Opinion of big old houses

[Simfan34]

[Simfan34]

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"?

[Simfan34]

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.

[Simfan34]

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.

[Simfan34]

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.

[Simfan34]

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.

[Simfan34]

I don't really see how Lewis' post is apparently so terrible.

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

[Simfan34]

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.

[Simfan34]

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?

[Simfan34]

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:

[Simfan34]

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.

[Simfan34]

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?

[Simfan34]

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?

[Simfan34]

Nonononono...

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. 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.

[Simfan34]

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!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the essence of traditionalist architecture.

[Simfan34]

When I think of Ethiopia and architecture, I think of all the futurist buildings in Asmara.

I like the cut of your jib. 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.

[Simfan34]

What about big NEW houses?



Opinions?

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

[Simfan34]

I intend to continue this discussion. I hope batmacumba is still around.