^ Decided to try to read this tonight. It’s a longform essay by Rem Koolhaas from 2001. No illustrations - a huge mark against any architectural text, imo - and a lot of the language is way too flowery and vague for me, but there are also a lot of statements that blend substantive observational criticism (of (I think?) the exasperating stuff in that other thread) with memorable phrases and terms. I’m probably gonna keep jumping ahead on the basis of annoyance-impeding-comprehension and then go back and read the whole thing another time.
A thing that’s been on my mind tonight is the thread running through western architecture, mostly once neoclassicism becomes a fad, of the contrived association between “taste” and austerity, and how – taking that viewpoint – it’s easy to retroactively term earlier styles as “transitional”, as if the Greek revival or whatever were foregone conclusions, rather than one of many possible trajectories. And then, going from that, considering the latter chromphobic trends in design practices, so that it’s not just structural economy that acts as the purifying agent but also the denunciation and active removal of color, with all of the cultural phobias (and ahistoricism) that entails.
I’m perfectly happy with people posting nothing but images itt
Below: the exterior and an interior of Kalmar Castle
^ 1860 / Current || The site of an expansion to the Massachusetts State House was once occupied by a since demolished huge water reservoir building, done in the style of a grand Roman civic project
^ Corner of Milk St. and Devonshire St. The superb building in the first photo (very comparable to the John Adams Courthouse) was the Equitable Building, demolished between the 1910s/1930s and replaced by a bank which was, in turn, demolished in the 1970s to build an unremarkable skyscraper, One Federal Street.
^ 1873 / Current || The house in the first photo was the western extent of the Back Bay development at the time; beyond it are empty lots and marshland soon to be filled in for the project. You can see a bit of the extant New Old South Church, then still a W.I.P… The house was demolished to build the Boston public library’s McKim building.
This is really evocative somehow. The kind of thing that, if I saw it as a kid, I would think there was a secret passage or a doorway to Narnia if you pressed the right bricks in the right order.
[quote=“the_kyphosis_gamer, post:5, topic:3948”]
is stone of any type feasible in 2017? if so, why is it never done?[/quote]
Stone is on the more expensive side of things (depends on the kind used), but it is feasible. You’ll often find cast stone or some sort of modular arrangement in place of traditional usage. It’s just kind of unfashionable – major buildings are treated as fenestrated rises of partitions – and a lot of firms and developers are very concerned about maximizing their building’s LEED status (you may also find this page helpful). It’s a good concern to have; I just disagree with how much it’s had a hand in directing architecture towards a style-less format. Architecture has gotten so concerned with the ethicality of its sourcing and energy usage that it’s forgotten to tend to the ethical dimension of aesthetics.
Even though I wish the perimeter had more detailing, I’m pretty pleased by Aldo Rossi’s Quartier Schützenstrasse. The colors play an important role in moving the whole away from a fascist air and recalling historical trends, like parts of Landshut. Without some knowledge of Rossi’s beliefs and design processes it might be a little too easy to consider grouping this among other postmodern stuff that quotes older forms as a formal joke (“haha remember this, well sorry none of you in this culture deserves it, have a ‘witty’ facsimile, don’t forget to crinkle ur brows academics”), but I do think the building on its own does enough argumentative work to push against that reading. It is a boldly public performance, and one of its best features that it is at once a unit and a collection of types – the way the exterior is separated into sections, each with its own steady rhythm, is markedly different from many firms/architects now who treat the exoskeleton as a place for calculated arbitrariness, putting a window here but not one here.
my opinion is definitely not well-informed but it always struck me that materials with high thermal mass like stone n concrete would be real good for cutting down heating n cooling costs, at least in the right climate
It’s the procuring locations, yeah, the stonemasons’ labor, heaviness (and how this might affect means of transportation). And you’re right, concrete and stone have better and worse uses stemming from their natural material properties. It just depends on how the climate draws those out.
It seems to me that parametric design has its use as a time saver for very large-scale projects, but if you want to trade historical/contextual design for less labor I don’t know why you got into architecture. Seems like a case of “We have the technology, so of course we should use it”
Reading the second volume of a book on 19th century European architecture and so far the authors have fucking slammed almost every single named (French) architect, causing me to wonder if there may have been an ulterior motive here, or if it’s another instance of the bullying language architectural criticism has had for a couple of centuries, or if the authors just have inscrutable standards. It sure is a change of tone from the first volume.
In any case it’s making me think how valuable it would be if texts could provide illustrations of the dismissed buildings that equal those of the lauded. Perceived failure can be just as, if not more, instructive or interesting as perceived success. On the critical level, anyway. I sure don’t want to live in a world of mediocre architecture (oops already do)
