3 ms·
But the "neo-traditional" example you give is simply and literally just a façade. > The bulk of the buildings in El Alto are simple, unadorned brick structures
by ajcp 3y ago
But the "neo-traditional" example you give is simply and literally just a façade.
> The bulk of the buildings in El Alto are simple, unadorned brick structures; Neo-Andean structures are typically similar in underlying structure, but with the addition of very elaborate decorative facades.[1]
That's to say that it is not "new", or even architecture for that matter, but an artistic veneer over what is still traditional architecture.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Andean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Andean
- kelseyfrog 3y agoArchitecture, the art and design of buildings, can, sometimes, just be a facade. In other words, in the entire history of ever, no one has ever been right when they've called something "not architecture". It clearly fits into Alexander's pattern language in the same way that neighborhoods, walkways, form, ornamentation, and doorknobs do. We must not confuse ourselves into thinking there is good-architecture and not-architecture.
- ajcp 3y agoArchitecture as we are discussing it - that is the sum of a structures parts as it forms a coherent and intentional "whole" to express a specific school of thought - is certainly different from simply a façade, even if a façade does qualify as a defined pattern within architecture. The glasses on my face are not architecture, nor is the puddle of water outside my window. While they may have been "architected" in a sense, at a certain point we must call a rose a rose and mean a rose if we are to have an intelligible conversation.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoI really wish I had used a Scottish example so we could be arguing over what true Scottish architecture is.