21st Century Neohistorist Architecture of all kinds

[skyduster]

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 .

Darhet,

First, that fact that you thought this was a European Union document (when in fact it's a UN document), should be reason enough for you to question your original understanding of what it says.

Your English is limited and -instead of seeking a translation of this document into your primary language so that you can better understand what it says- you decided to interpret it by yourself, despite the fact that this specific document requires a higher level of English fluency than you possess. Hence the disastrous result of you grossly misunderstanding it, and then spreading disinformation on the internet.

Silly misunderstandings and ignorant mistakes such as this one have the potential to become dangerous rumors that spread quickly, and before you know it, they play into the hands of propagandists.

In reality, nowhere in this document does it say that it is illegal to build new buildings in traditional architectural styles. The entire charter discusses how historical monuments should be preserved, and mentions absolutely nothing about constructing new buildings.

It seems to me that all of your confusion stems from Article 6 which states that no new construction should be added to an existing historical monument. In other words, no alterations or new additions should be added to, say, the Parthenon, Stonehenge, the Giza Pyramids, or the Forbidden City.

And that's all the Venice Charter says. So take a deep breath.

[JoseRodolfo]

Haha. This is centainly a good answer to him. I´ve read all the document looking for what "Darhet" said, and obviously didn´t find it there.

[socrates#1fan]

These are not mine!

Some from the Ol' US of A

Fort Worth TX Central Library


South Lake town hall, Texas


From the UK

THE NEW QUEEN'S GALLERY, BUCKINGHAM PALACE







THE BROWNSWORD MARKET BUILDING, POUNDBURY

[Askario]

Neo-baroque in Kazan city, in construction. It's all apartments:







Another one project is ready:




Photos by aidar89@SSC

[socrates#1fan]

Beautiful! Just stunning! Thank you!

[toddatc]

Yea, I really liked Kazan!

[erbse]

Damn, this Kazan stuff is... Heavy.

[Kanio]

I could expect the Ukrainians, Americans or Kazakhs to build some kind of ahistoric shit but the Brits?? They disappointed me
However i must say the example from St. Petersburg is really well done, very good materials, nice proportions. I would never guess if it's modern or original

[tommolo]

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.

Thank you for resuming the full range of XX century modernist towards contemporary neoclassical architecture. I think you're right in many ways, overall about the fact that art in general and architecture in particular must be always daring. But the fact is that XX century modernity, according the great Mies Van Der Rohe, must put aside architecture to built economical houses producted economically. The architect, according Mies, in XXth century must have been rather an "industrial designer" of houses, because people needed decent houses. To achieve that, Mies suggested to suspend aesthetic decoration research to reduce production cost and let people buy their houses economically. That's the reason for the famous "less is more" idea. And it worked very well in XX century! But now we're in XXI century and we do not need to suspend aestetical research in decoration and pure timeless shapes. We already have or houses, there is no longer a need to avoid decoration nowadays. Mies has suspended architecture to let in engineering and economy. Now it's time to get back to architecture, because times had changed since the great Mies Van Der Rohe. Our problem is that our houses are too industrial and soul-less, and so every new architecture must be classical in the sense of bring back soul to cities. That do not mean to build in the same way of 200 or 300 years ago, but definitely the hate for decoration has no meaning nowadays. We do not need that, really. We need decoration, and to elaborate a successful modern times kind of decoration we must watch past styles and elaborate a dialogue with those styles, a way towards aesthetical research we suspended in XX century for the social problems Mies told us so clearly, that nowadays are completely outdated.
We do not live in XX century anymore. After postmodernism, the term "faux historicism" is no longer a critics. It is an artistical genre on its own.

[ikops]

I only just came across this thread. Some impressive buildings in Kazan. I really like that style.

[vilniusguide]

"Villa A City“ complex near Vilnius, Lithuania.








www.edomus.lt

[BE0GRAD]

Originally Posted by goschio

very nice architecture. However, I like new form interpretations and not copies of historic buildings.

I like them both. Although I agree new interpretations are preferable because they represent the evolution of the traditional architecture in question. Also, what is very important is the environment in which the new building(in old style) is being built. I find it quite inappropriate to build them in some new parts of the city. These kind of buildings are just for historic centers if you ask me.

[BE0GRAD]

Originally Posted by tommolo

Thank you for resuming the full range of XX century modernist towards contemporary neoclassical architecture. I think you're right in many ways, overall about the fact that art in general and architecture in particular must be always daring. But the fact is that XX century modernity, according the great Mies Van Der Rohe, must put aside architecture to built economical houses producted economically. The architect, according Mies, in XXth century must have been rather an "industrial designer" of houses, because people needed decent houses. To achieve that, Mies suggested to suspend aesthetic decoration research to reduce production cost and let people buy their houses economically. That's the reason for the famous "less is more" idea. And it worked very well in XX century! But now we're in XXI century and we do not need to suspend aestetical research in decoration and pure timeless shapes. We already have or houses, there is no longer a need to avoid decoration nowadays. Mies has suspended architecture to let in engineering and economy. Now it's time to get back to architecture, because times had changed since the great Mies Van Der Rohe. Our problem is that our houses are too industrial and soul-less, and so every new architecture must be classical in the sense of bring back soul to cities. That do not mean to build in the same way of 200 or 300 years ago, but definitely the hate for decoration has no meaning nowadays. We do not need that, really. We need decoration, and to elaborate a successful modern times kind of decoration we must watch past styles and elaborate a dialogue with those styles, a way towards aesthetical research we suspended in XX century for the social problems Mies told us so clearly, that nowadays are completely outdated.
We do not live in XX century anymore. After postmodernism, the term "faux historicism" is no longer a critics. It is an artistical genre on its own.

My taught exactly!

[erbse]

A great thread, it offers a little more freedom for interpretation than this reference:

--- New Buildings Built in Traditional Architecture Style ---

[erbse]

Btw, any updates from Kazan? Haven't seen anything of it for ages.

[castermaild55]

Originally Posted by wolfpaw

A beautiful example, OP! Why can't more new buildings adopt this style

I dont think so..
this building does not show the time. that is ,evolution。it is a just fake of at that time
thought it is beautiful design..
A style of building also changes with the passage of time.

[Galro]

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.

Lets be fair here: 90% of all modern new build are also just boring re-use of already seen and used designs. Don't pretend that these buildings represent anything unique and innovative either:


http://www.movetog.com/view.aspx?id=740411&pid=61050


http://www.swiftcity.co.uk/detail.as...067&viewmode=1

[L e o n i d a s]

I'm having double feelings about all this..

Modernist architecture seems only to represent a small part of society, mostly rationalists looking for clarity, function and no bullshit (as they would probably refer to ornament and facadism). We also see modern architecture that seems very involved in aestethics, these could represent futurists, who enjoy progressiveness, and modernity, and like seeing it expressed visually throughout shape.
I feel by forcing modernity on society (especially in the 60's-70's) a large part of society got somewhat irritated by it, as it dramatically changed the face of many cities. Modern architecture has it's way of brutally denying the past or even obviously criticizing it's principles. When architecture or art doesn't evolve naturally from the past, in a smooth process, it is most likely not sustainable and will later be rejected just the same.
I feel this is happening now, modern architecture has become known as a movement, rejecting tradition and elegance in a brutal way. By doing so people got scared of it, like it's a tradition eating, inhuman, stale monster destroying culture and heritage. And by feeling that way they build classic temples of the past where they can hide in dreams of the past, denying the present, like the world hasn't changed.

Both movements don't really speak to me. I wish architects could come to some agreement. I pledge for artistic freedom, not denying past or present, but balancing between it. Stale modernity can serve it's purpose, and many buildings 'ask' for it in a way, need it. Like banks or places of studying and working. While places of pleasure like theaters might 'ask' for a different take on things. Opera's might show a glimpse of the past, without being closed off from reality. Away with all the taboos, why can't we use ornament and sculpture? Does elegance and beauty not serve a purpose in architecture? Why does shape have to follow function, when shape has a function on its own, and why does architecture have look exactly historically correct when there is some historical inspiration to it. The past isn't sacred, and we now look at it in a different way. I think architects are free to draw inspiration from the past, but apply it in a new artistic way. The 19th century, in my opinion, has been an age of good taste and modernity, smoothly adopting features of the past, but 'bending' them, interpretating them in a modern way. And also adding, like we see in Jugendstil: a new, modern style, but clearly evolved from past architecture.

But as I said, it's a difficult discussion. And I did doubt myself when seeing those gorgeous structures in Kazan for instance.

[erbse]

^ What you're asking for, clearly is postmodernism. It was and is quite successful again, in one way or another.

There shouldn't be restrictions as to what we're are "allowed to build" by a small "elite" of narrow-minded architects, city planners and ideologists. The people should be able to influence how their environments look like. Luckily, with New Urbanism and other movements coming up, this is improving in recent years.

[L e o n i d a s]

Yeah, but the problem is that a lot of people like shit (sorry to say it like that). So pure freedom might not be ideal as well. In Holland everything is controlled by rules, even public aesthetics. I agree, it goes to far, and results in staleness.
But when I travel across the border to Belgium, it is a complete mess. People are free to build whatever they want, and design their houses by them selves. The result is a chaotic mess of wannabe-architecture, resembling the past, or modern architecture in a very cheap, superficial way. Frankly, I don't think they really know what they want themselves. If you would confront those people with quality design of professional architects, I'm sure they'll like it even more eventually or even subconsciously.

BTW: Yes, I adore some of the post-modern architecture, just as I adore good modern architecture, or great traditional architecture. I guess I really don't care about the "genre", more about the quality within the concept of it. And whether the concept suits the location and function.

And I agree! I'm really positive about some of the present architecture and overall taste of our time. Even music seems to head into the right direction (despite the commercial bullshit of course). Old genres make their comeback in a new way, just like oil-paintings are again greatly represented in modern art lately, figurative visual art has made a giant comeback, and even flowerpaterns, baroque re-interpretations and romantic landscapes have found their way. I think we have accepted that progress for the sake of progress has lead us to a dead end. And even despite the current financial crisis I have hope for the future!