HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Dec 25, 2006, 9:13 PM
LSyd's Avatar
LSyd LSyd is online now
Red October standing by
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Posts: 16,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGII View Post
I personally think 'historicism' works best when it's not a reiteration of previous trends (ie, Notre Dame school) but when modern design and detail is applied to classical, 'historic' form and order. It can really work nicely.
yup. Great Britain is filled with buildings like these...shapes like the 19th century, materials of the 21st. the results are great...much better than "fake old buildings."

-
__________________
"The vapors! The fainting couch! Those heartless elitists are burning down the plantation with their logic and arithmetic!"

-fflint
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2006, 1:20 AM
malec's Avatar
malec malec is offline
Rrrraaaahhhhh!!!!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-fib View Post
I have never been a supporter of retro or revivolist architecture. Buildings should be expresions of contemporary design. There is nothing worse than looking at a 21st century commercial building and guessing when it was built because it blends into everything else older around it. Can you imagine if Mies would have followed this axium? The only allowable exception in my mind would be in narrowly defined architectual historic districts where you would want all buildings to reflect the period.
I don't agree with this. Buildings should be expressions of whatever the hell the architect wants rather than conform to certain ideas. The general public often complains when a more daring project gets proposed in a historical area especially, how is that any more or less wrong than proposing a revivalist building in a district with only modern buildings?
What about all the romanesque churches or neo-classical buildings, aren't they revivalist buildings, yet I never hear anyone complaining about those
Sure a major problem with such buildings nowadays is the possibility of using cheap materials. There's nothing worse than seeing a cheap building trying to mimmick historic buildings but that doesn't mean the whole concept has to be ditched just because of that, even though some of the best loved buildings in the world are revivalist. It all boils down to good design vs bad design, as with any modern building.

Anyway I say fuck the trends, architecture should have no bounds
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2006, 1:49 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is online now
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 29,923
I can agree with the gist of that, but I don't agree with the overriding idea of "to hell with everything." Architects need to be thoughtful regardless of what they are building and where they are building it. I don't much mind a glass tower in an old brick-and-stone neighborhood, but there are many things to consider when you do this that aren't often considered in many places. It's not just about style, something highly subjective, but about massing, placement, scale...
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2006, 2:53 AM
Hayward's Avatar
Hayward Hayward is offline
High above the Gold Coast
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,290
A few things that always bother me in these kinds of debates are when people take the architects as the superiors and masses as ignorant. I agree that the public does have a comfort level towards a certain "style" of buildings. This seems to be the chief argument when it comes to designing a new building in a sensitive area (like a historic neighborhood). In some instances, scale and placement becomes an issue, but that's the not the nature of this topic. I really don't see anything wrong with the idea of using a traditionalist design. However, my biggest gripe is when these types of buildings fail to achieve the porportions, material quality, and order of a classic facade. In so many instances they come out looking fake or disneylike because the architect didn't have a clue what he or she was doing. Someone above mentioned that it bothered them that they couldn't tell the difference between a structure built in the 20's or one built today. Well, I find that to be a good thing. And realize that architecture should never be thought of as "in fashion" I hate it when people say that certain types of architecture are "not of this time." I think architecture can be timeless. The reason why is because everyone has a particular taste, and the client deserves to have what they want to build within limits. These limits are what LMich described in his last sentence. And it's the architects job to make the building a succesful one, no matter what type of facade it carries.

So what types of architecture are correct in this argument? BOTH. Everyone is just basing their point off their own opinions and taste of architecture. As long as the architecture carries the quality of the true concepts of its type, then there is nothing wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2006, 9:41 AM
malec's Avatar
malec malec is offline
Rrrraaaahhhhh!!!!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
I can agree with the gist of that, but I don't agree with the overriding idea of "to hell with everything." Architects need to be thoughtful regardless of what they are building and where they are building it. I don't much mind a glass tower in an old brick-and-stone neighborhood, but there are many things to consider when you do this that aren't often considered in many places. It's not just about style, something highly subjective, but about massing, placement, scale...
I didn't mean they should build whatever they want wherever they want, agree 100% with what you said though. The only thing that pisses me off though is people who say revivalist buildings shouldn't be built at all, simply because it's not what is done in todays day and age. Of course these buildings should be appropriate for the location just like any other.
What I meant was an architect shouldn't be restricted by what's in fashion and should choose / mix whatever style he wants as long as the materials aren't cheap and it's appropriate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2006, 5:38 PM
Hayward's Avatar
Hayward Hayward is offline
High above the Gold Coast
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,290
Exactly, malec
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2006, 9:46 PM
X-fib X-fib is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NE Wisconsin
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by malec View Post
I don't agree with this. Buildings should be expressions of whatever the hell the architect wants rather than conform to certain ideas. The general public often complains when a more daring project gets proposed in a historical area especially, how is that any more or less wrong than proposing a revivalist building in a district with only modern buildings?
What about all the romanesque churches or neo-classical buildings, aren't they revivalist buildings, yet I never hear anyone complaining about those
Sure a major problem with such buildings nowadays is the possibility of using cheap materials. There's nothing worse than seeing a cheap building trying to mimmick historic buildings but that doesn't mean the whole concept has to be ditched just because of that, even though some of the best loved buildings in the world are revivalist. It all boils down to good design vs bad design, as with any modern building.

Anyway I say fuck the trends, architecture should have no bounds
Well I guess we agree to disagree. My perspective comes as a historian who grew up in a Chicago built under the principles of some of the finist buildings and modern architectual traditions in the world. The 1893 Columbian Exposition was heavilly criticized as a set back to the modern movement because it was revivalist. Architects of Gothic cathedrals didn't built Roman temples, and neither should we build either today. Past traditions had their moment in culture and time. When modern architects present a design that is a throw back to some past style it says to me that they are incapable of originallity. Architecture says who we are as a people and is the greatest expression of our place in history.

My adopted home town has a National Historic (Architectual) District consisting mostly of 19th century Italianate, Victorian and other period architecture. This thread posed a question: Within this district could a modern design fit? I think the answer is yes, and without producing a 21st century copy of a Queen Anne. Historicism should not betry the present.

Last edited by X-fib; Dec 28, 2006 at 6:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 12:45 AM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,122
Good debate

Does anyone know of any architects that might be willing to defend their view on this topic at our symposium? I'm looking for names...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2007, 12:39 PM
Atomic Glee's Avatar
Atomic Glee Atomic Glee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 614
I fully admit to preferring historicism over most contemporary architecture. Not that I hate all modern stuff - I do like some of it. I just tend to prefer the style of the more historical stuff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:06 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.