architecture old or new

[izzieamy]

why are older architectual buildings nicer then newer building structures ?

[Ethel]

Are they? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and many people find modern structures such as the Selfridge building in Birmingham to be far more attractive than a Victorian building, for example.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http: //www.contemporist.com/photos/selfridges_birmi ngham_01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.contemporist .com/2007/11/24/the-selfridges-building-in-bir mingham/&h=315&w=500&sz=60&hl=en&start=1&um=1& usg=__xRDxQrbcPtSPoeLl2ctYn9qYYk0=&tbnid=6pqdJ FSvgYajlM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3 Dselfridge%2Bbirmingham%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26s afe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.moz illa:en-GB:official%26sa%3DN

[juliacornwal]

Oh no, sorry, that looks like something from cbeebies! That hoover thing from Tellytubbies that goes around hoovering up burnt toast! No if that's a prime example of modern architecture then give me Victorian or Georgian any day!

[Lil O'lady]

The older buildings that survive tend to do so because they are well built - they have continued to be used because their design is fit for original purpose, or facitltates flexible re-use. The buildings that we cannot adapt to new purposes successfully or are less than well built don't survive, so a kind of natural selection means that the old buildings that still stand are the good 'uns.
This pattern is skewed eg by government intervention, typically in Britain where a vociferous interest group lobbies for the preservation of a structure. Even in these cases, time and escalating costs will mean that certain preserved buildings have to go.
The Catholic Church and the Methodist / United reformed church in England are interesting players in the field of architectural preservation, in that both are ruthlesslessly practical and allow no sentimentality to sway their judgement. The Catholic dioceses will rapidly tear down any unprofitable building, and the UR have no interest in the structure other than its ability to serve the living local community. Both have seen to the destruction of some fine architecture in recent years.

[terambulan]

Because they are more established

http://www.mylearning.org/image-zoom.asp?picid =1&jpageid=378

[vehelpfulguy]

Well firstly, I live in Birmingham and I think the Selfridges building is AWFUL. It will age very quickly and in 10 years time will look so out of date.

But there are some fine modern buildings in Birmingham, like this one, 3 Brindley Place

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ 0/05/ThreeBrindleyplaceBirmingham_CopyrightKai hsuTai.JPG

[vehelpfulguy]

But to answer your question, I think it is mainly about the time people used to take to BUILD a building.

Modern buildings tend to have to be built in a year or two, yet some older buildings could take 10 or 20 years or more to build.

For example the current Houses of Parliament was built after a fire on the site in 1834. Some of the old building survived, like Westminster hall, but much of it was built from scratch.

It took 30 YEARS to build and was not finsished till 1870.

Can you imagine anyone being given anywhere near that long to build a building today.

[vehelpfulguy]

Being a fan of buildings I would like to add another comment.

Firstly, some older buildings were built to be functional, like a tudor house, or a castle, but today we see them as beautiful, maybe because of their age, but at the time were not built to be beautiful.

During the Victorian period many fine buildings were built, but this was mainly because many British towns were competing with each other to have the best town hall or other civic buiding.

Labour was cheap, and many of these towns were rich, so they could spend a lot of money, and employ a lot of staff, to build a fine town hall, like at say Manchester

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/ic3/33.j pg

After the second world war (50s 60s 70s) there was a rush to rebuild our bombed out cities so many buildings were put up quickly, often built with pre built concrete slabs which weathered badly and now look awful.

Many of these awful buildings still stand in some city centres, and they just make the nice buidlings nearby look even better.

Recently there has been an attempt to make some building look "different" (often for the sake of it) and of course anything "new" will have its fans as well as its critics.

Of course, with anything new, some work and some dont. I happen to hate the Selfidges building, others love it.

And finally, note that when the Eiffel Tower was first built in Paris many of the locals hated it and could not wait for it to be pulled down.

I bet if they tried to pull it down now there would be a worldwide outcry.

So people's attitudes to buildings can change over time.