it has always followed "arch. fashion" look at all that is published...SAME. "big" names...shitty buildings. i believe that we are in a slump...have been for some time now. what is timeless. design is a way of revealing and reassembling our reality, thus using the elements of daily life to reflect on and criticize the structures controlling that inhabited landscape. it is a way of exposing hidden structures in the blandness of what is all around us through irony, rhetoric, misuse and deformation. yet is architecture also a phenomenon that is rooted in place and time? yes and no? are architects [objects] that one can spot almost anywhere in the world, just as one can a morman, a punk, or a prada junkie?
 

I think that you are correct in the fact that in recent years, as more and more publications have become available, trends have become more and more fashionable. I believe that architecture will imitate what is going on in society, so a period of decadence in society will be mirrored with period of decadence in architecture, sometimes mimicked, sometimes just copied.

However, truely innovative architecture will buck the trends of the day and will create a place that truely speaks to its moment in space and time, and this is what timeless architecture is; not necessarily architecture that will always be fashionable, but architecture that will always be true to itself.

If an one is a masterful archtitect, I think that they will, more or less, design everything around them. Therefore, the appearance of an architect will be in line with that of his architecture. A good designer is a good designer, regardless of what he is designing. How one views the world is commonly seen through how one dresses; therefore a mormon will most likely dress conservatively, a punk will dress to defy authority, a prada junkie (not sure what kind of views they have, but oh well) will obviously dress in Prada, and an architect will design his appearance similarly to how he designs his buildings. The problem with observation is that if one dresses to 'express themselves' one must make sure that who they really are is what they are expressing, and now who they would like to be.
 

architecture is an art, just like music. therefore you will have "pop" architecture, and "timeless" architecture. Neither one is bad. "pop" makes a quick statement and we enjoy it for a while, but then it becomes very dated. timeless isn't always enjoyed at first, but over time we come to enjoy and repect it. both say something about the time they were built.
 

i still state that there is no "timeless" architecture. redefine "timeless" and maybe i'll comment. ha!
 

as far as personal fashion goes, sloring, you couldn't be farther from the truth. as arch. students we need to look at every aspect of buildings, not just the facade. we need to do that with people too. just because someone has green and purple hair i will not asume they are against authority, as someone dressed in all black i will not asume is an amazing architect. we should look at buildings and people as a whole. i know that you've been in building where the outside was un-moving, but the space and feeling on the inside was sur-real. people are no different.
 

syndicate,

timeless = not restricted to a particular time or date. I take that to mean this. the feeling in your gut that you get when walking into a great space is not restricted to a particulat time or date. no one will be moved walking through the space of the IIT student activities center in chicago in 300 years, however you can't deny the feeling you have walking through the Pantheon. The style may get dated, the architeture dosen't.
 

not timeless. re-define. to each soul...experience is diffrent. you can't tell me that i'll have the same "genuis loci" as you in that space. please re-define.
 

syndicate,

you're right! we will not have the same expierence in a "space". and as you know, because you're sorta smart, how one expierences space, can be very diffulcult to write about. There are many different veiws and perspective's you can take. However there are "spaces" in this world that through-out time have continued to move people, regaurdless of style, then there are "spaces" within modern architectural wonders that lose your interest within an hour. everything used to make a building such as materials and style will always become dated, however i believe that as architects we create space, and that is what can tresend time.
 

[insert your name]
someone has been watching a little too much i heart hucakbees. mark your statements. you make me laugh..i like you. i am "sorta smart". thank you. a space may be able to survive time...but it can not "transend". rotterdam city center: can not transend...bombed out during wwII. you mean to tell me that age crates timeless? origin creates timeless? form creates timeless? re-define.
 

syndicate

first of all, nothing i say is meant as a personal attack..... i love the chance to discuss architecture on an open forum like this. i think it's healthy and something everyone should do. also props for getting this started, i've enjoyed it thus far. secondly i havn't seen "i heart huckabee's" so you can sleep tight tonight knowing that it was from the [heart].

now what i want to know is do you really, honestly feel that there is no such thing as timeless space? let me know.

i don't feel that age creates timelessness. timless works of art are timeless from the begining, we just don't know it. as much as i hate to admit it, i beleive that public opinion creates timelessness, and i'll give you that public opinion is often wrong. time however gives humans a chance to understand opionins. much like the earth being flat. thanks to time we realized that that opinion was wrong and have now corrected ourselves. i feel architecture is similiar. Spaces are timeless from when they are created, all we need is a little time, to understand it. please let me know your opinions, and not just ask me to re-define.
 

[you didn't insert your name]
i love this chance to re-define what we think. no i don't believe in "timeless". i do believe in experience, place and space. i do belive that as architects we are able to create...not control feeling. perhaps you can convince me of giving notions as to what i as [architect] am hoping you will feel. key word...notions. then the argument comes up...what is a place and what is a space. define yourself: i love knowing who i'm talking to.
huckabees is a great flick...do see if you get a chance. talks about transending time and space. :)
 

syndicate,

- i'll check out the movie, if it's about trensending time and space, sounds like i should watch it.

-now when you say you don't beleive in "timelessness" is that in architecture, design, or everything? Let me know.

-i guess i beleive in timelessness because it's that far off, distant goal to aim for in my own work. it may not ever be reached but aiming that way can't hurt

- as far as the difference between, space and place, the best place to look is edward relph. i'm sure you've heard of him but you may not have read his book, "place and placelessness" it's a hard read, and it takes time to understand it, but it's a great way to start to understand the difference between space, and place. but that alone is a whole other discussion.

-my name is peter francon and i'm a student.

-what's your name, there seem to be comments from the same people everytime? does everyone know everyone else?
 

yes...well good i'm glad to know your views...and i'm glad we have goals. i guess what i'm trying to get across here is...we are all students...and we are constantly gaining our architectural knowledge. why should we be allowed to have such strict views? i'm more in the relm of questioning and making my own assumptions. that is why i was so brash to discount "timeless". i don't think it matters what either one of us thinks...just so that we do think and not both spout theory that we haven't even thought of for ourselves...or even experienced for that matter.
 

as for this "forum":
we are a collective student body...very concerned w/ our education as it closes. even our whole state of student'ness...we don't believe that we have a voice...and we are gaining thoughts and strength to development a movement next fall. that is why this area of thought is so vital...it connects us.i'm starting a new thread for you...what are issues in your education that trouble you. maybe we have some of the same.
 

Sorry Tommy, but I've gotta go w/anon on this one, I think that architecture, as well as art, can be timeless. He has stated most of what I feel already, so I won't rehash anything, but if you experience buildings such as the Parthenon, the Campidoligo, Ronchamp, etc, you will gather an understanding of a place and time that you have never been before, yet feel that you know solely through this building. And to me, this is what timeless is, something that will allow you an understanding of the time in which it was created, to feel what people felt the day that it was first opened, and to be experienced by everyone, throughout eternity.
 

fantastic sammy. i now know 2 people who believe in "timeless" architecture. i do not. uses change in buildings. structures change in buildings. a building that opened as a church is converted to a coffee shop/night club. i don't believe you are able to feel what the first parish felt to what the 20somthings feel rocking their hipness. i really feel like this is pathetic to debate our own ideals [on] each other. it's nice to have them...but not to act like the church. b/c your not going to change my mind. no matter how corrupt your tactics.
 

i love corrupt tactics. NOW...back to topic. if we are to create a "timeless" architecture. livng, breathing, and reproducing in our time...do you believe that there are such creations being produced today? w/ todays tech....with todays staleness of expression? if so which...if not why? and why are @ this point? can we direct a reason for this? is it our stale education? is it our stale firms? is it our stale clients?

we're getting hot right now...keep up the debates.
 

Wouldn't the act that function can be adapted to fit the time be an example of timeless architecture.
 

isn't "timeless" flexable usage? multi dynamic?
 

I agree with a non y mo us,


-i think the example you gave, syndicate, was a perfect example of how architecture might achieve timelessness.

-as far as stale-ness goes. look at the way everythning is produced now-a-days. nothing is built to last. cars, computers, camera's, cell phones, etc....... we are living in a time where you only need something to get you by untill the next "big thing" comes out. the quality in all these devices gaurantees that you'll be back to by someting new in a few years. as little ago as the fifites and sixties products where built to last. what has happend with the way we produce products? and what ever it is, i beleive that it's effecting the way we build/design.
 

we have no more craft. it's sad.
 

everything now is built to be disposable so that the businessman will have something else to sell to make more money. What they negelect to take into account (or just don't care about) is all of the shit that is going into landfills and is destroying our environment. In England, 2 million fridges and 1.5 million TVs are thrown into landfills every year; I can't even imagine how many are thrown away in the US.

And this is also seen in the building industry as well. I have been on brand new roofs, without shingles on them yet, that have felt so wobbly that I thought I was going to fall through them. It is all about maximizing profit and minimizing costs, which allows many corners to be cut. Unfortunately, if you want quality these days, you're going to have to pay for it
 

yea...tv's are impossible to dispose of. and the US loves those tubes. suck. its a total buzz-kill w/ our media running the show. attribute the culture and knowledge of design and craft in DK b/c while back there was only one channel [public run!!]...and their man focus was on art, poetry, theatre, design, and get this architecture. they used to have televised broadcasts of architectural debates about public housing and co-housing. fantastic!! i get stoped all the time when i'm sketching or photographing by danes or swedes and we begin a dialogue about architecture. it's amazing.
 

That's great that you can have that sort of dialogue with the layman; it's not really like that here in the LDN. Most people here like their quaint, ugly, brick semi-detached house and are afraid of modern design. 'Oh, for a life in the cottage,' thinks they. I feel that it is roughly the same in the US as well, unfortunately.

Tom, do you remember in Sachs theory class talking about how respected architects are in Finland? You guys up north have it good.
 

the contemporary ethical, environmental, and social situation demands a new idea about both the quality and mix of housing. the [single-family] home, in particular, need to be rigorously reexamined both to satisfy the needs of its dwellers and to be integrated into a more sustainable system of settlement. and yes...the north is a bit more cultured in that respect. i think the reason for that is that they are still small and isolated from major trends...yet they still are able to unite and experiment in diffrent modes of thinking...the US has a long way to go...it's just to frickin big.