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 11th, 2015, 11:43 PM   #681
BriedisUnIzlietne
Registered User
 
BriedisUnIzlietne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Breda/Riga
Posts: 3,506
Likes (Received): 2873


It's the same story with coal powered steam engines - they are quite inefficient and very polluting so they've now been replaced with other kinds of engines. But does that make the steam engine a failure? No. The opposite - without it the modern world as we know it wouldn't exist. We would still probably be farmers and there would be no large cities.

We are only humans - we learn. We learn new things. We make mistakes. We learn from our mistakes. We should take the best from modernism and leave the rest for the museums.

A similar mistake of the age was cars in cities. They shouldn't be used for everyday commuting because, similarly to modernist buildings, they are a waste on space and makes a city less desirable. But it seems that cars go hand in hand with modernist urban planning because due to it everything is out of walking distance because there is almost no mixed use development - only lone residential areas, business districts, industrial districts and shopping centers - all of which is too far to visit on foot. Though this can be solved by public transport, most new development should be mixed use.
__________________

Union.SLO liked this post
BriedisUnIzlietne no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 12th, 2015, 12:31 AM   #682
TRTL
TRTL
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Lausanne
Posts: 851

Yes absolutely. The knowledge that came out of Modernism can't be found anywhere else.

It is and will always be the main problem with architecture and urban planning, testing an idea actually means to apply it.
TRTL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2015, 03:22 AM   #683
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Keep in mind that there was more than just housing that was designed in modernist styles. Perhaps that is where much of the distaste for modern work comes from. In Europe, many of the projects that were done with "modernist": tastes were public projects or large re-urbanization projects. Contrast that with the US, where many modernist designs were private projects, usually big corporate buildings and some public services.

Many of the buildings people universally hated in the US from the late 40's to the late 80's were just that - badly placed attempts to reinvigorate urban centers. So I think I understand where the critics are coming from. But i have to then say that at least in the US there are many modern styled buildings that were much better placed, and are loved, and still survive.
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2015, 05:21 PM   #684
Brucey7
Registered User
 
Brucey7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 261
Likes (Received): 179

https://www.facebook.com/ArchMMXII/p...type=1&theater

A recent poll found that the general public of the UK overwhelmingly prefer/support traditional over modernist residential developments.
__________________
Is it not cruel to let our city die by degrees, stripped of all her proud monuments, until there will be nothing left of all her history and beauty to inspire our children? If they are not inspired by the past of our city, where will they find the strength to fight for her future? Americans care about their past, but for short term gain they ignore it and tear down everything that matters... This is the time to take a stand, to reverse the tide, so that we won't all end up in a uniform world of steel and glass boxes.

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
Brucey7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2015, 06:52 PM   #685
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,251
Likes (Received): 57956

I say let's shift away from classical VS post-classical.
Why not leave both in harmony? Reach out our hands? Both have their place for various purposes and places. In fact, combinations of both have at times been mighty successful (see Art Deco, Expressionism, Streamline Modern or mixed variations).

I think a really good architect can do both, well-proportioned, elegant and detailed classical architecture - AND creative, fancy or just sleek modernism or other post-classical. The important issue is to apprehend architecture as a great craft again, a wholesome task that gears towards creating buildings that last for centuries.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


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

Chimer, zmv liked this post
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2015, 08:11 PM   #686
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,494

Because obviously in order to like one you have to completely hate the other.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2015, 10:47 PM   #687
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,251
Likes (Received): 57956

Is that your response to my post? I mean, really?
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


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

Last edited by erbse; June 9th, 2015 at 11:11 PM.
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2015, 10:49 PM   #688
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,494

It was sarcastic, I agree with what you said.
__________________
Check out my band, Till I Conquer!

erbse liked this post
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2015, 12:37 AM   #689
Brucey7
Registered User
 
Brucey7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 261
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
It was sarcastic, I agree with what you said.
Yes but your sarcastic post quite accurately sums up the attitudes of many here on SSC UK. Read through the Hyde Park Barracks Thread, particularly the first few pages, and several regular commenter's here make the argument that traditionalist/classical buildings should not and could not be built in London, ever.
__________________
Is it not cruel to let our city die by degrees, stripped of all her proud monuments, until there will be nothing left of all her history and beauty to inspire our children? If they are not inspired by the past of our city, where will they find the strength to fight for her future? Americans care about their past, but for short term gain they ignore it and tear down everything that matters... This is the time to take a stand, to reverse the tide, so that we won't all end up in a uniform world of steel and glass boxes.

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
Brucey7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2015, 01:24 AM   #690
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,494

I am one of the most outspoken supporters of modernist architecture on the entire forum. I created five threads dedicated to modernist architecture and design, and post regularly in two more. I have not once said classical buildings should not be built, in fact quite the opposite. All I care about is that they don't make it look like Disneyland sh*t with cheap materials and unskilled proportioning.

However, visit most classical theads and you'll see comments complaining about how modernism is inherently evil and should be destroyed or whatever.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2015, 02:01 AM   #691
Brucey7
Registered User
 
Brucey7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 261
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
I am one of the most outspoken supporters of modernist architecture on the entire forum. I created five threads dedicated to modernist architecture and design, and post regularly in two more. I have not once said classical buildings should not be built, in fact quite the opposite. All I care about is that they don't make it look like Disneyland sh*t with cheap materials and unskilled proportioning.

However, visit most classical theads and you'll see comments complaining about how modernism is inherently evil and should be destroyed or whatever.
I never accused you personally of being one of those individuals. To see such remarks go to the Hyde Park Barracks thread, where people explicitly stated that traditionalist buildings should not be built, full stop.

I too agree that traditional buildings should be built with high quality materials (equally applicable to many modern developments in London) and there is nothing worse than disneyland architecture (one need only look to Kiev to see the worst excesses of that!). However, the British, Dutch and Belgians are world leaders in high quality traditional buildings, as can be seen on the 'New buildings built in traditional styles thread' on the main SSC Architecture forums. What angers me is when some on here deride successful schemes such as Poundbury, as well as others as being 'pastiche' when they are not.
__________________
Is it not cruel to let our city die by degrees, stripped of all her proud monuments, until there will be nothing left of all her history and beauty to inspire our children? If they are not inspired by the past of our city, where will they find the strength to fight for her future? Americans care about their past, but for short term gain they ignore it and tear down everything that matters... This is the time to take a stand, to reverse the tide, so that we won't all end up in a uniform world of steel and glass boxes.

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
Brucey7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2015, 02:07 AM   #692
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,494

There is good pastiche and bad pastiche. It's a generic term for anything that imitates an older style. If someone built Googie-style modernism today, it would be pastiche.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2015, 02:18 AM   #693
Brucey7
Registered User
 
Brucey7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 261
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
There is good pastiche and bad pastiche. It's a generic term for anything that imitates an older style. If someone built Googie-style modernism today, it would be pastiche.
It is more the way it is used to dismiss any traditionalist projects, regardless of their merit and success.
__________________
Is it not cruel to let our city die by degrees, stripped of all her proud monuments, until there will be nothing left of all her history and beauty to inspire our children? If they are not inspired by the past of our city, where will they find the strength to fight for her future? Americans care about their past, but for short term gain they ignore it and tear down everything that matters... This is the time to take a stand, to reverse the tide, so that we won't all end up in a uniform world of steel and glass boxes.

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

erbse liked this post
Brucey7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2015, 03:48 AM   #694
hansservando
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 3
Likes (Received): 0

is this even a question? compares the nightmare of cost of socialist realism, in order to housing people, and the most cost effective western modernism. that's the merit of international style.
hansservando no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2015, 01:44 PM   #695
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,251
Likes (Received): 57956

^ What are you trying to say here? The success of architecture and urban planning clearly isn't limited to cost effectiveness, in the end it's a minor issue actually, only relevant to the developer. You can build something amazing super cheap or something incredibly dysfunctional super expensive, or the other way around.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


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

socrates#1fan liked this post
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 07:10 PM   #696
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1286

I think this is a very inappropriate name for a thread in a forum that seems to care about architecture and design. Modernism as we know it (from the avantgarde movement) is now long gone. I know that this thread is made for modernism in general, but I have got an impression that there is negative energy especially for the modern design from the 20th century. People should not bother with this buildings anymore since like I previously stated they are long gone. Maybe now people can try to appreciate some of them, or at least some of the remarkable designs, which luckily we have. There is not such a thing like fail in this case, quite the opposite, in the early decades of the 20'th century the artists wanted to make something completely new, something that will be avantgarde, and actually they did achieved this. In the later decades of the same century there was a need to go back a little bit, because it seemed that we forgot how to design a classical building, so we got the postmodern design. Maybe I am not a big fan of postmodern, but I understand the need of it therefor I will never open a thread called "Has postmodernism failed?". I do hope that as the time goes it will get improved and it won't look very tacky, but more faithful to the original classical buildings (of course I don't say we need to get a revival of Art Nouveau without any change but we can at least try to make it look tasteful).
As far as I am concerned, I can learn to appreciate postmodern and every other architectural style, because I am sure there is at least something to appreciate about it. At the end I must state that I absolutely adore classical designs and the fact that I adore the work of Tamara de Lempicka doesn't mean I can't realise how big of a genius was John William Godward. (at the time it emerged Art Deco was considered very modern, and even at this point we can feel the industrial stuff in it, that's why I compared these two artists, the second artist is from the end of the neoclassical era).

Last edited by Architecture lover; January 27th, 2016 at 11:24 AM.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2016, 03:32 PM   #697
socrates#1fan
Registered User
 
socrates#1fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,605
Likes (Received): 1318

An architectural style fails when it cannot produce streetscapes that give a people civic pride or designs that will still be attractive in 25+ years.
__________________
"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

erbse liked this post
socrates#1fan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2016, 03:34 PM   #698
Reost
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 13
Likes (Received): 5

In my opinion, modernism is in architecture what suprematism is in visual arts.

When Malevich painted his "Black Square", it seemed an interesting idea to do away with all the tons of details in paintings. And "Black Square" became famous.

Likewise, early modernists did the same in architecture.

However, if all the paintings would be "Black Squares" (or other shapes of various sizes), comparatively easy to create and without much artistic thought needed, then they all would be valueless. Because in "Black square" it was an idea that was valuable, not the painting itself, and in such cases only the work of the person behind the idea is actually valuable.

And the same with modernism. If there would be just a few modernist buildings constructed, they would seem interesting. However, this was not the case and millions of modernist buildings were erected all over the world, making this the primary style you would see in many city skylines.

This is far beyond the proportion suprematist paintings have in the total number of paintings you would ever see.

To make the matters worse, in many cities modernist buildings have replaced previous buildings of much more elaborate styles. This is the same as to overpaint works by Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo or Cezzane with "Black squares".

Some say modernist buildings are not valued, because they are new. I disagree - there are many pretty and valuable new buildings where architects put in considerably more artistic effort in details.

Some say modernist buildings are not valued, because there are many of them. This is true, however, just for the reasons stated above: that's because modernism is more of a statement than a style. Moreover, for real estate developers it was a form of money saving, and, for some architects, perhaps even a form of laziness and lack of artistic insight.

Anything will be valuable when there are just a few examples left (including e.g. slums; some of 18th-19th centure slum-quality buildings are now protected in skansens). However, some things will be valuable even when there are many examples left. Compare Baroque/Gothic/Romanesque/Renaissance and Modernist churches and you'll see that the first are often visited for their architecture and the latter are usually not, even though there are far more old churches than new chuches in the Western world due to higher religiousity in previous eras.

Some compare progress in architecture with technological progress. This is a wrong arguement. Technology may indeed improve objectively and these improvements may be measured by e.g. savings in time, reducing risks, etc. But architectural styles are part of culture which is subjective, and nothing like that can be measured; the changes in them are not linear and also depend on country/region.

Each building has a fair share of technology within it, e.g. whether there are elevators or not, whether there is A/C or not. However, basically a building with modern technology can be built in any style.
__________________

erbse liked this post
Reost 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 09:34 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