The Architecture Thread

Those buildings don't have a rapport with the history and aesthetics of their locations, they are representative of them. I'm not totally sure what the argument is, except that you prefer older architecture with ornamental flourishes.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

I like buildings that have a rapport with the history and aesthetics of their location.
You are probably a Critical Regionalist, a movement spearheaded around Kenneth Frampton, an English architecture critic and opponent to International Style Modernism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_regionalism

In "Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six points for an architecture of resistance", Frampton recalls Paul Ricoeur's "how to become modern and to return to sources; how to revive an old, dormant civilization and take part in universal civilization". According to Frampton's proposal, critical regionalism should adopt modern architecture, critically, for its universal progressive qualities but at the same time value should be placed on the geographical context of the building. Emphasis, Frampton says, should be on topography, climate, light; on tectonic form rather than on scenography (i.e. painting theatrical scenery) and should be on the sense of touch rather than visual sense. Frampton draws on phenomenology for his argument.

Click to expand...

The most important Critical Regionalist building is Rafael Moneo's Museum of Roman Art. It almost single-handedly ended post-modernism.

Originally Posted by mordecai

Click to expand...

Those buildings don't have a rapport with the history and aesthetics of their locations, they are representative of them. I'm not totally sure what the argument is, except that you prefer older architecture with ornamental flourishes.
Of course you know what the argument is. I stated it in my original post. The modernist houses on display here are dull and unimaginative. I do like buildings with ornament, and it happens to be the case that it's typically found on older buildings (to our great loss).

Your point about history simply displays a lack of knowledge about architecture's historical development. Modernist architecture is, by definition, an attempt to be ahistorical; it is a radical break from the past. It makes no effort to use traditional building materials, forms, shapes, sizes, scales, or conventions, nor does it try to fit in with the existing built environment. The buildings I posted exist on a historical continuum; they do not at all resemble the 18th century granite buildings of old Montreal, but they borrow or use evolved forms of traditional elements of decoration, symmetry, scale, etc. My ideal 'modern' building would not just be a rehash of old styles (which would be anachronistic, not to mention impractical), but one which takes into account the elements of style that already exist in a given place and tries to integrate itself into the urban fabric. A good example is some of the new apartment buildings around the Grands Moulins of Paris in the 13e. Unfortunately I don't have a photo, but I'll try to dig one up.

I'm not categorically against modernist architecture: for instance, I am a huge fan of the Centre Pompidou, which is about as unlike anything around it as you can get, but it has certain features that redeem it.



First, the colourful pipes around it have a certain artistic visual appeal. Second, the large esplanade behind it is built on a slight incline, creating a public space where people to sit and have picnics (in that sense, it does 'integrate' somewhat with the neighbourhood). Third, its wide open spaces are ideal for a library and an art gallery. Fourth, it serves the community by providing needed cultural services and profits from the neighbourhood's density.

However, these things don't apply to residential homes in the modernist style. The blocky, cookie-cutter visual aspect of concrete walls with floor-to-ceiling glass is a sad cliche. And ever since technological advances have allowed us to do away with interior structural support walls, there is a trend towards leaving everything as open as possible, which I find creates sprawling spaces that lack any sense of place. These buildings also look absurd in relation to their setting.

It is especially painful to see what we have lost as a result of modernist architecture in places where it has replaced what was formerly beautiful and useful with what is ugly and impractical.

Originally Posted by StephenHero

Click to expand...

You are probably a Critical Regionalist, a movement spearheaded around Kenneth Frampton, an English architecture critic and opponent to International Style Modernism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_regionalism The most important Critical Regionalist building is Rafael Moneo's Museum of Roman Art. It almost single-handedly ended post-modernism.

I don't really understand what post-modernist architecture is (Frank Gehry?), and I doubt I belong to any school. But I am vehemently opposed to the Athens Charter, the CIAM, Le Corbusier, brutalism, urban housing projects, and so forth. Aldo Rossi was probably the first European architect to oppose modernism.

I understand the typical arguments against modernism, I just don't find them compelling in regards to much of what is posted in this thread. The notion that Modernism exists outside of a historical continuum is just as boring and inaccurate here as it is where I see it more commonly used, in relation to fine arts.

I didn't say it existed outside of a historical continuum (it can't want to be a break from the past without acknowledging the past), I said its practitioners and theorists attempted to be self-consciously ahistorical.

This is not a metaphysical debate, it's an aesthetic (and to a certain extent, urban) one.

Postmodern architecture is a movement that uses classical architectural elements to allude to the culture behind them as a means to reinterpret their semiotic value. For example, Roman columns allude to the cultural values of democracy and justice, and so their present day use is a means to continue that tradition of language and meaning within architecture in a way that embraces the purely functional requirements of useful modernist forms (like high rise office buildings). Gehry is a deconstructivist. That movement is concerned with eliminating the semiotics of architecture and exploding existing typologies of buildings, which are accepted formal standards that lead to conventional architecture. This is done for the sake of improving the spatial experience and eliminating the restrictions of tradition that hamper the development of modern society's new living patterns. Longer explanation:

Originally Posted by StephenHero

Click to expand...

It's actually pretty easy to understand when you strip it down. Here's an example. Imagine the archetypal house form below which has a longstanding cultural precedent. If you were to ask kids to draw a house, they'd draw one like this below. But if they had never seen a house and you described what its purpose was and then asked them to draw one, they probably would not draw this form. Their drawings would reflect all they knew about what a house could be through the description. Their mind has been influenced by the formal meaning of "house" to coincide with the examples of houses they've seen. Deconstructivists see this as a compromise of the architect's purpose to design better buildings. To the same extent, architects have historically designed houses according to that form, while largely neglecting the purpose of the house. It's a mechanical reaction that ignores designing a better experience. Deconstructivists simply try to reinterpret conventional associations between architectural elements. So instead of a floor that is connected to the wall perpendicularily with two windows cut out, could the wall be separated from the floor and elevated above eye level to create an expansive void instead of the windows? Or instead of a ceiling attached to the wall, could the ceiling be held up above the wall to allow a gap for light to enter? Basically they just attempt to explode hermetic conventional forms into more fluid, transparent, and abstract buildings that hopefully provide richer experiences inside. Instead of designing intuitively with subconscious influences like classical houses, they try to design analytically. But of course it doesn't always work and there are some really bad Deconstructivist cases. But you can catch the drift in these two images from Peter Eisenmann.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

I didn't say it existed outside of a historical continuum (it can't want to be a break from the past without acknowledging the past), I said its practitioners and theorists attempted to be self-consciously ahistorical. This is not a metaphysical debate, it's an aesthetic (and to a certain extent, urban) one.
This holds if you jump from Gothic Revival and Eastlake Victorians to Rem Koolhaus. Less so if you include Burnham & Root, Greene & Greene, Louis Sullivan, Frank Lloyd Wright, George Wyman, John Parkinson, and Walter Gropius. Focusing specifically on the Le Corbusier residential space craft concept in order to dismiss Modernism as wholly ahistorical is inaccurate. Many of the forms that emerged from it are unfortunate, but so were many of the forms that were replaced.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

It is especially painful to see what we have lost as a result of modernist architecture in places where it has replaced what was formerly beautiful and useful with what is ugly and impractical.
It's actually not impractical. It's extremely practical. It's important to note that the two single greatest contributors to the excess of bastardized brutalist/modernist architecture of the post-war period in Europe have been 1) rising labor costs related to worker demands and 2) rising energy costs. Concrete and glass are the two cheapest materials in light of those developments because of the short time needed to construct them, so any political policy that perpetuates union labor clout or energy conservation via taxation/penalties/regulation will inevitably result in that quality of architecture except in cases of extraordinary funding or design skill.

Originally Posted by StephenHero

Click to expand...

Q: What's the perfect house for a summertime underage drinking party?

A: This.

Great space. I especially love the chair in the last photo as well.

Also, what's wrong with the clustered photos/frames?

They're tacky. I'm specifically referring to the last photo with the red frame above the tv. . That chair is nice. I've been looking for a nice relaxed sitting chair for a while now.

Originally Posted by StephenHero

Click to expand...

Alberto Kasach, Casa Romany
Los Angeles

Originally Posted by phreak

Click to expand...

I really like that ^^


Yeah, this is one of the best-designed homes I've seen in this thread.

Can someone talk about Livio Vacchini, where does he fit in and so forth. I came across this site earlier today and what he does just floors me (as a spectator).

He's a straightforward, post-Bauhaus modernist. Rational forms and tectonic expression carried to slightly larger post-capitalist/socialist urban planning schemes. His Koerfer house is probably his best building. It's remarkable.

Originally Posted by mordecai

Click to expand...

This holds if you jump from Gothic Revival and Eastlake Victorians to Rem Koolhaus. Less so if you include Burnham & Root, Greene & Greene, Louis Sullivan, Frank Lloyd Wright, George Wyman, John Parkinson, and Walter Gropius. Focusing specifically on the Le Corbusier residential space craft concept in order to dismiss Modernism as wholly ahistorical is inaccurate. Many of the forms that emerged from it are unfortunate, but so were many of the forms that were replaced.
Why are you fixated on the meaning of ahistorical? I have already explained, metaphysically this is just an illusion: if you want, we can go as far back as the Crystal Palace and the first uses of reinforced concrete to find its antecedents, but none of these have any bearing on the philosophical underpinnings of modernism which were laid out in the 1920s and 1930s by members of the International School and which came to fruition in the postwar building boom of the 50s and 60s. Of your list, only Gropius has anything to do with what I have been discussing. The American experience of modernism may be defined by the Chicago school (I don't know), but to conflate that term with with the work of van der Rohe, Gropius, and Le Corbusier is just an abuse of language. It is disingenuous to lump constructions like Pruitt-Igoe and the Bradbury building together.

Originally Posted by StephenHero

Click to expand...

It's actually not impractical. It's extremely practical.
I take it you have never been to Montparnasse, then. It the worst-designed city space in all of Paris, imo, and the building itself is an affront to the senses in its environmental context. To add insult to injury, half of its units are empty.

It's important to note that the two single greatest contributors to the excess of bastardized brutalist/modernist architecture of the post-war period in Europe have been 1) rising labor costs related to worker demands and 2) rising energy costs. Concrete and glass are the two cheapest materials in light of those developments because of the short time needed to construct them, so any political policy that perpetuates union labor clout or energy conservation via taxation/penalties/regulation will inevitably result in that quality of architecture except in cases of extraordinary funding or design skill.

Click to expand...

No, the two single greatest contributions were demographic growth (both rapid urbanization and rising birthrate) and the destruction wrought by the war. However, these alone cannot explain the distinctive ugliness of urban architecture in the postwar years. 'New Brutalism' (as Rayner Banham called it) was inspired by the hyper-aggressive modernism of the age and led to nightmares like the Alton estate in Roehampton, Torre Velasco in Milan, and the Tour Montparnasse. When, in March 1959, the Council of Buildings of France approved the design for the future Tour Montparnasse, their report concluded: "Paris cannot afford to lose herself in her past. In the years to come, Paris must undergo imposing metamorphoses." Steel and glass construction has existed since the 1840s and has created buildings of immense beauty, in particular many European train stations (and American, such as Penn Station). Reinforced concrete was likewise invented in the 1840s and used to great aesthetic profit in constructions like the Royal Liver building in 1911. That was a poor excuse to make a half-baked free market argument.

Postmodern architecture is a movement that uses classical architectural elements to allude to the culture behind them as a means to reinterpret their semiotic value. For example, Roman columns allude to the cultural values of democracy and justice, and so their present day use is a means to continue that tradition of language and meaning within architecture in a way that embraces the purely functional requirements of useful modernist forms (like high rise office buildings).

Click to expand...

You are going to have to unpack this sentence for me because I don't know what it means, particularly the part about high rise office buildings.

Gehry is a deconstructivist. That movement is concerned with eliminating the semiotics of architecture and exploding existing typologies of buildings, which are accepted formal standards that lead to conventional architecture. This is done for the sake of improving the spatial experience and eliminating the restrictions of tradition that hamper the development of modern society's new living patterns.

Click to expand...

I see. Your explanation was good, though considering that the Stata Center doesn't even fulfill the basic need of keeping water out or letting in natural light via the interior courtyards, I would say that rather than creating spaces adapted to new living patterns at least some of these attempts fail to even meet the fundamental requirements of the architect's profession.