Architecture

Holy fucking double post batman. Also...was that stuff really worth posting?

Yes it was. Most architecture done in the modern style is uninspired and lacking the human element. When I look at a building I like to see materials like brick and stone, materials of strength and permanence. I also like to see elements from the thousands of year old architectural tradition the west has. To abandon it as many architectures have done is a travesty. I can assure you that many of the buildings that I posted will have significantly longer lives than most of the buildings done in the "modern" that have been posted.
 
So you dislike the International Style or just modernist architecture in general?
The International Style ... IMHO there was a dark and terrible time in architekture ... starting in the 1930 and going on up untill the 1980ies ... before and after is all fine by me (with a lot of examples where this rule doesn?t aply... but just generally speaking). I hate the whole minimalist and functional approach. I think it sucks all the life from a town and it sucked the Aesthetics out of architecure. It?s almost like with cars (and the timeline matches too - in Europe at least). After WW2 there was the same minimalist approach to car design. Look at the boring boxes they sold as cars 1960-1980. The Morris Marina is a prime example of that minimalist boredom.
 
Yes it was. Most architecture done in the modern style is uninspired and lacking the human element. When I look at a building I like to see materials like brick and stone, materials of strength and permanence. I also like to see elements from the thousands of year old architectural tradition the west has. To abandon it as many architectures have done is a travesty. I can assure you that many of the buildings that I posted will have significantly longer lives than most of the buildings done in the "modern" that have been posted.

None of that makes the buildings you posted interesting, or something you don't see everywhere.
 
I tend to agree with you if a city consists entirely of International Style buildings, however as part of the tapestry of a modern city I think the modernist structure is a beautiful addition. Take the public library in Des Moines, Iowa designed by David Chipperfield; if the city consisted of only similar buildings the city would appear cold, however if the style is used sparingly I feel it can add a lot of "flair" to a city scape.

Daytime:
library2.jpg


nighttime:
OkatechDesMoinesLibraryNight.bmp


I think you might be blaming Bauhaus for the shortcomings in materials available to architects in the 1930s, the technology didn't always meet their vision. I will give you one thing about the International Style, it gave us the abomination that is the architecture of Frank Gehry even though he falls a bit off of the International Style bandwagon. I don't love everything about the International Style by any means, but I feel the principles of minimalism is viable.

Also the Marina came almost 40 years after the Bauhaus was disbanded by the Nazi's. I think a better car to refer to as modernist is the VW Beetle or Porsche Type 64. I feel car design was impacted more by the oil embargo and that wound was worse than that of what could be inflicted by any Architectural style.

Personally, I don't really have an architectural style I like better or less than any other style. If I were forced to choose, I would probably pick Gothic, Georgian, and Art Deco the only style I dislike is Deconstructivism.

I like the blend of glass and steel that has developed out the International Style, I think if the Bauhaus was around today instead of the 1930s you would like it more. I love the glass curtain element as it exists in my own city.

Like our city hall which is commonly referred to as the ice cube.
Day121.jpg


The BOk center designed by Cesar Pelli (Architect of the Petronas Towers in KL)
BOK_center_main.jpg


2926_bok_center_final_d.jpg


I rambled a bit, but what I guess it boils down to is the fact that I like where the Bauhaus has taken us. Some of my favorite modern buildings are rooted in designs fostered at the Bauhaus.
 
Last edited:
I think you might be blaming Bauhaus for the shortcomings in materials available to architects in the 1930s, the technology didn't always meet their vision.
You might have hit the Nail there ... when I think of Bauhaus ... I think of monotone concrete blocks ... with the Pipes inside visible on display.
Personally, I don't really have an architectural style I like better or less than any other style. If I were forced to choose, I would probably pick Gothic, Georgian, and Art Deco the only style I dislike is Deconstructivism.
I don?t have anything I prefer either, but for me Bauhaus always summed up what I didn?t like about architekture. Especially when I look around in my hometown. The cool stuff is baroque or gothic ... the soulless appartmentbuildings are Bauhaus ...
Let me illustrate that for you ... (I couldn?t actually find any of the latter online as pix ... the cool stuff will have to do :mrgreen:)

PrinzipalmarktMuensterNacht.JPG


Erbdrostenhof.jpg


MuensterCastleAtNight.jpg


MuensterRathaus2422.jpg
 
Last edited:
So I guess you live in M?nster?
 
People make fun of Salt Lake City for being a small western city. But do you have a library that looks like this?

we don't even have a BUILDING that looks this awesome over here, let alone a library (it seems germans just don't like libraries -.- our library is pretty much nonexistant compared to that) :cry:
 
Blind: Have you seen the Kansas City Library?

summer09_ten_kansas_city_library.jpg


9396769_c158a2c099.jpg
 
It is terribly ugly.
 
Yes it was. Most architecture done in the modern style is uninspired and lacking the human element. When I look at a building I like to see materials like brick and stone, materials of strength and permanence. I also like to see elements from the thousands of year old architectural tradition the west has. To abandon it as many architectures have done is a travesty. I can assure you that many of the buildings that I posted will have significantly longer lives than most of the buildings done in the "modern" that have been posted.

I'm far from a staunch modernist. Just going through architecture school will instill a bit of apprehension for it (thats all they teach essentially) But the buildings you posted are completely nondescript. Its as if they were not designed by an architect as such, but designed by architecture or the general movement of it. I see good architecture as physical manifestation of the architect himself, and the ones you posted are too generic to do this. And I can promise you they (being steel frame buildings most likely) will not be any more enduring than a typical modern structure.

For that you need...........

Beauvais-Cathedral-at-dawn.jpg

Beauvais_Cathedral_SE_exterior.jpg

Cologne_cathedral_at_dusk.jpg

DSC_4368s.jpg


The cologne cathedral even made it through he largest war in history:
2109719556_ca30da595c.jpg


St Chapelle is less well known and fairly unassuming from the exterior:
479116766zgdmmM_fs.jpg


but the inside...
Sainte_Chapelle_-_Upper_level_1.jpg



then there are the fan faults of King's College chapel
File:King%27s_college_chapel_roof_and_organ.jpg
 
Last edited:
I see good architecture as physical manifestation of the architect himself

That is one of the problems with many modern architects. They see themselves as individual artists creating works of "work" instead of buildings that need to be lived in and last for generations. The cathedrals you posted took centuries to build and we worked on by many architects, not one vision but several. They are examples of a tradition, of a group of people and not just an individual. As foe being completely nondescript, we will just have to disagree. When I look at the structures I posted I see the thousands of years of history it took to get to that point. I can see elements from 2000 years ago and elements from 100 years ago. The full breath of western civilization can be traced through the features of some of the structures I posted.
 
Last edited:
Blind: Have you seen the Kansas City Library?

summer09_ten_kansas_city_library.jpg


9396769_c158a2c099.jpg

A standard low block building with a varied height roof and some fancy vinyls or paint?

It's a cool way to dress up a boring building, but it doesn't make the building itself interesting.

In the SLC Library there are tons of little easter eggs hidden around in glass etchings. For example, if all the glass elevators line up (which is rare) you can see that together they read "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." But the lettering is only about 2-3cm tall, so you have to really look for it.
 
I wasn't comparing the two structures, merely mentioning a unique idea used in KC.
 
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very cool idea. It's a fun way to make an otherwise boring structure unique.
 
Cathedral of Christ the Light

They had the chance to do something beautiful with that site but they chose to go with a terrible uninspired design. They went with something shaped like a mitre. Sigh. It is quite unfortunate.

http://img268.imageshack.**/img268/4558/domforte6web22042493.jpg
 
Top