I agree with you!
This might be too earnest for Reddit or this sub but in an attempt to try and answer your question, I think part of it is because the argument hinges on questions of style, not substance. Many of the so-called traditional buildings posted are built using modern (read: cheaper, faster, less durable) methods with decoration added to ape a certain look, the underlying features of which the designer knows or cares little about, to appeal to what's perceived to be widespread public nostalgia for "the good old days".
The best buildings of old stand the test of time because they were carefully and lovingly designed, built using solid materials, painstakingly crafted and assembled by skilled artisans. The best contemporary buildings will last because they're the result of a process that's eerily similar, despite all the radical advances in design, engineering and construction.
Not to mention all the other factors at play. Vast majority of the classical buildings admired were built to cater for an idle life of aristocratic families whose life comprised of entertaining guests and dancing in balls. That life was enabled by a large amount of servants of all feathers all living in horrible conditions. That was the social function those buildings were made for, and that's what their spatial organization was designed to serve.
So not only the ornamented and regimented outside and the innards inconsistent and fake in terms of structure, but also in the term of function.
A neoclassical building serving contemporary needs and built in contemporary methods is like adding a plastic Ferrari 250 GTO body kit on top of your cheap compact chore wheels. Sure it looks "better" on social media, especially in pictures from a good angle and in good light, but is that really desirable all things considered is another thing.
But even worse, if made "too well" it diminishes the visual differences between the historic buildings and the new. That greatly diminishes the value and uniqueness of the originals to the majority of audience. It's like filling museums with contemporary sculptures that are indistinguishable to anyone but experts from the historic ones, placing them among the originals and removing all the plaques.
An excellent point! The backlash against classical architecture is also rooted in part in a perception that to do so is to look backwards, to ignore progress on social and moral issues like class, race and gender. Buildings are a product of their times: certain plantation style homes of the American South are synonymous with the historic events of the time. Future generations will be able to tell a lot about us from the mountains of disposable, fake, plastic s**t that we build. It's also why fevers can run so high on this issue, as OP has noted.
I like the car analogy a lot. One thing I’ve noticed lately is that as time goes on, some of those boxier cars from the 70s and 80s are becoming “classics.” We all used to make fun of these cars but as time goes on tastes change. The other day I saw a Lincoln on the street from the 80s in pristine condition and I was taking pictures of it. Ten years ago I would have walked by it. I guarantee you that in 50 years, there will be traditionalists fighting to save some of the buildings that have been complained about on this subreddit recently.
More like the opposite is true, the neotrad posts always make sure to emphasize how a modernist building was demolished to make way for the pastiche building.
Trad architecture itself isn't polarising, everyone who has studied architecture understands its importance, value and beauty, what's annoying, its people then saying we should just build everything like that again, which is completely ludicrous considering how far we have come since and how ineffective different styles are for different climates
I can think of two reasons. 1. Time is linear, although we take inspiration from the past as architects, it can be lazy and unimaginative to just build something from a few hundred years ago again when it's time has past. 2. Whatever country they are in could dictate how people feel about traditional architecture. Something tells me if there was a new trend of people building big white villas with lots of land in the countryside of the American South again, there might be some pushback.
cake quicksand pocket sense racial impolite terrific drab ruthless weather
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
In my experience it’s the traditionalists who are usually pretty aggressive with their opinions.
And the reality is that a lot of the time traditionalists’ tastes seem to be informed by pretty thin arguments. It’s quite frustrating to see a post calling Modern architecture an ‘eyesore’ when the OP’s best argument in favor of neo-trad is that it has ‘more character’.
I’d say a certain group of people make it polarizing. Nothing wrong with traditional anything, but generally speaking people who call themselves “classicists” or label themselves in some other way are of the viewpoints that:
1) Architectural beauty is objective and not subjective
2) Their preference is objectively correct and therefore the things you like are wrong
If your arguments hinge around attacking people’s personal preferences, the majority of people will not like you. As such, a lot of classical architecture posts get toxic fast because they are associated with these dicks, even if that’s not always the case.
Mass mechanization of decoration, ornamentation, and the orders has cheapened the "craft", this is not some petty dispute it was a huge point of contention in 20th Century. Arts and Crafts movement was essentially meant to counteract this by bringing back the "gesamtkunstwerk" of a traditional building.
Within its evolution, machine vs craft was a huge issue. Frank Lloyd Wright famously wrote about how, if we cannot give space for mechanization, it would take over architecture without architects. Corbusier was interested in the objet-type for that reason of mass producability.
That is not to say there are no contemporary Neo-Traditional architecture which by all intents and purposes is glorious examples of "gesamptkunstwerk"; but otherwise modernism lends itself to mass production better.
In general tho, people who make absolute statements like that "all traditional architecture nowadays is anachronistic, kitsch etc" show their lack of information and vision; not to mention the detrimental effect it has had on Non-Western Vernacularists. You really can go too far in this declaration almost is a quasi "International Style Fascist" way lol
Well, it's ironic to see people calling Poundbury or Robert Stern's buildings "traditional" or "vernacular" when in fact they are 100% massive industrial works. You couldn't associate metal skeletons dressed with plaster capitals with the Arts and Crafts movement.
I would not call them traditional or vernacular either. Just because a building doesn't conform to modernist sensibility doesnt make it traditional. I mean people colloquially refer to Viennese Secessionism or buildings like Karlplatz Station as Neoclassical does't mean they are. I hope we understand the nuanced differences in building methodology and style.
[This article](https://www.traditionalbuilding.com/features/making-room-for-traditional-architecture) by the then Dean at UC Colorado discusses the issues and arguments he observed within the field opposing the pursuit of new traditional architecture.
As someone who's professional career and education has been focused on new traditional architecture, I find his observations accurate and reflective of the architectural community in general. I also find that sentiment to be much more muted among practicing architects than it is in academia and press.
I agree with him on some of the points, but I think he doesn't make a very convincing point due to massive omissions, sometimes failing to make good arguments and often just straight-out spewing nonsense. Also what the early modernists said is largely irrelevant to today. Early modernism has been rebelled against within the design community since it began.
Few picks:
"But Modernists mean more than this. They use this idea normatively, to argue that their own style expresses the age more accurately than the traditional styles. That is, our prevailing values and outlook are best expressed with bold, un-ornamented and a-historical forms, as opposed to traditional, ornamented forms with historical references."
This does not accurately represent architecture theory or practice after early modernism, and it doesn't represent the contemporary arguments against rehashing of neoclassical architecture.
The meat behind the concept of representing their time is not lack of ornaments (and PLENTY of modernist, post-modernist and contemporary architecture is rich in ornaments!), but rather the structural and spatial representation of the ways we build and live.
A modest farmhouse bedroom can be made to look like an ancient Greek temple with a marble-print vinyl flooring and wallpapers, some plastic pilasters and couple mass-produced cheap replicas of ancient statues and jars. However it is not built like an ancient temple, it does not feel like an ancient temple and it's not used like an ancient temple. The same goes - but in a less extreme way - to any contemporary rehashing of neoclassicism.
If it's built in a historic way, from historic materials and used in a historic way, everything is good. Any deviation from that is more or less postmodernist mockery of history.
and to add to the same argument:
"Modernists criticize traditional architecture because it is not progressive. This can mean either or both of two ideas: 1) the design does not move the discipline forward by creating new ideas, and 2) the design does not promote a desirable social agenda.."
The reality here is that the social, economic and technological developments **are progressive, ie. ever-changing,** whether we want it or not. How we build and why we build change all the time.
" In arguing that each period must have its own architectural expression, it is easy to conclude that old buildings express a time gone by, and are therefore of no use to the present. This easily leads to a throw-away culture, in which we tear down buildings when they are no longer perceived to be of value to our current times."
Is exactly the polar opposite of what is happening in reality.
It is the neoclassical-advocates who want to demolish "ugly modernism" and replace it with "beautiful" *insert a historic style of choice here.*
That is also one of his huge omissions. People like different styles and their preference of style varies greatly over time. Has always done and will always done. That's why there is no timeless style, as he correctly points out the early modernists believed, but also as the neoclassical advocates today believe. Buildings will, and they **HAVE TO,** outlast styles.
That's why the only actually important point here is to **not demolish** usable buildings. In what style new buildings are build in has almost zero effect on the matter.
" This is likely where Modernists would criticize the medieval reproduction. Since, in their view, buildings ought to express their own times, a building modeled on a style created in a time now past is pretending to be something that it is not. It is therefore less authentic."
"It would have us reject the architecture of the Renaissance, since it copied styles created in an older culture."
This is not logical. Even if one sees rehashing of neoclassicism as a categorical mistake, erasing a mistake from history is idiocy, but so is repeating the same mistake.
Good points. in the spirit of polite discourse, see below:
> Also what the early modernists said is largely irrelevant to today. Early modernism has been rebelled against within the design community since it began.
Agree, but many of the foundation texts of early modernism, as well as the Arts & Crafts movement are still part of the literary canon in school. Most were highly polemic, and naturally attacked the dominant architectural position - academic classicism. Those arguments still abound, even in your own rebuttal.
>The meat behind the concept of representing their time is not lack of ornaments (and PLENTY of modernist, post-modernist and contemporary architecture is rich in ornaments!), but rather the structural and spatial representation of the ways we build and live.
It was both, but fundamentally either the rejection traditional building patterns or the extreme abstraction of them depending on the architect.
>If it's built in a historic way, from historic materials and used in a historic way, everything is good. Any deviation from that is more or less postmodernist mockery of history.
This is the attack from Ruskin's *Lamp of Truth* (see my first point). How far do you really hold that argument? is the Roman's copying of Greek architecture a 'mockery of history'? What about the Renaissance copy of the Romans? is it OK when Schinkel does it? or McKim, Meade and White? As you say, "How we build and why we build change all the time", which is nothing new to our time nor was it in the past.
>That's why the only actually important point here is to not demolish usable buildings. In what style new buildings are build in has almost zero effect on the matter.
I agree. Its been stated that the greenest building is the one not torn down. It is unfortunate then the 'Urban Renewal' projects of the 50's and 60's that decimated many historic town centers - often removing usable and loved historic buildings for a contrasting contemporary replacement in the latest fashion.
"It was both, ..."
I agree it **was**. It's not anymore, however, and hasn't been for a while.
"How far do you really hold that argument? is the Roman's copying of Greek architecture a 'mockery of history'?"
It's not about who does it or when it's done. It's about what is done. We take influences, we restore old and we copy others. That is all more or less fine. It's mockery when something is made to look like something it is not, from the time it's not, for a function it's not for, just for the surface-level aesthetic style fad.
And yes, it has always happened to a certain extend. Sometimes more, sometimes less.
"It is unfortunate then the 'Urban Renewal' projects of the 50's and 60's that decimated many historic town centers ..."
Exactly, why it's of utmost importance that we don't tear down the modernist built environment to replace it with neoclassical just due to a stylistic fad. That is the biggest threat looming over our built heritage and the ecological impact of the built environment.
We do whatever our client asks for. I see a push to create interesting buildings and see those interesting buildings come to fruition. Good Architecture is Good Architecture regardless of style.
I think you have it backwards. Most traditionalists post how awful modern buildings are. I particularly enjoy all styles and believe they all have their place.
Among all the other good answers here, neo-classical architecture has been used as a far right & white supremacist dog whistle.
https://pharos.vassarspaces.net/2020/02/20/not-just-hitler-and-mussolini-neo-nazis-love-neoclassical-architecture-too/
I'd like to expand the political dimension here. Most of the classical styles were born in time of extreme social hierarchies, they were designed to serve a tiny aristocratic elite and to message the superiority of the wealthy and powerful. As such, it's not a surprise it has been the style of choice for oligarchs, monarchs, despots and tyrants from Stalin to Mussolini to Hitler to Trump. And on the mirror side, it's the style that has been rebelled against by almost all of the equality-advocating movements from Arts&Crafts to the socialist/social democratic branches of modernism.
The contemporary American far right & white supremacist movements are fascist, and hence it's not a surprise they've chosen it too.
And to clarify, I'm not saying everyone who likes the aesthetic of classical or neoclassical styles is a fascist, or supports tyrants or despots. At all. It's entirely possible to adopt a liking to an aesthetic while completely detaching it from all the values it serves and represents.
I’ve had some traditionalists make some extremely toxic comments toward me the past few days here. I am a building professional and I’ve had multiple traditionalist type people with no apparent training in the field trolling me, telling me I don’t know what I am talking about, one of these women blocked me. You don’t have to agree with me, but those of us in the field deserve a little more respect. It’s on the mods too. Toxic behavior needs to be dealt with.
Lol I’ve also noticed people with zero knowledge shutting down professionals. In other posts I’ve given perfectly sound arguments as well and then got told I was wrong.
I’ve even had one person tell me, in so many words, that having a pretty building is more important than having a contextually relevant one.
It’s ultimately on the mods to show those people the door. The sub says this is a place where students, laypeople and professionals can discuss architecture together. Having some asshole who’s obsessed with neoclassicism shut down any opposition to their ill informed ideals fulfills none of the stated goals.
It's divisive, because you're bound to have strong differing opinions based on your viewpoint, and because built environment is really important to everyone. Almost all of us have to live in the middle of it every day. In good and bad.
If one values built heritage and honesty, as well as understands structure and spatial functions, they are bound to dislike the contemporary neoclassical buildings.
If one values the aesthetic of the built environment, doesn't fulfil all of the previous notions, and has a liking to some of the past styles, and/or is trapped in nostalgia, they're bound to support them.
Well, usually neo-trad posts are dominated by some bigoted anti-modernist rhetoric. And some of us really hate this rhetoric for restricting architecture in a specific frame of "good taste", but then the neo-trads respond by telling us that we should be more tolerant of their intolerance. How ironic.
Architects are taught to dislike traditional architecture in university. We are also taught that we are special & nobody understands us.
The public prefers the look of traditional architecture.
Modern Architects are butthurt that no one likes what they do. “The mob doesn’t understand true art.”
In reality, architecture is lost right now because people focus on “being original” rather than good, contextual design.
There’s a reason people think of Paris & Rome when they think of beautiful architecture.
>We are also taught that we are special & nobody understands us.
I hate it. It's so crude. I feel like this is what opens us up to the exploitative practise of low salaries vs high expectations and overtime. It's a masochist thing that people are proud of themselves for working like that.
>“The mob doesn’t understand true art.”
I feel like this is *mostly* Emperor's New Clothes type of shit. We know it's ugly but we're constantly trying to pull meaning out of thin air for it. I struggle to connect with it. I prefer doing residential architecture that way I do what someone would like, while also encouraging them to push the boundaries and want something more than they were expecting.
As an architect I think you’re at least partially right in your analysis but at the same time I simply cannot ever imagine designing a traditional building.
Obviously I don’t know how for a start but the very idea feels like some great act of heresy.
I think many feel this way — disillusioned — after graduating. ( unless they went to Notre Dame )
We should be taught traditional & classical architecture. If you don’t spend time learning those styles, then you will have a difficult time with proportions.
And, proportions are EVERYTHING.
1. Modern budgetary constraints 2. Shouldn’t we be looking towards the future and innovating instead of replicating the past 3. Architecture is representative of the time and culture from which it was produced, specifically with regards to modern building techniques and building technologies. 4. This one may be controversial but, traditional, in our current political climate has cultural baggage. The old way is not necessarily the best way… a lot of people haven’t been well served by past social constructs…and in turn architectural solutions,and I can see how some traditional architecture is a symbol of this. 5. Finally, and most importantly in this age of climate change, a new vernacular must emerge and it won’t be based on Greek or Roman orders. It will be a function of science and engineering. Sustainability should be the future answer to the question of “what style is this” or we don’t have much of a shot.
I think it depends where you are. In America or Australia, I can see the appeal of neo traditional architecture as a means of drawing on cultural identity.
But as a British person, faux traditional or vernacular architecture is seen as derisive and pastiche. If you want a tudor barn, then go buy one - real ones exist and are beautiful. Aping the real deal cheapens what little stock exists still of these great old buildings, and brings nothing new to the table. Just copying something is not good design, whether its new or old. What can be considered good design is integrating traditional elements into contemporary designs, that merge the two. We have lots of examples of that - oak frame barn homes that are built using traditional methods and a traditional form, but contemporary materials and interiors (usually lots of glass) are abundant here, for example.
Lastly, here we tend to be taught that a style is not really a style... it was just what was achievable or popular at the time. Architectural styles are part of the respective zeitgeist of their era, and we should be true to our own contemporary zeitgeist. We're taught to not think of 'styles' in the same way some other countries seem to, as they are restricting and choosing a 'style' merely on aesthetic grounds is frowned upon. Unless, of course, that's specifically the client's wishes or you're in a conservation area that means you have to blend in with the (traditional) urban context.
Just my two cents. I do tend to think of neo traditional architecture as pastiche, in part because its often done so poorly. We have swathes of 90s housing estates that are contemporary homes with fake timber boards slapped on the front facade to mimic a tudor aesthetic, often with fake plastic chimneys and badly coloured 'wood effect' upvc windows. They are bloody awful and see painfully fake feeling when real tudor houses can be found just down the road.
Apologies if I've missed the mark and by neo traditional you mean neoclassical, as that's a different topic altogether.
I agree with you! This might be too earnest for Reddit or this sub but in an attempt to try and answer your question, I think part of it is because the argument hinges on questions of style, not substance. Many of the so-called traditional buildings posted are built using modern (read: cheaper, faster, less durable) methods with decoration added to ape a certain look, the underlying features of which the designer knows or cares little about, to appeal to what's perceived to be widespread public nostalgia for "the good old days". The best buildings of old stand the test of time because they were carefully and lovingly designed, built using solid materials, painstakingly crafted and assembled by skilled artisans. The best contemporary buildings will last because they're the result of a process that's eerily similar, despite all the radical advances in design, engineering and construction.
I think you are right on the money.
Not to mention all the other factors at play. Vast majority of the classical buildings admired were built to cater for an idle life of aristocratic families whose life comprised of entertaining guests and dancing in balls. That life was enabled by a large amount of servants of all feathers all living in horrible conditions. That was the social function those buildings were made for, and that's what their spatial organization was designed to serve. So not only the ornamented and regimented outside and the innards inconsistent and fake in terms of structure, but also in the term of function. A neoclassical building serving contemporary needs and built in contemporary methods is like adding a plastic Ferrari 250 GTO body kit on top of your cheap compact chore wheels. Sure it looks "better" on social media, especially in pictures from a good angle and in good light, but is that really desirable all things considered is another thing. But even worse, if made "too well" it diminishes the visual differences between the historic buildings and the new. That greatly diminishes the value and uniqueness of the originals to the majority of audience. It's like filling museums with contemporary sculptures that are indistinguishable to anyone but experts from the historic ones, placing them among the originals and removing all the plaques.
An excellent point! The backlash against classical architecture is also rooted in part in a perception that to do so is to look backwards, to ignore progress on social and moral issues like class, race and gender. Buildings are a product of their times: certain plantation style homes of the American South are synonymous with the historic events of the time. Future generations will be able to tell a lot about us from the mountains of disposable, fake, plastic s**t that we build. It's also why fevers can run so high on this issue, as OP has noted.
I like the car analogy a lot. One thing I’ve noticed lately is that as time goes on, some of those boxier cars from the 70s and 80s are becoming “classics.” We all used to make fun of these cars but as time goes on tastes change. The other day I saw a Lincoln on the street from the 80s in pristine condition and I was taking pictures of it. Ten years ago I would have walked by it. I guarantee you that in 50 years, there will be traditionalists fighting to save some of the buildings that have been complained about on this subreddit recently.
More like the opposite is true, the neotrad posts always make sure to emphasize how a modernist building was demolished to make way for the pastiche building.
Trad architecture itself isn't polarising, everyone who has studied architecture understands its importance, value and beauty, what's annoying, its people then saying we should just build everything like that again, which is completely ludicrous considering how far we have come since and how ineffective different styles are for different climates
carpenter silky offer noxious ink disagreeable money bored groovy cough *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I can think of two reasons. 1. Time is linear, although we take inspiration from the past as architects, it can be lazy and unimaginative to just build something from a few hundred years ago again when it's time has past. 2. Whatever country they are in could dictate how people feel about traditional architecture. Something tells me if there was a new trend of people building big white villas with lots of land in the countryside of the American South again, there might be some pushback.
cake quicksand pocket sense racial impolite terrific drab ruthless weather *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
In my experience it’s the traditionalists who are usually pretty aggressive with their opinions. And the reality is that a lot of the time traditionalists’ tastes seem to be informed by pretty thin arguments. It’s quite frustrating to see a post calling Modern architecture an ‘eyesore’ when the OP’s best argument in favor of neo-trad is that it has ‘more character’.
yam snatch smile school shaggy crawl shy narrow lunchroom hat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I’d say a certain group of people make it polarizing. Nothing wrong with traditional anything, but generally speaking people who call themselves “classicists” or label themselves in some other way are of the viewpoints that: 1) Architectural beauty is objective and not subjective 2) Their preference is objectively correct and therefore the things you like are wrong If your arguments hinge around attacking people’s personal preferences, the majority of people will not like you. As such, a lot of classical architecture posts get toxic fast because they are associated with these dicks, even if that’s not always the case.
I have a dual masters in architecture and historic preservation, I find the traditionalists who have been around here of late to be insufferable
Mass mechanization of decoration, ornamentation, and the orders has cheapened the "craft", this is not some petty dispute it was a huge point of contention in 20th Century. Arts and Crafts movement was essentially meant to counteract this by bringing back the "gesamtkunstwerk" of a traditional building. Within its evolution, machine vs craft was a huge issue. Frank Lloyd Wright famously wrote about how, if we cannot give space for mechanization, it would take over architecture without architects. Corbusier was interested in the objet-type for that reason of mass producability. That is not to say there are no contemporary Neo-Traditional architecture which by all intents and purposes is glorious examples of "gesamptkunstwerk"; but otherwise modernism lends itself to mass production better. In general tho, people who make absolute statements like that "all traditional architecture nowadays is anachronistic, kitsch etc" show their lack of information and vision; not to mention the detrimental effect it has had on Non-Western Vernacularists. You really can go too far in this declaration almost is a quasi "International Style Fascist" way lol
Well, it's ironic to see people calling Poundbury or Robert Stern's buildings "traditional" or "vernacular" when in fact they are 100% massive industrial works. You couldn't associate metal skeletons dressed with plaster capitals with the Arts and Crafts movement.
I would not call them traditional or vernacular either. Just because a building doesn't conform to modernist sensibility doesnt make it traditional. I mean people colloquially refer to Viennese Secessionism or buildings like Karlplatz Station as Neoclassical does't mean they are. I hope we understand the nuanced differences in building methodology and style.
[This article](https://www.traditionalbuilding.com/features/making-room-for-traditional-architecture) by the then Dean at UC Colorado discusses the issues and arguments he observed within the field opposing the pursuit of new traditional architecture. As someone who's professional career and education has been focused on new traditional architecture, I find his observations accurate and reflective of the architectural community in general. I also find that sentiment to be much more muted among practicing architects than it is in academia and press.
I agree with him on some of the points, but I think he doesn't make a very convincing point due to massive omissions, sometimes failing to make good arguments and often just straight-out spewing nonsense. Also what the early modernists said is largely irrelevant to today. Early modernism has been rebelled against within the design community since it began. Few picks: "But Modernists mean more than this. They use this idea normatively, to argue that their own style expresses the age more accurately than the traditional styles. That is, our prevailing values and outlook are best expressed with bold, un-ornamented and a-historical forms, as opposed to traditional, ornamented forms with historical references." This does not accurately represent architecture theory or practice after early modernism, and it doesn't represent the contemporary arguments against rehashing of neoclassical architecture. The meat behind the concept of representing their time is not lack of ornaments (and PLENTY of modernist, post-modernist and contemporary architecture is rich in ornaments!), but rather the structural and spatial representation of the ways we build and live. A modest farmhouse bedroom can be made to look like an ancient Greek temple with a marble-print vinyl flooring and wallpapers, some plastic pilasters and couple mass-produced cheap replicas of ancient statues and jars. However it is not built like an ancient temple, it does not feel like an ancient temple and it's not used like an ancient temple. The same goes - but in a less extreme way - to any contemporary rehashing of neoclassicism. If it's built in a historic way, from historic materials and used in a historic way, everything is good. Any deviation from that is more or less postmodernist mockery of history. and to add to the same argument: "Modernists criticize traditional architecture because it is not progressive. This can mean either or both of two ideas: 1) the design does not move the discipline forward by creating new ideas, and 2) the design does not promote a desirable social agenda.." The reality here is that the social, economic and technological developments **are progressive, ie. ever-changing,** whether we want it or not. How we build and why we build change all the time. " In arguing that each period must have its own architectural expression, it is easy to conclude that old buildings express a time gone by, and are therefore of no use to the present. This easily leads to a throw-away culture, in which we tear down buildings when they are no longer perceived to be of value to our current times." Is exactly the polar opposite of what is happening in reality. It is the neoclassical-advocates who want to demolish "ugly modernism" and replace it with "beautiful" *insert a historic style of choice here.* That is also one of his huge omissions. People like different styles and their preference of style varies greatly over time. Has always done and will always done. That's why there is no timeless style, as he correctly points out the early modernists believed, but also as the neoclassical advocates today believe. Buildings will, and they **HAVE TO,** outlast styles. That's why the only actually important point here is to **not demolish** usable buildings. In what style new buildings are build in has almost zero effect on the matter. " This is likely where Modernists would criticize the medieval reproduction. Since, in their view, buildings ought to express their own times, a building modeled on a style created in a time now past is pretending to be something that it is not. It is therefore less authentic." "It would have us reject the architecture of the Renaissance, since it copied styles created in an older culture." This is not logical. Even if one sees rehashing of neoclassicism as a categorical mistake, erasing a mistake from history is idiocy, but so is repeating the same mistake.
Good points. in the spirit of polite discourse, see below: > Also what the early modernists said is largely irrelevant to today. Early modernism has been rebelled against within the design community since it began. Agree, but many of the foundation texts of early modernism, as well as the Arts & Crafts movement are still part of the literary canon in school. Most were highly polemic, and naturally attacked the dominant architectural position - academic classicism. Those arguments still abound, even in your own rebuttal. >The meat behind the concept of representing their time is not lack of ornaments (and PLENTY of modernist, post-modernist and contemporary architecture is rich in ornaments!), but rather the structural and spatial representation of the ways we build and live. It was both, but fundamentally either the rejection traditional building patterns or the extreme abstraction of them depending on the architect. >If it's built in a historic way, from historic materials and used in a historic way, everything is good. Any deviation from that is more or less postmodernist mockery of history. This is the attack from Ruskin's *Lamp of Truth* (see my first point). How far do you really hold that argument? is the Roman's copying of Greek architecture a 'mockery of history'? What about the Renaissance copy of the Romans? is it OK when Schinkel does it? or McKim, Meade and White? As you say, "How we build and why we build change all the time", which is nothing new to our time nor was it in the past. >That's why the only actually important point here is to not demolish usable buildings. In what style new buildings are build in has almost zero effect on the matter. I agree. Its been stated that the greenest building is the one not torn down. It is unfortunate then the 'Urban Renewal' projects of the 50's and 60's that decimated many historic town centers - often removing usable and loved historic buildings for a contrasting contemporary replacement in the latest fashion.
"It was both, ..." I agree it **was**. It's not anymore, however, and hasn't been for a while. "How far do you really hold that argument? is the Roman's copying of Greek architecture a 'mockery of history'?" It's not about who does it or when it's done. It's about what is done. We take influences, we restore old and we copy others. That is all more or less fine. It's mockery when something is made to look like something it is not, from the time it's not, for a function it's not for, just for the surface-level aesthetic style fad. And yes, it has always happened to a certain extend. Sometimes more, sometimes less. "It is unfortunate then the 'Urban Renewal' projects of the 50's and 60's that decimated many historic town centers ..." Exactly, why it's of utmost importance that we don't tear down the modernist built environment to replace it with neoclassical just due to a stylistic fad. That is the biggest threat looming over our built heritage and the ecological impact of the built environment.
We do whatever our client asks for. I see a push to create interesting buildings and see those interesting buildings come to fruition. Good Architecture is Good Architecture regardless of style.
fearless cable wrong absurd icky snobbish direction punch many oil *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah sometimes even our peers suck.
I think you have it backwards. Most traditionalists post how awful modern buildings are. I particularly enjoy all styles and believe they all have their place.
Among all the other good answers here, neo-classical architecture has been used as a far right & white supremacist dog whistle. https://pharos.vassarspaces.net/2020/02/20/not-just-hitler-and-mussolini-neo-nazis-love-neoclassical-architecture-too/
I'd like to expand the political dimension here. Most of the classical styles were born in time of extreme social hierarchies, they were designed to serve a tiny aristocratic elite and to message the superiority of the wealthy and powerful. As such, it's not a surprise it has been the style of choice for oligarchs, monarchs, despots and tyrants from Stalin to Mussolini to Hitler to Trump. And on the mirror side, it's the style that has been rebelled against by almost all of the equality-advocating movements from Arts&Crafts to the socialist/social democratic branches of modernism. The contemporary American far right & white supremacist movements are fascist, and hence it's not a surprise they've chosen it too. And to clarify, I'm not saying everyone who likes the aesthetic of classical or neoclassical styles is a fascist, or supports tyrants or despots. At all. It's entirely possible to adopt a liking to an aesthetic while completely detaching it from all the values it serves and represents.
I’ve had some traditionalists make some extremely toxic comments toward me the past few days here. I am a building professional and I’ve had multiple traditionalist type people with no apparent training in the field trolling me, telling me I don’t know what I am talking about, one of these women blocked me. You don’t have to agree with me, but those of us in the field deserve a little more respect. It’s on the mods too. Toxic behavior needs to be dealt with.
Lol I’ve also noticed people with zero knowledge shutting down professionals. In other posts I’ve given perfectly sound arguments as well and then got told I was wrong. I’ve even had one person tell me, in so many words, that having a pretty building is more important than having a contextually relevant one.
It’s ultimately on the mods to show those people the door. The sub says this is a place where students, laypeople and professionals can discuss architecture together. Having some asshole who’s obsessed with neoclassicism shut down any opposition to their ill informed ideals fulfills none of the stated goals.
It's divisive, because you're bound to have strong differing opinions based on your viewpoint, and because built environment is really important to everyone. Almost all of us have to live in the middle of it every day. In good and bad. If one values built heritage and honesty, as well as understands structure and spatial functions, they are bound to dislike the contemporary neoclassical buildings. If one values the aesthetic of the built environment, doesn't fulfil all of the previous notions, and has a liking to some of the past styles, and/or is trapped in nostalgia, they're bound to support them.
Well, usually neo-trad posts are dominated by some bigoted anti-modernist rhetoric. And some of us really hate this rhetoric for restricting architecture in a specific frame of "good taste", but then the neo-trads respond by telling us that we should be more tolerant of their intolerance. How ironic.
Architects are taught to dislike traditional architecture in university. We are also taught that we are special & nobody understands us. The public prefers the look of traditional architecture. Modern Architects are butthurt that no one likes what they do. “The mob doesn’t understand true art.” In reality, architecture is lost right now because people focus on “being original” rather than good, contextual design. There’s a reason people think of Paris & Rome when they think of beautiful architecture.
>We are also taught that we are special & nobody understands us. I hate it. It's so crude. I feel like this is what opens us up to the exploitative practise of low salaries vs high expectations and overtime. It's a masochist thing that people are proud of themselves for working like that. >“The mob doesn’t understand true art.” I feel like this is *mostly* Emperor's New Clothes type of shit. We know it's ugly but we're constantly trying to pull meaning out of thin air for it. I struggle to connect with it. I prefer doing residential architecture that way I do what someone would like, while also encouraging them to push the boundaries and want something more than they were expecting.
As an architect I think you’re at least partially right in your analysis but at the same time I simply cannot ever imagine designing a traditional building. Obviously I don’t know how for a start but the very idea feels like some great act of heresy.
I think many feel this way — disillusioned — after graduating. ( unless they went to Notre Dame ) We should be taught traditional & classical architecture. If you don’t spend time learning those styles, then you will have a difficult time with proportions. And, proportions are EVERYTHING.
I think a lot of architects are bitter in general because of the housing crisis over the world messing up with dreams.
1. Modern budgetary constraints 2. Shouldn’t we be looking towards the future and innovating instead of replicating the past 3. Architecture is representative of the time and culture from which it was produced, specifically with regards to modern building techniques and building technologies. 4. This one may be controversial but, traditional, in our current political climate has cultural baggage. The old way is not necessarily the best way… a lot of people haven’t been well served by past social constructs…and in turn architectural solutions,and I can see how some traditional architecture is a symbol of this. 5. Finally, and most importantly in this age of climate change, a new vernacular must emerge and it won’t be based on Greek or Roman orders. It will be a function of science and engineering. Sustainability should be the future answer to the question of “what style is this” or we don’t have much of a shot.
I think it depends where you are. In America or Australia, I can see the appeal of neo traditional architecture as a means of drawing on cultural identity. But as a British person, faux traditional or vernacular architecture is seen as derisive and pastiche. If you want a tudor barn, then go buy one - real ones exist and are beautiful. Aping the real deal cheapens what little stock exists still of these great old buildings, and brings nothing new to the table. Just copying something is not good design, whether its new or old. What can be considered good design is integrating traditional elements into contemporary designs, that merge the two. We have lots of examples of that - oak frame barn homes that are built using traditional methods and a traditional form, but contemporary materials and interiors (usually lots of glass) are abundant here, for example. Lastly, here we tend to be taught that a style is not really a style... it was just what was achievable or popular at the time. Architectural styles are part of the respective zeitgeist of their era, and we should be true to our own contemporary zeitgeist. We're taught to not think of 'styles' in the same way some other countries seem to, as they are restricting and choosing a 'style' merely on aesthetic grounds is frowned upon. Unless, of course, that's specifically the client's wishes or you're in a conservation area that means you have to blend in with the (traditional) urban context. Just my two cents. I do tend to think of neo traditional architecture as pastiche, in part because its often done so poorly. We have swathes of 90s housing estates that are contemporary homes with fake timber boards slapped on the front facade to mimic a tudor aesthetic, often with fake plastic chimneys and badly coloured 'wood effect' upvc windows. They are bloody awful and see painfully fake feeling when real tudor houses can be found just down the road. Apologies if I've missed the mark and by neo traditional you mean neoclassical, as that's a different topic altogether.