Quote:
Originally Posted by jetsetter
Jasoncw, are we trying to convince each other because I believe it is not working. You will not change your opinions and I will not change mine in this regard. Arguing is pointless.
|
I'm not trying to make you say, "omg neo-traditional architecture is wrong what have I been thinking all these years!?!" but to see architecture as ideas, and not just appearance, and to help you appreciate modernism, so that you can enjoy it. My mind can be changed, 5 years ago I thought modernism was bad and neo-traditional was the way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward
I hate these types of debates. When you get deep into the profession you'll discover that alot of architecture is personal preference. Clients will seek out firms or individuals that will create the product to their tastes. Some firms deliver a modern approach while others are more traditional.
What is important is execution, not style. I find alot of faux traditional in Chicago an abomination because the chunky cornices and jumbo brick are poor interpretations. But I've also seen some beautifully done examples too.
|
Clients preferring something doesn't make it right, it makes it profitable. And the clients for those poorly done faux traditional buildings are probably very happy with what they got, and can probably only barely distinguish their poorly done building with a well done one. The firms who produce that are probably doing better financially than the firms doing the real deal, because they can do it cheaper and most clients don't really notice the difference or understand that the difference is important.