# >>> timeless structures <<<



## The Cake On BBQ (May 10, 2010)

Structures that look like they weren't built by humans; free from where they are placed, any era, trend, "style" or idea... Basically buildings that look as if you could put them anywhere in the world (or universe) or anytime in the history of world (or universe) and they would still look imposing and unfitting. I think Tadao Ando is a pretty good example of what I'm trying say,

So if you have anything to share, do share! :cheers:

Teshima Art Museum,




































(Well, this one would look timeless when stripped off of its decorations and furnitures)









Anyways, hope you guys get the idea!


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

A lot of Oscar Niemeyer stuff is timeless. Many of his works are approaching 50-60 years old but they still look as modern as they did when they were built.


























Mies Van Der Rohe also has some classics that are approaching 50 years old but still look modern.









Seagram Building is approaching 60 years old

















Not to mention Fallingwater, which was designed almost 80 years ago.


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

I was rather thinking about a marvel like *Chrysler Building*, when reading this thread's title.


Chrysler Building von lassi.kurkijarvi auf Flickr


Or the magical expressionist *Chilehaus Hamburg*.









Chilehaus von 96dpi auf Flickr


P1010353 von pengel122 auf Flickr


Chilehaus, Hamburg von Glyn Lowe Photoworks, 1 Million Views, Thanks auf Flickr


Most of post-WW2 modernism isn't really timeless imho, though I agree Niemeyer's work definitely is one of a kind, visually. But it's not creating any urbanity, if you look at a place like Brasilia. It's a disgraceful "city", separating functions and people and giving you the look and feel you're nothing but a machine that just has to "work" in such a place.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Urbanity is a different issue entirely. I prefer modern and mid-century modern buildings for their linear emphasis, use of geometric forms, linear pattern and use of space. Most of the good examples seem timeless to me, due to their use of simple forms. 

Most people see buildings like Chrysler and think 'historic building' but if you would show someone a photo of Fallingwater and tell them it's over 70 years old they would be quite surprised. I think that is 'timeless.'


----------



## RPFigueiredo (Jun 9, 2009)

erbse said:


> Most of post-WW2 modernism isn't really timeless imho, though I agree Niemeyer's work definitely is one of a kind, visually. But it's not creating any urbanity, if you look at a place like Brasilia. It's a disgraceful "city", separating functions and people and giving you the look and feel you're nothing but a machine that just has to "work" in such a place.


Niemeyer did not design Brasília. On the lack of urbanity you can blame Lucio Costa, though he only did a reinterpretation of what was believed to be right at the time - functionalist planning. Niemeyer's architecture before the new capital is rather urban, with a rare integration with landscape and city (and in fact the National Congress is as well). Banco Boavista, Hospital da Lagoa, Cavanelas and Canoas houses, Copan building... Only a few examples.


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

ThatOneGuy said:


> Most people see buildings like Chrysler and think 'historic building' but if you would show someone a photo of Fallingwater and tell them it's over 70 years old they would be quite surprised. I think that is 'timeless.'


Basically you're saying that only modernist architecture with simple geometrical shapes could be considered 'timeless'. I don't agree.

A timeless structure to my definition is a building that remains beautiful throughout the ages, no matter who's looking at it. Something like that could easily be said about most Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Classicist, Historicist, Art Nouveau and even Art Deco and Expressionist structures.

While many modernist buildings fail to age with grace and look rather aged today. Even when refurbished they often leave a feeling of "that's not fashionable anymore".


----------



## RPFigueiredo (Jun 9, 2009)

I agree with you. Architecture as an art obviouslly expresses society in which it was built as well as its time.

The Chrysler is a prime example of art-deco, and one can feel the economic optmism the US Was going through when it was built. Modernist architecture is not well judged in this aspect, as most of what was built arent't exactly masterpieces - some untalented professionals borrowed the simplistic vocabulary to build cheaply.

Real modernist architecture is timeless. The villa-Savoye is 90 years old, and it's rather fresh because its aesthetic qualities are based on real problem solving and constructive technology. As mentioned before, many of Niemeyer's work are strinkingly modern to this day, though they clearly belong to mid-century.

Fake modernism, built out of fashion, doesn't age as well.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

An ageless building: Glass Palace, Heerlen, Netherlands (1935)


----------



## socrates#1fan (Jul 1, 2008)

ThatOneGuy said:


> An ageless building: Glass Palace, Heerlen, Netherlands (1935)


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

So metaphors are banned from the forum? :|


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

An awesome expressionist building from 1962: Eero Saarinen's terminal building at JFK Airport. 








































In all honesty, it's ahead of many buildings of even our time.


----------

