Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me put the OP another way: Don't architects CARE about the beauty and functionality of buildings in cities? And if they DO care, what have they done or what are they doing to change things?
And I would really like someone to explain the relationship between city planners and commercial/state building architects . . .
Oh please. Your idea of 'beautiful' architecture is purely subjective. There is plenty of very interesting modern architecture. Just because the current trends aren't what you like, doesn't mean they're ugly.
Right; not everyone loves the overly (IMO) ornate styles like Philadelphia city hall. And by the same token, there were plenty of ugly buildings built before WWII -- the building I work in (111 Eighth Avenue in Manhattan) is enormous and impressive, but IMO far from beautiful. And finished in 1932.
Do you really think some committee got together after WWII and purposely decided to build a bunch of ugly misproportioned garages with houses attached, interspersed with cinderblock big-box marts and styrofoam 'n stucco burger chains?
It wasn't done on purpose. It's simply what happens when a culture that values the individual over the group, loves personal mobility, prefers quantity over quality and is obsessed with making money off each other decides to build a civilization.
Wow, there's just so much to consider on this topic, more than personal taste. I myself think architecture now is far more thoughtful and rigorous than in times past. Design doesn't just happen. The distance from pencil to paper is dense with decisions. These decisions are in modern times heavily concerned with context.
For example, the Beaux Arts movement was a reaction to the ornamental asymmetry of Victorian excesses. It was classical, ordered. It derived from ancient Greek and Roman ideals. Let's consider those ideals, though. The pediment (that sort of heavy carved eave) symbolized the authority of the gods. In a more secular civilization, do we need such invocations?
This may enter into a philosophical debate about the nature of the Ideal, but it is a debate and it informs choices. Every choice causes reflection. An architect wants stylized gargoyles. We should ask, Why? She wants scroll-work with laurel leaves and Celtic knots. We'd ask, Why, are we Roman/Irish warriors? He wants to invoke pre-Columbian forms because the building is in South America. But why? We're in a modern post-Columbian age! Heck, he wants symmetry. Why? To what end for this building does the design pursue symmetry?
Thoughtful design mirrors social thinking. And because the world is much smaller we're more self-reflecting, and discriminating, now than ever. What would a building you design look like, and why?
Well I think there are a couple factors that led to a different style of architecture.
1. Expensive labour. Because we're living better lives than before, we can demand higher wages, which means it's not worthwhile to hire people to carve statues and ornamentation into stone.
2. The rise of the car and rapid transit. When you pass by a building at high speeds, you're not able to observe the fine details like when you walk.
3. Mass produced materials, especially concrete, metal, glass and plastic. This means it's much cheaper to build out of those materials with little ornamentation than with stone or brick. When you pay a lot of money to stone your building will be built from, paying a few extra pennies to some stone carvers was no big deal.
4. Culture... right now in the age of consumerism, we value size, quantity and low cost more than beauty, and it makes economical sense to think that way. With mass production, plain, boring goods are much much cheaper than hand-made goods.
Wow, there's just so much to consider on this topic, more than personal taste. I myself think architecture now is far more thoughtful and rigorous than in times past. Design doesn't just happen. The distance from pencil to paper is dense with decisions. These decisions are in modern times heavily concerned with context.
For example, the Beaux Arts movement was a reaction to the ornamental asymmetry of Victorian excesses. It was classical, ordered. It derived from ancient Greek and Roman ideals. Let's consider those ideals, though. The pediment (that sort of heavy carved eave) symbolized the authority of the gods. In a more secular civilization, do we need such invocations?
This may enter into a philosophical debate about the nature of the Ideal, but it is a debate and it informs choices. Every choice causes reflection. An architect wants stylized gargoyles. We should ask, Why? She wants scroll-work with laurel leaves and Celtic knots. We'd ask, Why, are we Roman/Irish warriors? He wants to invoke pre-Columbian forms because the building is in South America. But why? We're in a modern post-Columbian age! Heck, he wants symmetry. Why? To what end for this building does the design pursue symmetry?
Thoughtful design mirrors social thinking. And because the world is much smaller we're more self-reflecting, and discriminating, now than ever. What would a building you design look like, and why?
Now you're talkin' . . . this is the kind of dialogue I was hoping for . . . Is this the kind of discourse that goes on in architectural school . . . I would hope so . . .
Take just a simple concept . . .that of high ceilings . . . high ceilings are said to inspire and allow space for creative thought . . .libraries "should" have high ceilings, as should schools . . .and anywhere where thought, dreaming, and inspiration are important . . .
Think also about the architecture of old churches (the modern ones completely miss the point) . . .they allude to so many higher ideals - and inspire the deeper aspects of the subconscious to arise . . .
I am no scholar on this subject, but someone should be thinking and writing about these things and taking the conversation to the masses so we don't have the thoughtless "junk" design (can't really even apply the word "design" to so much of the cookie-cutter corporate crap that is on every street corner.
When it is time for redevelopment, use some color . . .if you just look around you will see that people, in general, have no idea how to use color to enhance buildings. It all has meaning and it affects us all.
Well I think there are a couple factors that led to a different style of architecture.
1. Expensive labour. Because we're living better lives than before, we can demand higher wages, which means it's not worthwhile to hire people to carve statues and ornamentation into stone.
2. The rise of the car and rapid transit. When you pass by a building at high speeds, you're not able to observe the fine details like when you walk.
3. Mass produced materials, especially concrete, metal, glass and plastic. This means it's much cheaper to build out of those materials with little ornamentation than with stone or brick. When you pay a lot of money to stone your building will be built from, paying a few extra pennies to some stone carvers was no big deal.
4. Culture... right now in the age of consumerism, we value size, quantity and low cost more than beauty, and it makes economical sense to think that way. With mass production, plain, boring goods are much much cheaper than hand-made goods.
I wonder if neighborhood commercial design was put to popular vote if people would vote for "cheap crap," or would be willing to pay a little more for something inspirational. It would be nice to at least have the opportunity to affect the world - especially if the architects don't care enough anymore to create art with their design of buildings.
I wonder if neighborhood commercial design was put to popular vote if people would vote for "cheap crap," or would be willing to pay a little more for something inspirational. It would be nice to at least have the opportunity to affect the world - especially if the architects don't care enough anymore to create art with their design of buildings.
Re: popular vote: First, private commercial development is not built that way. The closest we come to that, are zoning laws. For public buildings, where people are somewhat represented, they DO want "cheap crap." If my city hired Santiago Calatrava tomorrow to build a beautiful new city hall, you'd quickly hear screams of: "why are MY tax dollars being wasted to fund this opulence, when a big concrete box would do the job just as well?!?"
Re: architects don't care: Most architects do care. But, our first job is to provide a service to our client. After all, they are the ones paying our bills. The client tells us what they want, and what their budget is. We do our best with the resources provided to us.
About 12 years ago, when I first started working at an architectural firm, my mentor once talked to me about the concept of "Firmness, Commodity, and Delight" from Vitruvius' 10 books of architecture. (actually, after doing a little Google searching to find the following link, I see that it was originally "Commodity, Firmness, and Delight," and maybe not a literal translation of Vitruvius, but anyway...) - Commodity, Firmness, and Delight, or Toward a New Architectural Attitude « New England Chapter From the link:
Quote:
The first of these, Firmness, he states, is related to science. An architect considers structural forces and material properties. Forms are governed by the material choices made. For the second condition, Commodity, he states: “Architecture is subservient to the general uses of Mankind …” and that “buildings may be judged by the success with which they supply the practical ends they were designed to meet.”
For the third condition, Delight, Scott describes “an aesthetic impulse … by which architecture becomes art.
My mentor went on to say that, in a modern bread and butter architecture firm, (the ones building that "cheap crap") the resources usually aren't there to meet all three conditions in equal measure. So, they have to be prioritized. Firmness is most important; they make TV shows about buildings that collapse. Commodity is second most important; if the building you design doesn't function as well as the client wished, they won't be happy, and you'll soon be out of business. Delight, while always our goal, is least important, unless the client asks for it. And, since most of our clients are business owners mostly interested in their bottom line, or government employees interested in not making the tax-payers angry over too much opulence, delight usually takes a back seat.
And finally, you asked about the relationship between city planners and architects. Well, there really isn't a relationship. From what I've seen, (any city planners here, please correct me if I'm wrong) city planners help a city create a vision of what that city wants to be, and help the city decide how to distribute its resources to make that vision a reality. They can suggest that a city prioritize certain infrastructure projects, in certain areas. They can suggest that a city provide tax breaks to incentivize redevelopment in parts of a city, etc. The only time I would imagine an architect would have any kind of relationship with a city planner, is if the city hired that architect. Then, the city planner would likely be only one of many people involved. You'd also have mayors, council members, managers, etc.
I haven't made a post this long in quite awhile. I hope I haven't muddied the waters too much.
Re: popular vote: First, private commercial development is not built that way. The closest we come to that, are zoning laws. For public buildings, where people are somewhat represented, they DO want "cheap crap." If my city hired Santiago Calatrava tomorrow to build a beautiful new city hall, you'd quickly hear screams of: "why are MY tax dollars being wasted to fund this opulence, when a big concrete box would do the job just as well?!?"
Re: architects don't care: Most architects do care. But, our first job is to provide a service to our client. After all, they are the ones paying our bills. The client tells us what they want, and what their budget is. We do our best with the resources provided to us.
About 12 years ago, when I first started working at an architectural firm, my mentor once talked to me about the concept of "Firmness, Commodity, and Delight" from Vitruvius' 10 books of architecture. (actually, after doing a little Google searching to find the following link, I see that it was originally "Commodity, Firmness, and Delight," and maybe not a literal translation of Vitruvius, but anyway...) - Commodity, Firmness, and Delight, or Toward a New Architectural Attitude « New England Chapter From the link:
My mentor went on to say that, in a modern bread and butter architecture firm, (the ones building that "cheap crap") the resources usually aren't there to meet all three conditions in equal measure. So, they have to be prioritized. Firmness is most important; they make TV shows about buildings that collapse. Commodity is second most important; if the building you design doesn't function as well as the client wished, they won't be happy, and you'll soon be out of business. Delight, while always our goal, is least important, unless the client asks for it. And, since most of our clients are business owners mostly interested in their bottom line, or government employees interested in not making the tax-payers angry over too much opulence, delight usually takes a back seat.
And finally, you asked about the relationship between city planners and architects. Well, there really isn't a relationship. From what I've seen, (any city planners here, please correct me if I'm wrong) city planners help a city create a vision of what that city wants to be, and help the city decide how to distribute its resources to make that vision a reality. They can suggest that a city prioritize certain infrastructure projects, in certain areas. They can suggest that a city provide tax breaks to incentivize redevelopment in parts of a city, etc. The only time I would imagine an architect would have any kind of relationship with a city planner, is if the city hired that architect. Then, the city planner would likely be only one of many people involved. You'd also have mayors, council members, managers, etc.
I haven't made a post this long in quite awhile. I hope I haven't muddied the waters too much.
Thank you for the perspective (no pun intended).
Please scroll back and look at the before and after picture of the Boston area . . . in the "before" photo, you see an interesting cityscape with buildings that have architectural interest and beauty. In the "after" photo you see the area has been demolished and rebuilt and that the configuration of the buildings, and hence the city "experience" is much different.
Are you familiar with the book "A Pattern Language?" It addresses functional components of cities . . .
I would imagine in the case of Boston above (the before and after pics) that city planners would have had to have worked with architects to create the initial vision and city configuration, and then again, to have demolished it and recreated it in a completely different aesthetic and configuration.
What am I missing?
It was not random, therefore there had to have been a plan and some kind of collaboration.
I just looked up "the politics of architecture" on a search engine, and the results are very interesting. Are the politics of architecture standard fare in architecture school?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
