4 ms·

It started life as a style called internationalist. It is brought to you by the same people that champion open plan offices. They are cheaper to build than trad

by cam_l 8y ago

It started life as a style called internationalist. It is brought to you by the same people that champion open plan offices. They are cheaper to build than traditional style buildings, by an order of magnitude. But critically allow for maximising flexible floor space for optimum returns. Architects don't really have much power in the design of these kind of buildings beyond window dressing. Edit. Also, refer to the author's blog for what happens when contemporary architects try to do traditional buildings. The fact is, each historical style of building existed in a larger process of building craft and materials and use. Without this process, the architecture becomes mere pastiche, stuck on, and shoehorned in. Frankensteined architecture.

deogeo 8y ago
> They are cheaper to build than traditional style buildings, by an order of magnitude. Are they? According to [1,2 (especially last post)] (better sources welcome) traditional style is cheaper, and according to [3], there's bias against traditional architecture. Besides, it's the "window dressing", that architects supposedly have power over, that's the ugliest part of modern architecture. Edit: As seen in https://www.city-journal.org/html/can-we-still-build-real-architecture-13553.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/can-we-still-build-real-ar..., 'traditional' architecture is rarely more complicated than a simple rectangular cuboid - it's the 'window dressing' that gives it charm. [1] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-cost-difference-between-building-a-modern-and-conventional-home https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-cost-difference-be... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/architecture/comments/ae2mcs/building_costs_of_traditional_architecture_vs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/architecture/comments/ae2mcs/buildi... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/05/architecture-modernism-vs-traditionalism-olympics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/05/archit...
- cam_l 8y ago
  >Are they? Yes, they can be.. providing you are comparing apples with apples. According to [0]. But that is not really satisfying without numbers is it? So lets take the first example linked in your reddit post. The Potsdamer Palace. It is the most interesting example as they went to some effort [1] to reconstruct the facade as closely to the original design as possible, including the brickwork skin and hand finished stonework. Of course internally it is all concrete and steel, but you would never know that from looking at it. Built for €120m [2], 35,000sqm GFA, 19,000sqm utilities (a wopping 35%) and only 390 offices. About €2500/sqm for the construction price, but at about €200,000 per office. A standard low rise office in germany seems to be close to the €1500/sqm range. But you would expect more like 20-25% utilities floor area and lets say 1 person/10sqm (ie. open plan office seat) for occupation. So for the same size office built with standard construction techniques, this floor area would be about €70m including utilities, but only €15,000 per office. (if you calculate out the €200k /office of the example with the 3500 offices of the standard office, that is a €1,076m price, ie. at least an order of magnitude). Ok, so we are not talking about a typical office building here. It is also very significant that the examples chosen were all institutional, rather than commercial ie.the symbol was more important than the return. The point is that the original construction techniques required significant additional human labour, additional area for structure, but also light, servicing, and ventilation, and additional costly materials. All with a reduced usable internal floor area. But sure, just stick something on the façade and call it a day right? But, if you already have a working façade system which gives you more saleable floor area, as a developer, you would sack the architect that proposes something else. So yeah, we have some power over the façade, but not that much. So I guess the resistance to 'traditional' is mostly in the ''s. But also in that contemporary architects often care about process and user experience over formal traditions. The other funny thing about this argument, is that the very same objections were held towards modern architecture in the time of the original construction of the Potsdamer. It was broadly in the style of the late Roccoco (in particular, a Prussian variant), which the Neo-classicists thought was ugly and modern. The Neo-classicists looked back, copying the original renaissance classicists of course, who were copying the styles of the ancient Romans, who had migrated a good deal from the ancient Egyptians via the Greeks. Taste is an old argument. [0] me, working in the industry for 20yrs. [1] https://www.landtag.brandenburg.de/en/parliament_building/842986 https://www.landtag.brandenburg.de/en/parliament_building/84... [2] https://www.landtag.brandenburg.de/media_fast/5701/Schriftenreihe_1_2014_englisch.pdf https://www.landtag.brandenburg.de/media_fast/5701/Schriften...
  - deogeo 8y ago
    I don't follow - you say the Potsdamer Palace cost €2500/sqm, while a standard office is €1500/sqm. And the higher cost/office comes mostly from the smaller offices in newer buildings? Does the traditional facade somehow prevent smaller offices? Though I have to say, it would be refreshing to hear architects defend their work with "Yes it's ugly but it's cheap" instead of whatever claims of artistic vision we currently get. > which the Neo-classicists thought was ugly and modern According to polls, pretty much everyone dislikes modern architecture, not just members of traditionalist architectural schools.
    - cam_l 8y ago
      >Does the traditional facade somehow prevent smaller offices? Well, yes. Light, servicing, ventilation. A modern floor plate is up to 40m usable depth. A historic floor plate 8-10m usable depth, and only half of that with a window. >Neo-classicists Read some history from wikipedia.. >The term "Neoclassical" was not invented until the mid-19th century, and at the time the style was described by such terms as "the true style", "reformed" and "revival"; what was regarded as being revived varying considerably. The point was, this is just about people, as they always did, preferring the historicity, the status, the symbols of earlier times (and lets be honest, wealth). It has always been the same argument. Which traditional style are you going to pick? the cave or the tree house?
      - deogeo 8y ago
        > A modern floor plate is up to 40m usable depth. A historic floor plate 8-10m usable depth, and only half of that with a window. Sorry, you'll have to explain more. Why is a historic floor plate smaller? And why does a window on the facade make it smaller still? How does the facade affect the floor plate?
        cam_l 8y ago
        >Sorry, you'll have to explain more. Like all things, Architecture is a rabbit hole. Every decision has a knock on effect. The floor plate depth is directly related to the amount of light and heat required. The ceiling heights need to be taller to allow ventilation (not feeling too stuffy). The windows need to be taller to let enough light and heat in, the taller the windows the more structure required between them to function (without steel of course). The unobstructed open area of the floor plate is limited to around 6m because you are using timber or stone arches to support the upper floor or roof. And sure, you can paste on a façade and use modern structure and servicing to get you halfway there, but then all of a sudden, the proportions of you Neoclassical, revivalist building are all out of whack. The inside of your building (arguably the part that matters to the inhabitants) still looks like a modern office, with a paper thin layer of stone stuck to the front obscuring your view. That, to be honest, is how we got McMansions.

by cam_l 8y ago

deogeo 8y ago

> They are cheaper to build than traditional style buildings, by an order of magnitude. Are they? According to [1,2 (especially last post)] (better sources welcome) traditional style is cheaper, and according to [3], there's bias against traditional architecture. Besides, it's the "window dressing", that architects supposedly have power over, that's the ugliest part of modern architecture. Edit: As seen in https://www.city-journal.org/html/can-we-still-build-real-architecture-13553.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/can-we-still-build-real-ar..., 'traditional' architecture is rarely more complicated than a simple rectangular cuboid - it's the 'window dressing' that gives it charm. [1] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-cost-difference-between-building-a-modern-and-conventional-home https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-cost-difference-be... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/architecture/comments/ae2mcs/building_costs_of_traditional_architecture_vs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/architecture/comments/ae2mcs/buildi... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/05/architecture-modernism-vs-traditionalism-olympics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/05/archit...

cam_l 8y ago
>Are they? Yes, they can be.. providing you are comparing apples with apples. According to [0]. But that is not really satisfying without numbers is it? So lets take the first example linked in your reddit post. The Potsdamer Palace. It is the most interesting example as they went to some effort [1] to reconstruct the facade as closely to the original design as possible, including the brickwork skin and hand finished stonework. Of course internally it is all concrete and steel, but you would never know that from looking at it. Built for €120m [2], 35,000sqm GFA, 19,000sqm utilities (a wopping 35%) and only 390 offices. About €2500/sqm for the construction price, but at about €200,000 per office. A standard low rise office in germany seems to be close to the €1500/sqm range. But you would expect more like 20-25% utilities floor area and lets say 1 person/10sqm (ie. open plan office seat) for occupation. So for the same size office built with standard construction techniques, this floor area would be about €70m including utilities, but only €15,000 per office. (if you calculate out the €200k /office of the example with the 3500 offices of the standard office, that is a €1,076m price, ie. at least an order of magnitude). Ok, so we are not talking about a typical office building here. It is also very significant that the examples chosen were all institutional, rather than commercial ie.the symbol was more important than the return. The point is that the original construction techniques required significant additional human labour, additional area for structure, but also light, servicing, and ventilation, and additional costly materials. All with a reduced usable internal floor area. But sure, just stick something on the façade and call it a day right? But, if you already have a working façade system which gives you more saleable floor area, as a developer, you would sack the architect that proposes something else. So yeah, we have some power over the façade, but not that much. So I guess the resistance to 'traditional' is mostly in the ''s. But also in that contemporary architects often care about process and user experience over formal traditions. The other funny thing about this argument, is that the very same objections were held towards modern architecture in the time of the original construction of the Potsdamer. It was broadly in the style of the late Roccoco (in particular, a Prussian variant), which the Neo-classicists thought was ugly and modern. The Neo-classicists looked back, copying the original renaissance classicists of course, who were copying the styles of the ancient Romans, who had migrated a good deal from the ancient Egyptians via the Greeks. Taste is an old argument. [0] me, working in the industry for 20yrs. [1] https://www.landtag.brandenburg.de/en/parliament_building/842986 https://www.landtag.brandenburg.de/en/parliament_building/84... [2] https://www.landtag.brandenburg.de/media_fast/5701/Schriftenreihe_1_2014_englisch.pdf https://www.landtag.brandenburg.de/media_fast/5701/Schriften...
- deogeo 8y ago
  I don't follow - you say the Potsdamer Palace cost €2500/sqm, while a standard office is €1500/sqm. And the higher cost/office comes mostly from the smaller offices in newer buildings? Does the traditional facade somehow prevent smaller offices? Though I have to say, it would be refreshing to hear architects defend their work with "Yes it's ugly but it's cheap" instead of whatever claims of artistic vision we currently get. > which the Neo-classicists thought was ugly and modern According to polls, pretty much everyone dislikes modern architecture, not just members of traditionalist architectural schools.
  - cam_l 8y ago
    >Does the traditional facade somehow prevent smaller offices? Well, yes. Light, servicing, ventilation. A modern floor plate is up to 40m usable depth. A historic floor plate 8-10m usable depth, and only half of that with a window. >Neo-classicists Read some history from wikipedia.. >The term "Neoclassical" was not invented until the mid-19th century, and at the time the style was described by such terms as "the true style", "reformed" and "revival"; what was regarded as being revived varying considerably. The point was, this is just about people, as they always did, preferring the historicity, the status, the symbols of earlier times (and lets be honest, wealth). It has always been the same argument. Which traditional style are you going to pick? the cave or the tree house?
    - deogeo 8y ago
      > A modern floor plate is up to 40m usable depth. A historic floor plate 8-10m usable depth, and only half of that with a window. Sorry, you'll have to explain more. Why is a historic floor plate smaller? And why does a window on the facade make it smaller still? How does the facade affect the floor plate?
      - cam_l 8y ago
        >Sorry, you'll have to explain more. Like all things, Architecture is a rabbit hole. Every decision has a knock on effect. The floor plate depth is directly related to the amount of light and heat required. The ceiling heights need to be taller to allow ventilation (not feeling too stuffy). The windows need to be taller to let enough light and heat in, the taller the windows the more structure required between them to function (without steel of course). The unobstructed open area of the floor plate is limited to around 6m because you are using timber or stone arches to support the upper floor or roof. And sure, you can paste on a façade and use modern structure and servicing to get you halfway there, but then all of a sudden, the proportions of you Neoclassical, revivalist building are all out of whack. The inside of your building (arguably the part that matters to the inhabitants) still looks like a modern office, with a paper thin layer of stone stuck to the front obscuring your view. That, to be honest, is how we got McMansions.