The twentieth-century hatred of ornament is an odd phenomenon, for it contradicts virtually the entire history of human culture.
This article questions how the architectural profession does so successfully repel attempts at reform?
Among practitioners of a revived traditional architecture today, there is evident dissention and uncertainty about how best to respond to the challenges of a persistent modernism in architecture and urbanism.
In yesterday's stable societies, people and riches moved very slowly because life was economically bound, tooth and nail, to the land. Later on, the industrial revolution spawned a cultural revolution in the true sense of the word. A revolution that eroded the core values upon which society was based: traditional social hierarchies, the way in which work and communities were organised, man's relationship with the natural environment and the role of religious and social communities.
Vernacular and traditional buildings have common features that create places people are comfortable with. This is what Christopher Alexander calls “the timeless way of building.” Modernists abandoned these timeless patterns because of their fascination with new technology and their search for novelty, which is why modernist architecture feels uncomfortable.
The article while discussing various aspects of the process of documenting vernacular architecture, talks about how documentation can be used as a research tool.
The question is often asked when confronting the great places "What do we do about the fact that one simply cannot build anything in this landscape anymore?" There should be little doubt that the primary reason for this condition is the track record of architects over the past half-century.
In a poll, traditional buildings soundly beat modern-looking ones, regardless of age, geography or political preference. Should that matter?
One question which often circles my mind: will the future of architecture be bleak or full of promise?
The pursuit of genius in architecture is what has most contributed to the unstitching of our urban fabric, giving us those buildings in outlandish shapes and unsightly materials that take a chunk of the city and make it into somewhere else.
One of the great generalisations we can make about the modern world is that it is, to an extraordinary degree, an ugly world. If we were to show an ancestor from 250 years ago around our cities and suburbs, they would be amazed at our technology, impressed by our wealth, stunned by our medical advances – and shocked and disbelieving at the horrors we had managed to build.
Building traditionalist architecture today is derided as inauthentic pastiche. But this perspective turns a blind eye to the dramatic and sophisticated ways that design has been applied throughout history.
In this issue, the editors are showcasing winners of the 2018 Palladio Awards. Normally this would be an occasion for unalloyed celebration. But by coincidence this event has also called attention to the absurd hostility that Modernist architects and critics have towards traditionalism.
Architecture is suffering a crisis of confidence. More and more mainstream figures in the field are admitting that the profession has lost its way.
There is extensive evidence today linking exposure to natural environments to favorable changes in mental and even physical health. There is also a growing body of work indicating that there are specific geometric properties of natural scenes that mediate these effects, and that these properties can also be found in artificial structures like buildings, especially those designed before the emergence of modernism.
What do we mean by beautiful places? As with people, we know that we’re not talking about skin deep appearances. We can all think of picture-perfect places that have utterly lost their sense of life, and soul and meaning – some of them on this postcard.