Best University to study Classical Architecture?

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

1) I think most people like historicist architecture because it has human-scaled details, which modernism refuses to allow, but without which cities are dull.

i dont think you will find too many people who will defend modernism...there is no question it was a phase in architectural theory that was a necessary bridge to something better.....scaleless glass boxes are often inhumane and non responsive to the surroundings and to the people who interact with them.

what i think we have been trying to say is that modern (not modernist) architecture can and should do all of the things that makes historic architecture so endeering to many people....zumthor is a great example, so is renzo piano, bohlin cywinski jackson, brian mckay lyons, i can list a hundred architects who do wonderful work that responds to the human scale and is regional and contextual.....

i think most people like historic architecture because of nostalgia.

[Vitae]

That underestimates traditional architecture in my opinion. To simply say it is nostalgia that draws people to older forms of architecture dismisses it. It seems to me that it meets a human need that modernist architecture never has. It feeds the soul much like nature does. Beauty has a power to heal and these older forms of architecture are beautiful and humane. People yearn for that and will pay money for flights to Paris or wherever to see it. It is something that modernist theory has simply overlooked. It is a great deal to overlook. As Dezi Arnez used to say, modern architecture has a good deal of "splaining" to do.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Have you read any of his books or studied any of his work? (not in the attacking you sense, just wondering because they are great books to read, very humbling and has that sense of true passion why anyone should want to be an architect.)

Zumthor is the kind of architect that sticks to regional work because it is an area he has known all his life and understands it fully. Projects from him can easily take a decade to complete because he wishes to take his time getting to know the site and the client. Each building he has designed as been an extension of both the site and client. None of his work can be copied and pasted somewhere else like so many other buildings that are built in the world. Much of Frank Gehry's work is an example of this cut and paste style (while each very unique) the Disney Opera house could of been constructed in any city and on any site and still read the same, a Frank Gehry building. Peter Zumthor is more about letting the architecture and the experience of that architecture have its own name, not the branding of the architect who designed it.

I personally think if we had more architects (and clients, of course) that cared about what was going to be constructed and why, as well as understanding that this is something that is more than likely going to be around longer that us, one would think that it would be the most important to get it right and filled with care so that it could withstand the test of time.

I only know a little about Zumthor, perhaps his philosophy on architecture is admirable, but unfortunately in todays world not practical for most. Although I do think there is niche for his type of philosophy and work, just as there is a niche for classically trained architects who have true passion to create outstanding work. We all know there is a whole lot of bad architecture in the world, so anyone who creates unique or well done buildings should be celebrated...

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Vitae

It seems to me that it meets a human need that modernist architecture never has.

Wow. 'Modern' architecture has never met the 'human need?'

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Vitae

That underestimates traditional architecture in my opinion. To simply say it is nostalgia that draws people to older forms of architecture dismisses it. It seems to me that it meets a human need that modernist architecture never has. It feeds the soul much like nature does. Beauty has a power to heal and these older forms of architecture are beautiful and humane. People yearn for that and will pay money for flights to Paris or wherever to see it. It is something that modernist theory has simply overlooked. It is a great deal to overlook. As Dezi Arnez used to say, modern architecture has a good deal of "splaining" to do.

people like old stuff...thats just the way it is...its not specific to architecture....they have old car rallies all over the place....every town is filled with antique shops.....movies and books about the past are popular....

i agree completely that old buildings feed a person's soul in a way that a new building cant....but fake old buildings dont do that....its the fact that they are old and have a character and a history that makes them endeering to us.....a 100 year old brick is imbibed with a story.....a new brick put in the same configuration isnt the same.

i dont think that old buildings necessarily are any more human scale than modern ones are, but old things make people react differently....


paris is a city...not an architectural style.....it has lots of modern architecture...when the eiffel tower was new everyone hated it....now that its old everyone loves it.

[urbanlife]

trueviking has a point, if people felt more connected to architecture because of its age and craftsmanship, we would still have many of the old buildings we have lost in each city. 50 years ago, buildings that were 50-100 years old were seen as buildings that needed to be removed for progress.

Today, buildings that are 50-100 years old are still being removed in the name of progress.

There is definitely a level of craftsmanship that cannot be matched today because the cost of labor is too much.

Also, I think there needs to be a better distinction on the word "modern" in here. Early Modernists were inspired by all these new technologies that were becoming available, they were given a palette of materials they had never really been able to build with before and out of that came a desire to try and look at the world differently, trying to understand the world and create a new way of living in it...some things were successes, while others were failures.

Modern architecture, meaning contemporary architecture or what has been practiced in the past 20 years is much different that early modernist architecture. It is now impossible to group architecture into one genre because there are so many architects doing such different things and trying different methods to achieve such goals. The closest we can group anything together would be with the sustainability movement...something early modernists and architecture generations before that did not deal with or have the means to deal with. Does that mean we simply ignore these new advances in technology in order to build like how we use to? no. We are at a point where we need to realize that it is important to respect the past and the architecture that has come from it, even if it is only 50 years old, each era comes with its own lessons, both positive and negative, and apply such results to what we have at hand now to deal with.



Oh and if this is too much off the point for Hed Kandi, just go to Columbia for a Bachelors degree in historical preservation, then get a masters degree in architecture where you can apply such learning much easier. Problem solved.

[slide_rule]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Anyway, long story short, to sum up:

1) I think most people like historicist architecture because it has human-scaled details, which modernism refuses to allow, but without which cities are dull.

2) I think most people like historicist architecture specifically because they can't visualize anything else with human-scaled details. There is no alternative.

3) I think most people would get over historicism and appreciate (and demand!) more contemporary architecture if contemporary architecture were at all interested in meeting the need for human-scaled details.

4) I think we could end this whole traditional/modernist fight if the architecture world got less dogmatic about refusing to produce ornament, and started using its brain power to produce new and different types of ornament.

Miami Beach. Go past the Italianate Revivals and some of the more ornate stuff. Do the many blocks of Streamline Moderne buildings smash your perceptions of modernist structures being innately inhumane? It's one place where the architectural concepts of space, light, etc. are appreciated. Do those ribbon windows make the place insufferable? Can most people even care about the differences between the Mediterranean revivals (with the historicist detailing), Art Deco (that's often in-between), and the Streamline Moderne? Too bad much of the earlier (before the age of cost cutting and prefab) Bauhaus buildings were nuked in Europe. You could also visit Tel Aviv and see similar 'human-scaled' Bauhaus-influenced structures.

Unfortunately 20th. century architecture coincided with the rise of cost-cutting, prefabrication, and the age of the automobile. Thus most EVERYTHING you see now, (including the smattering of contemporary styles and the abundance of the neo-historicist architecture) is built to a cost, and suffers from it. You think white picket fences and classical capitals and cornices will elevate a tract suburban home into something approximating the 'human-scale' that you love? The real estate industry makes money from this nostalgia. Unfortunately within a few years the 'classical' detailing will age (and age poorly because it was made of plastic materials in a mold, as opposed to the truly timeless, authentically historic stuff that was built with a hammer and stone chisel) and look bad. You could state that bad modernism and its sparse detailing are a product of our reliance on precast concrete. Yet at the same time, the presently-built neo-historicist stuff isn't much better, as it's also built with precast, and has an additional layer of prefabricated historicist detailing.

Instead of scapegoating modernist styles, we could cite prefabrication as a reason for our bad architecture. But prefabrication has also allowed for cost-efficiencies that weren't available in previous eras. If we really wanted to critique the failings of our cities now, we'd start off with how our cities are built. A white picket fence and 'human-scaled' detailing suddenly aren't impressive when the house is located 30 miles from the core and its inhabitants are mortgaged to their eyeballs and each and every person is car-dependent.

[slide_rule]

Originally Posted by Vitae

That underestimates traditional architecture in my opinion. To simply say it is nostalgia that draws people to older forms of architecture dismisses it. It seems to me that it meets a human need that modernist architecture never has. It feeds the soul much like nature does. Beauty has a power to heal and these older forms of architecture are beautiful and humane. People yearn for that and will pay money for flights to Paris or wherever to see it. It is something that modernist theory has simply overlooked. It is a great deal to overlook. As Dezi Arnez used to say, modern architecture has a good deal of "splaining" to do.

Uh.. yeah.

Suppose you're right. Also realize that 90, 95, 99% of the stuff that's built today, including the overwhelming majority of the residential architecture is built with historicist aesthetics. Yet our cities still don't match up to the cores of Paris.. or Buenos Aires, or Mexico City, or Barcelona, or Budapest.

We're not going to match the aesthetics of these cities because the dynamics of construction have changed. Labor is expensive and the construction materials and technology have moved on. Theoretically you COULD build something resembling the past. But it's going to cost you. And unless you're some financial industry robber baron, you'll balk at the costs. The classical cornices and window detailing and entablatures and cartouches and pillars and pilasters and capitals will be made of plastic from a mold, as opposed to being the product of human hands. Thus the vast, vast, vast majority of the historicist stuff built today is built to a cost, and won't look good in a few years.

You can talk about how much you love the human-scale, but unless it's an actual old building, or you magically employ a crew of masons with hammers and stone chisels, you're not going to build anything similar (in terms of both aesthetics and timelessness) to what you see in the older cities.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by slide_rule

Uh.. yeah.

Suppose you're right. Also realize that 90, 95, 99% of the stuff that's built today, including the overwhelming majority of the residential architecture is built with historicist aesthetics. Yet our cities still don't match up to the cores of Paris.. or Buenos Aires, or Mexico City, or Barcelona, or Budapest.

We're not going to match the aesthetics of these cities because the dynamics of construction have changed. Labor is expensive and the construction materials and technology have moved on. Theoretically you COULD build something resembling the past. But it's going to cost you. And unless you're some financial industry robber baron, you'll balk at the costs. The classical cornices and window detailing and entablatures and cartouches and pillars and pilasters and capitals will be made of plastic from a mold, as opposed to being the product of human hands. Thus the vast, vast, vast majority of the historicist stuff built today is built to a cost, and won't look good in a few years.

You can talk about how much you love the human-scale, but unless it's an actual old building, or you magically employ a crew of masons with hammers and stone chisels, you're not going to build anything similar (in terms of both aesthetics and timelessness) to what you see in the older cities.

Thats part of the fallacy of modern architecture or minimalist architecture, that somehow the economics make more sense. It is not inexpensive, in most cases Ive seen, it is extremely expensive. In residential construction for most people doing contemporary/minimalist architecture the cost is prohibitive, and easily as expensive as doing a true classical period design.
Your quote in bold above is simply not true. It happens every day. Are there craftsmen out there employing age old techniques? Absolutely. Are there newer methods for producing some of those products, yes to that as well. Its not hard to find hand carved limestone, wood mold clay fired brick, clay terra cotta or slate roofing, hand carved wood details. Yes, it can be expensive and cost prohibitive to the general consumer, but it always has been. I understand what you are saying about the typical suburban home, but the reason why our cities dont match up to the ones you mentioned has nothing to do architectural style, but everything to do with our auto-centric suburban lifestyles. And its much the same at this point in time all around the world, not just in the US.
To this point modern architecture has not done a good job of connecting to the fabric of cities. Too many of the building are disjointed stand alone monuments to the architects and developers with little attempt to connect to the street.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by SLO

the reason why our cities dont match up to the ones you mentioned has nothing to do architectural style, but everything to do with our auto-centric suburban lifestyles. And its much the same at this point in time all around the world, not just in the US.

To this point modern architecture has not done a good job of connecting to the fabric of cities. Too many of the building are disjointed stand alone monuments to the architects and developers with little attempt to connect to the street.

bingo!....you have hit the nail on the head....the issue is not modern architecture, it is modern cities.....the suburban dream has killed the city....it isnt architects building monuments, it is the layout and functionality of our cities that is to blame.

paris has some spectacular public buildings, but the vast majority look like this street from the other thread



you can wax on about human scale and all of that but look at those buildings....there is nothing special about them....they have no more human scale, no more ornament or craftsmanship than any modern building does....the difference is that they are built up to the sidewalk with a high density.....and people actually live in those buildings...they dont live in a house on a small farm in suburbia 20 kilometers away and drive into the city every morning and leave every day at 5:00....look how many people are walking around in that photo.

why do people love paris?....here is why.



dont blame modern architecture...blame modern cities....the odds are that most of us are sitting in an american dream suburban home right now...


the reason that there is a lack of human scale in our modern cities is simple....there is a lack of humans.....they are scaled for cars not people.

[slide_rule]

Originally Posted by SLO

Thats part of the fallacy of modern architecture or minimalist architecture, that somehow the economics make more sense. It is not inexpensive, in most cases Ive seen, it is extremely expensive. In residential construction for most people doing contemporary/minimalist architecture the cost is prohibitive, and easily as expensive as doing a true classical period design.
Your quote in bold above is simply not true. It happens every day. Are there craftsmen out there employing age old techniques? Absolutely. Are there newer methods for producing some of those products, yes to that as well. Its not hard to find hand carved limestone, wood mold clay fired brick, clay terra cotta or slate roofing, hand carved wood details. Yes, it can be expensive and cost prohibitive to the general consumer, but it always has been. I understand what you are saying about the typical suburban home, but the reason why our cities dont match up to the ones you mentioned has nothing to do architectural style, but everything to do with our auto-centric suburban lifestyles. And its much the same at this point in time all around the world, not just in the US.
To this point modern architecture has not done a good job of connecting to the fabric of cities. Too many of the building are disjointed stand alone monuments to the architects and developers with little attempt to connect to the street.

I mentioned the autocentric suburban form in the above posts as well.

At any rate, you're not going to produce 'authentic' historical architecture (for 99% of the consumers) with our present labor costs and construction techniques. Nor will you make anything 'timeless'. The cost considerations preclude these things. The next time you come across a newly built suburb with historicist detailing, note how it's just not the same as what was built a century ago.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by trueviking

bingo!....you have hit the nail on the head....the issue is not modern architecture, it is modern cities.....the suburban dream has killed the city....it isnt architects building monuments, it is the layout and functionality of our cities that is to blame.

paris has some spectacular public buildings, but the vast majority look like this street from the other thread

you can wax on about human scale and all of that but look at those buildings....there is nothing special about them....they have no more human scale, no more ornament or craftsmanship than any modern building does....the difference is that they are built up to the sidewalk with a high density.....and people actually live in those buildings...they dont live in a house on a small farm in suburbia 20 kilometers away and drive into the city every morning and leave every day at 5:00....look how many people are walking around in that photo.

why do people love paris?....here is why.

dont blame modern architecture...blame modern cities....the odds are that most of us are sitting in an american dream suburban home right now...

the reason that there is a lack of human scale in our modern cities is simple....there is a lack of humans.....they are scaled for cars not people.

I do agree, but I still would contend that modern architecture has done (in general) a bad job in connecting to the street level. Perhaps it is a result of the way we build cities now days, I almost think it should be required that the base of all highrises be of mixed use, to better connect to the city. A giant spacious lobby first floor in effect detaches the building from city surrounding it.
Your picture of Paris, although bland in detail or style still has wonderful human proportion & scale. Maybe that was your point. More contemporary architecture with a similar scale/proportion could be very successful....if the street level is done right.
The only way for us to change cities, is to allow designers/architects/planners on a large scale collaborative way to actually do real urban design. To create real design standards for the creation of great cities. Most city planning is a joke. Zoning is a joke and a miserable failure or neutral at best. Property owner rights will not allow it, but I believe it could be done within existing cities.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by slide_rule

I mentioned the autocentric suburban form in the above posts as well.

At any rate, you're not going to produce 'authentic' historical architecture (for 99% of the consumers) with our present labor costs and construction techniques. Nor will you make anything 'timeless'. The cost considerations preclude these things. The next time you come across a newly built suburb with historicist detailing, note how it's just not the same as what was built a century ago.

Perhaps suburbs or master planned communities, but in general housing is far better than it was 100 years ago, not due to architectural style, but due to advanced technology. On a mass scale you are right, you cannot truly represent classical styles and details on a suburban/tract home environment. Some are more successful than others.
Now you are also saying you cant make anything timeless or built to those standards, this is not true. There are buildings and houses built all the time, every day that are timeless. And built to a quality as good as any other era. Rare, perhaps in the grand scheme, but not uncommon in anyway. But we may agree that timeless doesnt have to be tied to a particular style. More contemporary buildings can be just as timeless if they are done well and built to very high standards.

[slide_rule]

Now you are also saying you cant make anything timeless or built to those standards, this is not true. There are buildings and houses built all the time, every day that are timeless. And built to a quality as good as any other era. Rare, perhaps in the grand scheme, but not uncommon in anyway.

oh lord, lord, lord. read the previous comments first. in my previous posts, i contended that it was cost prohibitive for most construction in this era to come close to the handiwork of previous eras, mostly due to the higher labor costs now.

again, read the previous posts in the thread. i didn't say it was impossible. i said it was possible, but damned expensive. basically what you're contending now.

[SLO]

^ Right, I hear you, in most of your posts you made exception. I guess what Im saying is that it isnt as rare and daunting as you make it sound, but yes I agree for the vast majority.....

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by SLO

I do agree, but I still would contend that modern architecture has done (in general) a bad job in connecting to the street level. Perhaps it is a result of the way we build cities now days, I almost think it should be required that the base of all highrises be of mixed use, to better connect to the city. A giant spacious lobby first floor in effect detaches the building from city surrounding it.
Your picture of Paris, although bland in detail or style still has wonderful human proportion & scale. Maybe that was your point. More contemporary architecture with a similar scale/proportion could be very successful....if the street level is done right.
The only way for us to change cities, is to allow designers/architects/planners on a large scale collaborative way to actually do real urban design. To create real design standards for the creation of great cities. Most city planning is a joke. Zoning is a joke and a miserable failure or neutral at best. Property owner rights will not allow it, but I believe it could be done within existing cities.

agree completley....i fight this fight regularily....it is all too rare that modern urban buildings address the sidewalk in way that promotes pedestrian activity....it is often because there are so few pedestrians that the automobile becomes more important to consider....our cities emptied out to the suburbs....i dont thik this caused it but was rather a response to it....it has certainly had a huge impact on our cities...for the worse.

[Vitae]

One of my old teachers was an ornamental sculptor who had owned a terra cotta company that made ornament and sculpture for Louis Sullivan and such people in Chicago. That all ended when the Great Depression came and then it was all Modernist after that. His company was thriving and did a great deal of work. It was not carved stone but hand modeled, site specific work and it was obviously affordable and very well received. I think that what is lacking is more vision and intention than economics.

[plinko]

^And? Such things are still made (even at a mass scale) by companies like Gladding McBean in Lincoln, CA (who've outlasted nearly ALL of their competitors).

[Vitae]

And, it does not have the cost factor of carved stone. It has been used effectively on skyscrapers before and can still. I keep hearing cost as such a prohibitive factor and I just don't buy it as the reason that ornament and sculpture are not used. In the other fine arts of painting and sculpture modernist theory fiercely opposes ornament and the use of the figure. It has turned into a sort of mantra that has become stale. Architecture seems stuck in the same rut in my opinion.

[SLO]

That was part of what I was saying, is that there are true craftsmen around today. Everything is not styrofoam. Its a question of ornamentation not cost.