Architecture The Architecture Thread

[SDNR]

I did too, during my childhood and mid teens. Then around 15, industrial design struck me like a thunderstorm and I wanted so badly to become one, but no university on Bolivia was teaching when I finished college. I did my best to convince my parents to send me to Italy to study, but the f*ckers didn't
In the end I went to study industrial engineering, which I was very fond, none the less (my father and my two sister are engineers too) and go figure, just when I was finishing my career and ready to work on dad's company, I decided to start my own lil shop and making musical instruments....what a rollercoaster of life

Still these days I still love architecture and industrial design, and on my spare time I do some furniture and object design. Pretty much like carmaker, I'm on the design of both my living room and kitchen.

I think too many architects today forget that Architecture is still essentially a visual art .....not just a matter of academics and structural engineering.

Historically, architecture was considered to be an applied art ......today we think of it as a profession.

There is a continuing battle between Modernists and Classicists.
A few architects who have studied the "rules" of proportion and scale that govern Classical architecture are producing some excellent new Classical buildings -- most Modernists hate this stuff.

Some recent examples of excellent new Classical buildings.

A new townhouse in New York by British architect John Simpson:

New Ralph Lauren flagship store in New York City

A large French beaux-arts style residence in Los Angeles by Robertson Partners

 

[EnI]

Not a fan of postmodernism per se. I actually find modern architecture a lot while postmodern one appears quite boring to me and lacking the artistic part - it's just to clinical and too engineeresque). But I certainly find today's neoclassicism a pure kitsch. It's like building stuff for fossils. And forging a history. But I sure adore & respect all the original classic / historic architecture styles.

 

[SDNR]

Not a fan of postmodernism per se. I actually find modern architecture a lot while postmodern one appears quite boring to me and lacking the artistic part - it's just to clinical and too engineeresque). But I certainly find today's neoclassicism a pure kitsch. It's like building stuff for fossils. And forging a history. But I sure adore & respect all the original classic / historic architecture styles.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments Tine, I am not surprised you veer towards Modernism - I have always known you to be a very rational and intellectual character.

For the most part I would agree with you about new neoclassical buildings .....most of it is simply pastiche .....and often kitsch.

Modernism (which started as a radical Socialist movement) does have the attitude that it is the only "true" and relevant architecture for our time and that we must leave the past behind.

Classical architecture (from ancient Greece and Rome) is governed by strict rules -- there is a "correct" way to design a Classical building and few architects today have any education in how to design Classical buildings. This is why we see so many awkward and academically incorrect "McMansions" - simply assembling a few Classical archetypal elements (column, arch, pediment, etc) does not make a proper Classical building.

There are some rare exceptions however. There are a small number of very dedicated architects who have a full academic understanding of Classicism, they are not trying to recreate the past, they view Classicism as an enduring language that is no less relevant in 2015 than it was 100 years, 300 years, or over 2000 years ago. Think about the wonderful Neoclassical (French Empire) buildings built in France in the early 19th century or The British Museum.

The great Prussian architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel, created a magnificent austere form of Classicism in the 19th century - nobody would ever say his work was "for fossils" - even though the buildings took their language from ancient Greece, they were still thoroughly of their time and place. Mies van der Rohe was a great admirer of Schinkel's buildings.

Altes Museum, Berlin by Karl Friedrich Schinkel, completed in 1830

The magnificent Academy Of Athens building designed by Danish architect Theophil Hansen in 1859. It is obvious that Hansen was a scholar of Classical Greek architecture ....and yet the building still seems relevant for its time and purpose.

The same is true for today's 'genuine' Classicists. Take for example John Simpson, he has a thorough, academic understanding of Classical architecture ....so his buildings have authenticity and high cultural value.

Craig Hamilton Architects

There are some new buildings that I do think come close to pastiche (such as the Beaux-Arts mansion I posted previously) but they are so well done I still admire the quality of them.

This new Château just minutes from the center of Paris is extraordinary - but I do consider it to be pastiche ...because unlike the buildings above, it is trying to recreate the past. However, it is very impressive to see such a faithful and uncompromising recreation of a Baroque Château.

 

[EnI]

The original, classical architecture is superb. Not only due to its architectural, artistic, craftsmanship value, but also due to its historic value. It's a wormhole into mind set & values of that specific time. It tells you a story about life in that particular time. Something neo-style / pastiche architecture (incl. neoclassicism) misses out completely. Sure some architects & investors like some particular old, historic style and want to reproduce it in some neo-style building today, but such building - although being a good copy, a good execution of an old style lacks something substantial: it lacks context. And without proper context it appears to be a kitsch.

I'm sure some people just love neoclassic architecture - as you said, Rob, it's govern by strict architectural rules, it's mighty, it's complex but not much, it's artistic but not much. And it brings imperial ooze: from ancient Rome & Greece. Two mighty empires of that time.

That's why many "strong men" and contemporary "strong empires" are inspired by such architecture. (semi)Dictators like such architecture for sure. It certainly represent & communicate something. But IMHO it's all faux. It's like a fake Rolex. Or a copy of a Rembrandt painting. It looks like an original one but it's not. And it says absolutely the opposite of you than the original one would say.

Modernism ... No, I don't like the Soviet one - the one that stripped architecture of all emotional & artistic elements, and tried to present an overly "rational" (megalomaniac buildings are hardy rational). I like the modernism with added value: the one with artistic, emotional touch - with core architectural elements being based on modernistic values.
Socialist / Communist modernism was one of the worst styles. Cold. Unappealing. Strict. Unemotional. Compromised aesthetics. We have lots of that here where I live. An absolute horror!

But I agree - when done nicely some neo-style - especially neoclassical - building do look super nice. But they are still fake. Sorry. I prefer originality.

There are many architects who took some elements from classical architecture and recycled them, reinvented them - the used them in some newer style. I approve that. While I don't approve copying an entire style (all the elements).

To me neo-styles communicate lack of boldness, lack of ideas, lack of originality, lack of sense of time. Sure pastiche buildings are nice & familiar, but they are a lazy attempt.

IMHO human being has a potential to innovate. Why copying & resurrecting old styles? OK, using some specific great elements from certain style, being influenced by some old style ... ok. But copying them? No, thank you.

IMHO architecture (as an applied art or applied design) HAS TO communicate time (the values, the Zeitgeist) in which it is executed. When using neostyles instead it communicates intellectual & artistic laziness. And a potentially approaching decadence if used severely.

Just mind eg. all the autocratic ex-Soviet "-stan" republics, where today's dictators are obsessed with neoclassicsm and other neo-styles (eg. copying classic Ottoman, Arab or Persian styles). The new presidential palace in Ankara, Turkey.
Or what the ruling government in FYR Macedonia has done in capital Skopje: packing it with neoclassical buildings.

 

[SDNR]

The original, classical architecture is superb. Not only due to its architectural, artistic, craftsmanship value, but also due to its historic value. It's a wormhole into mind set & values of that specific time. It tells you a story about life in that particular time. Something neo-style / pastiche architecture (incl. neoclassicism) misses out completely. Sure some architects & investors like some particular old, historic style and want to reproduce it in some neo-style building today, but such building - although being a good copy, a good execution of an old style lacks something substantial: it lacks context. And without proper context it appears to be a kitsch.

I'm sure some people just love neoclassic architecture - as you said, Rob, it's govern by strict architectural rules, it's mighty, it's complex but not much, it's artistic but not much. And it brings imperial ooze: from ancient Rome & Greece. Two mighty empires of that time.

That's why many "strong men" and contemporary "strong empires" are inspired by such architecture. (semi)Dictators like such architecture for sure. It certainly represent & communicate something. But IMHO it's all faux. It's like a fake Rolex. Or a copy of a Rembrandt painting. It looks like an original one but it's not. And it says absolutely the opposite of you than the original one would say.

Modernism ... No, I don't like the Soviet one - the one that stripped architecture of all emotional & artistic elements, and tried to present an overly "rational" (megalomaniac buildings are hardy rational). I like the modernism with added value: the one with artistic, emotional touch - with core architectural elements being based on modernistic values.
Socialist / Communist modernism was one of the worst styles. Cold. Unappealing. Strict. Unemotional. Compromised aesthetics. We have lots of that here where I live. An absolute horror!

But I agree - when done nicely some neo-style - especially neoclassical - building do look super nice. But they are still fake. Sorry. I prefer originality.

There are many architects who took some elements from classical architecture and recycled them, reinvented them - the used them in some newer style. I approve that. While I don't approve copying an entire style (all the elements).

To me neo-styles communicate lack of boldness, lack of ideas, lack of originality, lack of sense of time. Sure pastiche buildings are nice & familiar, but they are a lazy attempt.

IMHO human being has a potential to innovate. Why copying & resurrecting old styles? OK, using some specific great elements from certain style, being influenced by some old style ... ok. But copying them? No, thank you.

IMHO architecture (as an applied art or applied design) HAS TO communicate time (the values, the Zeitgeist) in which it is executed. When using neostyles instead it communicates intellectual & artistic laziness. And a potentially approaching decadence if used severely.

Just mind eg. all the autocratic ex-Soviet "-stan" republics, where today's dictators are obsessed with neoclassicsm and other neo-styles (eg. copying classic Ottoman, Arab or Persian styles). The new presidential palace in Ankara, Turkey.
Or what the ruling government in FYR Macedonia has done in capital Skopje: packing it with neoclassical buildings.

Thanks Tine, as always you make excellent points.

I agree with you to a great extent, Classical architecture has been exploited by dictators and imperialists since the Romans (who imitated Greek architecture). Everyone from Napoleon, the British Empire, the Nazis, the Fascists, The Soviets, and American industrialists have been attracted to Classism as an expression of power.

I still believe that Classical architecture can be relevant today .....but only if it is not imitating the past, but rather, using an historic and archetypal 'language' to express a new type of classical architecture.

Modernism vs Contemporary Classicism
This is an ongoing debate in academic circles of the architectural elite. There is a lot of animosity between the two camps - architects are notoriously opinionated and dogmatic.

Classical revival architecture does not seem to be at all popular in Western Europe. It's the United Kingdom, Eastern Europe, and The United States that has seen such a growing interest in new Classical architecture.

 

[Giannis]

@SDNR

I see that you have an interest in Greek neo-classical architecture. I suggest that you take a look at the works of Ernst Ziller, a German architect that lived and worked in Greece during the late 19th and early 20th century. Athens is full of his historic buildings, and he has designed theaters and court houses in other greek cities as well.

A few examples:

And this is the town hall of Ermoupolis. It is said that it has the most beautiful staircase in all of Greece.

Or the Athens Numismatic Museum:

 

[SDNR]

@SDNR

I see that you have an interest in Greek neo-classical architecture. I suggest that you take a look at the works of Ernst Ziller, a German architect that lived and worked in Greece during the late 19th and early 20th century. Athens is full of his historic buildings, and he has designed theaters and court houses in other greek cities as well.

A few examples:

View attachment 337164

And this is the town hall of Ermoupolis. It is said that it has the most beautiful staircase in all of Greece.

View attachment 337165

Or the Athens Numismatic Museum:

View attachment 337166

Brilliant, thanks Giannis. Athens is certainly on my list of places to visit

 

[Gianclaudio]

Not a fan of postmodernism per se. I actually find modern architecture a lot while postmodern one appears quite boring to me and lacking the artistic part - it's just to clinical and too engineeresque). But I certainly find today's neoclassicism a pure kitsch. It's like building stuff for fossils. And forging a history. But I sure adore & respect all the original classic / historic architecture styles.

I don't like postmodernism too. And while I love the Bauhaus on objects design ie: industrial design, many of the original bauhaus architecture isn't to my taste. I do like early 20th century neoclassicism, at least what I 've seen on Buenos Aires (mainly french and italian architechs) Bear in mind that for us who live in young cities compared to the old world, neoclassicism brought the opportunity to flavour some bits of the style you have enjoyed for centuries

@SDNR Do you have some examples of newly built, all brick house, in the british style? I absolutely love traditional british brick houses

 

[Mr Robert]

I might be on a slight digressing path here, but this is where I went to school.
I got goosebumps every time I went.

 

[Deleted member 25]

You are a lucky guy.

 

[SDNR]

I might be on a slight digressing path here, but this is where I went to school.
I got goosebumps every time I went.

View attachment 337186

Beautiful building, do you have some exterior pictures @dr. Dunkel?

It is in an Italian Renaissance style. I have always loved the stripes in different coloured (polychrome) stone from Byzantine buildings ("borrowed" from Islamic architecture)

 

[Mr. Mercedes]

Beautiful building, do you have some exterior pictures @dr. Dunkel?

It is in an Italian Renaissance style. I have always loved the stripes in different coloured (polychrome) stone from Byzantine buildings (which the Italians "borrowed" from Islamic architecture)

'Borrowed', means you're going to return it at some stage. hehe

Stunning architecture. After my trip to Europe last year, I feel a bit short changed here in Oz as we obviously lack these sorts of building.

 

[SDNR]

@SDNR Do you have some examples of newly built, all brick house, in the british style? I absolutely love traditional british brick houses

Sure Gianclaudio.

The best examples today are mostly from the United States.

Americans really love this Georgian-style architecture and there are some excellent architects in the USA who specialize in this style for wealthy clients who want a traditional house or public building.

(I can imagine Tine is rolling his eyes at this obvious pastiche )

Robert A.M. Stern Architects

Allan Greenberg

This one is not Georgian-style, it is more in the "Arts and Crafts" style -(its kind of a mixture of style influences) those chimneys look very Italian. I really like this house.

William T. Barker

British father & son architects Quinlan & Francis Terry are famous for their very traditional buildings.

English architects, Julian Bicknell Associates

There are a some other good examples I could post later

 

[SDNR]

I
I got goosebumps every time I went.

View attachment 337186

That's what makes these old buildings special I think. There aren't many Modern buildings which have that effect.

 

[SDNR]

'Borrowed', means you're going to return it at some stage. hehe

Stunning architecture. After my trip to Europe last year, I feel a bit short changed here in Oz as we obviously lack these sorts of building.

Actually, I got my art history a little muddled when I said that. Byzantine architecture influenced early Islamic architecture ....but there was mutual influence from then on.

 

[ThroughandThrough]

Sure Gianclaudio.

The best examples today are mostly from the Unites States.

Americans really love this Georgian-style architecture and there are some excellent architects in the USA who specialize in this style for wealthy clients who want a traditional house or public building.

(I can imagine Tine is rolling his eyes at this obvious pastiche )

Robert A.M. Stern Architects
View attachment 337200
View attachment 337201
View attachment 337202
View attachment 337203
View attachment 337204
View attachment 337205
View attachment 337206
View attachment 337207

Damn, I was going to post that one! I drive by it nearly every day!

 

[SDNR]

Damn, I was going to post that one! I drive by it nearly every day!

Lol, great minds think alike

Robert A.M. Stern is one of America's most celebrated living architects ....he was at the forefront of Postmodern Architecture in the 1980s .....today his buildings are more traditional.

 

[ThroughandThrough]

Lol, great minds think alike

Robert A.M. Stern is one of America's most celebrated living architects ....he was at the forefront of Postmodern Architecture in the 1980s .....today his buildings are more traditional.

There were a couple more projects here in Dallas that he designed, one being the Ritz-Carlton and Ritz-Carlton Residences. The Regency-styled architecture has a New York feeling to it with the beige brick, extensive use of limestone, bronze doors, balconies, and elegant crown on top...

Another one of his projects here in town is the George W. Bush Presidential Center which has some modern DNA that streamlined his more traditional designs. He also has extensive use of bronze throughout the complex.

As to which project I like more, I'm not sure I can decide as they are both unique.

 

[KiwiRob]

The last ones a nice looking building, but such a shame it''s got a dimwits name over the front door. It wouldn't surprise me if this is the only library George has ever been in.

 

[SDNR]

When things go all WRONG!

We have all got different tastes .....but sometimes bad taste is so blatant, it borders on offensive.

Here's what happens when you have a lot of money and you hire an architect with no taste or real understanding of the rules of Classical architecture:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Another very large and very ugly Florida house