# Revival Architecture - Fake History or Simply Beautiful?



## john2890 (Jan 30, 2007)

we often hear the phrase: "look at this beautiful building, its a shame people don't build like that anymore " .

what are you're opinions on revival architecture? Is revival architecture a style we should be proud of, or something to be ashamed of? Is there a building in your city which was built recently yet looks as if it was there for centuries?!

If you have any photos of recent urban(city) revival architecture (post 1930) please share them!!!

Also, share your thoughts on the different types of revival architecture (ie: greek, renaissance, gothic, baroque, french etc... revival), and what you think of them!

personally, i think modern architecture (ie: glass, steel etc...) is nice to have in a city. but its not enough to make a city livable. Glass and steel architecture make a city feel cold and unfriendly. nothing is nicer than walking by a warm brown brick building, or a building with cast-iron balconies and intricate designs! and in cases where a city is very new, i think they should make some space to allow SOME revival architecture to make the city feel "warmer". just my opinion!


----------



## Chong (Jun 27, 2008)

nice thread, well, let me share my opinion.. 
I actually like the idea of revival architecture. for me, it adds elagance...(E.g) If you look at the City of Paris they appreciate those old napoleonic houses and gothic designs and abhor modern architecture like the tour montparnasse which sticks out like a sore thumb and it also competes with the Eiffel tower. I myself would love to revive old architecture in our cities coz like u said, modern architecture is good and all but revival arch. makes the city feel "warmer" and "welcoming"


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

It depends entirely on how it is done and the quality of the workmanship. There are excellent examples of _Revival Architecture_ to be found, but usually it is subtle in it's deployment. Usually, the examples I like are not really Revival Architecture on it's own, but utilizes certain aspects of it. 

But the vast majority is simply hideous. Terrible examples can be found in shopping malls around the world (Canal Walk in Cape Town for example) or the breathtakingly horrendous Venetian in Las Vegas.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

The author has limited the "revival architecture" with the year 1930 onwards. But I think its interesting nonetheless to mention Vienna. I know the Historicism there is entirely from before 1930 (actually from about 1850 to 1920). It still can be seen as "revival architecture" as it quotes nearly every important former style in one or another building. And you know what? The intellectual elite hated those buildings back then. They called all the names the modern elites call modern revival architecture nowadays. Actually in Vienna they still dislike them up to this day. Even though things have changed a bit. The city is no famous for its "fake" archticture. Outside of the old town it gives the city its well known flair and opulent feeling. If anyone would dare to tear down larger parts of those districts, they would risk a riot against that undertaking. People have voted with their feet, and they want to live in those buildings.

Just one point more. I suspect its the abundance of elaborate stlyes that makes contemporary Viennese architecture even greyer, colder and rougher than in other countries of this world.

Regarding revival architecture from after 1930, there is little of it in Vienna. I know however an example, I don't really like. Its a villa in neo baroque style. It had been built just recently, but in my opinion it completely lacks proportions. So while I am all for revival architecture, I think it needs still a certain quality.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

^^ I read "Post 1930's" meaning after the 1930's.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Justme said:


> ^^ I read "Post 1930's" meaning after the 1930's.


Sorry if my comment was unclear, thats how I meant it as well. I just mentioned this example nonetheless, because I think it shows how not too much has changed in this debate over 100 years.


----------



## el casanovas (Jun 1, 2008)

Oh, I like post-30's revivalism. For example revision of the ideas of the Modernist architecture of the 20's and 30's 

As for historicism, it's always been tacky, it was back then and it still is nowadays. Do you find those postmodern buildings with columns and other Classical elements tacky? Yes? Historicism is the 1880's version of that, only its sources differ. I dunno, there were more interesting things going on at the time (Art Nouveau, Chicago school, early Modernism. Although to be fair those three also have their share of distasteful eclecticism.)


----------



## SeyMan (Oct 25, 2008)

Nice thread. Revival architecture? yes and no, it depends a lot where and why it's done. Let me show you one of the most infamous examples of revival: Ceausescu's Palatul Parlamentului (Palace of Parliament), a.k.a. Casa Poporului (House of the People) in Bucharest, Romania. This monstruosity was built in the '80 in a (kitsch) neo-classical style.


----------



## john2890 (Jan 30, 2007)

Justme said:


> *It depends entirely on how it is done and the quality of the workmanship.* There are excellent examples of _Revival Architecture_ to be found, but usually it is subtle in it's deployment. Usually, the examples I like are not really Revival Architecture on it's own, but utilizes certain aspects of it.
> 
> But the vast majority is simply hideous. Terrible examples can be found in shopping malls around the world (Canal Walk in Cape Town for example) or the breathtakingly horrendous Venetian in Las Vegas.


i agree. quality and workmanship is vital for revival architecture, anything less than perfection will result in horrible semi-old-semi-modern structures such as the canal walk (btw, i was on the mall thread and read your canal walk argument! and i support u!).

however you said you dont like revival on its own, but certain aspects of it (i assume mixed with other styles)...that problem here is that you'd end up with a building that looks awkward, in the sence that it will look out of place/or out of proportion. i think anyway, unless i'm wrong. but i've always though revival architecture should follow the chosen historical period strictly, giving us a "believable" revival building.


----------



## john2890 (Jan 30, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> But I think its interesting nonetheless to mention Vienna. I know the Historicism there is entirely from before 1930 (actually from about 1850 to 1920). It still can be seen as "revival architecture" as it quotes nearly every important former style in one or another building. And you know what? The intellectual elite hated those buildings back then. They called all the names the modern elites call modern revival architecture nowadays.


ok, thats come as a shock to me! i really never knew that vienna's architecture is that (relatively) new. i've never been to vienna, but i've seen lots and lots of photos, yet it never occured to me. i do admit, i did wonder why they looked so clean, but i just assumed they were simply restored after the war!

tell me, what was the city like before the revival phase (1850-1920)?
and also, have you ever noticed what the buildings are made of? concrete or stone?
thanks


----------



## john2890 (Jan 30, 2007)

SeyMan said:


> Nice thread. Revival architecture? yes and no, it depends a lot where and why it's done. Let me show you one of the most infamous examples of revival: Ceausescu's Palatul Parlamentului (Palace of Parliament), a.k.a. Casa Poporului (House of the People) in Bucharest, Romania. This monstruosity was built in the '80 in a (kitsch) neo-classical style.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_the_Parliament

for a 1980's building, i am impressed. i admit the exterior is a bit too big, there certainly is a stalinist aproach to the overall design. but the workmanship and detail is unbelievable!!! i mean especially for 1983!
apart from the exterior's lack of proportion and the hidden lights under inside the interior ceiling, it seems fine!
thanks for the share.


----------



## john2890 (Jan 30, 2007)

el casanovas said:


> As for historicism, it's always been tacky, it was back then and it still is nowadays. Do you find those postmodern buildings with columns and other Classical elements tacky? Yes


yes historicism can be *extremely* tacky and out of place if not done properly. as you said post modern buildings mixed with classical elements (such as columns and arches and sculptures etc...) just dont go together! yet if a building sticks to the true historical style, and if built in the right environment (ie: dense urban city building complemented by other classic revival buildings nearby) you might just end up with a very pretty city!

what i hate is when architects come about attempting a revival building while mixing modern styles in it. and worst of all, using the wrong materials. and even worse when they build a "classic" building in a simplyfied way (all the details removed!!!)


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Bad historicism: They tried and failed. 

Bad contemporary: They didn't even try.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 1, 2008)

Is there someone here who knows the name of the 80's New York skyscraper who looks as it was built in the 30's?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

el casanovas said:


> Oh, I like post-30's revivalism. For example revision of the ideas of the Modernist architecture of the 20's and 30's
> 
> As for historicism, it's always been tacky, it was back then and it still is nowadays. Do you find those postmodern buildings with columns and other Classical elements tacky? Yes? Historicism is the 1880's version of that, only its sources differ. I dunno, there were more interesting things going on at the time (Art Nouveau, Chicago school, early Modernism. Although to be fair those three also have their share of distasteful eclecticism.)


I could not disagree more. Art Nouveau produced hardly any "distasteful eclecticism" in my opinion. There are some not so nice examples of Art Nouveau, but they are not too "eclectic" they are too "modern" in my eyes. Ie they do not have much left that would differ themselves from the random boring and blunt 08/15 building block. 

Many examples of Historicism followed the rules of proportions etc of the styles they copied. Of course there had been contemporary modifications, but thats what development of arts is about. You don't have to invent the wheel over and over again. There is a large difference between tackiness of modern revival architecture when modern architects did not care about proportions at all and good revival architecture where they do handle proportions well and have a good context.

PS: Are you suggesting that the Votiv church in Vienna looks "tacky"?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...m_1900.jpg/439px-Wien_Votivkirche_um_1900.jpg

PPS:
Does anyone know the Bishopsgate Exchange in London, next to Liverpool Street Station? Thats an example of post modern architecture I really loved. I am not sure its revival of something though.
http://www.skyscrapernews.org/pictu...selfidi=1716BIshopsgateExchange_pic4.jpg&no=4


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

I don't mind taking over some ideas from the past but copying old buildings is totally wrong IMO.


----------



## john2890 (Jan 30, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Is there someone here who knows the name of the 80's New York skyscraper who looks as it was built in the 30's?


an 80's building built in a 1930's style? as in art deco or similar? i'd like to find out about that too! any nyc architecture experts???


----------



## FROM LOS ANGELES (Sep 25, 2005)

The Sonny Building?


----------



## john2890 (Jan 30, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> PS: Are you suggesting that the Votiv church in Vienna looks "tacky"?
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...m_1900.jpg/439px-Wien_Votivkirche_um_1900.jpg
> 
> PPS:
> ...


the revival movement of the late 19th - early 20th centuries saw very very high quality buildings going up, and the reason for that is because they stuck to the original historical period. the proportions were generaly correct, the materials and workmanship were done correctly.

compare the votivisch church in vienna to the Bishopsgate Exchange building in london and notice how the building in london only borrowed ideas from the past instead of dedicating the entire thing to a particular historical style.
the Bishopsgate building is nice, don't get me wrong (comparing it to the so many other semi-revival modern architecture out there) but its not exactly a "real" revival building strictly speaking.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

john2890 said:


> the revival movement of the late 19th - early 20th centuries saw very very high quality buildings going up, and the reason for that is because they stuck to the original historical period. the proportions were generaly correct, the materials and workmanship were done correctly.
> 
> compare the votivisch church in vienna to the Bishopsgate Exchange building in london and notice how the building in london only borrowed ideas from the past instead of dedicating the entire thing to a particular historical style.
> the Bishopsgate building is nice, don't get me wrong (comparing it to the so many other semi-revival modern architecture out there) but its not exactly a "real" revival building strictly speaking.


The Bishopsgate building does not pretend to be neo classicist or something else, it's post modern. I think the proportions are pretty well there. Of course the building is huge compared to the historic city houses on the other sides of the streets, but compared to the purely modern buildings that make up the the entire corner next to it, it fits very well into the environment. 

The Bishopsgate building does not really try to be something old. In fact it does quite the opposite. The statues and ornaments are all together of a contemporary nature. Contemporay does not have to mean minimalistic though. Partially it continous where Art deco stopped. 
So you might be right, its not what you would consider true revival architecture. Maybe its what I would love to see that our contemporary mainstream should move to, away from that often ugly and depressing functionalist modernisms.

To be honest I don't know too many examples of true rather recent revival architecture, I would be very interested to see some examples though.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

trainrover said:


> Back in the Spring, local news reported some developer planning to copy NYC's twin-towered Waldorf Astoria hotel in downtown Montréal. Luckily, I've heard nothing since then about that intention, of which the renderings altogether strike me as ugliness dabbling around with phony history.


Can you show us a rendering of that project?


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Here's the main library in Chicago. It was built brand new in the late 80's/early 90's.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

^^ That's grand! Gives me hope that Toronto's old College Park complex may one day be finished. It was a 1928 shopping and office complex built in a style popular at the time. Upon completion, it would have been the largest such complex on the planet. Only 1 corner of the building was finished when the stock market crash occurred. The project was never finished. 

Even without the other 3 corners, and the staggered tower which was to rise from the middle, this small section remains one of the grandest buildings in the city of Toronto. Perhaps, in the not too distant future, the stars will align, and Toronto will finally get College Park in its intended entirety. The first image shows what was built, the second, what the finished complex was to look like:








http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._College_Street_Store_-_Toronto_-_ca_1930.jpg









http://www.torontoghosts.org/collegeprk.jpg 

Uptown is a condo tower which pays homage to 1920s Toronto. It is under construction, but isn't even at grade yet. This is a render. It may turn out brilliantly, or be very tacky. 








http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/6038/82526628vt1.jpg

Here's another new building that looks like its from another era. Is this revival or did they never stop building temples like this in India? It recently opened in Toronto. It's 2 years old. I have no idea whether this belongs here at all. 









http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/2238/22jv2.jpg


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Chicagoago said:


> Here's the main library in Chicago. It was built brand new in the late 80's/early 90's.


Is this really "revival"? If it is what style does it copy? I have problems to put it into a category. Maybe someone can help me out?

Maybe its already more a new post modern style rather than just the copy of an old one? 

Anyway, I like it.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

^^ There are possibly some styles that don't fit traditional definitions such as Greek Revival or Gothic Revival, etc. Especially here in America, where many different cultures exist side by side, a great deal of blurring has taken place. 

In both Canada and the US, new strains of traditional architecture emerged, but you could definitely make a case for that library above being a new post modern trend, than anything revival. It borrows from various styles of the past. The combined result is both new and old.

I'd consider it post modern in that it is a new incarnation, but revival in that it is a re-birth of old ideas about architecture.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

I agree. Its definitely not "modern", in far parts rather the opposite of it. As such it fits pretty much in the framework of postmodern ideas I guess, which base on many traditional concepts that modernism wanted to abolish in first place.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

Slartibartfas, apart from the few serious hardcore modernists I don't think people here hate revivalist stuff in principle.

The problem nowadays are the following:

- Other materials are available today which are much cheaper and quicker to create a building out of.
- Materials and expertise for revivalist stuff are more expensive. Back in the day you could hire an immigrant to make a gargoyle for you for almost nothing. Nowadays how much will you have to pay someone to do it?
- A developer is there to make money, you think he'll go for the expensive vs the cheap option?

Result: Developers will not build revivalist buildings unless they have to and when they do they'll probably use the cheapest materials, cut as many corners, etc.

Also some more:
- Don't know about this but some revivalist buildings are out of proportion with stuff like columns, etc just thrown in there. This clearly doesn't work.
- Today's needs and uses are different than 100 years ago. How do you think a typical office building with massive floorplates but in a georgian style would look. Out of proportion? Definitely


----------



## john2890 (Jan 30, 2007)

malec said:


> Slartibartfas, apart from the few serious hardcore modernists I don't think people here hate revivalist stuff in principle.
> 
> The problem nowadays are the following:
> 
> ...


1- yea, building from stone / marble and other heavy and expensive materials isn't efficient nowadays. but even back then stone was only used on the more important buildings. many buildings where built from concrete. take a look at this photo the main street in Grenoble (France), and notice the material of the building on the right hand side:
http://flickr.com/photos/nickatkins/876855048/sizes/l/
(see it large, and notice all the elaborate details are cast from molds).
infact, most european cities are made from concrete (and/or brick covered with plaster, which nowadays could easily be done by concrete only). 

are there any cheaper materials than concrete today? and with today's technology making molds is really easy an cheap.

2- sculpting gargoyls (and any type of statue) will always be expensive. classic buildings rarely have statues on them. instead they have small motifs and ornaments that are repeated over and over again. most of those ornaments, if made from concrete or _cast stone_ can easily be replicated by making one reusable mold. In case one decides to make them from real stone, we have 21st century technology to help us do so. a 100 years ago labor was cheap, true, yet today, although the labor is much more expensive, technology has replaced the need for hammer and chissel.

3- you're right here  .

4- right again, unless there are certain guidlines for them to follow. 

5- yes, thats because of the huge lack of talented revivalists these days. throw in an arch here a column there and think they're brilliant. 

6- not necesarily, New York did a wonderful job adopting classic styles and applying them on big out-of-proportioned buildings. here's a few examples:

The New York Plaza Hotel:
http://questionauthority.org/nycplazaaction/images/hires/DSCN1791.JPG

Powell Building (NYC):
http://flickr.com/photos/wallyg/349098747/sizes/l/

Dakota Apartement Building (NYC):
http://flickr.com/photos/wallyg/564535857/sizes/l/

and one of my favorite! a *concrete-built* *10-storey* *french style * building :
http://flickr.com/photos/brianperrett/245717057/sizes/l/
(its the one on the left side)


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

malec said:


> Slartibartfas, apart from the few serious hardcore modernists I don't think people here hate revivalist stuff in principle.
> 
> The problem nowadays are the following:
> 
> ...


You address valid points. I also believed for a long time that they are enough to explain it all. But the more I became interested in architecture and at least in Vienna I could see among the architectural elite a plain principal distaste for everything that is either not "authentic" (ie really old) or modern down to its core. 

To make it clear for you, if a historicist building would cost slightly less as an expensive over the top modern deconstructivist building, both serving for the same needs. There is no way they would go for the historicist one, they would choose the latter instead. Dead sure. And don't underestimate the costs for avant garde modern buildings from star architects, they are often hardly cheaper than some decent revival construction would be. 

Btw, the traditional architecture knowledge is luckily still there, there are so many restoration projects going on, so there are people who still are masters in the needed craftsmanships.




> Also some more:
> - Don't know about this but some revivalist buildings are out of proportion with stuff like columns, etc just thrown in there. This clearly doesn't work.


Someone said above that some revivalists try and fail, but the others do not even try. I think just because revivalist architecture can be junk is no valid argument to discredit it principally.


> - Today's needs and uses are different than 100 years ago. How do you think a typical office building with massive floorplates but in a georgian style would look. Out of proportion? Definitely


Thats true. But do you think a Woolworth building looks bad and out of proportions? Its massive and still its in my eyes a beautiful building. I am no proponent of bringing back the good old times at all costs. I think however that modernism is not the sole architectural concept which can cope with the needs of today. Some very nice examples of post modern architecture show that you make good use of more traditional concepts which may be able to ease the flaws of modernism. I mentioned in this thread already that specific exchange building in London. Its actually quite massive in its dimensions and does not hide in this regard from other ultra modern bank buildings in its neighborhood (which belong to rather nice examples of modern architecture in my eyes as well... its not like I would be a hardcore hater of modern architecture). 

In Vienna you also have lots of office space in the 1st district. There are only few new office buildings there, so they are located nearly all in older buildings and still this area has a high demand. 


Last but not least. Do you have an idea how the construction business worked 100 years ago in Vienna, the high time of historicism? It was not like many expect it. The ornaments were produced industrially already, but due to the high demand there was a substantial variety of elements for all various purposes. The costs for the ornaments were affordable therefore. With modern means of production methods I am sure one could reach an even higher grade of variety through computer aided automatism. Of course if you want to plant highly detailed and unique statues onto buildings it might bet expensive, but that was luxurious also back then in the "good old times".


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

Why does everybody here think that modern equals glass and metal? That's totally wrong. Look at this, for example:

A new development in Tallinn. (Picture taken from foto.aripaev.ee )


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Rebasepoiss said:


> Why does everybody here think that modern equals glass and metal? That's totally wrong. Look at this, for example:
> 
> A new development in Tallinn. (Picture taken from foto.aripaev.ee )
> http://foto.aripaev.ee/static/preview/image/asjad/03/t2_rotermann5andres.jpg


I associate it in this way, because its what you get to see in Vienna. But in my opinion there exists largely more attractive modern architecture outside of Vienna. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Donau_City.jpg
Grey glass concrete steel mish mash. 

Bricks are indeed a material that make even modern architecture a little bit kinder.


----------



## john2890 (Jan 30, 2007)

those buildings in *Tallinn* would blend in quite well in a georgian terrace  . my point being, that they're not exactly what most people would associate with "modern" architecture. they're more like contemporarized georgian buildings!
i really really like them tho!

see: http://flickr.com/photos/bobwatt/808536225/sizes/l/


----------



## storms991 (Mar 28, 2006)

Rebasepoiss said:


> Why does everybody here think that modern equals glass and metal? That's totally wrong. Look at this, for example:
> 
> A new development in Tallinn. (Picture taken from foto.aripaev.ee )


They just use it too extensively; it's as if one throw of a rock could bring the whole building down if you use too much glass. Brick and mortar give the buildings a strong look.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Its somehow interesting when I think about it. The German Wiki claims that Historicism is still the dominant style in Vienna, and its pretty much true about it. Its pre 1920 but if you want its full of "old" "revival" architecture. Maybe thats the reason why there is not too much new revival architecture to be found in this city.

Btw, I found an article in the German paper DieWelt. Its from October last year and has the headline: "Die Blütezeit des Historismus" (the blossoming of historicism) And its not about history, that article is about a small shism in the German architecture scene. It seems for the first time there has been a silent revolt amongst some of the architects who were ready to question the absolute rule of the modernist ideas. Core of the new revival movement that article made out in Germany is the reconstruction of the city center of Dresden. That might be a bit sensationalist, as its not so much copying, but reconstructing buildings which were destroyed already around 60 years ago but anyway, some buildings are not exact reconstructions, you may call most of them revival architecture. 

http://www.welt.de/welt_print/article1315636/Bluetezeit_eines_neuen_Historismus.html


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

john2890 said:


> those buildings in *Tallinn* would blend in quite well in a georgian terrace  . my point being, that they're not exactly what most people would associate with "modern" architecture. they're more like contemporarized georgian buildings!
> i really really like them tho!
> 
> see: http://flickr.com/photos/bobwatt/808536225/sizes/l/


That's an ex industrial area so they had to build something that blends in with the old factories.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Rebasepoiss said:


> That's an ex industrial area so they had to build something that blends in with the old factories.


Thats great. The sad thing is far too many modern architects don't care at all about blending their buildings into the environment. Thats also why it becomes so exchangeable.


----------



## ***** (Apr 2, 2008)

I dont like glass and metal wich are the most popular materials today.
I think the public Architecture must have a touch of past.
For example the main library in Chicago is ok but the buiiding in Toronto (India revival) is just very tacky


----------



## OakRidge (Mar 9, 2007)

Here is a new buildings in Washington D.C.










As you can see they have made modifications to the style with larger windows.


----------



## john2890 (Jan 30, 2007)

*Good or Bad?*

*McGlothlin Street Hall*
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. Architect: Allan Greenberg



























*Maitland Robinson Library (1992)*
Downing College, Cambridge. Architect:Quinlan & Francis Terry.


















*Howard Building (1985-1989)*
Downing College, Cambridge









*Dufours Place, Westminster (1971)*









*Baker Street (2001-2002)*
(both buildings)




































*Richmond Riverside Development (1984-1987)*
Surrey


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Most examples are in my opinion nice. Especially the baker street buildings are a real success. They blend very well into their surrounding, but also enrich it. 

In regards to the McGlothlin Street Hall Ii have to say I like the side with the central round window far more than the other side.


----------



## OakRidge (Mar 9, 2007)

Click above for much larger versions.​
This is the new town at St. Charles, Missouri. The whole community is brand new.

For more photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sailor-mercury/sets/72157605626028282/

http://www.newtownatstcharles.com

Before you knock it I suggest taking a look at the Flickr album I posted. Seems like a nice place to live. Give it time it will most likely become nicer if the effort is put in.


----------



## zwischbl (Mar 12, 2005)

^^ even after looking at all those pictures it looks like the most soulless and boring place i´ve ever seen really.


----------



## OakRidge (Mar 9, 2007)

zwischbl said:


> ^^ even after looking at all those pictures it looks like the most soulless and boring place i´ve ever seen really.


As I said, time is the key. It's not even "finished" yet.


----------



## Kame (Jan 13, 2007)

zwischbl said:


> ^^ even after looking at all those pictures it looks like the most soulless and boring place i´ve ever seen really.


Really?










St. Charles may look tacky and boring by now but it's definitely not half as boring as the typical US-sprawl-nightmare.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

^^ About the picture above: what's the point of having a private house if you don't even have a garden?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

OakRidge said:


> As I said, time is the key. It's not even "finished" yet.


This New Town might have a little tacky touch indeed. But I would prefer it nonetheless over mediocre or bad modern architecture. Simply because even if it might look tacky the landscaping is very pleasing to the eye. But also the buildings are still able to convey some sort of identity.

But overall the strength compared to other suburbs might be the town design. The fact that it has a local center is something superior compared to most other suburbs in the US. Even though its far from the optimum in my opinion. The center should host more of somewhat dense developments. Otherwise it risks to end up as ghost town. The problem is that at its core its still a suburb, the changes are in the right direction but would need to be more radical. Anyway, that has pretty little to do with "revival architecture"


----------



## OakRidge (Mar 9, 2007)

*Chapman Cultural Center - Spartanburg, SC - Completed 2007*

















*Schermerhorn Symphony Center - Nashville, TN - Completed 2006*

























*Southlake town Square - Southlake, TX - Completed 1999*

















*National Cowgirl Museum - Fort Worth, TX - Completed 2002*

















*Tarrant County Family Law Center - Fort Worth, TX - Completed 2005*


----------



## OakRidge (Mar 9, 2007)

*Bank One Building - Fort Worth, TX - Completed 2002*









*Alvarado Transportation Center - Albuquerque, NM - Completed 2006*


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Some great examples there. 

Hopefully they don't have surface parking. That damages the effect.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> I agree. Its definitely not "modern", in far parts rather the opposite of it. As such it fits pretty much in the framework of postmodern ideas I guess, which base on many traditional concepts that modernism wanted to abolish in first place.


Yes, the Chicago main library is not "modern".

I absolutely love historic and monumental buildings, and I remember the first time I heard that this library was only 10 or 15 years old after I moved here. For an American building to have been built after WWII and to be this "heavy" is fairly unique. 

If you walk up to and around this building you initially see how much stone is used in the construction, and immediatly would think it to be from the 1880's or early/mid 1900's. It would seem silly to think it was built in the 80's....


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

The Tarrant County Family Law Center is neo art deco, isn't it? I think it is a great success, very pleasing to the eye.

The Bank One building looks rather like truly postmoder, and does not have to accept the term "copy" at all. I think its a very profound contemporary realisation of traditional values in architecture. 

The Albuquerque station could be a bit more elaborate, but its fine. Revival style railway stations have a very long tradition so it fits well in there. Btw, what even impresses me more than that it is revival in style is that there is such a new rail station at all there. Thumbs up.

Aluquerque seems to have not too much of an urban area, for a city of its size. For me it would be a terrible place to live therefore. But and thats a large but, things seem to improve. They seem to build commuter rail system, and have lots of urban building projects in downtown.


----------



## OakRidge (Mar 9, 2007)

> The Tarrant County Family Law Center is neo art deco, isn't it? I think it is a great success, very pleasing to the eye.


Is there such a thing as "neo art deco"? This has been something I have been thinking about. Did it ever really leave? I know art deco was still being built in some places.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

OakRidge said:


> Is there such a thing as "neo art deco"? This has been something I have been thinking about. Did it ever really leave? I know art deco was still being built in some places.


Well I actually don't know. In Europe I think it was never such common as in the US. You had the Jugendstil or Art Nouveau which blended into modernism. 

I only see that some new buildings nowadays look a bit art deco like in Europe. Or maybe I mistake something here, at least they look old style high rise like. Berlin at the Potsdamer Platz:


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

OakRidge, the stuff on the last page you posted is great!

However this? What were they thinking with the green stuff? hno:
This is what I was talking about with cutting corners.


----------



## OakRidge (Mar 9, 2007)

> However this? What were they thinking with the green stuff?
> This is what I was talking about with cutting corners.


I actually like it. It fits with the art deco theme. It does not appear to me that they cut corners. What should have they done? Remember that this is a functioning center.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ It surely is excentric but I would not condemn that green detail. 

Jugendstil in Vienna is often held in white/green. While your example is certainly not Jugendstil it follows a similar colour scheme.


----------

