Older, Traditional Architecture vs New Architecture

[mallguy]

In my view, neo-Renaissance architecture is always a win. Most all of Europe was covered in it around 1900, and more would have survived today if not for two world wars, and a lot of buildings in large Northeastern cities and many large buildings elsewhere in the US were done in that style in the 1800s and early 1900s. Prague, Paris and other cities that are chock full of that style are timeless.

I think the worst architecture was from the 1940s until the early 1980s, with a trough in the 1950s-1970s. Things have improved since then, but still, I'd pick neo-Renaissance; that style has withstood the test of time.

Bad ranch houses, malls with beige brick, churches with '70s contemporary architecture and office buildings with a lot of cement are the worst of all.

[NewTowner]

In my view, neo-Renaissance architecture is always a win. Most all of Europe was covered in it around 1900, and more would have survived today if not for two world wars, and a lot of buildings in large Northeastern cities and many large buildings elsewhere in the US were done in that style in the 1800s and early 1900s. Prague, Paris and other cities that are chock full of that style are timeless.

I think the worst architecture was from the 1940s until the early 1980s, with a trough in the 1950s-1970s. Things have improved since then, but still, I'd pick neo-Renaissance; that style has withstood the test of time.

Bad ranch houses, malls with beige brick, churches with '70s contemporary architecture and office buildings with a lot of cement are the worst of all.

[Gusterfell]

I think we would agree on the aesthetic--in fact, I know we would--but not the vocabulary. The term "Neo-Renaissance" is so surreal, almost to the point of meaninglessness--it literally means "New Rebirth," or "Reborn Rebirth." I would prefer to think of Classical buildings as, simply, Classical.

[mallguy]

by Neo-Renaissance, I think mallguy was referring to the Beaux-Arts Classicism that was popular in Europe and America in the 1890s-early 1900s.

[Unionstation13]

Modern architecture can be attractive, but almsot always ends up as an eyesore(except modern styles from 1940 and earlier. Past then, alot of the designs have lacked timelessness. Older architecture, may not be as organic, but it is timeless. Older buildings never become ugly(if maintained) and always keep a timeless look. Today we are recladding buildings that were once 'modern' and we will be doing the same with modern designs now in the next twenty years.

Older architecture has much more character, style, and history. You can never expect what to find in an older home, from historic woodwork, tiled ceilings, antique light fixtures, old brass doorknobs, stained glass, plaster work, and even marble floors, the list never ends. I have lived in an old apartment for awhile now(and before that, an old duplex)

and they are very luxuriouse, warm, and welcoming, but, I have been to some of those newer styled apartments, I go in there and its like jumping into the 70s. =/

I have also noticed how so many neo-victorian buildings are being built. Almost every infill project I see is in a neo victorian style, with alot of brick and stone. Older fashions in my opinion have become very popular lately, especially in residential.

I think its important to preserve examples of all modern styles, but alot of them, should be recladded with a nicer design.

[krazeeboi]

Does anyone have any examples of modern classics to share, i.e. contemporary structures (prefereably mid- to high-rises) done right?

[NewTowner]

The only problem with that is that "Renaissance" in the architectural sense is one specific variant of Classicism. by Neo-Renaissance, I think mallguy was referring to the Beaux-Arts Classicism that was popular in Europe and America in the 1890s-early 1900s...

While Beaux-Arts Classicism was directly inspored by Renaissance Classicism, there are many Technological, functional, and aestetic differences between the two styles. Neither of them have much in common with, for example, Greek Revivial architecture of the 1830s or Stripped Classicism of the 1930s (which, by keeping Classical proportions and forms but removing nearly all ornament, was a bridge between traditional styles and modernism). All these styles were inspired by Greek and Roman architecture, but they have only the most superficial similarity to those ancient sources.

...Like the terms "Victorian" or "Modern," "Classical" isn't an architectural style itself, but is describes a collection of loosely related styles.

[Gusterfell]

First, to say that Beaux-Arts Classicism was "inspired" by the Renaissance is misleading--these two architectural schools were part and parcel of the same Classical tradition, one bleeding directly into the other over time. They are not two different bodies of water sharing a common stream, they are all part of the same mighty river. The chain between Michelangelo and Garnier is unbroken--this is why I argue that sticking late 19th-century Classical buildings with the label "Neo-Renaissance" is silly...

[MichaelQReilly]

Does anyone have any examples of modern classics to share, i.e. contemporary structures (prefereably mid- to high-rises) done right?

[Pseudo_Work]

I tend to come down more on the side of new architecture, but only under the condition that the buildings in question are being put on currently vacant land. Pretty much any city that's worth living in right now has thrived on historic preservation (including the one that I grew up in - Providence - which wouldn't be anywhere near the fantastic place that it is without its gorgeous historic architecture), but it's also our responsibility to leave behind something for others to look at and consider as part of the urban fabric.

[FortWorthology]

Does anyone have any examples of modern classics to share, i.e. contemporary structures (prefereably mid- to high-rises) done right?

[krazeeboi]

That most certainly qualifies. I also like how the two bottom floors are designed as traditional shops, with the tower portion beginning at the third floor. This was definitely done right. Of course, the brickwork is absolutely superb.

[NewTowner]

The name of this tread is misleading.

Traditional Architecture is New Architecture when it is built today. There is no reason why our era is so different from the many that preceded it that we are ineligible for building upon tradition in innovative, exciting, and lovely ways. Many of our architects may be utterly incapable of producing beautiful tradition architecture--but this is a statement about our educational institutions and our cultural values, not about the validity of the traditions we have failed to bring into our age to our own detriment and poverty.

"Newness" is not a style--no matter how much the Modernists and their ilk want you to believe that they have harnessed the powers of contemporariness itself, their architecture is nothing more than arbitrary forms stacked together in ways that increasingly transparent in their game of timeline make-believe. Their shaky dominance over the architecture of today will end the moment we start building traditional buildings again, and at this point, we can finally get on enjoying our lives without worrying about whether or not we are futuristic (read: trendy and weird) enough to be called "cutting-edge."

[Unionstation13]

I can see victorians built again in my lifetime. In neighborhoods around where I live, new victorian houses and commercial buildings are being constructed. A wealthy area north of the city just constructed an Italianate busnise area, it looks very historical. Older styles are returning, and I think craftsmanship is aswell. Dresden is now able to reconstruct its neoclassical architecture, and many very ornate buildings are being constructed.

I can see a new victorian era ahead of us.

[intcvlcphlga]

In my opinion, Robert Stern is the perfect example of a current architect who "gets it." Listen to this quote from his website(www.ramsa.com):

"Our firm's practice is premised on the belief that the public is entitled to buildings that do not, by their very being, threaten the aesthetic and cultural values of the buildings around them. We do not believe that any one style is appropriate to every building and every place. We do believe in the continuity of tradition and strive in our work to create order out of the often chaotic present by entering into a dialogue with the past and with the spirit of the places in which we build."

He is currently the dean of architecture at Yale University and is responsible for som great works.

For example:

http://www.ramsa.com/project.aspx?id=2

http://www.ramsa.com/project.aspx?id=54

http://www.ramsa.com/project.aspx?id=174

They are throuroughly modern, yet at the same time undeniably beautiful in a very traditional sense.

[MichaelQReilly]

FYI, the dean post at Yale was empty for a while (the first choice candidates turned it down) and so the president of Yale appointed Robert A.M. Stern the dean against the wishes of the architecture faculty and students. He's actually turned out to be a pretty good dean - I sort of respect him as an academic - but, as far as his architecture is concerned, I think he's a horrible designer. His design for the new Darden Business School at UVa led to a campus-wide debate on the disconnect between the perception of Jeffersonian architecture as merely a stylistic pursuit (of which Stern is undoubtedly a master) rather than a response to the nature of its site, the needs of its users and contemporary technology.

[aboutmetro]

Name that architectural style...

[Allison Slater]

International with a little influence from gothic in the arching forms?

What I want to see most in architecture is a return to good proportions and a resurgance of intricate ornamentation.

[wolverine]

It's important to keep in mind that clients "shop around" for particular architects because they like what they do. RAM Stern should not be judged by the style of architecture he chooses, but his execution. I feel like criticism sometimes is misdirected when a new building is about to go up on a campus and people are quick to point fingers at the architect, when in fact it should be at the regents, or whatever governing body makes the decisions.

Architecture is highly preferential. You will always have clients that want a design with classical elements or one that carries contemporary forms. The only reasons such a debate exists is because many architects do not know how to correctly design the facade of the building. We have a lot of gaudy strip malls and condo blocks with chunky oversized cornices, wallpapered facades, and precast tilt-up walls because they are found stock out of manufacturers catalogue. We've essentially created a disconnect between the times where architecture focused heavily on craft and that of mass production which was so appropriate for modernism. It's almost silly that we think we can rebuild early 1900's grandeur on the assembly line. The Sanguinet is a beauty, and you can see this thing was laid brick by brick. Not surprised, because the best examples I've seen of classical, gothic, etc rising during recent times was built piece by piece.

Finally, architecture today is much about solving problems as it is aesthetics. Architects should always try to make sustainability a primary goal, while achieving good design. All buildings, regardless of "style" can meet environmental needs.

I just want to point out, that the new vs old architecture debate is somewhat of a amateurish college student-like debate that I used to hear rise up in studio and always on online forums. As you get out in the field, you begin to stop asking "why" and more "how's" and you find the conflict is nested more in design execution.