Good Modern Arch. reference ?

[larry_g1s]

Hey everyone!

I've noticed a very modern arch. bent in many of your works, seems to be the case in that part of the world. I think I still prefer (for residential) the more Tuscan style, but I'm really enjoying the modern arch. style too. I was just looking to see what are some of your modern arch. references. What books, websites, etc.?

For example, the type of residential I really like can be found in a couple of books from these architects down south of me. http://www.bassenianlagoni.com/ps-cortile.html http://www.bassenianlagoni.com/ps-sycamores.html

Thanks!

[jure]

Hey, I'm an architect and this may sound a bit harsh but I can't help myself but to say this...

I see you come from California. I feel sorry for you that you have to live in a place with such a terrible architecture. I have a friend (also architect) who lives there for a year and a few weeks ago she showed me some photos of what the residential architecture looks like over there. I was totally shocked to see so much kitsch being built there. We have alot of bad architecture over here too but you guys just seem to bring it to a whole new level. And also the quality of U.S. construction is horrible. The paper thin wooden walls and windows you are used to there are just unimaginable over here on the "old continent"

Anyways that wasn't what you were asking for. The samples you showed though show just the kind of kitschy building I was talking about. Copying some old architecture style and doing it in a bad way is, by my opinion the worst you can do.

As an architect I'm more fond of contemporary architecture so here are some links you may want to check out. This have lots of examples of quality architecture:

http://coolboom.net/
http://www.joanroig.com/
http://architectook.net/
http://www.arcspace.com/
http://arkinetia.blogspot.com/
http://www.designerjapan.com/
http://arch-forum.ch/
http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/
http://www.architectmagazine.com/
http://www.architectureweek.com/
http://archrecord.construction.com/

[larry_g1s]

Hey, I'm an architect and this may sound a bit harsh but I can't help myself but to say this...

I see you come from California. I feel sorry for you that you have to live in a place with such a terrible architecture. I have a friend (also architect) who lives there for a year and a few weeks ago she showed me some photos of what the residential architecture looks like over there. I was totally shocked to see so much kitsch being built there. We have alot of bad architecture over here too but you guys just seem to bring it to a whole new level. And also the quality of U.S. construction is horrible. The paper thin wooden walls and windows you are used to there are just unimaginable over here on the "old continent"

Hey...take it easy! tsk tsk I love California, don't knock it till you've been here. And for your only reference to be a friend who lived here for only a year + isn't much, California is one of the largest states in the US. So I doubt very much what they saw was indicative of CA arch. as a whole. Granted, it's probably very different in style than what you're use to, but I could show you some very beautiful architecture.

That said, thanks for the links, I'll check em out.

[bigstick]

Larry, it isn't personal, but as another European architect, I have to say that I agree with Jure. Don't get me wrong, this stuff is everywhere and none of us are immune to it no matter where we live. I think the reason that our perception is that you have more of it and that it is worse, is that by comparison there are so few examples of great contemporary US architecture considering the size of the country and the market.

And I have to say that there are some brilliant US architects that I love, FLW, Frank Gehry and Wendell Burnette are the 3 that spring to mind most readily. Of course there are more, but considering the overall size and economic power of the US, there really ought to be a whole lot more. For all the international architectural design competitions, only a tiny amount are won by US firms.

My guess is that you are so good at business in the US, that architecture is much more of a commodity than it is in Europe. I think also that you don't have the same tradition of fine architecture that there is in Europe and the far east. Buidlings that are little more than commodities, very seldom make great architecture.

The examples in your links are interesting, because on the face of it, the architects have faithfully copied the 'look' but the more you examine it, the more false it appears. Don't you think there is something just weird about copying medieval Italian hill town architecture as contemporary dwellings for the US?

At risk of being didactic, architecture has developed in the way it has because it mirrors the socio-economic culture, technology, climate and values of the society in which it is located. When you have so much money that you can copy and mix and match anything from anywhere, what does that say about society? Frank Lloyd Wright recognised this when he started out to try to create excellent contemporary indigenous US architecture. It's a real shame that far too few of your countrymen have picked up where he left off.

I'm not intending to take a cheap shot at the US, because most of us have much to thank your country for, and it frequently comes in for a lot of unnecessary criticism, but architecturally you really ought to be a lot better. I can name more Dutch, French, German Irish and Japanese architects than American ones. This really shouldn't be the case.

Here are some interesting names for you to check out, Tadao Ando, Alvaro Siza, Zaha Hadid, Luis Barragan, Glenn Murcutt, Alberto Campo Baeza, Peter Zumthor, Coop Himmelb(l)lau, Rem Koolhaas and Shigeru Ban.

[larry_g1s]

Larry, it isn't personal, but as another European architect, I have to say that I agree with Jure. Don't get me wrong, this stuff is everywhere and none of us are immune to it no matter where we live. I think the reason that our perception is that you have more of it and that it is worse, is that by comparison there are so few examples of great contemporary US architecture considering the size of the country and the market.

I don't take it personal...I've got thicker skin than that

I guess where I disagree is that it seems like the EU definition of good architect is "contemporary". As you said, and I'm assuming Jure is in the same boat, though you can correct me if I'm wrong, "there are so few examples of great contemporary US architecture".

The examples in your links are interesting, because on the face of it, the architects have faithfully copied the 'look' but the more you examine it, the more false it appears. Don't you think there is something just weird about copying medieval Italian hill town architecture as contemporary dwellings for the US?

Believe me, I see your point, and I guess it has to do with both of you being actually architects...so I think there is that extra added zeal. But I still believe it comes down to taste, so to say there's something weird about copying medieval Italian hill town arch. I guess that would be the case...unless you really enjoyed the type of arch. Then I say, what's wrong with it? To say that your favorite style of arch for residential is old world (Tuscan, Andalusian, etc.), but I'm not going to building any houses in that style because that's be mimicking, is a bit silly. Now I can understand if that's all one did, because then there would never be any "progress". I really do like the modern style of arch. many of you guys are talking about, that's why I started this thread. But I think for living, the styles I reference are so much more "home-y". But again, it comes down to taste.

I'm not intending to take a cheap shot at the US, because most of us have much to thank your country for, and it frequently comes in for a lot of unnecessary criticism, but architecturally you really ought to be a lot better. I can name more Dutch, French, German Irish and Japanese architects than American ones. This really shouldn't be the case.

Like I said, it's not personal, I think our world is WAY to PC. You guys are simply stating some opinions. If I came off as "offended" it was all in play, that's why I had the "...tsk tsk."

Here are some interesting names for you to check out, Tadao Ando, Alvaro Siza, Zaha Hadid, Luis Barragan, Glenn Murcutt, Alberto Campo Baeza, Peter Zumthor, Coop Himmelb(l)lau, Rem Koolhaas and Shigeru Ban.

I'll definitely check some of those out. Thanks for the reference.


P.s. So where do you guys work, if you don't mind me asking?

[except]

Eric Owen Moss is west coast architecture...
So is Steven Holl. although you can have Holl, I do appreciate Moss's work.

Inspiring diverse modern and modernist architects to look up:

Carlo Scarpa
Snohetta
Louis Kahn
Louis Barraghan
Peter Zumthor
Steven Harris
Brigitte Shim

Architecture is an applied art. Art is a field that is tightly integrated with society, philosophy, theory and history. Building historicizing architecture puts you outside this discussion, which is ongoing and never ending, and thus places it outside the realm of 'proper' architecture. Nobody is saying there's anything wrong with it per se, but it's not architecture, and definately not art.

That doesn't mean one can't reference, learn or build upon the past. All good architecture does all that. But copying is style because of its picturesqueness passes on very important ideological factors such as certain styles of architecture belonging to a time, culture and a place. Removing them from this context by building it hundreds of years later invalidates the whole preposition. Materials are not genuine, the way it is crafted is not genuine, the labor conditions are not genuine, and the thoughts and culture, economic and political conditions were all different. They all helped to shape these original pieces of art. Copying it decades or centuries later just displays a lack of imagination, creativity and engagement with the world as it is now. How many writers do you see writing in Shakespearean prose? How many musicians are making baroque symphonies? Seen any cars looking exactly like a model-T ford lately? Architecture seems to be one of the only professions where people keep accepting ingenuine works of art displaced in time.

BTW I'm at a US university and that is very much the idea here too. It's the populistic masses of the US that keep ordering developer built historicizing homes. Partially because they've never seen a good modern home. It's a vicious circle.

[bigstick]

Actually I take the view that slavishly mimicking historical architectural styles devalues the originals, and is almost heresy. Here in the UK we have some great old half-timbered medieval buildings, but they have been spectacularly badly copied so often that the true value of the originals is diminished.

I can illustrate with a quote from "The Incredibles" where the boy says "If everyone is special, it means that no-one is special". I think culturally it is predictable I guess, where you can copy any thing you want if you have enough money, even a celebrity's face and body.

Fighting against this shallow trend where people are only interested in outer appearances is impossible I suppose, particularly in a culture which stresses that everyone is equal, when truly we instinctively know this isn't the case.

So if women want fake plastic boobs, and men want fake plastic chins, fake plastic architecture isn't far away.

[Edit: I agree completely with except]

[florian]

You can see a lot of John Lautners buildings in L.A. and southern California so its not that bad

[jure]

I love the debate that has developed here! Fully agree with bigstick and except I think they have said it very well...

I believe the architecture should most of all reflect the location and time that it's built in. That's why copying old and/or foreign architecture styles makes no sense at all. I guess another analogy could be made with fashion - you are not going to wear medieval shoes to your new jeans, are you?

One should also be aware that architecture should not be build in particular style just because someone likes it that way, but also that any building makes an impact on the environment that everyone will notice.

Anyways we also have lots of examples of bad architecture... It's in a bit different style than there but they all seem to have in common using historical elements in a totally unacceptable way. Maybe I'll post some pictures later.

[larry_g1s]

I love the debate that has developed here!

Agreed, good discussion. Believe me, I'm not defending against moving forward, etc. I half agree with you guys, I just don't agree with it to the same extent.

I guess where I differ is that if one takes the mind set that many of you are taking, the result becomes what is considered "good" architecture is relegated to only it's time & location, or if it's modern. There really isn't any other option. The problem with that is, go down a residential neighborhood (30-40 years old) that used a modern style arch., and tell me if you consider that "good" architecture, I doubt it. But at that time it was considered good (same thing with bell bottom pants...yuk). There is architecture that is a little more timeless, and particularly for residential (where someone is going to be living there for many years) I don't see anything wrong with stylizing (not completely copying) a home based off of that type of arch. So I don't believe good architecture has to be confined to a time & location, or present/modern style.

I think such a analogizes as "How many musicians are making baroque symphonies?" or "you are not going to wear medieval shoes to your new jeans, are you? " are unfair analogies. There is a big difference in what is good & what is fashionable. Because I guarantee, if wearing medieval shoes with jeans became fashionable, people would be wearing them. It doesn't mean it would be good... lol!

[bigstick]

Part of this hinges on what actually constitutes 'architecture'. I think the difference between 'buildings' and 'architecture' is analagous to the difference between 'painting' and 'art'.

Not all buildings qualify as architecture, and not all paintings are art - arguably.

In assessing whether something is good architecture, you need to test the basis of the concept for validity to start with, then you need to assess to what extent the concept has been realised. As far as concept goes, this can be really loose, and it represents an identifiable, communicable and coherent basis for the design. It really doesn't have to be arcane, arty or complex.

If something starts with a concept of simply copying stuff from the past with no attempt to add value in terms of design integrity, you are always going have trouble claiming it is 'good'. If your concept is reasonably valid, but fails miserably in the execution, then again it is still likely to be classed as 'bad'.

Most commercial residential architecture doesn't have anything like a concept, it is based on marketability. Even one-off houses often have no concept, and are often a mish-mash of different (incompatible) ideas a client has from all over the place. Therefore the overwhelming majority of domestic buildings are architecturally poor.

If you want to see some fabulous, intelligent contemporary architecture from your continent, that is both cosy and brillinat design, check out the work of Brian Mackay-Lyons here:- http://www.mlsarchitects.ca/

This is a good starting point for discussion about how cosy a space can be to live in, together with a reinterpretation of traditional forms and materials and simple construction and great contemporary design.

[larry_g1s]

If something starts with a concept of simply copying stuff from the past with no attempt to add value in terms of design integrity, you are always going have trouble claiming it is 'good'.

Agreed. That's why I disagree with (again particularly for residential living) using a style from the past, such as Tuscan, Italian, Andalusian, etc. and building upon it, is "bad" architecture. They are beautiful styles of architecture, and to say it's suddenly bad because it's not modern, or relocated to it's time & place, I have a tough time agreeing.

I'll be honest with you, I think much of the opposing arguement has to due with location (i.e. much of the modern style is in fashion), & two there backgrounds. A couple of you guys said your profession is architecture. So I can see where the constant push to move forward is more zealous. And I don't have a problem with that.

But I checked out the link you mentioned, & I'd have to agree that it's nice architecture. But when it came to residential, I'd say it was anything but cozy. Most of the arch. from residential to commercial was only distinguishes by the furniture. Not exactly a place I'd call cozy or want to call home.

[bigstick]

Hmm, interesting, and for lots of reasons. First of all, I just don't see how anyone can't see some of Mackay-Lyons' residential projects as 'cosy'. Okay, it's not the traditional interpretaion of cosy, but even this notion depends on time and culture. What we call cosy in terms of traditional architecture is often associated with things like labourer's cottages, and at the time, they were nothing more than expedient dwellings.

Secondly, regarding copying historic styles, at what point does copying something, no matter how well, become bad? Let's take the Disney approach, and say that you can copy something so perfectly, in say fibreglass or resin that is clipped onto a steel or maybe timber frame, that it is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Would that still be okay in your view?

If so, how many times would it have to be duplicated for the whole idea to be unacceptable? Conceptually this is precisely the same approach.

This isn't such an absurd idea actually. A number of years ago I saw some pieces of art which were small fibreglass or resin replicas of different patches of earth from various parts of the world. They were so perfect that they looked real. It is not beyond possibility that people could make large panels, or even exact casts of the original buildings, that they could almost perfectly and affordably duplicate them.

I refer back to my point above, it's kind of like an architectural equivalent of fake plastic breasts. How many pairs do you have to see before you think it's a terrible idea?

[larry_g1s]

Secondly, regarding copying historic styles, at what point does copying something, no matter how well, become bad? Let's take the Disney approach, and say that you can copy something so perfectly, in say fibreglass or resin that is clipped onto a steel or maybe timber frame, that it is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Would that still be okay in your view?

First of all, you'd have to determine that it was good architecture in the 1st place. And I mean good because it's good, not because it's fashionable. Secondly I never said that such architects (as I originally linked) were copying plans done before. What they are doing is a style of architecture.

That's why I said before the result becomes what is considered "good" architecture must be relegated to only it's time & location, or if it's modern. So presently, you're left with essentially only modern architecture qualifying as good architecture. And I gotta disagree.

[coco]

I went to LA recently and there is an awful lot of interesting stuff.....Below is the famous Bradbury Building (as seen on BladeRunner)



Franks Theatre


Eames house (not a great picture)


Frank LLoyd Wrights Hollyhock House (much better in real life)


Richard Neutra