Architecture and you.

[Emil Miller]

I am somewhat wary about introducing this thread because I know that people's views on architecture can be as passionte as their political viewpoint.
Nonetheless, the kind of desecration ( see what I mean? ) that has been inflicted on major cities throughout the world, especially since WW11, must have impacted adversely on many an individual's psyche. Although architectural styles have always been imposed on people without their consent it is doubtful if earlier generations felt as disoriented and estranged by buildings, both public and private, as they are today.

[BienvenuJDC]

One thing that I regret is living in a country that is so young. I'm going to ask a lot of questions about architecture in each of everyone's regions.

What is the oldest architecture where you live? (How old is it?)
What is the oldest architecture still in use where you live? (How old is it?)
...and tell me where you live...

I will have to think about your questions, BB. This is a topic that interests me so much.
Since I work in construction, I will say the things that are being designed these days bore me to no end.

[backline]

For many years I worked in a small city in California that had no old architecture at all.
It had not been a Mission with a Catholic church at the center or anything like that.

The oldest structures were associated with a roadside attraction called Trees of Mystery, which was a collection of imaginatively spliced trees with odd features. Later, plaster dynosaurs were added by new owners and Trees of Mystery became Lost World.

The whole effect was kind of tacky, but the rest of the town didn't fare much better. Most business establishments had plywood exteriors, or the ubiquitous glass and steel Denny's Restaurant feel to them.

The residential neighborhoods were mostly tract housing, except for the older neighborhoods which were plywood exterior duplexs, etc.

The lumber yard had more interesting architecture in its stacks of product than most of the town.

I could easily see this town transported to some obscure part of "restored" Rt 66 say, in New Mexico. American Truckstop architecture.

I didn't find it a very inspiring place to work my career.

My home was built in 1923, and though not exactly Victorian gingerbread, it is at least inviting and has a warm character.
'Course, it's in another town from the one mentioned above.

[Emil Miller]

One thing that I regret is living in a country that is so young. I'm going to ask a lot of questions about architecture in each of everyone's regions.

What is the oldest architecture where you live? (How old is it?)
What is the oldest architecture still in use where you live? (How old is it?)
...and tell me where you live...

I will have to think about your questions, BB. This is a topic that interests me so much.
Since I work in construction, I will say the things that are being designed these days bore me to no end.

The oldest building in London is probably the White Tower, commonly known as the Tower of London, or Westminster Abbey, both built during the reign of William the Conquerer following the Norman conquest in 1066 and both being still in use. There is nothing left of the buildings that pre-dated the conquest except for a piece of Roman wall and some foundations that have been excavated in recent times.
Housing was another matter. Apart for some large merchants houses that occupied parts of Elizabethan London, many of the dwellings throughout London's history were, as elsewhere in Europe, mere hovels that disappeared to be replaced by other hovels, especially during the Industrial Revolution when the population exploded causing the city to expand accordingly. For the prestige buildings showcasing the wealth and power of the British empire, such as the neo-gothic Palace of Westminster and the Imperial style architecure of governmental buildings around Whitehall, money was no object but, apart from obviously important buildings such as the Whitehall Banqueting House and Buckingham Palace etc, large parts of London were developed by jobbing builders and, although not so devoid of exterior decoration as modern dwellings, they were pretty uninspiring. Many of the houses built during the 19th century make up a large part of London's suburbs and large pockets of public housing,usually of incredible ugliness, make London one of the scruffiest capital cities in the developed world.

[Nightshade]

Not sure I fulley understand or percive the OP question

One thing that I regret is living in a country that is so young. I'm going to ask a lot of questions about architecture in each of everyone's regions.

What is the oldest architecture where you live? (How old is it?)
What is the oldest architecture still in use where you live? (How old is it?)
...and tell me where you live...

I will have to think about your questions, BB. This is a topic that interests me so much.
Since I work in construction, I will say the things that are being designed these days bore me to no end.

I will just point out here that if you DON't want people to realsie where you live don't answer these questions
Im not really sure what the oldest architecture in manchester is, I want to say Chetham library ( but thats just the oldest public library in the English speaking world) I think it may very well be the Hidden Gem (St Mary's church) though.


Edit: Wrong St Mary's the oldest building is a ST Mary's church but not the one I was thinking of, turns out the one I was thinking of is the oldest post reformation Catholic church in the country, founded 1794 as opposed to This st marys which has parts gdating to the 13th centurey.

The village I otherwise live in has structures dating to 653 AD but Im not telling what it is because I dont want people throwing darts at me!

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=Nightshade;727036]Not sure I fulley understand or percive the OP question


The question is implied by the thread's title, which queries the correlation between buildings and people. Interestingly enough, the front page headline on my evening newspaper is about the furore stirred up by Prince Charles's intervention into the controversy surrounding the the new buildings to replace the Chelsea Barracks site in London.
I have to say that although I am not a royalist I am truly grateful that he prevented the building of a totally out of place addition to the National Gallery and has spoken out about similar outrageous acts of architectural vandalism. Cities are for people not for a cabal of landowners, architects, developers and town planners.

[oopsycandy]

Oh dont get me started on the hideous rows upon rows of little orange boxes that call themselves houses! I understand that starter homes are a necessity I just don't understand why they have to be so ugly!!


Im not sure what the oldest architecture is where I live but I live about 40 minutes away from the roman village Wall (Letocetum) and there are excavated bath house ruins there you can walk around in.

I would imagine that the oldest architecture is likely to be a church or manor house of some kind with this being the English Midlands but I will have to get back to you lol x

[Emil Miller]

Oh dont get me started on the hideous rows upon rows of little orange boxes that call themselves houses! I understand that starter homes are a necessity I just don't understand why they have to be so ugly!!

One of the most enduring considerations in architecture is cost effectiveness, which means that the cheapest materials are often used for house building. This is one reason for the unattracive houses that are built now but another is the change in building materials that took place in the 20th century. Formerly houses were usually built of brick and had slate or tiled roofs. Nowadays they are likely to built of pre-stressed concrete, plasterboard or cladding which are neither durable or condusive to attractive design. One can understand these strictures being applied to housing but not when considering major developments such as office blocks or public buildings.
As I have mentioned, public consultation is usually skimpy or non-existant depending on who the developer is. About two years ago, an Edwardian public library in my district was to be upgraded and the local authority circulated residents with a choice of three considered projects, all of which were ugly and completely out of keeping with the surounding area. The building still hasn't been altered but sooner or later it will be and another eyesore inflicted on the residents. Much of the problem lies with architects who want to be "with it" and therefore submit outrageous designs to site owners who are urged by the architect to "get with it" and the plans passed over to a planning committee who dont want to be seen as fuddie duddies and quite often allow grotesque structures to be built. The public have the right to protest but property being nine tenths of the law means that the planners usually get their way.

[LostPrincess13]

We've learned in class that one of our presidents have used architecture and design to achieve his political ends. I'll go consult a Mod first, since I'm not sure if I'm allowed to discuss this. I don't think it's about politics really, I mean by the common definition of the word. It's really about the location of the buildings, their design, etc.

But on a different note, I'd like to ask, would you guys rather the destruction of an old edifice (one that is probably a remnant of a place's past) in exchange for the construction of an infrastructure that may give the locals more jobs? (e.g. shopping mall, call centers)

[Emil Miller]

We've learned in class that one of our presidents have used architecture and design to achieve his political ends. I'll go consult a Mod first, since I'm not sure if I'm allowed to discuss this. I don't think it's about politics really, I mean by the common definition of the word. It's really about the location of the buildings, their design, etc.

But on a different note, I'd like to ask, would you guys rather the destruction of an old edifice (one that is probably a remnant of a place's past) in exchange for the construction of an infrastructure that may give the locals more jobs? (e.g. shopping mall, call centers)

The connection between politics and architecture is too big a subject to be adequately discussed in a single post but as to why most people prefer older more decorative buildings is because they are easier on the eye and also a part of their past that they don't want to lose.
The trouble is, that ever since the days of Adolf Loos, Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright, architects have known the the best way to get recognition is to do something that goes against the grain of public opinion. Once an architect has caused a stir, he sits back and watches the briefs come rolling in and the rest of the profession follow like sheep. Which is why so many large buildings look the same or very similar and consequently are boring.
These days it is difficult to think about the twin towers of The World Trade Centre without thinking of the evil that led to their destruction but they illustrated exactly what I am saying. They were not only identically boring but they actually detracted from the New York skyline because they had nothing to say in comparison with the Chrysler building or the Empire State building for example.
As for shopping malls, many are identikit constructions with the soullessness that is peculiar to all such developments even if they do provide employment and shopping facilities.

[SleepyWitch]

hum... what about those horrid 60s apartment blocks? Or tacky Soviet architecture or even Nazi architecture? Do you think those buildings should be destroyed because most people feel they are an eyesore? Or are they worthy of conservation because they represent a particular period of architecture that is part of our cultural heritage, for better or worse?

[Virgil]

One thing that I regret is living in a country that is so young. I'm going to ask a lot of questions about architecture in each of everyone's regions.

What is the oldest architecture where you live? (How old is it?)
What is the oldest architecture still in use where you live? (How old is it?)
...and tell me where you live...

I will have to think about your questions, BB. This is a topic that interests me so much.
Since I work in construction, I will say the things that are being designed these days bore me to no end.

Bien - Here is a listing of the oldest buildings in the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_...ngs_in_America

So I looked up the oldest building in New York City and found it was this little house somewhere in Brooklyn (I wonder where?) that was built in 1652. Of all the great buildings and architecture we have in New York, it's kind of silly for this to be the oldest.

These days it is difficult to think about the twin towers of The World Trade Centre without thinking of the evil that led to their destruction but they illustrated exactly what I am saying. They were not only identically boring but they actually detracted from the New York skyline because they had nothing to say in comparison with the Chrysler building or the Empire State building for example.

Yes I know, but there was something about those twin structures. Individually they were boring, but together as twins hovering above the sky line did make a curious architectural statement. Individually they might have been boring, but where else are such twin buildings coupled like that? I think that Indonesian building is the only one that comes to mind and that I might venture to say is alluding to the Twin Towers.

Here's the Chrysler building, by the way. I do think this is the classic sky scraper from which all others pale in comparison:

[JacobF]

The oldest architecture where I live -- Canada's capital, Ottawa -- is a stone house built in 1827 near the Rideau Canal which now exists as a museum.

Here's a painting of it from 1839:


I would have thought the Rideau Canal would have been the oldest, but apparently this stone house predates it by five years. On a side note, I absolutely love looking at architecture and for as long as I can remember I've always been fascinated with Russian Orthodox churches.

Just looking at this structure, I want to spend hours there learning its history and observing first hand the enigma behind its construction.



I don't usually find modern architecture as interesting, however there's the rotating apartment building in Dubai which will be finished by 2010:

[SleepyWitch]

I think that Indonesian building is the only one that comes to mind and that I might venture to say is alluding to the Twin Towers.

Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur. They are one of my favourite buildings in the world.
I don't think the World Trade Centre was boring. Ok, it was not exactly ornate. Basically it was just two big slim rectangles, but I don't think it detracted from the NY skyline.

[Emil Miller]

Bien - Here is a listing of the oldest buildings in the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_...ngs_in_America

So I looked up the oldest building in New York City and found it was this little house somewhere in Brooklyn (I wonder where?) that was built in 1652. Of all the great buildings and architecture we have in New York, it's kind of silly for this to be the oldest.





Yes I know, but there was something about those twin structures. Individually they were boring, but together as twins hovering above the sky line did make a curious architectural statement. Individually they might have been boring, but where else are such twin buildings coupled like that? I think that Indonesian building is the only one that comes to mind and that I might venture to say is alluding to the Twin Towers.

Here's the Chrysler building, by the way. I do think this is the classic sky scraper from which all others pale in comparison:

Obviously, the important thing about the World Trade Centre site is what will be built on it. One design by Daniel Liebeskind, who is an afficionado of the lop-sided look, has already been thrown out, thanks to the intervention of Donald Trump, whose influence is of no small account in these matters. Liebeskind is the same architect who tried to foist on a gullible media a grotesque extension to the London Victoria and Albert museum ( a particularly fine example of Victorian and Edwardian architecture ) which was accurately described by one commentator as looking like a lot of cardboard boxes thrown into a heap.
Prince Charles has effectively stopped the development, that was unacceptable to local residents who petitioned against it, of a major site in London by writing to the owner, the head of the Qatari royal family, protesting against the proposed development, and the Richard Rogers scheme has been thrown out. For those of you living in New York, however, the most horrific, yes I use that word advisedly, scheme among those proposed for the WTC site, is one by another Briitsh 'architect,' Norman Foster. It is ridiculous in its shape, preposterously ugly and would totaly dominate new York in a way that makes the twin towers positively innocuous