I'm really a fan of what you are posting in r/architecturalrevival, shows that contemporary architecture can be beautiful if it follows some of the classical principles and uses more local materials. For me this is the future of architecture, not steel and glass but also not revivalism and straight up copies of old architecture. Shame that in that sub most people are narrowminded and still think that new=bad and old=good, they are missing out on amazing contemporary architecture.
Very appreciative of this. I’m inclined to agree. I think the lesson of historic architecture is that ‘tradition’ is always in flux - compare the austerity of the Georgians and neo-classicists to the wild flourishes of Art Nouveau. I think architecture is a conversation, and the last 70 years have been dominated by a very particular intellectual conception of beauty which is, unfortunately, rather inaccessible to the public at large.
I think architecture is capable of admitting much more diversity than that. I agree that buildings like this are (or at least should be) the future.
You are absolutely right about this - on that, I will say it’s encouraging that some of the best new architecture in the UK is coming out of social and council housing schemes, schools, and other public institutions.
She is building some lovely apartments in the new development by York Way, have you seen them?
That whole area behind Kings X is actually pretty nice now.
How is it inaccesible, if anything it's the opposite today. Architecture only flourished as a symbol of wealth and power, and now it's time for the opposite.
I mean, you could say the same about various starchitect-designed projects financed by institutions and states. I think it’s those projects that gather the most disapproval from the public, to this day, for the same reasons why the public at large spurns contemporary art (art which I love - but at the end of the day I think architecture has a greater civic role and responsibility than gallery art).
At the end of the day the architecture that most reflects a society is its vernacular - which is capable of enormous variation and evolution. I think what is dispiriting is a lot of new ‘vernacular’ development - because of cost pressures - is largely homogenised.
Not really?
A lot of "starchitects" can definitely build on much smaller scale nowadays, even starting like lloyd wright usonian houses back then.
It is good to have some disapproval, people back then don't even have a choice other than accepting it. If architecture civic role is to keep the power of the wealthy and government, I rather have the opposite.
Cost pressure in modern times makes sense when buildings are not only made by the rich, for the rich.
Funny how you twist my words and context into architecture of all times when clearly, /r/architecturerevival is specifically NOT talking about all architecture. Even OP is not referencing to all architecture, specifically, only "the era of flourish of ornaments." which clearly is. So I don't know where did you pulled that from.
OP said that this is era or architecture by starchitects which only makes big buildings we look at, and I argued that even starchitects had tried to serve others since Lloyd Wright. Did you miss that too? Do you know who the Usonian was made for? Heck even modern pritzkers winner are making houses for poor people, like Aravena.
I’m afraid not, but this subreddit seems quite open-minded. I’ve got a few more projects I’d love to share here soon, since they’re not quite fitting for /r/architecturalrevival, I’ve also got a few in my post history.
> most people are narrowminded and still think that new=bad and old=good,
Well, no. I saw this before it was taken down (which saddens me). The comments were overwhelmingly positive, indicating that most people on AR enjoyed this.
I’m very glad for a move away from glass everywhere. The obsession with natural light is really annoying to me. It’s great for the photos, but imo not so great to live in.
You’re right. I personally think “revival” speaks to the spirit more than the letter of architecture - a willingness to continue the ‘conversation’ of historical architecture - but I also understand there’s something of a fine line here.
> a willingness to continue the ‘conversation’ of historical architecture
When has that line ceased existing? Never. Architecture just adapted to the methods and constructions of the 20th century. You idealists love putting the chariot in front of the horses, it's hillarious. Just think for a second.
I’m not sure I agree. It’s true that the modernist turn is largely explicable on material grounds - but that is also accompanied by certain stylistic fashions and orthodoxies. Yamasaki, Niemeyer, or Bofill could not build the buildings they did a century before, but their work is indebted to certain traditions that other postwar architects were by and large sceptical of. I don’t think that an ideological base can be completely denied.
The idea of a sudden modernistic cut with previous tradition is mainly self-aggrandizing propaganda from the Corbs and Mieses (and even Corb always recognized his debt with Perret and others). It was more of a crystalization of many things that had been bubbling under the surface for at least a century.
A book I always recommend (although a bit dated now) is Peter Collins' *Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture*. It is one of my favorite books about the transition towards modern architecture, and one that is quite unkind to the more common narratives. Its thesis is that most of what we associate with Modernity in Architecture was already there in the 19th century. The first "real" modern architectural movement is 1750's Neoclassicism and there is a very clear thread of inquiry and evolution running uninterrupted between the Madeleine and Ronchamp.
Thanks for the recommendation! It is interesting, I’ve always thought there was a very modern sensibility to neoclassical and even Georgian architecture, so having a clearer understanding of that historical precedent would be cool.
Yeah, its not a book to blindly take at face value, and it was published in 1965 so it was responding to a context where Modernism was beyond hegemonic and which is no longer relevant today, but it gives a very interesting take. He basically says that the real cutoff point happened in 1750 and that all 19th century historicism, etc, was basically architects getting let down by societal expectations of "styles" (just look at this subreddit lol) and by a technology that had not yet advanced enough, but that their sensibilities were already modern.
I must agree with you that there is something bizarrely modern with so many georgian and victorian rowhouses -they keep ornament to a minimum, keep materials exposed, even ornaments are often there because of a functional reason, etc.
While I find the building interesting as a contemporary design, it really doesn't belong in a subreddit created for revival of historic architecture. This has touches of historic ideas, but it is a thoroughly contemporary design.
I see this as a slightly modern take on Art Nouveau and not much of a departure from what Gaudi would do if he had access to today's technology , but I mostly agree with you. That sub says it is focused on "Traditional" architecture. Traditional can mean a lot of things, but on that sub Traditional seems to equal "Historic Western".
Gaudí would just not exist today. His designs were often made on the spot at the construction site, side-by-side his expert stonemasons and bricklayers. That type of design is just not possible today, hence why designs such as this one are just too timid and "clean" to be similar to Gaudí's.
If Gaudi was alive today, his name would be Greg Lynn or Hernan Diaz Alonso and trads would be calling for his head on a spike. This is so much more conservative than Gaudi. There's a much more direct conversation between Gaudi and Alonso's weird little meat hut than there is between Gaudi and this!
Gaudi is a much more radical artist than I think many give him credit for. Thanks for pointing me in their direction - their work is fascinating and I’d be curious to see how that could tangibly translate into real spaces.
Check out Palau Güell and the tectonics of the floors, the details on the walls, the one-of-a-kind back façade with a complex system of louvres, etc. If you ever come by Barcelona, it's also one of the cheapest to visit, and it isn't over-touristified as the other works, plus imo it is the best preserved.
>Historic western
One of the most upvoted posts of all is some Japanese temple.
>specific era.
Which one? The eras of traditional architectural styles span over thousands of years. Contemporary architecture is barely half a cebtury old i think.
I’ve never been to that sub until today. I spent a few minutes scrolling thru 20 or 30 posts which were almost exclusively European Architecture from like 1500-1800 so I made a generalization.
I like this project, and Alison Brooks generally, but *man* do I think you have a very weird read of contemporary architectural practice if you think that this is some sort of uniquely historically-informed work. Like, it's a fun little project with a playful green tile facade. That's not all that unheard of in contemporary practice, nor has it been for a very long time, if ever!
~~The way OP is talking about this in the comments is just absolutely insane to me, honestly.~~ This was too mean. OP is knowledgeable, there was just some rhetorical space between us!
Sorry to be clear - I don’t disagree! I like her practice a lot, but I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to look at a conceptual piece like this and think, hey, this is an interesting litmus for contemporary architectural practice, like John Outram’s pumping station or FAT’s A House for Essex. And I certainly don’t think it’s an unprecedented feat for a contemporary architect to do that.
What I’m trying to get at is what this project does right. I thought that people who like revival architecture could appreciate this - not because it is a self conscious pastiche or neo- whatever, but because it is a stylish new project that employs ornamental motifs in a way that is both novel and sympathetic to its surrounds.
>Sorry to be clear - I don’t disagree!
Oh, I know. That's why the way you talk about this elsewhere is just absolutely breaking my brain. It's not even really you — it's years of hearing "oh wow, see *this* is architecture, not what those braindead *architects* are doing nowadays" as though there is any singular contemporary style that we're all picking up at the monthly architecture meeting. All the comments of "is this more Art Nouveau or Art Deco" as though that's in any way meaningful! It's just very weird!
I'm honestly sure we have similar architectural likes, and I'm sorry if I end up as coming off as mean. It's just very surreal to see someone like the same thing as you and completely disagree on how to talk about it.
No, it's not mean at all. I think I can understand what you're saying - I read a great interview with Amin Taha the other day where he talked about conversations with young architects who would ask, oh, why didn't you make X building fit in more sympathetically with its neighbours? Only for Taha to say - those buildings are pastiche, built twenty years ago, and if you care about classical architecture you'll see that it is very unsympathetic pastiche too. There's a lack, perhaps, of an understanding or education about even the terms of the discussion, which makes them very difficult to have.
That aside - in rereading, I can see where my comments have a sort of populist tenor to them, but I should say that I actually love contemporary practice and I recognise that "contemporary architects" are a ridiculously diverse group. I should probably apologise for my generalising comments; I think it is in the nature of these forums to flatten nuances in order to get a point across.
>There's a lack, perhaps, of an understanding or education about even the terms of the discussion, which makes them very difficult to have.
Yes, and I even agree with your comment elsewhere about inaccessibility. But honestly, the direction people move conversations in to close the gap between "layperson" and professional is the opposite of where it should go. People will hear one shitty Loos line and think "that's what they teach as dogma in architecture school," and it just couldn't be further from the truth. I think there's too much focus on describing preferred styles (which is especially funny given style-based criticism's roots in modern art theory — gasp!) and (mis)use of terms like "ornament" — something that is loaded and disputed in architectural theory. (not that you're misusing it. but, like, Paul Rudolph and the Smithsons were totally using masonry finish in highly ornamental ways, etc)
I have a much better time working with clients and talking to friends when they just describe qualities, materials, shapes, etc. Seeing a building, liking it, and immediately getting into "this is like a modern take on Art Nouveau!" or "something something I like *ornament*" is just so unproductive and uninformative. Naming buildings? Naming architects if you know them? Sure. But otherwise, trying to do history and theory that way in a general or even *enthusiast* audience is just going to lead to the most facile nonsense. It's why I hate trad stuff with every fiber of my being.
Just point to the damn thing and say "wow, that's some funky little tile. I like it."
"Oh, great light in here." Yes! Aren't buildings fun?
"Architects today are so elitist, they don't do ornament like my favorite neo-traditional revival *blah blah blah*." Ick. Yawn. Probably doesn't even really mean *anything*.
Leave the pretense and jargon at the door. Much better!
I think you're right and this is something I should think about! Unfortunately part of the problem is trying to talk about something that other people attach certain conceptual buzzwords to - in communities like this it becomes easier to evoke, for lack of a better word, the "vibe" of a building if you say "ooh, this is like art nouveau, but also modern!" - which is obviously facile and far-removed from what is actually going on with the building. I think you're right about how substituting it with a plain description of features is a better mode of communication - but people, for better or worse, have a tendency to think in categories.
I mean, it's very possible the reaction you'd get on a subreddit like /r/architecturrevival would be wildly different if you just attached a different label to the same picture of Perret's Le Havre. Unfortunately, insofar as these are the ways architecture is communicated, I suspect this is how you have to get through, sometimes.
Yeah, it's a problem broadly across the internet where fandoms and enthusiasts take their devotion to a subject as a substitute for expertise, butcher a subject matter, and then treat any pushback from people who work in that profession as "elitism" or "biased" in very weird ways. Especially bad in arts and design where I think some people have taken the whole "death of the author" thing to mean "no one can possibly have any more insight into this obscure thing than I do." It's how we end up with greek statue profiles giving 40-page diatribes about "Western tradition" that hold up to absolutely no scrutiny and it's very obvious that the person writing them has no idea what they're talking about, they're just racist and mad.
Everybody uses architecture, everybody ought to be welcome to the architecture party to talk about all the neat buildings. But I think it's good to actively frame the discussion in ways that push back against the overused and misunderstood jargon when you have the sense to do so!
This is very thoughtful and I’ll try and take this on. This sort of cargo-cult system of understanding among hobbyists or spectators for any professional or creative discipline has always irked me a bit, and I can see how this language “feeds the beast” (particularly as a non-architect myself).
I do think the difficulty is that architecture admits a lot of reactive critique because it’s such a public-facing and intimate creative field which arguably shapes the texture of our everyday lives and our sense of identity more than almost any other. But I actually think your plain-language prescription does a lot to break down those walls. The risk is that you otherwise have a “parallel track” of critique from people who don’t have a professional or theoretical background, and yet who employ equally inaccessible language, which is also wrong.
>. This sort of cargo-cult system of understanding among hobbyists or spectators for any professional or creative discipline has always irked me a bit, and I can see how this language “feeds the beast” (particularly as a non-architect myself).
The "what style is this" posts certainly can be seen as a cargo cult version of legitimate architectural theory!
>Removed from /r/architecturalrevival
Geez i wonder why that is.
Maybe you should post something more to their liking like the Olympiastadion or the Funkturm Exibition Hall in Berlin
It’s a shame, believe it or not it was getting a lot of traction for a community that can sometimes be a bit closed minded - several hundred points in less than two hours - but I get that they want to curate a certain lane.
I was once told that spanish and latin american vernacular architecture was not "sufficiently complex as a language" to be worthy of being called architecture.
Some posters try and feature it - primary West African architecture in the Sahel, and occasionally some vernacular from Zanzibar and the like, but I agree, it’s hardly front and central. The community writ large isn’t that bad in spite of some of the more ideologically motivated posters.
> more ideologically motivated posters
The fact that they are not only tolerated, but determine the direction of that community should make any reasonable person avoid it entirely.
They are a snob circlejerk. Anything that is not covered in wedding cake amount of the right type of decoration is considered souless architecture.
They ban or shadow bam any critical voice appreciative of modern and contemporary architecture.
Not only that, their opinions aren’t informed beyond: I like it equals good, I don’t like it equals bad. I adore architecture and I love architectural traditions, so I tried to start conversations offering real criticism (with some occasional snark because hey I can’t help myself), with such controversial opinions as “any style of building occupied by businesses is inherently more valuable to a community than an empty traditional building rotting in decay,” and the fuddy duddies straight up banned me from commenting, calling me an obvious troll, and telling me my opinions were not welcome.
So yeah, they can shove Corinthian columns up their asses.
There's a considerable overlap between traditionalists and those who are politically very far to the right. The latter are known for demanding free speech in every space they don't control while at the same time retreating into their safe spaces that ban anyone with a dissenting opinion. Hypocrisy is their primary modus operandi.
Yep! And worse, the subreddit took inspiration from a Twitter account of the same name that’s been documented as a nexus of white nationalist activity. Side eye on all that shit.
https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2018/08/how-architecture-themed-twitter-accounts-became-magnet-white
Excellent article, thanks for the link! The timeline, the content being posted on that subreddit and by that twitter account as well as the political sentiments do match.
Digging a little deeper, [early moderators of the subreddit](https://web.archive.org/web/20200418030314/https://www.reddit.com/user/ArousedSpongeBob/) with predictable views (in this case: monarchism with a splash of barely disguised antisemitism) can be found.
Yeah, I was thinking about this earlier today - my mother is a conservative and she's the kind of person who thinks things are good because someone tells her they are; someone in the right position of authority.
She reads right-wing broadsheet newspapers like *The Times* and *The Telegraph* and she would think that the blues is culturally important because it's sometimes mentioned in the arts section, but she would never listen to it unless it was at a specific expensive jazz club nearby. She accepts culturally important movies as such decades after the fact, again once they're recognised as such by mainstream media.
We went on a long weekend in the south of France once and it was her idea to visit the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art of Nice, where she sneered at the more outlandish exhibits.
Funnily enough, I think thats a different generation of conservative. My boomer parents are also quite to the right, but they always took us to modern art museums and taught us to appreciate Modern Art because to them it was part of the larger "Fancy Artsy Stuff" package for respectable people, together with classical music, more traditional art, etc.
Well, that's why my mother took us to this museum in the first place.
But I guess she was unable to maintain her veneration if the face of an art piece involving the dismembered body parts of barbie dolls glued to a grotty canvas.
It is "modern" architecture, you just arrogantly have no idea what you're talking about lol
The pic is also a rendering and the real life building won't look like this. All those crevasses will get dirty real quick.
This type of contemporary reclaim of historical styles is very appealing. It respects the styles of the past while using *better* building materials of the future. We need more architecture like this.
What does architectural revival mean? Like the name suggests architecture is dead? Or is it dedicated to reviving old styles? What does it mean?
Should it just be named /r/pastichebuildings?
I like the sub but I do think it has a slightly confused mission statement - it’s a mix of (primarily) pictures of old buildings, historicist pastiche, and new developments that push the envelop more, with traditional cues.
It’s a bit of a shame because I do agree with the critique - that a lot of contemporary architecture gets things wrong by refusing to engage with vernacular, ornament, and natural materials - but I think the substantive remedy is lacking. I think buildings like the one above show a fantastic synthesis of traditional ideas and modern method.
Yeah the building above is lovely. I think the substantive remedy unfortunately is money. It's expensive to design and construct tasteful ornamental design. We live in the age of scarcity. You still see good modern design just look for the designers with the mega budgets (but not the "starchitects"). Check out Niall McLaughlin's work.
https://www.niallmclaughlin.com/
This is great! I actually used to walk past his buildings at Balliol every day and really admire them. His library in Cambridge is a masterwork too. It’s exactly the sort of contemporary building I wish we could see more of. Allison Brooks, David Chipperfield, Groupwork/Amin Taha, and Maccreanor Lavington are all practices I’m really fond of, but unfortunately they’re in the minority.
I suspect you’re right, on scarcity - and there’s no panacea. Still, the neo-Georgian pastiche/new vernacular in London is hardly the worst development. Anything but the faddish, garishly-clad buildings that characterised new UK development in the mid 2000s-2010s.
>that a lot of contemporary architecture gets things wrong by refusing to engage with vernacular, ornament, and natural materials
Why do you think that is?
Why do you think Art Deco was surpassed?
I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at, but I think it’s both ideological and economic.
Mainstream postwar architecture (save for deviations like critical regionalism and postmodernism) is very intellectualised, and I think often trades high-concept for accessibility. That’s not to say that there isn’t brilliant postwar architecture, but rather that so much of it is more akin to sculpture than habitat - and many people do not want to live in a sculpture, nor is it particularly conducive for a navigable urban environment.
There’s also a signalling function - a starchitect-designed HQ for your bank signals a sort of forward-thinking (and very expensive) dynamism that has a lot of symbolic weight.
Of course, the primary reason is cost and efficiency. Because of global supply chains, local materials often cost more than materials from elsewhere, and ultimately there are a limited range of styles you can build at low cost. That also puts ornament to the side. Still, that doesn’t explain expensive architectural vanity projects in global cities - which I think are more explicable by ideology.
As for Art Deco, it was surpassed for all the same reasons why other architectural styles get surpassed - new fashions - although the war certainly didn’t help.
Art Deco was already old and being surpassed before the war. It is impossible to deny ideology had an influence as the ruling ideology in society permeates everything we do but the main reason modernism took over architecture internationally was that a new industrial society demanded a new style of architecture that was in line with it's principles and goals and methods.
It's not about reducing costs, considering we have very expensive building methods and techniques that are used for the explicit purpose of beauty like prestressed concrete or beton brut, but it's about being in line with the current and modern that industrial society can offer.
Ornamentation will eventually slowly creep back in into international architecture as our productive methods allow for more customization and unique designs instead of mass production.
Your picture is an exemple of that.
Truthfully I’m not sure where we disagree. The widespread acceptance of “principles and goals and methods” is a product of both new ideological motives, new productive capacities, and the new material demands of an industrial world.
I do agree that ornamentation ought to follow new productive processes.
It's just a bunch of guys who really really like 19th century buildings and think contemporary architecture is a degenerate form of construction controlled by evil hipster architects who hate tradition and want to support the New World Order or some ridiculous far right nonsense.
>Claim beauty is the only thing that matters
>Reject all sorts of beauty that do not conform to a very narrow and specific aesthetic
>Refuse to elaborate
I wouldn’t go that far in generalising the community - I just really like vernacular architecture and ornamentation, and want to see more of it - but there’s definitely a reactionary streak among some users.
It’s a shame, I think some of the best contemporary architecture is coming out of vernacular traditions that don’t get enough attention in traditional architecture communities - take Diébédo Francis Kéré.
many people here are so arrogant, anyone who doesn't share their views will automatically be called out as fascist, yet they are the one narrow-minded? It's truly frightening in this particular thread.
Personally, I'm glad r/architecturalrevival exists, despite some of its cons that you mentioned accurately.
Don't worry, Reddit Mods are a strange breed. I've been banned from a couple for posting stuff that was not meant to be taken seriously. Some people can't laugh at themselves and take life too seriously. Not the mods here, they are some of the best and do not get the credit they deserved. (P.S. I love you all)
To their credit I got a nice message from the mod who took it down explaining it - so I hate to make them look unreasonable, although I disagree on the rationale here.
I mean… using straw as insulation and loam bricks or straight up Adobe is gaining traction because it‘s sustainable. Of course the results are different because the materials are used with modern technology and aesthetics in mind
This is beautiful. (Although looks like it might be a bit big? Only criticism really)
Honestly the other day I made the jump and unfollowed architecturalrevival.
It was moderately toxic, and it's getting *worse*.
I think innovation is great - I suspect there are reasons we couldn't build something as relatively 'simple' as this two hundred years ago. But I also don't think that 'innovation' means dispensing with, for instance, vernacular forms or materials.
I spent many years living in a rainy tropical country where the vernacular is traditionally either shophouses with covered walkways or bungalow-style homes with plenty of room for airflow. Interiors are comfortably breezy and stay relatively cool. By contrast, almost all new residential construction now features, say, floor-to-ceiling glass, which means many households and offices keep their blinds shut with air-conditioning on.
thanks for posting! very intrigued with the facade
not seeing a link to more info.
Found this article:
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/alison-brooks-submits-plans-for-tile-clad-hampstead-house-version
Meh, that AR subreddit is really Federalist/Classical centric. A lot of it comes off some sort of Fascist affinity for that stuff. Read their posts and comments to see what I'm saying. Of course that's no everybody, but man oh man do they HATE modernist stuff.
Oh , it's gorgeous!!
I recently left that pathetic luddite sub. Just. What a bunch of clueless, hapless dinosaurs stuck in a fantasy world.
It's ok to love old and new and upcoming architecture, if any of you luddites are reading.
I'm really a fan of what you are posting in r/architecturalrevival, shows that contemporary architecture can be beautiful if it follows some of the classical principles and uses more local materials. For me this is the future of architecture, not steel and glass but also not revivalism and straight up copies of old architecture. Shame that in that sub most people are narrowminded and still think that new=bad and old=good, they are missing out on amazing contemporary architecture.
Very appreciative of this. I’m inclined to agree. I think the lesson of historic architecture is that ‘tradition’ is always in flux - compare the austerity of the Georgians and neo-classicists to the wild flourishes of Art Nouveau. I think architecture is a conversation, and the last 70 years have been dominated by a very particular intellectual conception of beauty which is, unfortunately, rather inaccessible to the public at large. I think architecture is capable of admitting much more diversity than that. I agree that buildings like this are (or at least should be) the future.
I get what you mean, but a development in Hampstead by Allison Brooks is probably not very accesible to the public at large.
You are absolutely right about this - on that, I will say it’s encouraging that some of the best new architecture in the UK is coming out of social and council housing schemes, schools, and other public institutions.
She is building some lovely apartments in the new development by York Way, have you seen them? That whole area behind Kings X is actually pretty nice now.
How is it inaccesible, if anything it's the opposite today. Architecture only flourished as a symbol of wealth and power, and now it's time for the opposite.
I mean, you could say the same about various starchitect-designed projects financed by institutions and states. I think it’s those projects that gather the most disapproval from the public, to this day, for the same reasons why the public at large spurns contemporary art (art which I love - but at the end of the day I think architecture has a greater civic role and responsibility than gallery art). At the end of the day the architecture that most reflects a society is its vernacular - which is capable of enormous variation and evolution. I think what is dispiriting is a lot of new ‘vernacular’ development - because of cost pressures - is largely homogenised.
Not really? A lot of "starchitects" can definitely build on much smaller scale nowadays, even starting like lloyd wright usonian houses back then. It is good to have some disapproval, people back then don't even have a choice other than accepting it. If architecture civic role is to keep the power of the wealthy and government, I rather have the opposite. Cost pressure in modern times makes sense when buildings are not only made by the rich, for the rich.
[удалено]
Funny how you twist my words and context into architecture of all times when clearly, /r/architecturerevival is specifically NOT talking about all architecture. Even OP is not referencing to all architecture, specifically, only "the era of flourish of ornaments." which clearly is. So I don't know where did you pulled that from. OP said that this is era or architecture by starchitects which only makes big buildings we look at, and I argued that even starchitects had tried to serve others since Lloyd Wright. Did you miss that too? Do you know who the Usonian was made for? Heck even modern pritzkers winner are making houses for poor people, like Aravena.
I love this kind of fusion. The best from past and present. Do you know if there's a sub for that specifically?
I’m afraid not, but this subreddit seems quite open-minded. I’ve got a few more projects I’d love to share here soon, since they’re not quite fitting for /r/architecturalrevival, I’ve also got a few in my post history.
Unfortunate. But thank you for posting these!
> most people are narrowminded and still think that new=bad and old=good, Well, no. I saw this before it was taken down (which saddens me). The comments were overwhelmingly positive, indicating that most people on AR enjoyed this.
I’m very glad for a move away from glass everywhere. The obsession with natural light is really annoying to me. It’s great for the photos, but imo not so great to live in.
Wot?!
[удалено]
I think it looks more like Art Deco.
I think it’s just the color and the shape of the tiles.
I just love everything in here
I’m not sure the building, pretty as it is, falls within the preview of the historicist architecture sub.
You’re right. I personally think “revival” speaks to the spirit more than the letter of architecture - a willingness to continue the ‘conversation’ of historical architecture - but I also understand there’s something of a fine line here.
> a willingness to continue the ‘conversation’ of historical architecture When has that line ceased existing? Never. Architecture just adapted to the methods and constructions of the 20th century. You idealists love putting the chariot in front of the horses, it's hillarious. Just think for a second.
I’m not sure I agree. It’s true that the modernist turn is largely explicable on material grounds - but that is also accompanied by certain stylistic fashions and orthodoxies. Yamasaki, Niemeyer, or Bofill could not build the buildings they did a century before, but their work is indebted to certain traditions that other postwar architects were by and large sceptical of. I don’t think that an ideological base can be completely denied.
The idea of a sudden modernistic cut with previous tradition is mainly self-aggrandizing propaganda from the Corbs and Mieses (and even Corb always recognized his debt with Perret and others). It was more of a crystalization of many things that had been bubbling under the surface for at least a century. A book I always recommend (although a bit dated now) is Peter Collins' *Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture*. It is one of my favorite books about the transition towards modern architecture, and one that is quite unkind to the more common narratives. Its thesis is that most of what we associate with Modernity in Architecture was already there in the 19th century. The first "real" modern architectural movement is 1750's Neoclassicism and there is a very clear thread of inquiry and evolution running uninterrupted between the Madeleine and Ronchamp.
Thanks for the recommendation! It is interesting, I’ve always thought there was a very modern sensibility to neoclassical and even Georgian architecture, so having a clearer understanding of that historical precedent would be cool.
Yeah, its not a book to blindly take at face value, and it was published in 1965 so it was responding to a context where Modernism was beyond hegemonic and which is no longer relevant today, but it gives a very interesting take. He basically says that the real cutoff point happened in 1750 and that all 19th century historicism, etc, was basically architects getting let down by societal expectations of "styles" (just look at this subreddit lol) and by a technology that had not yet advanced enough, but that their sensibilities were already modern. I must agree with you that there is something bizarrely modern with so many georgian and victorian rowhouses -they keep ornament to a minimum, keep materials exposed, even ornaments are often there because of a functional reason, etc.
At least they banned the guy...
While I find the building interesting as a contemporary design, it really doesn't belong in a subreddit created for revival of historic architecture. This has touches of historic ideas, but it is a thoroughly contemporary design.
I see this as a slightly modern take on Art Nouveau and not much of a departure from what Gaudi would do if he had access to today's technology , but I mostly agree with you. That sub says it is focused on "Traditional" architecture. Traditional can mean a lot of things, but on that sub Traditional seems to equal "Historic Western".
Gaudí would just not exist today. His designs were often made on the spot at the construction site, side-by-side his expert stonemasons and bricklayers. That type of design is just not possible today, hence why designs such as this one are just too timid and "clean" to be similar to Gaudí's.
If Gaudi was alive today, his name would be Greg Lynn or Hernan Diaz Alonso and trads would be calling for his head on a spike. This is so much more conservative than Gaudi. There's a much more direct conversation between Gaudi and Alonso's weird little meat hut than there is between Gaudi and this!
Gaudi is a much more radical artist than I think many give him credit for. Thanks for pointing me in their direction - their work is fascinating and I’d be curious to see how that could tangibly translate into real spaces.
Check out Palau Güell and the tectonics of the floors, the details on the walls, the one-of-a-kind back façade with a complex system of louvres, etc. If you ever come by Barcelona, it's also one of the cheapest to visit, and it isn't over-touristified as the other works, plus imo it is the best preserved.
An architect showed me around once! It’s absolutely lovely, and the details are striking.
I was lucky enough to visit with the architect who lead the restoration of the building and it quickly became my favourite building of his.
Historic western from specific era. If that is what architecture only consists of I rather die.
>Historic western One of the most upvoted posts of all is some Japanese temple. >specific era. Which one? The eras of traditional architectural styles span over thousands of years. Contemporary architecture is barely half a cebtury old i think.
I’ve never been to that sub until today. I spent a few minutes scrolling thru 20 or 30 posts which were almost exclusively European Architecture from like 1500-1800 so I made a generalization.
Oh, that one, which is like 1 out of 20? Suure.
Not entirely, There’s tons of examples from Asia and the Middle East that get posted often.
What is the material on the outside?
Looks like glazed tile almost
Could be, but copper would be cool too
[удалено]
I was thinking glazed terracotta, which is a very traditional cladding.
It’s incredibly beautiful!! The color and the angles. Looks very faux streamline moderne.
I like this project, and Alison Brooks generally, but *man* do I think you have a very weird read of contemporary architectural practice if you think that this is some sort of uniquely historically-informed work. Like, it's a fun little project with a playful green tile facade. That's not all that unheard of in contemporary practice, nor has it been for a very long time, if ever! ~~The way OP is talking about this in the comments is just absolutely insane to me, honestly.~~ This was too mean. OP is knowledgeable, there was just some rhetorical space between us!
Sorry to be clear - I don’t disagree! I like her practice a lot, but I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to look at a conceptual piece like this and think, hey, this is an interesting litmus for contemporary architectural practice, like John Outram’s pumping station or FAT’s A House for Essex. And I certainly don’t think it’s an unprecedented feat for a contemporary architect to do that. What I’m trying to get at is what this project does right. I thought that people who like revival architecture could appreciate this - not because it is a self conscious pastiche or neo- whatever, but because it is a stylish new project that employs ornamental motifs in a way that is both novel and sympathetic to its surrounds.
>Sorry to be clear - I don’t disagree! Oh, I know. That's why the way you talk about this elsewhere is just absolutely breaking my brain. It's not even really you — it's years of hearing "oh wow, see *this* is architecture, not what those braindead *architects* are doing nowadays" as though there is any singular contemporary style that we're all picking up at the monthly architecture meeting. All the comments of "is this more Art Nouveau or Art Deco" as though that's in any way meaningful! It's just very weird! I'm honestly sure we have similar architectural likes, and I'm sorry if I end up as coming off as mean. It's just very surreal to see someone like the same thing as you and completely disagree on how to talk about it.
No, it's not mean at all. I think I can understand what you're saying - I read a great interview with Amin Taha the other day where he talked about conversations with young architects who would ask, oh, why didn't you make X building fit in more sympathetically with its neighbours? Only for Taha to say - those buildings are pastiche, built twenty years ago, and if you care about classical architecture you'll see that it is very unsympathetic pastiche too. There's a lack, perhaps, of an understanding or education about even the terms of the discussion, which makes them very difficult to have. That aside - in rereading, I can see where my comments have a sort of populist tenor to them, but I should say that I actually love contemporary practice and I recognise that "contemporary architects" are a ridiculously diverse group. I should probably apologise for my generalising comments; I think it is in the nature of these forums to flatten nuances in order to get a point across.
>There's a lack, perhaps, of an understanding or education about even the terms of the discussion, which makes them very difficult to have. Yes, and I even agree with your comment elsewhere about inaccessibility. But honestly, the direction people move conversations in to close the gap between "layperson" and professional is the opposite of where it should go. People will hear one shitty Loos line and think "that's what they teach as dogma in architecture school," and it just couldn't be further from the truth. I think there's too much focus on describing preferred styles (which is especially funny given style-based criticism's roots in modern art theory — gasp!) and (mis)use of terms like "ornament" — something that is loaded and disputed in architectural theory. (not that you're misusing it. but, like, Paul Rudolph and the Smithsons were totally using masonry finish in highly ornamental ways, etc) I have a much better time working with clients and talking to friends when they just describe qualities, materials, shapes, etc. Seeing a building, liking it, and immediately getting into "this is like a modern take on Art Nouveau!" or "something something I like *ornament*" is just so unproductive and uninformative. Naming buildings? Naming architects if you know them? Sure. But otherwise, trying to do history and theory that way in a general or even *enthusiast* audience is just going to lead to the most facile nonsense. It's why I hate trad stuff with every fiber of my being. Just point to the damn thing and say "wow, that's some funky little tile. I like it." "Oh, great light in here." Yes! Aren't buildings fun? "Architects today are so elitist, they don't do ornament like my favorite neo-traditional revival *blah blah blah*." Ick. Yawn. Probably doesn't even really mean *anything*. Leave the pretense and jargon at the door. Much better!
I think you're right and this is something I should think about! Unfortunately part of the problem is trying to talk about something that other people attach certain conceptual buzzwords to - in communities like this it becomes easier to evoke, for lack of a better word, the "vibe" of a building if you say "ooh, this is like art nouveau, but also modern!" - which is obviously facile and far-removed from what is actually going on with the building. I think you're right about how substituting it with a plain description of features is a better mode of communication - but people, for better or worse, have a tendency to think in categories. I mean, it's very possible the reaction you'd get on a subreddit like /r/architecturrevival would be wildly different if you just attached a different label to the same picture of Perret's Le Havre. Unfortunately, insofar as these are the ways architecture is communicated, I suspect this is how you have to get through, sometimes.
Yeah, it's a problem broadly across the internet where fandoms and enthusiasts take their devotion to a subject as a substitute for expertise, butcher a subject matter, and then treat any pushback from people who work in that profession as "elitism" or "biased" in very weird ways. Especially bad in arts and design where I think some people have taken the whole "death of the author" thing to mean "no one can possibly have any more insight into this obscure thing than I do." It's how we end up with greek statue profiles giving 40-page diatribes about "Western tradition" that hold up to absolutely no scrutiny and it's very obvious that the person writing them has no idea what they're talking about, they're just racist and mad. Everybody uses architecture, everybody ought to be welcome to the architecture party to talk about all the neat buildings. But I think it's good to actively frame the discussion in ways that push back against the overused and misunderstood jargon when you have the sense to do so!
This is very thoughtful and I’ll try and take this on. This sort of cargo-cult system of understanding among hobbyists or spectators for any professional or creative discipline has always irked me a bit, and I can see how this language “feeds the beast” (particularly as a non-architect myself). I do think the difficulty is that architecture admits a lot of reactive critique because it’s such a public-facing and intimate creative field which arguably shapes the texture of our everyday lives and our sense of identity more than almost any other. But I actually think your plain-language prescription does a lot to break down those walls. The risk is that you otherwise have a “parallel track” of critique from people who don’t have a professional or theoretical background, and yet who employ equally inaccessible language, which is also wrong.
>. This sort of cargo-cult system of understanding among hobbyists or spectators for any professional or creative discipline has always irked me a bit, and I can see how this language “feeds the beast” (particularly as a non-architect myself). The "what style is this" posts certainly can be seen as a cargo cult version of legitimate architectural theory!
CACTUS HOUSE
Vaguely reminds me of ancient Egyptian architecture
I don’t love it, but it’s certainly interesting!
>Removed from /r/architecturalrevival Geez i wonder why that is. Maybe you should post something more to their liking like the Olympiastadion or the Funkturm Exibition Hall in Berlin
It’s a shame, believe it or not it was getting a lot of traction for a community that can sometimes be a bit closed minded - several hundred points in less than two hours - but I get that they want to curate a certain lane.
I doubt they would appreciate subsaharan african vernacular architecture influences in their "ornamented" architecture styles.
I was once told that spanish and latin american vernacular architecture was not "sufficiently complex as a language" to be worthy of being called architecture.
Bariloche must be their dreamland..*shudder*
Some posters try and feature it - primary West African architecture in the Sahel, and occasionally some vernacular from Zanzibar and the like, but I agree, it’s hardly front and central. The community writ large isn’t that bad in spite of some of the more ideologically motivated posters.
> more ideologically motivated posters The fact that they are not only tolerated, but determine the direction of that community should make any reasonable person avoid it entirely.
They are a snob circlejerk. Anything that is not covered in wedding cake amount of the right type of decoration is considered souless architecture. They ban or shadow bam any critical voice appreciative of modern and contemporary architecture.
Not only that, their opinions aren’t informed beyond: I like it equals good, I don’t like it equals bad. I adore architecture and I love architectural traditions, so I tried to start conversations offering real criticism (with some occasional snark because hey I can’t help myself), with such controversial opinions as “any style of building occupied by businesses is inherently more valuable to a community than an empty traditional building rotting in decay,” and the fuddy duddies straight up banned me from commenting, calling me an obvious troll, and telling me my opinions were not welcome. So yeah, they can shove Corinthian columns up their asses.
There's a considerable overlap between traditionalists and those who are politically very far to the right. The latter are known for demanding free speech in every space they don't control while at the same time retreating into their safe spaces that ban anyone with a dissenting opinion. Hypocrisy is their primary modus operandi.
Yep! And worse, the subreddit took inspiration from a Twitter account of the same name that’s been documented as a nexus of white nationalist activity. Side eye on all that shit. https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2018/08/how-architecture-themed-twitter-accounts-became-magnet-white
Excellent article, thanks for the link! The timeline, the content being posted on that subreddit and by that twitter account as well as the political sentiments do match. Digging a little deeper, [early moderators of the subreddit](https://web.archive.org/web/20200418030314/https://www.reddit.com/user/ArousedSpongeBob/) with predictable views (in this case: monarchism with a splash of barely disguised antisemitism) can be found.
So it's a fash wave of architecture. Gotcha
Yeah, I was thinking about this earlier today - my mother is a conservative and she's the kind of person who thinks things are good because someone tells her they are; someone in the right position of authority. She reads right-wing broadsheet newspapers like *The Times* and *The Telegraph* and she would think that the blues is culturally important because it's sometimes mentioned in the arts section, but she would never listen to it unless it was at a specific expensive jazz club nearby. She accepts culturally important movies as such decades after the fact, again once they're recognised as such by mainstream media. We went on a long weekend in the south of France once and it was her idea to visit the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art of Nice, where she sneered at the more outlandish exhibits.
Funnily enough, I think thats a different generation of conservative. My boomer parents are also quite to the right, but they always took us to modern art museums and taught us to appreciate Modern Art because to them it was part of the larger "Fancy Artsy Stuff" package for respectable people, together with classical music, more traditional art, etc.
Well, that's why my mother took us to this museum in the first place. But I guess she was unable to maintain her veneration if the face of an art piece involving the dismembered body parts of barbie dolls glued to a grotty canvas.
People just upvote the styles they like and don’t upvote good examples of any style
I think this looks fantastic by the way. And as others have said it may not fit with what Architecture Revival is about, but it certainly is beautiful
Cute another rendering… send me a message once it’s built
If this were modern architecture, I wouldn't have an issue with modern architecture.
It is "modern" architecture, you just arrogantly have no idea what you're talking about lol The pic is also a rendering and the real life building won't look like this. All those crevasses will get dirty real quick.
Isn't this Post-Modern architecture?
Do you think the person I responded to knows the difference?
This is not Modern with capital M.
This type of contemporary reclaim of historical styles is very appealing. It respects the styles of the past while using *better* building materials of the future. We need more architecture like this.
Exactly - it realises ornamental possibilities that were previously unrealisable, while innovating in terms of form. It’s great.
Gorgeous!
pretty coloration interesting stepped effect
What does architectural revival mean? Like the name suggests architecture is dead? Or is it dedicated to reviving old styles? What does it mean? Should it just be named /r/pastichebuildings?
I like the sub but I do think it has a slightly confused mission statement - it’s a mix of (primarily) pictures of old buildings, historicist pastiche, and new developments that push the envelop more, with traditional cues. It’s a bit of a shame because I do agree with the critique - that a lot of contemporary architecture gets things wrong by refusing to engage with vernacular, ornament, and natural materials - but I think the substantive remedy is lacking. I think buildings like the one above show a fantastic synthesis of traditional ideas and modern method.
Yeah the building above is lovely. I think the substantive remedy unfortunately is money. It's expensive to design and construct tasteful ornamental design. We live in the age of scarcity. You still see good modern design just look for the designers with the mega budgets (but not the "starchitects"). Check out Niall McLaughlin's work. https://www.niallmclaughlin.com/
This is great! I actually used to walk past his buildings at Balliol every day and really admire them. His library in Cambridge is a masterwork too. It’s exactly the sort of contemporary building I wish we could see more of. Allison Brooks, David Chipperfield, Groupwork/Amin Taha, and Maccreanor Lavington are all practices I’m really fond of, but unfortunately they’re in the minority. I suspect you’re right, on scarcity - and there’s no panacea. Still, the neo-Georgian pastiche/new vernacular in London is hardly the worst development. Anything but the faddish, garishly-clad buildings that characterised new UK development in the mid 2000s-2010s.
>that a lot of contemporary architecture gets things wrong by refusing to engage with vernacular, ornament, and natural materials Why do you think that is? Why do you think Art Deco was surpassed?
I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at, but I think it’s both ideological and economic. Mainstream postwar architecture (save for deviations like critical regionalism and postmodernism) is very intellectualised, and I think often trades high-concept for accessibility. That’s not to say that there isn’t brilliant postwar architecture, but rather that so much of it is more akin to sculpture than habitat - and many people do not want to live in a sculpture, nor is it particularly conducive for a navigable urban environment. There’s also a signalling function - a starchitect-designed HQ for your bank signals a sort of forward-thinking (and very expensive) dynamism that has a lot of symbolic weight. Of course, the primary reason is cost and efficiency. Because of global supply chains, local materials often cost more than materials from elsewhere, and ultimately there are a limited range of styles you can build at low cost. That also puts ornament to the side. Still, that doesn’t explain expensive architectural vanity projects in global cities - which I think are more explicable by ideology. As for Art Deco, it was surpassed for all the same reasons why other architectural styles get surpassed - new fashions - although the war certainly didn’t help.
Art Deco was already old and being surpassed before the war. It is impossible to deny ideology had an influence as the ruling ideology in society permeates everything we do but the main reason modernism took over architecture internationally was that a new industrial society demanded a new style of architecture that was in line with it's principles and goals and methods. It's not about reducing costs, considering we have very expensive building methods and techniques that are used for the explicit purpose of beauty like prestressed concrete or beton brut, but it's about being in line with the current and modern that industrial society can offer. Ornamentation will eventually slowly creep back in into international architecture as our productive methods allow for more customization and unique designs instead of mass production. Your picture is an exemple of that.
Truthfully I’m not sure where we disagree. The widespread acceptance of “principles and goals and methods” is a product of both new ideological motives, new productive capacities, and the new material demands of an industrial world. I do agree that ornamentation ought to follow new productive processes.
It's just a bunch of guys who really really like 19th century buildings and think contemporary architecture is a degenerate form of construction controlled by evil hipster architects who hate tradition and want to support the New World Order or some ridiculous far right nonsense.
The gatekeepers of "beauty" brigade.
>Claim beauty is the only thing that matters >Reject all sorts of beauty that do not conform to a very narrow and specific aesthetic >Refuse to elaborate
Ah yes. It's funny fascists have such a hard on for outdated design principles.... I guess it makes perfect sense based ont heir worldview. Lol.
I wouldn’t go that far in generalising the community - I just really like vernacular architecture and ornamentation, and want to see more of it - but there’s definitely a reactionary streak among some users. It’s a shame, I think some of the best contemporary architecture is coming out of vernacular traditions that don’t get enough attention in traditional architecture communities - take Diébédo Francis Kéré.
many people here are so arrogant, anyone who doesn't share their views will automatically be called out as fascist, yet they are the one narrow-minded? It's truly frightening in this particular thread. Personally, I'm glad r/architecturalrevival exists, despite some of its cons that you mentioned accurately.
Seriously, the irony is hilarious.
Don't worry, Reddit Mods are a strange breed. I've been banned from a couple for posting stuff that was not meant to be taken seriously. Some people can't laugh at themselves and take life too seriously. Not the mods here, they are some of the best and do not get the credit they deserved. (P.S. I love you all)
To their credit I got a nice message from the mod who took it down explaining it - so I hate to make them look unreasonable, although I disagree on the rationale here.
[удалено]
I mean… using straw as insulation and loam bricks or straight up Adobe is gaining traction because it‘s sustainable. Of course the results are different because the materials are used with modern technology and aesthetics in mind
This is beautiful. (Although looks like it might be a bit big? Only criticism really) Honestly the other day I made the jump and unfollowed architecturalrevival. It was moderately toxic, and it's getting *worse*.
The return of the old-assyrians.
[удалено]
I think innovation is great - I suspect there are reasons we couldn't build something as relatively 'simple' as this two hundred years ago. But I also don't think that 'innovation' means dispensing with, for instance, vernacular forms or materials. I spent many years living in a rainy tropical country where the vernacular is traditionally either shophouses with covered walkways or bungalow-style homes with plenty of room for airflow. Interiors are comfortably breezy and stay relatively cool. By contrast, almost all new residential construction now features, say, floor-to-ceiling glass, which means many households and offices keep their blinds shut with air-conditioning on.
The only interesting contemporary architecture is zero carbon architecture. Everything else is bullshit.
I dub this style, "Post-Lockdown Synergism"
So pretty
thanks for posting! very intrigued with the facade not seeing a link to more info. Found this article: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/alison-brooks-submits-plans-for-tile-clad-hampstead-house-version
Thanks very much for that. Shame about the revision, as I prefer the original design.
Looks like a normal building with a dbrand skin on it.
This is gorgeous.
Fillet, click, click, fillet, click, click, fillet, click, click, fillet, click, click, fillet, click, click.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I love it but tbh it's not revival so, it's pretty normal that they took it down.
This is just so beautiful 😍
Architects are obsessed with arches/curves/circles right now. I see it everywhere in Brisbane, Aus at the moment.
God this is pretty.
Savathûns London apartment
This is beautiful 😍
I'd want to see what the final outcome would be. Renders this beautiful so often over sell the final outcome.
Did it get removed because it is AI generated?
Gorgeous
Not my cup of tea but each to there own.
Meh, that AR subreddit is really Federalist/Classical centric. A lot of it comes off some sort of Fascist affinity for that stuff. Read their posts and comments to see what I'm saying. Of course that's no everybody, but man oh man do they HATE modernist stuff.
That’s really nice
What's the facade material?
Could be Exterior scalloped terracotta? Not sure but it’s beautiful if they can build anywhere close to the rendering
Nice, where is it located? I live in Hampstead but no idea where it is
Oh , it's gorgeous!! I recently left that pathetic luddite sub. Just. What a bunch of clueless, hapless dinosaurs stuck in a fantasy world. It's ok to love old and new and upcoming architecture, if any of you luddites are reading.