TKTKTK
Senior Member
Become? Became. Are.
|
|
|
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
Become? Became. Are.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
WHAAAAT?!
PoMo being called deadeningly dull in comparison to modernism?! Modernism never suffering Starchitects (Corbu? Mies? Johnson? etc). Not being able to imagine 'Starchitecture' rebuilding Europe after WWII (super-scaled modernist housing projects?) Modernism wasn't perceived as an honest workhorse at the time - it was the thrill of the new, of the future!
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
All you have to do is look around the city at what our best architects are building to see how preposterous was the claim made by one of the architects that buildings such as Mississauga City Hall represented the death knell of Modernism hereabouts. After about five minutes of originality PoMo deflated, and limps on as clusters of historicist McMansions in the burbs, and the occasional pretentious Wengle on Scollard or in Forest Hill. Starchitecture ( nice as some of the buildings are ) isn't a workhorse, it's a prancing Lippizaner stallion - a fancy show horse for mostly high-end projects.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
My point was that Starchitecture isn't a style or aesthetic; all architectural styles are guilty of Starchitecture at one point or another - it's silly to suggest that Modernism is the only one exempt, and is somehow more honest and wholesome for it.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Starchitecture seems like a concept tied to a particular time and set of conditions to me. Unlike Modernism it isn't a rejection of history, nor is is idealistic or idealogical, and it is called starchitecture because it isn't a broadly-based cultural and political movement like Modernism with parallels in atonal music, abstract art, literature, theatre, dance, or any number of cultural expressions; instead, it is tied to one particular form - architecture.
Whoaccio
Senior Member
Starchitecture is really a horrendous label. Does it exist? Sure, to an extent. But there has always been tiers of architecture. The Bilbao Museum is "ego-based" and saturated in "celebrity culture." I guess you can see this by comparing the average houses and condos to it, and noting the disparity. This is hardly a new phenomenon though. People have always built "louder" when they have money. Compare the Pyramids at Giza to the average grave in 2500BC Egypt (a pit) and tell me with a strait face that they aren't "starchitecture." You can go to any period and see the same exact trend. In that sense, "starchitecture" has less to do with architecture and more to do with socioeconomics. Most of the criticism isn't being directed at the buildings, but the people for whom the buildings are being built; bankers, celebrities, hedge fund mangers and such.
Archivist pointed out that in the 90's Toronto didn't revert to some wonderful Bauhaus utopia, it reverted to schlock. Absent money, less buildings got built and the ones that did were built worse. That is the opposite of "starchitecture," "poorchitecture." Of course that is just as bad an architectural label as its antonym, because it says more about the economy and the ability of a society to afford luxuries than aesthetic considerations.
Archivist pointed out that in the 90's Toronto didn't revert to some wonderful Bauhaus utopia, it reverted to schlock. Absent money, less buildings got built and the ones that did were built worse. That is the opposite of "starchitecture," "poorchitecture." Of course that is just as bad an architectural label as its antonym, because it says more about the economy and the ability of a society to afford luxuries than aesthetic considerations.
adma
Superstar
Yet ironically re your "poorchitecture" label, when it came to the 90s and to some degree ever since, the schlock factor arguably rose with the so-called ability to afford. I mean, compare your average overloaded McMansion or Chedington-style luxury condo with some of the more sophisticated Bob Rae-era co-ops out there...
wyliepoon
Senior Member
The Egyptians took "starchitecture" to a whole different level. The architect of the Step Pyramid, Imhotep, was deified and worshipped as a god for 2000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
That's comparing the worst of today with the best of yesterday.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
What we've seen, increasingly over the past decade, is good local architects getting involved with designing multi-unit residential buildings - Peter Clewes leading the way in this cultural shift away from developer culture and nostalgia-based historicism. adma's "Bob Rae-era co-ops" ought to be seen in that context, and of that ilk. With the Port Lands we've seen an expansion of this process, and international interest in what Toronto is about.
A handful of expensive, high-end cultural buildings by foreign starchitects hasn't derailed this cultural shift. We're not building Crystal-shaped garages in laneways, or hoisting up additions to homes on residential streets on stilts, or swathing garden sheds in blue Japanese titanium. The starchitect wave lapped at our shores, and now it is withdrawing, and has had little lasting effect beyond a few buildings. The sensible, low-key, legible, Modernist design approach that has served us well is still the basis for what we do.
A handful of expensive, high-end cultural buildings by foreign starchitects hasn't derailed this cultural shift. We're not building Crystal-shaped garages in laneways, or hoisting up additions to homes on residential streets on stilts, or swathing garden sheds in blue Japanese titanium. The starchitect wave lapped at our shores, and now it is withdrawing, and has had little lasting effect beyond a few buildings. The sensible, low-key, legible, Modernist design approach that has served us well is still the basis for what we do.
Archivist
Senior Member
US, I mostly agree with you on this. However, your example as follows: We're not building Crystal-shaped garages in laneways, or hoisting up additions to homes on residential streets on stilts, or swathing garden sheds in blue Japanese titanium doesn't really help your case, because even a cursory look at what is getting built in terms of private homes reveals a huge hole in your thesis, as very few single homes that are being built are modernist. Nor are almost any rowhouses. Overwhelmingly, this building form in Toronto is dominated by architectural throwbacks, badly designed paeans to a past era.
I have cycled down endless streets and gone out of my way to photography any contemporary detached house, anywhere. To date, I have 68 of these, which certainly won't be the total, but I could photograph 68 ye-olde Chipboard Chateaus in an afternoon without raising a sweat. I regret this enormously and find any contemporary (modernist) house thrilling, but they are rare as hen's teeth.
I have cycled down endless streets and gone out of my way to photography any contemporary detached house, anywhere. To date, I have 68 of these, which certainly won't be the total, but I could photograph 68 ye-olde Chipboard Chateaus in an afternoon without raising a sweat. I regret this enormously and find any contemporary (modernist) house thrilling, but they are rare as hen's teeth.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Indeed - the next frontier! Few of the single family homes that are getting built are Modernist, though design culture has had considerable success in reclaiming the realm of multi-unit residential from fauxmonger developers. But plenty of old house renos open up the rooms and create living spaces similar to those found in new condos, and earlier Modernist homes, because they're practical spaces with some flow to them and suit how most people live. So the fundamental approach is sound. As for the cultural and institutional buildings that have gone up, after Mississauga City Hall was built PoMo didn't turn the heads of our local architectural community any more than starchitecture appears to have.
Whoaccio
Senior Member
Of course it didn't. Your definition of starchitecture just means being designed by celebrity architects, which obviously precludes "local" architects from taking part by definition.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Not at all - our entire architectural community could have gone gaga over starchitecture if they'd had nothing more useful to do.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
1) Starchitecture still isn't a style
2) Canadian Architects are certainly designing brash and loud buildings, they're just not getting built (whether because we're cheap or just timid - but certainly not because our architecture community couldn't be bothered)
Saucier + Perrotte stand out as examples of Canadian Architects working in a style you'd dub 'Starchitecture'.