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 January 31st, 2015, 03:58 PM   #581
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,421
Likes (Received): 21043

I call pure b.s. on this nativist/localist argument.

We live on a global era where styles, influences, tastes are not exclusive to certain geographical boundaries any longer.

Why should people in, say, France be prohibited and prevented from building Japanese-style houses if they want to? How is that freedom?

This idea of keeping a tight grip on local styles, be them about housing or, more archaically, food or music, is just a pathetic attempt to impose local conformity. As in "if you live here, you must carry the burden of only liking and enjoying a small subset of things available in the World".
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 31st, 2015, 07:37 PM   #582
BE0GRAD
∰f(W)dw≣∭f(r,φ,θ) drdφdθ
 
BE0GRAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Београд
Posts: 2,011
Likes (Received): 1173

Freedom is a product of human imagination. It doesn't exist in real world. Therefore you cannot use that term as argumentation as every person has its own definition of it. And each is equally (in)correct.

History has shown that anarchy had always been detrimental to human society. And the only way to avoid anarchy is to have rules and regulations in order to achieve predetermined goals that are in the general interest of everyone. Local originality is in everyone's interest for various reasons ,including cohesive factor. Society will likely be more cohesive and with more solidarity if they have some distinctive traits distinguishing them from other societies. That's why we should encourage the development of that originality.
__________________
∭∇×FdV≝∯dS×F
BE0GRAD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2015, 08:15 PM   #583
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,421
Likes (Received): 21043

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE0GRAD View Post
History has shown that anarchy had always been detrimental to human society. And the only way to avoid anarchy is to have rules and regulations in order to achieve predetermined goals that are in the general interest of everyone. Local originality is in everyone's interest for various reasons ,including cohesive factor. Society will likely be more cohesive and with more solidarity if they have some distinctive traits distinguishing them from other societies. That's why we should encourage the development of that originality.
This smacks of some Italian fascist manifesto of the 1920s.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2015, 09:36 PM   #584
Lambrequin
Registered Français
 
Lambrequin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lyon - Chambéry
Posts: 258
Likes (Received): 473



And ? What do you mean ?
__________________
Le constat de M. Karim BASBOUS
×
Laideur de l'architecture contemporaine - Facebook
Lambrequin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2015, 12:19 AM   #585
BriedisUnIzlietne
Registered User
 
BriedisUnIzlietne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Breda/Riga
Posts: 3,506
Likes (Received): 2872

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
I call pure b.s. on this nativist/localist argument.

We live on a global era where styles, influences, tastes are not exclusive to certain geographical boundaries any longer.

Why should people in, say, France be prohibited and prevented from building Japanese-style houses if they want to? How is that freedom?

This idea of keeping a tight grip on local styles, be them about housing or, more archaically, food or music, is just a pathetic attempt to impose local conformity. As in "if you live here, you must carry the burden of only liking and enjoying a small subset of things available in the World".
It doesn't have to be a citywide "ban on foreign architecture". The architectural styles should range from district to district. And there might be buildings of different styles, but, let's say, only 20%. Otherwise I find it unpleasant. Right now I walk around my historic city center which is mostly Art Nouveau, but about 20% of architecture is from 30ies to present. And it's pleasant. It makes you feel that you are not anywhere but also that you are not in a museum.

There is a very nice Soviet film - Ирония судьбы, или С лёгким паром! - where a man gets drunk and accidentally flies from Moscow to St. Petersburg. And takes a taxi to an exactly same district to an exactly same street, walks into an exactly same building with an exactly same address. Opens the exactly same doors with exactly same keys and walks into an exactly same apartment

Of course, this is slightly exaggerated - (in my city at least) they tried to vary the mass produced buildings from district to district so each district has unique staircase wall panel designs
BriedisUnIzlietne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2015, 12:26 AM   #586
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,421
Likes (Received): 21043

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lambrequin View Post


And ? What do you mean ?
I mean the reasoning of BEOGRAD is similar to that of several Italian fascists of the 1920s: create a strong local identity, damn be individual tastes. A hyperlocal form of identity, imposed on masses, deeming anything foreign as "bad" or detrimental.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2015, 05:38 AM   #587
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

I guess what I don't understand, is the criticism that Modernism (used loosely here) somehow eliminates individuality, but reworking traditional styles somehow encourages individuality. Modernism in many ways is a custom fit for each and every application, whether that is good or bad. Neo - whatever styles, on the other hand, seem to simply produce replication. If that was such a good thing, why is everyone so critical of neo-traditional mcmansion in the US? Isn't that traditional styles updated for modern needs?
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2015, 05:44 AM   #588
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,487

The irony is that if you own a modernist house in North America you are making much more of an individualist statement than if you would if you owned a McMansion
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2015, 12:15 PM   #589
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 BriedisUnIzlietne View Post
It doesn't have to be a citywide "ban on foreign architecture". The architectural styles should range from district to district. And there might be buildings of different styles, but, let's say, only 20%. Otherwise I find it unpleasant. Right now I walk around my historic city center which is mostly Art Nouveau, but about 20% of architecture is from 30ies to present. And it's pleasant. It makes you feel that you are not anywhere but also that you are not in a museum.

There is a very nice Soviet film - Ирония судьбы, или С лёгким паром! - where a man gets drunk and accidentally flies from Moscow to St. Petersburg. And takes a taxi to an exactly same district to an exactly same street, walks into an exactly same building with an exactly same address. Opens the exactly same doors with exactly same keys and walks into an exactly same apartment

Of course, this is slightly exaggerated - (in my city at least) they tried to vary the mass produced buildings from district to district so each district has unique staircase wall panel designs
That sounds like a good movie.

...and I agree with what you said. 20% of non-local attributes would make a nice refreshment although I suppose that percentage is open for debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
I mean the reasoning of BEOGRAD is similar to that of several Italian fascists of the 1920s: create a strong local identity, damn be individual tastes. A hyperlocal form of identity, imposed on masses, deeming anything foreign as "bad" or detrimental.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a fascist you know. And neither is everyone who dislikes globalization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship View Post
I guess what I don't understand, is the criticism that Modernism (used loosely here) somehow eliminates individuality, but reworking traditional styles somehow encourages individuality. Modernism in many ways is a custom fit for each and every application, whether that is good or bad. Neo - whatever styles, on the other hand, seem to simply produce replication. If that was such a good thing, why is everyone so critical of neo-traditional mcmansion in the US? Isn't that traditional styles updated for modern needs?
I think people that bash modernism think foremost of global modernism ,the one without local character. I think Nordic modernism is a good example of how we should do it.
__________________
∭∇×FdV≝∯dS×F
BE0GRAD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2015, 05:02 PM   #590
BriedisUnIzlietne
Registered User
 
BriedisUnIzlietne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Breda/Riga
Posts: 3,506
Likes (Received): 2872

Now that I thought about it more carefully:

I don't hate modern architecture but I hate the modern urban space. Not enough density makes you loose the city feeling. For example, my country has a town - Olaine. Just 12 000 people but the town is made up of big 5 to 9-storey buildings. But still it doesn't feel like a real city. While towns with only 2-storey buildings but dense do feel like real cities.





To make a district appealing it should have buildings of various styles but with similar width, height. (I hate the couple of long Soviet buildings in my city center with mostly only medium length buildings). It would be good to have a dominant architectural style but it should be only 50-80% of buildings.




You shouldn't try to build traditional architecture if you don't want to, but adding a local touch with use of local forms, colors and materials is nice to have. For example, in Britain bricks and stones are very popular, in Greenland brightly colored buildings are very popular, but in my country - pastel colors, sandstone and wood. Sadly, most modern buildings have a very generic shape, materials and colors. It would be nice to have at least 50% of new buildings with at least one of the things I mentioned.
__________________

Jasper90 liked this post
BriedisUnIzlietne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2015, 05:44 PM   #591
RPFigueiredo
The Modernist
 
RPFigueiredo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: São José dos Campos
Posts: 1,077
Likes (Received): 621

In the begining of the 40's we already started seing regional interpretations of the international style language. That's why Niemeyer and Aalto are so famous.



Though the buildings of Brasília are his most famous works, Oscar has several buildings before that that redefined site specificity
__________________

erbse liked this post

Last edited by RPFigueiredo; February 2nd, 2015 at 07:40 PM.
RPFigueiredo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2015, 02:14 AM   #592
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by BriedisUnIzlietne View Post
Now that I thought about it more carefully:

I don't hate modern architecture but I hate the modern urban space. Not enough density makes you loose the city feeling. For example, my country has a town - Olaine. Just 12 000 people but the town is made up of big 5 to 9-storey buildings. But still it doesn't feel like a real city. While towns with only 2-storey buildings but dense do feel like real cities.

...

To make a district appealing it should have buildings of various styles but with similar width, height. (I hate the couple of long Soviet buildings in my city center with mostly only medium length buildings). It would be good to have a dominant architectural style but it should be only 50-80% of buildings.


You shouldn't try to build traditional architecture if you don't want to, but adding a local touch with use of local forms, colors and materials is nice to have. For example, in Britain bricks and stones are very popular, in Greenland brightly colored buildings are very popular, but in my country - pastel colors, sandstone and wood. Sadly, most modern buildings have a very generic shape, materials and colors. It would be nice to have at least 50% of new buildings with at least one of the things I mentioned.
But what is the difference between all buildings being historically styled or all buildings being modern styled? If the modern buildings were smaller 2 story ones, would that be different? What if the historical buildings were all tall?

I agree that any really good place has a variety of buildings. But I think people are blaming Modernism when the real problem is poor building and spacial design. We assume old buildings were special because it is only the good ones that have survived for the most part. WE forget that there were plenty of very poorly designed and planned old buildings as well. But we also lump nondescript, poorly designed buildings in with Modernism, which really isn't fair. It's not the modernism you hate - good Modernist buildings can really make a space. It's bad buildings and bad places that you hate, and you are associating all modernism with those bad buildings and places.
__________________

Suburbanist, Jasper90, zmv liked this post
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2015, 02:20 AM   #593
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,421
Likes (Received): 21043

That is an important point. Often, dull buildings of the past were outright demolished or heavily transformed over time. In this sense, 50 years from now many "non-descriptive" buildings built in 1960 will have been demolished, and people will start appreciating the ones left more. It is like what is happening with Art Déco, it was considered dull and uninspiring at the time, now people like them, many though were removed or demolished or replaced.

Moreover, many people associate modern architecture with cheap commieblocks and housing projects with social problems. The issue, there, is not architecture, but demographics and other social factors. Hastily built neoclassical flats with concentrated poverty and other at-risk populations with few social services would still cause the same problems in their cities/neighborhoods, as they did indeed on the tenement era.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!

BriedisUnIzlietne liked this post
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2015, 08:22 AM   #594
BriedisUnIzlietne
Registered User
 
BriedisUnIzlietne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Breda/Riga
Posts: 3,506
Likes (Received): 2872

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship View Post
But what is the difference between all buildings being historically styled or all buildings being historicallystyled? If the modern buildings were smaller 2 story ones, would that be different? What if the historical buildings were all tall?

I agree that any really good place has a variety of buildings. But I think people are blaming Modernism when the real problem is poor building and spacial design. We assume old buildings were special because it is only the good ones that have survived for the most part. WE forget that there were plenty of very poorly designed and planned old buildings as well. But we also lump nondescript, poorly designed buildings in with Modernism, which really isn't fair. It's not the modernism you hate - good Modernist buildings can really make a space. It's bad buildings and bad places that you hate, and you are associating all modernism with those bad buildings and places.
But that's why I said that I hate the urban space, not the architecture. The pictures were only there to illustrate. It wouldn't matter what style or age the buildings in the 2-storey town picture would be - it would still be dense and feel urban because of the buildings being built wall to wall. And that's what I said - it's not the Modernism architecture I hate.
BriedisUnIzlietne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2015, 03:43 PM   #595
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,349
Likes (Received): 891

It is certainly not true that only the most beautiful buildings of the past have survived. Many of the old slums and housing estates for the poor have survived to this day and are now often selling for even millions. Then one has to consider the point that even the factories and warehouses of old were built to look beautiful and have therefore been preserved to this day and age. This will never happen to modern production facilities. When a Victorian warehouses becomes more desirable than a modern building built for living there is clearly something wrong. We even try to emulate old industrial architecture to make new-builds more attractive.

Then there is the point of planning. One cannot separate modernist planning from modernist architecture. They are two sides of the same coin. The intention was the same: to wreck and dissolve the old city. Modernism really is connected to social reform and the birth of the welfare state. It raised millions out of poverty and was therefore a force of good in society. But there is also a dark side to this movement. Modernism was also highly destructive in its utopian idea that the old world of the industrial revolution needs to come crushing down no matter what. The First World War was very much a result of this line of thinking. Even during the bombings of cities during WW2 architects and planners applauded the destruction as a way to get rid of the old. Communism and national socialism, of course, embodied the very pinnacle of this destructiveness.
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2015, 04:34 PM   #596
RPFigueiredo
The Modernist
 
RPFigueiredo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: São José dos Campos
Posts: 1,077
Likes (Received): 621

Yes, but there is a myriad of examples of modernist buildings which work wonderfully within traditional urban fabric.
RPFigueiredo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2015, 04:39 AM   #597
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
Then there is the point of planning. One cannot separate modernist planning from modernist architecture. They are two sides of the same coin. The intention was the same: to wreck and dissolve the old city. Modernism really is connected to social reform and the birth of the welfare state. It raised millions out of poverty and was therefore a force of good in society. But there is also a dark side to this movement. Modernism was also highly destructive in its utopian idea that the old world of the industrial revolution needs to come crushing down no matter what. The First World War was very much a result of this line of thinking. Even during the bombings of cities during WW2 architects and planners applauded the destruction as a way to get rid of the old. Communism and national socialism, of course, embodied the very pinnacle of this destructiveness.

That is only one side, or one interpretation of modernism. And perhaps that is where the rift lies - lumping in all modern design in with that one ethos. Contrast that with Mid Century modern as it developed in the US. That was very much the opposite - consumerism for the masses. The design and philosophy are deeply connected, but they are not the same.
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2015, 05:05 AM   #598
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,487


That's a very postmodernist building

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
Communism and national socialism, of course, embodied the very pinnacle of this destructiveness.
Stalin and Hitler both disliked modern architecture, it was the totalitarian ideals that led them to demolish and rebuild massive parts of cites (Hitler did to a much lesser extent) in heavy neoclassic/socrealist styles.

Khruschev was the one that began the commieblock program, but those were intended to be temporary housing until the worldwide communist revolution took place and much better buildings would be built. He expected them to be demolished by the end of the 20th century

Last edited by ThatOneGuy; February 6th, 2015 at 05:11 AM.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2015, 11:01 AM   #599
BriedisUnIzlietne
Registered User
 
BriedisUnIzlietne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Breda/Riga
Posts: 3,506
Likes (Received): 2872

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
[pic]
That's a very postmodernist building
Okay, I'll show some actual modernist buildings (I hope - I'm not good with styles)
1)Modern building blending in nicely with the historic urban fabric


2)Modern building slightly jumps out, but doesn't do much harm to the urban fabric


3)Modern building completely destroying the urban fabric



Quote:
Stalin and Hitler both disliked modern architecture, it was the totalitarian ideals that led them to demolish and rebuild massive parts of cites (Hitler did to a much lesser extent) in heavy neoclassic/socrealist styles.
Though Stalin started to build those new buildings in the modern fashion - separate from one another instead of wall to wall.
Quote:
Khruschev was the one that began the commieblock program, but those were intended to be temporary housing until the worldwide communist revolution took place and much better buildings would be built. He expected them to be demolished by the end of the 20th century
Absolutely true, though we don't know what "better buildings" mean. It might not mean that they wouldn't be modernist, because even the government buildings (on which they could allocate much more resources than on housing) at the time were being built in modernist fashion.
BriedisUnIzlietne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2015, 02:53 PM   #600
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,349
Likes (Received): 891

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship View Post
That is only one side, or one interpretation of modernism.
Those are the two fundamental interpretations I would say that explore both the bright and the dark side of modernism. I would say that consumerism fits comfortably into the first theory I presented. It is part of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy
Stalin and Hitler both disliked modern architecture, it was the totalitarian ideals that led them to demolish and rebuild massive parts of cites (Hitler did to a much lesser extent) in heavy neoclassic/socrealist styles.
Yes, but they were both modernizers of society. They wanted to remodel the very essence of humanity, including cities.
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
architecture

Thread Tools

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

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

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:15 PM.


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

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

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

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