Toronto Ryerson Student Learning Centre | 50.59m | 8s | Ryerson University | Zeidler

Silence&Motion said:
I think the fascists were also pretty keen on making distinctions between "mature" and "immature" cultures.

Face it, as beautiful as historic craftsman-produced architecture is, our current society is essentially incapable of producing it. And I say this not as a modernism fanboy. I say it as someone who accepts that the best modernism ever can be is a compromise. It will never achieve the beauty of pre-modern styles. But the societies that produced pre-modern architecture were also societies that had perpetual housing shortages. Modernism is a compromise because it uses mass-produced materials and mass-produced building techniques, and tries to make the best out of it aesthetically. You cannot reproduce historic styles using mass-production. You need stone masons, and they are sadly in short supply.

So we should hang on to our existing heritage buildings, and we should make sure our new buildings complement rather than overshadow them, but we should also accept that fact that new buildings are going to be built with glass, steel, concrete, and drywall, and design them accordingly.
Click to expand...

I completely agree; well said! There is certainly beautiful modern architecture, but to me none of it reaches the glory of old, like Old City Hall, University College, Commerce Court North, etc.
 
I agree, it's hard to get excited by most of the new buildings going up. There is only so much you can do with flat glass/spandrel. I much prefer the materials, colours and craftsmanship of our older buildings. You can't beat the older North American and European designs. Few buildings or public spaces here, impress me the way European ones do. That being said, this building is one of the most interesting and creative going up. Now, if only we could do a few dozen more, then I'd be happy.
 
modernâ„¢ said:
Also, even if you find aesthetic or historic value in designing new buildings to appear as though they are old, please try to understand that architectural design and technologies are very different than they were even decades ago in many cases. Given the way we design and build today, to make a building *try* to *appear* classical or old makes no sense because it is just an appliqué over a modern building. Modern buildings are machines; the mechanical systems they have inside them, the way they are constructed, the building envelope systems used to clad them. Buildings have an array of conditions to respond to, and to try to force some sort of historical aesthetic around the building's spaces and systems is just absurd, senseless, and inefficient.

It was once I began studying architectural design/ architectural science that it became clear to me why so many architects can't abide the visual transcribing of older aesthetics onto new designs-- it really doesn't make sense. I'm not sure how else to convey this point but until you have to actually design a building that responds to the conditions buildings are supposed to respond to, I would say that your opinion is very naive.

Disclaimer: I do believe that good architecture should respond to its context when appropriate; in fact, in a lot of my own projects I've often stressed responding to built form and context as one of my main priorities. There are plenty of ways to respond, formally and materially, to existing context. But to actually mimic the aesthetic and form of historical architecture is very counterproductive and predisposes a given project to poor design.
Click to expand...

Builders in the Beaux-Arts period seemed to have no problem applying classical architectural ideas to new technologies and unique modern contexts. Beaux-Arts buildings incorporate classical Greek architecture with precision, though they were often built with steel and concrete frames. Architects didn't seem to struggle to apply the classical style to uniquely modern contexts like power generating stations, train stations and skyscrapers built of steel and concrete at the turn of the 20th century.
 
interchange42 said:
Ridiculous statement, especially as your opener "Face it" tries to make it look like an objective truth. There's lots of stunning modern architecture, as beautiful to my eye as the best examples of any other style. Here's what you should face S&M: you are stating your opinion, not a fact.
Click to expand...

You've misinterpreted me, interchange. I said "face it, as beautiful as historical craftsman-produced architecture is, our current society is essentially incapable of producing it". That is a fact. We have no quarries. We have no stone masons. We lack the skill and the means of production (to say nothing of the will) to produce pre-modern styles of architecture. I wish it wasn't true, but it is.

I also claimed that modernism is a compromise, but I never claimed that this was anything more than my own opinion. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if psychological research exists that demonstrates that humans are naturally more interested in environments that are ornamented at a human scale. Put a child in front of a stone wall carved with gargoyles and grotesques, and then put them in front of a blank concrete wall, and see which architecture they are naturally more attracted to. In fact, put anyone who hasn't already been formally or informally trained to "appreciate" modern architecture in front of those two walls and you'll probably find the same thing: we respond to handcrafted, human-scale environments, we ignore mass-produced minimalism (unless we've been trained to pay attention to it).

arvelomcquaig said:
I completely agree; well said! There is certainly beautiful modern architecture, but to me none of it reaches the glory of old, like Old City Hall, University College, Commerce Court North, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Glad someone agrees with me.
 
S&M:

We don't lack the skills - they are there (just think the restoration of the Parliament Buildings, Old City Hall, etc) - we lack the resources to build in the manner we used to since it is uneconomical for all but the most exceptional of cases. And Modernism and human scaled is certainly not exclusive to one another - for a more local example, look up Joseph S. Stauffer Library by KPMB.

AoD
 
Somewhere Adolf Loos is going ballistic.

This debate is so multi-faceted that it is difficult to know where to start. In fact there is an entire area of study dedicated to it in Architural History, Theory, and Criticism. So insted I will just lightly pry. Regarding the poster noting that there were modern buildings ornamented in with Greek like aesthetics, I cannot help but wonder how that would be possible today while maintaining LEED certification? The very existance of a LEED standard should remind us of the world and age we live in, and ought to help us understand why we build the way we do today. Lets leave history in the past (that does NOT mean forgetting it).
 
I was thinking the exact same thing! Form should follow function; and new buildings now have to be energy efficient and be easier to maintain.
 
It should also be pointed out that brick used to be one of the cheapest building materials around (there weren't many other options) - now it is one of the more expensive, particularly real brick. Stone-cutting was expensive and time consuming, but labour was much cheaper back then. We use different materials not because we don't care about the past, but because the pricing has changed. As was mentioned, newer materials are more energy efficient and they can be replaced more easily. In fact, I would argue that we love real brick now because it is so scarce as a current building material: when spandrel gets replaced with something more efficient, we'll fondly look back at all of the quaint spandrel condos. People found brick monotonous and oppressive in the 19th century - Dickens complains about too much brick in neighbourhoods because brick used to be associated with industry.

As for those university buildings in the US? We all know that many big US universities make astronomical amounts of money, right? By using outdated materials, Harvard is showing they have the ability to waste tons of money - hence they have lots of money. It's about status and prestige, (much like Stern's clients) and only very little about "respecting the past." Most of the people paying for those fancy buildings couldn't differentiate between neo-Classical and Romanesque and they wouldn't want to.
 
Last edited:
NBGtect, I agree that new buildings should somewhat reflect modern technology as I suggested in my previous post but I feel it is debatable if new buildings are easier to maintain or even as energy efficient as we believe. New building materials and systems are actually hard to maintain and are very disposable which puts into question their energy efficiency over time from this perspective. What new building materials and systems are are high performance. We demand high performance from our buildings and our new systems and materials deliver this high performance. But this high performance often comes at the cost of greater maintenance and more constant and persistent monitoring.
 
WiddleBittyKitty, I think this topic of conversation is too tangent to the thread so I will not comment further. A domestic home example could be the high efficiency furnace. A commercial building example could be any of our contemporary building façade technologies.
 
I didn't know a live stream existed, thanks!
Nice to see some progress on the cladding. Hopefully it will continue tomorrow.
http://ryersonbuilds.ryerson.ca/student-learning-centre/

Wednesday at 7:10 PM
ScreenShot2014-03-26at71016PM_zpsdf691888.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top