Courthouse & Modernity

[KeesW]

The perspective of the courthouse reminded me of what appears to be an American phenomena in Architecture - namely a preoccupation with 19th century (or earlier) design. I've been looking in vain for archicad examples that reflect modernity of the 20th, let alone the 21st century. Are my perceptions mistaken? What was so great about the past that architects constantly need to emulate it?

KeesW

[Dwight]

I sympathize with your frustration. Why can't we do modern things instead of sheds with gewgaws on the front from the "Make-Any-Warehouse-Look-Like-A-Greek-Temple catalog?

The answer:

These familiar pseudo-historic elements make the client comfortable after he gets off the phone with Prince Charles.

Alabama and the SouthEast part of America, excluding Miami if you believe CSI, is mainly Neo-Colonial in style. [Never been there so i stand to be corrected.]

[Anonymous]

Neo-Colonial?

Why can't we do modern things instead of sheds with gewgaws on the front from the "Make-Any-Warehouse-Look-Like-A-Greek-Temple catalog?

Yes, lets add some store front glass, and some stainless steel panels to the facade.

[gpowless]

In examining newer buildings, I've long considered that most architects take the easy way and copy styles and details from other sources rather than looking for invention. Given the fact that Architectural History is an vital aspect of the academic curriculum it stands to reason that most architects produce building designs that belong in the dark ages. They seek to reproduce the "look" without considering the reasons behind it.

Modern designs tend to completely throw out any convention and often turn into architectural aberrations, rather than into masterpieces. They become an engineering nightmare, expensive and difficult to master. They often serve no interest (other than holding some artistic value) for occupants and users.

There was a time where Architects were considered the "masters of building design". I don't often see that any more in our profession any more. Instead of drawing on the environment, nature, function, material, texture and practical movement of human beings, they depend on their training to produce replicas of the masters they studied. In this case I do believe that those who graduated from the bottom of their class have more potential for invention than those who graduated in the top.....

Just my thoughts.......

[Dwight]

Colyer-Lloyd wrote:
Neo-Colonial?

Why can't we do modern things instead of sheds with gewgaws on the front from the "Make-Any-Warehouse-Look-Like-A-Greek-Temple catalog?

Yes, lets add some store front glass, and some stainless steel panels to the facade.

Don't be offended.
I'm speaking generically.
And half-joking.
But the trinkets-on-a-warehouse theme is rampant in our profession.

[Anonymous]

Now I understand.

The thing is, we specialize in pre-1900 historical restoration. Our style of architecture doesn't deal much with the modern architecture of today. I wouldn't really call it copying, maybe just recreating.

Justin

[Anonymous]

I apologize if I seem to be on edge. My wife delivered our first child yesterday morning. A precious baby girl. So I hope I didn't offend anyone.

Justin

[gpowless]

What were the revival styles but mere copies of the originals...any many of those things we call originals were just copies of something else?

Innovation is just taking something already invented and putting it to a new use. That really isn't creative, nor original. Invention on the other hand, while it may involve using existing means is creating something completely new on the basis of pure creativity.

It is no wonder that our housing and our commercial districts are cookie-cutter like. There has been no real invention in architecture for quite some time.

I do believe that Douglas Cardinal has come close though.......

[Djordje]

Colyer-Lloyd wrote:
I apologize if I seem to be on edge. My wife delivered our first child yesterday morning. A precious baby girl. So I hope I didn't offend anyone.

Justin

You are excused by all means!

Congratulations - or condolences? 😉 I am the father of a girl for the last 11 years and then some, so should know ... 😉

Hint: do NOT watch "The father of the bride" If you do, skip the remake, see original. Much better, but does not make you feel better 😉

[Anonymous]

gpowless wrote:
What were the revival styles but mere copies of the originals...any many of those things we call originals were just copies of something else?

Yes. The greek stone temples were copies of the wooden forms that preceded them. The modillions represent the wood rafter tails and so on...

Throughout history (and presumably before that) buildings have been fashioned after what has come before. There is nothing wrong with copying what works and there is nothing inherently better in being "new", "different" or "innovative".

Innovation is properly a response to changing needs (which may include fashions) and the availability of new methods and materials, not an excuse for an expression of Egotecture.