# Classical or Modern Architecture?



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Where do you stand on the scale?

10. Staunch Classicist. All modern architecture is an abomination and should be torn down or prevented from being built at all costs. New buildings should be constructed in classical styles only. 

9. You will only accept a modernist building it it's very high quality and well-integrated within its context..._sometimes._ Even the most derelict old shack must be preserved rather than be demolished for a new building. 

8. You prefer old buildings remain untouched, or sensitively renovated, but you will accept a high quality facade retention and some high quality new buildings. You advocate for the revival of historic architectural styles in new buildings.

7. Prefer classical. Some modernist buildings are nice, but only if they are high quality and far away from urban contexts in which they do not belong. You would rather see nice older buildings renovated than torn down or retained only as a facade.

6. Leaning classical, you like most modernist architecture but find older architecture more inviting and pleasurable. 

5. You enjoy all architectural styles equally, are against demolishing historic buildings, (although you advocate for facade retention, when possible) but also for modernization. You enjoy the warmth and grandeur of classicism and also sleek and stylish modernism. You love it when old and new buildings contrast.

4. Leaning modern. Sure, classical architecture is nice, but you'd love nothing more than to live in a Case Study House.

3. Prefer modernism. You like most classical architecture some of it feels too old-fashioned or stuffy for your taste. You are okay with retaining old facades if it means new development can go ahead.

2. Classical architecture should remain in historic cities only. There is no need to imitate past styles in new architecture, and you are usually against retaining old facades.

1. Staunch modernist. Old and obsolete buildings should be torn down to make way for new and innovative architecture. Architects should look towards the future in their architecture and not remain stuck to the dogmas of the past. 

0. This list is arbitrary and you are far too nuanced to give an answer.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

5.


----------



## Titan Man (Mar 4, 2015)

I voted 5, but I would say I'm something between 5 and 6. I generally find classical architecture more inviting, but there are many contemporary buildings I find really beautiful and I can imagine myself spending my time there and enjoying it.


----------



## Architecture lover (Sep 11, 2013)

I voted 5 too, but I was somewhere between 5 and 4. I love classical/historical architecture, and I love seeing revivals of the historical styles, but only if they're genuine and true to the originals with quality materials.
For myself I really prefer living in a modern/futuristic/minimalist building (at this moment I feel like that's my attitude).


----------



## mapece (May 10, 2013)

I'm probably between 3 and 4, but. There's a great but. While I love some classical architecture my favorite period is that of the twentieth century. But my favorite modernism is the period that goes between Arts and Crafts, Frank LLoyd Wright (my favorite architect ever) and the organic movement, the expressionism, the midcentury style (I mean also the architecture of the sixties and seventies), a lot of brutalism. I dislike a lot of rationalism like Adolf Loos and certain things of Le Corbusier like Ville Savoye.

On the contrary, I dislike a lot of contemporary stuff, post-modernism, Gehry, Liebesking, Khoolas, Calatrava (there some of his stuff that I like), a lot of bland and dull minimalism. 
It seems that to me the twentieth century has been by far the most interesting century in both ways: it has the best and the worst (brutalism is a great case for that: some of the most inventive and awesome structures and some of the ugliest things ever).


----------



## Architecture lover (Sep 11, 2013)

I agree with your statement in the first paragraph, but not quite with the second (and that's okay), Calatrava is one of my favorite starchitects.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

5, I guess


----------



## mapece (May 10, 2013)

Architecture lover said:


> I agree with your statement in the first paragraph, but not quite with the second (and that's okay), Calatrava is one of my favorite starchitects.


well, in that group is the one I like the most aesthetically (while I really can't stand someone like Gehry). But most of the time it seems that he doesn't care at all to integrate what he does in the existing environment. And (more important) it seems his spectacular spaceships have always a lot of problems in spite of the stellar cost of his work. In Italy Calatrava is becoming synonimous of huge amount of money for structures that don't work.


----------



## JMGA196 (Jan 1, 2013)

I'm between 7 and 8, but voted 8


----------



## JMGA196 (Jan 1, 2013)

^^ being more specific, I like the occasional modern building like Zaha Hadid's tower in Milan, which I consider absolutely amazing, or the simple 432 Park Avenue, or many of those new lowrises in western Europe. However, I think classical architecture deserves much more respect, because you can actually see that since most styles had many ornaments, architects back then put much more time and effort in facades and details than today. Architects like Louis Sullivan could spend months making drawings and sketches with different options for facades, sculptures, murals, windowframes and doors, while nowadays it is pretty easy just to install a regular glass curtain and take a couple of days or weeks to search for nice materials and other stuff. Back then, painting and sculpture were much more elaborated than today, and they were much more integrated into architecture than today.

I always say that I feel that architecture in the past was on constant development and innovation, and followed a continuous line, but after guys like Adolf Loos, FLW, Walter Gropius, Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe popped out, that constant single line divided into many different lines not connected between one another. So the constant innovation stalled in Art Deco and Art Nouveau, and we should retake it now, and innovate again, in a more logical way.

So while it is nice to see the usual glass box from Mies van der Rohe, prefer to see a building with many elaborate facades, towers, columns and other characteristics.


----------

