• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Architectural AH

BClick said:
Would there be backlash if the Whigs rammed through a neoclassical Parliament? Would it be seen as looking too republican for British sensibilities?
Click to expand...
Whilst I don’t agree with everything Bernard Porter has to say in his book The Battle of the Styles, he does argue very convincingly that the Neoclassical tradition in Britain (and it was a tradition - argued by some to be as British as the Gothic style it contended with) was able to morph its public perception very well and become non-republican. Instead, it was viewed as an appropriately imperial style that captured Britain as more than a colloquial, national entity: it was, in the aesthetic language of Neoclassicism, a supremely international force that dominated across cultural and geographical boundaries.
 
Comisario said:
Whilst I don’t agree with everything Bernard Porter has to say in his book The Battle of the Styles, he does argue very convincingly that the Neoclassical tradition in Britain (and it was a tradition - argued by some to be as British as the Gothic style it contended with) was able to morph its public perception very well and become non-republican. Instead, it was viewed as an appropriately imperial style that captured Britain as more than a colloquial, national entity: it was, in the aesthetic language of Neoclassicism, a supremely international force that dominated across cultural and geographical boundaries.
Click to expand...
The thing with neoclassicism is that it is a very broad architectural language with lots of sub-genres that are classed as there own thing. So you would probably end up with something which is very clearly a derivative of palladism style which is very much an style of British origin.
 
Artaxerxes said:
Very believable April Fools article. It does cite Boris after all.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/secret-boris-bridge-plan-extend-1405286.amp
Click to expand...

Brilliant.

GuernseyDonkey said:
The thing with neoclassicism is that it is a very broad architectural language with lots of sub-genres that are classed as there own thing. So you would probably end up with something which is very clearly a derivative of palladism style which is very much an style of British origin.
Click to expand...

Austere 19th Century British Classicism is something that's really underdone IMO.
 
One thing I like, following from the idea from @Thande in LTTW, is a Westminster Fire equivalent event happening earlier, or in different circumstances, rather than later or not at all, leading to a new Palace built in an earlier style, perhaps before or otherwise without the earlier, pre-Revolutionary neoclassical style having become ‘tainted’ by republicanism. Then, from there, how that would affect later architecture around the world which was, in many cases - like Parliament Hill in Canada, for example - inspired directly by the modern Palace’s neogothic design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dom
Ciclavex said:
One thing I like, following from the idea from @Thande in LTTW, is a Westminster Fire equivalent event happening earlier, or in different circumstances, rather than later or not at all, leading to a new Palace built in an earlier style, perhaps before or otherwise without the earlier, pre-Revolutionary neoclassical style having become ‘tainted’ by republicanism. Then, from there, how that would affect later architecture around the world which was, in many cases - like Parliament Hill in Canada, for example - inspired directly by the modern Palace’s neogothic design.
Click to expand...
I feel the idea that Neo-Classical became republican, a bit false really. When you look at many of the civic buildings in the UK which were built later they where often a neo-classical design, possibly with a slight gothic flourish. Even Westminister was classical building. I think that it is more of a case that Westminister was actually built in a maybe 20-30 year time period where Gothic Revival was possible.
 
GuernseyDonkey said:
I feel the idea that Neo-Classical became republican, a bit false really. When you look at many of the civic buildings in the UK which were built later they where often a neo-classical design, possibly with a slight gothic flourish. Even Westminister was classical building. I think that it is more of a case that Westminister was actually built in a maybe 20-30 year time period where Gothic Revival was possible.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. I think that views of Neoclassicism as “republican” are informed by Gothic Revival partisans from the early- to mid-19th century, who did try and disparage the style in such ideological terms and did very well out of the brief window where Gothic civic architecture was in fashion.

Parliament is one good example of a piece of civic architecture that, whilst not perfectly Gothic (and certainly not as asymmetric as you might think, when you look at the drawings of the floorplan), does involve Pugin massively and does conform to a lot of Gothic aesthetics. As I recall from my architectural history module, no Neoclassical entries were allowed in the contest to design Parliament. This is often put down to the influence of the French Revolution. It has often been argued that the revolution had hardened opinion from the days of purely aesthetic rationales for choosing Gothic over Classical, with a consensus emerging in Britain after the end of the Napoleonic Wars (roughly) that Neoclassicism was fundamentally foreign and republican and radically liberal. But, I would argue, the main problem with Neoclassicism was that it was seen as old-fashioned in many quarters and that Gothic Revivalism was actually the progressive, forward-thinking (in production methods, if not aesthetics) architectural movement of Victorian Britain. That allowed it a brief hegemony before insurgent styles emerged in the second half of the 19th century and Neo-Gothic became viewed as outdated and outmoded.
 
Neo-classicism is very much the architecture of countries/organisations which are trying to gain legitimacy. Regardless of political ideology.
 
I wonder if you destablished brutalism from it’s landscaping elements and possibly being the in vogue style for housing estates. Brutalism would stay a lot more used to today, though you could say that there are still quite a few modern archtects which use a modified version. Eg Tadao Ando.
 
GuernseyDonkey said:
I wonder if you destablished brutalism from it’s landscaping elements and possibly being the in vogue style for housing estates. Brutalism would stay a lot more used to today, though you could say that there are still quite a few modern archtects which use a modified version. Eg Tadao Ando.
Click to expand...

You'd need better building quality to be more widespread methinks.
 
GuernseyDonkey said:
Hence the de-linking from the housing estates. Though if we are talking about design quality yeah, brutalism does require above average effort.
Click to expand...

I suppose the question is what takes it's place as the 'modern architecture of the future'. Perhaps Festival of Britain style?
 
BClick said:
Just off the top of my head - add bike lanes, maybe? (And ramps rather than stairs.) Cyclists will be happy not to share the road with cars and if the pedways become associated with biking it might give them more of a raison d’etre and a bit of hipster cachet.
Click to expand...
The point i was making is that really you have to make the pedestrian areas more of a destination. There is a bit of a chicken and egg situation, as if the place isnt used it becomes more likely to become unwelcoming.

So really you have to think of it as a pedestrian street rather than just a walkway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top