New Classical Buildings / Traditional Architecture of the 21st Century

You want to build a traditional house?

This material overview is of great help -
while of course your local materials have to be considered, as well as weather conditions:


Source / image link


Cities and houses are made by the people. And where they build, they should consider going vernacular/traditional,
to get something that is sustainable, eco-friendly, valuable, affordable, beautiful, livable and eternal.

Arreis said:

There's also the fact that many of the traditional styles, while beautiful, aren't really suited to the Australian climate.

Click to expand...

Wrong. In 2014, you can build a classical style house and still live comfortably in it, regardless of our climate. I love classical architecture, and imitation classic or old style... when its done right, it looks fantastic.

There's nothing I hate more than seeing a suburban street full of gorgeous old homes, only to have one of the 'overly modern' ones stand out like dogs balls. If you're going to build a house, be sympathetic toward what is next door - if it doesn't suit the street, don't build it.

One of the easiest ways to build an old style home is to use red brick. It instantly evokes an old feel. There's one being built near me, with a chimney, bay window and old style brickwork and it actually look great. If you saw it, you would never guess it had been built in 2014.

Well depending on the size of your family, you don't need to cool/heat every room in a house because it's not cost effective nor necessary, generally it's only appropriate for the bedroom and living room. In addition, you could also argue that depending on where you live in Australia, you don't really need a heating n winter, because it's simply too mild here. A gas heater or an eco friendly fireplace would suffice. You can live in a two storey home without paying a whopping a/c bill. There are plenty of methods to cut down your energy consumption.

No way, the past is the past. Give me a nice modernist house like say this:


http://uuldesign.com/architecture/c...ttachment/contemporary-modern-gatica-house-1/

mobus said:

Well depending on the size of your family, you don't need to cool/heat every room in a house because it's not cost effective nor necessary, generally it's only appropriate for the bedroom and living room. In addition, you could also argue that depending on where you live in Australia, you don't really need a heating n winter, because it's simply too mild here. A gas heater or an eco friendly fireplace would suffice. You can live in a two storey home without paying a whopping a/c bill. There are plenty of methods to cut down your energy consumption.

Click to expand...

Well, that's the ironic (and beautiful) thing about architecture isn't it. On one hand my mind can argue with you about the practicality of modern architecture and materials while my heart can see the beauty and warmth of old style.

Mornnb said:

No way, the past is the past. Give me a nice modernist house like say this:

http://uuldesign.com/architecture/c...ttachment/contemporary-modern-gatica-house-1/

Click to expand...

Modernism is over 100 years old, what's not 'past' about it either?
This example could be from the 1960's or earlier apart from a difference in materials and somewhat in scale.

If anything there are far too many badly done re-hashings of FLR,De Stijl and Bauhaus going up all over Australia. Why is a new built Californian Bungalow or Art Deco style for instance seen as old-fashioned when the 'contemporary' design might actually be a pastiche of modernism from around the same decades or even earlier?

Indeed. All those Bauhaus recreations are pretty much kitsch, as they don't add a true new dialect to what's been done for almost a hundred years. They're truly old-fashioned.

While classical buildings will be always modern and fashionable. They don't care for your most recent freakish trend. They're sustainable, pleasant and livable. You can always create something new out of the classical language, while there isn't even a universal modernist language. It's like you have a babbling kid in front of you, kind of cute, but you just can't have a cultivated discussion.

If you have a bad modernist architect, he'll give you a turd. If you have an architect who's fluent in the essentials of classical that are easy to understand, he'll always give you something pleasant, despite not being the greatest architect on Earth.

Agree with this - we need to stop levelling and uglyfying our cities
with bland uniform globalist-modernist architecture, that looks the same everywhere:

Stravinsky said:

Most of the world's cities are not protecting anything. In fact, most of the world is going to look pretty much the same within some decades:

India, Asia:

China, Asia:

Brazil, South America:

Canada, North America:

Kenya, Africa:

Australia, Oceania:

UK, Europe:

Hell to modernism. I'll go for this all the time:

Click to expand...

Think about it:

erbse said:

If you have a bad modernist architect, he'll give you a turd. If you have an architect who's fluent in the essentials of classical that are easy to understand, he'll always give you something pleasant, despite not being the greatest architect on Earth.

Click to expand...

And that's why modernism is better, it provides a challenge. It is either fantastic or terrible. Where classical architecture is the lazy route. It can be good or very good, but is very rarely great. And the other problem is it does not seem possible in the modern world to pull off classical architecture in a fantastic way, that is lost to the past.

Mornnb said:

And that's why modernism is better, it provides a challenge.

Click to expand...

Sure it's a challenge. A challenge a mere 90% (or more) of modernist architects fail at. Because there's no consistent tools and language of modernist architecture.
Seriously, our cities are no playground for ego crawling narcissists, but places people want to live in and feel comfortable about. Architecture is both an applied art and a necessity for creating livable places.

And please don't tell me classical architecture is rarely great. Most main landmarks across the globe are pre-Bauhaus/International-modernist; think of the Big Ben Tower, Tower Bridge, Eiffel Tower, Taj Mahal, Kremlin/St. Basils, Empire State Building, Brandenburg Gate, Neuschwanstein, Forbidden City, Himeji Castle, Statue of Liberty, Wat Phra Kaew, Pisa Tower, Colosseum, Sagrada Familia, Budapest Parliament, Christ Redeemer, Golden Gate Bridge, Stephansdom, Chichen Itza, Gize Pyramids, etc.etc. I could go on forever.

Could modernists ever create something half as mezmerizing as Bagan?
They yet have to approve this challenge even.


Bagan for sure - Myanmar (Burma) by Steven Goethals, on Flickr

Source

Source


http://i.imgur.com/mNfXxaR.jpg?1?1622

While there's some well-known modernist landmarks as well, of course. That's what modern architecture is rather good at, creating solitary landmarks. But it's miserably bad at creating harmonious, pleasant, sustainable, characterful and livable urban places.

A large portion of the UNESCO World Heritage list entries are historical/classical, pre-modernist sites and old towns for a reason, too.

Go check for yourself:
World Heritage Sites

mobus said:

Wrong. In 2014, you can build a classical style house and still live comfortably in it, regardless of our climate. I love classical architecture, and imitation classic or old style... when its done right, it looks fantastic.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Pleasant pictures btw, where did you get these from? Do you know contemporary traditional architects (in Oz)?


Btw, did you know about these new classical fellows?

Christopher Doyle Architects (website link)

They do some pretty amazing, well-crafted stuff.
Check their portfolio.

Neo Art Deco apartments:

source

I don't like their modernist stuff though.

erbse said:

Sure it's a challenge. A challenge a mere 90% (or more) of modernist architects fail at. Because there's no consistent tools and language of modernist architecture.
Seriously, our cities are no playground for ego crawling narcissists, but places people want to live in and feel comfortable about. Architecture is both an applied art and a necessity for creating livable places.

Click to expand...

Cities should aspire to create new things that are great, instead of rehashes and mediocrity. For example, the Sydney Opera House, which I doubt would ever have got onto the UNESCO World Heritage list if they had gone for a classical design.

Could modernists ever create something half as mezmerizing as Bagan?
They yet have to approve this challenge even.

Click to expand...

Your opinion. I would say there are dozens of skyscrapers and city skylines more mesmerising than Bagan could ever hope to be.

The truly iconic skyscrapers to date remain Chrysler, Woolworth and Empire State.
While there's many proper recent ones too, of course. But they're globalized, hardly give much of a local feeling or identity.

As for the Sydney Opera: as I said, modernism is doing well at creating solitary landmark buildings. I was talking about building urban neighbourhoods though. Places to live. Besides rats and pigeons, there's no one living in the Opera at all.

This is how you can create a modern yet tradition-grounded, sustainable urban neighbourhood:

A late 1990s New Urbanist quarter in Stockholm that I think pretty much suits the city. It's speaking the traditional language of the city's fabric, but still adds something fresh. Lovely, livable.

Sankt Eriksområdet is a good example how to build urban new quarters, yet sustainable and sticking to what makes a place, traditional elements. Block perimeters are important - don't build satellite housing estate like blocks or rowhouses! Greenspace is for the calm courtyards and parks!


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sankt_Eriksområdet_2014,_1.JPG

Gustaf Lindsteds gata 2-8, 1997-98, by Jan Mizerski

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sankt_Eriksområdet_2014,_8.JPG

Still acceptable parkrow housing (Grubbensparken, built 1994, Brunnberg & Forshed architects):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hus_kring_Grubbensparken_2014,_2.JPG

Very Swedish.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sankt_Eriksområdet_2014,_4.JPG


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Porthus,_Norra_försörjningsinrättningen.JPG


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sankt_Eriksområdet_2014.JPG

You can find more shots there: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:S:t_Eriksområdet


The architecture might lean a little towards postmodernism, but I think it has great vibe for feeling so authentic and well-crafted.

tdoz123 said:

If anything there are far too many badly done re-hashings of FLR,De Stijl and Bauhaus going up all over Australia. Why is a new built Californian Bungalow or Art Deco style for instance seen as old-fashioned when the 'contemporary' design might actually be a pastiche of modernism from around the same decades or even earlier?

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. So-called modern architecture in Australia couldn't be more passé.

Of course Europe can reject tradition... they have well preserved historical architecture on every corner. They can afford to balance it out with modernism. There's nothing wrong with building something in a heritage style here though, in our cities dominated by often uniform and bland high rises. It's done in Japan, too. For example, this building in Tokyo was destroyed in the 60s and re-built in the 2000s and you wouldn't even know. It's a welcome distraction/break from Tokyo's monolithic towers that infiltrate the city. You would not guess it was built in 2009.



I'm so tired of the dull modern apartments being erected in our cities. They should go down Japan's route and build something that looks like it existed 70-100 years ago.

^ Lovely example, thank you!


A considerable portion of "architecture" of the past 6 decades levitates somewhere around this level:

Flor!an said:

Strassburger Str. 86

Click to expand...

This was recently finished btw. kay: Unmistakably local, simplistically beautiful and timeless!