Well the question is not so simple as it seems. I'm aware that we live in different cities and the feeling we have towards historical places could be extremely different. We may be used to historical buildings and jealous of them, or we can even not consider them at all, because a matter of culture or maybe just because we don't have historical buildings.

To explain better what the topic is about, i will post a couple of images of a contemporary style museum made by the american architect Richard Meier, in the center of Roma, along the Tevere river; The museum of Ara Pacis:



This building contains this altar, made by the first emperor Augusto to celebrate the end of the civil war in Roma, in 1st century b.c.



Well, a good part of the roman population has aroused agaist this museum, many saying that it doesn't fit the shapes of the historical center and for that reason is considered ugly. Personally i think that it's a nice work, no more, no less. It's not so contemporary as it seems, it takes much from the style of the modern rationalist italian architecture of the '20 and '30 years, so the architect tried to make it as simple as possible, maybe too much, to avoid huge contrasts with the surrounding historical context.

So, if you live in an historical centre of not, what is your feeling towards contemporary architecture? and more specifically, do you think is good or bad to build these things in an historical centre?

I find this an interesting question...I look at the Louve as my example...all that beautiful building then they build some bizarre neo-pyramid right in front. I can't say I likeiti bu that is personal preference.

I don't think US Americans have the same take on historical buildings as the rest of the world. Our history is limitied to 400 years tops. Most buildings..if they get to be 50 years...it is like "OH that building is so old...lets tear it down" All about progress and change here.

I think that I like to keep a balance of historical and "new' but who is to really say what should be kept...which is the most important...and what goes. Obviously this battle rages. Also every culture has had the argument and there is wide spread evidence of ancient buildings used in the building of newer buildings. In ancient cities you can walk down the street adn its like a bloody architectual time machine!

However "progress" can not stop and not everything can be kept as is.

So I think that people will continue and should continue to make beautiful new architecture. We can not save everything, but hopefully will be smart enough to save the really great buildings of antiquity. And who knows..maybe in 600 years that freakin' pyramid that I hate so much...will be considered groundbreaking and having huge historical significance...

I sure hope not though!

Architecture is subjective, what’s beautiful to one person may be ugly to another.
As part of my studies in college I had a professor ask the class “if a client were to pay you to design & build a house or building that was dark blue with black trim, gaudy or cheesy would you do it?” One guy stood up & said it depended on how much he was paying; the prof said “you’re darn right you will.” I never agreed with that but it gives me good laugh thinking about it.

I think it’s good to have community buy-in on a project no matter what style you use.
The safest thing is to not mix contemporary (simplistic white, sweeping lines Miami Vice) with classic styles.
Some can pull it off well by contrasting just enough to make it look good but in my opinion Meier’s building doesn’t work.

Lisnpuppy said it very well “So I think that people will continue and should continue to make beautiful new architecture. We can not save everything, but hopefully will be smart enough to save the really great buildings of antiquity.”

I'm not sure it is easy to make contemporary assessments on the beauty, rightness, desirability etc. of architecture. Of course in the 12th and 13th centuries when many of Europs most famous cathedrals and abbeys took shape you couldn't do a whistle stop tour ending up saying 'oh no, Lisa, not another gothic heap with pointed arches and blind tracery, it's just like the last fifty we've seen'. But even then there was a distnctive 'style' at any particular period. Nowadays with so much building going on it tends to make cities look like clones. So I'm against destroying what is unusual or unique whether or not it is ugly. On the other hand contemporary and historical together don't have to clash. I seem to recall a museum at Merida in Spain (I think) where a contemporary building was adjacent to their extesive Roman ruins without looking out of place. I've also been to Jacobean houses hung with modern art that does not jar.

Some styles seem so ubiquitous (the 'pizza-hut school in the USA for example) it is hard to imagine it becoming a protected species. But the building in Rome that houses an altar I seem to recall seeing in the open years ago does not seem either incongruous or popular-trendy to me. I'd have to see it in situ though to say how it affected the whole location.

So my answer is keep what it is practical to keep and never destroy a building to replace it with a nonentity building. Otherwise go for modern and inventive. Time is a great healer.

I'm not a fan of contemporary buildings, they seem sterile and un-inviting. I love old world, with ornate carved stone. When I was in Edinburgh I'll never forget The Sir Walter Scott monument. It is very gothic in appearance, and breath taking.

I'd like to show you a picture of the Royal Ontario Museum. It used to be a very old building, but then this happened:

DISCUSS!

Personally I would preserve old architecture, especially wooden and stone buildings. I really dont care for concrete.

If I had my own country I would say "no" to modern buildings, such as supermarkets or small dental clinics. Just look at how bland and square they are.

Everything would look better with medieval flavour with modern appliances.(pipes, wires, lighting) The old charm really looks better. I would attempt to combine both styles of architecture(modern and old) If I had to choose modern architecture, it better not be bland and boring.

Personally, I can't even stand the sight of contemporary ANYTHING! The architecture of old is so much more...appealing than a glass pyramid. Its just...weird. Stone and wood carved buildings have such a natural beauty compared to the almost forged appearance of new and modern structures. Although, everybody has their own tastes, and I'm fine with the new stuff as long as we keep our old as well.

If you're going to blame someone, blame those who were responsible for comissioning the project, not the architect. Architects like Richard Meier, Frank Gehry, Renzo Piano, and other contemporary architects tend to make building that look modern, and each one has their own approach to it. Richard Meier goes for simple geometric designs, boxes, arcs, black and white, ultra conservative, Frank Gehry, the oppisite, having wild curves and shapes, bright colors, shiny surfaces. In this day and age, most cities who are looking to build can usually know enough about the achitect they're going to hire to know what to expect. When they hire for the name, the project usually falls into complications, as neither want to accept the other's vision.

By contrast, many cities don't want to use more classical designs because the building tends to look either old, or like a poor attempt at duplicating the sorrounding buildings. There was enough of that neo-classical stuff going around in the 1920s and 1930s, and some considder it as trying to tap into the old glory of Rome, which has never really worked well for anyone.

The good thing about going with someone like Richard Meier, is that the building doesn't distract from those things inside. If a more classical styled building were used, it would make the older pieces on display blend in too much with the structure, making them harder to be appreciated. If you have an ancient column and a new, classical column next to eachother, some people may not be able to tell which one is which without a sign. Where as if you have an ancient column next to a modern style column, you can differentiate between the two instantly. In many cases, lighting, and the kinds of colors and textures on the walls playes a HUGE roll in how that piece of are is experienced. In a more classicaly styled building, getting good lighting is always a challenge since you tend to have larger, more monolithic forms that don't lend themselves well to having a light installed in them.

I think that the modern vs. traditional thing depends a lot on the material used in the construction, in this case,of the modern. I have seen ultra modern designed buildings built of traditional materials- wood, lots of wood, stone, etc., which are truly sublime, to me, and fit into any context.

So many modern buildings are built with materiel that does not, and can not, age gracefully. Smeary, moldy concrete for eg.. Some modern materiel, glass and steel, will age with grace, or not appear to age at all.

Of course it depends on the aesthetic integrity of the design. The new Scottish Parliament , to me, is a joke, a horror story, even though it has a lot of wood in it. Those kinds of buildings can only ever blight their surroundings ; in this case beautiful Edinburgh.

I actually like the Louvre pyramid, even tho i am a diehard trad. It is supremely simple classical in shape. And the glass and steel wont look crappy in the years to come. It actually draws attention, not only to itself, but sets off the classical pile behind it by its simple contrast.

I'm pleased to see that you guys have so many interesting opinions on this subject

To Marcus Wolfe, if i remember well, that building you were posting is a project drawn by Daniel Libeskind, and i find it pretty cool. (not only because i like the architect in general) And the original building was already rebuilt many many times... even in his first version was not so original... it took the shapes from classical architecture and put them together forming nothing more than an imitation of ancient styles (always hoping i remember well). Even the hugest church of the world, S.Peter in Roma, had sooooo many vesions through time that you can't imagine. The pantheon was rebuilt and reprojected as well. So humanity isn't new in rebuilding new versions of architectures.
My opinion is that it depends on what you are going to modify... it's an hard discussion, and i don't think i have my ideas clear on this yet...

Daniel Libeskind...yes, that was his name. I remember the design was inspired by crystal rocks or something among those lines.

Theres a difference in contemporary architecture when it comes to the specific kind. A glass pyramid is way different than a typical commercial building. If I had to choose contemporary, make sure it has art and flavour in it. The man who created the flat and boring architecture was famous around the 1960's or 70's.

I stand by my comment...
regarding glass pyramids...

Louve..beautiful Louis XIV architecture....then a glass pyramid...

I dont have an issue with the pyramid alone...just looks bizzare to me there. Like mixing chocolate and a really good steak.

Honestly i have seen far worse things of the glass pyramid in front of the Louvre... That pyramid is at least an attempt to make something, teasing, provoking, and maybe i agree that the attempt is failed, but what really saddens me more than that is the continuosus urban expansion on the outskirts of the cities. New urban centers are born out of nowhere, isolated, sad-looking, often interfering badly with the surrounding landscape. New giant shopping malls residences and hotels today can take place along a beautiful seaside for example... making a few ignorants happy, and the rest horrified by the sight of these eco-monsters. A good deal for organized crime and greedy biulding managers; Hard to put an end to this...

That's not architecture, that's urban development. In order to find someone who can design with the scenery, the city would probably need to pay more money. Afterall, the city is less concerned about what it looks like, and more concerned with how fast it can generate taxes. And depending on how much of a tree hugger you are, no building would ever be good enough. For all the development lobbyists, there are also all these environmental lobbyists. Both have their points, but it usually gets burried within their own share of crazies.

I'm not 100% sure if that's architecture or not; once i thought it wasn't, just like you, but now i learned that these facts draw the shapes of contemporary cities, and should be at least investigated, in order to keep under control the greedy lobbyists behind these things (a VERY large part of Italy's criminal business is based upon urban development). I also noticed that unlike old cities, which developed from a center to the outskirts, building their bones in a natural but rational way, (just like a skeleton) the contemporary city has many centers, (first commercial, then residential) that grow far from the city's main body, making it seem like an infection with thousand bubbles... not exactly what is in our traditional urban development culture.

Maybe we have to get used to this, and maybe this is not necessarily evil for many, but as i said, it's a thing worth of more than one thought about it in my opinion.

The thing is that there are only two options, either build homes/apartments next to businesses and factories, which usually ends up causing issues as one interferes with the operations of the other, or build districts where like purposed strutures are closer together.

The other alternative is something like Arcosanti which although tries to remedy the issue, usually gets bogged down by various ideals, or realities about society. And are arguably at less harmony with the sorrounding environment than current buildings.

Ambiguity?

1. doubtfulness or uncertainty of meaning or intention: to speak with ambiguity; an ambiguity of manner.
2. an unclear, indefinite, or equivocal word, expression, meaning, etc.: a contract free of ambiguities; the ambiguities of modern poetry.


But:
Let us keep the best of the past as long as it does not interfere with movement towards a better future.
Let us preserve the past that has beauty that moves us.
Let us preserve the past that might prevent us from repeating our worst night mares.
Let us destroy or improve the past where it is wrong.
For example:
IMHO New Orleans, Louisiana should be rebuilt. But America should use the silt and the power of the Mississippi to fill the bowl so that never again will the homes of beautiful children in New Orleans be below sea level and so close to destruction...

Except that you can't build on silt, and many of the historic buildings would have to be covered over or moved. For reasons of both cost and sentimentality such things won't happen. You wouldn't want to knock down buildings which have become a symbol for a city, anywhere, it would only make the people of that city furious, and cling even more to what was. Destroying older, historic buildings is a far worse idea than building more modern ones near them.

As far as the engineering goes into preventing similar disasters, that will have to happen. Especially after all the flooding that has happened in the midwest. But again, cost is an issue, since that is all those people in charge really care about. Is it cheaper to rebuild after the 1 in 10000 chance of something like that happening again, or is it cheaper to look into fixing the problem.

And really, New Orleans is more of a testbed for technilogies that may one day save other coastal cities, if we ever have the foresight to put them into place.

Ah yes I hoped some one would point this out because I had addressed this in my plans. Very astute of you.

The technologies to save coastal regions have to use natures resources in order to conserve NRG and maximize efficiency. I propose the use of the power of water and the ingenuity of science to lift New Orleans above sea level not just now but into the future.

Yes silt is not good enough but when properly amended and with careful management silt can be very useful as part of a program to prevent future flooding by lifting existing structures and rehabuilitating infrastructure to make sure all new construction is well above the sea levels as projected into the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately, now to much has already been done in the form of existing below sea level rehab for my idea to be taken seriously. I hope I am wrong and that all of the valiant efforts of so many volunteers will last for many many years.

Historical buildings frm the medieval peroids are a lot better looking in my, *clears throat
Professional Opinion!


I've seen a lot of historic buildings from a lot of peroids and can definately say it looks far nicer than the steel towers we get today.
I've seen....
Greek
Roman
Mayan
Carthaginian
Turkish
Gothic
Medieval European
Old Curches


Lots and more I can't remember, so yeah modern is trash.
And off topic here, but.....
MODERN
ART
SUCKS

Sorry to offend any, but a red squiggle on white paper isn't art.
Neither is a tire in a fish tank!
The MoMA is rubbish.

WHY! WHY can't we like in the dark ages!

For me, modern architecture has to serve some kind of purpose. I think that so many modern buildings (chesto, hell yeah on the Scottish Parliament) are just so irresponsible, looking showy and using up priceless natural resources for no apparent gain. The kind of modern building I enjoy is one that is thoughtful in both design and application, as it seems so selfish to ignore the problems of the planet simply for visual gain.

Also (probably coz I like classics and stuff yeah) I think that we should preserve examples of architecture through history. However, I dont think we can simply sacrifice our way of life for buildings of the past; I don't think we need too preserve many 50s and 60s towerblocks, though they may be architecturally inovative for their time*. I think it is important not to preserve buildings for the sake of it, only when they can actually play a part in our lives and our perception of life. I'm certainly not saying bulldose all castles and medieval cottages to make way for vernacular architectural sprawl; I think there needs to be more of a harmony between ancient and modern architecture. Sativarg, I think that you're ideas are excellent in principle, but the problem is that everyone has a different concept of beauty, some (like me) finding points of beauty in both ancient and modern architecture, while others are wholly based in the past or wholly for futuristic development. I don't think we can just dismiss all modern architecture, as it can enrich and enhance our lives in ways which some older building simply cannot. However, I do agree that, aesthetically, historical building styles are so much more pleasing.........
damn valid points on both sides of the argument......


*although the Romans came up with the concept of insulae, islands, which were the first high rise buildings...

I'd have to say this looks like sheet metal and glass scraps, sorry I don't like it at all.
I do like some of the modern buildings though.
http://houstonarchitecture.info/Building/5...itage_Plaza.php (love it)
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Petronas_Towers.html
http://houstonarchitecture.info/Building/5...liams_Tower.php
http://houstonarchitecture.info/Building/5...e_Maid_Park.php
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0...C_June_2008.jpg

The Chrysler Building is one of my favorite
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Ch...r_Building.html
The Astodome
http://houstonarchitecture.info/Building/5...t_Astrodome.php

A mixture of traditional & modern (not too bad)
http://houstonarchitecture.info/Building/9...tice_Center.php