Talk Elections

Forum Community => Off-topic Board => Topic started by: Simfan34 on May 27, 2012, 04:08:08 PM



Title: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on May 27, 2012, 04:08:08 PM
()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: politicus on May 27, 2012, 04:11:48 PM
What kind of question is that? Freedom houses of course!


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: minionofmidas on May 27, 2012, 04:20:25 PM
Some of those pictured are not big, and a couple are very ugly.
The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Lief 🗽 on May 27, 2012, 04:30:57 PM
I wouldn't call any of those "houses." Estates or mansions maybe.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on May 27, 2012, 04:35:15 PM
Some of those pictured are not big, and a couple are very ugly.

Not big- please tell me which. Of those, Hyde Park is perhaps my least favorite, but "very ugly"?


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: dead0man on May 27, 2012, 04:40:53 PM
I enjoy looking at them and am glad some rich people keep them up, but I would never want to live in one.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on May 27, 2012, 04:45:56 PM
Those are excessively big. More reasonably big old houses, the kind that could reasonably be lived in by a smallish extended family unit without 'help', are of course freedom houses.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: dead0man on May 27, 2012, 04:55:19 PM
()
My favorite house in Omaha.  It looks about twice as creepy in person and I doubt I'd want to live in it...but I'd LOVE to own it/rent it out to young "goths" going to Creighton.  I bet you could make an awesome short, low budget horror movie in it.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on May 27, 2012, 05:14:30 PM
Those are excessively big. More reasonably big old houses, the kind that could reasonably be lived in by a smallish extended family unit without 'help', are of course freedom houses.

I've seen the personal spaces in some of these manses, they're surprisingly intimate. Most of their size is derived from the spacious reception rooms and of course service rooms and servant quarters.

Of course, I have no qualms whatsoever with having domestic staff. Indeed, if all goes to plan I could see myself having a full time maid and valet, and part time cook and chauffeur- all while single. While that's unlikely to be the case, I have no problem with the idea.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 27, 2012, 05:58:35 PM
Some of those pictured are not big, and a couple are very ugly.
The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

This is a very good answer.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Oakvale on May 27, 2012, 06:29:24 PM
Some of the ones you posted are okay aesthetically, although most aren't, and all are terrible houses as symbols of capitalist oppression.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on May 27, 2012, 08:07:07 PM
The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

Stuff like this makes me want to be an Objectivist.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on May 27, 2012, 08:11:18 PM
The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

Stuff like this makes me want to be an Objectivist.

Please no.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on May 27, 2012, 08:13:49 PM
The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

Stuff like this makes me want to be an Objectivist.

Please no.

But it's very stupid.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on May 27, 2012, 08:15:27 PM
The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

Stuff like this makes me want to be an Objectivist.

Please no.

But it's very stupid.

As is Objectivism. You're better as a somewhat traditionalist conservative. Trust me.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on May 27, 2012, 08:20:04 PM
What is the 8th building depicted? It looks like it is in DC.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on May 27, 2012, 08:21:11 PM
The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

Stuff like this makes me want to be an Objectivist.

Please no.

But it's very stupid.

As is Objectivism. You're better as a somewhat traditionalist conservative. Trust me.

I know, but really... that comment inspired a little bit of rage.

What is the 8th building depicted? It looks like it is in DC.

Hyde Park, mansion of the Vanderbilts. It's in NY State.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Oakvale on May 27, 2012, 08:25:01 PM
I don't really see how Lewis' post is apparently so terrible.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on May 27, 2012, 08:27:21 PM
I don't really see how Lewis' post is apparently so terrible.

I mean- take them over and just give them to people? Really?


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Oakvale on May 27, 2012, 08:29:31 PM
I don't really see how Lewis' post is apparently so terrible.

I mean- take them over and just give them to people? Really?

Why not? It's not like they're especially useful if they're just sitting there owned by some random riches.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on May 27, 2012, 08:30:54 PM
I don't really see how Lewis' post is apparently so terrible.

I mean- take them over and just give them to people? Really?

Why not? It's not like they're especially useful if they're just sitting there owned by some random riches.

But whose business is that but their own? They sit there looking pretty. That's useful enough to me.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Lief 🗽 on May 27, 2012, 08:35:12 PM
Some of the ones you posted are okay aesthetically, although most aren't, and all are terrible houses as symbols of capitalist oppression.

Now, now. Some of them are symbols of feudal oppression as well. Or capitalist oppression with a feudal oppression facade, at least.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on May 27, 2012, 08:39:26 PM
Some of the ones you posted are okay aesthetically, although most aren't, and all are terrible houses as symbols of capitalist oppression.

Now, now. Some of them are symbols of feudal oppression as well. Or capitalist oppression with a feudal oppression facade, at least.

Very good! Now, which ones?


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on May 27, 2012, 09:04:34 PM
I don't really see how Lewis' post is apparently so terrible.

I mean- take them over and just give them to people? Really?

Why not? It's not like they're especially useful if they're just sitting there owned by some random riches.

But whose business is that but their own? They sit there looking pretty. That's useful enough to me.

I think the question is why you're particularly shocked and/or appalled at what Lewis said relative to normal leftist rhetoric on topics like this (unless that's something that always bothers you).

Mind you, I don't agree with Lewis's proposed expropriation in this case, mainly because I think that all of these houses have great historical value that ought to be preserved, also because I don't think tenements row on row in larger buildings are really particularly desirable living spaces all things considered (I can be sold on row-houses and flats above shops).


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on May 27, 2012, 09:15:30 PM
Some of those pictured are not big, and a couple are very ugly.
The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

This is the correct response.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: batmacumba on May 28, 2012, 02:22:03 AM
These are symbols of past cultures, and if I had time and patience, I could do a deeper analysis. What we must understand is that's the heritage they represent should not be target of contemporary judgement as if they pertained to our time. It would be a-historical. A given Architecture is the embodiment of the whole material and immaterial production of the society in which It was made, and that's exactly why to simply adapt It to contemporary judgements is silly. Ideally, there should be a way to maintain their original use (or, at least, to potentialize the reading of what was It's original meaning) and make them worth to society, specially if public access could be given.
Sure, reproducing them nowadays is just an oldfashioned way to demonstrate fake status using techniques and solutions which are not anchored in the contemporary societies. But adapting them, disrespecting their cultural values, is not too much different.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: minionofmidas on May 28, 2012, 05:04:32 AM
Some of those pictured are not big, and a couple are very ugly.

Not big- please tell me which.

()

()

(Still very big for a single household, of course.)

Quote
Of those, Hyde Park is perhaps my least favorite, but "very ugly"?

()

Not the only one to be less than attractive, but the only one to be positively an eyesore.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: batmacumba on May 28, 2012, 07:06:44 AM
Quote
Of those, Hyde Park is perhaps my least favorite, but "very ugly"?

()

Not the only one to be less than attractive, but the only one to be positively an eyesore.

That is a sad one. Bad, bad taste. I'm kinda lazy to research It, but, if It's from the late XIX, early XX, would fit in a trend of (many times awful) bourgeois houses.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on May 28, 2012, 10:56:44 AM
The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

Stuff like this makes me want to be an Objectivist.

Please no.

But it's very stupid.

As is Objectivism. You're better as a somewhat traditionalist conservative. Trust me.

I know, but really... that comment inspired a little bit of rage.

What is the 8th building depicted? It looks like it is in DC.

Hyde Park, mansion of the Vanderbilts. It's in NY State.
By eight, I was counting the 2nd, unseen one. So I guess I meant the seventh one down, seeing as the blank image is not being counted. The seventh one looks like it is in NYC or DC.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on May 28, 2012, 11:44:09 AM
Oh, that's the Frick Mansion. It's a museum in NYC- great collection of Old Masters' works. If you find yourself in the city, go there.

All of the Upper East Side used to be like that, like this block:

()

This block remains:

()

It's a shame it's no longer like that, but an even bigger one the ones that were lost weren't torn down soon enough to be replaced by apartment blocks in the 10s, 20s, and 30s, but were demolished for uglier and later buildings. Here are some houses in the city:

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

And some people are still building them:

()



Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on May 28, 2012, 11:53:05 AM
Neutral. They can be occupied by either FFs or HPs.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: batmacumba on May 28, 2012, 02:45:49 PM
It's really awful how this continent is unable to deal with its past societies. We got rid of the indigenous, then of the first colonizers, then of the gilded age, now we're also throwing down the achievements of the monopolist industrial society. In my city we're already mourning the loose of our 40's and 50's elegant modernist houses.
Now, observe in your pictures why estate market sucks with vacuum cleaner power: no [Inks]ing adjacent more recent building have respected neither was designed in a way to solve some formal relation with the preexisting one. Sure not. They would have to give up commerciable area. Now, find in Europe this kind of disrespect.


And some people are still building them:

()

[/center]

Unless this is build with rock masonry and hand made finishings, It should be demolished. Even then, It would be only a demonstration of nouveau-riche bad taste and need to legitimate oneself faking the heritage of past cultures.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on May 28, 2012, 02:57:56 PM
It is. Nor is any house built that well bad. This is:

()

To act as if the culture of the Americas stems from different roots than that of Europe, especially the North American countries and the Southern Cone, is silly. This is our cultural heritage. Ironically, though, the house you posted as ugly is the closest to an American vernacular.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on May 28, 2012, 03:51:12 PM
It is. Nor is any house built that well bad. This is:

()

To act as if the culture of the Americas stems from different roots than that of Europe, especially the North American countries and the Southern Cone, is silly. This is our cultural heritage. Ironically, though, the house you posted as ugly is the closest to an American vernacular.
No. The traditional American home is one hundred percent of American origin.
()


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: batmacumba on May 28, 2012, 09:31:17 PM
It is. Nor is any house built that well bad. This is:

()

To act as if the culture of the Americas stems from different roots than that of Europe, especially the North American countries and the Southern Cone, is silly. This is our cultural heritage. Ironically, though, the house you posted as ugly is the closest to an American vernacular.

Architectonic culture, specially, drew much less from non-european influences than other cultural expressions, even vernacular Architecture. That's not what I'm talking about.
Architecture are not forms. Its forms are just the result of building techniques, cultural themes, environment and social organization. So, capitels, columns, modenature, the way of solving the roof, wall width, are all results of building and use demands solved under cultural, socioeconomic and technical values. When that technique is surpassed and those cultural aspects doesn't belong to that society anymore, repeating those forms becomes pastiche, It's just imitation. So, in Architecture, imitation appears when those constructing have no values, no cultural leanings of their own. This mimesis is a statement of pertaining to another place/class/community. Rich people making buildings with neoclassical period logics are declaring a belonging to that aristocratic society they really don't have. None of them is more than 100 years old. Middle class families mimicking colonial/vernacular Architecture are trying to stood in a past their community had and they're trying to pretend they're still living.
So, this attitude deny their culture to develop, their community to produce cultural material that a next generation can appreciate and absorb as their cultural heritage. It's nice to know how things were done and It's essential to preserve the built heritage we received. That's what I do for living. But to be productive and do things anchored on our reality and society is essential if we want to have a living culture and solve our own relation with the world.
Mimicking ancient buildings is as awful as destroying them. To an extent, It is destroying them, from the point you deny their historical character, taking away their very essence.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on May 28, 2012, 10:28:01 PM
In short, how is American using the greco-roman vernacular any different from Europeans doing so? Even then, the Greeks didn't need fluting, their capitals or their polychrome paint. Nor do the Qing Chinese their curved roofs or dragon joists. I understand what you're arguing, but ultimately you're saying that all architecture outside a 100 year period is essentially "pastiche". Of course, the idea of a vernacular has all but disappeared in the last 60 years ever since the international movement. You're argument's logical conclusion is that only purely utilitarian architecture is authentic, but purely utilitarian architecture isn't architecture, it's engineering. To you, Palladio, Schinkel, Wren- all mere peddlers of pastiche.

Many of these McMansions do not mimic anything in particular- claims to a certain style are mere marketing hoaxes. Yet somehow through their originality your definition would place them above this:

() 

What architecture do you find acceptable, in any case?


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on May 28, 2012, 10:39:04 PM
Here's a question pertaining to two houses:

Here is Darlington, a house in New Jersey.

()

And here is Bramshill House, a house in Hampshire.

()

You'll notice that the entrances are literally identical. Copying at its best/worst. I see no problem with it. The original is aesthetically pleasing, and so is the copy. Both enrich their environments. How can anything lesser be worse?


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: batmacumba on May 29, 2012, 03:54:23 AM
In short, how is American using the greco-roman vernacular any different from Europeans doing so? Even then, the Greeks didn't need fluting, their capitals or their polychrome paint. Nor do the Qing Chinese their curved roofs or dragon joists. I understand what you're arguing, but ultimately you're saying that all architecture outside a 100 year period is essentially "pastiche". Of course, the idea of a vernacular has all but disappeared in the last 60 years ever since the international movement. You're argument's logical conclusion is that only purely utilitarian architecture is authentic, but purely utilitarian architecture isn't architecture, it's engineering. To you, Palladio, Schinkel, Wren- all mere peddlers of pastiche.

Many of these McMansions do not mimic anything in particular- claims to a certain style are mere marketing hoaxes. Yet somehow through their originality your definition would place them above this:

()  

What architecture do you find acceptable, in any case?

Nonononono. That's absolutely not this. Maybe I wasn't clear. Palladio, Schinkel and Wren lived at their epoch, in societies whose techniques were still the same as classical antiquity and which cultures still had representativism as a cultural foundation. The ancient world was their role model for anything related to culture, intellectuality and civilizational achievements, were this guys living at the XV-XVI or after the mid XVIII. Yet, between Palladio and the other two, there were periods when things went kinda different... (as It also happend between Palladio and the original graeco-roman world).
From the XVIII century on, the industrial society turned everything upside down. First, the traditional society, based on traditional knowledge passed orally, crumbled under the pressure of international commerce. Storytellers were substituted by Novelists, building masters by architects, blacksmiths by engineers and so on. Culturally, the issue of representation was loosing its fundamental position and being questioned. New models were needed once this society couldn't rely anymore only on what the antiquity produced. Also, the advance of technology changed the ways of building.
The first reaction to those changes was a complete freedom. All those classical constructive elements didn't necessarily have to have their function anymore. They could be used solely as aesthetical element. Architecture stopped concerning with objective building solutions to given models and started to be about working those previous constructive elements on organized formal logic. Stucco started to substitute masonry and getting knowledge about the maximum set of formal elements from previous constructive cultures was the measure of competence. The majority of those buildings you posted belongs to this tradition.
The guys who were concerned with all those new technologies, on the other hand, started to recover medieval architecture, once It was about constructive logic, not aesthetical elements. They were also the first to realize that a new age had come, and that 'Gothic' buildings had their values, they simply didn't belong to their culture, anymore, and should be preserved and restored. Both Ruskin and Viollet-le-duc, who were the polarizing figures of this, were theorists of the industrial society and its relation with culture. So, modern architectural thinking is twined with cultural heritage preservation.
Violet-le-duc pupils went ahead, once they concluded that, for new materials and techniques, there was no sense on using traditional formal elements, and so, first, They started to create their own formal language, then the next generation simply concluded that the aesthetical qualities of a building should speak for themselves, not throughout decorative elements. And also started to criticise the representation of power, the weight of the forms, the unnecessary but rigid ways the now established academical tradition was producing.
Note that this isn't the approach of a small group inside the architecture professional community. The whole society around trended this way in every other cultural aspect. In the fine art fields, in literature, in philosophy, the advent of industrial society ended the logic of repeating tradition and put the efforts on dealing with culture from the intrinsic issues of the object ones dealing.
Parallely, also, planned architecture started to reach the common man. This contact went both sides. Vernacular culture started to absorb the classicism, or the new forms which were defying It, and architects, from a point of view similar to those who were standing against tradition, started to produce under vernacular building culture logic, both, on the academical side, for romanticist purposes (associated with the branch of the bourgeoisie who was concerned with an academical response to aristocratic cultural forms; and the result is rarely praisable), and on the modernist side, for It was free of the academical yoke.
In the end, the imbricated sum of vernacular architecture, industrial society and evolution of culture produced a new architectural expression, which was to bloom in the 1920's, questioned by the authoritarian ideologies of the 30's and become the mainline on the afterwar.

So, the house I criticised as ugly seems to be an early XX century typical 'Bourgeois House'. It has its values being our cultural heritage. I always try to analise buildings from a value judgement perspective. When I make taste based judgements, I'm probably trolling.

All those houses you posted are beautiful (except for that one :P ). They have their place on history, They were the best production of their time, and their time had come. To mimic them is to deny ourselves, and denying them their most intrinsic value. That's what I was trying to say.
So, to 'mischaracterize' them is to erase our history. To imitate them is to deny our cultures' future.

That's basically the canonical theoretical position on the issue. There was a huge questioning over this during the seventies, associated with postmodernism. It was usefull to get rid of the own rigidity modernism created to itself, produced ridiculous pastiche silliness (and one or another really good stuff) and faded as It should. Yet, there would always be those who need to mimic forms resulted from anachronical technological and cultural staples. This doesn't mean there is a problem on liking the originals at all. I'm pretty sure, now, that I'll try to pass the ending of my life in one of them. But for what They are, not for what I wanna be.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: minionofmidas on May 29, 2012, 02:13:10 PM
Oh, that's the Frick Mansion. It's a museum in NYC- great collection of Old Masters' works. If you find yourself in the city, go there.

All of the Upper East Side used to be like that, like this block:

()

This block remains:

()

It's a shame it's no longer like that, but an even bigger one the ones that were lost weren't torn down soon enough to be replaced by apartment blocks in the 10s, 20s, and 30s, but were demolished for uglier and later buildings.
The sad but unavoidable consequence of my advice not being heeded.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on July 21, 2012, 10:43:22 PM

In some regards, neotraditionalism is the natural conclusion of postmodernism, indeed many of these buildings, such as those at UMich and Virginia, were designed by Robert Stern, who is often said to be the "father" of postmodernism. It follows a trend that we've seen times throughout the course of history, the first being the original Greco-Roman classicism, which eventually degenerated (that being descriptive as opposed to derogatory) into Romanesque and eventually Gothic architecture. In the Renaissance we saw a snap back to the classical forms, and again we deviated to Baroque and then Rococo architectural, and then back to Regency/Empire neoclassicism (although England by and large missed out on Rococo). Again that deviated into less purist forms and, eventually into free-form revivalism and eclecticism, until we reverted to Beaux-Arts neoclassicism once more. Then we fell into Art Deco and modernism then post-modernism, and now this... as you can see the timeframes shorten but the trend remains clear.

An interesting concept is that of a so-called "other-modernism" that encompasses a parallel trend of art development from Art Nouveau to Art Deco to the Prairie Style to Lutyensian minimalism to today, a more organic development and approach to architecture than the Bauhaus and its successors.

What traditionalism really stands for is a conservatism, not so much a political conservatism (certainly conservatives could be avant-garde architecturally- see Mussolini) but a cultural and social one. Traditionalism works. People know it, and they can relate to it. Time and time again polls show that people prefer traditionally designed buildings because they know what they're getting, because it isn't new. It isn't innovative. But this isn't a condemnation, I am excited by this trend. Innovation for innovation's sake-  to simply be new- is indicative of a decadence where value is placed upon shock value. The Johnson house, for example, may be interesting to look at, but it is inconvenient to live in without destroying its form (I am imagining blinds here).

Traditionalist architecture is so popular because it stands for thing and implies them at the same time- permanence, austerity, solidity, longevity, and so forth. It implies a wisdom, rejecting the needlessly new for something tried and tested. You don't see too many modern houses, because they're uncomfortable. The idea of "home", again, is much of those same values: permanence, austerity, etc., even if most of them take the form of kitsch. Ornamentation provides a much easier derivation of value than expressions of reference that are vague at best and fraudulent at worst. Recall that proposed tower in Indonesia where the crown was meant to be indicative of several national symbols, but was found to be a regurgitation of a cancelled proposal in Nashville. The ornamentation of traditional buildings is more straightforward.

Sumptuous palaces of yesteryear may evoke ideas of elitism, but in the regard to localism they are more understandable in their design. A person could have look upon them and seen the cues which they shared with more familiar, mundane buildings- the guildhall, the church, even their home. In contrast, look at the major buildings being built today- 90% of them would be no less at  home in any other major world city. Again, traditionalism is more familiar, more national.

So, in short, traditionalism is a good thing. But the great challenge moving forwards is authenticity. Many buildings here are astoundingly detailed and well-built. Others use minimalism to their advantage- one particular example being Guildford Cathedral in the UK. Many others, however, skimp on ornamentation when it is need, have incorrect proportions, or are otherwise mistaken in the use or non-use of certain elements, and look poor as a result. Hopefully technology combined with the increasing prevalence of this trend will help correct those flaws. Otherwise, I look forwards to a new traditionalism with excitement and anticipation.

I finally feel able to respond to you- your post was quite difficult to tackle. Cross posted here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=93491806#post93491806). However you've neglected Pugin- his view of Gothic as a "Christian" architecture, if incorrect, is at least interesting if not necessarily worthy of mention.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: © tweed on July 22, 2012, 12:37:32 AM
I live in a 75ish yr old house


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on July 22, 2012, 01:06:16 AM
Creepy if you're alone at night, awake at midnight, eating porridge in your robe, and suddenly your dead partner visits you.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on July 22, 2012, 02:49:18 AM
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=86203633&postcount=372

We see the next classicist phase emerging in Germany, particularly Berlin, die "Neuer Berliner Klassizismus".

It is also making its way to Ethiopia, even!

()

Quote from:  the Architect, Milloen Samuel
I believe is has a big impact on our city building and architecture. It gave some identity to the place. However, I believe, we don’t have to have many buildings with classical styles out of context. There are  many elements of manifestation of one’s society, including music, painting, language, religion, buildings, etc. Buildings are relatively permanent establishments lasting may be 100 years or so. People are judged by their cities. So, our city planners, engineers and investors should consider such buildings seriously.
 
I also believe that buildings should not be made just for the sake of financial profit, and they should not look like the same. We should be aware of what we are bringing to our city. The physical settings of a city are description of its people. So, it is important that we pay much attention to this.

This is the essence of traditionalist architecture.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 22, 2012, 04:37:13 AM
When I think of Ethiopia and architecture, I think of all the futurist buildings in Asmara.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: minionofmidas on July 22, 2012, 05:14:14 AM
When I think of Ethiopia and architecture, I think of all the futurist buildings in Asmara.
Which is not in Ethiopia. (But I do the same thing, of course.)


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on July 22, 2012, 11:18:58 AM
When I think of Ethiopia and architecture, I think of all the futurist buildings in Asmara.

I like the cut of your jib. (http://www.angelfire.com/ny/ethiocrown/images/oldmap.jpg) Asmara is truly a masterpiece of architecture. However we have a diverse native architectural heritage spanning thousands of years.

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

The Ethiopian architectural tradition is perhaps the richest in Sub-Saharan Africa.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: minionofmidas on July 22, 2012, 01:52:30 PM
Ah, right. I have read of this place.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: t_host1 on July 22, 2012, 02:01:54 PM

An enjoyable read and look to passed and present; I’m sure the sweat was not as refined.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Redalgo on July 22, 2012, 02:40:58 PM
The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

This sentiment I happen to agree with very strongly, although I think it is important that a great many of them be preserved in one respect or another for their value as artistic expressions. For some people I can imagine large homes being well-deserved. Still, the number of individuals and single families with so much money to throw around that they can afford to buy a mansion ought to be minuscule so long as there are folk who lack the basic necessities for pursuing happy lives.

Aside from that, I enjoy looking at them and, if one day given the proper (albeit highly unlikely) opportunity to do so, might well be inclined to reside in a small portion of such a building.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: batmacumba on August 10, 2012, 03:20:34 PM
I forgot this thread.


In some regards, neotraditionalism is the natural conclusion of postmodernism, indeed many of these buildings, such as those at UMich and Virginia, were designed by Robert Stern, who is often said to be the "father" of postmodernism. It follows a trend that we've seen times throughout the course of history, the first being the original Greco-Roman classicism, which eventually degenerated (that being descriptive as opposed to derogatory) into Romanesque and eventually Gothic architecture. In the Renaissance we saw a snap back to the classical forms, and again we deviated to Baroque and then Rococo architectural, and then back to Regency/Empire neoclassicism (although England by and large missed out on Rococo). Again that deviated into less purist forms and, eventually into free-form revivalism and eclecticism, until we reverted to Beaux-Arts neoclassicism once more. Then we fell into Art Deco and modernism then post-modernism, and now this... as you can see the timeframes shorten but the trend remains clear.

My critique to this view is that you're confusing modern and pre-modern societies. The trend of classissim-mannerism-barroquism-transition is undeniable and It happens even inside modern architecture (antiquity 'barroque' is one of my favorites). But Architectural formality is not a goal, It is a result of given societies and techniques, and classical formality is a cultural solution to technical aspects that doesn't exist anymore, unless for the sake of research.
My point is, once we had the advent of industrial societies, the use of classical formality (except on the transition to full modernity) is pointless and only a mimesis, having absolute no ground on modern cultures of western societies. It is not grounded on that society's production, It needs awful solutions for technicalities, even worse for practical needings. It simply turns off the whole Firmitas-Utilitas-Venustas triad, in search of a concept of 'venustas' which is not linked to the other two. Sorry for the use of this word, but it is Bovarism.

An interesting concept is that of a so-called "other-modernism" that encompasses a parallel trend of art development from Art Nouveau to Art Deco to the Prairie Style to Lutyensian minimalism to today, a more organic development and approach to architecture than the Bauhaus and its successors.

This concept is only a cut through a whole movement, which is on no acceptable ground separated of the rest. In Brazil, for instance, the whole bulk of heroic modernist architecture seen in Brasilia is firmily based on a continuation of iberian and ibero-american vernacular architectural traditions, in oposition to neoclassical 'alien' instances. I simply don't know any contemporary architect who is not deeply affected by Frank Lloyd Right. Art-Nouveau and Art-Deco were the base of all european modernity (the Deutsche Werkbund are still 'classified' inside a broad Art-Nouveau trend and Viollet-le-Duc launched the ideas that would built the modernists' blooming on the next century). If you take Aalto, Utzon, all the Brazililians, all the Japanese, Jeanneret's second phase, the other french, the british, you'll see this clearly.

What traditionalism really stands for is a conservatism, not so much a political conservatism (certainly conservatives could be avant-garde architecturally- see Mussolini) but a cultural and social one. Traditionalism works. People know it, and they can relate to it. Time and time again polls show that people prefer traditionally designed buildings because they know what they're getting, because it isn't new. It isn't innovative. But this isn't a condemnation, I am excited by this trend. Innovation for innovation's sake-  to simply be new- is indicative of a decadence where value is placed upon shock value. The Johnson house, for example, may be interesting to look at, but it is inconvenient to live in without destroying its form (I am imagining blinds here).

Traditionalist architecture is so popular because it stands for thing and implies them at the same time- permanence, austerity, solidity, longevity, and so forth. It implies a wisdom, rejecting the needlessly new for something tried and tested. You don't see too many modern houses, because they're uncomfortable. The idea of "home", again, is much of those same values: permanence, austerity, etc., even if most of them take the form of kitsch. Ornamentation provides a much easier derivation of value than expressions of reference that are vague at best and fraudulent at worst. Recall that proposed tower in Indonesia where the crown was meant to be indicative of several national symbols, but was found to be a regurgitation of a cancelled proposal in Nashville. The ornamentation of traditional buildings is more straightforward.

Sumptuous palaces of yesteryear may evoke ideas of elitism, but in the regard to localism they are more understandable in their design. A person could have look upon them and seen the cues which they shared with more familiar, mundane buildings- the guildhall, the church, even their home. In contrast, look at the major buildings being built today- 90% of them would be no less at  home in any other major world city. Again, traditionalism is more familiar, more national.

So, in short, traditionalism is a good thing. But the great challenge moving forwards is authenticity. Many buildings here are astoundingly detailed and well-built. Others use minimalism to their advantage- one particular example being Guildford Cathedral in the UK. Many others, however, skimp on ornamentation when it is need, have incorrect proportions, or are otherwise mistaken in the use or non-use of certain elements, and look poor as a result. Hopefully technology combined with the increasing prevalence of this trend will help correct those flaws. Otherwise, I look forwards to a new traditionalism with excitement and anticipation.

I finally feel able to respond to you- your post was quite difficult to tackle. Cross posted here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=93491806#post93491806). However you've neglected Pugin- his view of Gothic as a "Christian" architecture, if incorrect, is at least interesting if not necessarily worthy of mention.

It is absolutely not necessary to stick with formalism created by dealing with superceded technology in order to address the issues you're concerned. Thick walls, ornated beams, prevalescence of mass over openings, compact volumes, copiously structured roofs, are all elements that brings unnecessary burden and generate problems on contemporary construction. It's obvious that buildings resulting from most advanced researchs would have problems (this happens with pre-modern buildings too and happens even more with classicaly stiled buildings built with contemporary techniques), but you're overstating the prevalescence of tradition on popular taste. People seek what they already know and what simbolizes something desirable. During the last decade and a half, It became hard to find traditional houses been built in my city: It simple ceased to represent status or community feeling. The great majority is on a transitional stage, where the owner want to emulate the modernist houses of 40's and 50's elites, but are still attached to the vernacular 'colonial' type (wich was popular with the uplifted upper middle class of the 70's) in some order, and a ever growing minority is completely contemporary. So It is still  a semiotic thing, but you must understand It in a process, not under a static view.
The plenty of marvellous contemporary houses built in the USA kinda deny your statements also.

Now, the nice part of what you posted is the relation of a given architecture and It's site. This is been the main discussion since the late 50' or 60's, I belive. Initially, this has an impact on the rescue of tradition, once vernacular architecture was shaped to the environment over the years, but as I put before, the modernist impetus was grounded on this too, and all those guy I've cited above had worked heavily on this. So this lead to a reinforcement of the kind of local traditions thas shaped modernism on modern architecture, in a moving that Kenneth Framptom called 'critic regionalism'. The results of this are not only better fit to the environment and adapted to contemporary conditions but are also extremely beautiful, at least at my judgement.

As for my 'writing style' I have nothing to do but apologise. Trying to argue academical concepts in a non-native language takes a while.

The sad but unavoidable consequence of my advice not being heeded.

Actually, most of the experiences on this were completely bad succeded and led to the destruction of the building or to posterior gentrification. Sure, I hate 'musealization' and maintaining the building original purpose (specially if Its whole neighbourhood stands) is still the only way I saw working for preservation, apart of It.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Politico on August 10, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
The communist sentiments expressed by some in this thread are quite unseemly.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on August 13, 2012, 04:16:53 PM
What about big NEW houses? :P

()

Opinions?


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on August 13, 2012, 04:21:52 PM
Freedom houses (normal) ;D

The communist sentiments expressed by some in this thread are quite unseemly.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on September 08, 2012, 02:50:55 AM

HP almost universally. I am close to responding to batmacumba. Very close. Just give it time.


Title: Re: Opinion of big old houses
Post by: Simfan34 on March 09, 2014, 04:04:23 PM
I intend to continue this discussion. I hope batmacumba is still around.