[Kaiserschmarrn]

The old campus was much nicer So what happened to the old building? I’m sure it’s still in existence but isn’t used as a university anymore?
Some of these old buildings can be quite run down and their up-keep expensive so it just makes sense to build a new one.
I suppose it isn’t right to copy the old style, but to stray so far from it isn’t logical either. There’s leaps and bounds and then there’s just, well, whatever the opposite to continuity is

It's still a university building for e.g history and archaeology. It became too small for the number of economics and business students, so they were moved in the 80s to another building which was as ugly as the new one above to which they moved again a few years ago.

In Innsbruck they built a similar monstrosity right next to the old university in the late 70s/early 80s. You can see it in the background to the right of the old building.



And here it is in all its glory.

[ness31]

Everything became so square in the eighties. I bet it has something to do with all the pyschedelic drugs they all took in the sixties

[Rugoz]

This thread needs more good looking modern buildings.

This is a typical modern office building. It's simple, but the glass combined with stone looks pretty good:



For those who don't like practical architecture, here's some Calatrava :

[QatzelOk]

This is a lovely photo because it demonstrates that, not only is contemporary architecture dismal, but so is contemporary urbanism. And the contemporary people that are produced by contemporary urbanism are more ignorant and craven than any generation since the Plague.

Here, an emotionally-evocative shape, done in jewellery-like forms, looks relatively interesting in a photo. But just look at the dead space all around it. This form can't associate with other buildings or public places, much like the contemporary suburbanite can't associate freely with other people. I once heard a suburbanite utter: 'I don't like or trust the general public.' And you can see a similar self-hatred in this building's choice of site.

The ground floor of this flying saucer provides no interest, no functions, and looks incredibly uninviting - like the Ministry of Truth in some dystopic sci fi thriller.

Also, you can see that a lot of surplus labor (from working stiffs) was thrown away in order to elevate the level of narcissism of some 'misundertood and really complex' architectural prima donna.

'Oh, my son in law can make you a beautiful building that commoners will never understand.' Of course, commoners are only happy to pay for it.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

This thread needs more good looking modern buildings.

This is a typical modern office building. It's simple, but the glass combined with stone looks pretty good:

The texture in the stone is an improvement. As for the rest, it's no coincidence that they are photographed when lit up at night.

[ness31]

I don’t know what Calatrava is, but it’s very nice. It reminds me of the whale bone design they were doing at the 9/11 site.

[Rugoz]

The texture in the stone is an improvement.

Nicely textured wood or stone or some combination thereof makes a huge difference. I don't think we'll ever go back to classical ornamented buildings, since there's a clear trend towards more and larger windows (and more asymmetry).

I don’t know what Calatrava is, but it’s very nice. It reminds me of the whale bone design they were doing at the 9/11 site.

Calatrava is an architect. The first 3 pictures are from the world trade center transportation hub. Unfortunately it's kind of being raped by the surrounding buildings.

[Paradigm]

I've always preferred art deco.

See, the thing with Art Deco is it took "form follows function" the way it was meant. When Louis Sullivan coined that phrase, he was simply giving advice to a generation of architects who were designing skyscrapers, which couldn't adhere to the "form follows precedent" rule that previous architecture did.

As for Sullivan himself, this is the kind of stuff he designed:

But modern architects think "form follows function" means you can't do this sort of thing anymore.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Nicely textured wood or stone or some combination thereof makes a huge difference. I don't think we'll ever go back to classical ornamented buildings, since there's a clear trend towards more and larger windows (and more asymmetry).

Natural materials have texture and since we've been surrounded by them for millennia they please our sense of aesthetics. The same is true for ornaments, patterns and shapes that appear in nature. The novelty factor of unusual shapes tends to wear off fast and the building will be boring at best and a stain on the landscape at worst. We would do well to remember very basic facts like this and incorporate that knowledge especially into architecture since buildings aren't rebuilt every other year. I can change a painting on the wall, but we'll have to look at that horrible university building in Innsbruck for decades to come.

We went back to classical architecture after 2000 years, so I wouldn't want to make a prediction about what we'll do in the future. But I'm not advocating that anyway. We should just remember the above facts and have the highest regard for those who can combine beauty with functionality. If in doubt let's go for boring rather than bold or novel as the latter rarely works in the long term.

Calatrava is an architect. The first 3 pictures are from the world trade center transportation hub. Unfortunately it's kind of being raped by the surrounding buildings.

I was referring to the outdoors photographs. Usually, these modern buildings only look impressive at night when lit up, hence why they are photographed at that time. The appeal is probably the ornamental/patterned appearance the light produces. In daylight there's little or nothing left of that effect.

[Thunderhawk]

Inside of the Credit Valley Hospital atrium




The outside is a generic hospital.

I think Qatz is correct about human scale. I like the inside of Credit Valley Hospital partly because of the material and partly because of the scale. If the components were larger by 3x it would leave the human scale and become overbearing. If it was much thinner it would look flimsy. How to apply that mindset to the outside.. I think there is more. I think the appearance has to work at multiple distance levels - details to see, interact with and appreciate when standing beside it, but also when across the street, when a couple blocks away and when much further away. Fine details for the close distance are lost at a larger distance but there can be larger designs that are now more easily visible. Buildings exist in a physical context - you aren't interacting with a university building 200m away, but you can interact with the university grounds and community.

I wonder though. Do you think that a more true to the period addition could even be built these days? I wonder, not only about the cost but also the expertise and material availability.

I never liked the pyramid at the Louvre either though it is better integrated.

I think the lack of money is from the time span used to view projects. A large cost that has a small yearly return that lasts generations is an unusual consideration compared to the usual experience of a car that should be paid off before it needs to be scrapped, a house in a few decades and commercial buildings over a time span according to the business model. A time span in the years to decades is familiar and costs (fiscally wise plans) are considered in that time span. Such a mindset seems to be the expected mindset for accountants, politicians, corporate officers, etc.. and I think a contributing factor is modern urbanization. If you live your life in a city where future planning by most people is generally limited to a house and sending kids to school, then that's a few decades and 1-2 generations. How do you gain the experience and appreciation of plans that last generations/centuries that is needed to then judge if a politician, corporate officer, etc. and their plan is worthwhile? Farmers [str]have[/str] had to keep an eye on the future and were constantly exposed to what was built up in the past for them, as did competent aristocracy, but those two groups no longer have their influence of majority and social position.


As for materials and expertise: We don't have access to giant redwoods like there once was and gold/gems are prohibitively expensive, but we can fake those and we have better and cheaper options for much else, and new materials with new properties. What we have lost access to is far outweighed by what we have gained access to.