Design 
  Community 
  Architecture 
  Discussion 
 

Message - Re: WTC: General Observations

    Responses | Architecture Forum | Architecture Students | Architecture Scrapbook | ArchitectureWeek    
   

Posted by  lavardera on September 18, 2002 at 08:45:32:

In Reply to:  Re: WTC: General Observations posted by Paul Malo on September 18, 2002 at 06:30:19:

Your drifting into a really fundamental issue of how to teach, and its parallel of how to practice, to facilitate or to dictate, at the two extremes. This can be related to all kinds of thinking beyond architectural style.

To wrangle us back to where we were: The moral stance you described as being attached to modernists, and I related to classicists. My big concern is the baby out with the bathwater with regards to urban planning and modern architecture. For instance the New Urbanism movement, which I really like, almost always favors a kind of numbing "romantic traditionalism". I like the urban qualities of the projects but get nothing from the architecture. Its not like there is anything preventing modern architeture in this context (except for the prohibitions put in place!) - I think of Anthoney Ames design study for Seaside. Not that I love the house, but here a house by an academic modernists reveals that the prescriptive code model can be met despite the loaded stylistic content. I think that the planners in the case of new urbanism have their preferences, and whether or not they believe planning and architecture can be seperated, they do not wish it to be so - they want the traditional style. (The debate within the congress for new urbanism between the traditional urbanists/stylists and the compact community/environmentalists was interesting in this regard.)

But - back to the WTC site. I am indifferent I guess to the planning mode that is done there in as much as I hope that the traditional/humane (however you care to lable it) does not preclude a modern approach as it seems to everywhere else. It is easy to argue that the modern/objectmaking approach is appropriate here as it is now historical, and more suggestive of a monument - I don't believe that it will have to result in a bad design. I think a lot more thinking needs to be done about whether or not to build there at all - granted some sort intervention needs to be done, but I think the whole premise of redevelopment is inappropriate and needs to questioned outright.

 
 
ArchitectureWeek     Search     Buildings     Architects     Types     Places     Pix     Free 3D Models     Store     Library

Search GreatBuildings.com by name of Building, Architect, or Place:   
Examples:  "Fallingwater",  "Wright",  "Paris"           Advanced Search

Responses:




Post a Response -

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:


This is an archive page. Please post continuing discussion to the new Architecture Forums.

To post successfully to the new membership-based DesignCommunity Forums:

    1) Go to the new forums area.
    2) Register with a valid email address.
    3) Receive and respond to the confirmation email.
    4) Then login to the new forum system.



 

Special thanks to our Sustaining Subscribers including BuilderSpace.com .

Home | Great Buildings | CAD Outpost | DesignWorkshop | Free 3D | Gallery | Search | ArchitectureWeek
This document is provided for on-line viewing only. /discussion/21795.html