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.
"Fabric" is often also used in the context of neighborhoods or the built environment. Think about how fabric (of the textile variety) is one uniform piece, but made up of lots of different threads. In the case of a neighborhood, the "built fabric" ("built" being used to differentiate the human-built stuff like buildings from the topography/natural elements of a neighborhood), all the different buildings and streetscapes are like the pieces of thread, and taken together they help create the neighborhood "fabric."
I prefer modern. Historic buildings can be interesting to visit but rarely any fun to live or work in.
I must respectfully disagree. I've lived and worked in both very old and very new buildings and have enjoyed both. As long as the old is decently maintained, it's much more interesting and there's a coziness (for lack of a better word) that you get with the old. It's all about the details.
Regarding the OP, historical fabric is essential. Most newer architecture is just awful. It's so fake, plastic, cheap-looking and just looks terrible.
Even the occasional well-done new building often just doesn't quite work with the surroundings or there's always something about it that is jarring and out of place (like fire exit doors on the main facade instead of along the side or back or the trash dumpster bays being located where people can see them).
I'll allow for the theoretical possibility of well-done, beautiful and liveable new urban neighborhoods, I just haven't seen one yet.
Some people prefer Gothic churches to Baroque, for example, but who but the most impoverished soul would want to get rid of them both in favor of some post-modern a-frame chapel?
Presbyterians.
OK, that's a bit of a joke, but the point is that a lot of people prefer simplicity to ornamentation, whether you consider their souls impoverished or not.
OK, that's a bit of a joke, but the point is that a lot of people prefer simplicity to ornamentation, whether you consider their souls impoverished or not.
Also. . . a lot of churches, at least in the past 50 years or so, feel it more appropriate to spend their money on other concerns than their buildings.
Not every congregation has an "edifice complex". It's not about who has the fanciest building.
Also. . . a lot of churches, at least in the past 50 years or so, feel it more appropriate to spend their money on other concerns than their buildings.
Not every congregation has an "edifice complex". It's not about who has the fanciest building.
I've visited churches in Europe that were hundreds of years old. (even a few that were over a thousand!) Their builders spared no expense in their construction, and they are still here. How much money will be saved in the long run, when a congregation has to replace its church every 50-75 years with a new one, because they saved money on its construction?
I've visited churches in Europe that were hundreds of years old. (even a few that were over a thousand!) Their builders spared no expense in their construction, and they are still here. How much money will be saved in the long run, when a congregation has to replace its church every 50-75 years with a new one, because they saved money on its construction?
Well, those old buildings were probably built with conscripted labor, too! My parents' church is A-frame style, built about 50 years ago when that was popular, and seems to be in decent shape. They've added on several times, but the original building is still intact.
Well, those old buildings were probably built with conscripted labor, too! My parents' church is A-frame style, built about 50 years ago when that was popular, and seems to be in decent shape. They've added on several times, but the original building is still intact.
I don't know if that is true...the guilds were responsible for the construction of cathedrals, palaces, important residences in medieval cities, were they not? It was an honor to be a member of a guild. There was a process in place to gain access to membership which included, but not limited to apprenticeship. But I don't picture the building of a church to be cheap even in those days, since it took generations to do so. Every so often they would be plundered, destroyed by war then have to be completely rebuilt. The tall spires of Europe provided homeland security an advantage...easier to see the movements of enemy forces in the distance.
It is not cheap to repair these edifices when the time comes, that's for sure. But in Europe, some of these churches are also national or UNESCO heritage sites, for which some funding may be available in addition to congregation monies.
To the OP's point...taking into consideration the difference of craftsmanship of yesteryear to today, without historic architecture, today's modern design would have nothing to respond to, and by itself would look, for the vast majority of cases, bland, vulgar and criminal. Historic architecture gives fertile soil for subsequent styles to emerge to form a TAPESTRY from multiple layers of fabric.
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.
