New vs pld buildings: how much influence should architecture have?

[michaelskis]

“It will cost more to renovate than rebuild” is a phase that we often hear during the battle to have a older structure from the wrecking ball. It is no secret that modern architecture (modern as in all architecture over the past 50+ years, not just the style) has for the most part been completely free of intricate architectural details and sculptures. Too many architects are content on warping massive geometric figures into a deformed montage of shapes, and calling it a building. No personal offence to any architects in here, but why can’t buildings be designed to the same detail and quality as in the past? It has been all downhill since Art Deco.

But is architectural detail enough? My disappointment spawns from noticing how basic newer block and curve shape buildings are continuing to replace buildings that have so much detail that every time a person looks at the building, the notice a new feature representative of that point in history or some civic issue.

What are your thoughts?

[jaws]

The only counter-argument to "it will cost more" is "it is worth more". Value, unfortunately, cannot be legislated.

[Luca]

The only counter-argument to "it will cost more" is "it is worth more". Value, unfortunately, cannot be legislated.

The calculation the owner of a building then makes is whether that the extra value captured by him/her is worth the extra expenditure. This can lead to parasitism in the sense that the first guy with a crap building in a great area (think of some recent additions near the cast iron district in NYC) reaps the benefits without the cost. Of course, eventually if enough do this, the value as a whole is lost, but people are notoriously bad at preventing this kind of game-theoretical reductio ad absurdum (hence conservation districts).

But, mikaelskis, I agree with jaws that a "you'll spend more to make more" approach should sound better to a developer than appealing to his/her aesthetic conscience

[Gotta Speakup]

“It will cost more to renovate than rebuild” is a phase that we often hear during the battle to have a older structure from the wrecking ball. It is no secret that modern architecture (modern as in all architecture over the past 50+ years, not just the style) has for the most part been completely free of intricate architectural details and sculptures. Too many architects are content on warping massive geometric figures into a deformed montage of shapes, and calling it a building. No personal offence to any architects in here, but why can’t buildings be designed to the same detail and quality as in the past? It has been all downhill since Art Deco.

But is architectural detail enough? My disappointment spawns from noticing how basic newer block and curve shape buildings are continuing to replace buildings that have so much detail that every time a person looks at the building, the notice a new feature representative of that point in history or some civic issue.

What are your thoughts?

Living in a city where one can see hundreds of years of architecture on a short walk...

There have been good and bad architects in every decade. There are a lot of very beautiful old buildings and alot of old buildings that are butt ugly (can you say that in this forum?). For example, the Boston Federal Reserve Building is great, some of the old insurance buildings in Back Bay built in the 1930s are hideous. I would rephrase your post to: how do you get architects and developers to put up nicer looking buildings?

[Wildono]

Living in a city where one can see hundreds of years of architecture on a short walk...

There have been good and bad architects in every decade. There are a lot of very beautiful old buildings and alot of old buildings that are butt ugly (can you say that in this forum?). For example, the Boston Federal Reserve Building is great, some of the old insurance buildings in Back Bay built in the 1930s are hideous. I would rephrase your post to: how do you get architects and developers to put up nicer looking buildings?

I think Michaelskis had it right. Complexity is what characterizes quality in much of previous development. Today's development is generally schlock. Without detail or craftsmanship.

[Halifax]

People have been mourning the decline in craftsmanship for the last 200 years, but in the U.S. the big turning point seems to have been the Great Depression, which not only saw the rise of European modernism but also the mass unemployment of the building trades. An interesting, polemical book on this theme was published in 1959 by Henry Hope Reed, called "The Golden City." It did have the effect at least of raising appreciation for the Beaux Arts buildings of circa 1900, not enough to save Pennsylvania Station though.
I think that if enough people decide that the highly ornamented, detailed buildings of the late 19th -century are preferable to the bulk of modernist work, there is certainly a technical way of returning to that aesthetic. After all, the Victorians mastered the process of mass-produced ornament...

[gicarto]

But, mikaelskis, I agree with jaws that a "you'll spend more to make more" approach should sound better to a developer than appealing to his/her aesthetic conscience

In order to have a successful historic preservation program, you have to convince the building's owner that it is profitable. Has there ever been a study that shows that remodeling and maintaining old buildings has created more revenue? If there isn't there should be one. That will help us sell historic preservation as a money maker.

[silentvoice]

Living in a city where one can see hundreds of years of architecture on a short walk...
There have been good and bad architects in every decade. There are a lot of very beautiful old buildings and alot of old buildings that are butt ugly (can you say that in this forum?). For example, the Boston Federal Reserve Building is great, some of the old insurance buildings in Back Bay built in the 1930s are hideous. I would rephrase your post to: how do you get architects and developers to put up nicer looking buildings?

^quoted for truth.

And the first thing that come to my mind is, the budget. Ever since the modern movement, architect's fees have shrunk, the effect is they have to handle 10 projects at the same time - as opposed to the olden days where they had the TIME, to do not only the building facade, but the furniture to match. And with haste, comes.... bad work.

Building budgets have also shrunk, meaning less money for fancy stuff. Clients want a cheap building with cheap materials. It's difficult to fight that.