# Do you like new building style or old one? vote!



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

Concrete Stereo said:


> where's the option 'both'?


It's about what you prefer, not what you like in general. That's more interesting I think.

Of course there are some modern buildings every traditionalist likes.


----------



## JmB & Co. (Jan 5, 2008)

This is too subjetive. There are old styles that are so beautiful, but others sucks.
On the other hand, most contemporary architecture is rubbish, but there are some gorgeous examples of modernism too.

We should be more specific, like a determinated old style vs a modern style.


----------



## Conor (Aug 9, 2009)

socrates#1fan said:


> The way 21st century should look?
> What is your reason behind that?
> Just because we are in another era doesn't mean we should abandon our heritage, aesthetic beauty, and make everything 'futuristic'.


If Victorians didn't move on from Georgian architecture and if in the 20's people decided against knocking down Victorian buildings for Art Deco creations, we would not have a lot of the buildings we have today, stuck (from an architectural aspect) in an impractical, financially non-viable world. If people didn't think forward we wouldn't have the Sydney Opera house, Empire state building, Chrysler, Burj Dubai, Gherkin, Guggenheim... It is important to move on.


----------



## Iluminat (Jan 16, 2008)

> We should be more specific, like a determinated old style vs a modern style.


Indeed. Anyway it's quite weird to compare theoretically all styles from all civilisations developed during the 4000 years with the last 100(or less) it doesn't seem fair.


----------



## peter871 (Jun 4, 2009)

should we make another voting poll?


----------



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

Conor said:


> If Victorians didn't move on from Georgian architecture and if in the 20's people decided against knocking down Victorian buildings for Art Deco creations, we would not have a lot of the buildings we have today, stuck (from an architectural aspect) in an impractical, financially non-viable world. If people didn't think forward we wouldn't have the Sydney Opera house, Empire state building, Chrysler, Burj Dubai, Gherkin, Guggenheim... It is important to move on.


Of course, but those changes in architecture weren't about distancing themselves from the past or trying to be futuristic.
Obviously the world of architecture must progress, but up until the 20th century architecture was based heavily on aesthetic appeal, also if you look at a lot of fashions in the 19th and early 20th century they borrowed a great deal from the past while putting their own influence forward, that is why they are so timeless compared to modern structures today.
Also, I wouldn't include the Guggenheim; I wouldn't call it a timeless wonder produced by architectural change as much as I would an architect’s inflated ego.

What we do now isn't progress, it is a twisted idea of beauty and constant attempts to be the most unique thing in the world at the cost of our aesthetics.


----------



## JPBrazil (Mar 12, 2007)

socrates#1fan said:


> The way 21st century should look?
> What is your reason behind that?
> Just because we are in another era doesn't mean we should abandon our heritage, aesthetic beauty, and make everything 'futuristic'.
> Real 21st century architecture would be green while appealing to our needs, aesthetics, and our heritage.
> ...


Of course we should not abandon our heritage, I think every historic building should be preserved.

I'm not saying whe should make 'futuristic' buildings but contemporary buildings. It doesn't mean it should look like Jetsons.


----------



## luci203 (Apr 28, 2008)

SIBIU (Hermannstadt) one of the best preserved medieval city (still have almost half of the fortified wall), with buildings 300-700 yo.










European Capital of Culture in 2007.


----------



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

JPBrazil said:


> . It doesn't mean it should look like Jetsons.


What do you call contemporary structures today?


----------



## Simfan34 (Oct 9, 2009)

The old style-new construction in Addis Abeba, Ethiopia


----------



## JPBrazil (Mar 12, 2007)

socrates#1fan said:


> What do you call contemporary structures today?


What do you mean?


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

JmB & Co. said:


> We should be more specific, like a determinated old style vs a modern style.


I was just following the logic of the thread opener. Feel free to open another thread with a more specific poll. I'd suggest a multiple choice where you can vote for your favourite styles.


----------



## ainttelling (Jun 3, 2009)

Ønland said:


>


This is a bad example of traditional architecture. In fact, it's so bad – yet so typical – that it makes me look down on European architecture as a whole.


----------



## DudyMako (Jan 14, 2008)

Why not combine both, like Paris for example.

Paris has a section of the city which is purely made up of traditional architecture, while there's the other section of the city which is made up purely of modern buildings (La Defense).

This combination works wonderfully, but I do believe that combining both types of architecture in one same building would be horrid, there would never be a balance.


----------



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

Perhaps modern skyscrapers but purely traditional lowrises?


----------



## Iskandar (Oct 5, 2008)

I think the European style of old architecture is usually foregrounded when people think of old style buildings. Generally. Not to say that there isn't allot of variation within the different styles of old European buildings.

What about other old styles? Like Persian buildings and Japanese?


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

I like variety and wouldn't want to pick one over the other. What's important is quality, attention to detail, and design.


----------

