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 March 17th, 2012, 07:05 PM   #381
sebanaj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommolo View Post
It hasn't? I think people will always choose privacy, nature, human contact and beauty as per se values and as non neglectable principles
For human contact the big skyscraper would accumulate more people that are strangers, while a system of small equal houses, will have less people but more human contact due to familiarity.
sebanaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 18th, 2012, 01:28 AM   #382
BE0GRAD
∰f(W)dw≣∭f(r,φ,θ) drdφdθ
 
BE0GRAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Београд
Posts: 2,011
Likes (Received): 1173

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.
Not really. For instance, I've voted that modernism hasn't failed ,not because I'm against new classical buildings (actually I am all for it, and in massive scale, but only in adequate surroundings) but because I believe modernism still has place in certain cases just like new traditionalism has. I believe most other people who voted against had similar reasons to do so.
BE0GRAD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2012, 08:27 PM   #383
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,350
Likes (Received): 893

Not to mention that this is a forum for modern architecture. Naturally people will be more pro-modernism.
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 10:35 PM   #384
BE0GRAD
∰f(W)dw≣∭f(r,φ,θ) drdφdθ
 
BE0GRAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Београд
Posts: 2,011
Likes (Received): 1173

Anyway, I would say most people , even in this forum, would support new traditionalist buildings ... especially if it was a tasteful new interpretation of it.
BE0GRAD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2012, 07:47 PM   #385
henrique42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 135
Likes (Received): 1

It can be beautiful for grand, great projects, but on a smaller scale, like housing it failed. Most houses from the 40's, 50's, 60's ,70's and 80's are not desirable, people prefer the older ones, or the new ones, who will be undesirable again in a few years.
The modern is never modern enough, it seems.

Last edited by henrique42; March 20th, 2012 at 07:59 PM.
henrique42 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2012, 12:17 AM   #386
CanadianDemon
Registered User
 
CanadianDemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sudbury
Posts: 1,240
Likes (Received): 378

Quote:
Originally Posted by henrique42 View Post
It can be beautiful for grand, great projects, but on a smaller scale, like housing it failed. Most houses from the 40's, 50's, 60's ,70's and 80's are not desirable, people prefer the older ones, or the new ones, who will be undesirable again in a few years.
The modern is never modern enough, it seems.
Yeah, no $hit. It's called asbestos, horrible insulation and bad planning/technology.
__________________
I may not own a dog, but I'll be in the B in your itch any day. ;)
- Me
CanadianDemon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2012, 05:01 AM   #387
svicious22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 34
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebanaj
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.
You may as well already be dead. More cultured? Hardly. More limited, more compromised, less inspired, certainly.
svicious22 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2012, 06:39 PM   #388
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by henrique42 View Post
It can be beautiful for grand, great projects, but on a smaller scale, like housing it failed. Most houses from the 40's, 50's, 60's ,70's and 80's are not desirable, people prefer the older ones, or the new ones, who will be undesirable again in a few years.
The modern is never modern enough, it seems.
Ever heard of the Mid-Century Modern Revival?

Is it safe to assume that you are not from the USA, and are unfamiliar with (or too young to remember?) the wonderful homes from this period -- particularly in California and the Western/Middle parts of the USA?

And for those of you who complain of asbestos, the ancient Romans used LEAD water pipes extensively. There is even a serious theory that claims that the fall of the Roman Empire was caused by extensive lead poisoning over time.

image hosted on flickr

Mid Century Modern Interior - Albano Daminato by plastolux, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

perfect modern house - exterior night by ooh_food, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

Architect, Floyd Mueller's Home 1951 by monkeysox, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

Mid Century Modern Interior - Albano Daminato by plastolux, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

Mid Century Modern Interior - Albano Daminato by plastolux, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

Mid Century Modern Interior - Albano Daminato by plastolux, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

Architect, Floyd Mueller's Home 1951 by monkeysox, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

perfect modern house - dining by ooh_food, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

perfect modern house - dining by ooh_food, on Flickr

Last edited by tpe; March 24th, 2012 at 09:26 PM.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2012, 03:53 AM   #389
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,043
Likes (Received): 3601

Sure there are good examples, but now modernism approach seems to have too few ideas left to apport, really. It has grown weary like a polyester artificial sweater that used to be very brand new and top fashon...that is the wide perception of the phenomenon we usually get testing people. Would be very interesting to have a statistical opinion to certificate this generally accepted position...
tommolo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2012, 03:58 AM   #390
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,237
Likes (Received): 9784

I think there are currently being built a lot of beautiful modern buildings as well. At least here in the North. The biggest problem I have with todays architecture is rather what I would call "developer architecture". Meaning the cheapest possible solutions the developer could get away with to cash in big time. However, if the architects have sufficient funds to play with then I think they can still create real beauties.
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2012, 05:55 AM   #391
CanadianDemon
Registered User
 
CanadianDemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sudbury
Posts: 1,240
Likes (Received): 378

Ornaments don't make buildings pretty, period. In fact, in fact it ruins the true beauty that architects can do. I'd rather a well designed concrete wall then a nasty looking ornament. Function itself is a form of beauty. Some are just too blind to see past the shiny new window. As Suburbanist pointed out, too much of one thing looks ugly. Ornaments being one of those things.

You've failed as an architect if you put form over function. You're job if to come with the best made and most FUNCTIONAL building possible with a given budget.
__________________
I may not own a dog, but I'll be in the B in your itch any day. ;)
- Me
CanadianDemon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2012, 07:33 AM   #392
agus_southMVD
Registered User
 
agus_southMVD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Montevideo, Lund
Posts: 1,813
Likes (Received): 1135

Well, to my mind it is clearly a cultural matter. Throughout history, architecture developed to fit the needs and tastes of its time. It is thus understandable that, along with the vast sociological changes seen all through the twentieth century, architecture evolved even as dramatically.
Modern architecture has produced both horrible and breathtakingly beautiful buildings, and has adapted its functionality to the needs of our societies.
That being said, there have been some serious problems with modernism, mainly as a consequence of two things which have already been mentioned here: the will to make money at any expense, and the belief that new is always better.
agus_southMVD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2012, 08:17 AM   #393
skymantle
Registered User
 
skymantle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,800
Likes (Received): 3121

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galro View Post
I think there are currently being built a lot of beautiful modern buildings as well. At least here in the North. The biggest problem I have with todays architecture is rather what I would call "developer architecture". Meaning the cheapest possible solutions the developer could get away with to cash in big time. However, if the architects have sufficient funds to play with then I think they can still create real beauties.
Good point, unfortunate but true.
skymantle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2012, 08:16 PM   #394
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,043
Likes (Received): 3601

You've failed as an engineer if you put decoration over function, yes. But as an architect, it should be your job 24/7. Obviously this pragmatic and abrupted period that see humanity and personality as an irrelevant detail to be avoided as much as possible, an engineer count so much than an artist architect. But an architect can emotion and make life better through beauty, while an engineer cannot. Architecture should be an Art, based on drawing. Remember that.
tommolo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2012, 10:00 PM   #395
svicious22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 34
Likes (Received): 0

[QUOTE="CanadianDemon"]Ornaments don't make buildings pretty, period. In fact, in fact it ruins the true beauty that architects can do. I'd rather a well designed concrete wall then a nasty looking ornament. Function itself is a form of beauty. Some are just too blind to see past the shiny new window. As Suburbanist pointed out, too much of one thing looks ugly. Ornaments being one of those things.

False. Architecture is "the supreme art form" NOT an engineering discipline. You've failed as an architect if you haven't enriched your building's surroundings to the greatest extent possible given the constraints (monetary, cultural, legal, contextual, environmental) you are operating under and ornamentation, as well as minimalist, function-centric design, are but two tools to that end. It's about balance and context-sensitivity, and there's much room for ornamentation in the equation.
svicious22 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2012, 10:55 PM   #396
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,043
Likes (Received): 3601

Good Point!

yet I don't know is really the "supreme art form" (music, painting and more 'immaterial' arts would seems to fit more according my point of view)...Surely is by far the most "engineeristically friendly", and so for today's pragmatical world architecture is one of the most apreciated form of art.

For the rest, I completely agree with svicious22
tommolo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 05:27 AM   #397
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by svicious22 View Post

False. Architecture is "the supreme art form" NOT an engineering discipline. You've failed as an architect if you haven't enriched your building's surroundings to the greatest extent possible given the constraints (monetary, cultural, legal, contextual, environmental) you are operating under and ornamentation, as well as minimalist, function-centric design, are but two tools to that end. It's about balance and context-sensitivity, and there's much room for ornamentation in the equation.
I think it is obvious that architecture is BOTH art and engineering. Architecture as it has evolved through time cannot be one without the other.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 01:48 PM   #398
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,043
Likes (Received): 3601

depends on the definition you adopt and the time/place you coinsider. Surely Brunelleschi was both an engineer and an artist, but in recent times the engineeristical spectacolarization and the mannerism of using concrete in every possible shape surely cut off the artistical part. As in every other fields of human knowleedge, an hyperspecialization occurred in the last century and produced a dramatic loss of conctact with the base camp, with reality
tommolo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 02:42 PM   #399
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,350
Likes (Received): 893

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianDemon View Post
Ornaments don't make buildings pretty, period. In fact, in fact it ruins the true beauty that architects can do. I'd rather a well designed concrete wall then a nasty looking ornament. Function itself is a form of beauty. Some are just too blind to see past the shiny new window. As Suburbanist pointed out, too much of one thing looks ugly. Ornaments being one of those things.

You've failed as an architect if you put form over function. You're job if to come with the best made and most FUNCTIONAL building possible with a given budget.
What is your definition of "function"?
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 06:29 PM   #400
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommolo View Post
depends on the definition you adopt and the time/place you coinsider. Surely Brunelleschi was both an engineer and an artist, but in recent times the engineeristical spectacolarization and the mannerism of using concrete in every possible shape surely cut off the artistical part. As in every other fields of human knowleedge, an hyperspecialization occurred in the last century and produced a dramatic loss of conctact with the base camp, with reality
Before there was art in architecture, there was engineering. This is expected, as the primary purpose initially was for habitation.

But you can't talk of architecture as pure art. There is no such thing, unless you want to build something out of nothing.
tpe 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 02:31 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