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 February 24th, 2012, 02:22 AM   #361
kaligraffi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 2

Wow, those two pictures really do sum it all up. Truly tragic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
The second pic is much nicer. Not only the buildings are clearly of a higher scale but, more importantly, clutter (excessive ornaments) is absent.
Unfortunately, neither of those statements (one of which is unproven, while the other is pure conjecture) support your ultimate conclusion in the slightest sense, and so this is no argument at all (by the way, what you call "clutter" is what most people call elements inherent in attractive buildings).
__________________
The principles discoverable in the works of the past belong to us; not so the results. It is taking the end for the means. - Owen Jones
kaligraffi no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 24th, 2012, 02:52 AM   #362
cameronpaul
Paris-the city beautiful
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 923
Likes (Received): 468

FAILED - Must do better!

With what I have observed from the pages of SkyscraperCity I would say that modern architecture has entered a new phase of extreme ugliness (some exceptions of course) not seen since the dark days of the 60's and 70's. Oh yes, they can tart them up with garish colours and give them distorted forms so they don't look as dull as the old concrete monsters but the poverty of mind in good design screams at you. I am reminded of a wonderful quote from the late and highly intelligent journalist Alister Cook "Freak art masquerading as originality" Just about sums up a lot of the shit that is being churned out today.
cameronpaul no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2012, 08:02 AM   #363
NotTarts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 143
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
^Where is that?
Whoops, sorry. It's Sydney in Australia. First picture is circa 1900, second is 2008 I think.
NotTarts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2012, 05:07 PM   #364
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,307
Likes (Received): 8167

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
clutter (excessive ornaments) is absent.
What about street clutter?

Youre so dogmatic you cant see any reason anymore. To say the second picture is better is laughable - in the first one the buildings are grand and ornate, but also different and yet at the same time create a unified whole thanks to employing the same architectural language. There is no ugly street clutter, badly planted trees or painted roads. Nor are the pedestrians consigned to the pavements and motorists given the right to reign on the streets. First picture is aesthetically pleasing while the second looks like a right mess - ineed it sums up perfectly what is wrong with the todays urban planning.
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius

Last edited by El_Greco; February 24th, 2012 at 05:14 PM.
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2012, 05:41 PM   #365
Kiboko
hubba hubba
 
Kiboko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,462
Likes (Received): 327

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotTarts View Post
Whoops, sorry. It's Sydney in Australia. First picture is circa 1900, second is 2008 I think.
Are you sure it is the same street? The street looks much wider in 2008 and there also a curve in the new situation.

However, both situations are not very special. I agree with suburbanist on the excessive ornamentation, it is no lost when some of these pieces are gone for the sake of progress. But i do see more cluttering in the new situation. On this picture i don't see anything worthy to be called true modernism, it is just a collection of meaningless buildings which happen to be erected in the last few decades.
Kiboko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2012, 08:32 PM   #366
Zabonz
Master Planner
 
Zabonz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: zabreg
Posts: 1,616
Likes (Received): 1351

IMHO

In Architecture: NO

In Urban planning : BIG TIME
__________________
ona je ljubav koja ne može proć
Zabonz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2012, 08:51 PM   #367
Raf124
Konstytucja głupcze!
 
Raf124's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,456
Likes (Received): 25732

In architecture: It was not a failure. It was quite good, especially regarding office buildings, and small residential. I would even say that 20-40’s modernism was one of the best XX century arch. styles, if not the best.
But 60’s and 70’s modernism in its brutalized and gigantic form was a huge failure. It was implicated by urban planning of that days.

The way urban space was planned and developed in 60’s and 70’s was de facto killing “natural” and traditional cities. New districts and cities ware made in inhuman scale and ware completely disconnected for the rest.
Raf124 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2012, 09:44 PM   #368
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,237
Likes (Received): 9784

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raf124 View Post
In architecture: It was not a failure. It was quite good, especially regarding office buildings, and small residential. I would even say that 20-40’s modernism was one of the best XX century arch. styles, if not the best.
But 60’s and 70’s modernism in its brutalized and gigantic form was a huge failure. It was implicated by urban planning of that days.

The way urban space was planned and developed in 60’s and 70’s was de facto killing “natural” and traditional cities. New districts and cities ware made in inhuman scale and ware completely disconnected for the rest.
More or less my feelings too.
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 05:58 PM   #369
sebanaj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9
Likes (Received): 1

Modernism is better because it uses less resources and does more. Function over form! The less sensibility to ornament, the more cultured you are. Reason is more important than sensorial experience.
sebanaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 06:00 PM   #370
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,307
Likes (Received): 8167

^ Thats utter bullshit and belongs in the "utopian" World of the 60s. Modernists have successfully created some of the ugliest buildings and soulless urban areas full of sameness. People need beauty and people like beauty. Ornament is not pointless and less is never ever more.
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius

Last edited by El_Greco; March 17th, 2012 at 06:10 PM.
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 06:24 PM   #371
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,237
Likes (Received): 9784

I agree that we shouldn't underestimate the importance of beauty, but I'm not completely sure I follow you when you say "less is never ever more". I think the street scape here is beautiful (it's one of your own pictures from Rome):


Yet you can hardly see any ornaments. If you on the other hand had added excess amount of ornaments then I think the streetscape would have looked intimidating and lost is warm and human nature.

Would it really have looked better with buildings like this?

Source: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4263393
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 06:30 PM   #372
sebanaj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9
Likes (Received): 1

I don't really believe high skyscrapers are good. I prefer small houses; because overcrowding zones may be dysfunctional and they may put too much pressure on resources like water and pipes, trees, grass, etc. So I prefer small classic houses. Big monoblocks are dysfunctional if you take into account the whole system, not just how many people can live there but the pressure on other resources.
sebanaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 06:35 PM   #373
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,043
Likes (Received): 3601

The fact is that we have finally understood that, surprise, form IS function. There is a new science out there: psychology of building which describes exactly how a beautiful building makes you feeling better as a human and less as a robot

The Sebanaj argumentation is very logic and understandable, but was very often used by speculators to build concrete monsters instead of liveable houses

About the statement: "The less sensibility to ornament, the more cultured you are", I would like to have some more argumentations...Many hiperdecorated things are heavy, I know, but classical taste is quite the opposite: it is to decorate exactly as much as elegance requires, as many styles in the past have done. We're not here to support the coming back of imperialistical rococò I guess. We just want some beauty, some stye, some fresh beauty, not opulence or goldish shining things
tommolo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 06:36 PM   #374
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,307
Likes (Received): 8167

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galro View Post
I think the street scape here is beautiful (it's one of your own pictures from Rome)
But of course. However modernism would struggle to create anything even remotelly close to it. Modernism simply cannot create exciting/beautiful streets or squares. It is rigid and its followers dogmatic philistines.

Buildings there have grown organically - they are of varying height and colour, but at the same time have these little details (ornate lamp, stone arches framing the doors, shutters, ornate fanlights etc) which Modernism considers pointless. Indeed Modernism would simply build an ugly blank wall with no variation. It would look awful. Modernism simply does not understand cities or human nature.
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 06:36 PM   #375
sebanaj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9
Likes (Received): 1

Sameness in the beauty of small classic house with red triangled roofs and grass gardens, is good and is functional. And it doesn't pressure resources as high skyscrapers would do regardless of their beauty. In a zone of big skyscrapers, what kind of roads would you need, a 100 meters wide?! I like the sameness but in rational beauty. A flat city.
sebanaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 06:45 PM   #376
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,043
Likes (Received): 3601

beautiful that building shown by Galro, from milan, my city
But of course I recognize Rome's street is better, because it is...a sight, not just a focus point filled with decoration and isolated from the context, The fact is many architects just try so hard to make their building a focus point...they almost forget how they works toghether in the context, and as we all know, context, the whole, is more important than many hyperdecorated elements which only represents a breaking point in the flow of streets, of cityscapes, of the sight!
tommolo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 06:49 PM   #377
sebanaj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9
Likes (Received): 1

So I'd say function depends on how many effects and systems are taken into consideration.
Big & flat Skyscrapers would be dysfunctional if privacy, air, grass, small roads and small pipes are wanted and considered goods.
Do you think a functionalist society would lead to a "Matrix" (the movie) type of world?
sebanaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 06:54 PM   #378
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,043
Likes (Received): 3601

It hasn't? I think people will always choose privacy, nature, human contact and beauty as per se values and as non neglectable principles
tommolo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 07:00 PM   #379
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,237
Likes (Received): 9784

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommolo View Post
But of course I recognize Rome's street is better,
My point wasn't that one street is necessary better that the other, but that Romes street wouldn't be any better with that level of ornamentation. I'm fan of the Milan building but it don't have a design that belongs along the narrow and dark paths that you will find in Rome.
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 07:01 PM   #380
sebanaj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9
Likes (Received): 1

I wouldn't build a white wall. The best must be some cave within a mountain, with controlled temperature and internet; eating wild hunted beasts, near a rapid river for fishing. Cooking meat on a bonfire...
sebanaj 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 02:29 AM.


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