3 ms·

I'm all for not trying to be a crazy Avant Garde brutalist weirdo with your buildings, but these guys seem to be fixated on an architectural style that screams

I'm all for not trying to be a crazy Avant Garde brutalist weirdo with your buildings, but these guys seem to be fixated on an architectural style that screams "pax americana" and is really rooted in a culture of imperial grandeur. I want people to go back to beautiful medieval village architecture. That is much more organic and unpretentious than the "classical" stuff they're trying to shill here.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
didgeoridoo 2y ago
This distinction is a great example of Christopher Alexander’s “selfconscious” vs. “unselfconscious” ways of building. Unselfconscious buildings slowly evolve in response to challenges faced by the inhabitants, and thus are marked by an almost organic tendency to shape to the environment. Functions emerge as innovations to solve problems at the speed of societal evolution — the mud huts of 50,000 BCE looked remarkably similar to the huts of 25,000 BCE. Selfconscious buildings have prior “intent”, requiring elaborate upfront planning to express the will of the (often singular) architect. The building isn’t just a solution to a set of problems — it’s a shape, a statement, something intended to be seen and considered, intended to evoke feelings, maybe even to make some people uncomfortable. I don’t recall if Alexander says this explicitly, but I’ve always felt that selfconscious architecture is a form of conspicuous consumption by power elite. By wasting resources to communicate messages in stone and steel, a society is saying to rivals (and to itself) how much it matters. The intent of this message is the same whether it’s the Durham Cathedral or the Louvre Pyramid. (Ironically, I’d also argue that most “modern buildings” now fall into the unselfconscious camp — cranking out block after block of orange aluminum clad five-over-ones is a well-established and reliable way of putting square meters on site. It’s just unfortunate that accidents of history and economics led to the dominance of this stark and antihuman aesthetic.)
- detourdog 2y ago
  I was just in Norfolk VA. and I saw a multi-block new development that somehow managed to be built with enough thought to look like it was plucked right out a very dense 1830 city. The feel was very much like center city Philadelphia. I was really pleased because with it which definitely fits with one aspect of this article on classical architecture. All the houses had small little nooks cranny yards and porches that were necessities in the 1830's and awesome luxuries in today's cities. The development was very true to the original design but used modern materials to look old. I would be just as happy to have seen the exact neighborhood recreated in another material such as cast concrete. I bet it would have been just as exciting and cheaper to build.
throw0101c 2y ago
> […] an architectural style that screams "pax americana" and is really rooted in a culture of imperial grandeur. It's amusing you mention America given that the author comes from Canada (and was born in the UK): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Rybczynski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Rybczynski And the style that is picture at the top of the article is the Federal style in the US, but is a variant of Georgian, which is used—yes—in grand buildings like court houses, libraries, etc, but also for townhouses and row housing: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_architecture#Gallery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_architecture#Gallery The article/architect mentions Kligerman and his creativity in blending traditional designs with the modern, and looking at his oeuvre it hardly looks "pax americana": * https://kligermanad.com https://kligermanad.com > I want people to go back to beautiful medieval village architecture. That is much more organic and unpretentious than the "classical" stuff they're trying to shill here. The author is arguing to going back to what works instead of trying to be completely original all the time: > Ignoring the past often means ignoring the good ideas of one’s immediate predecessors. In the past, copying masters was a valuable part of architectural design—Andrea Palladio copied Bramante, Inigo Jones copied Palladio, Christopher Wren copied Jones. Now copying is taboo. For example, the work of early Scandinavian modernists such as Sigurd Lewerentz and Alvar Aalto, who humanized their stripped-down modern designs with interesting handcrafted details, was ignored by later generations. Similarly, when Louis Kahn produced the sublime skylit vaults of the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, his ingenious solution was highly praised, but it was never repeated. As a result, instead of a considered evolution, modern architecture has been marked by a succession of fresh starts, some real and many false. And more than that, it is to understand the why behind a building's design and construction and the underlying theory that was used, e.g., Golden ratio: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-0XJpPnlrA&t=3m13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-0XJpPnlrA&t=3m13s Even people who try build in a certain style mess things up because they don't understand the details that are necessary for things to work properly: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUUpj2Du8wY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUUpj2Du8wY
- CuriouslyC 2y ago
  I understand that imperialist architecture has been co-opted throughout history to evoke a connection with Rome and project a legitimacy of power and order. Regardless of the origination of the architectural style and the author's nationality, it is choosing a specific "functional" architecture from a plethora of options because it projects a message which is strongly associated with the dominant imperial power. Maybe the author likes that style because it subconsciously makes them feel safe and protected by the power of the empire in an uncertain and rapidly changing world, that would track with conservative appeal for a lot of folks.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

didgeoridoo 2y ago

This distinction is a great example of Christopher Alexander’s “selfconscious” vs. “unselfconscious” ways of building. Unselfconscious buildings slowly evolve in response to challenges faced by the inhabitants, and thus are marked by an almost organic tendency to shape to the environment. Functions emerge as innovations to solve problems at the speed of societal evolution — the mud huts of 50,000 BCE looked remarkably similar to the huts of 25,000 BCE. Selfconscious buildings have prior “intent”, requiring elaborate upfront planning to express the will of the (often singular) architect. The building isn’t just a solution to a set of problems — it’s a shape, a statement, something intended to be seen and considered, intended to evoke feelings, maybe even to make some people uncomfortable. I don’t recall if Alexander says this explicitly, but I’ve always felt that selfconscious architecture is a form of conspicuous consumption by power elite. By wasting resources to communicate messages in stone and steel, a society is saying to rivals (and to itself) how much it matters. The intent of this message is the same whether it’s the Durham Cathedral or the Louvre Pyramid. (Ironically, I’d also argue that most “modern buildings” now fall into the unselfconscious camp — cranking out block after block of orange aluminum clad five-over-ones is a well-established and reliable way of putting square meters on site. It’s just unfortunate that accidents of history and economics led to the dominance of this stark and antihuman aesthetic.)

detourdog 2y ago
I was just in Norfolk VA. and I saw a multi-block new development that somehow managed to be built with enough thought to look like it was plucked right out a very dense 1830 city. The feel was very much like center city Philadelphia. I was really pleased because with it which definitely fits with one aspect of this article on classical architecture. All the houses had small little nooks cranny yards and porches that were necessities in the 1830's and awesome luxuries in today's cities. The development was very true to the original design but used modern materials to look old. I would be just as happy to have seen the exact neighborhood recreated in another material such as cast concrete. I bet it would have been just as exciting and cheaper to build.

throw0101c 2y ago

> […] an architectural style that screams "pax americana" and is really rooted in a culture of imperial grandeur. It's amusing you mention America given that the author comes from Canada (and was born in the UK): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Rybczynski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Rybczynski And the style that is picture at the top of the article is the Federal style in the US, but is a variant of Georgian, which is used—yes—in grand buildings like court houses, libraries, etc, but also for townhouses and row housing: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_architecture#Gallery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_architecture#Gallery The article/architect mentions Kligerman and his creativity in blending traditional designs with the modern, and looking at his oeuvre it hardly looks "pax americana": * https://kligermanad.com https://kligermanad.com > I want people to go back to beautiful medieval village architecture. That is much more organic and unpretentious than the "classical" stuff they're trying to shill here. The author is arguing to going back to what works instead of trying to be completely original all the time: > Ignoring the past often means ignoring the good ideas of one’s immediate predecessors. In the past, copying masters was a valuable part of architectural design—Andrea Palladio copied Bramante, Inigo Jones copied Palladio, Christopher Wren copied Jones. Now copying is taboo. For example, the work of early Scandinavian modernists such as Sigurd Lewerentz and Alvar Aalto, who humanized their stripped-down modern designs with interesting handcrafted details, was ignored by later generations. Similarly, when Louis Kahn produced the sublime skylit vaults of the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, his ingenious solution was highly praised, but it was never repeated. As a result, instead of a considered evolution, modern architecture has been marked by a succession of fresh starts, some real and many false. And more than that, it is to understand the why behind a building's design and construction and the underlying theory that was used, e.g., Golden ratio: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-0XJpPnlrA&t=3m13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-0XJpPnlrA&t=3m13s Even people who try build in a certain style mess things up because they don't understand the details that are necessary for things to work properly: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUUpj2Du8wY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUUpj2Du8wY

CuriouslyC 2y ago
I understand that imperialist architecture has been co-opted throughout history to evoke a connection with Rome and project a legitimacy of power and order. Regardless of the origination of the architectural style and the author's nationality, it is choosing a specific "functional" architecture from a plethora of options because it projects a message which is strongly associated with the dominant imperial power. Maybe the author likes that style because it subconsciously makes them feel safe and protected by the power of the empire in an uncertain and rapidly changing world, that would track with conservative appeal for a lot of folks.