| Author | Message | ||
     Sami |
Point taken, but: ''Before entering the White House, Trump was for nearly 50 years a real estate tycoon not noted for using the classical style in his residential and commercial buildings, favouring standard steel-and-glass modernism instead.'' True, Trump towers aren't particularly the epitome of classical style architecture. But he has appointed people who are going to fashion Federal buildings according to classical design. Maybe he has had a change of taste? | ||
| Aesquire |
Steel & glass are trendy! ( a bit old, now, but the definition of modern ) Far better than Soviet concrete. Myself, Jetsons! Aka retro modern. Curving airport roofs. Scandanavian furniture. That's my interior choice. Or better yet, Art Deco! Fake Grecian columns are for banks to hint they are permanent. | ||
| H0gwash |
If you consider the Brutalist J Edgar Hoover FBI building in DC, slapping columns and pediments on it won't make it beautiful. But yes! It can be done! | ||
| Sami |
Soviet concrete, soul crushing to the max:  God save us from bad architecture! Could bad buildings damage your mental health? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/16/bad-buildings-damage-mental-health-research-anxiety-depression Why You Hate Contemporary Architecture https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-contemporary-architecture | ||
| H0gwash |
IMHO modern style in federal buildings is more about cost savings than promoting "other than Greek/Roman political philosophies" But hey, what's a few hundred million dollars nowadays, why, that's like less than 1/1000 of a trillion. (Message edited by h0gwash on April 17, 2020) | ||
| Sami |
I doubt that modern style architecture is any cheaper than classical ones. Classical architecture has withstood the test of time (and taste). It is pleasing to the eye, and to the wallet. What is the general cost difference between building a modern and conventional home? https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-cost-dif ference-between-building-a-modern-and-conventional -home?share=1 | ||
| H0gwash |
The problem is not the style, it is the program, the massing of federal architectural programs. That kind of massing did not exist in Greece or Rome, which is why dressing them up in the architectural equivalent of togas looks odd. If I was tasked with solving this problem or having to marry a woman, I would look at early skyscraper design, to mimic the massing problem. They became stone clad skyscrapers which were called temples of commerce, they just didn't look quite like Greek or Roman temples. There are some interesting post-modernist skyscrapers, and the more conservative of them might be used as examples. | ||
| H0gwash |
Federal buildings are generally much bigger and built very differently than houses, especially nowadays. | ||
| Sami |
Cost is only one part of the equation. What also has to be taken into account is beauty. People crave beauty, something many modern buildings lack. People are happier when surrounded by beautiful things. Architecture lacking in beauty makes people depressed, see previous articles. | ||
| H0gwash |
Beauty isn't cheap. | ||
| Sami |
Beauty is timeless. | ||
| H0gwash |
I'll agree with you there, but timeless beauty is even more expensive, But who needs medicare or social security anyway when you've got timeless beauty. | ||
| H0gwash |
I'll agree democrats like to tax and spend but Trump just seems to spend. | ||
| H0gwash |
Apologies if I am sounding bitter, I think I'll have a beer. | ||
| Sami |
Who needs beauty when you have social security?  Do you really want to live in a world without beauty? I know just the right place for you, it begins with 'C' and ends with 'ommunism'. Joking aside, beauty is intertwined with happiness. More beauty, more happiness. The pursuit of happiness, anyone? | ||
| Sami |
Gerard, cheers. No need to apologise. | ||
| Sami |
''I'll agree democrats like to tax and spend but Trump just seems to spend.'' Put it in perspective, though. Trump hasn't waged any wars. Wars are very expensive. Putin said (paraphrasing), ''If Hillary was elected, the US would have waged war with Russia''. Trump, despite all his faults, has kept the US out of war. That in itself is a major cost saving. Don't underestimate the cost of war. One of Trump's election promises was that he wouldn't be a war president. He has kept that promise to this day. | ||
| Court |
Like most the content on these forums . . . . Putin never said that . The quote was by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a flamboyant veteran lawmaker known for his fiery rhetoric. In his words . . . .
I generally view the accuracy of the Badweb religious and climate change discussions at about 38% accuracy. I can flunk my students. . . But you guys I just have to laugh at and keep in context. :-) | ||
| H0gwash |
Modern architecture was good enough for all the previous presidents who established medicare and social security, and it wasn't called Communism back then. | ||
| Sami |
Court, thank you for the correction. It seems that I misattributed the paraphrase to Putin. You are right that it was not Putin, but Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q Trump did give the impression back in 2016 that electing Hillary would ensue war: Trump warns of World War III if Clinton is elected https://cnnphilippines.com/world/2016/10/26/donald -trump-warns-of-world-war-iii-if-hillary-clinton-i s-elected.html Is Trump, dare I say, Putin's puppet? The plot thickens  (Message edited by Sami on April 17, 2020) | ||
| Sami |
''Modern architecture was good enough for all the previous presidents who established medicare and social security, and it wasn't called Communism back then.'' You're right, it was called Marxism back then. /joking | ||
| H0gwash |
I'll agree that you're a joker. | ||
| Sami |
Life is a divine comedy, to paraphrase Dante. Comedy is needed in life, without it life will be dissolute. Comedy speaks truth to power. | ||
| H0gwash |
I was referring to the joker in Batman. | ||
| Sami |
The joker is a sad and nihilistic character. Life is meaningful and beautiful, spending it on nihilistic pursuits is a waste of time. Here's an interesting interview on the history of modern architecture. 124: What the Bleep Happened to Architecture? — Dr. E. Michael Jones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPteFX_xuUU Architecture designed in classical and traditional styles is making a comeback. The soul-crushing modern buildings made from steel, glass and concrete are beginning to fall out of favour. Though this author from the Atlantic believes that Trump's decision to make classical architecture is ''bizarre'' and ''draconian'': Trump’s Bizarre Plan to Make Architecture Classical Again https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/ trumps-plan-make-architecture-classical-again/6062 86/ | ||
| H0gwash |
IMHO the presence of good scale and detail are more indicative of pleasing architectural design than style. Reverting to Roman and Greek architecture is not going to make us "morally superior." Romans and Greeks were arguably kinkier than modern people. There are definitely some interesting sex stories behind modern architects including Frank Lloyd Wright, but the strength and relevance of their work is independent of their kink, which is why elements of their architecture are still relevant. | ||
| H0gwash |
Modern architecture ultimately distinguishes itself from classical architecture in architectural form, rather than politics. French designer Le Corbusier summarized this nicely in his essays "Towards a New Architecture" which basically responds formally to advances in technology and social patterns. His summary of 5 pieces of new architecture were use of columns, (piloti), curtain wall, ribbon windows (and a shift favoring landscape orientation over portrait oriented windows), free plan, and roof terrace.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier%27s_Five_Points_of_Architecture | ||
| H0gwash |
This departure from classical architecture was severe, building like this had never been built before. Concrete was a new material at the time and many of his early buildings cracked because there was no concept of an architectural joint which was well resolved in classical architecture. Also they didn't use rebar well in 1930 when Corb's first buildings were built and they didn't waterproof the concrete so it leaked and rusted the rebar which then spalled the concrete. So the classical approach certainly had some advantages over the earliest modern construction, but later architects such as Lou Kahn resolved thsese issues in a distinctly non classical manner. Kahn's Salk Institute in La Jolla does not look classical at all, for example. | ||
| Sami |
Gerard, good scale and detail are important. The video I linked to mentions this as well. Scale and detail in buildings should be pleasing, not out of proportion. The example Jones gives is that proportion of buildings should ideally resemble the proportion of the human face. The human face is proportional, imagine if your eyes were ten inches apart which would make you look disproportional. Just as the features of the face (eyes, nose, ears, mouth, etc.) are proportional to each other, so too should the features of buildings be proportional. A building out of proportion looks unappealing, example:  I'm not a big fan of building on piloti. It distances people from the ground, isolating them from the Earth so to speak. The same with roof terrace, it isolates people from their neighbours and nature. Modern architecture has a 'prison' fibe to it. | ||
| H0gwash |
The post modernists took things further. The Brutaliststs (J Edgar Hoover FBI building), and the Deconstructivists (Rotondi's SF Federal Building), pushed the comfort zone further. Trump has a point with these styles as they are not as popular IMHO with the general public as many of the other styles. But beyond their stylishly offensive facades they are similarly laid out with Corb's "open planning." |
