jje1000
Senior Member
On the other hand, there are several promising 'neo-traditional' projects in Toronto like those proposed by Audax, and Robert Stern's work (no matter how twee it may be considered) demonstrates that these architectural styles are still capable of harnessing modern suppliers and materials to create successful architectural works. Likewise, there is no contradiction between the use of modern materials and components and 'traditional architecture', as the first 'modernisme' movement in the late 19th century had resolved that conflict, and art deco as its final evolution was a classical architectural style that totally embraced progress itself.I don't think so - it is the way it is because of economics (standardized, mass produced components/elements), not orthodoxy at architectural schools (especially considering how little "architecture" there is in these mass buildings in general). The point being - when people claim that they prefer "traditional" architecture - they more often than not prefer only an ersatz version of it.
AoD
If such instances are simply considered 'too expensive', then we have to really question the nature of development in this city that has essentially corralled 'traditional' architecture into the hands of the wealthy, while the rest of the city has to make to with mass architecture.
In my opinion, it is possible to do both simple and complex works of 'traditional' architecture at various budget levels, and this artificial mental divide between 'traditional' and 'modernist' architecture—which in practise is already crudely eliminated in mass architecture (with the aforementioned freeform application in suburban architecture)—should be fully rectified by ensuring that undergraduate architecture students can design at least a simple 'traditional' piece of architecture, of any worldwide style, before they graduate, just to ensure that they can at least design a better-looking suburb if they can never land their dream job at Foster + Partners. Let architects bless the plebs with their good taste!
I think that taking a step back, the issue is that postwar modernist culture had essentially closed the book on 'traditional' architecture, and nowadays takes a Fukuyama-esque end of history viewpoint of architecture, of modernism and its various reheated variants being the entropic status-quo of architecture.I don't see why these two things are exclusive.
Obviously, yes, a building with a real history behind it is the best option, hands down. I'm a history buff, I love that kind of stuff.
But if such a thing does not exist, or some greedy developers tore it down and now there's a discussion about what to add next, yes, my concern is going to be with what makes the public realm pleasant. And as I said, the public realm will be equally pleasant, if not equally historic, with a building that has 400 years of history behind it as with one in an old style that has 40 minutes of history behind it, so I am going to support the revival of a bygone architectural style, rather than some post-modernist-deconstructionist-post-postist blob that some hack architect who should stick to building things in Minecraft suggests.
Hence 'traditional' architecture of any worldwide style is usually only taught as part of a background architectural history course, with little-to-no real application to studio work—and are as such pressed and preserved as dead relics that can never be revived (because that would be 'pastiche').
On your second paragraph- I always enjoy this street in Hamilton as a local instance:
2007
Despite losing several of its historical structures over the years, the newbuilds—despite being in no way top-end architecture or even fully 'traditional'—still have enough nods to the surviving urban fabric to preserve its continuity and revitalise it. It is ultimately a choice, not a forced decision!
Last edited: