daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Has architectural modernism failed?
Yes 190 45.13%
No 231 54.87%
Voters: 421. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 8th, 2011, 04:55 PM   #341
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 422

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Modernism succeeded a lot in bringing the concept of peacetime "carpet clearance" to cities.
Thank you for pointing out the single greatest failure of Modernism (worse IMO than even Chandigarh) and trying to spin it in a cryptoneocolonial way...

You really are that intellectually/morally bankrupt, aren't you?

Informal settlements, especially those with emergent vernaculars, e.g. in Turkey and Brazil, are nothing more or less than pure, emergent, urbanism. I guess then it makes sense you don't like them, eh? Me, I love them. I love them for several reasons. They're beautiful cityscapes, for one. Many times, they're being continuously improved over generations: wealth is being invested into the neighborhood. They're a subtle Stick It to The Man. And yes, they're even becoming touristically interesting--in Rio, even sooner than you may realize.

The key problem Suburbanist is falling into is thinking all informal settlements (favelas, gecekondular, villas miserias, campamentos, asentamientos, cantegril, etc.) are "slums". The reality is--they are not. There are different gradations of income level, of income improvement, congestion (urbanism v. overcrowding), even architectural quality/level of effort made into making home inhabitable. Clearing Rocinha or 2/3 or Ankara would be a jaw-droppingly stupid idea. Even in true slums like Dharavi (overcrowding) or Joe Slovo (no clear evidence of wealth-building), one need think twice about large-scale land clearance, and when clearance is effective, use it in the most subtle, assiduous manner. The goal, remember, is to kickstart urbanism, and midcentury-type U.S. land clearance was a total failure in this regard.

P.S., PadArch, there is no real difference--or distinction--between utopia and dystopia. One man's utopia is the next man's dystopia. Whether something is utopian or dystopian is all in the eye of the beholder. More's Utopia is mind-numbingly dystopian to today's eyes.

P.P.S. It occurs to me that when Modernism works best is when it is built in a traditional urban context without shattering it.

This is a Society Hill example:

own work

And this is a Northern Liberties example:

own work

Last edited by hammersklavier; October 8th, 2011 at 05:19 PM.
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 10th, 2011, 01:05 AM   #342
PadArch
Registered User
 
PadArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 948
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
Those ugly buildings that popped up all over the world after the war were not ugly becaused they lacked "decorative frills", most of them were ugly in design and very much lacked the space and light you're talking about. They were often just as dark and depressing as the slums of the past.


Well that is not me. Speaking of populism how on earth can you claim that "40 years ago, people detested the same things"? People fought developers who wanted everything old torn down back then just as much as now. The residents of the poor East End of London wanted their streets and buildings to be saved, the architecture was never the peoblem, the horrible living condition were, as well as the fast that old buildings were left to rot. Now get this, those who wanted the new modernist blocks were architects, developers and politicians.



This is quite obivous don't you think?



As I already said modernism has produced some amazing buildings around the world. However, when walking around in any city most of the modernist architecture you see is plain and ugly.



Says someone who derails the thread and don't even understand the topic.



What you said was that the Nordic countries should thank the great European powers for what they are today. What kind of a twisted Sarah Palinian statement is that??

If I want to "thank" anyone for the living standards I enjoy today it is the workers and middle class of the 19th century who started demanding their rights, as well as some politicans who realized that a high standard of living for thepeople benefited the country. Of course the history of the welfare state goes much futher back than this. This should not be confused with the utopian, fascist and racist ideas of the early 20th century. History has shown us that utopianism always fails.



Well as usual you have arrived at the wrong conclusion. I am extremely glad I don't live like people used to, I would never want to go back. People in the west have never had it this good. Still, I don't - like many others - think everything in the past was worse than it is today. Because that is simply not true.



There, there. That is simply because you haven't really brought anything new to the table.



It is a fact that those buildings you showed me are rare examples. It's not like our cities are full of them - quite the contrary. The classical building you picked is beautiful, but as you say quite ordinary and nothing special. You see it isn't always just about how revolutionary the architecture is. Those typical apartment buildings that were mass procued for the European bourgeoisie in the 19th century are very common thoughout Europe today. They are often quite "plain looking", however, they create fantastic street scapes and neighbourhoods, somthing modernism completely failed in achieving.




Indeed, and I am no fan of that style at all.



Maybe you are right, but I can guarantee you that no one is going to miss the modernist architecture itself. In fact I find it amazing to look at pics from the 60s and 70s and seeing all those housing estates in their hay day. In the future we might feel very nostalgic about them, just like we today like to imagine what the foggy Dickensian slums of the 19th century might have been like. The difference is that renovated Dickensian slums look good today and were worth saving, whereas 60s council estates are really difficult to turn into something nice.
blablabla look once again you are only spouting your opinion when it comes to the discussion of modernist architecture. I'm not going to respond to points about anything else since we are going off topic, which may have been my mistake in the first place, but I was putting some of your earlier comments in context to make you see how ridiculous they sounded. I think that has been achieved and now we should focus simply on modernist architecture. As I said the fact is everything you say is pure opinion, and based on the assumption that most people agree with your opinion. For instance one of your earlier comments was that the majority of people prefer old buildings and don't like modernist buildings. I think the results of the poll to this thread might suggest that you are incorrect in that assumption. Furthermore you opinion and insights on this thread seem to me to very much restricted to your limited experience of buildings and cityscapes, which makes your opinion even more subjective. I'm quite sure for instance that you have probably never seen or heard of 90% of the buildings in the photos that I have shown, now I don't want to sound like thats a bad thing, i'm sure most people are the same and without actively researching such things theres no reason you should have seen them - but again its making the point that your view here lacks a broad enough perspective and I think you haven't registered that. For instance you claim that modernism has been incapable of creating successful cityscapes. That just isn't true. Vancouver is widely considered to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world, granted that is partly to do with its setting, but I also think you have to see the success of the form of urbanism they have created. Having visited your Helsinki photo thread, I can see you have a taste for tacky pastiche buildings. Many of those buildings in my opinion are quite ugly, especially the one which appeared to be a town hall of some sort (with the big entrance portico) and I don't mean that as an offence to Helsinki, as I have not yet visited that city and I am sure it is a very beautiful place. But frankly I am quite sure that by far the most beautiful buildings in Finland are in fact modern buildings by
Alvar Aalto e.g. Villa Mairea (possibly my all time favourite house) or Paimeo Sanatorium. Maybe you'll shock me and tell me that you've visited them there are in Helsinki for instance - the culture house (its a brick building), and the Finlandia Hall. Both of those are 10x better than anything I saw in your Helsinki thread.
PadArch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2011, 06:53 PM   #343
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,351
Likes (Received): 891

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
blablabla
Great input once again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
look once again you are only spouting your opinion when it comes to the discussion of modernist architecture. I'm not going to respond to points about anything else since we are going off topic, which may have been my mistake in the first place, but I was putting some of your earlier comments in context to make you see how ridiculous they sounded. I think that has been achieved and now we should focus simply on modernist architecture. As I said the fact is everything you say is pure opinion, and based on the assumption that most people agree with your opinion.
This discussion is about opinions. You are also just expressing your opinion, what the hell did you think? There are ofcourse matters that cannot be based on mere opinions but this discussion is about whether modernism has failed or not, i.e. completely subjective.

You are not responding simply because you can't. I don't give a toss about whether other people agree with me or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
For instance one of your earlier comments was that the majority of people prefer old buildings and don't like modernist buildings. I think the results of the poll to this thread might suggest that you are incorrect in that assumption.
I hope you don't conduct empiric studies in your proffession

How the hell can you base anything on what a few architecture geeks on the internet think??


Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
Furthermore you opinion and insights on this thread seem to me to very much restricted to your limited experience of buildings and cityscapes, which makes your opinion even more subjective. I'm quite sure for instance that you have probably never seen or heard of 90% of the buildings in the photos that I have shown, now I don't want to sound like thats a bad thing, i'm sure most people are the same and without actively researching such things theres no reason you should have seen them - but again its making the point that your view here lacks a broad enough perspective and I think you haven't registered that.
Again one of your deluded opinions. By the look of things you haven't even read my posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
For instance you claim that modernism has been incapable of creating successful cityscapes. That just isn't true. Vancouver is widely considered to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world, granted that is partly to do with its setting, but I also think you have to see the success of the form of urbanism they have created.
Modernism in most cases fails to interact with the street and creates soulless streets devoid of any life. In fact, as someone pointed out already it was never a part of the modernist idea to create streetscapes at all. Elevated walkways and underpasses were to be the public space and the streets themselves would be used by cars. Nowadays ofcourse this is no longer true and many modern streets look rather good.

I've never been to Vancouver and I'm sure it's a nice city located in a beautiful landscape. However, in my opinion Vancouver has an appalling skyline, it looks like a lego city. Architecturally the city appears to be very boring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
Having visited your Helsinki photo thread, I can see you have a taste for tacky pastiche buildings. Many of those buildings in my opinion are quite ugly, especially the one which appeared to be a town hall of some sort (with the big entrance portico) and I don't mean that as an offence to Helsinki, as I have not yet visited that city and I am sure it is a very beautiful place.
How is it relevant to this discussion that you think a particular building in Helsinki is ugly? It's your unimportant opinion, and to be honest your polite Helsinki- bashing comes as no surprise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
But frankly I am quite sure that by far the most beautiful buildings in Finland are in fact modern buildings by
Alvar Aalto e.g. Villa Mairea (possibly my all time favourite house) or Paimeo Sanatorium. Maybe you'll shock me and tell me that you've visited them there are in Helsinki for instance - the culture house (its a brick building), and the Finlandia Hall. Both of those are 10x better than anything I saw in your Helsinki thread.
Never visited Paimio nor Villa Mairea. The Finlandia Hall is alright but very ordinary looking, atleast on the inside. It looks like a conference centre. I´m sorry to shatter your illusions but I don't think you're going to be very impressed by it. There are far better modernist buildings, both in Helsinki and the world. The Finlandia Hall looks good from a distance, when viewed from Töölönlahti, but up close it's nothing special.

Kulttuuritalo is even more ordinary- looking. It's not bad, but not great either. The same goes for other buildings by Aalto such as Sähkötalo, Akateeminen Kirjakauppa and the Head Quarters of Enso- Gutzeit which is one of the most hated buildings in the city. Aalto has a great reputation abroad but in Finland he is not as celebrated.
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011, 08:16 PM   #344
PadArch
Registered User
 
PadArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 948
Likes (Received): 47

Time to dredge this one back up.

1) My point is that my discussion has been a lot more balanced and substantiated than yours. I've used plenty of examples whereas you rely on anecdotes. Also I'm pointing out that you are biased, based on the fact that you prefer old buildings. I am not biased since I do not prefer "old buildings" (which is a very vague and unhelpful way to condense so many periods into one), nor do I prefer modern buildings or ancient buildings or classical or baroque or gothic. The other point is that it is easy to say you dislike something, when you know little about it.

2) I agree modernist urbanism fails to interact with the street. And I also agree that modernist town planning is deeply flawed. That's where you should read my earlier post where I called for a need to distinguish between modernist town planning or urbanism, and modernist architecture. Modernist architecture works great when it disobeys modernist planning ideas, or when it is integrated into a non-modernist planning system such as Manhattan or the city of London.

3) That's your opinion but many people hate/dislike some of the best modern buildings. That's why for example the Barbican (which is architecturally very beautiful even if it is urbanistically flawed) is viewed with vague dislike or even contempt by some people. Why? Prejudice. They see a concrete tower and without considering it on its merits immediately make associations with housing for poor people, which makes them think of crime and urban deprivation and sends a big knee-jerk dislike reaction back out. The "modernism has failed" myth plays a part here, as you'll se below. Its more or less equivalent to christians calling the beatles devil music, or politicians suggesting that hip-hop or death metal leads to bad behaviour.

4) You still have not given an alternative. I can only assume that you would prefer that we shamelessly pastiche old buildings and therefore lose any imagination that we have gained in recent years. There is a modernist movement coming after the international style called critical regionalism. For me this is a far more productive attitude than what came after it - post modernism.

5) Let's not forget the welcome cleansing affect of the modernist spirit. I know as well as anyone that this has had negative outcomes (although i would argue that those are not unique to modernism - every period has shared in senselessness), but it also paved the way for the avant garde to completely reinvent architecture. Without that period of spring-cleaning, we would have been trapped in a cycle of reliance of past styles, and I doubt that some of the best ideas that came out of the 20th century would have been possible without shrugging our shoulders of that. Rem Koolhaas has made good comments on this point.

6) Finally, all critique of modernism is valid and welcome. It is critique and reflection that enriches architecture eventually. However, as we have seen, the kind of outright "modernism has failed" narrative (see the the pruitt-igoe myth) does not have good results - its a dangerous view that leads mostly to terrible architecture. As the essay I linked above demonstrates, by shifting the blame to the whims of architecture it misses the structural problems that lie behind the 60s housing failures, and can lead to people making the same mistakes again, by changing architecture and completely missing the deeper issue. Furthermore, architecturally, the post modernism which first emerged in the early seventies actually created an arguably inferior architectural movement. The best architects out there today have understood the critiques, but they do not buy the "failure" narrative. The best architects out there now understand the strengths of modernism, and exhibit an evolution on the modernist pantheon, rather than a reversal. I'll take David Chipperfield over Quinlan Terry any day thanks.

Last edited by PadArch; October 20th, 2011 at 09:58 PM.
PadArch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2011, 05:44 PM   #345
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,351
Likes (Received): 891

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
Time to dredge this one back up.
Welcome back

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
My point is that my discussion has been a lot more balanced and substantiated than yours.
That was your point all along? Get off your high horse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
I've used plenty of examples whereas you rely on anecdotes.
You posted a bunch of pics and basically said: "This good, you bad". Where are these examples you speak of? I have mentioned buildings and architects as well you know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
Also I'm pointing out that you are biased, based on the fact that you prefer old buildings. I am not biased since I do not prefer "old buildings" (which is a very vague and unhelpful way to condense so many periods into one), nor do I prefer modern buildings or ancient buildings or classical or baroque or gothic.
I tend to like old architecture more, but I would love to live in a modern condo. However, in reality most modern forms of living are dull: boring suburban apartments and tacky rowhomes. Of course I'd rather live in renovated Jugend building. A condo in a glass tower in London or NYC would be amazing though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
The other point is that it is easy to say you dislike something, when you know little about it.
So why did you come back?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
2) I agree modernist urbanism fails to interact with the street. And I also agree that modernist town planning is deeply flawed. That's where you should read my earlier post where I called for a need to distinguish between modernist town planning or urbanism, and modernist architecture. Modernist architecture works great when it disobeys modernist planning ideas, or when it is integrated into a non-modernist planning system such as Manhattan or the city of London.
Modernist town planning is very much part of the modernist movement, as much as architecture. I am not sure if these two can be separated. The topic is "Has modernism failed?" not "Has modernist architecture failed". Hoever, as I said earlier modernist stand alone buildings can look very good, there are a few in Helsinki I like very much. Even if we separate the two (architecture and planning) what category does housing estates fall into? They were both architectural and planning disasters and therefore horribly failed.

I love London because its rich mix of old and new. This may come as a surprise to you but I find cities that only, or in majority, consist of classical architecture boring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
3) That's your opinion but many people hate/dislike some of the best modern buildings. That's why for example the Barbican (which is architecturally very beautiful even if it is urbanistically flawed) is viewed with vague dislike or even contempt by some people. Why? Prejudice. They see a concrete tower and without considering it on its merits immediately make associations with housing for poor people, which makes them think of crime and urban deprivation and sends a big knee-jerk dislike reaction back out. The "modernism has failed" myth plays a part here, as you'll se below. Its more or less equivalent to christians calling the beatles devil music, or politicians suggesting that hip-hop or death metal leads to bad behaviour.
The Barbican is hardly "beautiful". I like it personally (but not its location) but it is far from being beautiful, and I understand people who don't like it. However, I also understand your point. The Barbican is a success basically because it disobeys most modernist ideas and priciples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
4) You still have not given an alternative. I can only assume that you would prefer that we shamelessly pastiche old buildings and therefore lose any imagination that we have gained in recent years. There is a modernist movement coming after the international style called critical regionalism. For me this is a far more productive attitude than what came after it - post modernism.
An alternative to what? No I don't think we should pastiche old buildings. I think the quality of modern architecture just needs to be improved - dramatically. Most reconstructions I've seen are dreadful, for example the "Old Town" in Frankfurt looks like Disneyland. Some of the reconstructed buildings I saw when I visited Riga were also fake- looking. In certain cases, if done well, reconstruction is a possibility. For example if someone wanted to rebuild those buildings of St Thomas Hospital that were destroyed in the war I would be all for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
5) Let's not forget the welcome cleansing affect of the modernist spirit. I know as well as anyone that this has had negative outcomes (although i would argue that those are not unique to modernism - every period has shared in senselessness), but it also paved the way for the avant garde to completely reinvent architecture. Without that period of spring-cleaning, we would have been trapped in a cycle of reliance of past styles, and I doubt that some of the best ideas that came out of the 20th century would have been possible without shrugging our shoulders of that. Rem Koolhaas has made good comments on this point.
That sounds a bit destructive and, don't take offence, nazist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
6) Finally, all critique of modernism is valid and welcome. It is critique and reflection that enriches architecture eventually. However, as we have seen, the kind of outright "modernism has failed" narrative (see the the pruitt-igoe myth) does not have good results - its a dangerous view that leads mostly to terrible architecture. As the essay I linked above demonstrates, by shifting the blame to the whims of architecture it misses the structural problems that lie behind the 60s housing failures, and can lead to people making the same mistakes again, by changing architecture and completely missing the deeper issue. Furthermore, architecturally, the post modernism which first emerged in the early seventies actually created an arguably inferior architectural movement. The best architects out there today have understood the critiques, but they do not buy the "failure" narrative. The best architects out there now understand the strengths of modernism, and exhibit an evolution on the modernist pantheon, rather than a reversal. I'll take David Chipperfield over Quinlan Terry any day thanks.
Saying Terry and post- modernism i worse does not make modernism good.
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2011, 12:45 PM   #346
Brave New World
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 42
Likes (Received): 3

Very weird discussion indeed :-)
Looks like people who do not like modern and simple buildings blame them for everything what's wrong in today's society...
The simple fact is MODERNISM WORKS! 95% of urban fabric surrounding us is built after 1920 and most of the buildings works perfectly. Because there is so many of them you rather see gloomy modernists blocks than XiX Century Victorian palaces...
It is building maintenance what failed - not a architectural style...
Brave New World no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2011, 01:21 PM   #347
Dahlis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 837
Likes (Received): 107

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
Very weird discussion indeed :-)
Looks like people who do not like modern and simple buildings blame them for everything what's wrong in today's society...
The simple fact is MODERNISM WORKS! 95% of urban fabric surrounding us is built after 1920 and most of the buildings works perfectly. Because there is so many of them you rather see gloomy modernists blocks than XiX Century Victorian palaces...
It is building maintenance what failed - not a architectural style...
Modernism works for one very simple reason, its cheap. Construction companies love it, just a plain white wall with square windows its the cheapest possible way.

Single family houses are never that simple because they are built by the people who will actually live in them.
Dahlis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2011, 11:48 PM   #348
igorvragovic
Igor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alicante
Posts: 41
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
The fact that people are comparing Roman and Medieval slums (poorly built mud and brick buildings that were designed not to look like anything) to modernism which was built by world- famous architects with all the money, materials and technology they could imagine at their disposal, really says it all.
I fully agree

__________________
Soy un tio de Alicante
igorvragovic no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2011, 12:06 PM   #349
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1924

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
Very weird discussion indeed :-)
Looks like people who do not like modern and simple buildings blame them for everything what's wrong in today's society...
The simple fact is MODERNISM WORKS! 95% of urban fabric surrounding us is built after 1920 and most of the buildings works perfectly. Because there is so many of them you rather see gloomy modernists blocks than XiX Century Victorian palaces...
It is building maintenance what failed - not a architectural style...
The problem is that you can't really have a modern v old debate.

For starters you have to define where modern starts. Are the Empire State Building and Chrysler Building modern or old architecture? By your 1920s start point, it would make them modern architecture. Most in the disliking modern camp would say they are old style.

And I don't think anyone is saying modern buildings as a whole are bad, which is why posting pictures of good modern buildings, of which there are many, fails to convince. It's like posting pictures of Roman Abramovich on his yacht to counter claims that Russians are poorer than people in the west.

It's not the good examples that people complain about. It's the mundane, boxy, bare concrete eyesores that make up the large bulk of modern buildings that people hate - that the pro-modern camp seem to believe are as much loved, and just as fine as the good modern stuff. It just has an emporer's new clothes feel to it, as if those who like modern architecture feel they have to defend all modern architecture.

There's even been posts about how great The Barbican looks, yet I know that nobody, if compiling a list of buildings to show how great modern architecture can look, would ever dream of including it.
Rev Stickleback no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2011, 03:09 PM   #350
Dahlis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 837
Likes (Received): 107

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback View Post
The problem is that you can't really have a modern v old debate.

For starters you have to define where modern starts. Are the Empire State Building and Chrysler Building modern or old architecture? By your 1920s start point, it would make them modern architecture. Most in the disliking modern camp would say they are old style.

And I don't think anyone is saying modern buildings as a whole are bad, which is why posting pictures of good modern buildings, of which there are many, fails to convince. It's like posting pictures of Roman Abramovich on his yacht to counter claims that Russians are poorer than people in the west.

It's not the good examples that people complain about. It's the mundane, boxy, bare concrete eyesores that make up the large bulk of modern buildings that people hate - that the pro-modern camp seem to believe are as much loved, and just as fine as the good modern stuff. It just has an emporer's new clothes feel to it, as if those who like modern architecture feel they have to defend all modern architecture.

There's even been posts about how great The Barbican looks, yet I know that nobody, if compiling a list of buildings to show how great modern architecture can look, would ever dream of including it.
There is a difference between a modern building and a modernist building. A lot of people tend to miss that.
Dahlis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2011, 04:09 PM   #351
PadArch
Registered User
 
PadArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 948
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback View Post
There's even been posts about how great The Barbican looks, yet I know that nobody, if compiling a list of buildings to show how great modern architecture can look, would ever dream of including it.
completely wrong. the barbican is a renowned work of architecture.
PadArch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2011, 01:17 AM   #352
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1924

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
completely wrong. the barbican is a renowned work of architecture.
Yet it's not one even the pro lobby would ever use to illustrate how great modern architecture can look.

Why is that?
Rev Stickleback no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2011, 12:12 PM   #353
PadArch
Registered User
 
PadArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 948
Likes (Received): 47

Because its a divisive building. It is quite an extreme modernism, and so if one was trying to persuade someone that doesn't like modernism to like it you would probably begin with the softer, less extreme styles. For those who like modernism to begin with, the barbican is better than most because its more extreme. Its like, if you want to persuade someone who hates coffee to drink coffee, you would not start them off with a strong non-sugary espresso.. You might begin with a sweetened mocha or capuccino or something, and over time once their taste adjusts, you give them the hardcore stuff.
PadArch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2011, 02:43 PM   #354
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1924

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
For those who like modernism to begin with, the barbican is better than most because its more extreme.
...which is precisely why it crops up so readily in "London's ugliest buildings" type polls.

Quote:
Its like, if you want to persuade someone who hates coffee to drink coffee, you would not start them off with a strong non-sugary espresso.. You might begin with a sweetened mocha or capuccino or something, and over time once their taste adjusts, you give them the hardcore stuff.
and do you see any suggestion that people are coming round to appreciating brutalist stuff? I really don't.

If anything, with the appreciation of how good modern buildings can look, that style is getting even less popular. There are far fewer buildings being built that look anything like that now than in the past.

Architects may appreicate it (and similar buildings) for some kind of historic design significance, or as an engineering achievement, but that's not how the general public sees things. From a natural engineering viewpoint, Susan Boyle is a magnificent work of nature, but that doesn't make her attractive.

The opinion that been expressed on this thread that only architects - and by default people in favour of modernism - are the only people whose opinion matters is a big reason why the UK pretty much has the ugliest city centres in the developed world.

Back in the 1960s some people thought this view was good enough for a postcard.


http://www.soultsretailview.co.uk/wp...s_postcard.jpg

Nobody in their right mind would think that now.


With the overall question though, to establish if modernism has failed, you have to ask what the objective of modernism was?

If it was to show that building in new styles with new materials with originality, I think modernism has been an undoubted success.

If you take it as promoting the idea that functionality is everything, and docoration is old fashioned, then that aspect had undoubtedly failed.
Rev Stickleback no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2012, 10:17 PM   #355
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,040
Likes (Received): 3596

I don't think that modernism in architecture had failed. I think at the times it was great and it was the right thing to do. It was, but nowadays modernist building are fastly running out of fashon. The lack of detail and the curtain walls are just boring to my generation (I was born in 1984) and now we want something we have never seen: classical building being built today with our own sensibility. That would be amazing to us, to our contemporary aesthetical sensibility. We never knew that. We have grown up seeing our houses built in concrete or steel and windows. And you can built everything with that material, really whatever you can think or dream, but the feeling you get it is that it was in no sense a "challenge". Art and architecture must be daring. With concrete you can do easily whatever you want, so where's the challenge? Where's the art in it? Where's the progress? We only see a boring play and a dull experimentation without a direction towards the future. Whilst classical architecture has alway demonstrated a huge possibility of developping new languages and new styles towards new kind of beauty. Classical architecture fully contemporary is nowaday THE challenge, and since it is a daring challenge, its outcomes might be a very brand new art. So, in resume, modernism had not failed. It has had its period full of interesting experiment. But nowadays we need to move over and restore a kind of a path back towards classical beauty in order to get towards other new styles. Like the said "know where you're coming to get where you're hading to", something like that.

Last edited by tommolo; January 8th, 2012 at 10:27 PM.
tommolo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2012, 05:46 AM   #356
svicious22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 34
Likes (Received): 0

One could argue the semantics of "modern" vs. "modernist", but my personal definition, modernism has failed. I would have a problem, apart from mere wastefulness in those cases where there is still economic usefulness, with perhaps one in twenty buildings of supposed "significance" built post WW II being torn down today. The vast majority of them are, and always were, of little consequence in comparison with more traditional and classical architecture. By contrast, earlier buildings, especially during the 50-60 years leading up to WW II nearly always have some redeeming attributes and are far more likely to exhibit timeless appeal.

There are exceptions to be sure, but in totality modernism is soulless, empty and sterile. Mediocrity has been embraced under the guise of modernity. Failure is not too strong of a word.
svicious22 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2012, 06:53 AM   #357
CF221
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 1,770
Likes (Received): 811

Quote:
Originally Posted by svicious22 View Post
There are exceptions to be sure, but in totality modernism is soulless, empty and sterile. Mediocrity has been embraced under the guise of modernity. Failure is not too strong of a word.
yes.. Yes ...YES!!!!!!!
__________________
Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CF221 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2012, 11:11 AM   #358
NotTarts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 143
Likes (Received): 3

Then:


Now:


Speaks for itself really.
NotTarts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2012, 04:06 PM   #359
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,351
Likes (Received): 891

^Where is that?
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2012, 12:19 AM   #360
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,423
Likes (Received): 21061

The second pic is much nicer. Not only the buildings are clearly of a higher scale but, more importantly, clutter (excessive ornaments) is absent.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
architecture

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu