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 August 14th, 2014, 03:00 AM   #521
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,923
Likes (Received): 10736

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
You're right about modernism taking inspiration from Japanese simplicity of course. But that's part of the reason it feels so alienating in most European / historical city contexts, in grown cities. It just doesn't integrate. That's why I said it's not rooted in classical architecture. It'll always feel alienating in the context of earlier styles - unlike classical buildings that just blend together, be it Gothic, renaissance, baroque, classicist or the wildest fantasies of historicism, Art Nouveau and even Expressionism/Art Deco, while the latter being considered "modern" already.

Modernism merely works on its own, as solitary buildings or ensembles of their likes. It's a pity that architects, planners and investors across the globe decided to go for modernist designs in grown urban contexts. While there's so many styles we can choose from that fit and age much better.
Here are my refutations

Firstly, you're right that if we are to compare European traditional architecture with a Japonese temple or an extravagantly decorated mosque, then the difference is obvious, and there is not much in common. However this is completely off the point, because the modernists didn't look at those kind of buildings, they took inspiration from vernacular architecture. And the traditional vernacular architecture of these places has strong similarities and parallels with European vernacular architecture, there is clearly a continuity from one to the other. (The vernacular style everywhere is much more universal because it does not task itself with achieving complex realizations of style, like high level court / religious architecture, but it has to respond to basic requirements of efficiency and appearance on a budget.) Taking inspiration from them would definitely not create something that looks out of place in Europe.

For example, here is a comparison of a traditional Japanese house and a Romanian traditional house with examples that I could find on the spot in a couple of minutes:


http://www.redbubble.com/people/john...japanese-house


(uploaded by me)

You wouldn't say that these two examples are from two completely different cultures situated on different parts of the world and that have never ever been in contact at the time! There's a famous story of when Isamu Noguchi, the Japanese-American artist and former pupil of Constantin Brancusi, came to Romania in the '80s to search for the origins of Brancusi's art and to understand his former master better. When visiting traditional peasant homes he remarked very surprised how striking the similarities were between the Romanian and Japanese architectural and sculptural styles, and he said it's probably because both are cultures of the wood, and the social history of the people that have created are extremely similar. The way they tend to achieve simplicity, utilitarian efficiency and the shapes to convey them is extremely similar. This connection was, he said, the probable reason that he first such a subliminal attraction to Brancusi's art in the first place and led him to search Brancusi to be his pupil.

As for the vernacular style of the Islamic Mediterranean, it is even more obvious and well known that there is near-identical architecture all over the European side of the sea, but I'm gonna use for comparison examples from the places where the houses are white like on the other side of the pond: Andalusia and Greece.

Look at this watercolour by Paul Klee from his key trip to Tunisia in 1914 (a trip that is as key to modernism as was Le Corbusier's trip to Istanbul in 1911, for example) bellow. Couldn't it have been painted (in terms of the houses) in Greece or Andalusia?


http://www.zpk.org/en/exhibitions/cu...lliet-657.html


Santorini http://www.colourbox.com/image/house...-image-4625227


Casales http://traveling--soul.tumblr.com/po...sia-by-ubichan

To be continued
__________________
Doors and architecture of my town.

===

Italian cities: pure beauty / France - One photo a day / Bucharest: timelapse + architecture

===

In Praise Of Dirty, Sexy / Boring Cities
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 14th, 2014, 03:43 AM   #522
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,923
Likes (Received): 10736

Secondly, when saying that modernist architecture does not integrate and it works best on its own, that only shows you haven't visited cities where modernist architecture 1) grew organically inside older cities, 2) was let to do so, and 3) the results were not later altered radically.
Most people here, when referring to modernism, they actually have in mind cities where in the post war era big business wiped out older buildings, be it traditional architecture or the original modernism, and replaced them with glass & steel boxes. That happened in North American cities (didn't you use to have a thread about the destructions in New York of great modern architecture from the late 19th to WWII?), Brazilian cities, South East Asian cities, Australian cities etc. Sure, ugly steel & glass boxes are a part of modernism's legacy, but equaling the two is almost as knowledgeable on the history of artistic movements as saying that those amateur painters who go on weekends on the river banks and paint landscapes in bright colours are impressionists.

There are, however, cities whose evolution has been different and have been spared of this kind of development. Some that come to mind are Buenos Aires, Glasgow, former Soviet cities, Belgrade or Bucharest. I'll use the example of Bucharest because it's the one I know best, I lived in it: it is one of the most interesting cities in terms of eclectic urbanism, mix of styles and harmonius integration between them, from old French style villas to neo-Romanian buildings, to neo-Moorish etc. and to interbellum modernist buildings. The flexibility of the interwar modernist architects is extraordinary, their buildings fit in the context really complementing it, they would even build graceful modernist villas when the neighbourhood is one of low height buildings with a residential character. The way that old Bucharest is preserved comes from the fact that in the part that Ceausescu didn't erase, there weren't (for obvious reasons) big businesses either to make of the city (or at least its main avenues) whatever they wanted, like it happened in other places. (But it's starting to happen now.)
I'll make up a showcase bellow of images of Bucharest where modernist and other buildings complement each other, but if you have a free day, look up that photographer's 5000 pics of Bucharest (and a few other places in Romania), because it's a truly special and underrated city of architecture. These images should dispel any preconceived idea that there is something inherent to modernist architecture about it being ugly or unfitting with any traditional and/or ornate style. That is just rubbish.


Victory Road, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Calea Victoriei (Victory Road), Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Lipscani Street, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Anglican Church (1914), Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Grigore Cantilli Alley, Buhcharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Dumbrava Roșie Street, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Dionisie Lupu Street, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Lascăr Catargiu Boulevard, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Culmea Veche Street, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Dacia Boulevard, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr
__________________
Doors and architecture of my town.

===

Italian cities: pure beauty / France - One photo a day / Bucharest: timelapse + architecture

===

In Praise Of Dirty, Sexy / Boring Cities

OnTheNorthRoad liked this post
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2014, 04:44 AM   #525
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,923
Likes (Received): 10736


Bucharest - Splaiul Independenței Boulevard
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Gutenberg Street, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Armenian Cathedral (1911), Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Carol I Boulevard, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Ferdinand I Boulevard, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Rome Street, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Dimitrie Orbescu Street, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Khalil Gibran Park, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Kogălniceanu Square, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Dionisie Lupu Street, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr


Alecu Russo Street, Bucharest
by Classic Bucharest, on Flickr
__________________
Doors and architecture of my town.

===

Italian cities: pure beauty / France - One photo a day / Bucharest: timelapse + architecture

===

In Praise Of Dirty, Sexy / Boring Cities

Last edited by alexandru.mircea; August 14th, 2014 at 05:22 AM.
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2014, 05:42 AM   #527
Reality7
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: London
Posts: 819
Likes (Received): 1493

Personally I would not class Art Deco as modernism architecture and most these pictures are cheap Art Deco... Probably some would.

I think Art Nouveau and Art Deco were the last two great styles before we got the true brutalist modernism. This is what I think of when I think of modernism...


Last edited by Reality7; August 14th, 2014 at 05:52 AM.
Reality7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2014, 06:13 AM   #528
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,923
Likes (Received): 10736

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality7 View Post
Personally I would not class Art Deco as modernism architecture and most these pictures are cheap Art Deco... Probably some would.
Err, how long are you going to embarras yourself around here until you quit altogether? You don't seem to have any clue about architectural styles, Romanian modernism is constructivist not Art Deco. The only recognized Art Deco building in those pics is the one from the background of the first photo I posted, the tower of the Telehphones Palace (not that its Art Deco features are visible that far away). And they're not cheap, they're in decay. A tremendous generation of architects worked on them, including Marcel Iancu - one of the most influential modernists, founder of dadaism in Zurich.
Not as dumb though as your racist claims that Africans have it in them to ruin cities and that Northerners only do ugly arhitecture. I'm amazed that mods still let you in. Back to the ignore list...
__________________
Doors and architecture of my town.

===

Italian cities: pure beauty / France - One photo a day / Bucharest: timelapse + architecture

===

In Praise Of Dirty, Sexy / Boring Cities
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2014, 06:15 AM   #529
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,280
Likes (Received): 57991

Ok, enough already alexandru.mircea. None of that is all too representative of the atrocities scattered throughout our cities and architecture today, let alone commieblocks. So I don't see what's the point really. This ain't a gallery.

Your points on vernacular are considerable and correct though, I'll get back to that.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥

Reality7 liked this post
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2014, 01:52 PM   #530
Reality7
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: London
Posts: 819
Likes (Received): 1493

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexandru.mircea View Post
Err, how long are you going to embarras yourself around here until you quit altogether? You don't seem to have any clue about architectural styles, Romanian modernism is constructivist not Art Deco. The only recognized Art Deco building in those pics is the one from the background of the first photo I posted, the tower of the Telehphones Palace (not that its Art Deco features are visible that far away). And they're not cheap, they're in decay. A tremendous generation of architects worked on them, including Marcel Iancu - one of the most influential modernists, founder of dadaism in Zurich.
Not as dumb though as your racist claims that Africans have it in them to ruin cities and that Northerners only do ugly arhitecture. I'm amazed that mods still let you in. Back to the ignore list...
I am afraid I don't give a crap about Romanian modernism as I am sure the world doesn't either. I can see you are a very sensitive man and also very proud of Romanian architecture, I spose someone has to be, so I will not respond your insults because I am not here to get into war with an effeminate man. Having said that, many of your photos contain buildings that are Deco in style, like these/ They are not ornate Deco because clearly the place was not swimming in money when they erected, but borrowed Deco nonetheless:











Reality7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2014, 01:59 PM   #531
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,280
Likes (Received): 57991

Well, these are rather what we'd classify Streamline Moderne today. However, it's not like people back then were like "ah well, I'm designing some Art Deco today and Streamline tomorrow". We should all be aware how styles are fluctuating, blending together.

That being said, I'd be more than happy if modern(ist) architecture was still/again like that. Today's architecture is mostly inferior by miles, sadly.

But of course there's also really good reinterpretations of early modern styles, as seen in the New Berlin Style: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1672051
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥

Reality7, alexandru.mircea liked this post
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2014, 02:11 PM   #532
skyscraperus
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: skyscraperopolis
Posts: 1,661
Likes (Received): 2267

What to say? Boring cube souless buildings without any ornamentation on previous pages. Cheap funcionalism without aesthetics. Only one good thing is the gabarits of buildings, same as old good classical buildings.
__________________

Reality7 liked this post
skyscraperus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2014, 04:11 PM   #533
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,923
Likes (Received): 10736

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
Ok, enough already alexandru.mircea. None of that is all too representative of the atrocities scattered throughout our cities and architecture today, let alone commieblocks. So I don't see what's the point really. This ain't a gallery.
The point is exactly the one you make, just turned on its head: post-war glass and steel boxes that people keep pointing at are not that representative of modernist cities either. It's just that there aren't that many real modernist cities left because they were heavily modified in post-war, and the ones left are not well known. Also, you said that it is inherent to modernist architecture to be out of place in older cities, and my examples show that it is clearly not the case, modernism was just fine in cities until post-war large scale redevelopments changed cities forever.
As for commieblocks, I repeat, they aren't modernism's invention, we've been doing them since the Romans and they've always been the ugliest buildings of each era. In this era (post-war) we're just able to make them larger and there is also the demographic issue to be solved.
Now, I have *absolutely* no problem with people hating on glass & steel boxes and commieblocks, what I despair at is people thinking THAT's modernism. That's ignorant, they should pick up art history books are effing read.

BTW, as a side note, studying modernist architecture, one will notice that extreme height does not feature heavily in their solutions for apartment blocks, especially Bauhaus or De Stijl; the glaring exception is Le Corbusier.
__________________
Doors and architecture of my town.

===

Italian cities: pure beauty / France - One photo a day / Bucharest: timelapse + architecture

===

In Praise Of Dirty, Sexy / Boring Cities
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2014, 04:29 PM   #534
Reality7
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: London
Posts: 819
Likes (Received): 1493

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexandru.mircea View Post
As for commieblocks, I repeat, they aren't modernism's invention, we've been doing them since the Romans and they've always been the ugliest buildings of each era.
I think not everything is the same... in the West, we are taught to analyse differences, not put everything in the same box like the soviets tried.

19th Century social housing:



20th Century social housing:

__________________

erbse liked this post
Reality7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2014, 04:30 PM   #535
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,280
Likes (Received): 57991

Alexandru, that's all a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Especially since you've studied modernism more thoroughly, you should be well aware it's of course the planners and architects of that time we can thank the post-war ideology for.

Huge boulevards/motorways crammed right into the city, huge blocks, simple geometry. Everything scaled and shaped to be vaguely noticed by superfast humans passing by in their cars. That's a large swathe of what makes modernist ideology. Of course not by all of them, but sadly the most influential ones (e.g. Corbusier and planners like Hillebrecht). Part of this mentality survives until today, especially in circles that cause the greatest damage - again planners, architects, politicians, investors.

I don't despise modernism in general, but it just can't be denied that many failures of post-war planning are rooted in that movement and continue to cause a lot of urban damage.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥

Reality7 liked this post
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2014, 04:49 PM   #536
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,923
Likes (Received): 10736

Cool, we are approaching a mutual understanding. I won't dispute that post-war planning with all that you mention descends directly from the Corbusier line of modernism, I just get baffled by people not knowing anything else about modernism, to an almost lack of knowledge of high modernism's existence. I object to simple geometry as a bad aspect, though, simple geometry can be beautiful as it can be ugly (as can ornament too), it depends on what you make of them.

I also disgree about the continuing damage, the trend has been reversed now and all the rage is demolishing suspended urban highways or turning them into parks, reconverting riversides into gren urban spaces, squeezing large tranzit avenues to put in trams and bike lanes, demolishing failed post-war projects etc.
__________________
Doors and architecture of my town.

===

Italian cities: pure beauty / France - One photo a day / Bucharest: timelapse + architecture

===

In Praise Of Dirty, Sexy / Boring Cities
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2014, 11:39 PM   #537
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,280
Likes (Received): 57991

I'd never disagree simple geometry can be beautiful. Our POVs aren't that far aparty really, pal.

Concerning part 2: You obviously didn't take a look at what the "New World" is doing, especially China, parts of (N & S) America, Dubai, S-Arabia, Thailand, Africa et. al. Ridiculous car infrastructure cutting cities into halves, huge car parks, dead-as-doornail CBD developments, functional separations... It's all still there. Way too much of it.

While there's also this for a while already: Ten Principles of Intelligent Urbanism
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥

alexandru.mircea, CF221 liked this post
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2014, 03:30 AM   #538
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,923
Likes (Received): 10736

^ which brings me beautifully to the last point I wanted to make (and which I already made some time ago in the moronic destructions thread): if in some societies post-war planning (destructions, car-centric, concrete etc) is now shunned and in some societies it is embraced, doesn't this suggest that the problem lies in what societies are willing to do with their places to live, and not inherent in the style itself that developers and authorities are employing? That is quite logical. Therefore, the question will be why is it that different societies, or the same society but in different moments in time, are judging the same thing differently? The answer lies in the history of ideas and of social acceptance of certain ideas.

For example, in Western Europe, society had not generated for the most part of the modern era the idea that historical quarters are to be preserved for their own sake, and consequently Hausmann and the Victorians, and later those who followed them, have destroyed large historical areas under the banner of slum clearing. In the same countries later, however, the idea of preservation suddenly emerged with conquering power in the '60s (the "Malraux law" is a key moment IMO) and vast programs of city "upgrades" (read: erasing and starting from scratch) were halted at the last moment, like it was in Lyon with the now UNESCO World Heritage old town. So it's the same society that, with some time between the two moments, took completely opposite decisions on the same set of factors. At one (in fact several) point in history people did not blink at the idea of erasing the old, and at another point the whole idea would not make any sense any more. Realizing that each era had its set of ideas is important because
1) it allows us to understand that what we perceive as bad for another era is baseless because the people of that era may have had different convictions about the same thing and they did what they thought, according to their values, was best. This is important for obtaining inner peace because otherwise judging the past by our own set of values is a self-hurting activity
2) it can help us understand that what's at stake is not to moan at inanimate objects and notions (buildings, artistic movements), but to work with people because urban planning is still a battlefield and people are the ones who can make a difference, not the reputation of this architect of the past or that other one.

What battlefield am I referring to? Well, I said that destroying old historical quarters in cities is something now shunned in the West, but there is also the issue of whether we destroy old buildings that do not have any remarkable features, are not monuments of architecture, decorative arts or history, are not central, but they simply have character in that they are different and they show how regular people from back in the day used to live (so they are important, the argument is, to our collective identity in what its architectural shape is concerned). The protection of these buildings has been becoming mainstream in Western Europe since about the nineties, though it is not nearly as set in stone as the protection of historical centres of cities, but you can imagine that in countries where monuments are not completely safe, these city areas and their buildings don't stand a chance. And considering the jungle capitalism and the authoritarian regimes that rule in a lot of places (sometimes both hand in hand), the pace of "change" can be extremely fast.

I am ashamed to say but this is happening in Romania too, currently in Bucharest lot of demolitions of old houses are happening, most of them illegal but with the complicity between corrupt authorities and real estate sharks. The worst thing though is that a lot of people are cheering for this, including a lot here on SSC Romania. In the words of an opinion leader in these parts, what "right" do these houses have to be in the city and keep the space occupied forever?

===

Upon re-reading I realize that the above is just incoherent rambling, so here is the tl;dr version:

this thread is barking at the wrong tree, wrong shit is happening because of city planners without much connection to the work of avantgarde architects dead a very long time ago, you can make a difference not by trying to defame an already consecrated artistic movement of the past but by joining your local preservation society (or, if not the case, one from a place that's in more need) and make a donation or pay a subscription for them to be able to fight developers in legal battles, interact with the buildings / public spaces that you don't like and make it visible what your opinion is.
__________________
Doors and architecture of my town.

===

Italian cities: pure beauty / France - One photo a day / Bucharest: timelapse + architecture

===

In Praise Of Dirty, Sexy / Boring Cities
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2014, 03:25 PM   #539
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1924

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexandru.mircea View Post
Upon re-reading I realize that the above is just incoherent rambling, so here is the tl;dr version:

this thread is barking at the wrong tree, wrong shit is happening because of city planners without much connection to the work of avantgarde architects dead a very long time ago, you can make a difference not by trying to defame an already consecrated artistic movement of the past but by joining your local preservation society (or, if not the case, one from a place that's in more need) and make a donation or pay a subscription for them to be able to fight developers in legal battles, interact with the buildings / public spaces that you don't like and make it visible what your opinion is.
To truly answer the question of whether modernism has failed, you need to first define what modernism's objective was.

To me, it really boils down to the vision of the "cities of the future" type renders from the 1950s/1960s, where it was felt that sweeping away the old would create much better cities, with everything organised and streamlined.

That vision is dead.

It created cold, lifeless and ugly city centres, envied by nobody, some of which are no having to undergo regeneration to correct the mistakes of modernist thinking.

Similarly, replacing rows of old terraced housing with high-rise tower blocks has generally failed. People did not take to the "streets in the sky" in the way planners thought they would.

Modernism, however, did succeed in modern housing in terms of actual houses. Sprawling suburbs may be slated by many (usually those who don't live in them) but there are few complaints about them as buildings.
__________________
www.stadiumsandcities.wordpress.com

erbse, zmv liked this post
Rev Stickleback no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2014, 03:36 PM   #540
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,307
Likes (Received): 8167

Many of those 'failed' tower blocks are infact being regenerated and turned into trendy urban apartments, though. Not to mention that in many cities around the world the high rise living has caught on and indeed is becoming more and more popular. So I'm not sure you can dismiss modernism as having failed.

I can agree that post-war architecture wasn't exactly pretty. However we have to remember the context - Europe has just been through the last and most destructive conflict ever. The were housing shortages of epic proportions and during the 50s economic miracle the ever increasing demand for work space, so you can see why function came before everything else. Now largely these buildings have outlived their purpose and are being replaced with new ones. And to be honest we are now living in the most exciting architectural period since 18th century.
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius

alexandru.mircea, hordak1975 liked this post

Last edited by El_Greco; August 17th, 2014 at 03:45 PM.
El_Greco 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