New Traditionalist Architecture/Architecture Uprising

[adma]

Oh sure, I don't disagree - trying to rebuild what was lost as accurately as possible with contemporary features is hands down the best option. But a lot of the time, I feel that option would never be on the table.

But maybe that's the point: *that's* what we should be encouraging--retention and restoration--rather than the crutch of "traditionalism". And you'll find more that there's more universal approval for *that* option in dealing with our preexisting environments.

This is one of the key reasons why I think Toronto's city centre just doesn't work. It is a disharmonious mish-mash of conflicting styles that don't blend well together. One of my favourite examples is the stretch of Queen from Yonge to University; traditional buildings like Old City Hall and the eastern part of the Hudson's Bay complex stand shoulder to shoulder with the western part of the Bay complex (the one on the southeast corner of Bay and Queen), the Eaton Centre, and The Sheraton Centre. Half of the time, you're walking past something that is nice and grabs the eye; the other half of the time, you hurry on as urgently as possible to get away from the imposing monstrosity you're next to.

But again, you're looking at it in generic terms of form and "what pleases you". Or, my aforementioned ""Beautiful, ugly, beautiful, ugly" and leaving it at that" approach.

My approach is more that of harmony through chaos, so to speak--which is reinforced through knowledge, curiosity, and a certain god-bless-this-mess "openness" and disarming urban forgiveness t/w what surrounds us. Whereas the disharmony you speak of becomes more disorienting when you wipe your mind of that knowledge, curiosity, et al.

It's sort of like how those who are navigationally dependent upon apps and GPS tend to be much more limited in their "natural" geographic knowledge than those who've been conditioned through traditional mapping resources. And when you don't have that "natural" geographic knowledge and curiosity, you're naturally flung into disorientation and anxiety once you're off the path that GPS sets for you.

Habitual use of GPS negatively impacts spatial memory during self-guided navigation

Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation devices and applications have become ubiquitous over the last decade. However, it is unclear whether using GPS affects our own internal navigation system, or spatial memory, which critically relies on the hippocampus. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Likewise, when one is conditioned to that strict sensual "beautiful, ugly, beautiful, ugly" GPS path of urban beholding, anything beyond is anxiety-making.

Look: the cardinal problem w/the "western part of the Bay complex" isn't its supposed contribution to the urban disharmony. The cardinal problem is with the grotesquely disfiguring external renovation it went through over the past few years--something which could have been prevented or mitigated through "knowledge".

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I find the argument of how the "general public prefers traditional architecture" disingenuous in many ways - because this preference as practiced translates more often than not to ersatz, often badly executed architecture with vaguely traditionalist elements but are otherwise totally not traditional.

AoD

 

[Sunnyside]

Neo-traditionalism might mirror prior architectural revivals, and evolve past what it originally drew from. A modern continuation of architecture up until WWII (give or take) can only have good implications, aesthetically speaking.

I find the argument of how the "general public prefers traditional architecture" disingenuous in many ways - because this preference as practiced translates more often than not to ersatz, often badly executed architecture with vaguely traditionalist elements but are otherwise totally not traditional.

AoD

I think bad architecture will happen regardless of style; cheap developer, bad materials, 'bad' architect, etc. won't yield a nice contemporary or neo-trad structure. The benefit is that when something stellar comes along, it hopefully draws inspiration and evolves from more appealing historical styles/trends, rather than directly opposing them.

What neo-traditional architecture indicates socio-culturally is unclear, but it is certainly a new trend. I can't say if its giving 'architecture back to the people' and providing what they actually like, or if it is just seen as 'safe' compared to modern arch. As well, I can't say if it comes from social/political circumstances or not- certain facets of the right are drawn to traditional architecture, but not all traditional architecture enjoyers are part of a niche right-wing camp. Its got a broader appeal than that.

 

[jje1000]

I find the argument of how the "general public prefers traditional architecture" disingenuous in many ways - because this preference as practiced translates more often than not to ersatz, often badly executed architecture with vaguely traditionalist elements but are otherwise totally not traditional.

AoD

I think this arises largely out of the issue that all architectural schools in Canada are of the modernist orthodoxy. So attempts to recreate ‘traditional’ architecture inevitably results in modernism draped in a visual emulation of ‘traditional’ elements.

I am reminded of how easily suburban houses can code switch between eclectic and contemporary modern styles, all while keeping similar massings.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think this arises largely out of the issue that all architectural schools in Canada are of the modernist orthodoxy. So attempts to recreate ‘traditional’ architecture inevitably results in modernism draped in a visual emulation of ‘traditional’ elements.

I am reminded of how easily suburban houses can code switch between eclectic and contemporary modern styles, all while keeping similar massings.

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

 

[Northern Light]

I find the argument of how the "general public prefers traditional architecture" disingenuous in many ways - because this preference as practiced translates more often than not to ersatz, often badly executed architecture with vaguely traditionalist elements but are otherwise totally not traditional.

AoD

I think if you were to examine the extensive surveys that were linked above in the thread, you'd see that quality traditional buildings were sampled in the mix, not mediocre knock-offs.

What people prefer is not entirely boiled down to a formula but there is science to it.

1) Symmetry - much of modern architecture does feature this as well, but some does not.

2) Ornamentation - this doesn't mean over the top rococo inside or out; but rather the idea of just adding some detail and individuality

3) Warm colour palette - some people love 'cool colours' most don't; most want reds/oranges/wood tones, and natural colour variations.

4) The addition of rounded or non-straight elements; that doesn't mean un-level, LOL, it means rounded corners, arched windows/doors, etc etc.

5) Preference for 'natural' material palate. I don't think this is anything conscious or about opposition to synthetics etc. Its about feeling a sense of connection to the material wood, stone, brick vs EIFS, Spandrel, Aluminum, or sheetrock on the interiors.

Obviously the above should be presented coherently, but I don't think it requires an adherence to any particular style or motif.

I don't think this means go super-posh on everything either. As the Ace Hotel showed, you can use veneered brick and make it look good, if you know what you're doing and you care.

****

None of the above is a screed against all things modern, variety is the spice of life.

Uno Prii showed what you could do with a contemporary material set (for his time) but showed some flare and incorporated some of the above by using gentle slopes and angles, amongst other things.

But If you put a well designed piece of 'Deco or Edwardian apartment stock side by side with Prii's work, I'll wager the average person would still choose the former; but some would surely choose the latter. Great, chacun son gout. (to each his own taste)

But lets then add, most modern architects are not and never were Prii.

And yes, there was garbage made in previous times, of course, no one would deny that.

****

There is also a need to adapt to changing building/fire codes and lifestyle preferences. Most people now prefer open-concept main floors to hived off warrens of rooms.

 

[junctionist]

I'm a passionate fan and defender of Modernism and Brutalism, but I loathe the idea that they're the only styles we can build today. On a philosophical level, if we say that a Neoclassical or Gothic building is part of our heritage, what we're saying is that its architectural expression forms a part of our culture. We're certainly entitled to practice our culture and build more such buildings if they can suit our needs and we like the aesthetics of the style.

Never have we had access to more knowledge, labour, and technology in the West. We have extensive literature, blueprints in archives and libraries, and 3D modelling to be able to master any style. We can utilize 3D printing, robotics, and laser cutting for ornamentation. We can outsource work anywhere across the globe. To say we can't build to the same design and craftsmanship standards as before the Modern era is significantly selling us short.

On an intellectual level, good-quality historicism is an exciting challenge to learn a style and adapt it to a modern need. In Europe, there are many practitioners doing exceptional historicism, as there have been since the devastation of WWII. Check out the quality of this Provence-Chauvigny project in France. It's all limestone with custom-made ornamental features cut from stone. I'd love to see a meticulously crafted new Annex-style house or Second Empire-style hotel or office building.

 

[adma]

Y'know, the way we're talking about architecture here, it'd be as if the primary goal of heritage conservation districts wasn't to save and retain old buildings, but to advance "traditionalist" principles of design. Or like tearing down, say, original 30s dwellings in a Home Smith neighbourhood is perfectly fine as long as the replacement follows the same "Old English" styling--so before long, we might have a whole street of "Old English" dwellings built this century where there were once dwellings of the 20s and 30s, but oh!, it's a whole lot better than if it were those boxy "Modern" houses. And it's a sign that the neighbourhood is *alive* rather than a dead artifact of the 20s and 30s; a demonstration of the "timeless appeal" of Old English.

Which is a, er...*inane*, getting-it-all-backwards way of going about it.

And I want to reiterate this statement because I think this discussion's still falling into that trap.

However, I wonder how much of such discussion might be a consequence of, well, the UT demographic--a lot of whom have current vested interests in the building, design, contracting, real estate, etc industry. That is, those whose vested interest is in "new builds", and for whom the onus upon retention works against the bottom line.

With that in mind, and when it comes to the trickle-down "new build" vernacular, I'll say this: you don't have to be a diehard traditionalist or pro-traditionalist to find the current spate of "boxy modern" on our side streets to be aesthetically, well, at least as much of a mixed blessing as the spate of EIFS stucco renos and rebuilds and Botox jobs a generation ago. But that's not so much a consequence of the aesthetic as much as it's a consequence of hackwork; and hackwork knows no stylistic choice--not to mention the disconnection in our design/build age from the notion of capital-A "Architecture" among the unwashed masses, so what one gets is crude expressions of "stylistic identity" instead (sometimes superscaled, as w/the Drake McMansion).

In fact, if you want the best argument against the "modern solution" there is, looky here

Iconic Chinatown building gets ghastly makeover

Renovations on Chinatown's Hsin Kuang Centre have finally been unveiled after months of construction, and it's safe to say that Toronto has lost an...

www.blogto.com

And the problem here is not that it's modern; but that it's McModern: trendy, narcissistic, nose-thumbing hackwork for the Fyre Fest crowd. And it's as much of an insult to the "modern" aesthetic as those Y2K EIFS palaces are to the "traditional" aesthetic.

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...

 

[adma]

On an intellectual level, good-quality historicism is an exciting challenge to learn a style and adapt it to a modern need. In Europe, there are many practitioners doing exceptional historicism, as there have been since the devastation of WWII. Check out the quality of this Provence-Chauvigny project in France. It's all limestone with custom-made ornamental features cut from stone. I'd love to see a meticulously crafted new Annex-style house or Second Empire-style hotel or office building.

I get a vibe of budget-breaking ostentation there, even if it's "high-quality" ostentation.

But on top of that: for all the pretty presentation, I'm left asking: "what is this?" Is it a new build, or a restoration job? What's the background? What's the location, who's the designer, etc etc.

What we're witnessing here is in a ***total and utter vacuum***.

I like to know dates; I like to know location; I like to know provenance. I like to know *context*; because it enriches the bigger picture. To just present the project as here is totally...dead-eyed.

And this is *exactly* the problem I find with a lot of this blowing-the-horn for traditionalism; that it seems to want to blow the horn for "pure architectural enjoyment", devoid of all context. Like, people who are just pleased by what they see here, and it doesn't matter whether it's of 1723 or of 2023, and all that "context" gets in the way. Pictures of an architectural Lily, with no regard for the fact that she's been dead since 1929 (which actually ought to make that proverbial Lily *more* interesting, *not* less)

 

[T3G]

Well the question then becomes... is context necessary, or is it just a nice to have?

At the end of the day, if something is visually pleasing, it is so whether you intimately know the history of every brick that went into the structure or you are completely clueless. There are many structures or even machines I have found myself drawn to even without knowing their history (or indeed, if they even had any). I like history and I like learning things, but I don't see those as being necessary to finding a place inviting or friendly.

And that is why I fully support reviving traditional architecture. It is all one to me whether, for example, the Randall Residences in Oakville are 400 years old or 40 minutes old, I just like the building much more than your average depression inducing suburban sprawl or post war shacks masquerading as shops.

The Randall Residences | Plans, Prices, Reviews

The Randall Residences by Rosehaven is a New Condo located at Trafalgar and Randall , Oakville. Learn everything you need to know.

condonow.com

 

[junctionist]

I get a vibe of budget-breaking ostentation there, even if it's "high-quality" ostentation.

But on top of that: for all the pretty presentation, I'm left asking: "what is this?" Is it a new build, or a restoration job? What's the background? What's the location, who's the designer, etc etc.

What we're witnessing here is in a ***total and utter vacuum***.

I like to know dates; I like to know location; I like to know provenance. I like to know *context*; because it enriches the bigger picture. To just present the project as here is totally...dead-eyed.

And this is *exactly* the problem I find with a lot of this blowing-the-horn for traditionalism; that it seems to want to blow the horn for "pure architectural enjoyment", devoid of all context. Like, people who are just pleased by what they see here, and it doesn't matter whether it's of 1723 or of 2023, and all that "context" gets in the way. Pictures of an architectural Lily, with no regard for the fact that she's been dead since 1929 (which actually ought to make that proverbial Lily *more* interesting, *not* less)

I definitely want those questions answered too. It looks like a new build and an amazing project. I'd be happy to find more examples of great contemporary historicism with all the supporting details when I have some free time

 

[Northern Light]

In the Toronto context, I think this development is the sort of commercial build we ought to discuss.

875 Queen East | ?m | 7s | Harhay | OFFICEArchitecture

urbantoronto.ca

I don't think it got everything right, but it did better than most. The restored actual heritage (seen in pics) actually leaves great lessons.

Its not at all ostentatious, its simple and straight-forward.

But its nice.

The modern attempts to follow the heritage in many ways, there's more detail than typical and good use of masonry. But the shortcomings are real, the cornice is so key on the heritage, as is the breach of boxiness with a subtle arch in the window.

You don't need to break the bank on posh material, the difference in cost to achieve those simple differences on the new build would barely be a rounding error.

 

[adma]

Well the question then becomes... is context necessary, or is it just a nice to have?

At the end of the day, if something is visually pleasing, it is so whether you intimately know the history of every brick that went into the structure or you are completely clueless. There are many structures or even machines I have found myself drawn to even without knowing their history (or indeed, if they even had any). I like history and I like learning things, but I don't see those as being necessary to finding a place inviting or friendly.

And that is why I fully support reviving traditional architecture. It is all one to me whether, for example, the Randall Residences in Oakville are 400 years old or 40 minutes old, I just like the building much more than your average depression inducing suburban sprawl or post war shacks masquerading as shops.

The Randall Residences | Plans, Prices, Reviews

The Randall Residences by Rosehaven is a New Condo located at Trafalgar and Randall , Oakville. Learn everything you need to know.

condonow.com

I look at "context" as an optimum, and at "nice to have" as a dumbing down. (Heck, knowing "context" of a sort allowed me to pinpoint that Kensington eyesore as, uh, Fyre Fest Modern. Whereas those devoid of context might as well use that as a basepoint for *all* modern hatred.)

Not unlike my geographical/spatial knowledge point above--and if in our age of GPS, geographical knowledge has become nothing more than a "nice to have", it's pathetic. (Not least because of how geographical knowledge can serve as contextual reinforcement--or, it's not like I'm *defending* suburban sprawl, but some kind of working geographic knowledge of how it's all put together and gateway-drug curiosity about the same can go a long way t/w "mitigating" it, at least as an "experienced" fait accompli. Same with urbanity, for that matter--that is, I'd view the Randall Residences as a symbiotic part of a diverse context that's fascinating in its imperfections, rather than as a standalone. Which is one of GPS's problems: it's coordinate-focused, not context-focused. And if coordinates are inherently either/or, context is both/and.)

ETA: and another thing *very* much to keep in mind re Randall Residences, speaking of "context"--and that relates to the Provence-Chauvigny example above as well (as well as the "ostentation" I referred to it in terms of), is...that it's in Oakville. Old Oakville. A place that's a little, shall we say, "upmarket". And its architectural form reflects that upmarketness. It's architecture for the 1% (or at least the 5%, given that it's a condo rather than a private residence)--and a subset of the 1% that has a single-loaded preference for this style, as opposed to a subset w/a single-loaded preference for, say, "Integral House" styling. (And speaking of which: when it comes to architecturally beholding Toronto's own 1% bastion of Rosedale, only a fool would hail *only* Integral House at the expense of all the "traditionalism" that surrounds it. It's what I mean by the both/and approach to architectural appreciation--basically, everything checks and balances one another; and it doesn't mean you need to know the *story* behind all those other houses, it just expresses that "stories lie here". And it's as true of Rosedale as it is of the nondescript interwar/postwar bungalows of East York.)

There's a difference btw/being "class-blind" and "class-stupid", between "universality" and "obliviousness".

BTW I remember a meme knocking the "mental gymnastics" required to appreciate modern architecture as opposed to the pure pleasure of traditionalism--well, you know something? "Mental gymnastics" is good. It's the process of thinking. It keeps the mind supple and fit. It staves off a vegetative process...

 

[adma]

It is all one to me whether, for example, the Randall Residences in Oakville are 400 years old or 40 minutes old,

But actually, let me juxtapose this line against this earlier passage of mine

Y'know, the way we're talking about architecture here, it'd be as if the primary goal of heritage conservation districts wasn't to save and retain old buildings, but to advance "traditionalist" principles of design. Or like tearing down, say, original 30s dwellings in a Home Smith neighbourhood is perfectly fine as long as the replacement follows the same "Old English" styling--so before long, we might have a whole street of "Old English" dwellings built this century where there were once dwellings of the 20s and 30s, but oh!, it's a whole lot better than if it were those boxy "Modern" houses. And it's a sign that the neighbourhood is *alive* rather than a dead artifact of the 20s and 30s; a demonstration of the "timeless appeal" of Old English.

Which is a, er...*inane*, getting-it-all-backwards way of going about it.

Almost as if that line is an alibi for *that* approach?

Sheesh, if so, you'd be asking for *this* treatment from the heritage community...

http://www.nonstick.com/audio/soundsource/Miscellaneous/ltmi_034.mp3

 

[T3G]

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.