Originally Posted by X-fib
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