gunter
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Desmund wrote:
. . . . Belfast’s relevatively small core and plethora of tall buildings, just about slips into (small) big city status.
I also think that the city hall is one the finest examples of Edwardian architecture I’ve ever seen. Very imposing and impressive. Imposing can be a good thing too!
I would agree with Desmund, up to a point, but I think the best parts of Belfast are the three or four decent streets in the core where there’s still a Victorian/Edwardiam coherence, not the bits dominated by some pretty mediocre high rise blocks.
There was a slight ‘Temple Bar’ feel to some of the little streets around where the Victoria Square Centre was developed and that’s mostly gone now, but at least the new centre made a conscious effort to connect with Belfast’s great Victorian heritage and I think in that regard it’s been much more of an urban success than any of the random tower blocks I’ve seen.
I do think that the robust scale of the average Belfast streetscape meant that it was better placed to absorb some taller buildings than say Dublin, and I think some of the more modest [and better designed] of the taller structures, like that 60s block with the abstract muriel up at the Albert Clock, add to the urban quality of the place rather than take away from it.
a rough 1980s sketch of the space in front of the Albert ClockYou’ve posted too much stuff there Praxiteles, it would take a week to deal with those damning modernism / Corbusier passages alone.
We should probably split some of this off to a couple of new threads, but for the moment here’s a couple of quick points on the last two posts.
@Praxiteles wrote:
From the City Journal, Winter 2007
The Houses of Worship That Hallow New York
by David Garrard Lowe
A tour through three centuries of history and architecture
By the late eighteenth century, Stuyvesant’s old Dutch Reformed chapel was derelict, and in 1793 his great-great-grandson deeded the land to Trinity Church.
That original Dutch church in NewYork had a interesting profile. Eighteenth century views of the settlement show it dominating the little town with a large, barn-like, roof split near the apex into a pair of ridges and consequently a pair of simple close-coupled gables to front and rear. I don’t suppose anyone has any decent prints or drawings of the church?
@Praxiteles wrote:
And a final temptation from the City Journal for
Myron Magnet
Architecture’s Battle of the Modernisms
. . . and what it means for Gotham’s futureModernist architecture almost from the start had two chief strains. The one that produced Manhattan’s greatest icons, the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings, as well as Rockefeller Center, flows from Paris: from the classical massing, symmetry, and proportion that Gotham architects learned at the École des Beaux-Arts, and from the astonishing vocabulary of ornament that they learned from the 1925 Exposition des Arts Décoratifs that gave us the art deco style. The other current, the International Style, flowing from the Bauhaus art and design school founded in Germany in 1919, gave the world the glass and steel box, which arrived in New York at the start of the 1950s in the relatively refined forms of the UN Secretariat and Lever House on Park Avenue. For the next half-century, that style didn’t so much develop as degenerate, producing such creations as the Trump International Hotel at Columbus Circle, which we see to our left as we look south from 62nd Street.
Myron Magnet is the author of The Dream and the Nightmare: The Sixties’ Legacy to the Underclass. He is City Journal’s editor-at-large and was its editor from 1994 through 2006.
There was very nearly a third strain;):
Everybody knows the famous Adolf Loos [serious looking gent on the right] entry for the Chicago Tribune Tower competition of 1922, but it turns out that his Doric column was just a modernist, flat-roofed, version of earlier ‘Sky-column’ proposals by a Texan born architect, James Riely Gordon. Gordon was a high profile, and very successful, American architect who built dozens of courthouses across the states and was for a number of years president of the New York Institute of Architects. These schemes, the first one for a New York office block, the second for the New York County Court House [with clever plan], were widely published at the time [1910].
Nearly a third strain of skyscraper , . . . . but never quite happened
I think the building was intact up to the early 80s, at which point the owners [wasn’t it the Coal Board or some such semi-state outfit?] hacked the rustication about to make a shopfront which only lasted a couple of years.
At that point, the premises [already with the bland flat stone re-facing] was sold to a guy who wanted to put in a restaurant and he engaged the slightly eccentric, but meticulous, architect Ross Cahill-O’Brien, who had just done the excellent Tosca Restaurant on Suffolk Street, to come and do his thing. The budget was tight and I don’t think the interior ever reached the standard of Tosca [also now altered and called something else], but the trademark curvy steel window that Ross put in is still there, although I think the entrance and ovbiously the signage has been altered again.
I remember having a discussion with Ross at the time on the subject of the butchered rusticated stonework and, if I recall, he said he had tried to talk the client into restoring it, but as far as the client was concerned, the damage had been done by the previous owner and was presumably sanctified by planning permission, and there was no way he could afford to sink half his budget into reversing it.
Having said that, even in it’s original condition it was never going to win any beauty contests.
Praxiteles,
You keep trying to educate me, Will you stop, I can’t absorb any more information.
I believe in simple things, like the more elaborate the theory, the more unlikely it is to be true.
All joking aside, that’s a smashing piece of theorizing [in contrast to some of the stuff you’ve posted]
This is a particularly interesting passage:
”For a Balthasarian Church to witness both to the distance between God and man, and accommodate the personal devotions of the participants, its guiding principle must be the silence and rest that are the beginning of prayer. A double danger exists here: first the architect might create a space that is silent, not with a living silence, but with the silence of the tomb where there is nothing to inspire awe, longing, or the understanding that the repose should lead to prayer. Secondly, the architect might create a loud architecture that wars with contemplation. The architect might create the necessary “spacing” between God and man through a wholly unique and even strange church without accompanying this distance with the necessary repose. This “spacing” without repose might, for example, occur in a poorly executed baroque church, a non-tectonic church, an anti-symmetrical church, or any sacred architecture that disregards the principles that allow the architecture to rest”.
I wonder however whether this kind of hybrid artistic/religious philosophy isn’t just a case of attempting to intellectualize an already desired position, which is not as valid as expounding a position from first principles.
The great cathedrals for example were the product of many hands over, in most cases, many centuries, the writer advocates principles for successful ‘sacred architecture’ that seem largely based on reverse-engineering the churches’ legacy of great buildings in a way that pre-supposes that everyone involved in these undertakings was on the same hymn sheet in the first place, when in fact it’s more likely that later ideas overlapped, and competed with, earlier ones and that, in many cases, the end product probably bore little relation to the original intention.
In the case of the great cathedrals, how many of the brash decorative schemes, over-eloborate rood screens and other embellishments that the writer now sees as intrinsic to the success of the ‘sacred architecture’, were in fact ill-considered accretions that the iconoclasts and the reformers may have been right to vent their fury on?
He makes a surprisingly clear and compelling case, I’ll give him that, but I still think there are a lot of holes in the theory and I still wouldn’t be sold on the notion that what we’re dealing with is ‘sacred architecture’ as opposed to the architecture of sacred buildings.
@Praxiteles wrote:
From the Journal of Sacred Architecture: Cardinal Rigali Speaks on Sacred Architecture
. . . . . The Holy Father explains that, “All the great works of art, cathedrals – the Gothic cathedrals and the splendid Baroque churches – they are all a luminous sign of God and therefore truly a manifestation, an epiphany of God.”
Again, that is a scandalously selective presentation of facts.
Consider the Residenz in Wurzburg:
a glimpse of the ‘Kaisersaal’ which is the centrepiece of the garden front and a sketch of one of the flanking wings.The Residenz is a vast, opulent, baroque palace built by the corpulent Schonborn brothers, sussessively Prince-Bishops of Wurzburg, between about 1720 and 1745.
The architect was the same Balthasar Neumann, who created the masterpieces of rococco church architecture at Vierzehnheiligen, Neresheim and elsewhere, and here he did . . . . much the same thing . . . . but this time the only religious connection is the titled position [and vast resources] of his patrons.
Unquestionably the Residenz is another ”great work of art”, but is it ”a luminous sign of God and therefore truly a manifestation, an epiphany of God” ?
I suspect that the rosy cheeks of the Schonborns would blush even brighter at that notion.
Probably a mis-spelling, there’s a Horeswood village in County Wexford very near Dunbrody Abbey, has a church, could be it
Apparently there’s new Dublin City Council signage going up around the city, just heard a planner [Mary Conway] on the radio. The signage is ”really well designed”, should be interesting.
The first one is up today on ”Bernardo Square”
Bernardo Square??
Bernardo O’Higgins? . . . the father of the Chillian fishing fleet . . . why weren’t we told about this?
Lets hope the second sign up tells us where Bernardo Square is :rolleyes:
@johnglas wrote:
onq: . . . . as for equating special clothes (vestments?) and ‘setting oneself apart’ (as one having a special function) with paganism, well that is pat on the head time.
Sorry johnglas, that was: Get your own case study . . . onq is my patient
On the Altar rail issue, I don’t think anyone can claim that altar rails actually created a barrier between the congregation and the celebrants as you’d sometimes get the impression from reading Vatican 2 discussions.
There was a period – before the Counter Reformation – when the congregation was litterally separated from the business end of the church by the device of the Rood Screen, but that was all done away with at the Council of Trent, as far as I know.
Praxiteles will be able to tell us not only the date of the critical council meeting, but also who voted for it . . . and post photographs of the building in which they met. 🙂
@pandaz7 wrote:
Gunter
I entirely agree with your view that a church should be a numinous place but your comments on OMQ’s views are harsh.
Are you mixing me up with johnglas?
. . . and about that:
Back off johnglas, . . . get your own case study
For better or worse, an organisation like the catholic church is always going to be bound inextricably to it’s traditions. A lot of people might feel that the church would do well to shed the accretions of centuries and return to the simplicity of it’s beginnings, without riches or trappings. For others it is the continuity with the past two thousand years of tradition that is the key and it is the habits and practices that have attached themselves to the church in that time that give the church it’s special value and meaning.
In that context attempted reforms like Vatican 2 are on a hiding to nothing, they’re seen as either too much, or not enough.
On architectural and heritage grounds alone, the reinstatement of original altar rails and other design features removed in the post Vatican 2 drive to modernize seems like a worthy exercise, with or without a reappraisal of the liturgical considerations.
Personally, I’d have a lot less time for the likes of that American architect/zealot Denis McNamara [link to recent lecture posted by Praxiteles above]
His theory of ‘sacred architecture’, which he seems to share with the equally solvent Duncan Stroik, had so many escape hatches in it that it would probably be impossible to ever nail him down conclusively, but you just know from the deliberate obscurity of language like ”anticipated eschatology” that you’re looking at a shaman in a suit.
@Praxiteles wrote:
The Rostrevor tentative was posted precisely to highlight and illustrate the other end of the spectrum that begins (or perhaps ends) with Wyoming.
Assuming that the collection of bungalows on the hill side is Rostrevor? then I do understand your point and yes apart from Ronchamp and Tourette, the architectural cupboard is a bit bare, if you exclude glimpses like Autostrada.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Concerning the Chiesa dell’autostrada . . . . from a theological and liturgical point of view the interior space is unfocused and confused. This is not the only example of such a disconnect between disciplines.
I won’t contest your expertise in that field, but I would suggest that it might perhaps be those particular qualities that give the interior it’s power to convey something bordering on spirituality, which I imagine was the intention along with the references to the raw [and dangerous] energy involved in the highway construction programme that the chapel commemorates.
That makes Autostrada a possible architectural direction to explore further, in my opinion.
On the other hand . . .
@Praxiteles wrote:
McCreary architects: http://www.mccreryarchitects.com/index.cfm/id/120/pid/0/page/philosophy
. . . we can all see through these guys like a plate glass window. That’s all I’m saying
@Praxiteles wrote:
The question here is whether or not an alternative, not in the modern idiom, is forthcoming. What would you suggest?
I respect your passion for this subject Praxiteles and I share your deep misgivings about what some practitioners in ‘the modern idiom’, as you put it, have succeeded in passing off as iconic architecture, but yes I am completely certain that there is another way, that’s why I would like you to be more understanding of the efforts made in examples like the ‘Church of the Autostrada’, [dispatched rather than discussed, above] . . . for example.
I accept that the overall package at ‘Autostrada’ is crude and artless, but to me there’s enough in that interior view to suggest that a new architecture of complexity and craft was within our reach if we hadn’t lost our nerve and yielded the field to the grain-silo merchants on the one hand and the proud-to-be-a-reproducin’ brigade on the other.
Maybe plonking a stage version of a medieval Burgundian monastry in the middle of Wyoming is not an absurd notion in the deeper recesses of the religious world – where perhaps the suspension of disbelieve is an entry requirement – but I’m going to be straight with you, . . . . it looks a small bit odd from here.
I can’t locate a link to that Frank McDonald architectural appraisal of the new Lansdowne Road stadium, but the gist of it is that the swooping down bit at the Havelock Square end is grand and apparently you can see through the plastic glazing to city beyond and how clever is that?
Frank’s position on this is that Lansdowne Road is a tight urban site and these are the conditions that generate unique design solutions like Aviva, or words to that effect.
Classically educated types will be reminded of Vespasian,
who in addition to being a decent Italian prop forward, faced similar difficulties when he was trying to get his 50,000 seater ‘Flavian Amphitheater’ [the Colosseum to you and me] off the ground.
Recent research has indicated that, far from being the eliptical perfection of model maker’s fancy – and dodgy gladiator movies -, the Colosseum was in fact stepped down at the northern end following planning objections from some resident plebeians in Via Gardinia O’Connellus and the south-eastern corner of Havelocus Quadratus
Ironically perhaps the dwellings marked with a red X in this aerial view and also seen in more detail in the original shadow analysis, were pulled down some years later and replaced by a Spar.
@publicrealm wrote:
. . . but it is fairly awesome.
‘fairly awesome’ 🙂 always open to a new concept, is that like being a bit dead?
Did ye see Frank was having a go at ‘hurlers on the ditch’ in the glossy supplement today?
@Praxiteles wrote:
Praxiteles does not share Appelles’ view on this one . . . . This may as well be the Sydney opera house.
A lot of people think that Meier should have stuck with rectangles.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Diachronicastically, my reading of Leon Battista Alberti, Sebastiano Serlio and Andrea Palladio is that all three understood what they were doing in terms of “reviving” the architecture of the ancients.
I think we have to be careful with the use of the term ‘reviving’.
Certainly, the drive to re-descover classicism defines the renaissance, but in terms of architecture, it was the rules of classicism that preoccupied these 16th century Italian architects and architectural theorists.
They were not trying to replicate individual classical buildings, they set out to learn, understand and propagate the rules and the language of classical architecture and with that knowledge under their belts, they moved on from ‘mannerism’ and ushered in the high renaissance. The next generation, people like Bernini and Longhena [as discussed above], took it to the next level with Baroque.
