Why Building Styles DON’T MATTER
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 02. 2022
- Head to squarespace.com/stewarthicks to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code STEWARTHICKS
99% Invisible: 99percentinvisible.org/articl...
A great book: www.amazon.com/American-House...
What style is it? This is a common initial question people ask to learn more about a building. For architects, this seems like a poor entry point and the initiating question can seem naive and trivial. This varying degree of attentiveness to a building’s style leads to an impasse between the public-that wants to understand the built environment-and architects eager to share the nuances of their discipline. One of the more powerful aspects of the concept of style is its embodiment of two concepts simultaneously, as Eugène Viollet-le-Duc’s famous definition, “there is style, and there are the styles.” The singular is the manner in which something is done and describes the creative act. The plural is a categorization system that groups buildings together according to common characteristics that developed over time. This video explores the complex nature of building style in the hopes to offer a language that can bridge the divide between the public and others more entrenched in the field of architecture.
_Membership_
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @stewarthicks
_About the Channel_
Architecture with Stewart is a CZcams journey exploring architecture’s deep and enduring stories in all their bewildering glory. Weekly videos and occasional live events breakdown a wide range of topics related to the built environment in order to increase their general understanding and advocate their importance in shaping the world we inhabit.
_About Me_
Stewart Hicks is an architectural design educator that leads studios and lecture courses as an Associate Professor in the School of Architecture at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He also serves as an Associate Dean in the College of Architecture, Design, and the Arts and is the co-founder of the practice Design With Company. His work has earned awards such as the Architecture Record Design Vanguard Award or the Young Architect’s Forum Award and has been featured in exhibitions such as the Chicago Architecture Biennial and Design Miami, as well as at the V&A Museum and Tate Modern in London. His writings can be found in the co-authored book Misguided Tactics for Propriety Calibration, published with the Graham Foundation, as well as essays in MONU magazine, the AIA Journal Manifest, Log, bracket, and the guest-edited issue of MAS Context on the topic of character architecture.
_Contact_
FOLLOW me on instagram: @stewart_hicks & @designwithco
Design With Company: designwith.co
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Architecture: arch.uic.edu/
"my read is that most people's interest in style is probably motivated by the desire to know the story of buildings and understand the motivations of the built environment that structures our activities and daily lives" this reading felt like it glossed over the emotional aspect of buildings. seeing beautiful buildings has me wanting to know what its called so I can find more beautiful buildings like it online.
Good point
In my experience, I've found that it's a real mental exercise for experts to view the topic of their expertise from a layman's perspective. The common person will have questions that the expert likely will not consider, simply because the expert is expecting practical or relevant questions, whereas the common person may not even understand what is practical or relevant for the context of that topic.
i agree blurby. thats what rlly got me into botany (which got me into mycology, entomology, most of the -ology's lol) was the taxonomical system. us apes seem to like systems of organization such as the taxonomy in biology, no reason to think this wouldnt apply to our artistic endeavors like architecture (plus "genres" of music/film, etc)
I feel like people should ask 'who designed this' not 'what is the style' - if I love the appearance I'm more likely to enjoy things designed by the same person over and above a period of design.
@@xisixty or both
Classical buildings for federal buildings isn’t a bad idea in sense of safekeeping historical craftsmanship and artwork. Big modern cool building styles are done everywhere so having more construction with classical styles could be quite refreshing
you’re not wrong but i think you’re also removing the ideologies that have adopted these styles and their reasons. Classical - from an aesthetical stand point- has no biases and is not inherently problematic but when you consider that supremacist and extreme nationalists movements have rallied around the style and have made it a preferred style due it it’s context and what it represents. A good example is the massive greco-roman influence in the american south, this style flourished and became the southern plantation style due to southern plantations viewing the south and even the abhorrent institution of slavery as mirroring and as impactful as the “glory of roman” and impactful civilizations.
I agree that classical and neoclassical designs can be federally mandated but we have to consider the politics of the styles and what they represent in historical contexts.
I do want to respectfully disagree- I do believe the visual language is part of a nation and reflecting that in architecture is a huge part of identity - I would argue that because these building are federal- and considered to be for the people of the nation as is the idea of a republic reflects - then we architecturally should reflect the talent and ability of the citizens. Our federal buildings should reflects the architectural ability of the citizens through the architects. having buildings that were decided against and lined up with one group in mind rather than the nation as a whole is not reflected in classical.
Lastly I do want to bring up a concept discussed by FLW. Wright is by no means the architectural barometer of absolution in architecture but he does bring up an interesting idea. Wright postured that importing European precedent in architecture makes no sense for north america- that we have more in common geographically and by climate and material to central and south american builders so we should explore that rather than bring over european styles. (take this with a grain of salt though as he was speaking on mayan and incan caricatures and pseudo mysticism of the time)
this is merely to say: classical as a historic style is great and all but why should talented new architects, some of whom can design from a unique lens of american experience, be forced into making a style of centuries ago from civilizations that have fallen or exist entirely unrecognizable from when these styles were birthed; instead of structures that highlight and display a nation’s architectural ability, engineering talent, and modern advancements.
@@janem711what if I simply hate ugliness? European architectural Styles are simply Superior, everything built outside of Europe is simply ugly and disgusting.(except some places in the middle east and north africa, moroccoan style is amazing)
@@janem711our "modern" cities are a piece of shit( I whould literally feel ashamed if my shit look like that)
@@windowfakerq1 well i am
going to to start out by saying your comment is extremely euro centric as well as an outdated ideology of european superiority that a similar mindset had led to large scale global atrocities. you have no way of knowing this but as someone who has native american ancestors and a linage that was directly impacted by europeans your comment about europe being superior has undertones of colonization which i understand may not be your intention i just ask you keep that in mind.
i don’t mean to come off as rude i my response but to respond adequately i do want to start by saying- there is nothing wrong with enjoying or liking european architecture and believing it is a beautiful style. I can agree that many facets of it have a very beautiful and dense conceptual nature that in other cultural styles of architecture we don’t get as much of- a great example being cathedrals and the era of religious political power, to have the church have so much power, influence, and wealth in terms of revenue and resources allowed them to symbolically build architecture that in essence was designed and built to be a space to reflect the glory of G-d is something that lead to massively beautiful structures that we could never build today.
I do want to say though, no one style of architecture is “better” than another as it is subjective to taste as well as the definition of what “good”, “better”, and “ugly” architecture depend on your definition of beauty.
I’m going to take your comment and expand on it- you say European architecture is “better” and the exceptions you list sound like you like architecture that contains Moorish Elements- and I am not attacking that, personally I too love the styles that come from moorish influence.
This leads me to believe to you Architecture is ornate, detail based, a Ruskian “Five Lamps of Architecture” approach to architecture is something more in line with your views. All of these things are okay, there is no issue with you liking that.
I would be curious your metrics on what makes a structure “ugly” or not- You also have not specified what era or style of European Architecture you find to be superior unless you mean all of them are to which I will have to group my responses to address a very LONG lineage of design.
Architecture as I have come to love it has no ugly buildings when’s we think of the people behind it, to me good architecture is architecture that that works for its culture and environment- the idea of “vernacular” architecture and “cultural regionalism” are huge with me
Vernacular architecture is architectural styles built designed and building using what is at a people’s disposal- Im going to address specifically nonEuropean Architecture and try to do so by paralleling similar time periods so apologies in advance for jumping around.
So looking at pre 1500- I want to use the example of the Djinguereber Mosque in Timbuktu, Mali. It was built in the 1300’s entirely free of European Principles of design, it is a series of structures that are made of earth and seem to come up
from the earth almost trapping the space within them inside of the these earthen extrusions, saying practically this space within is something encapsulated by the earth. Conceptually alone- the idea of humans being from the earth and their building and architecture being from the earth and as additions to the earth as well rather than delineations that separate us from the earth is a prevalent idea in not just African architecture but in most pre1500 nonEuropean cultures. The fact space is seen as communal and layouts are not just rigid blocks but shapes that have geometric complexity in society (the layout of several communities due to preColonization African architecture are laid out in a “fractal” layout that reflects the community ideals)
Since you didn’t specify which European style or era I’m going to use African Architecture as a jumping off point for this next point.
If you are speaking on the “best” architecture being European and are grouping in the European Modernist you are falling for the facade they built.
Your European Modernist are simply put Erasers of architecturally denser and richer cultures. - Look at Le Corbusier’s work BEFORE his African trips. He posits that space should intentionally segregated from the natural world around it and this is shown in Villa Savoye- now AFTER his African trips, we see him entirely pull elements from African Architecture without crediting them and contradicts his original statements on architecture. Simply put the massive modernist that helped built european modernism stole from Africa and described African culture and art as “primitive”. There is no beauty in theft and erasure of a culture. Having to pull from the rich history of colonized nations to then help erase their impact is for lack of a better youtube friendly term- despicable and low.
If you are referring to Bauhaus Modernist , sure there’s beauty there but the tenants all go against historical European architectural codes - to say they are European and better doesn’t work since they went against the preconceived codes.
I feel though you can love the process and heritage these European designs have you do have to concede 2 significant points. 1. The styles are rooted in centuries old concepts and executions and the discipline of architecture has come a long way. 2. European mandates on styles and deep refusal of progression (think of Paris not allowing higher rise buildings as a way to preserve their historic design) echo a sentiment that the past is more important that modernization means destruction (a HUGELY European idea btw)
Speaking on Regionalism- put European architecture anywhere else in the globe. It doe not work. Put a European structure in the South American Desert- it won’t last because of the climate. This is what makes good architecture. At its heart Architecture is building and a good building is one that can survive where it’s built. You can have a “pretty” building but if it can’t survive then it doesn’t matter how pretty it is.
Bringing in another non European Architecture group- the Japanese. When we talk historic Japanese architecture we are talking about craftsmanship. Like every process in Japan there is a massive respect to one’s craft and bc of this Japan builders only honed a dedication to craftsmanship in their structures. Moving further from 1500’s we get the rising of conceptual giants especially in the 20th century. You cannot argue that space order and form are done as well by anyone as the japanese titans of the 20th - Kenzo Tange, Arata Isozaki, Kengo Kuma and you what throw in Shoei Yoh because we are talking top tier technical
ability and talent.
I urge you to take a moment and consider what makes architecture good and ugly to you. And i Implore you to see the value and beauty in the people and cultures behind this - it goes past aesthetics and entire speaks on cultures. there is no one best architecture we are merely observing how other cultures
build an environment and to celebrate and pull beauty from them. Europe has many styles taken from other cultures but also does have a rich history itself of blending but the world is so vast and each type of architecture hold beauty of culture in it so definitely look into more than just Europe- I didn’t even get to touch on Venturi Post-Modernism or more contemporary styles.
@@janem711Thomas Jefferson historically based the design of Washington DC on the work of the roman classical architect, Palladio. So, though Frank Lloyd Wright's idea that the united States should nurture a unique and rich tradition of its own is spot on, it is important to understand that the United States came from a collection of European colonies and it is not inappropriate for Europeans to bring over historically European architecture. That said, Wright's populist works, specifically the usonian homes, provide a fantastic addition to and enrichment of the attainable American dream, in a suburban form. I am not particularly familiar with any government or civic building designs which Wright produced to represent the united States. Total tangent, but the triangular grid structure itself, something Wright was famous for using, could be used to create a whole new regional variation on the classical style.
Furthermore and more to my point, the classical style is not as rigid as the video makes it out to be, the existence of the Tuscan and Corinthian orders are evidence enough of that. In the first case the slight extension of the roof line and a few other details give an incredibly unusual and even exotic effect without the need for any flashy capital design while the Corinthian order originally utilized a local flora, the ecanthis leaf, to display the national pride of the city of Corinth. There are numerous examples of Egyptian and composite columns with other unique, local, features which showcase unique styling features that look fantastic within a system of classical proportionality. If the issue is with this allowance for regional specificity and not simply an issue with "Nazis" then that is a much more important and controversial discussion. (Edit: after reading your other comment you don't seem to have an issue with regional specificity, but do you have an issue with the blending of local features with classical proportion or with traditionally non-white people adopting the Polis?
Regarding the Nazi classicism comments. It was appropriate for the fascist movement to utilize Romanesque architecture as the civic style of the Romans was the loose model for the fascist movement, specifically in the celebration of the joining of private and public centers of power. The fascis itself was used most famously by the Romans and is still used as a symbol of a strong nation in many places around the globe. The Nazis specifically do not deserve much credit for a significant degree of architectural innovation though they did produce very large and more square 🤢 examples. My instinct is that an outsized inclination that the classical style is oppressive is likely a reflection of an anti European bias in their education or feelings of anarchism and hatred for the government over them, not simply hatred for the Nazis. I could understand someone saying that the roman Doric order is a bit oppressive maybe, but to hear someone say that would be like hearing someone say that they don't like the smell of vanilla.There are certain modernist styles, such as brutalism which gave rise to buildings that have been characterized by many lay people, including myself, as being highly oppressive. That effect may lay in the eye of the beholder, but there is something common about the eye. It isn't necessary for a famous authoritarian government to use something for it to be oppressive and alienating. That architectural style may be, platonically, more oppressive than another style.
P.s. Greek classicism is superior to Roman styling because of its richer curvilinear complexity and more visually arresting play of shadow
(Edit: book six of Vitruvius' works gives an array of climate based instruction to Augustus)
I think when people ask for a building style what they want is not to know about that specific building but to be able to find others that are similar, or to check how it compares with others that emerged in the same context.
Good point.
Or they’re real estate agents trying to figure out how to advertise a house for sale. 😂
@@MartinThmpsn may be as well! there as another cool video by Steward on that topic. czcams.com/video/YEtb6QoyzRg/video.html
I always get people outside of the architecture world asking me what my favorite style is and it's almost always in the context of "what would I build for myself?" I never have good answers because of this. I've seen style through the speciation model you've talked about since architecture school, so I can never say something as simple as "soviet-era brutalist" or "cape cod" because things exist for reasons and the beauty of a tokugawa era residence doesn't really make sense in a place like Wisconsin.
I see what you mean about how complicated it is to answer “what style would you build your house in?”, since one’s favorite style may not be applicable outside of its normal context.
That being said and to build on your point, I could also see it as a design challenge/prompt to adapt (and probably not fully copy) that particular style into your local context.
I happen to live in Wisconsin, but I do like the sukiya-zukuri style buildings from Edo period Japan. The weeb dream of mine is to have such a house here, but I can recognize that style of architecture would be impractical here in many ways if copied directly.
I could see it as a fun design challenge to attempt to translate it to a Midwest context. Maybe combine it with the Prairie style, which one could argue Frank Lloyd Wright may have used inspiration from Japan to form the Prairie style to begin with, so I can see them blending together very well.
@@vidcas1711 I agree, I feel like architects are self righteous goons that try to be humble but ironically are not...... Wtf is it so hard saying "I love Greco Roman" or "Spanish baroque"........ Everyone has a style no matter what they say...... Having no style is a style...... Just like there's no such thing as having no speaking accent....
I'd just list ideas an concepts from all over the place that I like & think would work well together. No one "style" can encapsulate the idea insanity that is inside my head. XD
Oh my goodness me too.
I man…to be fair brutalist doesn’t make sense anywhere besides maybe a prison camp
I can understand not limiting most commercial or public building to a historical style. But I think this type of thinking by architects is why most all American residential homes are hideous and make no scene, they have no style! I see homes all the time that have 4 or 5 elements from totally different style that do not go together at all and make no scene from a design standpoint. Why do Americans go crazy for Europe? Its because they have regional, time refined, unified design esthetics that makes design scene for that place. For a home being regionally appropriate and having a style is important. I feel most everyone instinctively thinks this. When an architect gets a home right, people notice, they tell there friends about them, drive by them dreaming about have one like it. No one does this for a home with no style.
💯
They call it eclectic, lol
It all depends on the client's project brief.
You're making it sound like the architect makes all the shots, when the reality is that they're just the steward/advisor that realizes the client's vision.
The homes you're referring to are either:
A: exactly how the client wants it (they love it even though you think otherwise);
B: result due to lack of feedback (if client doesn't voice their opinion, then the architect won't have much to work with);
C: a compromise between the client's vision and their budget (client wanted too much for little cost); or
D: it's prebuilt like a mass housing project (client was never involved in the design process)
It’s “sense” not “scene”.
@@archwaldo There is another type of home this referrers to; It is the home built from free plans online by a builder with modifications for cost and homeowner decisions. The plans have an absurd amount of roof lines and pitches, windows and light are an afterthought and open concept is the design.
As an architecture student, I relate more with the description of the general public here than with the description of architects. What that says about my future, I'm not sure I want to know!
It says you will have a lot of trouble in the world of modern architects.
It says you will have very happy clients.
2 pieces of advice, 1, follow the requirements you are given by your customers/employers (budget, fuction,etc...no brainer, its business) and, 2, design it so it will be appreciated for generations afterwards, make it look good long after whatever fad is in vouge at the time. Too many buildings are now gaudy and horrid to look at after the novelty wears off, make it pleasant to look at even if it isn't flashy initially.
All I can observe in Europe is a beauty of pre- 1940 buildings and ugliness of almost everything built afterwards. My average tourist learning is: In the past, it was an art and there were some rules and proportions which make it beautiful. Nowadays, the have abandoned all the rules and proportions and every designer tries to be a pioneer of a new definition of beauty, very often with poor results. Sadly, all these creatures will disguise us for many decades until someone rightfully demolish them.
Sorry for being harsh, but that's what I feel.
I think this discussion misses a few points less visible to an architect. Style, IMO, is about the creation of a language. Individuals outside of the field cannot list the components that they desire piece-by-piece. Not only do they lack the vocabulary and familiarity with the nuance, but even if they could, there are subtleties of proportion and orientation that are difficult to describe. Likewise, the creation of an evocative environment is often about the use of forms that connect to the past in a Deliberate way. Again, defining those touchstones to a designer is also a matter of conveying through language.
Ultimately, the fact that style is so often made of structurally insignificant detail work is precisely what makes it so useful. In the end, style is about codifying the forms that connect to certain "flavors" of building; to convey the desired "feel" of the end result when specifics are lacking. The function is seldom prohibited by such a distinction, only the format used to present it.
I think this is part of why styles are normally retroactively defined, "Colonial" houses were first built to solve a set of problems unique to the time and place they originated in. After the main colonial era was over all those houses which looked similar got grouped together as colonial style after the first wave of construction was done. (And following your point, this is because common folk had something they could point at and say "i want one of those")
in short = clients need us to tell them what their house should look like. hands them an amorphous blob shaped pinecone of a stilted house = that will be 4000000 zillion please. no sir we want a 3 story victorian. ah sorry we cant do that. only blobs and cubes I'm afraid.
The talk of not having a style, and of architects not working with a style or thinking that working with a style would be disingenuous reminds me of the genre discussion in music.
Every musician answers the genre question for themselves by naming other musicians that they take after. And you can kind of pull your head back and look at the similarities and say, ok, this is X genre. But if you tell them that they are X genre, they tend to get defensive. Everyone wants to think they're boundary pushing, completely unique and innovative. Everyone thinks they're Radiohead and beyond reduction into a single genre. Until you realize that Radiohead is just a rock band.
Of course you're working with styles, of course you're working in genres. Unless you've never seen a building you liked or heard a song you liked and you've just decided to take this up all on your own, then you have reconceived notions of what a proper work should be like. I think the tendency to balk at this codification is just the artist's ego coming into play.
You don't design with a style in mind. Of course you do. Even if you're trying to do something wholly unique, that is you designing in opposition to the style you have in mind.
Great example
I was thinking of it even more simply as when people say “I don’t have an accent”-everyone has an accent. You may not recognize it as one, but through your upbringing and exposure to society around you, you have gained the accent you have and do indeed have an “American”/“British”/“German”/whatever accent. It’s disingenuous to say that the way you speak stands on its own as truly neutral or novel, just as it is to say that your architectural style might stand on its own.
yes to this
I like your analogy but reluctance to be labelled with a style or genre isn't necessarily defensiveness. Of course we all have influences but there are limits to categorization, if I'm influenced by jazz and metal my music won't fit neatly into an existing genre, creators do this sort of mixing all the time. Labels can be useful for general discussions but for specifics they're usually too reductive in my opinion.
THANK YOU.
I really like how at 0:50 you laid out what the video will and wont be about and gave people alternatives to read if it wasn't what they were looking for. I love it when creators support each other and respect their audience's time like that.
I'm not convinced architects find what the lay person thinks of style as superficial and insignificant to their work approach, or it would be a common point of compromise with the desires of the public. But I can just hear the shrieks of Kitsch! and Las Vegas! were anyone to dare put marble columns in their oh-so-neccessarily triangular City hall atrium.
We People here (in spain at least) use the rule based model very often, for example we describe romanic with round arch and gothic with pointed arch, barroque has more curves while renaissance is more straight. So, if you see a building witch has doric coulombs in the first floor an a solomonic ones on the second it might habe been started on the renaissance and ended on the barroque.
This video definitely embodies the postmodern style of early 20's CZcams videos
I have to say, I really do prefer older style government buildings. Maybe restricting buildings to classical is stifling creativity, but seeing all the post-modern crap that has gone up in the last 50 years, I think it's preferable.
As a traditionally trained artist, style is something that gets harped on a lot, especially for young or new students who only know how to draw one thing when they first enter formal training (anime being the most common thing they know how to draw in my experience). It's been my understanding that a personal style is a reflection of an artists mind, it's the common thread throughout their work of how they've learned to simplify and process visual information and turn it back out as translated information for others to see, process, and translate for themselves. I firmly believe that Architecture is no different. Every architect MUST have their own style, even if it is very similar to an established style or the style of another architect, simply because they have a mind that is different from other people's minds, and they have a way of thinking that must find it's way out of their minds and into the objects which they design. Most often I see style in the most commonly used shapes, line patterns, or proportions of an artists work, but it can easily be so much more than that.
As for "The Style" of an object, I think that every time I've wondered what style a building is, it has been specifically about trying to categorize a structure so that I can understand what I like or dislike it, and why, never because I wanted to know about a specific buildings history and context. I believe that an established building style is more than superficial fashion or aesthetic detail, to me it's a consistent pattern of design which was first established to solve specific problems, or to accommodate specific needs. In my mind this is why Brutalism rarely works for living spaces, because it wasn't really established as a design pattern with a sense of comfort, security, or Home in mind, it was concerned with other things. That's also why medieval cottage core doesn't make good warehouse or office space. And it's also why I've never seen a modern made Victorian style house that could be said to have the same "character" as an authentic Victorian era house. It's not because the finishes are different and it's rarely about specifically how gaudy the facade details are, to me it's that the design choices are always different, as are the base proportions, and because materials used in the construction are different, as are building codes, and the needs of the family who have the house built are VERY different. Maybe all that makes it impossible to truly build in any style from a bygone era, but I don't think it will ever stop people from trying to understand why the surviving structures from such era's are appealing to them, or stop asking "what style is this".
The problem comes when houses in certain locales (such as houses in Asia) are dismissed as a group and called "vernacular style".
I'm not so sure that the general public is obsessed with identifying a style, but HGTV is! Their House Hunters program so often scripts their buyers with wanting conflicting styles, and half the time I don't think they know what those styles represent. Not every house has a named style, but HGTV tries. Many times they'll call a plain little box a "Cape Cod" or a "Craftsman", and if it happened to be built in the 1950s it's automatically a "Mid-Century Modern" even if it has none of the characteristics of those styles. Some houses are just houses.
It's the same with interior design. People are obsessed with the names of styles. I have tried to work on style classification on my blog in order to help people get a sense of how to tell the very general category based on a modern-traditional spectrum model.
Styles are a result of numerous historical factors, mainly people trying to make the best fit for their situation with what they know.
My favorite style is the "Great Camps" of the Adirondacks which resulted from guilded age NYC millionaires building vaction homes in the mountains but due to the limitations of the time the cheapest option was to use local materials instead of importing exotic materials. The result is showing off of local woods and stones including potsdam sandstone which is as strong as marble and chemically inert
Names and labels are helpful to look up styles or cultures, find more of the same things people like, to build, or communicate about to others. It wasn't meant to be stifling and it doesn't mean people can't be creative and invent new styles. Some buildings can be mixed styles.
Excellent video! I have my Masters in architectural history -- an interest I developed growing up in a Greek Revival house in NYC in the 1960s. In the 19th century, architects and people in general were obsessed with "The Battle of the Styles", but in retrospect it's the similarities of these buildings to each other that seems most obvious today, despite their different "styles." For example, comparing typical Greek Revival, Gothic Revival, and Italianate houses of the mid-19th century to each other, the ornamentation, roof pitch, massing, etc., may be different, but they were all created to serve basically the same lifestyles, customs, and social mores of that time and place, no matter what their "style" might have been. Even their stylistic diversity reflected their firmly 19th-century pedigree.
I would also add that the vast majority of buildings in any period were vernacular expressions of style adapted by local builders, carpenters, etc. They were not designed by people with formal architectural training. The results can be humorous from the stylistic point of view, e.g. a farmhouse in Vermont that has a wrap-around porch of Greek Doric columns supporting pointed Gothic arches. But these kind of vernacular expressions point to the commonalities that all of these types of buildings have with each other. This can be seen in much more recent examples. When I was a kid I liked looking at post-war house designs found in magazines. The "styles" were basically, "Colonial", "Tudor", "Split Level", "Ranch", "Contemporary", etc., but they all had basically the same floor plans for the same "typical" American suburban family of two parents with 2.5 kids. The differences between them were very superficial.
Great insight!
I have a question.
What exactly differentiate greek rivaval from classical style?
Does it have something different?
Also, how does italinonate style differ from beo-classical styles? Is it a sub-category? In which case is different from manierism or baroque? If not, which one?
It’s a weird terminology that does not exist in europe.
@@leonardodavid2842 Greek Revival is a subset of the various classical styles used in Europe beginning in the Italian Renaissance in the 15th century. These styles, including the Mannerist, Baroque, and Neo-Classical, relied entirely on precedents from ancient Rome for proportion and ornament, although depending on the exact style of the building they were used in different ways ranging from very ornate, as in the Baroque, to sober and restrained, as in the Neo-Classical. In the mid-18th century the architecture of ancient Greece was rediscovered by Europeans, particularly the English, and its popularity was promulgated by several publications, most particularly Stuart and Revett's book "The Antiquities of Athens." By the end of the century it was being used for garden "follies" and ornamental landscape features in the British Isles, and later, more important buildings, like the British Museum, built in the 1820s and 30s. It gained a foothold in the United States because of its association with the origins of democracy, and became the standard vernacular form of building well into the 1860s. It was also particularly popular in Scotland.
Greek Revival buildings differ from other Classical buildings in several important ways. The orders are based entirely on ancient Greek precedents, rather than on ancient Roman precedents. The Greek versions of the orders are more robust than the Roman orders, and the proportions are more squat. In addition, arches play no role in Greek architecture. Unlike monumental Roman buildings, where arches play a major role in the architecture, the buildings of ancient Greece relied entirely on post-and-lintel construction. In vernacular Greek Revival buildings, the Greek influence is found mainly in the proportions, even where no explicitly Greek ornamentation is used.
In the US the Italianate style refers to a mid-19th century style of architecture that finds its roots in vernacular Italian architecture of the 15th and 16th centuries, but the influence is tenuous. It is a picturesque style, more Romantic than Classical, with dramatic asymmetrical massing and strong contrasts of light and shade, but it does use Classical motifs as ornament. Where such ornament is used, it is always based on Roman rather than Greek precedents, but the buildings really don't bear much resemblance to anything built in ancient Rome or Renaissance Italy.
@@christopherstephenjenksbsg4944
Thank you for the reply, it was very interesting.
I am a big fan of history. Hence I have been reading Vetruvius "De Architectura" and was planning to look into Palladio's works after.
So I was confused about the meaning of certain styles mentioned in the video and how they related to what I am reading about.
So basically greek revival is neo-classical architecture (as both use and adapt the rules of classical architecture to use for modern purposes), however it ignores the ancient Roman influence. I would imagine this means no use of tuscan columns, buildings limited to using a single classical order, and obviously no arches or domes.
Whereas Italianate style attempts to copy the appearance but doesn't bother to actually respect the rules (which often even original poor designed mannerist architecture did) upon which Italian classical inspired structures of the renaissance were based.
@@leonardodavid2842 You've got it. Of course, all of these qualities refer to "high-style" buildings. Vernacular expressions could be much more confused, as I mention in my original post, such as Greek columns supporting Gothic arches. Go figure!
I grew up in a Greek Revival house in New York City. The only expression of the style was in its proportions and in four abstract pilasters on the front facade. There was no ornament on the exterior at all except for the beautifully laid brick masonry, but it was still Greek Revival.
I should mention that while all post-antique classical architecture could be described as neoclassical, most English-speaking architectural writers use the term "Neoclassical" to refer to an architectural movement in the mid-18th century to move away from the excesses of Baroque and Rococo architecture to a more rationalist architectural expression. It is characterized by extreme simplicity and the expression of a building's actual structure in its architecture. So, for example, architectural ornament would never be applied without some structural purpose. Columns must support structure. Pediments must express the actual pitch of the roof, etc. The Pantheon in Paris, designed by Jacques-Germain Soufflot and built over thirty years starting in 1758, is one of the most recognizable examples of the style. It also helped usher in the Greek Revival, which has a similar rationalist expression of structure.
On rereading my response to your question, I realized that my description of Italianate architecture was incomplete. Besides the Italian villa style, which I described, the Italianate style was often used for urban rowhouses in the northeastern United States, where they are commonly referred to as "brownstones" because of the color of the sandstone used on their facades. In those buildings, an attempt was made to recall Italian palaces of the 16th and 17th centuries. The resemblance is very approximate, but it was very popular for many decades.
I didn't know that the Romans were using skeuomorphism referencing wood details, one of many interesting points made in your video!
Greeks. Romans also built wooden temples, however they started turning them to stone after.
From my experience, choosing a style isn’t an unnecessary constraint, but rather a work ethos.
It doesn’t even have to limit the way a building functions to the historical uses of the chosen style.
Rather it may be preferable that architects innovate within a chosen style to see how far they can take extant concepts.
Exactly, when he said that I was like "holy shit what an awful take". Styles exists because they work and the challenge/creativity is what you can do to tweak and alter a pre-existing style, balancing existing style and finding your own voice. Why are modern architects always so out of touch
Victorian style is my jam. I lived in a Victorian house when I was in my teens. Was so interesting and classy.
Ah victorian. I had a friend that lived in that style. It was a two story with basement, three car garage, green roof white walled surrounded by an apple orchard. It was nice
@@spencervance8484 the house I lived in was in a historical neighborhood that became a dump because the ghetto that surrounded it. Still was awesome. 5 rooms upstairs built in an octagonal shape at the top of the stairs with a chandelier in the middle of the landing. Large living room and large dining room and large kitchen. Also had a Florida room. All the walls were windows. It was an addition. On the alley drive was the garage. Another addition but was huge. My Dad and I were the main renters. Our friends dad owned the place. Various people would rent the upstairs rooms from time to time. The florida room was mine and the dining room was my Dads. We also kept the living room to ourselves. After Hurricane Francis and Gene we had alot of insurance and infrastructure folks renting the.upstairs. then we had many illegal mexicans that would also rent the upstairs. When we moved out the old man sold the place. Despite being in the ghetto, I grew up in that hood and I would buy it now. It's an amazing house. Built in 1909 if I remember correctly. Most of the.houses on that block are so amazing. In my teens a crazed man set fire to his and my brother and I broke in afterwards. Was also an amazing house.
Yes, it’s fair to call a group of buildings with the same characteristics a style, even if the architects can to those characteristics for different reasons.
Its funny how every postmodern architect declares " I dont have a style, I am always searching blah, blah, blah" and then they are selling projects branded with their style. "Not having style" became a fetish of contemporary, while its another cultural lie. We have styles, we want styles, we need styles. And yes Eisenman is good example: his building are asily recognisable.
This
Great Video. Reminded me when I was in school and ALL the professors in my design studios pushed Modern and contemporary architecture to influence all our design projects. I always appreciated classical styles but never attempted any. It was kinda frowned upon because according to them it did not pushed you creatively. Even after all these years in the field I still had not a chance to work on a project that involves any of the classical styles.
The faculty at my school were split between modernists, traditionalists, and conservationists. But most of my teachers would always ask the freshmen why they’ve chosen a modern design, because they usually do, and the response was usually “coz it’s simpler” lol.
Same. But I also understand we live in a different time. I think it make no sense to build a gothic or barroque building in this time. We apreciate these styles because of their history but a new building in this styles would be a pastiche of the past. We need to find our own language or style so people in the future can look back and see "thats what 2023 look like" not "that a 1800 pastiche".
@@augusto7681 I’d rather attempt to copy these old buildings, the “style” of 2023 is as cheap an as fast as possible. There is no 2023 style unless it’s cheap trash
@@teubks The buildings big companies do just to sell apartaments isnt the best example of 2023 architecture. But if you have time you can look on architecture magazines what is good architecture nowdays. Its different, it wont have columns or floral ornaments but it can beautiful too and represent our time.
My dream house would be a 1930s Craftsman Style, with lots of built in cabinets and big closets. I love the natural woodwork and prefer a vintage home to q new one. I most recently owned a Victorian house, but now have a condo in a high rise. But I do like most styles of architecture. There are good and bad examples in all styles. It gets down to details or lack thereof by the person who designed it.
Not an architect, but I always thought, as you, I think, pointed out, that style is a lot like studying history, where it can only be defined when viewed collectively and only after the fact, and when a trend itself is collectively over and is now in contrast with a different way of doing things. Also, I would imagine it would be hard for an artist to call his own work a style, but rather should allow other people to see his work collectively, notice a trend, then decide, whether the artist agrees or not, that there is an attributable style. Again great video!
I think alot of people ask what style something is because they like something they see and they want to be able to explain to others (real estate agents, friends etc) what they like and be able to search for it.
I think of style for we laypeople is about the aesthetics primarily. As you mentioned in that quote from Eisenman, in response to a question on style he responded by talking about "look." That makes me wonder how much aesthetics or beauty play a role in design. Is that an element when creating a design? Its subjective, so presumably you would have to involve the client, but it would seem like a major consideration even if it relies on "superficial" elements of the design.
THANK YOU for putting a single word to what I've long wondered how to research - 'why architecture is' isnt easy to google - and that word was skeuormorphism.
Since childhood my favorite style has been Art Nouveau, purely because Sims 2 was my favorite game, and it had a lot of art nouveau build items that I cherished. I love that art nouveau really can be a gesamtkunstwerk, and easily applied to fashion, interior design, graphic design, as well as architecture. Its extremely distinctive, easily adaptable, as well as stimulating and gorgeous to look at. It was the first movement towards modernism in western history.
And the whole entire movement only lasted 30 years, before nearly everybody that cared about it or was able to craft it died in the First World War.
I may not be an architect but from what I can understand is styles often matter particularly on its impact both for the aesthetics suitable to an environment and of its sustainability and co-existence in that environment. It is not just about functionality, but also, to a point, accentuates its presence towards those who are in that environment.
It seems like “style” is used as a shorthand way of “designing” without hiring a designer. Designing isn’t a commodity but people still want “design” in their lives so style is a way to access the commodity without having to go through the design process.
5:34 Eugène Viollet-le-Duc was the French architect who wrote the quote you referred to.
The picture is of Emmanuel-Louis-Nicolas Viollet-le-Duc, a French writer.
Interestingly, the position of the former, can be applied to fashion, distinguishing between trends and the basal idea of whether or not a creation is of artistic purpose.
As to the urge to know the style of a building, we are social animals, we yearn to fit in and impress.
Being ignorant is largely perceived as a fault.
On top of that, much like for our clothes, architecture it is a way of our expression.
Grasping a concept in relation to which we position ourselves, is a process through we define ourselves.
We aspire to control our world and understanding it is part of the battle.
Victorian, italianette, craftsman, four squares, colonials, colonial farm houses, modulars of all different styles, trailers, double wides, partial split levels, full split levels, split levels with overhangs
I think this can relate to drawing styles as well. A lot of people want to say they have a “style” without ever drawing before. You learn what your style is over time. I didn’t really know or even wanted to be a cartoonist, but here we are.
I honestly can agree with this, I have seen a lot of people try to force themselves to draw in a style they admire, despite not having the right ability to draw those ways if you know what I mean. I think it's the same thing with Architecture.
The problem I have with the view expressed in this video is that the dismissal of "styles" as being unhelpful and meaningless is that it ignores the viewer. As an artist, I see a lot of people stressing over their "style" in the exact opposite of how it seems architects view the issue in that artists WANT to have an identifiable style. But what style you work in (regardless of if we're discussing architecture, art, music, fashion, etc) is never actually up to the creator.
We as creators have certain preferences for techniques, materials, and aesthetics that naturally bleed into our work. Over time, as we create more and more work for the public to see and judge, THEY identify those things that we choose, consciously or unconsciously, to utilize in our work again and again. THAT is our style. And as we don't live in a vacuum, climate, culture, current events, sub cultures, etc all affect us as creators and so does our natural tendency to share and form communities of like-minded individuals. So with time, those aspects that were shared amongst a group becomes identifiable and is classified as a "style".
And this classification has it's uses. The public that are viewing, using, and consuming what we have created are drawn to certain aspects emotionally and aesthetically and want to see and experience more of that and that's okay. This in turn helps creators find a market for what they create. It's not degrading or insulting to the original creator, it's just another aspect of history and how it's classified.
The development of a style classification reminds me of the creation of the styles so readily attributed to decades in the past. Nobody in the 60s was given a list of clothing to wear, nor a dictionary of slang terms or opinions. Yet in retrospect, the overall impression is hard to refute. Lukewise, the 20s, 30s, 40s, etc. can be seen as having a unique quintessence.
Similarly, I would say the classification of a particular architect's work is akin to the creation of a caricature, or even an impression of a public figure. I'm sure Elvis would have thought of himself as wearing a wide variety of clothing, and of having a varied method of speech, yet the creation of the character exists beyond specific moment or perceived nuance outside of their capacity to control.
Its like genre in music. Nirvana didn't set out to be the driving force for grunge music, they were just making their music.
Tarantino said on Bill Maher that he created a sub-genre of crime films with Pulp Fiction. Then for years after, every crime movie tried to have pop culture references in them, but none were ever as good as Pulp Fiction; but its only long after the fact that you can look back and say, "that was this genre at that time". In the moment, its about the individual's creation. Every once in a while, you get a brilliant innovation that inspires/is copied for a long time after.
Thank you for being respectful to my profession.
I've been designing for other people for so long and THEIR personal design desires, so I've become numb and desensitized to what my style is. I can never answer when people ask me what my favorite style is. I can always answer who my favorite architect's are, because it's much, much more than looks, but it's the experience
Really enjoying your videos, and as a casual enjoyer of architecture I’d love to see an examination of what’s right and wrong with the CU Boulder engineering building. A building so baffling and considered so ugly that campus legend has it that it was designed by a former architecture student with a grudge against the school.
Highlights of its oddities include, having almost as many stairwells as hallways, hallways that go all the way around the center hole on only two of the four most trafficked floors, one singular section where the hallways aren’t perpendicular like the rest of the building, mostly empty space underneath the the building that extends from the back to the main entrance, the main entrance being accessed via walkway despite being ground level and that walkway is covered by a singular lecture hall (“smoker crusher”) that does not extend all the way to the front face of the building (meaning there’s an air gap between it and the main face of the building.)
You voice is hypnotic and I love the excitement/enthusiasm in your voice
Thank you, this was ultra helpful, I should also see style in Industrial Design differently now.
Is “style” a shortcut kit of known assemblies which allows any reasonably skilled and sensitive person to create a totality that can be categorized, desired, repeated, and recognized as that style.
I think as humans, it helps us to group things together in order to formulate our opinions and possibly ask better questions. For example, knowing someone's age. Although appearance can give clues to a person's age range, knowing exactly how old they are allows us to enquire about specific things. We wouldn't have demographic statistics if it weren't for our curiosity to categorize. Think about dog breeds. What's the first question you ask a stranger whos walking their dog? Same with music. It just feels right when we can fit a song into a particular genre. Likewise with buildings, it makes sense that we would want to know the origin of its style and where it fits in.
The rule based model is often used to identify classical (Greco-Roman) architecture. Vitruvius's states the rules of classical architecture in his treatise.
Interesting.
Hey! I just wanted to say your videoproductions are very well made! Keep it up!
Hearing "my personality is perfect for a French house", being myself a French guy, I thought : Hey, wait a minute, how is "French house" a style ? There a so many different style in traditional French houses, not even including contemporary designs...
Wow these videos are so informative as an architecture students we study buildings history, this video finally told me the why. Thank you Mr stewart
Humans are pack animals with tribal tendencies and we naturally group to the markers of our tribe and tend to wave the same flags to signal our belonging to that group. Even the “I don’t have a style” people try as they may can’t get away from it as their style of throwing random shapes and colour together with complete disregard for tradition, are simply appealing to that crowd. Oh a cow sculpture painted green and it’s the only piece of furniture in the place how avant-garde!
Truth is we love patterns and we love relationships between what we already know as familiar to form a link to any new things we discover. Even if it’s an abstract connection.
Art, architecture, interior design, music, food, colour will all hold primal correlations to things we can’t even access because it’s baked into our DNA so we will always form groups of things connected by some thread even if it’s a thin one.
Thanks Stewart for again a very nice and clear video about style and styles. I am with you on the fact that we cannot say what style there is today. We better leave that to others when there is some distance in space and time between now and the categorization of that new/next style.
Style is not restricted to Architecture, all fields of creative expression will get categorized under 'a style' in some way in the future. that is what we humans do, finding similarities and patterns if not making them.
Having been through a design education myself it is nice to see this issue is an infinite one.
The things I remember the most are: Try not to be unique on purpose/by design, as your designs may suffer from this attempt. Be yourself in your design projects and those project will become unique. This fits pretty good to what you also are saying about architects, style is not the goal, not even close. Fitting the design brief is the goal. How you do that is a mix of needs. wants, culture and time to name a few.
But by designing from your own person as a creative human being, or as a collective of specialists will create also a recognizable use of solutions and methods to meet the brief. In my time at the Academy of arts we called it the designers 'handwriting' as something between a temporary style like in fashion and the categorized style our work is labeled under after certain time, by others.
I became specially funny at 10:35 with the Mondrian followed at 10:39 by pictures of the Rietveld Schröder house. You talk about style without naming 'De stijl'-movement after a magazine of the same name. Interesting to see here is that this discussion is not just of today and that it is across many creative and design professions as names like Theo van Doesburg, Piet Mondriaan, Vilmos Huszár, Bart van der Leck, Antony Kok, J.J.P. Oud, Jan Wils, Robert van 't Hoff, Gerrit Rietveld en Georges Vantongerloo where part of this movement. You realy touched a patriotic nerve in me there (LOL).
Separating some of the discussion into people that just want to know and people that work in creative fields makes sense. It is a fine way to enable those that are interested in design in general and architecture in particular to 'label' creations is a certain way, we humans need a way of ordering our world. And those that do these creative acts as they need a different discussion and awareness of 'the styles' that we use to categorize creations of the past and the recognizable 'image' that will be captured in their work.
In the end I think you fed us with some great food for thought and debate, certainly a sign of good style ;-)
Hey Stuart, absolutely love your work. It's been a revelation for me and opened my eyes to so many aspects that (inexplicably) aren't taught on my course. I'm a mature student who's gone back to Uni to finish to my studies and am in the final year of my Masters. If these concepts were explained with the same level of clarity and simplicity (a complement) and without any level of "archispeak" as you have, so many students would not be as utterly confused and stumped as they are.
My Thesis subject is the repurposing of a vacant English Edwardian civic building (red brick/slate hipped roof) into a Youth Theatre workshop and teaching facility along with a sizeable side extension to form a new 450 seat Theatre for the town. The area which has stumped me most has been the styling of the new Theatre extension and whether this is should contrast, echo elements/ratios/proportions or merely pastiche the style of the existing civic building. Everyone has their own view but maybe a video on larger building extensions and how the architect has styled them could be one for the future?
The Charleston Single House and the Charleston Double House are both styles I think would fit the criteria of a Rule-Based Model. The Charleston Single House is, traditionally two main rooms on each floor with a stair case in the middle. The Double House is similar but there are two sets of rooms on each side of the staircase. Also, the Single House specifically is "turned sideways" with the entrance facing a courtyard on the side of the house. They tend to be relatively long and thin and typically have long porches that stretch the length of the entrance side of the house.
"The public has one set of expectations ... architects really don't care that much about"
But why would architects ignore what the public wants? Is the public wrong?
That's my biggest question during most of his videos ... If the general public wants something, and like when buildings look a certain way, and they are the ones that are going to constantly see and use that building ... Why would their expectations, wishes and desires for certain aesthetics be ignored? Aren't buildings projected for the public? So why ignore or not care about them?
It's the same reason modern art is mostly unlikeable. Find the books that literature professors gush over, and those will suck too. They're subcultures, perpetuating their outlook between each other, originally born in the postwar era of humanity's self-loathing. Also, given that modern technology gives us shortcuts to technical excellence, it isn't enough to merely by good at delivering a style. They feel a need to justify their existence (and paychecks) by distinguishing themselves from the masses.
The answer is quite easy. Building are owned by the client and since they are the one's footing the bill (unless it is a public building) so, it is up to the client to decide what is built, not the public. It has been like that for the longest time. If the public is upset that the client wants a style of building that they don't like, too bad. Not really the clients concern.
“The public” is who, exactly? Peoples tastes and desires vary widely. I’m an architect. I love mid-century modern, yet I live in it’s counterexample, a Queen Anne Victorian, which I also love. And a friend and colleague is a passionate classicist. Our only common aesthetic ground is an overall love of design. We live in a deeply heterogeneous culture, with no dominant narrative other than personal freedom. So architects put their heads down, grind out something they can personally stand behind, and hope that it doesn’t suck.
Thank you @@nik.anuar.redzwan and @Victor Kolouch for showing why this is such a big problem.
@Nik: Most clients are guided by the recommendations of their architects. Clients can only choose from what an architect can or will build.
@Victor: The public - as in NOT architects.
When we see someone on the street its easy to see if they have style. Some don't, some do. Same with a building. That guy in your video says "I don't have a style", and we see his building. No style lmao
The thing that all the 'classical' styles have in common is purely that they're pre-modern, which is enough. Brutalist, modernist and postmodernist design aren't just discordant - they're immature. As you mentioned, our earlier styles were developed and refined over a very long period of time. They evolved, the innovations that worked becoming part of the style's cannon, the failures fading away, until we're left with a body of design principles that work really well together.
Newer architecture attempts to be so creative that it often starts from a near blank slate, but it takes a lot of repetition to work out all the kinks. That's why it always leaks. And beyond the practical problems, it takes time to figure out which elements will become endearing after the initial fad wears off. When post-modernism is on its third revival movement, it'll be ready for city hall.
Honestly though, that executive order made a mistake. It should have been art deco, the last great style. It syncretized many other architectural styles before it became trendy to scorn the past - the pinnacle of all that came before the deluge of glass cubes and concrete. America had a greater hand in its development too, so it would suit us.
100% agree! Especially with your last paragraph. I love the Art Deco style.
Let's cut it down the middle and say Stripped Classicism. It was used on many government buildings in the 30's and was a midpoint between NeoClassical and Art Deco.
Edit: typo
In skating we say.
Tricks = Applause
Style = Respect
I think that goes for architecture too in some ways.
On a related topic, is the cube the ultimate form? Or just plane laziness? I can appreciate a great cube shape, but it seems like a in lots a cases a crutch and a simple way to solve a problem.
the ultimate form is the one that solves your problem.
The cube, or probably more accurately rectangular prisms (boxes) are generally the most efficient and simplest way to use space to make a building.
It might be lazy to make 4 walls and a roof, but its also the least problematic way to make a simple home. Add a layer for a second floor and some interior walls and you have a structure that everyone can agree is a nice, if simple home.
Having walls at weird angles or worse, rounded can become increasingly difficult to make things fit together well without making dead space.
And lastly, you can simply stack some boxes together to make a really impressive structure, even if its still fundamental just some simple cubes intersecting eachother.
Note: obviously domes and arches are great ways to support heavy things and long spans, but even humble triangles are very effective at this.
And lastly, there is no "best" form, just the optimal or best one for the current situation/context. (And lazy isn't necessarily bad, especially because it can also be economical)
I like buildings that people without training in architecture, or an architect would want to gaze at it, and enjoy the ornament. One of the main reasons I don't like modern architecture/post modern or whatever you want to call it, it is designed not to distract you while driving an automobile. Another reason is that many recent buildings tend to have certain things in common such as every building or bridge must have a wing shape as an example. Or the architect really likes copper, so an entire façade is clad in copper because they either like that material, or they got a good deal from the manufacturer. I overheard a couple of architects hired to design the new city hall say that governments' are willing to pay for an expensive building as long as it does not look expensive to the population. Architects try to build something for the mass of people that looks cheaply built and may house wealthy people until it get run down and easily shows its age because it is difficult to maintain, then the poor people are allowed to live there, or from the beginning it is designed and built cheaply as poor person warehouse with individual living spaces.
This comenta is just to say that I love your videos. They made me study and read a lot about architecture during the pandemic. Would love to see you talk about Oscar Niemeyer.
Wow! I love how you casually talked about some theories and is simple to understand! I am starting third year this semester and starting to learn more in depth about architectural theories. They all sound so complicated! I just got a question, similar to the videos, are theories produced by architects parallel to their design and practices? Like maybe Peter Eisenman's cardboard architecture is what gave his 'style' for buildings? Or they are two different things, such as a personal design decision from studying precedents without the influence of theories? Theory, and the theories.
I have an idea that the dismissal of architectural style by architects is partly a great example of the through-and-through commercialisation of our times: The only goal is functionality.
Architects, the professionals, can to some extent live with that because it is necessary to their way of life, but when we hollow out everything for the sake of function and profit, people start feeling lost and start asking questions of meaning. That is what I interpret the recurrent question of what a buildings architectural style is. What is its character and personality, what does it express about its inhabitants, and what cultural tradition is it a part of?
I once very strongly considered becoming an architect, but I though I would never find a market for the kind of buildings I wanted to create. It seems that I may have been wrong, but oh well. I think that the historical architectural styles have some very distinct feels and characters so to speak, and I find them so natural to use ornamentally to communicate outwards what kind of building we're, and it and its inhabitants' values.
I find Romanesque reclusive, meditative and pondering in its seclusion from the outside with its small windows and thick walls. The Gothic immensily important. The High Renaissance/Classicism reverent of social structure, the law and such. The Baroque powerful and imposing. The Rococo much more soft and gentle. The industrial rugged and utilitarian. Proper French Art Nouveau longing for nature. Art Deco incredibly lavish and monumental. American Modernist reverent of technological progress.
Ornamentation is more expensive than doing nothing, yes, but there are so many values and attitudes that have not disappeared, but simply been covered up in a shell of nothing. There is so much to be expressed.
Now, of course, this is nothing but a transformation into pure aesthetics as no one really is a part of the cultures of the architectural styles mentioned earlier. Should that fact, however, necessarily force us to stop making use of aesthetic motifs with so much potential for expression?
As an aspiring concept artist I find myself delving into the research of architectural styles. And just like in concept art, most of the time it really is form follows function. In that vain you are right about people wanting to know about the story behind such styles. Architecture often mirrors that of its setting. You are not likely to find a marble mansion in the forests of Alaska.. A log cabin however! People used the resources they had around them at the time. Took inspiration from other people and other architecture around them. Most people weren't worried about form so if the form of the architecture around them worked, that's what they'd copy.
Though there is something to be said about rare instances where an architect in history would care about the form and specifically work backwards to make sure it functioned properly. If you look at the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, Italy, It was ahead of its time when you look at the dome. There were probably many practical ways for them to complete the build and cap it off with a standard roof of some kind. But the architect/engineer and the financers were determined to cap it off with a dome that didn't require any support pillars. They may be rare, but cases where the architect cares more about the form tend to be the most memorable. And those probably go on to inspire or influence the surrounding architecture.
An emphasis on style by the public is not misplaced. When architects wake up in the morning do they not style their hair, nor think about the style of clothes they will wear? Do they not ponder the style of car they'll drive or which style of cuisine they'll eat? The superficial matters, and to pretend like it doesn't is really just an excuse by architects for poor quality work.
This was his top ten worst
I've definitely seen a decision-tree model of architectural styles - mainly focused on gauging the age of a building in the UK, where historic styles in things like window detailing can date a building where a layperson might not be able to guess even to a hundred year span; I think this was the first time I came across ideas of working out the 'style' of a building
In regards to a rule based model, I'm not aware of a retroactive model of comparing an existing design to style, but I do know of a generative model by which a ruleset can create designs of a given style. You can take a look a the research of Stiny and Gips who began this avenue of research back in the 70s. For your specific topic, there was a paper published in 1981 by Koning and Eizenberg called "The Language of the Prairie: Frank Lloyd Write's Prairie Houses", which developed a set of rules which could describe FLW's prairie houses, as well as be used to design derivative iterations within the style. I found this research interesting enough to use it as a base for my thesis, creating a series of rule based design systems based of of atonal music.
tbh, I am new here, loving your content, just wanted to say that I be listening to u when u show stuff, then i lose concentration when u r on the screen xD u look so handsome! and again I like ur content so far!
There us a matrix at the beginning of Virginia McAlester's Field Guide to American Houses that connects a bunch of building features, massing, window shapes, etc. to certain styles. Sort of like the last type of style-determination that you mentioned.
I feel like style is mixed up with inspiration. How can a building that is inspired by so many different architects and other buildings be put down to a single style? I think it's more helpful to understand the inspiration behind any art piece than it is to know a style that is usually badly defined and extremely broad. I guess it just depends if people want a quick answer or a deeper understanding.
Modern and neoclassical architecture are my favourites! I think they blend pretty well!
I recently went down this rabbit hole myself, since my wife and I bought a new house. There are a number of houses in our neighborhood with this particular style (I'll call it Cape Code Split Level) but I haven't been able to find anything online about whether this is particular to our town or if it was a common style in the 1970s. I've never seen them anywhere else in the Chicago area. It's more curiosity than anything else. :)
Thank u for this video, I actually do not mind about styles when I design a building, I focuses mainly in design and function, then the style will follows afterwards.
I think Wittgensteins ideas on groups being defined by a feeling of association rather than any definable norms comes close to what is being argued, while also being very clear about there not being any set in stone boundaries that would hinder creativity
Great video! I'd sum up the concept of style is a category of convergence between materials, techniques, trends and ideas in a vernacular time-space segment.
Check out a Field Guide to American Houses if you want a grasp on this topic. It has the decision tree you mention about how to identify architectural styles by certain elements.
Doing a skillion Richardsonian Romanesque passive solar cottage earth ship type building with a post and beam square notched timber frame. No tires using well insulated cmu block. Building a Broch for the tower. It should look as if it the weight holds the very earth down. A lot of it has to do with the building stones I can get. Which were used for Richardsonians and Brownstones.
"From the intricate details of Gothic architecture to the sleek lines of modern styles, there's something captivating about every era's approach to design. It's a testament to human creativity."
As an amateur architect/designer for my own project I felt it worth mentioning that style is driven from certain needs. In my case those needs are neighborhood compatibility versus my own desires for the kind of house I’d like to build. When I come before the design review board of my town I shall argue for their benefit why my modern Spanish style has merit in the towns history. But to illustrate my point I will not be putting typical barrel roofing, in my view it just didn’t look good. Instead I’m going to spend a shit load of money on reclaimed French flat tiles or tuiles. Using this “style” of roofing marries the need to echo revival Spanish but satisfies my need for a slim gable appearance which just looks more modern to me… I should just add why does something look modern in the first place?
I've asked that question online--posted a pic and asked, "What style is my house?" For me, the question was driven in part by wanting to make harmonious choices in interior design and renovations. I also had spotted multiple houses in my city that were obviously built from the same plans, as well as an even larger group of near twins (similar facade but less ornamentation and presumably a different layout as their "back" staircase is consistently on the side of the house rather than the back), and was simply curious. No one had a simple answer to my question, as my house seems to be a bit of an outlier in a style that most laypeople haven't heard of. It has Italian Renaissance Revival aspirations and ornamentation on a basic form that has rather a lot in common with a Foursquare. I got some value out of finding an answer but more in the research involved in finding it.
Interesting
Speaking of styles, I was recently looking at some buildings from pre 1900 and noticed a trend in all the post offices at one point looked a lot like old world castles, and were massive in scale. I might be a bit cynical in my deduction, but weren't many Americans still a bit on the illiterate side, etc. when these behemoth buildings were erected, therefore, the quantity of mail might pale in comparison to the scale of these old buildings.
Regardless of my assumption, could you do an episode on why these buildings took on the facades they did, and why they made these buildings as imposing looking as they were? Sorry if this question is in any way disconnected to the current topic at hand.
Subcategorisation theory: sufficient and necessary conditions about categories.
In my opinion architecture was lost the moment architects become engeneers rather than artists.
And what point would that be, do you think? Because from my study, I've found that there have always been elements of at least rudimentary engineering in architecture -- unless architects worked exclusively in the world of concept, the need for a blending of artistry and engineering has always been there.
engineering is an art though, there's certain beauty in it. But you're probably the shallow type that only sees things in a binary manner. sad.
your content is top shelf. glad i found you!
Thank you! Glad you found the channel as well...
Stylin' with Stu. An interesting dissertation on the subject, as always -and I look forward to using skeuomorphism in a sentence not simply involving its definition. Thanks ...
I understand people wanting to design or build in a given style.
What I do like to see is when a building is a good example of that style.
I do not generally like when a building or house randomly mix styles or incorrectly interpret the style they are trying to represent.
The town I used to live in built a new town hall. It was meant to a building in the Classic style but everyone on the building comity must have been allowed to add their two cents. In my opinion, the building was a disastrous hodgepodge of individual parts non of which was correctly represented. Almost no care was given to getting simple details correct.
Just as important as the facade, the entrances, the emergency exits, and how the building communicates with the surrounding sidewalk and neighborhood is the internal layout. What would an ideal museum be like to walk through? How do we make subway stations easy to navigate? What would an innovative shopping center with a human scale, sense of place, and a facilitator of intrigue look like - especially important as cities densify and move away from street level shops to multi-level "shopping walkways"?
I never made the connection between Greek columns and timber post skeuomorphism. Thanks!
I think most people's interest in style is wanting to know what to call things that they think look cool.
Very on point. Also great quality of video itself.Thanks!
12:48 It's the "I didn't use a T-square or architect's scale" style.
As an interior designer, we focus primarily on the buildings' program and space plan too. Certain architectural elements can be altered, edited, and deleted depending on a client's objective. However, the buildings' overall architectural style is inescapable. An interior designer would never dream to take an Eichler and try to make it into a center hall colonial. Not because we couldn't do it, but because it wouldn't make sense to do that. In this respect, I think style does matter. I think it's also important to maintain a regional style and aesthetic. I think regional styles are important because even though we have the technology to build any style anywhere, I don't necessarily think we should. I think your initial observation, that a buildings' style tells its story, has wider implications. That by adulterating regional styles, we're also adulterating that regions' story. That is why I think style matters.
not that I would want a FLW house for practicality but he had a point about how the structure should be able to exist in its environment. A lot of what I don't like about modern architecture is when they're clearly trying to build a sculpture instead of a building
I got French style too. Love your videos so informative :D
Yo the audio on your channel is on point
I live in a early 1960s 3 bed 2 bath, two car garage, the most basic of designs, a box for the house and triangle roof.
I ask because I like the way it looks
the style has effect upon ppl emotionally thats why i think brutalist gets such a reaction, it is inherently not a very aesthetic style its name alone gives away part of the issue many ppl want to see beauty and too often brutalist architecture is not this and too often it seems to a reaction against beauty
I like variety! Having a variety of styles is nice!
Thank you for these videos I look forward to it every time quality videos is always a refreshing to see thank you for being great at what you do!
Your truely amazing I recommend to all my friends these videos
In Biology we use a similar system to the Rule-Based one you talked about. They're called dichotomous keys. Very interesting!
Interesting video! Thanks for sharing.
that website is not a exhaustive list, and it only seems to cover houses, not other buildings. who is in charge of these styles and their requirements?
My school that was built right before I went through. it went for a post modern or modern design, and it made me super bias against it. They made a huge vaulted front entrance that served as the lunch room, massive, but most of it was stairs, walk ways or display areas, leaving no room to eat lunch, they also got rid of tons of class rooms, even though the school was already over crowded. And the final kicker, because they used so much glass they couldn't afford to heat or cool the school in a place that could see -25 F to 100 F... So needless to say I will always be bias against post modern, I would have preferred a giant concrete box buried in the ground than have had to sweat and freeze my way through school, design should always come second to practicality and yes they are separate things in my eye. Practicality is meeting the bare minimum requirements while design is adding cool features like art and acoustics or convince or really ugly post modern glass and juts.
It was funny because they ended up in a lot of trouble, they tried to fix the overcrowding by punish students with a C or lower with no lunch but that didn't last long, eventually they just had to start spacing out the different grades lunches, which took tons of time away from other class and added way to much time to some.... Just goes to show that practicality is actually king or should be king over everything.