# Architecture observation what do you think..?



## Joey313 (May 2, 2006)

So I have been thinking........... and I noticed that over time Skyscrapers became more simple and less artistic. I didn’t want to start a thread on this but this “post” from a former, motivated me to do some research on the observation. 




soleri said:


> The UCLA campus is quite impressive even if the architecture is a pastiche of several traditions. I sometimes marvel at the difference is between the America of the 1920s (in LA, USC's campus also stems from that era) and the contemporary period. Even in depression-era LA, there were some jaw-dropping buildings going up. If a civilization is judged by its art and buildings, we're in a period where even the grandiose looks cheap. I know there are exceptions but it almost seems like we don't care anymore.


*1920-1930s*

*Chrysler Building 1930*









*American International BLDG 1932*









*Trump BLDG 1930*










*Eastern Columbia BLDG*










*1950s and Up*

*640 Fifth Avenue 1949*









*WTC *































Okay so what happened. Why are buildings less creative and artistic these days....? Skyscrapers are huge structures. Yet the design are so simple and boring. Not all skyscrapers that are being built today are boring some are actually very beautiful. But most are simple and glassy. I feel that architecture should inspire, be beautiful. You see most of this inspiring architecture in old cities With extreme detail in there buildings,.. art in every area of the building telling a story. Though I do…. understand that we are living in modern days and we cant have old architecture. My questions is why wont they take advantage of the technology we have to make something look able, interesting.? I think buildings should have more curves and more glass. It should show some sort of art. An example of an artistic modern build would have been the proposed building for San Francisco “The Transbay Towers.” A beautiful tower it would have been. With its interesting design and still having that modern look. 
Well anyways Any pics on a modern building that has some sort of artistic elements. Yes glass and steel are “IN” but are there ways the we can use this to make a structure interesting. More curves..? 
What do you think … ? Do you think today’s architecture is just fine…? Why do you think the architecture is the way it is today....?


----------



## Unionstation13 (Aug 31, 2006)

I think that architecture today is souly do to trends. Most popular modern designs today will be considerably hidiouse in the next decade. My favorite type of highrises are stone or brick ones. I wish people would build more 1920s style skyscrapers again, they had alot of character, and could stand the test of time. Most highrises today are just.. bland. And it doesn't matter how much glass or what not you put on it, it will still be bland later on. I think architects need to bring back more timeless designs and come up with new ideas in aesthetic style to create a new beautiful style, instead of grinding up a garbage can and beer bottle and call it a highrise.


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

As I said on SSP, the World Wars changed art forever. Architecture was one of the last art forms to make this change.

Edit

By you asking this very question we, the new Millenial generation, might very well see a slow, progressive reversal of the psychological damage the world wars caused. We are beginning to demand more craftsmanship in the artistic endeavours we pursue. The newest tower designs are only beginning to reflect that as we begin to take on a new mythos (extra-terrestrial, aliens) to revolve our design around.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

I'd love to see more architecture that reflects what we've learned over millennia. Instead we get too much that's more about the architect's ego, or bland.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

With some LARGE exceptions, I sometimes feel that architecture of today just doesn't hold a candle to some of the buildings built in the past. Back in the old days, it was more about quality than quantity, the opposite of today.

Even when looking at simple houses. Lots of the new houses built look like plastic. 

And let's not forget about the worst period, the Brutalist age. Lots of beautiful buildings in the past were destroyed to make room for these. There was an entire era when the only new structures coming here were brutalist. uke:

Don't get me wrong...I do love plenty of current styles. Maybe I'm being too conservative.


----------



## Unionstation13 (Aug 31, 2006)

Xelebes said:


> As I said on SSP, the World Wars changed art forever. Architecture was one of the last art forms to make this change.
> 
> Edit
> 
> By you asking this very question we, the new Millenial generation, might very well see a slow, progressive reversal of the psychological damage the world wars caused. We are beginning to demand more craftsmanship in the artistic endeavours we pursue. The newest tower designs are only beginning to reflect that as we begin to take on a new mythos (extra-terrestrial, aliens) to revolve our design around.


Craftsmanship is becoming high in demand, especially plaster and stone work.
Many houses in the suburbs where I live are being created in high craftsmanship, this structures are goergian, second empire, italianate, its crazy how original they look.


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

I would say that after moderinism and international architecture just went stale in new designs.


----------



## xXFallenXx (Jun 15, 2007)

i think one of the factors is economics.....it is just plane cheaper to build a box as opposed to something else.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Can you consider this as art of the 21st century?


----------



## xXFallenXx (Jun 15, 2007)

What the hell is that?


----------



## wajz (Aug 23, 2004)

Calatrava on acid???


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

It's the modernist movement. Like someone said, study art through the 20th century and you can see that it correlates with changes in architecture.

I find a lot of these new, shiny, simple, and by inference, "artless" buildings very elegant and comfortable. I don't see a problem if they keep building them that way.

Go read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_history


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

xXFallenXx said:


> What the hell is that?


^^ Uhm, not much, other than probably being the very same question put out there back in nineteen-o-seven....


----------



## Unionstation13 (Aug 31, 2006)

trainrover said:


> ^^ Uhm, not much, other than probably being the very same question put out there back in nineteen-o-seven....


There is a difference, structures back then used many of the same elements people enjoyed(ornate window frames, brick/stone work, elegant craftsmanship) even when art-deco came along. But most people arent to fond of modern design, if you ask the average person they would probably prefer older architecture over modern. I think with todays technology we can construct some pretty beautiful buildings with amazing craftsmanship.


----------



## Unionstation13 (Aug 31, 2006)

gladisimo said:


> It's the modernist movement. Like someone said, study art through the 20th century and you can see that it correlates with changes in architecture.
> 
> I find a lot of these new, shiny, simple, and by inference, "artless" buildings very elegant and comfortable. I don't see a problem if they keep building them that way.
> 
> Go read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_history


people have their own taste, and no one is saying we should destroy them, its just that alot of buildings being constructed should try to use more craftsmanship. These elegant and compfortable structures tend to become eyesores just years after they are completed.
These funky shaped buildings that we construct today, are basically like what they constructed in the 1960s. Does anyone seriously think these things will be considered beautiful in a century?


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

People seemed to like buildings from 1950 for a few years, but ever since they've been considered ugly. 

A lot of new buildings are like that. Crisp and shiny can look good even without 1900-type detail, but the 1900 building will age gracefully, and the crisp, shiny building probably won't. 

Detail and good materials, like brick and stone, allow a building to be loved even when it's not new or clean.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

I blame Mies and Corbu.


----------



## Pilliod Njaim (Feb 23, 2006)

Modernist movement, lack of skilled craftmanship (common during the early 1900's), more uniform building materials (mass production and Agent Orange- Home Depot), and a huge suburban movement have all led to an incredible decline in the quality of architecture and city building. Some of the ornate wood and stonework of the pre-WW2 era will never be built again. If complex and artistic building practices are not passed on to future generations, they are lost forever.


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

Unionstation13 said:


> people have their own taste, and no one is saying we should destroy them, its just that alot of buildings being constructed should try to use more craftsmanship. These elegant and compfortable structures tend to become eyesores just years after they are completed.
> These funky shaped buildings that we construct today, are basically like what they constructed in the 1960s. Does anyone seriously think these things will be considered beautiful in a century?


In a generation? No. In a century? Yes. Nostalgia is a tricky one.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pilliod Njaim said:


> Modernist movement, lack of skilled craftmanship (common during the early 1900's), more uniform building materials (mass production and Agent Orange- Home Depot), and a huge suburban movement have all led to an incredible decline in the quality of architecture and city building. Some of the ornate wood and stonework of the pre-WW2 era will never be built again. If complex and artistic building practices are not passed on to future generations, they are lost forever.


I am not as pessimistic.
The craftmanship will not be lost for the very reason that it is at least in Europe (but I am sure also in other places) needed for restoration works. By far not as many as once, but enough that the craftmanship is healthy and alive. I just think about the Dome of Vienna, it has a cointinous workshop running just for this one building employing a few craftsmen who constantly are renovating the dome. They dont have to fear to run out of work as as soon as they should be finished they have to start from the beginning again. And I have not even started to talk about the other historical buildings here and multiply it if you think how many cities of that sort are in Europe and how many in the world. 

No, I dont think the craftsmanship will die out. It will be low valued or ignored perhaps, thats not perfect indeed, but its not threatened in its sheer existence.


----------

