New Traditionalist Architecture/Architecture Uprising

[jje1000]

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

2023

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

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!

 

[adma]

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.

But you know something: this isn't even anything new and novel. Except that back in the 70s and 80s, it was called "contextualism". Or if there wasn't a "context" to speak of, it reflected the Postmodern mood in the air. They didn't call it "traditionalism"--which ever since, er, "certain sorts" started piggybacking on Charles III's crusade against carbuncles, has become a term with more "loaded" connotations.

And also, re your referral to

some post-modernist-deconstructionist-post-postist blob that some hack architect who should stick to building things in Minecraft suggests.

again, you're referring to "Spadina Labour Lyceum" worst-case scenarios. And a lot of the time *there*, we really *are* dealing with "hack architects"--that is, design-builders who are "following fashion".

Though you do illuminate a genuine issue here; which is the fact that ever since the advent of CAD and the backlash to Postmodernism, architectural history *has* fallen by the wayside in architectural education except when it comes to specialty subjects like historical preservation and restoration. And all the more so when one considers how (quotation mark overkill alert) "architectural" "education" and "practice" has "democratized" in recent decades--like, design-builders and spec-builders pumped out by community college programmes, or even fairly "capable" CAD technology no longer being the strict preserve of institutions or major practices (or even bound to actual physical building design, as opposed to serving, well, Minecraft). So in effect, compounded by whatever coarsening effect of social media, you have a historically entropic "Sunday painter-ing" of architectural appreciation *and* practice which has a way of dumbing down *all* styles, whether they be "traditionalist" or "modern", and in a way that memes all historical dimension out of that which is authentically "historical". It becomes a mere sensual, modal argument on behalf of those who are absent the kinds of historical-space-and-time skill sets that were common in the pre-digital era. And where buildings in real life become, as you indicate, mere physical manifestations of cool (or uncool) visual memes.

In a way, I'd almost like to look at the 80s/90s as the culmination of the last great era of historically-minded architectural appreciation--one that partook in the parameter-expanding "Postmodern revolution", but somehow transcended its excesses; perhaps because, in the end, it wasn't so bound into a "game plan for creation" as postmodern traditionalists might have hoped. It was about augmenting our scope, not about weeding out the chaff. And maybe because things like this served as one of the very, very many very, very rich cornerstones...

Fifty Years of “Learning from Las Vegas”

The cool appraisal of Denise Scott Brown and Robert Venturi’s revolutionary book has a lot to inspire the architects of today.

www.newyorker.com

And I'd say that I came about my own intuitive architectural-appreciation chops within the nuclear shadow of LFLV, or an era in which something like that was possible. But the cultural foundation to that school of appreciation would utterly mystify today's "meme traditionalists" or "meme modernists".

---------------

Oh, and as an aside: when it comes to painting and sculpture, I think that if you were to analogously quiz the general public on their artistic preferences, you'll probably likewise find an overwhelming preference for traditional or "recognizable" figurative or landscape art over abstract or conceptual stuff: the Harold Towns and Riopelles caving in the face of Robert Bateman. Or if you want to be "higher-operating", Christopher & Mary Pratt. Or more "mad genius", William Kurelek. Or more "contemporary": Kent Monkman. (The danger is in how such surveying can feed quack populist arguments on behalf of "modern art" being an elite plot.)

 

[adma]

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').

Actually, such teaching also serves such realms as restoration, adaptive reuse, and anything that deals with having to grapple with "existing conditions". Like if you know the "macro" of architectural history, and the "micro" of local architectural history--you know how to handle it, to adapt to it, to know what architectural gestures are appropriate or inappropriate, etc. And as long as they're still with us, said "relics" are anything but "dead".

However, I have this stinking feeling that the far-right "Architectural Revival" forces that are so hepped up on traditionalism are probably very much the sort who feel that the present-day academic practice of "architectural history" is a plot to render dead and buried those Timeless Values which ought to be Virile and full of Eternal Life...

 

[adma]

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.

But actually, if we want to go all Fukuyama about it, I think what ***really*** happened in the aftermath of the economic setbacks of the 70s, coupled with the historical preservation movement and the optimum-scope revolution in architectural history and architectural beholding, was the subliminal notion of ***all*** ex novo architectural production henceforth being dead or at most an apologetic "necessary evil". Like the only role left for the architect was "curatorial", or that of taking stock and "managing" that which was extant. (And something of that ethos endures in my upthread-posted Oliver Wainwright notion of not demolishing another building.)

So in a way, it was a kind of "pro-traditionalism"--but that achieved through optimum retention, not through creation: through leaving well enough alone. And even, in the long run, modernism became a paradoxical part of that "traditionalist" big tent, simply by way of being preexisting buildings in a preexisting style.

In practice, the dilemma there is that it became, at least according to the Ed Glaeser argument, a pathway to NIMBY gentrification--the old Jane Jacobs paradox--plus, it worked best when we were still fundamentally "old tech" (typewriters, land lines, traditional print and broadcast media, etc), as new tech made certain "demands" that old physical infrastructure wasn't prepared to address. And a different thing w/the demise of old media, or more generally of a certain "enlightened monoculture", is that it led to the demise of old "skill sets" when it came to beholding the preexisting--it became about the dazzle of the new in a state of constant upgrade, and clinging to the old was like clinging to earlier versions of Windows. A 5-year-old magazine "captures a moment"; a website that hasn't been updated in 5 years reflects neglect. And the bid for "immediacy"--whether it be contemporary or traditionalist--skirted over the more contemplative, nuanced demands of historical reflection. And said dazzle-of-the-new led to a lot of younger cohorts finding preexisting real worlds too prosaic compared to the virtual worlds available on-screen; or they wanted said real worlds to conform to virtual-bred expectations. They couldn't *positively visualize* the generalized "preexisting"--or even more so, the "preexistingness" of the preexisting (that is, its belonging to a time before ours)--because it had been programmed out of their consciousness except in the service of memes.

So, we basically went 180--from a kind of optimum, informed mass openness to a kind of narcissistic, amateur mass obliviousness. Which even today's traditionalists--as opposed the the "contextualists" of half a century ago--reflect; it's all about identity-based architectural cosplay these days...

 

[jje1000]

Actually, such teaching also serves such realms as restoration, adaptive reuse, and anything that deals with having to grapple with "existing conditions". Like if you know the "macro" of architectural history, and the "micro" of local architectural history--you know how to handle it, to adapt to it, to know what architectural gestures are appropriate or inappropriate, etc. And as long as they're still with us, said "relics" are anything but "dead".

An interesting opinion, but the terminology, Venice Charter bubbling to the top, is quite telling—'handling', 'appropriate vs inappropriate' gestures, 'as long as they're still with us', etc.

This speaks of a modern Western over-obsession with a particular authenticity of specific being over actual continuity and perpetuation. Yes, in Canada these relics are considered 'dead'—by omission the successor architecture is expected to be contemporary 'modernism'.

However, I have this stinking feeling that the far-right "Architectural Revival" forces that are so hepped up on traditionalism are probably very much the sort who feel that the present-day academic practice of "architectural history" is a plot to render dead and buried those Timeless Values which ought to be Virile and full of Eternal Life...

Sure, keep that gaslighting to yourself, along with this:

Or, heck--it's almost as if it were conceived by a traditionalist to demonstrate the horrors of modern. Like the architectural version of a blackface or "ugly Jew" stereotype. Like, setting the style up for a fall, so to speak...

Somehow the Europeans are far ahead of us in both 'traditional' and contemporary 'modernist' architecture, and yet capable of not turning everything into a juvenile culture war.

 

[adma]

Somehow the Europeans are far ahead of us in both 'traditional' and contemporary 'modernist' architecture, and yet capable of not turning everything into a juvenile culture war.

Actually, Europeans have been at the *forefront* of said "juvenile culture war". Notice the reference points here: Britain, the Netherlands, Germany...

The Far Rightâs Obsession with Modern Architecture - Failed Architecture

Amidst an ongoing culture war against progressive values, Europeâs far right embraces traditional architecture to spread a message of cultural super...

failedarchitecture.com

 

[Northern Light]

Actually, Europeans have been at the *forefront* of said "juvenile culture war". Notice the reference points here: Britain, the Netherlands, Germany...

The Far Rightâs Obsession with Modern Architecture - Failed Architecture

Amidst an ongoing culture war against progressive values, Europeâs far right embraces traditional architecture to spread a message of cultural super...

failedarchitecture.com

That 1% of the critics of Modern architecture are right-wing nutbars does not make the entire critique a problem; equally true, that we ought not to dismiss modern architecture merely because some of its defenders are left-leaning or overly pretentious.

How about we consider the merits or lack thereof instead. LOL

'Culture wars' are and always have been a distraction from substance.

 

[adma]

An interesting opinion, but the terminology, Venice Charter bubbling to the top, is quite telling—'handling', 'appropriate vs inappropriate' gestures, 'as long as they're still with us', etc.

This speaks of a modern Western over-obsession with a particular authenticity of specific being over actual continuity and perpetuation. Yes, in Canada these relics are considered 'dead'—by omission the successor architecture is expected to be contemporary 'modernism'.

And you know something--big freaking deal. Whatever precedes us--past architecture--is, technically, "dead". Because it happened. Whether it was finished yesterday or half a millennium ago.

And I addressed the paradigm shift above...

But actually, if we want to go all Fukuyama about it, I think what ***really*** happened in the aftermath of the economic setbacks of the 70s, coupled with the historical preservation movement and the optimum-scope revolution in architectural history and architectural beholding, was the subliminal notion of ***all*** ex novo architectural production henceforth being dead or at most an apologetic "necessary evil". Like the only role left for the architect was "curatorial", or that of taking stock and "managing" that which was extant. (And something of that ethos endures in my upthread-posted Oliver Wainwright notion of not demolishing another building.)

It was a paradigm shift that may have bruised a lot of architectural egos, not least as it might have seemed like a *hijacking* by, well, the historians and beholders. But y'know something (and I inferred it in my Learning From Las Vegas link above), the "revolution in beholding" was real. At its utmost, it was like the act of beholding one-upping the architects at their own game, whether it be from the Jane Jacobs end or the Situationist end or that of critics and "urban observers" like Ada Louise Huxtable, Ian Nairn, etc. Or the most interesting "works" of the time *weren't* current architectural works, so much as they were historical studies and surveys of previous architectural works--like we were suddenly confronted with *everything*, and said *everything*, all of that which preceded us, turned out to be pretty darned interesting. Or, the new "moving forward" was making creative sense of this vast detritus of the fascinating past.

And in a way, I can understand the bruised egos, as there was also a Zeitgeist underpinning that wasn't entirely dissimilar to the Cold War MAD Magazine ethos--think of it as: "all architects are clods". (Though the disarming MAD approach might append: "...as they've always been; and so are we". That is, free of the Joe Blow jaundice that attends post-Tom Wolfe critiques, and even with a long-term "forgiveness allowance". Sort of like, delighting in the absurdity of our big ole world out there.)

Compared to that broad scope of beholding, this present-day insistence upon "traditionalism" seems rather, shall we say, constipated--not to mention oblivious to that virtuous "all architects are clods" principle. And just shutting off that "1%" of goofs blowing the alt-right horn on behalf of traditionalism isn't going to shut off the problem they represent--indeed, whether it regards dismissing the "elitist" taste for modernism or setting to one side the "far-right" taste for traditionalism, using the "1%" dismissal device comes across as pretty, well, militant-middlebrow or something...

 

[T3G]

There is no connection between neoclassical architecture and political ideology. None whatsoever. It is a smokescreen, an illusion, a fabrication.

There are right wingers and fascists who like old architecture. Nothing more. They do not have a monopoly on that particular taste for architecture. Even if they claim to. They are wrong. There is nothing to discuss, they are just wrong. There are left wingers and communists who like old architecture. There are right wingers and left wingers who drink soda, like Seinfeld, enjoy international travel, read classical literature, eat chips, read books, or watch the Toy Story films.

As a card carrying leftist, one of the things I despise most about other leftists is how quick they are to hand over symbols and ideologies to groups they oppose at the slightest provocation. This is the same nonsense we encountered when Hillary Clinton in all her infinite wisdom declared Pepe the Frog to be a symbol of the alt-right because some hateful edits of it had been made, but worse, because while Pepe was just a silly cartoon that few people who were not in touch with meme culture knew about, the pushback against modernist architecture and a preference for traditional styles is very real and very widespread, and to give the faintest hint of credibility to the idea that all of us must be fascists is incredibly offensive. It is not real, it is an opinion of the terminally online.

This is what political discourse in the Anglosphere has become since the 2016 election. Important issues are not discussed, instead we discuss garbage like this.

 

[adma]

'Culture wars' are and always have been a distraction from substance.

Yet consider my "context" point. "Substance" devoid of "context" is vapidly inert--indeed, it's said "context" that can add a deeper, richer layer of understanding; maybe not all of it "flattering", but still.

It's like understanding The Wizard Of Oz in terms of its 1939 context and that of its various actors and parties involved, rather than as pure, disembodied, dateless, "timeless" entertainment, which is dumb. Maybe understandable if you're *really* young; but by the time I was in double-digit years, I was certainly the sort to be intrigued and curious about that "added detail" (yes, by the time I was 10, I was already calendar-literate enough to be engaged to the "1939ness" of 1939)--and if you weren't, it's not my fault that you were more "underdeveloped" than I was...

 

[adma]

There is no connection between neoclassical architecture and political ideology. None whatsoever. It is a smokescreen, an illusion, a fabrication.

There are right wingers and fascists who like old architecture. Nothing more. They do not have a monopoly on that particular taste for architecture. Even if they claim to. They are wrong. There is nothing to discuss, they are just wrong. There are left wingers and communists who like old architecture. There are right wingers and left wingers who drink soda, like Seinfeld, enjoy international travel, read classical literature, eat chips, read books, or watch the Toy Story films.

As a card carrying leftist, one of the things I despise most about other leftists is how quick they are to hand over symbols and ideologies to groups they oppose at the slightest provocation. This is the same nonsense we encountered when Hillary Clinton in all her infinite wisdom declared Pepe the Frog to be a symbol of the alt-right because some hateful edits of it had been made, but worse, because while Pepe was just a silly cartoon that few people who were not in touch with meme culture knew about, the pushback against modernist architecture and a preference for traditional styles is very real and very widespread, and to give the faintest hint of credibility to the idea that all of us must be fascists is incredibly offensive. It is not real, it is an opinion of the terminally online.

This is what political discourse in the Anglosphere has become since the 2016 election. Important issues are not discussed, instead we discuss garbage like this.

Actually, with regard to my MAD Magazine analogy above, by your telling, your fundamental problem is that you have no "all X are clods" to you. Maybe *that's* a fine art to cultural (and architectural) observation that's been lost over the years...

 

[T3G]

Actually, with regard to my MAD Magazine analogy above, by your telling, your fundamental problem is that you have no "all X are clods" to you. Maybe *that's* a fine art to cultural (and architectural) observation that's been lost over the years...

I've read this message over about 10 times and I am completely at a loss as to what you are trying to say here. Can you rephrase this?

 

[adma]

I've read this message over about 10 times and I am completely at a loss as to what you are trying to say here. Can you rephrase this?

In the manner of the proverbial Alfred E Neuman as the modern-day version of the medieval fool, with the "takes one to know one" license to hold up the mirror to the foolishness of others. But not without the affectionate note that the "takes one to know one" perspective brings--almost like: we are *all* absurd, and *everything* around us, past, present, future, is a byproduct of absurdity.

And I think something of that mood in the air underpins a lot of the "observationality" that blossomed in the 1960s--or if we're to apply that to the present, it'd allow us to be contextually-aware and recognize, from a knowing fly-on-the-wall perspective, the inherent absurdity to *both* the pro-trad *and* the pro-mod arguments.

In that light, here's an interesting thing to consider re one of the seminal texts of 1960s "observationality", "Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies"...

Reyner Banham: born March 2, 1922

William M. Gaines, born March 1, 1922

Any questions? ;-)

 

[adma]

So, a couple of things here...

First, to return to a point I earlier tried to make but got drowned out in the din: if you're to quiz the public on their taste for visual art, you'll likely find a similar result: a solid majority in the figurative/landscape (more or less) realism camp, as opposed to those in the abstract or "conceptual" camp.

Second: if there's this "solid majority" when it comes to either architectural or visual art, ***then why has it been a pitiful failure in shifting broader trends?***

Quite simply, it's like the "Libertarian dilemma" when it comes to electoral politics: those most prone to actively blowing the horn just...aren't that likeable. Sure, maybe "if you give them a chance"; but there's a reason why they're not given a chance.

Or at most, they become a "parallel tendency"--which might indeed have a bigger raw audience in the same way that right-wing Youtube channels have a bigger raw audience than their left-wing counterparts. They're not allowed upon centre stage, so they form their own parallel centre stage.

The reality is, most people might intuitively "prefer" traditionalism; but in a way that's not all that militant or binding; they might choose it for the place they live in, but otherwise they'd defer to free agency. Or when it comes to stylistic tastemaking, they're the inverse of Dunning-Kruger, i.e. they're aware they're incompetent to call the shots in such matters.

But beyond that, their intuitive preference for "traditional" more often than not *is* a preference for the preexisting. Or, the "preservation revolution" of the 60s and 70s unveiled an inconvenient fact: most people like, or prefer, old buildings. That is, *actual* old buildings, as opposed to faux-old new buildings. That's where the truer consensus lies: in saving the old, not in building the "new-old".

Which is why the preservationist movement turned out to be far, *far* more of a cross-partisan mass success than "traditionalism" could ever hope to be; as well as not as easily pigeonholed as "reactionary".

And which is why my point about the "observational" perspective isn't as rarefied as it might seem. The mass act of observing the pre-existing is what saved an awful lot of urban fabric over the years.

Though the paradigm *might* be shifting these days; particularly with a younger, tech-aware contingent that's more conditioned t/w "creating worlds anew" via virtuality and might expect the same for their chosen place of work or dwelling, as opposed to settling for the stagnant obsolescence of the actual-old. So maybe this "traditional vs modern" debate *really* addresses *that* fundamentally "ahistorical" cohort...

 

[adma]

Or, let's take a current controversial case in point, one that's been embraced by the, er, high-minded architecture/development crowd and yet touched a pretty powerful "there goes the neighbourhood, there goes the Toronto we knew" nerve all the same--the Honest Ed's redevelopment. (And I'm purposely being agnostic, because I'm choosing the bystander's stance here.)

What's critical here is: the loss of the old. And it isn't even about the holus bolus "traditional" old, as Honest Ed's was, basically, a cacaphony, a mess, and a beloved mess. Some have even pointed out that for all the "belovedness" of Honest Ed's, it was actually a mixed urban blessing, with a bit of an overassertive black-hole effect upon its immediate surrounds--something which could have been worse were the neighbourhood retail fabric not so strong. But it was old, and familiar, and "fun". And the tail of Mirvish Village added a different, higher-operating dimension to the "fun"--but even there, it wasn't a place of capital-A Architecture except for John Andrews' Mirvish Gallery interior. But it was old: a preexisting condition, urbanity by way of accretion. And in Jane Jacobs' words, "new ideas need old buildings".

The trauma is in the loss of the old, and its replacement by the new and unfamiliar, at a new and unfamiliar scale--and due to all sorts of factors related to the reality of Toronto today, there's a whole lot of skepticism re the promises of the architects and planners here, a skepticism which I'm taking a measured step away from yet acknowledging in the event that things *do*, indeed, fall well short of expectations.

But a desire for "traditionalism" has nothing to do with it.

Maybe a traditionalism of *scale*, i.e. if they took a "Paul Bedford" low-rise-high-density approach it might mitigate some of the concerns. But certainly not a traditionalism of *style*--that is, the concerns aren't going to be alleviated if you did all of this in a "traditionalist" vocabulary (indeed, it might make it all even *more* grotesque). And conversely, if they took a low-rise/high-density approach instead, whether it's executed "modern-style" or "trad-style" isn't going to make a difference--if anything, I can picture there being suspicions of "trad" as a rather insultingly patronizing lipstick on a pig. Not that modern can't be the same, either, of course; it's just that trad does so with a cynical poopsie-woopsie here's-your-widdle-wowwypop voice, whereas mod is just "take it or leave it".

For Jane Jacobs, it was about new ideas needing *old* buildings; not new buildings in old-building drag. And it's about people visualizing and utilizing and appreciating the old buildings *for what they are*, not as architectural-cosplay models for some kind of future fantasy urbanism (even if Jane Jacobs principles *did* and *do* inform architectural production--but she always knew well enough to step aside from any overinsistent "trad vocabulary" hairtriggers; that is, her principles were more inherently stepping-aside open-ended and less proscriptive than those of the New Urbanism or Poundbury bunch).

Or, to go a couple of blocks E of the Honest Ed's site: it's not like admiration of Old Central Tech's 1915 Ross & MacFarlane Collegiate Gothic vocabulary is bound in "we *must* build this way today" sentiment--and ditto with Macy DuBois' 1962 Brutalist Central Tech Art Centre. They're not dead; they're alive. "New ideas need old buildings" is premised upon said old buildings being "alive"--maybe more "alive" than the modern or trad-style mausoleums that are feared as their replacements. And you can admire *both* 1915 *and* 1962 and there's nothing "weird" about it. (Yet according to today's juvenile, gaming-meme-informed tribalized taste, admiration of such old buildings ***must*** presuppose similar present-day creation; otherwise, they're...dead.)