Your first two points, sure, I agree. You kind of lose me with the third.
Why can’t someone admire Shaker art and architecture and want to include it in their home and yet not want to adopt their ideals? It seems pretty simple to me actually. I like 2nd Empire homes, that doesn’t mean that I want to use whale oil lamps and have my wife to wear a corset. You’re getting far too carried away and conflating the ideology of a time or people with the buildings they created. To put it another way, I’ve heard people say on this board that they think Nazi uniforms looked cool. That doesn’t mean that want to be Nazis.
Then it seems you would have a deep admiration for modern architecture.
I would argue that if you adopt only the superficial aspects of a style while ignoring the values that generated that style, you’re dishonoring those values and revealing your own creative bankruptcy. Or you’re engaged in the most shallow of image-making (cf. Caesar’s Palace, etc.). Maybe that’s where we’re at as a culture.
The Shakers didn’t even HAVE houses as far as I know.
But they don’t go around wearing them.
Hey, I admire all kinds of traditional architecture (including Shaker). But I don’t want to reproduce it.
Mostly because I want to be sincere and authentic about responding to today’s problems & opportunities.
So now my question to you is the same as what I asked others–the firms I linked to upthread. Do you like that work or do you consider them sell outs?
I am on your side in general concerning Modern Architecture, but in my opinion you are making fairly wide sweeping generalizations. I am genuinely curious if you think the work of Cutler or Miller-Hull is modern or imitative of traditional architecture? I guess I am asking if they (or myself) are creatively bankrupt?
You took a pretty big leap there. I have no issue with architecture responding to changing technologies and social conditions. I just happen to think that most modern architecture did a pretty bad job of it while being god-awful ugly to boot.
Here’s the key word there, “style.” At the end of the day, we are just talking about how something looks. Each of us can rationalize our style choices however we want. I can say that I’m paying respect to a 3,000 year old heritage of design and see no reason to entirely disregard what has been perfected through experience.
I’ve never argued we should go around building exact replicas of old buildings. But if I really like 2nd Empire style houses, I can certainly build a house in that style that still responds to every problem and opportunity that I see fit to address. And truth be told, I don’t think that today’s houses really present that many more challenges than they did 100 years ago. We need to accommodate an efficient HVAC system, but what else really?
We might decide that we like natural light, bigger rooms, or open floor plans, but aren’t those personal preference? Which brings me back to my point about rationalizing style choices. How exactly does the Gropius House respond to the challenges (ice and snow) of a Massachusetts winter?
And yet not only did they keep the Hagia Sofia, (although they did add some minarets) they copied its basic design when they built the Blue Mosque down the block. In fact, virtually every major Istanbul mosque pays homage to the HS, as well they should, it being one of the most impressive buildings ever built. I’d say the Turks had excellent respect for architectural history.
If someone gets paid millions for a design going out with his name on the top which totally fails to provide space for a receptacle to throw things away in (no space to accommodate a trashcan of any kind unless it’s bought from Argos and put in the middle of the floor as an afterthought), it’s his fault. And when I say ‘soft surfaces’ I mean things like wood, plastic, etc.
Because in Mr Foster’s world a six-storey high box of concrete, glass and stainless steel is a perfect acoustic environment, presumably because no-one speaks to him other than in hushed tones of awe.
I mean, who puts in hundreds of square metres of stainless steel tube to quieten things down? AND its filthy - it can’t be cleaned so it’s massively dusty, which is great because that’s where the air is pumped through so the people in the cafeteria can filter it with their lungs :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Well, allegedly it was good enough for HBS so it must be good enough for everyone else :rolleyes:. Although I suspect that if HBS used this exact same layout, the only people who liked it are those who comissioned it. I note that e.g. this is allegedly also built to the HBS style - not the positioning of the doors and the built-in flipcharts. And the lighting, which actually looks like it could keep people awake for a few hours. So I think the Tanaka implementation was just screwed because someone decided the key consideration was to fit the theatres into a posh circular column, rather than to make them useable. There is actually one theatre under the main entrance, which is squarer, has the entrance at the back and is much more useable (although the air con and lighting is still poor). And lecture theatres aren’t exactly specialist - there are thousands of them around and probably the equivalent of a Lecture Theatre Design for Dummies book.
As I said earlier, my feeling is that the people who comission these things just want a ‘statement’ building and an ego-stroke from having comissioned a big name to do their building. If people like Foster are happy to give them what they they want (i.e. a well-polished diamante-encrusted turd) in exchange for being showered with money then I think it’s only fair that they get showered with abuse by the poor saps who have to use the building.
He’s onto a real winner with Imperial, though. In the case of this building, on a windy day the wind gusts underneath that deck to the left with enough force to make the whole thing vibrate and emit an eerie howl.
Actually, most of Montreal’s vernacular residential architecture is flat-roofed, because the snow accumulation provides heat insulation. They actually started with high-peaked roofs, and built flatter and flatter ones over time.
And I think it’s important to remember that, obviously, modern architects can make really awful mistakes, but lovely old buildings have their problems too. For example, people are upset that McGill is planning to phase out classes in the Arts building. Well, that’s fine, but have they ever actually taken classes there? The classrooms are cramped, and the desks, which are bolted to the floor, are in long, narrow rows without any aisles between them, so that you have to climb over people to occupy any of the desks in the centre of the room. I spent more than one period squatting in slush because they were too small and had no way to accommodate any extra desks or chairs.
There’s nothing worng with Bauhaus, in moderation. If it takes local conditions and local history into consideration, the results can be pretty appealing.
I live in a 1930’s Bauhaus-styled apartment building myself, and I’m very happy with it. However, it isn’t the concrete and glass mostrosity that Americans tend to associate with the Modernist movement; rather, it’s part of the Tel Aviv “White City” neighbourhoods, built by German-Jewish refugees before and during WW2. The reason they’re successful, IMO, is that they’re modest and respectful of their environment. Just look at this one: The curves, the lack of ornamentation, the visible “skeleton”, the windows along the stairwell - that’s classic Bauhaus. The white plaster walls, the small windows, the narrow balconies, the flat roofs - that’s Mediterranian construction. By combining old and new, those pre-War architects made something for the ages (so long as theyr’re maintained - plaster tends to flake in salty breeze, and people have a tendancy to close off the balconies).
I have to dispute the contention about flat-roofed buildings being leak prone.
Most of the commercial buildings in Minneapolis are flat. Malls, schools, skyscrapers, apartments and so on. My neighbors’ house has a flat roof and that doesn’t leak. My house has one room with a flat roof that is okay though it is quite old and much better roofing materials exist today then when it was built.
What I think is odd is the insistence people have on getting gabled roofs even in places like Phoenix where snowfall is a non-issue. When I was down there it really struck me that almost everything looked like this.
I think people have a mindset that houses are supposed to look like that so, there it is. Note also the bland color palette that is mandatory on the modern housing development. Since most yards down there have no grass, the house is the same color as the yard. I would think more vibrant colors would work better there. Developers are not going to take a chance on this, however, so look for more and more of the same thing for years to came.
Ah! I did not know that. Thanks for enlightening me. Is that the case outside the city as well, or has exurban architecture continued with the peaked roof?
I recall driving from Niagara to Walkerton a few years ago on the way to a friend’s wedding, and noticing a quirky gingerbready style of houses with roofs having decided peaks. They had a different flavor from houses of the same era I’d grown up among in Massachusetts. Are themes from that vernacular still being employed?
Back to Modern architecture: That magnificent achievement of the genre in Boston, the Hancock Tower, is about to have its barren windswept base plaza ameliorated at last. Its ugly cousin, the Pru, also had a horrifically bad plaza at its base that eventually had to be transformed into an enclosed mall because of its wind tunnel character. One has to wonder whether experiencing such unpleasantries when passing by such towers contributes (fairly or not) to antipathy toward the entire genre?
Very nice indeed. I quite like those buidings. Remind me of Richard Meier’s work with all that white. Quite nice modern work, thanks for the examples, now I have to put that on my places to visit!
AIUI, however, gabled roofs in a warm climate can make sense, by allowing the hotter air in the house to rise above the traffic areas where people actually live. Of course those buildings you’ve linked to don’t really seem to have that consideration in mind, so I agree that they’re being built that way to meet the preconceived notions of the market.
I can’t say for certain, but in my mind’s eye, I’m seeing flat roofs or low gables. A really high gabled roof would look very, very old-fashioned (like New France old-fashioned).
Yes, very nice indeed. The White City and Hakuna Matata’s links illustrate, in my opinion, the importance of dialogue in architecture. A building doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it has a setting, and must interact with that setting. These examples have a lively yet respectful conversation with their neighborhood. The examples that have been excoriated in this thread by and large seem to me to be engaged in a monologue.
Well, yes. Of course. See, I have this great idea for a cat playroom, complete with catdoor from the house out to an enclosed garden so they can go outside without being endangered by the local predators, and…
