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 April 1st, 2012, 08:31 PM   #421
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 tommolo View Post
For the rococo I guess everyone here would agree: it is by far the heaviest style ever, difficult to accept and to be in love with...it is just too "imperial", not democratical at all, so far from classicism and its attempt to reach an enjoyable aequilibrium...too much pretentious trying to demonstrate something without being artistical at all. It is just decorativism paid by some rich men that wanted something good to demonstrate how many money he has spent on it. Tasteless, really.

But between rococo and modernism there must be an aequilibrium, some taste for decoration, but not being too exaggerated...
For me, what is more important than just start building in decorative styles is the location or the surroundings of the future building. I think that, even in the case of the most beautiful building, the general perception would be ruined if it was built in inadequate neighborhood. It is necessary that entire parts of the city are planed so that one style prevails with other styles being eventually here and there in the same neighborhood just to brake the monotony a little bit. In that way, the neighborhood and even the entire city would develop its own architectural identity and could be recognizable in the rest of the world thanks to it.

I wonder how difficult would it be to just create a new, original but still local style? I guess the easiest way would be to poor inspiration from old, traditional (and of course decorative) styles and reinvent them with modern interpretations of them but still there should be some rules set in place to prevent too big divergence between styles of individual architects...
BE0GRAD no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 1st, 2012, 08:35 PM   #422
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 tommolo View Post
...but for example a monumental institution as a great university would require a more monumental architecture...
This, I agree completely! Thank god some university buildings in Belgrade are monumental enough.

Here are some examples:

Civil engineering and architecture faculty



Main university building

BE0GRAD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2012, 04:19 PM   #423
henrique42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 135
Likes (Received): 1

''While rococo tried to shock the visitor not with artistical products but basically with gold and white, as needed by empereors trying to demonstrate how powerful they was.''

As far as i know, Louis Xv style interiors, were a reaction against the ''cold'' and too imponente Baroque interiors. Aristocrats and royals wanted to live in more cosy, human rooms.
Prove that they succeeded is the fact that Louis XV still is one of the most beloved and copied styles of history, and in general not by the tasteless slice of society...

''Baroque was directed to people, the popular faith, the artists were describing the power of miracles through their painting, they weren't meant to demonstrate luxuries of golds''

So you think the roman Baroque churches (especially the St Peter) are not an expression of power and wealth (of the simplicity preaching RC church), especially in a time when most people lived in huts? (talking about tasteless)
Or Baroque Versailles, THE example of absolute power, was not meant to demonstrate luxury?

Last edited by henrique42; April 5th, 2012 at 04:51 PM.
henrique42 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2012, 05:26 PM   #424
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,043
Likes (Received): 3601

Rococo is nowadays being accepted, while Baroque has still a lot of road to be completely understood and appreciated as one of the Highest moment in art history to me.

Rococo is imitated because, being linked with decorativism and not with frescoes, it was cheaper to achieve and did not imply a great artistical school wherever it was applied.

It did not required the monster names of baroque frescoes to be achieved. While Baroque, for its main purpose, used high artistical techiniques and produced many great triumph in art history.

Versailles, I agree, it is linked with much decorativism and to demonstrate power.
But saint peter was really a triumph of all arts, and it was achieved by artists like Bramante, Sangallo, Raphael, Michelangelo, Bernini and Carlo Maderno.
Whether it was thought to be a monument to a strong power, it is now not imposing for its furniture, but for its Art, and did not used goldish thing to demontrate its power, but only Art.

We are talking about different levels. Rococo was heavy and tasteless in many cases because it was pretentious without having a strong artistical base in some case, and so they preferred to decorate without adding artistical values.

Baroque was meant to be the biggest moment in art in some extent, and had some really big names to stand for it and to demonstrate it.

Baroque was meant for the people, for popular devotion (Argan and so many art critics agree with that) to demonstrate the power of miracles, with great names of arts painting interiors just for the purpose of givin people in "huts" a hope...

But once again, we are off topic
tommolo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2012, 06:40 PM   #425
henrique42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 135
Likes (Received): 1

It is off topic.
But Louis XV style furniture is not copied nowadays because it's cheap to reproduce, but because it is elegant and ageless.
Rococo was mainly a decorative fashion, so not to compare with Baroque.
The artists you mentioned were almost all (well) paid by the RC church, to glorify it's power and rivalry amongst families.
Baroque was THE style of absolute monarchs (including popes) while rococo was merely an elegant and refined decorative art, unlike Baroque surviving untill today.

And giving ''hope'' to poor people, by building churches, filled with marble, statues, gold and jewels?
Only by abusing the ignorance of the people of that time, believing that the church represented god on earth.

It is not wich one is better, but you have a right not to like rococo.
But for me tasteless, is the disgusting abuse of ignorance of poor people, to build jewelbox like churches, whilst with the money spend on the St Peter, the whole of Italy could have been fed for many years. (which should have been more according the catholic doctrine ?)

Maybe in this aspect modernism is more appropriate?

''Baroque was meant for the people, for popular devotion (Argan and so many art critics agree with that) to demonstrate the power of miracles, with great names of arts painting interiors just for the purpose of givin people in "huts" a hope''

Yes, I read some quotes about that, like this one;
''The popularity and success of the Baroque style was encouraged by the Roman Catholic Church, which had decided at the time of the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant Reformation, that the arts should communicate religious themes in direct and emotional involvement''

''emotional involvement''......sure.....as a response to the reformation;thus a display of power, so tipical for the rotten RC church

quote;''An interesting illustration of the hostility sometimes aroused by this style (similar to that of early Modernists to High Victorian style) can be found in the critical view of Rococo taken by the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, especially on the unsuitable nature of Rococo for ecclesiastical contexts.[17] due to the style's lack of simplicity, its outwardness and its frivolity, all of which tend to distract from prayer and recollection.''

Maybe rococo did not achieve the popes goal; brainwashing the mob....

and saying that the works of Boucher, Watteau, Tiepolo or Rastrelli is not Art?

But...I love Baroque and Rococo, both highlights of human craftmanship!

Last edited by henrique42; April 5th, 2012 at 07:03 PM.
henrique42 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2012, 01:23 AM   #426
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,043
Likes (Received): 3601

Ok ok, it is very off topic now.
But I want to answer you because you've tried to jusstify and to argument you position with references and analysis, so thank you for your commitment.

The fact is that we all live in a given era, and we have to put up with it, no era has no prejudice. I am a baroque freak at most, I admit it without problem.
Every single age tried to use (or to abuse) of art for its purpose.
Until now, for its problems that are still under our very eyes nowadays, we cannot have a neutral judgement over the baroque because it is seen too much liked with one of the darkest hour of the church, without a doubt. But in it, the artists always maintained a freedom of creativity to research the very meaning of the Beauty and an artistical level very, very seldom achieved in others era (IMVHO obviosly)

What is the problem that made us looking like we're "discussing"?
It is that as you said we're comparing apples to oranges
rococo was a "style decoratif", while baroque acted much more on an artistical level (paintings and sculptures).

Why do I tell you that I find rococo the "heaviest style ever"? Because I meant that in some case, like in the picture I published, rococo, a gaily decorative style, was used as an artistical meaning to completely decorate buildings and so on. Sometimes rococo was mistaken. Heavy to me means unnecessary. We recall what leon battista alberti said to be the beauty during the renaissance: "beauty is when nothing can be added and nothing can be removed to something without altering the aequilibrium achieved".

To me, baroque with its decorations and its feasts of element maintaned always this aequilibrium, a even more complex and impossible to achieve aequilibrium, but always kept in mind it. It was a sort of challenge: how to achieve the aequilibrium of beauty with an artistical technique that was just too good?
Whilst rococo, being a decorative style, never tried to justify why a leaf should be put here or there, it aim was rightly to elegantely decorate, not to reach a deepen aequilibrium, a hidden scheme or something like that.
What I meant was that rococo used to decorate chairs, tables, wooden interiors and so on was great. When used to decorate architectures to cover the lack of artistical skills, well, it is just not working, it is heavy because it is unnecessary.

I admit that "heavy" might be not the rightest word to be used, in this particular era, a word like "frivoulous" would be much more intelligible, maybe.

C'mon I say it, I did not wanted to say it because i did not wanted to offend anyone here, because I know that here there are people of every nationality. I saw some really arkward churches interiors in Switzerland and Germany last summer completely decorated with rococo stuccoes that was really...a hem...not the best pieces of architecture from those beautiful countries...that was heavy, because was completely unnecessary.
THAT was the heaviest style ever, according to me (and I am very sorry for my central european friends! I admire much more many other styles from your countries!)

I don't know if I'm clear now...

For this I meant that for a contemporary classical we should not imitate the excess in the past (every style and every artistical genre has had excess sometimes/somewhere), but this would not meaning not to develop today a contemporary decorativist style at all!
tommolo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2013, 02:39 AM   #427
AmoreUrbs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 661
Likes (Received): 4322

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossy22 View Post
The problem is on the most part the worlds religion is consumerism. While before it was national pride or an actual religion like christianity or islam, these made people be creative with design no matter what the product.

As business became more powerfull in the 20th centrury it constantly comprimised design in order make the product cheaper. Look at modern music, art, clothes, cars and architecture - all of this now is made for function. Artistic creativity and thought in design is now only in a minority of products. As business creeps into art it spoils it, function becomes a priority and artistic creativity becomes an expense where on the most part it is abandoned for extra profit margin. Look at anything that involves design in todays world and compare it to something similar made 100 years ago, and you will be able to see how business has squeezed all human creativity out of it, just to serve you a little bit better. Business likes modernism because it is cheaper - since it mostly involves straight lines, smooth edges and relatively little detail. Although i do love modern icons, most modern buildings now give no care for the streetscape or how it makes people feel.
I couldn't agree more.. I tried, I really tried to like modern architecture (in general), but most of the time I came up with the same response.. Nothing can beat old style architecture, even the old skyscrapers in US were much better than the new ones..
AmoreUrbs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2013, 03:21 AM   #428
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,237
Likes (Received): 9784

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossy22 View Post
The problem is on the most part the worlds religion is consumerism. While before it was national pride or an actual religion like christianity or islam, these made people be creative with design no matter what the product.

As business became more powerfull in the 20th centrury it constantly comprimised design in order make the product cheaper. Look at modern music, art, clothes, cars and architecture - all of this now is made for function. Artistic creativity and thought in design is now only in a minority of products. As business creeps into art it spoils it, function becomes a priority and artistic creativity becomes an expense where on the most part it is abandoned for extra profit margin. Look at anything that involves design in todays world and compare it to something similar made 100 years ago, and you will be able to see how business has squeezed all human creativity out of it, just to serve you a little bit better. Business likes modernism because it is cheaper - since it mostly involves straight lines, smooth edges and relatively little detail. Although i do love modern icons, most modern buildings now give no care for the streetscape or how it makes people feel.


You think modern cars look the way because manufactures want it to?

"Old style" cars have basically been outlawed. You are no longer allowed to have low bonnet lines due to pedestrian crash standards which requires a large room between the engine and the hood. You can't have hard chrome or other details as part of front due to the same pedestrian crash standards. You can no longer produce design with articulated details as the laws requires the manufactures to produce fuel efficiencent cars which in turns means stream-lining. You can no longer produce slim window pillars as pillars needs to support the car in case of rollovers. etc. Not to mention that the cost of getting cars mandated have ten+-folded due to various legislations so there is less money available for design in the first place.

Most manufactures, despite this, spends a lot of money on designing their cars, as design sells.

Cars like this would never been approved for sale today:

http://www.carstyling.ru/en/car/1959.../images/17436/


http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/b...ign/icons.html


Car manufactures would have loved to be able to though as many of these old cars are worth way more than their modern counterpart (mostly) due to their designs.

Last edited by Galro; April 21st, 2013 at 03:34 AM.
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2013, 12:15 PM   #429
bolg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 916
Likes (Received): 759

Imo there's good modernism and bad modernism.

Good modernism:

Wikipedia


Wikipedia

Bad modernism:

Wikipedia

Modernism's largest failure was more on an ideological level. The failure was that so many of its architects didn't understand that not everyone wants to live in a suburb or a 'garden city' and take their car to work, that people want a city centre which is alive and bustling even past office hours. Instead they demolished hundreds of old neighborhoods to make way for cheap office buildings, which easily could've been built outside the city centres instead.
__________________

agus_southMVD liked this post
bolg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2013, 02:18 PM   #430
AmoreUrbs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 661
Likes (Received): 4322

Sorry but I find even some of the highest forms of modernism will never be able to compete with classicism (or how I'd like to call: "good architecture").. it's too simplistic to build without a well defined style, it'll naturally flops when comparison is made.. In my opinion we should go back to an in between style, or even better, returning to "proper architecture" made by well defined shapes, that it's not hard to make, rather than simple cubes, squares etc..
AmoreUrbs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2013, 02:23 PM   #431
AmoreUrbs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 661
Likes (Received): 4322

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolg View Post

Modernism's largest failure was more on an ideological level. The failure was that so many of its architects didn't understand that not everyone wants to live in a suburb or a 'garden city' and take their car to work, that people want a city centre which is alive and bustling even past office hours. Instead they demolished hundreds of old neighborhoods to make way for cheap office buildings, which easily could've been built outside the city centres instead.
That's very true however.. What's more important than architecture sometimes is spaces, and city often haven't been able to create this.. One can live with good spaces even in flats, but, sadly many are made without terraces (to use it as a garden, open space), green spaces near the houses etc not to talk about those highrises, impossible to live in (midrises with apartments should be no more than 4-5 floors, otherwise they're hard to live in)... Italy in this sense has made so many mistakes, I don't even know where to start; these horrible flats with horrible architecture and few green (however from inside they're generally good), a nightmare..
AmoreUrbs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2013, 03:52 PM   #432
bolg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 916
Likes (Received): 759

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmoreUrbs View Post
That's very true however.. What's more important than architecture sometimes is spaces, and city often haven't been able to create this.. One can live with good spaces even in flats, but, sadly many are made without terraces (to use it as a garden, open space), green spaces near the houses etc not to talk about those highrises, impossible to live in (midrises with apartments should be no more than 4-5 floors, otherwise they're hard to live in)... Italy in this sense has made so many mistakes, I don't even know where to start; these horrible flats with horrible architecture and few green (however from inside they're generally good), a nightmare..
Access to open spaces and parks have never been a problem in Stockholm. Yet they demolished over 500 buildings in one of the city's historic districts to build offices which weren't even that high in the demand among our manufacturing companies and financial institutions. The banks moved in after several years of hesitation (meanwhile the buildingsites were just gravel pits) and built very cheap and uninspiring complexes. And now most of them are looking for new offices further out. What used to be a densly populated area barely holds any residential buildings these days.
__________________

dj4life liked this post
bolg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2013, 05:59 PM   #433
socrates#1fan
Registered User
 
socrates#1fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,605
Likes (Received): 1318

IMO, the failure of modernism is the ideology itself. Modernism cannot comprehend that people may not like it, no matter how it is wrapped.
Sometimes it can be like a religion in the way that people are not willing to do anything else. If there is an opposition or dislike of the style it cannot possibly be the architecture but must be an issue with the viewer. Different styles are out of the question. You want a neoclassical structure for your business? Too bad, at best you will get a watered down "modern" version that "captures the essence" of neoclassical architecture through its use of vertical lines or some other nonsense.

Modernism doesn't seem to care for sharing either. It has consistently through history either demolished traditional structures or heavily disfigured them. It sees itself as the only worthy style for today's era, despite what anyone tells it.

It seems that it is a style that is very much the emperor's new clothes.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"I don’t know what it is about Hoosiers, but wherever you go there is always a Hoosier doing something very important there."-Kurt Vonnegut

AmoreUrbs liked this post
socrates#1fan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2013, 09:30 PM   #434
FlyingDutchman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 558
Likes (Received): 272

Modernism did definitely not fail. It showed us that architecture is more then just style (of maybe even art if you want.) If you're unsure about that I dare to say you've never designed a builing.

It also showed us that ugly buildings can be loved by its users (who are most important imo) because of its great functionality.

Offcourse modernism was extreme and its era is over, but that doesnt mean that we should just reject everything we can learn from it.

Edit: people who refer to modernism as a stylistic/aesthetic point of view should understand that there is a clear distinction between Philip Johnsons 'Modernisme' (MoMa 1932) and 'real modernism', which shows us that modernism can have ornament, for example J.J.P. Oud and Mies' greek temple (Neue nationalgallerie)

Last edited by FlyingDutchman; April 21st, 2013 at 09:43 PM.
FlyingDutchman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2013, 10:09 PM   #435
AmoreUrbs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 661
Likes (Received): 4322

Quote:
Originally Posted by socrates#1fan View Post
IMO, the failure of modernism is the ideology itself. Modernism cannot comprehend that people may not like it, no matter how it is wrapped.
Sometimes it can be like a religion in the way that people are not willing to do anything else. If there is an opposition or dislike of the style it cannot possibly be the architecture but must be an issue with the viewer. Different styles are out of the question. You want a neoclassical structure for your business? Too bad, at best you will get a watered down "modern" version that "captures the essence" of neoclassical architecture through its use of vertical lines or some other nonsense.

Modernism doesn't seem to care for sharing either. It has consistently through history either demolished traditional structures or heavily disfigured them. It sees itself as the only worthy style for today's era, despite what anyone tells it.

It seems that it is a style that is very much the emperor's new clothes.
This may be really controversial for many, but that's exactly what I think as well.. I've notice how many modernists just don't care about changing for good, rather, they stick to a simplistic style that will result in the building being unpopular, and that just continue, and our cities get worse and worse..
AmoreUrbs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2013, 10:37 PM   #436
bolg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 916
Likes (Received): 759

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingDutchman View Post
Modernism did definitely not fail. It showed us that architecture is more then just style (of maybe even art if you want.) If you're unsure about that I dare to say you've never designed a builing.

It also showed us that ugly buildings can be loved by its users (who are most important imo) because of its great functionality.

Offcourse modernism was extreme and its era is over, but that doesnt mean that we should just reject everything we can learn from it.

Edit: people who refer to modernism as a stylistic/aesthetic point of view should understand that there is a clear distinction between Philip Johnsons 'Modernisme' (MoMa 1932) and 'real modernism', which shows us that modernism can have ornament, for example J.J.P. Oud and Mies' greek temple (Neue nationalgallerie)
I agree that functionality for the end user should be top priority for any construction. I'd alsoa rgue that exterior look is also a huge slling point for the end user, even though the interior obviously holds more importance. However, it's not like modernism had the magic formula for designing the perfect office building. Time has pased and the modernistic buildings of yesterday aren't so modern anymore, and all we're left with are uninviting and uninspiring office complexes.
bolg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2013, 10:42 PM   #437
FlyingDutchman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 558
Likes (Received): 272

I never said that modernism was perfect and I will never say that it was perfect. I do believe that modernism was what society needed that time. By saying modernism failed we neglect all the valuable knowledge we achieved from it.
FlyingDutchman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2013, 11:04 PM   #438
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,495

In my opinion modernism is about the embracing of clean lines and forms. All of Mies Van Der Rohe's buildings look great to this day. Despite his claims that it was all about functionality, he used many details in his work as well to emphasize clean design, such as specially proportioned windows, black colour, blinds settings, and an external modernist detailing of purely-design-based external I-beams. Modernism looked so amazing in the 1950s after everybody seeing nothing but stuffy brick buildings on every street. Especially Chase Manhattan Plaza, the clean steel monolith that impressed so many people back then with its use of space and clean forms. Today, many modernist buildings have been allowed to become dirty and fall into disrepair, and also cluttered (which ruins their intentions of being 'clean') which is why I think some people dislike them.
Modernism has not failed. On the contrary, it was so successful that so many were built, and people got bored with them, like they did with the brick buildings before them. So they moved to postmodernism in the 80s.
International Modernism has been experiencing a bit of a revival recently, with buildings such as 250 West 55th Street and (a bit older) Trump World Tower in NYC, and also a recent boom in Brutalist (strong concrete forms) low-rise modern architecture around the world, which shows that some people do appreciate clean, uncluttered designs.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2013, 03:15 AM   #439
Sweet Zombie Jesus
Free Cake
 
Sweet Zombie Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 2,820
Likes (Received): 662

I could go on about the problem of Modernist 'style', but the issue with Modernism is that its entire foundation, which we still live and work upon, is scientifically unsound. It's not just a style, it's a system of organisation that primarily ignores human feeling, despite the fact that humans must interact with it on a daily basis.

This essay, by two men much smarter and more experienced than me, describes it far more articulately than I can right now.

Quote:
The fractal mathematics of nature bears a striking resemblance to human ornament, as in this fractal generated by a finite subdivision rule. This is not a coincidence: ornament may be what humans use as a kind of “glue” to help weave our spaces together. It now appears that the removal of ornament and pattern has far-reaching consequences for the capacity of environmental structures to form coherent, resilient wholes.
__________________
Glasgow
Sweet Zombie Jesus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2013, 06:20 PM   #440
garydriver5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 5
Likes (Received): 0

I think the vast majority of architecture that has been built within the last seventy years or so lacks the creativity, dynamism and detail, which had previously defined pre-war architecture.
garydriver5 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