[QUOTE=Spoons]
In my day, we called Robarts “Fort Book,” although we turned things around–we figured we were defending Fort Book (through the gun slits yet!) against some enemy. Why, I have no idea; Robarts was the place you wanted to escape from–or at least allow to be conquered because with any luck, the conquerers would put in real windows.
[/QUOTE]
Yup, I heard “Fort Book” used a lot. But as you say, no-one would want to defend the place, and it was obviously not built by humans. Or at least it was not built for humans.
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Concrete is strong in compression, but has virtually no tensile strength. It tends to crack during heat/cold cycling, and once cracked is difficult to repair permanently.
Stranger
[/QUOTE]
Folks who own FLW houses can tell you all about that in detail. The long, low profiles of his houses do not seem to work well with concrete construction for the long haul, and I understand that they have had to do a ton of work to Fallingwater and other houses to keep them from crumbling.
Wood? Hah. Let’s see wood survive a mideastern summer, or a scud missile. I’ll take my nice, cool, thick concrete instead, thank you very much. I mean, wood? As far as I’m concerned, a wood building is a temporary structure, like a teepee or a yurt.
My FIL is a civil engineer. He’s built hundreds of residential buildings, and the only use he has for wood is scaffolding - and molds for concrete.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
And the thing about a lot of older colleges and universities in the US (like UVA and the little liberal arts school (also in Virginia) I went to) is that they have a theme going that provides a kind of unity and harmony. To drop some modernistic hulk in there is jarring and inappropriate. Even if the hulk is otherwise aesthetically pleasing, it is inappropriate for the setting.
[/QUOTE] SUNY Fredonia is, well, I wouldn’t call it the most beautiful college campus by any means, but the central area is one of the best examples of integrated modernist architecture. There are even concrete elevated walkways between many of the central buildings as well as an amphitheatre reached by these walkways that seems set off from the rest of the world when you deposit yourself inside it.
It’s got a character of its own when it doesn’t contrast so much with what’s around it.
Oh, and for the Frank Gehry fans in the audience, yes, his house in Santa Monica would not look out of place in backwoods Arkansas; it really does look like a heap of junk. Here are some pictures on the ironically-titled “GreatBuildings.com” site. It actually looks worse in person.
[/QUOTE]
Good Ford! Somebody built that? On purpose? That’s hideous - it looks like it’s either under construction, a poorly maintained warehouse, or some lamentable hybrid of both. What was Gehry thinking? Did he actually, really live in that?
I think all of the institutional buildings built in the Modernist style really ruined it for most people, as evidenced in this thread. These days, while they may have looked cool back in the day, Modernism is associated with crumbling public buildings and faded mustard colors. Who wants to live in a house that reminds them of the DMV?
And yes, you can do a Modernist dwelling and make it warm and inviting. I write for a shelter magazine, and I’ve seen plenty of examples.
[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
The worst buildings from prior periods/styles (let’s say Victorian for example) are GONE. The same will be true of modern architecture in another generation.
[/QUOTE]
If that’s true, then why wait? This is a brilliant plan.
[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
We’ve done this a thousand times before and IMO it’s one of the most frustrating sources of doper ignorance.
[/QUOTE]
And this kind of arrogance is what makes it frustrating to talk about modern architecture. Because we do not agree with your taste, we are ignorant, by your standards. Architects are responsible for creating the urban environment which we all have to live in. Don’t you think that architects have a responsibility to design buildings that the people like, rather than lecture the people for their ignorance when they don’t like the buildings?
I agree with the other posters who don’t find your examples persuasive. In fact, I would say that they do not even live up to the modernist principle of form follows function. The function of a house, in my opinion, is for people to live in, in comfort, and be able to relax. I want to come home at the end of a hard day to a warm, welcoming home. That’s the function of a home, in my opinion. These examples don’t meet that function. They’re high class airport waiting rooms.
[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
2. The worst buildings from prior periods/styles (let’s say Victorian for example) are GONE. The same will be true of modern architecture in another generation.
[/QUOTE]
I wish. Today’s buildings are built to last. In particular, a university like Georgetown isn’t going to spend money to tear down Lauinger library until it becomes too small for Georgetown’s collection (which won’t happen, as we move into an era of digitized media) or falls apart (which won’t happen for a couple of hundred years, with proper maintenance).
In my experience, every modern building I’ve spent much time in leaks like a bastard and looks kind of falling-apart in a couple years. The building I work in now leaks like hell and IMHO has aged terribly. This town was not, unfortunately, blessed with the Carnegie libraries many cities have. We had to start from scratch and I think it’s awful.
[QUOTE=Spoons]
In my day, we called Robarts “Fort Book,”
[/QUOTE]
In mine I heard it called blowfarts, and described as looking like a Canada Goose from this perspective: http://www.raisethehammer.org/images/brutalism_01.jpg
What we’re not talking about here is modern vs. classical architecture. Everything going up now is modern. It’s a matter of the styles being used. “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like” is a common expression. I think it could be better expressed as “I like what I know.” People know and are comfortable with the old styles so that is what sells. So we see endless use of classical elements in contemporary design made for the masses to consume. It’s bizarre and (in my opinion) hugely ugly but it is in demand.
Heh, I never heard “blowfarts”, but I don’t disapprove.
I have however heard the “goose” theory. To me, the bizzare thing on the front always looked more like some sort of gun turret or bunker than a goose head.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
Ha, that’s lovely compared with the dark castle of doom that is U of T’s Robarts Library:
Lord, how I hated that building. No windows within its airless stacks … we used to joke that it was build for an insectoid race known only as “Them”, who would emerge from the misterious upper floors to feast on the nightmares spawned by students passed out in the stacks while studying.
The gun slits to be used by “Them” in holding off the vengeful forces of humanity are clearly visible …
[/QUOTE]
At least it has a distinctive style. The main Tampa Campus Library at the University of South Florida is just a big featureless rectangular box.
No, I think it could be better expressed as “I don’t like eyesores that will look even uglier in twenty years time than they do currently, are completely impractical and only exist for other architects to talk about”.
Cities aren’t laboratories for architects to foist their fashionable crap on an unsuspecting public. Case in point: the Czech National Library. A monstrosity.
After having that monstrosity at U of T named after him, it’s no wonder Robarts killed himself. I think he was chancellor at Western when that other hideous library was opened. Bad architecture followed him about, the poor bastard.
