Agreed. My point is that architects refuse to build anything that looks remotely 'traditional'. There is a massive bias against such styles of architecture - they don't teach it in architecture schools. Three of my good school friends did architecture, and they came out despising older buildings. They said that if you tried to submit plans for an older building, then that would guarantee failing at every point. A better balance in building styles is needed - at the moment all we get is glass and steel blocks.
You're wrong. There's a very high profile terrace been recently built in London that references traditional models without being a dull as tits facsimile. And it's social housing.
You're wrong. There's a very high profile terrace been recently built in London that references traditional models without being a dull as tits facsimile. And it's social housing.
Get wit the program, daddio.
Well where's the link or name then you muppet, do you think I have my finger on every single social housing project in London?
Fair enough. But surely if one were to apply modern practices to older styles it would surely be easy to 'adapt' them to the modern world. My point is that no thought has gone into this whatsoever.
You're wrong. There's a very high profile terrace been recently built in London that references traditional models without being a dull as tits facsimile. And it's social housing.
Do you have a link please so that we can see what they're like? Thanks.
Fair enough. But surely if one were to apply modern practices to older styles it would surely be easy to 'adapt' them to the modern world. My point is that no thought has gone into this whatsoever.
Would you agree that some of them are certainly not 'kitsch' or 'pastiche'?
There's something a bit fake and Disneyland about them, but if people like that style in their cities, who are we to argue?
Some are nice, some are horrible.
Every now and again traditional has a revival, personally I like Georgian and mock Tudor, but it comes and goes out of fashion.
I love this one. Yes I agree, they could probably do more stone carving in concrete or something these days, but it feels less honest somehow.
People don't learn crafts anymore.
I hate it the most when there is an ancient building that looks just fine the way it is, then the front of it gets "refurbished" drastically to look modern, like for example an ancient Victorian era building gets covered up with boring grey metal cladding! :mad:
You're wrong. There's a very high profile terrace been recently built in London that references traditional models without being a dull as tits facsimile. And it's social housing.
Get wit the program, daddio.
With your post count being what it is could I respectfully suggest you go for quality over quantity?
Everybody except me! :cool: I do like however how sometimes both old and new architecture can co-exist happily like for example if a really old building has a modern looking extension added to it.
Very little modern architecture has any worth whatsoever. It's nearly all generic crap of the sort that's been churned out for nearly 70 years. A recent development in my city centre replaced 1950s crap with crap from the 21st century, and it's very difficult to tell the two apart. There are good buildings but they are few and far between. Most architecture is driven by money and it is cheaper to build ugly crap than to build something decent. Also, there's a place for modern architecture and it is usually not in the middle of a conservation area.
I despise Modernist architecture on the whole though and everything it stands for. It is an utterly moribund and failed philosophy. The idea that the past is something to be severed and discarded has wrought utter chaos on towns and cities across Europe.
There's something a bit fake and Disneyland about them, but if people like that style in their cities, who are we to argue?
Some are nice, some are horrible.
Every now and again traditional has a revival, personally I like Georgian and mock Tudor, but it comes and goes out of fashion.
We're still waiting for a revival of anything other than crappy Modernism. It's what we've had since the 1930s and shows no sign of leaving. I doubt we'll ever get a general Neoclassical or Gothic revival now. Modernism drew a line in the sand and crossed the Rubicon as far as that was concerned. There really is no going back. Anything built in a 'traditional' style now can't help but look like a pastiche without any integrity of its own.
Sad times, not only for architecture but for all the arts. Perhaps only literature still has any value. The visual arts (maybe cinema excepted as it's so new) are up their own backsides. 'Classical' composers only write music that will interest other composers. Artists only make art for other artists. Throughout history artists have made art for non-artists. No longer. Now we get a dirty bed and we're told that it's a masterpiece. No, it's a dirty bed.
We're still waiting for a revival of anything other than crappy Modernism. It's what we've had since the 1930s and shows no sign of leaving. I doubt we'll ever get a general Neoclassical or Gothic revival now. Modernism drew a line in the sand and crossed the Rubicon as far as that was concerned. There really is no going back. Anything built in a 'traditional' style now can't help but look like a pastiche without any integrity of its own.
Sad times, not only for architecture but for all the arts. Perhaps only literature still has any value. The visual arts (maybe cinema excepted as it's so new) are up their own backsides. 'Classical' composers only write music that will interest other composers. Artists only make art for other artists. Throughout history artists have made art for non-artists. No longer. Now we get a dirty bed and we're told that it's a masterpiece. No, it's a dirty bed.
Tell that to Tate Modern. Lot of artists in the world if that's who's going.
You have a bias against modern creativity it seems which appears to be skewing your perception of logic.
I would think that the look of a hospital is important in that it helps to create a pleasant ambience.
Wouldn't be very nice going to an ugly or badly designed hospital.
Free parking at an appointment or visiting would be far better
'Modern creativity', lol. Like a dirty bed or a painting done with the excrement of an elephant?
Well, what period are you including in modernism? Picasso is a modern artiste - perhaps that is a little de trop for you even? Or a little Rothko? Or Kandinsky? Or Moore? Or Warhol? Or de Kooning? Or Hockney? Or Freud? etc etc ad nauseum
There's good and bad in every era. Any notion that our age or any other age has a monopoly on quality or a different shit/great ratio than what has gone before is embarrassing in it's stupidity.
Modern civic architecture is lovely imo - flowing lines, attractive shapes etc
The worst of modern architecture is contemporary housing - hideous Barratt style lego boxes, with pretentious attempts at looking authentically Georgian or whatever. + all crammed into tiny plots with practically no garden.
Anyone else a bit fed up with the substandard quality of modern buildings?
I thought that they may have learnt following the heinously ugly tower blocks of the 60's.
Yet in my local town and in London they seem intent on building endless buildings which are only marginally better than the ones that came before.
Discuss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nope. Dalston in London are flinging up hideous Barratts tower blocks like no tommorow, which look no different to the sh!te put up in the Sixties and Seventies. Solves a housing shortage though I suppose, even though I thought we'd learnt that this type of housing does nobody any good long term.
Well, what period are you including in modernism? Picasso is a modern artiste - perhaps that is a little de trop for you even? Or a little Rothko? Or Kandinsky? Or Moore? Or Warhol? Or de Kooning? Or Hockney? Or Freud? etc etc ad nauseum
There's good and bad in every era. Any notion that our age or any other age has a monopoly on quality or a different shit/great ratio than what has gone before is embarrassing in it's stupidity.
There's not a single artistic figure who has emerged over the last 70 years who can be compared with Titian, Turner, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Degas, Monet, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Comments
You're wrong. There's a very high profile terrace been recently built in London that references traditional models without being a dull as tits facsimile. And it's social housing.
Get wit the program, daddio.
Well where's the link or name then you muppet, do you think I have my finger on every single social housing project in London?
Some of those town houses looked perfectly fine to me. In fact, I want the one with those huge bay windows!
Do you have a link please so that we can see what they're like? Thanks.
There's something a bit fake and Disneyland about them, but if people like that style in their cities, who are we to argue?
Some are nice, some are horrible.
Every now and again traditional has a revival, personally I like Georgian and mock Tudor, but it comes and goes out of fashion.
I love this one. Yes I agree, they could probably do more stone carving in concrete or something these days, but it feels less honest somehow.
People don't learn crafts anymore.
With your post count being what it is could I respectfully suggest you go for quality over quantity?
Everyone's a critic
I despise Modernist architecture on the whole though and everything it stands for. It is an utterly moribund and failed philosophy. The idea that the past is something to be severed and discarded has wrought utter chaos on towns and cities across Europe.
We're still waiting for a revival of anything other than crappy Modernism. It's what we've had since the 1930s and shows no sign of leaving. I doubt we'll ever get a general Neoclassical or Gothic revival now. Modernism drew a line in the sand and crossed the Rubicon as far as that was concerned. There really is no going back. Anything built in a 'traditional' style now can't help but look like a pastiche without any integrity of its own.
Sad times, not only for architecture but for all the arts. Perhaps only literature still has any value. The visual arts (maybe cinema excepted as it's so new) are up their own backsides. 'Classical' composers only write music that will interest other composers. Artists only make art for other artists. Throughout history artists have made art for non-artists. No longer. Now we get a dirty bed and we're told that it's a masterpiece. No, it's a dirty bed.
Tell that to Tate Modern. Lot of artists in the world if that's who's going.
You have a bias against modern creativity it seems which appears to be skewing your perception of logic.
'Modern creativity', lol. Like a dirty bed or a painting done with the excrement of an elephant?
Free parking at an appointment or visiting would be far better
Well, what period are you including in modernism? Picasso is a modern artiste - perhaps that is a little de trop for you even? Or a little Rothko? Or Kandinsky? Or Moore? Or Warhol? Or de Kooning? Or Hockney? Or Freud? etc etc ad nauseum
There's good and bad in every era. Any notion that our age or any other age has a monopoly on quality or a different shit/great ratio than what has gone before is embarrassing in it's stupidity.
The worst of modern architecture is contemporary housing - hideous Barratt style lego boxes, with pretentious attempts at looking authentically Georgian or whatever. + all crammed into tiny plots with practically no garden.
Oi, where's the link!!!
If modernism is a tradition, then clearly it has failed.
Nope. Dalston in London are flinging up hideous Barratts tower blocks like no tommorow, which look no different to the sh!te put up in the Sixties and Seventies. Solves a housing shortage though I suppose, even though I thought we'd learnt that this type of housing does nobody any good long term.
(Just wanted to be dramatic)
And the Shard.
The Gherkin is fabulous - reminds me of the Brighton Pavilion. Awesome with a big dash of the vulgar.
There's not a single artistic figure who has emerged over the last 70 years who can be compared with Titian, Turner, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Degas, Monet, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Everyone likes The Gherkin. The fact it's so well-known shows how **** most other post-war buildings are.