design takes "the program" into consideration and pre-modernist design doesn't. Once you know that you have to provide a rotunda and lighty offices out of local materials, absolutely nothing precludes (or sanctions) one aesthetic over another. Nothing in that program suggests that the Morphosis design is better than the traditional one.

And you know that. You know that it's disingenuous to suggest that the modernists went in with an open mind. You know that Morphosis went into the competition and decided ahead of time that it was going to build something in the aesthetic style of the "here and now" instead of classical or any other style.

Disingenuousness like that is why I am being rude to you. When you stop lying to me, I'll stop being rude.

[CGII]

Absolutely none of that suggests anything about what aesthetic style in which to build the outside of the building.

Precisely! It's inappropriate to simply 'decide' that a building should be built in some style, particularly one that belongs to another continent and another century. What's more, 'deciding' to build in some totally inappropriate 'style' kills the identity of the world's cities; globalized architecture=homogeneity. 'Style' should have its grounds in material and in program. A building should work first as a building, not an art piece.

Here; let's look at some cars:

http://www.motoringpicturelibrary.com/docs/hi-mpl340001858c.jpg
motoringpicturelibrary.com

http://images.drive.com.au/drive_images/Editorial/2007/12/06/06FordMondeo1_m_m.jpg
images.drive.com.au

There are numerous reasons to account for the tremendous apparent differences in design. Improvements in technology, changes in methods of fabrication, new materials, new obstacles to face such as aerodynamics and weight distribution, et al.
The horseless carriage was a radical new invention at the time, and engineers were only beginning to understand what it was that 'made it a horseless carriage.' In a sense, they didn't know what to do with it, so they donned it with architectural detailing common for the time.
Over the next century, though, there would be incredible new demands placed on the industry that created automobiles, like what I listed above. The Ford Mondeo on the bottom is the result of evolution; the design of the car evolved to address the various needs of new demands placed on the car. The Ford designers did not just decide to make the Mondeo look modern and not like the horseless carriage, they designed it to accomodate all the needs it had to address. Sure there are stylistic details in the Mondeo but they are only details; the style is not a design philosophy that dictates every inch of the car and the engine and the transmission and the suspension. It would be silly to design the Mondeo with a horseless carriage body because it would restrict the cars ability to perform the way it was intended to.

The differences between the Morphosis capitol and the revivalist alternative go so far beyond style. In fact, you seem to imply that the two buildings are exactly the same besides their facade appearance, since you seem to hold me responsible for my negative opinion of the latter and not the former.

And you know that. You know that it's disingenuous to suggest that the modernists went in with an open mind. You know that Morphosis went into the competition and decided ahead of time that it was going to build something in the aesthetic style of the "here and now" instead of classical or any other style.


Disingenuous? I've told you repeatedly I do not support the Morphosis design. HOWEVER what their design accomplished that the revivalist building did not was a sense of place, and addressing the issues I've already spoken about. Since they chose to go beyond the basics of what they created with flashy materials and a hyper-stylized ambience I cannot say I am a fan. BUT the altnerative dictates the functions of the building be restricted by the geometry of a three hundred year old pop culture reference.

The simple fact is that the Morphosis building is modern, it has the blood and guts of a building that addresses the needs of modern use for our modern culture. The revivalist alternative adapts style over substance, and adheres to the archaic principles that our habitation of a building should be restricted to a specific form.


Disingenuousness like that is why I am being rude to you. When you stop lying to me, I'll stop being rude.

Grow up. I'm trying to explain to you my architectural philosophy, and you feel the need to be rude. If you want me to understand your position (and if you really think I'm being disingenuous), explain it to me and spare the insults.

[LMich]

The spat between the two of you will end, now. This is so ridiculous.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Well said, CGII, especially this:

Grow up. I'm trying to explain to you my architectural philosophy, and you feel the need to be rude. If you want me to understand your position (and if you really think I'm being disingenuous), explain it to me and spare the insults.

:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:

[ardecila]

The revivalist alternative adapts style over substance, and adheres to the archaic principles that our habitation of a building should be restricted to a specific form.

Which makes it all the more impressive when a 'revivalist' building manages to reconcile its program demands with the style on the outside. The two goals aren't mutually exclusive. However, the role of the architect is a different one... for revivalism the role is this reconciliation of form and function, whereas in modernism the role is fabrication, i.e. reinventing the wheel for every new building.

I think it's a complete misunderstanding to term historical styles as somehow 'lazy' when their design presents a totally different set of challenges.

[Cirrus]

It's inappropriate to simply 'decide' that a building should be built in some styleDo you apply the same standard to modernists?

You keep telling me that there are good reasons for modern buildings to have modern things in them. I hear you, and I agree, but I keep telling you that those reasons neither preclude nor dictate aesthetic style, and that therefore you can build a modern building in any aesthetic style that you want. Once you've figured out what substance you need, you can put any aesthetic shell imaginable around it. The selection of aesthetic style is very rarely related to the substance of the program.

When modernists simply decide that a building should be built in the contemporary pop culture fad aesthetic, regardless of whether their program of actual needs requires it (which would be extremely rare), they are guilty of the same thing you claim to hate about traditionalists.

You've said you don't like the Morphosis design, but you have not recognized that the modernists are doing the same thing you blame the classicists for doing. Your criticism of the classical design applies equally strongly to the modernist one. That is why you seem disingenuous to me.

If you will retract your claim that designing in a modern aesthetic is related to the programmatic needs of a building (with some rare exceptions), then I will retract my claim that you aren't being intellectually honest and we can all move on. Otherwise we're going to have to just stop talking about it, as moderation has made abundantly clear.

[mainstreet]

It's amazing how many of these buildings were built when the original one burned down.

I have to say, I really like Oregon's capitol building. It's almost vaguely Socialist, in a good way. I like the statue on the top.

[CGII]

Do you apply the same standard to modernists?

You keep telling me that there are good reasons for modern buildings to have modern things in them. I hear you, and I agree, but I keep telling you that those reasons neither preclude nor dictate aesthetic style, and that therefore you can build a modern building in any aesthetic style that you want. Once you've figured out what substance you need, you can put any aesthetic shell imaginable around it. The selection of aesthetic style is very rarely related to the substance of the program.

When modernists simply decide that a building should be built in the contemporary pop culture fad aesthetic, regardless of whether their program of actual needs requires it (which would be extremely rare), they are guilty of the same thing you claim to hate about traditionalists.

You've said you don't like the Morphosis design, but you have not recognized that the modernists are doing the same thing you blame the classicists for doing. Your criticism of the classical design applies equally strongly to the modernist one. That is why you seem disingenuous to me.

If you will retract your claim that designing in a modern aesthetic is related to the programmatic needs of a building (with some rare exceptions), then I will retract my claim that you aren't being intellectually honest and we can all move on. Otherwise we're going to have to just stop talking about it, as moderation has made abundantly clear.

moved:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=172284

[Samthelima]

I have seen a few new buildings that do look authentic in the style they're supposed to be, but it's been mainly residential architecture.

That's because most architecture schools don't do anything to prepare their students to do a traditional building.

[Trantor]

Oregon's reminds me of a Mormon Temple.

I was going to say the same... at least Porto Alegre´s Mormon Temple looks so much like it, and obviously, I bet POA Mormon Temple closely follows the architecture of Mormon temples in USA.
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/877767.jpg

[Trantor]

Can anyone describe me more exactly what is a state capitol? Is it the governor´s office? Official residence (akin to the White House)? Legislative Assembly? State Government Secretaries building?

Am I allowed to talk about brazilian "state capitols" (or something akin to it, thats why the question of the first paragraph) or should this thread be dedicated ONLY to american state capitols?

[vid]

It is the building where the legislative assembly meets. The legislature usually only holds the offices closest to the people working in side, as well as personal offices for all the members, meeting spaces and so on. I'm not sure if they hold the offices of the governor but I think they do. In Canada, the Premier has his office in the building (since unlike the American system, our heads of government are part of the legislature) and the Lieutenant-Governor (vice-regent, or queen's representative when she is no able to be present) has it's own home with office space but I think there is an office for them in the legislature as well. As for White Houses, I know Texas has a governors mansion similar to the White House, I think it burned down a year or two ago. I don't know if all states have one. Canadian provinces don't, as far as I know.

We've seen pretty much every American state capitol and no one protests the Canadians ones, so go for it. I think we'd like to see the Brazilian or Mexican state capitols.

[Trantor]

Palácio Piratini is the home of the executive branch of Rio Grande do Sul state. The back wing (seen partially in this pic) is the "official" governor´s house, while the front has the governor´s office, meeting halls, etc.
http://www.monumenta.gov.br/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/palacio-piratini-perspectiva.jpg
from www.monumenta.gov.br

the Palácio Farroupilha is the home of the legislative branch of the RS state. This photo was taken from the roof of Piratini palace, so it gives an idea of the proximity.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/3374412284_fefc60b45c.jpg
from Flickr

and this is the Palácio da Justiça, home to the judiciary branch (administration) of the state
http://zilio.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/justica.jpg
from Imitation of Life blog ( http://zilio.wordpress.com/ )

state secretaries and administration however are not located in the governor´s palace, but in the Centro Administrativo do Estado
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1281/1144432212_67a763f51c.jpg
by rvolcan, at Flickr

[Trantor]

SÃO PAULO STATE
Palácio dos Bandeirantes (Executive Branch Home, Official Governor´s Residence, also houses a museum and a few secretaries)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Palacio_bandeirantes1.jpg
source: http://www.fotosedm.hpg.ig.com.br/

RIO DE JANEIRO STATE
Palácio Guanabara - Executive home
http://banco.agenciaoglobo.com.br/Imagens/Preview/200803/2d7c1401-0221-47ce-af77-c21867f49e6b.jpg
source: O Globo

Palácio Tiradentes - Legislative Assembly
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n42/edupatolino/patolino/alerj.jpg
source: EduPatolino

Laranjeiras Palace - Governor´s Official Home
http://www.vivercidades.org.br/publique_222/web/media/sobreEcletis2_Laranjeiras.jpg
www.vivercidades.org.br

PERNAMBUCO STATE
Palácio Campo das Princesas (Princess Field Palace) - Executive
http://ipt.olhares.com/data/big/165/1655962.jpg

Casa de Joaquim Nabuco - Legislative
http://i.olhares.com/data/big/246/2460769.jpg
source: www.olhares.com
Palácio Justiça - Judiciary
http://static.flickr.com/28/42789526_26ff9e445f_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/28/42789526_26ff9e445f_o.jpg

at right, the executive palace... at lest, the justice palace and at right on the other side of the river, the legislative palace
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t191/Alfenim/Recife%20Postais/051208v.jpg
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t191/Alfenim/Recife%20Postais/051208v.jpg

[peanut gallery]

Trantor, are you saying these are the saddest capitols in Brazil, or are you just posting them for comparison? Because I think all of those look great.

[Trantor]

Trantor, are you saying these are the saddest capitols in Brazil, or are you just posting them for comparison? Because I think all of those look great.

I am posting them for comparassion. I will soon post others (although mostly I will only post executive homes, since the legislative homes seem to be different buildings in all brazilian states). I will edit the post with the São Paulo State one to post the others. Anyway, the first post was my state alone (Piratini, Farroupilha, Justice Palace and State Administrative Center)

[peanut gallery]

Oh OK, that makes sense. I was wondering if these are the sad ones what will the good ones look like! :)

[Trantor]

Oh OK, that makes sense. I was wondering if these are the sad ones what will the good ones look like! :)

well, imho, while big, both the executive and legislative buildings of São Paulo state are SAD ones.

[MINNEAPOLIS-uptown]

I actually like the Oregon one. It's different but not ugly