Architecture vs History

[delphinus]

I'm pleased to see that you guys have so many interesting opinions on this subject :biggrin:

 

To Marcus Wolfe, if i remember well, that building you were posting is a project drawn by Daniel Libeskind, and i find it pretty cool. (not only because i like the architect in general) And the original building was already rebuilt many many times... even in his first version was not so original... it took the shapes from classical architecture and put them together forming nothing more than an imitation of ancient styles (always hoping i remember well). Even the hugest church of the world, S.Peter in Roma, had sooooo many vesions through time that you can't imagine. The pantheon was rebuilt and reprojected as well. So humanity isn't new in rebuilding new versions of architectures.

My opinion is that it depends on what you are going to modify... it's an hard discussion, and i don't think i have my ideas clear on this yet...

[Marcus Wolfe]

Daniel Libeskind...yes, that was his name. I remember the design was inspired by crystal rocks or something among those lines.

[Kresselack]

Theres a difference in contemporary architecture when it comes to the specific kind. A glass pyramid is way different than a typical commercial building. If I had to choose contemporary, make sure it has art and flavour in it. The man who created the flat and boring architecture was famous around the 1960's or 70's.

[Lisnpuppy]

I stand by my comment...

regarding glass pyramids...

 

Louve..beautiful Louis XIV architecture....then a glass pyramid...

 

I dont have an issue with the pyramid alone...just looks bizzare to me there. Like mixing chocolate and a really good steak.

 

:)

[delphinus]

I stand by my comment...

regarding glass pyramids...

 

Louve..beautiful Louis XIV architecture....then a glass pyramid...

 

I dont have an issue with the pyramid alone...just looks bizzare to me there. Like mixing chocolate and a really good steak.

 

:)

 

Honestly i have seen far worse things of the glass pyramid in front of the Louvre... That pyramid is at least an attempt to make something, teasing, provoking, and maybe i agree that the attempt is failed, but what really saddens me more than that is the continuosus urban expansion on the outskirts of the cities. New urban centers are born out of nowhere, isolated, sad-looking, often interfering badly with the surrounding landscape. New giant shopping malls residences and hotels today can take place along a beautiful seaside for example... making a few ignorants happy, and the rest horrified by the sight of these eco-monsters. A good deal for organized crime and greedy biulding managers; Hard to put an end to this...

[Vagrant0]

That's not architecture, that's urban development. In order to find someone who can design with the scenery, the city would probably need to pay more money. Afterall, the city is less concerned about what it looks like, and more concerned with how fast it can generate taxes. And depending on how much of a tree hugger you are, no building would ever be good enough. For all the development lobbyists, there are also all these environmental lobbyists. Both have their points, but it usually gets burried within their own share of crazies.

[delphinus]

That's not architecture, that's urban development. In order to find someone who can design with the scenery, the city would probably need to pay more money. Afterall, the city is less concerned about what it looks like, and more concerned with how fast it can generate taxes. And depending on how much of a tree hugger you are, no building would ever be good enough. For all the development lobbyists, there are also all these environmental lobbyists. Both have their points, but it usually gets burried within their own share of crazies.

 

I'm not 100% sure if that's architecture or not; once i thought it wasn't, just like you, but now i learned that these facts draw the shapes of contemporary cities, and should be at least investigated, in order to keep under control the greedy lobbyists behind these things (a VERY large part of Italy's criminal business is based upon urban development). I also noticed that unlike old cities, which developed from a center to the outskirts, building their bones in a natural but rational way, (just like a skeleton) the contemporary city has many centers, (first commercial, then residential) that grow far from the city's main body, making it seem like an infection with thousand bubbles... not exactly what is in our traditional urban development culture.

 

Maybe we have to get used to this, and maybe this is not necessarily evil for many, but as i said, it's a thing worth of more than one thought about it in my opinion.

[Vagrant0]

The thing is that there are only two options, either build homes/apartments next to businesses and factories, which usually ends up causing issues as one interferes with the operations of the other, or build districts where like purposed strutures are closer together.

 

The other alternative is something like Arcosanti which although tries to remedy the issue, usually gets bogged down by various ideals, or realities about society. And are arguably at less harmony with the sorrounding environment than current buildings.

[Sativarg]

Ambiguity?

 

1. doubtfulness or uncertainty of meaning or intention: to speak with ambiguity; an ambiguity of manner.

2. an unclear, indefinite, or equivocal word, expression, meaning, etc.: a contract free of ambiguities; the ambiguities of modern poetry.

 

 

But:

Let us keep the best of the past as long as it does not interfere with movement towards a better future.

Let us preserve the past that has beauty that moves us.

Let us preserve the past that might prevent us from repeating our worst night mares.

Let us destroy or improve the past where it is wrong.

For example:

IMHO New Orleans, Louisiana should be rebuilt. But America should use the silt and the power of the Mississippi to fill the bowl so that never again will the homes of beautiful children in New Orleans be below sea level and so close to destruction...

[Vagrant0]

IMHO New Orleans, Louisiana should be rebuilt. But America should use the silt and the power of the Mississippi to fill the bowl so that never again will the homes of beautiful children in New Orleans be below sea level and so close to destruction...

Except that you can't build on silt, and many of the historic buildings would have to be covered over or moved. For reasons of both cost and sentimentality such things won't happen. You wouldn't want to knock down buildings which have become a symbol for a city, anywhere, it would only make the people of that city furious, and cling even more to what was. Destroying older, historic buildings is a far worse idea than building more modern ones near them.

 

As far as the engineering goes into preventing similar disasters, that will have to happen. Especially after all the flooding that has happened in the midwest. But again, cost is an issue, since that is all those people in charge really care about. Is it cheaper to rebuild after the 1 in 10000 chance of something like that happening again, or is it cheaper to look into fixing the problem.

 

And really, New Orleans is more of a testbed for technilogies that may one day save other coastal cities, if we ever have the foresight to put them into place.