I was reading about a Yougov survey which found that three quarters of British people preferred classical architecture to modern designs in a picture comparison. Two points:1. I was disapointed but not surprised to see how the modern architectural community responded, calling the public "superficial" and "dumb" for their choices. (see link)
2. This got me thinking about the architecture in London and how it often blends modern and classical architecture quite nicely. As you see from the picture, you can have centuries old buildings right next to modernist masterpieces (pictured is the Swiss Re building, known as the "gherkin" because it's shaped like a pickle supposedly). This is indicative of the architecture across the city (particularly in the business district and other swanky spots).
I think what struck me as most surprising about the city really is how much modernist architecture is here. Not just stunning glass towers of the past decade or two but also hideous concrete office towers and housing estates (more on this later, I promise). There is very little of the old (much less the ancient) city left. You do occasionally see a church or a pub from 1400 but it's quite rare. Most burned or was razed in the name of "progress." I know that one of my friends in particular has an affinity for boxy glass structures and those in my inner circle should know I regard the World Bank HQ building in DC as a masterpiece but there is an aesthetic beauty to be found in classical form. The key is balancing beauty and function or else we get a nightmarish vision akin to Le Corbusier.
No comments:
Post a Comment