Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward
A very good (long) first post.
|
Thanks
Quote:
|
A point you missed (at least I think somewhere in there) is architects of the past were very convincing on how these older styles and practices were applied in modern construction. By modern...I mean within the last 100 years. The one change we've seen in the latter half of the 20th century are new materials that looks less like real stone or masonry and lends itself to that fake disneyesque look.
|
I agree that if one is going to do a contemporary building in a classical style, make sure to make it look real as opposed to fake. Don't create classical columns that are made out of fiberglass or whatnot. As an interesting sidenote, one of the most famous Disney buildings, the sleeping beauty castle, is based off of the real castle, Neuschwanstein, located in Germany and built by Ludwig II of Bavaria.
Quote:
|
That said, the other big change is that these materials tend to be the cheapest to buy and put up. Mid-century modernism did introduce us to mass production of building products, but it maintained the finer materials in building construction. But new building industries continued to emerge. It seems nowadays it's all about cost. I think architects get lost debating what styles to use, or even what new building technologies to implement. It's okay for the sake of better architecture and environments. But it completely ignores the realities of economics which pretty much have the final say on design
|
Do economics really have the final say though? For example I know some Frank Gehry buildings are very costly to construct, but they like to build them because he is supposedly a great architect (I don't necessarilly agree with that view). But I mean if economics were the consideration, quite a few contemporary buildings probably would never have been built. I think it probably depends on who's paying and who the architect is.