Flat roofs alone have their nastier issues. If a fancy roof may up the cost a bit, you’re much less likely to need roof repair than if it were flat. No one outside the South or Southwest, and not even much of that, wants to risk it. And the north? Believe me, re-shingling a roof may be expensive. Replacing the top two floors because part of the roof collapsed and the place flooded with melting snow is worse.
I guess it comes down to stylistic tastes. I love Second Empire and Queen Anne style homes. Based on my experience with them, which I will admit is limited, the interiors to these houses aren’t bad.
As far as the ornamentation, I will admit, it can go overboard at times. Other times though, it can be spectacular. The nicest Victorian that I’ve ever been in, the Mark Twain House, is great.
I hope I didn’t give you the impression that I didn’t like Victorian Architecture. There are many very good examples of this type of design. the one you cited is very nice. Personally I have never understood people only liking modern, or victorian, or post modernism or whatever. There are good examples of ALL of these styles. Maybe it is just my personality, but in most things in life I have a wide range of what I enjoy, be it music, food, culture or entertainment. Architecturally it is the same. To limit myself to one type of design means I would miss out on so much that is out there.
I enjoy Frank Lloyd Wright but many of his buildings, well they just sucked big time ugly! His work is much better on his smaller scale projects–personally I don’t care for most of his larger scaled work.
People seem to fawn over FLW, but he epitomizes the attitudes that people in this thread are complaining about. He was easily the most egotistical Architect that I have read about. He even used to design the furniture for his houses and refused to let people put their own furniture in the home! How screwed up is that–and even more amazing is that the clients let him do it!
Generally, either a cheap generic box they can sell/lease at a profit, or a giant ego boost for them or their organisation, paid for with other peoples’ money.
Real architects know all about fitting in with the existing environment, building useable spaces for humans, etc. Unfortunately these people don’t usually get the big gigs. High-profile commissions seem to go to big-name napkin architects like Norman Foster* etc. who give good press release despite being responsible for a seriles of giant unuseable coproliths. Real architects hate them, the construction companies hate them, the occupants hate them, the public hate them, but so long as the people comissioning the buildings love them, we all suffer the consequences.
And as for building being designed to last, apparently commerical office buildings may have design lives of less than twenty years.
*May he suffer from giant agonising haemarroids. In his mouth.
I agree 100%. As I’ve said, the reason I am so hard on modern is that for every good building there were way too many terrible ones; and that it seems that the principles that motivated the style are largely at fault for this failure.
As much as I love many of the old styles, I understand that its impractical to build structures like that today. What I wish would happen though, is for some kind of new style to emerge that reflects historical architectural principles but responds to the reality of building today.
Another good one is the Brugge concert hall.
Compare to its surroundings:
I assume they couldn’t afford to do something that matched the rest of the town in a huge free-standing building, so they just went in a completely different direction.
I’ve ben thinking about this for a few days now, and I’ve come to a few conclusions.
-
Modern architects, beginning around the Bauhaus movement (and really the re-creation of architecture into purely an aesthetic field) but increasing as time went on, essentially forgot how to make buildings for people. They make buildings to show off. Thus, they have “features” which are totally useless, and often counter-productive, for people.
-
Modern architecture likes to build in materials which cause trouble. I don’t specifically mind glass or steel or concrete. They all have their place, and if you’re willing to work with them a little can do some fun stuff. But at the same time, it doesn’t age well. It’s usually jagged and it promotes the idea of the buiding making a splash. Problem is, it’s walsya going to be a flop. Such buildings cannot help but cut sharply away from the surroundings. Plus, the materials age terribly.
-
They have no idea how to build a human space, in which humans can interact.
-
It’s certainly possible to make do a modern building which is livable. I’ve seen some. But they tend to be pushing back towards older styles, or aim for quirkyness rather than showyness.
UT, where I go, has an unusual architecture building. It’s got open ductwork and pipes, so you can see how things work. The building has some near-brutalist aspects, but those are mostly hidden away from passers-by. The sides where people go are a little quirky, and there’s a nasty issue which bad drainage (and whomever didn’t think about that fact ought to be smacked), but the building n the inside is fairly cozy, with a quiet lounge, mini-cafe, and mini-museum and stuff plus classrooms. It could have been done much better, but at least it’s not a disaster.
For some reason, UT doesn’t have the photos and things they’re supposed to online, just a few badly-angled snapshots. But basically the palce inside is well-lit in the daytime, very open, and relaxing. But in this, it’s very far from most modernist buildings.
:eek:
I’d (thankfully) never heard of him. Went to his website, clicked into the page for the new London City Hall, and saw it.
WTF?!?!?
Acutally, I believe plenty of current architects can easily disprove your conclusions, inasmuch as they could, with little difficulty, design a very human and location-friendly building in traditional or local materials. However, there are not many comissions like that going about, and if there were no-one is likely to notice the results since by definition the building would blend in well. Most of the comissions are for ego-boosters, and are fulfilled by the napkin architects.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that particular monstrosity. Bear in mind it’s directly across the river from the Tower of London and right next to Tower Bridge. If you have all the right javascript and stuff enabled you should be able to click here and see it in the bottom left looking like some sort of ulcer. Because of the ineptitude of the design, they apparently have to hire the largest cherrypicker in Europe in order to clean the windows in the overhanging part.
Great galloping Og. Just as dreadful from directly overhead. That thing would be gawdawful anywhere, but in that setting it’s outright criminal. Looks like the world’s largest zit, just begs to be popped. Preferably when the architect is standing directly below the overhang.
Well, let’s hope they never put up the proposed design for 20 Fenchurch St , aka the Marshmallow Tower.
Possibly but the good work I see isn’t even being done by architects. Rather, it’s structural engineers and interior decorators. Go fig.
I think your response in general is too easy an out. Yes, many people want a “splashy” building. A good architect should be able to work with the client to make something which is suitable and useful. And I don’t think they’re even trying that. Rather, the architects want to deliberately push buildings into being as flashy as possible, regardless of “trivial” issues like maintenance, style, usability, etc.
Likewise, I haven’t seen much evidence that architects know anything about interior work, which is a LOT more important than a fancy exterior. Most just don’t seem interested to me. Oh well.
You are confusing design with a little d and Design with a big D. The criticisms I have seen in this thread I think are for the most part valid for big name Architects. If you are a celebrity in any field you get commissions and leeway that the average practioner of your craft does not get.
However the vast majority of the buildings out there are designed by Architects who design with the little d, and the interior is extremely critical to ANY architect I have worked with. Most interior design work for the most part is cosmetic and fashion (although I have worked with some excellent interior designers, the vast majority are limit themselves to colors and material selectors).
The Architect is the person who designs the interior space in volume form, what goes where and most importantly what meets the building code. No offense to my structural engineer friends, but if left to an engineer we would have 30x30 rectangular boxes with flat facades, and an interior designer for the most part could care less if the interior and exterior matched in my opinion.
For every one monstrosity that someone here has discussed designed by a famous Architect I can easily find lots of good buildings designed by good everyday practioners. I stopped posting here (mainly cause I don’t wanna be the one trick pony Architect!), but I couldn’t let such a statement go. Most don’t seem interested indeed–bullshit. It is what I do for a living and I am damn proud of the vast majority of my buildings, both on an aesthetic level and on a functional everyday utilization level.
wow! That is one fugly tower!
Hey. It’s a twisty building. That is amazing.
Because most other buildings are not twisty.
That architect missed his calling. Should have been a cartoonist.
How does that thing stay up?
Regards,
Shodan
You have to believe in it!
GOD FU**ING DAMN IT you people are going to give me an aneurysm.
You are going to judge a building by looking at a picture on a webpage!?!?! Seriously!?!?!
Don’t you think it deserves a LITTLE more thought? It is permissible to read, you know.
I’ll give you some hints:
- It’s a sustainable building.
- It works well for its users.
- Londoners like it.
(stipulated: you’ll dredge up anecdotal dissent) - It’s not the god damn 19th century anymore. It’s not even the 20th. Humans explore new forms of expression because of new problems & opportunities. It’s what we do. Not just for fun, but because aesthetics reflect ethics. As a good citizen, you’re expected to get past the limitations of your taste and at least try to comprehend the deeper meaning & value of the work.
Here’s something to chew on: whatever historical architecture you find charming or tasteful or “traditional” or whatever, was at one time NEW and exploratory and undoubtedly rejected by the conservatives of that era. If we had obeyed your attitude in 1900, there wouldn’t be any craftsman houses - they were too horizontal & didn’t have enough ornament and bright colors according to the Victorian critics. WE HAVE TO innovate and explore or the future will not have a history. Mostly we have to because we’re human.
I have never seen such ignorance on the dope as there has been in this thread. And you all are proud of it. Wow.
PS- Saying you’ve never heard of Norman Foster is basically like saying you’ve never heard of Elliot Carter or Robert Pinsky or, hell, I don’t know, Guillermo del Toro. Not something really to be proud of as an educated person.
ETA: actually those might be bad analogies because Foster is very commercially successful in his field, as well as being on the cutting edge of new technics.