21st Century Neohistorist Architecture of all kinds

[פובליק פיינט]

Originally Posted by socrates#1fan

It isn’t about being the most unique freaky thing on the block.
This sort of architecture is in something much deeper, it is based in centuries of European architectural tradition and heritage, it is important to Europeans (well... not all Europeans) and a great deal of the world population.

Inventive is dull, because when everyone is trying to be inventive, no one is. Classical architecture is relaxed; its ability to elegantly go with the flow with a few of its own marks here and there makes it timeless and beautiful, soothing to the soul.

You don't get it, sorry. Architecture, as we hope, is not dead. And this kind of buildings make it dead. When there's no more progress and we start just to copy old forms, it is sign of crisis. Lack of self-confidents. But most of all, poor taste and philistinism of the investor.
This kind of architecture is not based on any tradition and heritage, it is just parroting old and adding ZERO new. Asset is ZERO.
Without new inventions, our civilisation would be dead. Because our brain would start to deteriorate.
This kind of architecture is insult to the Man, his aspirations and dreams.

[toddatc]

Originally Posted by פובליק פיינט

You don't get it, sorry. Architecture, as we hope, is not dead. And this kind of buildings make it dead. When there's no more progress and we start just to copy old forms, it is sign of crisis. Lack of self-confidents. But most of all, poor taste and philistinism of the investor.
This kind of architecture is not based on any tradition and heritage, it is just parroting old and adding ZERO new. Asset is ZERO.
Without new inventions, our civilisation would be dead. Because our brain would start to deteriorate.
This kind of architecture is insult to the Man, his aspirations and dreams.

Just cause there are SOME neoclassical buildings does not mean that ALL has to be like that.

[socrates#1fan]

Originally Posted by פובליק פיינט

You don't get it, sorry. Architecture, as we hope, is not dead. And this kind of buildings make it dead. When there's no more progress and we start just to copy old forms, it is sign of crisis. Lack of self-confidents. But most of all, poor taste and philistinism of the investor.
This kind of architecture is not based on any tradition and heritage, it is just parroting old and adding ZERO new. Asset is ZERO.
Without new inventions, our civilisation would be dead. Because our brain would start to deteriorate.
This kind of architecture is insult to the Man, his aspirations and dreams.

The strange notion that the only way to progress is to forget everything about the past is absurd. This notion that the only way to move forward is to constantly push away any influence (negative or positive) from the past is unhealthy.
The 19th century, one of the most progressive centuries in history, borrowed a lot from the past (artistically and architecturally) yet was anything but stagnant and still produced beautiful pieces of architecture.
And yes, it is about history and heritage, this style was the style used to create wonderful public spaces, to build the structures our ancestors lived and worked in, this style was used to represent permanence.
I think borrowing from the past shows a peace with the past, and the security to borrow its positive aspects (artistic forms). To simply neglect the tradition of using such fashions in the name progress for the sake of progress is insane.

It isn’t like people are suddenly going to return to bonnets and top hats simply because we build classical structures.

No, what is an insult to man is throwing away all of our aesthetic traditions and then throwing up a glass cube or a twisted piece of metal and saying it is just as beautiful as the previous structure, and how beautiful the glass cube is. It is an insult to our history and aesthetic senses.

Now, modern architecture has its place, not everything can or should be done in older fashions. I do think that modern architectures obsession with plainness and reducing details as much as possible is ridiculous.

[Langur]

London (246-247 Tottenham Court Road)

http://www.qftarchitects.com/project...courtroad.php#

[Langur]

London (Richmond Riverside Development)

http://www.qftarchitects.com/project...riverside.php#

[Langur]

London (Baker Street, Kendall Place, and George Street)

http://www.qftarchitects.com/project...kerstreet.php#

[JoseRodolfo]

^ wow! If things go that way in London, in the future you won´t know you´re looking at a XIXth, XXth, XXIth or XVIIIth century building.

[JoseRodolfo]

Are any of those reconstructions in London?

[Langur]

They're not reconstructions. They're all completely new buildings. I wouldn't say that London is "going this way" however. I reckon London builds a hundred contemporary buildings for every one like this.

[JoseRodolfo]

Originally Posted by Langur

They're not reconstructions. They're all completely new buildings. I wouldn't say that London is "going this way" however. I reckon London builds a hundred contemporary buildings for every one like this.

Ok, thanks for explaining this. And for showing these buildings.

[Hasse78]

Originally Posted by socrates#1fan

Anyhow, here is the Carmel Performing Arts
Monument in Atlanta Georgia
[IMG]http://*************************/america/jpgs/atlanta_arch_sr160708_1.jpg[/IMG]

This is very nice additions in neighbourhoods with mostly new architecture.

[buho]

Some of that London buildings have a neoclassical inspiration, a reinterpretation. Not the same other buildings in this thread that are just thematic park buildings, they should be in Las Vegas.

[socrates#1fan]

Oh what would modernists do without Vegas or Disney World?

[skyduster]

Originally Posted by Darhet

In the EU new "Neoclassical architecture in the 21st century "is prohibited.Why?
Look at this and read this:
Venice Charter

http://www.icomos.org/docs/venice_charter.html

DEFINITIONS

ARTICLE 1. The concept of a historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence of a particular civilization, a significant development or a historic event. This applies not only to great works of art but also to more modest works of the past which have acquired cultural significance with the passing of time.

ARTICLE 2. The conservation and restoration of monuments must have recourse to all the sciences and techniques which can contribute to the study and safeguarding of the architectural heritage.
[edit] AIM

ARTICLE 3. The intention in conserving and restoring monuments is to safeguard them no less as works of art than as historical evidence.
[edit] CONSERVATION

ARTICLE 4. It is essential to the conservation of monuments that they be maintained on a permanent basis.

ARTICLE 5. The conservation of monuments is always facilitated by making use of them for some socially useful purpose. Such use is therefore desirable but it must not change the lay-out or decoration of the building. It is within these limits only that modifications demanded by a change of function should be envisaged and may be permitted.

ARTICLE 6. The conservation of a monument implies preserving a setting which is not out of scale. Wherever the traditional setting exists, it must be kept. No new construction, demolition or modification which would alter the relations of mass and color must be allowed.

ARTICLE 7. A monument is inseparable from the history to which it bears witness and from the setting in which it occurs. The moving of all or part of a monument cannot be allowed except where the safeguarding of that monument demands it or where it is justified by national or international interest of paramount importance.

ARTICLE 8. Items of sculpture, painting or decoration which form an integral part of a monument may only be removed from it if this is the sole means of ensuring their preservation.
[edit] RESTORATION

ARTICLE 9. The process of restoration is a highly specialized operation. Its aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument and is based on respect for original material and authentic documents. It must stop at the point where conjecture begins, and in this case moreover any extra work which is indispensable must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp. The restoration in any case must be preceded and followed by an archaeological and historical study of the monument.

ARTICLE 10. Where traditional techniques prove inadequate, the consolidation of a monument can be achieved by the use of any modem technique for conservation and construction, the efficacy of which has been shown by scientific data and proved by experience.

ARTICLE 11. The valid contributions of all periods to the building of a monument must be respected, since unity of style is not the aim of a restoration. When a building includes the superimposed work of different periods, the revealing of the underlying state can only be justified in exceptional circumstances and when what is removed is of little interest and the material which is brought to light is of great historical, archaeological or aesthetic value, and its state of preservation good enough to justify the action. Evaluation of the importance of the elements involved and the decision as to what may be destroyed cannot rest solely on the individual in charge of the work.

ARTICLE 12. Replacements of missing parts must integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the artistic or historic evidence.

ARTICLE 13. Additions cannot be allowed except in so far as they do not detract from the interesting parts of the building, its traditional setting, the balance of its composition and its relation with its surroundings.
[edit] HISTORIC SITES

ARTICLE 14. The sites of monuments must be the object of special care in order to safeguard their integrity and ensure that they are cleared and presented in a seemly manner. The work of conservation and restoration carried out in such places should be inspired by the principles set forth in the foregoing articles.
[edit] EXCAVATIONS

ARTICLE 15. Excavations should be carried out in accordance with scientific standards and the recommendation defining international principles to be applied in the case of archaeological excavation adopted by UNESCO in 1956. Ruins must be maintained and measures necessary for the permanent conservation and protection of architectural features and of objects discovered must be taken. Furthermore, every means must be taken to facilitate the understanding of the monument and to reveal it without ever distorting its meaning.

All reconstruction work should however be ruled out "a priori." Only anastylosis, that is to say, the reassembling of existing but dismembered parts can be permitted. The material used for integration should always be recognizable and its use should be the least that will ensure the conservation of a monument and the reinstatement of its form.
[edit] PUBLICATION

1. Nowhere in this text is the word "neoclassical" mentioned.
2. The Venice Charter has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union.

Please don't spread disinformation, and read your sources before you cite them.

[Darhet]

Do not teach me!
Who signed it can not build "old style" (most countries in Europe).Is to protect the real landmarks,monuments.In the historicist view, these buildings would be “false history” and might confuse observers unable to distinguish the new and the old .

[socrates#1fan]

Originally Posted by Darhet

Do not teach me!
Who signed it can not build "old style" (most countries in Europe).Is to protect the real landmarks,monuments.In the historicist view, these buildings would be “false history” and might confuse observers unable to distinguish the new and the old .

What a ridiculous law. Sounds like an extreme modernist wet dream.

What about all the classical buildings being built in Europe?

[JoseRodolfo]

Originally Posted by socrates#1fan

What about all the classical buildings being built in Europe?

Please, show here some more examples. I´m really curious.

[socrates#1fan]

Well, just look at the London examples that are on this thread. England is still part of Europe, right?

[JoseRodolfo]

I was not being ironic. I was talking serios, I´ve seen these examples and I´d like to see more.

[socrates#1fan]

Originally Posted by JoseRodolfo

I was not being ironic. I was talking serios, I´ve seen these examples and I´d like to see more.

:o oh! Sorry!

Dresden is a good example, but those are reconstructions.

I did not take any of these!

Kiev, Ukraine





Hotel Ostrovskogo Square - St. Petersburg, Russia







NOT IN EUROPE

Thomas Aquinas in Santa Paula, California

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr




http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6318/guad82709382.jpg
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/557...4322729141.jpg
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/939...4352757910.jpg
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/791...4512781599.jpg
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/533...4552802720.jpg
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/219...4632825105.jpg
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/486...4642848529.jpg
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/553...4612873476.jpg
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/722...4492897084.jpg