Let's make this thread fun by posting pictures that represent your interest.

I like traditional houses:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3377/3184786174_7d207039d2_o.jpg

Japan - [Picture Source (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alianto/3184786174/)]

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/2738/a04r.jpg

Ukraine - [Source: "Ukrainian Wooden Architecture" by Viktor Vechersky]

Traditional Russian Houses (http://www.skypalace.org/europe/slavic/east_slavic/russia/traditional_houses.shtml).

And on the traditional high-rise architecture there is a flickr group called Traditional Skyscrapers (http://www.flickr.com/groups/traditional_skyscrapers/).

Let's make this thread fun by posting pictures that represent your interest.

I like traditional houses:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3377/3184786174_7d207039d2_o.jpg

Japan - [Picture Source (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alianto/3184786174/)]



Well, when I think of a Japanese traditional house, it is either a Minka (traditional farmhouse) or a Machiya (traditional merchant town house). Both are a bit different from what you show in the above picture.


Hamada Shoji's Minka in Mashiko:

http://www.e-yakimono.net/assets/images-where/house_side.jpg
source: http://www.e-yakimono.net/html/hs-reference.html


Kyoto Machiya:

http://www.japansociety.org/resources/legacy/event/uploaded/75-01_wide.jpg
source: http://www.japansociety.org/event_detail?eid=59e525cf

The above example you show almost looks like some hybrid.

^^ You just got confused by the tower.

^^ You just got confused by the tower.

And the roofline, I guess. It has the roofline of a temple, shrine, or palace.

And the roofline, I guess. It has the roofline of a temple, shrine, or palace.
While conceptually being a traditional house.

The roofline of one of the buildings at Ise:

http://www.mballinger.com/photos/IseShrine.jpg

The very primitive roofline of the "ancient" Inner shrine at Ise:
source: http://www.mballinger.com/photos/

http://www.japantabibito.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/nagoya-sightseeing-ise-shrine-300x225.jpg
source: http://www.japantabibito.com/nagoya-sightseeing

While conceptually being a traditional house.


I guess it uses traditional styles, but not those that one associates with traditional domestic (i.e., house) Japanese architecture.

I guess it uses traditional styles, but not those that one associates with traditional domestic (i.e., house) Japanese architecture.
And the roofline, I guess. It has the roofline of a temple, shrine, or palace.
Then we're agreed - it's a mini-palace, or an affluent house, to put in in the context.

Then we're agreed - it's a mini-palace, or an affluent house, to put in in the context.


I'm OK with that. :)

Sorry for the digression.

I'm OK with that. :)

Sorry for the digression.
I want to add that a traditional building doesn't have to be canonical in order to be considered traditional, at least not for me.

Mostly infrastructure.

The road network of the roman empire was breathtaking. They even had restareas.

I might have to say that a lot of the tourists are hated but if really are invited, the Romans never feed you the tomatos and anchovies.

I really loved every street name like the historical Roman emperors and popes reaching to the eternal city, and where the Christ shed tears.

It is sad that only a handful Romans today speak Latin.

Interesting thread, ainttelling. I moved it to the Classic Architecture section, as it fits better here :)


Regarding the Poll: I've chosen any possible answer. Guess why? I just love classic architecture as a whole. There's no exception, since almost any traditionally styled building of pre-WWII times was a gem. It's sad so much of it got lost (destruction of European old towns, esp. in Germany, but also many losses outside of Europe, think of Chinese old towns or colonial architecture in South America).
I'm just freaking glad we're facing a trend of new classic architecture / neo-eclecticism / neohistorism and reconstruction of gone buildings. Dresden Neumarkt (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=250017) is an exceptionally great example for this.

It is actually sad to destroy any areas, like the occupations in parts of Europe turning into absolutely nothing by some form of deranged terrorism. However, it is a good practice taking the rich cultures in, like the tea-making company, personally a lot better than coffee for the health issue. Or Egypt has nice resources making perfumes or jewels, for instance. This is the only way for the poor nations to become affluent. But what is the point of destroying them. Anyone becomes angry if invaded. You all are not the exception in this case.

It's sad so much of it got lost (destruction of European old towns, esp. in Germany, but also many losses outside of Europe, think of Chinese old towns or colonial architecture in South America).
You don't even want to know how much was lost in Russia! Here's the list of major toll-taking events:

988 | Baptism

All Pagan architecture was destroyed. Nothing to add here.

1223 onward | Mongol Invasion

On the contrary to popular belief, the Mongolians did not destroy Russian cities because of their brutal nature but rather due to the Russian habit of killing the ambassadors. Anyway, the destruction was thorough.

XV-XVI-th centuries | Conquest of Volga Bulgaria

Tatar architectural tradition was arguably much more developed than Russian but after Volga Bulgaria was conquered by Ivan the Terrible he ordered all mosques to be destroyed. A couple survived.

Late XVIII-th century | Secularization

During the reign of Catherine the Great (who married her way into Russian monarchy) secularization was enforced - around 300 monasteries was destroyed, most churches rebuilt in Neo-Classical style. Until today there are many churches all over the former Russian Empire still not purged from these awful alterations.

1917 onward | Communism

It would be wrong to say that Communists destroyed churches without consideration - most historical buildings survived, some previously lost churches were even restored, but the Russian Revival style took a heavy toll as it was considered to "lack historical value" + several timeless masterpieces of historical architecture that were "in the way". Generally, during Communism religious architecture was neglected.

1941-1944 | Nazis

A lot of architecture in Russia was destroyed during WWII by the Nazis - either during storming of cities or blown-up in order to prevent Russians from using them as fortifications in case for a counter-attack.

III-rd century onward | Wooden Architecture

An estimated 85-90% of the post-Mongolian Russian wooden religious architecture was lost due to the nature of the material and neglect. Wood remained the main construction material of civilian architecture until the early XVIII-th century.

Indeed, that's pretty sad. Russia probably lost most of its heritage %-wise compared to other European countries.
Take Moskvian old town alone...