And the style that is picture at the top of the article is the Federal style in the US, but is a variant of Georgian, which is used—yes—in grand buildings like court houses, libraries, etc, but also for townhouses and row housing:
The article/architect mentions Kligerman and his creativity in blending traditional designs with the modern, and looking at his oeuvre it hardly looks "pax americana":
> I want people to go back to beautiful medieval village architecture. That is much more organic and unpretentious than the "classical" stuff they're trying to shill here.
The author is arguing to going back to what works instead of trying to be completely original all the time:
> Ignoring the past often means ignoring the good ideas of one’s immediate predecessors. In the past, copying masters was a valuable part of architectural design—Andrea Palladio copied Bramante, Inigo Jones copied Palladio, Christopher Wren copied Jones. Now copying is taboo. For example, the work of early Scandinavian modernists such as Sigurd Lewerentz and Alvar Aalto, who humanized their stripped-down modern designs with interesting handcrafted details, was ignored by later generations. Similarly, when Louis Kahn produced the sublime skylit vaults of the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, his ingenious solution was highly praised, but it was never repeated. As a result, instead of a considered evolution, modern architecture has been marked by a succession of fresh starts, some real and many false.
And more than that, it is to understand the why behind a building's design and construction and the underlying theory that was used, e.g., Golden ratio:
I understand that imperialist architecture has been co-opted throughout history to evoke a connection with Rome and project a legitimacy of power and order. Regardless of the origination of the architectural style and the author's nationality, it is choosing a specific "functional" architecture from a plethora of options because it projects a message which is strongly associated with the dominant imperial power. Maybe the author likes that style because it subconsciously makes them feel safe and protected by the power of the empire in an uncertain and rapidly changing world, that would track with conservative appeal for a lot of folks.
> Maybe the author likes that style because it subconsciously makes them feel safe and protected by the power of the empire in an uncertain and rapidly changing world, that would track with conservative appeal for a lot of folks.
You may wish to re-read the article. Perhaps disable the loading of images so you're not biased by the very first image.
Yes, the author mentions 'classical' styles, but is not about building things 'like they used to', but rather in taking evolutionary steps to past designs instead of wholesale tabula rasa thinking espoused by Le Corbusier et al. The author explicitly calls out the work of Kligerman as having both traditionalist and modern elements:
I find it hard to believe that, given the above reference, and the designs involved, the author is espousing "dominant imperial power". The author also writes:
> Similarly, when Louis Kahn produced the sublime skylit vaults of the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, his ingenious solution was highly praised, but it was never repeated. As a result, instead of a considered evolution, modern architecture has been marked by a succession of fresh starts, some real and many false.
I do not personally get the impression of "dominant imperial power" by the design of said museum:
It is very 'modernist' / brutalist in style, which the author is not against per se, but rather the author is against new-ness for new-ness's sake.
And as the author points out, there is no one "classic style" (dominant imperial or otherwise), with variations between ancient times and things that have been built even in the last two centuries:
> But as my friend the Greek architect Demetri Porphyrios pointed out years ago in an influential essay, “classicism is not a style.” The mannered classicism of Michelangelo was very different from the earlier classicism of Bramante or the later classicism of Gian Lorenzo Bernini. The Prussian classicism of Karl Friedrich Schinkel’s Altes Museum in Berlin (1830) was more different still, as was the stripped classicism of Paul Philippe Cret’s Federal Reserve Board Building (1937). A reason that classicism takes different guises, apart from the unstoppable imagination of architects, is that despite its ancient Greek and Roman roots, it inevitably reflects the taste of its own time. Schinkel was affected by his interest in Gothic buildings, just as Cret was influenced by the art deco movement, and even by the International Style. Could one imagine a 21st-century classicism that broadens its language to incorporate elements of the modernist past? That’s a tall order in our bifurcated time, when architectural correctness mandates that you belong to one camp or the other.
It's amusing you mention America given that the author comes from Canada (and was born in the UK):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Rybczynski
And the style that is picture at the top of the article is the Federal style in the US, but is a variant of Georgian, which is used—yes—in grand buildings like court houses, libraries, etc, but also for townhouses and row housing:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_architecture#Gallery
The article/architect mentions Kligerman and his creativity in blending traditional designs with the modern, and looking at his oeuvre it hardly looks "pax americana":
* https://kligermanad.com
> I want people to go back to beautiful medieval village architecture. That is much more organic and unpretentious than the "classical" stuff they're trying to shill here.
The author is arguing to going back to what works instead of trying to be completely original all the time:
> Ignoring the past often means ignoring the good ideas of one’s immediate predecessors. In the past, copying masters was a valuable part of architectural design—Andrea Palladio copied Bramante, Inigo Jones copied Palladio, Christopher Wren copied Jones. Now copying is taboo. For example, the work of early Scandinavian modernists such as Sigurd Lewerentz and Alvar Aalto, who humanized their stripped-down modern designs with interesting handcrafted details, was ignored by later generations. Similarly, when Louis Kahn produced the sublime skylit vaults of the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, his ingenious solution was highly praised, but it was never repeated. As a result, instead of a considered evolution, modern architecture has been marked by a succession of fresh starts, some real and many false.
And more than that, it is to understand the why behind a building's design and construction and the underlying theory that was used, e.g., Golden ratio:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-0XJpPnlrA&t=3m13s
Even people who try build in a certain style mess things up because they don't understand the details that are necessary for things to work properly:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUUpj2Du8wY