Talk:New Classical architecture

Traditional construction materials

What do you think, could we also include companies that provide traditional construction materials in magnitudes?

I'm thinking about some categories.

Reed

• CVM GmbH, Germany
• Hiss Reet, Germany

Tiles

Limestone

General crafts

• CraftRevival, South Asia - a compendium for artisans. From architects to metal smiths to stone masons.

etc. Or should that go into another article, Vernacular architecture perhaps? -- Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Architects List

I extended the architects list substantially. More can be found here for instance. Feel free to add! :) -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This gargantuan list of external links would be better split off into it's own article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a move that is considered already, don't you worry. We're preparing a table format already. :) Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to help to expand the architects' list, go here: List of New Classical architects. Thanks and cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis?

These seems to be a large amount of synthesis going on in this article. I intend to look into the subject, but what seems striking in the article are its very expansionist claims - seeking to lay an unequivocal claim to buildings erected long before the term was coined (such as Böttcherstraße), and to buildings erected in all parts of the world, and without sources cited to back up these claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well said. I have been working on associated stuff for a while but haven't really cracked the sorry state this article is in. I'm working on some stuff right now to reduce it. --Dagko (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I have finished the reduction. There are still 33 citations, as there were before, but most of the empty-calorie uncited statements have been removed. And the quality of many of those 33 citations seem poor, but I didn't touch them. --Dagko (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Böttcherstraße is not "New Classical Architecture" under anyone's definition. Jonathan Meades describes it as "expressionism" and "a revisitation, not reproduction" of the tradition of brickwork buildings of the Hanseatic style. "New Classical Architecture" seems to be a label that some have given to particular buildings, buildings that other sources will often have defined under other categories. So in most cases I think that it cannot be said unequivocally that "such and such is an example of it", all that can be said is that "so and so says that such and such is an example of it" (I hope you get what I mean!). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

From what I see, this "New Classical architecture" is a definition covering new-build structures intentionally designed to either closely or superficially (or somewhere between those two extremes depending on the desires of the client, skill of the architect, and perceptions within the local society) resemble past structures from the immediate geographical or cultural region in which that new structure is located, but constructed using modern materials and using modern building and design methods. I suspect almost all such structures will have alternative definitions to describe them, and not always flattering ones (poor copy, fake, forgery, kitsch, pastiche, authoritarian, etc). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If I am right in the above then New Classical architecture is not Neoclassical architecture, but some Neoclassical architecture could be defined as New Classical architecture, so the current lead is not correct. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

In the "Development" section the text Krier's work and that of others was introduced to America through Andreas Papadakis' editorship of London-based "Architectural Design" and "Academy Editions". has a "source" that is not a source at all but an OR claim plus the title of the Papadakis book. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that false citation is also gone. --Dagko (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Classical architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130329102201/http://architecture.nd.edu/about/driehaus-prize/nomination-process/ to http://architecture.nd.edu/about/driehaus-prize/nomination-process/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.andrews.edu/saad/architecture/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• VHAM6504.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

What makes New Classical Architecture different from Neo-classical?

Is there any difference, if there isn't shouldn't the page be moved? YuriGagrin12 (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

New classical architecture is modern classicism. Neoclassical architecture refers to the neoclassical movement of the 19th and 20th centuries. --Michail (blah) 23:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sarah fides: The lead currently says that "contemporary classical buildings might be also, although not correctly, be described with the terms Traditionalism, Neo-Historism (or Historicism/Revivalism), or simply Neoclassical Architecture, implying the continuation of a specific historical style." I suggest that "although not correctly" should be removed as all the isms listed could overlap with New Classical Architecture. I have checked the reference, which does not support the current text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSventon (talk • contribs) 14:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Herrikez (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC) From the Driehaus Prize guidelines and previous awardees, (https://architecture.nd.edu/news-events/events/driehaus-prize/nomination-process/), I would say that "New Classical Arquitecture" is more like an umbrella term that includes both Contemporary Traditional Architecture and Contemporary Revivalism/Historicism. I consider Neoclassical architecture a completely separate historical style, based on Roman and Greek ideas, that can maybe be included if it is contemporary. The definition needs some work, I admit, but I am new to the block and still not confident enough to do it myself. Edit: You are correct, I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herrikez (talk • contribs) 16:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Herrikez: Thanks for making the change which I suggested (and I now realise was previously suggested in the "Synthesis?" discussion). Having done an internet search for "New Classical Architecture" I am unsure whether it is a widely used term as used in the article, rather than new architecture which is classical (i.e. derived from Greek or Roman architecture). For example, the Driehaus prize web page refers to "traditional and classical architecture" rather than "New Classical Architecture". TSventon (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Herrikez (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC):@TSventon: It is definitely not the same thing as new architecture which happens to be classical style, that I can assure you, because some of the Driehaus Laurates are not classical or neoclassical architects (i.e. Ong-ard Satrabhandhu and Abdel-Wahed El-Wakil), it seems to me that the "new classical movement" is more like an umbrella term that includes almost everything that is in opposition to modern and post-modern styles. Just give me some time to do the due diligence to find the right sources, I am just building on the work of others for now. Cheers. Edit: the term is common in the literature: (https://www.google.it/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22new+urbanism%22+%22new+classical%22), usually related to New Urbanism, Sustainability and Traditional styles.

@Herrikez: I will be interested to see what you find. It seems "new urbanism" plus "new classical" is a good combination. What I meant was that "new classical architecture" can refer to architecture which is new and classical, but not necessarily part of a particular movement. The Driehaus pages for Satrabhandhu and El-Wakil mention use the words classical or classicism, possibly in the sense that "A classic is an outstanding example of a particular style". TSventon (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Herrikez (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)TSventonYes, the "classical" of the Drieahus is for sure "a classic is an outstanding example of a particular style". The "traditional" is supposed to be a more informed form of vernacular. But yes, it is an interesting question, can we consider everything that is contemporary and traditional/revivalist/classical as "New Classical", or we should limit the association to Driehaus Laurates, INTBAU associates and connected organizations? I will think about it... and maybe remove some works from the "New Classical" category, although a lot of them fit the spirit of the movement. EDIT: I think I got your point, you are concerned that the term "New Classical architecture" can easily be confused with new architecture that is classical. Well, it is true, the name of this movement can be quite confusing, maybe New Classical movement would be a better title? I dunno

Original Research?

@Herrikez: I have been looking for a while and can't find a reliable source for the definition "The New Classical movement, or New Classical architecture, is a contemporaneous movement in architecture that continues the practice of classical and traditional architecture". Have you seen anything specific in a reliable source to support the definition? When no definition is given, I think "New Classical architecture" refers to architecture which is new and (Greek/Roman) classical.

• https://www.classicaladdiction.com/2017/01/new-classical-architecture-trend-alert/ has a similar definition, but it is a blog post and is dated 2017, so it could have been based on the wikipedia article.

Similarly, do you have a reliable source which says that Abdel-Wahed El-Wakil is "a representative of New Classical Architecture"?

• https://www.archdaily.com/621256/6-classical-buildings-that-are-younger-than-you-think (2015) gives the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies as an example of New Classicism, but wikipedia describes ArchDaily as a weblog. Again it was written after the first version of the wikipedia article. TSventon (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Herrikez (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Ciao TSventon, thanks for your feedback, but it wasn't me that created this article, it has been here for ages I have not altered it much besides putting some pages in the category list of New Classical architecture following the description of the page. There are some references in the bibliography for sure see: "Thomas Kinkade : the artist in the mall", where he speaks critically of "New Classical"(and he mentions them exactly by that term) architects like Leon Krier (Poundbury is not neoclassical for sure). I cannot make an academic review because I do not have access to the literature, so I am just expanding on the information provided by the people that came before me. There is also common mention in the media about the new classical movement: https://news.coinupdate.com/united-kingdom-new-crown-coin-celebrates-the-70th-birthday-of-hrh-charles-prince-of-wales/. Abdel-Wahed El-Wakil is a Driehaus Prize winner, which for me seems to be pretty much the epitome of this movement. Look, if I could get access to something like "New Classicism: The Rebirth of Traditional Architecture" by Elizabeth Meredith Dowling, maybe I could do a better review, but it is that is out of my ability.

@Herrikez: Thanks for helping me bounce around ideas for the article, even if you don't have access to a comprehensive architectural library (sadly, I don't either). Based on both of our research, I think the definition currently fails the Wikipedia:verifiability test, which means "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". I will try to find a replacement but it may take some time. The Thomas Kinkade book and coinupdate.com mention "New Classical" architects and architecture but don't define the term. I understand a classical architect as an architect who produces some classical work, which I think would include Leon Krier. I don't have Dowling's book, but the description and reviews on Amazon.com suggest that it is about Greek/Roman inspired classical architecture. The Driehaus Prize website mentions the "ideals of traditional and classical architecture" rather than using "New Classical" as an umbrella term for the work of prize recipients. TSventon (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Herrikez (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)TSventon Is this enough to convince you that "New Classical" architecture is not a particular architectonic style, much less neoclassical, or do we need a more academic source?

"The issue, new classicists say, is not merely how new buildings will look. Designers put off by the angular abstraction of modernism tend to speak of their work in spiritual terms. Theirs is an architecture of the heart that celebrates wholeness, they say. Their work nourishes the spirit.

A century ago, early modernists saw themselves as revolutionaries rejecting outdated ideas of the way buildings ought to look and function. The first unadorned modern skyscraper appeared in Chicago in the 1890s. By the 1920s, a formalized idiom was emerging characterized by the functional, spare designs of Walter Gropius and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. It was christened the International Style in 1932 by the Museum of Modern Art.

But new revolutionaries such as Thomas Gordon Smith, architecture dean at the University of Notre Dame, say modernism is exhausted and old-fashioned. Its practitioners have created new rules that are every bit as oppressive as the orthodoxy they once overthrew.

“This is a counterculture movement at this point,” Smith says.

If so, it is a counterculture with an establishmentarian face. Prince Charles, one of the movement’s most ardent champions, has founded a school in London dedicated to traditional architecture, including Islamic styles."

Source https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-29-ls-7357-story.html (It doesn't work on Mozilla browser)

@Herrikez: I think it would be helpful to post a question on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Architecture. They seem to be happy to discuss issues such as Queen Anne style architecture in the United States, so hopefully someone would know about New Classical Architecture too. Wikipedia articles need reliable sources as explained in WP:RS, so the LA Times should be fine.

The LA Times link is interesting. The article seems to be about "emerging designers and architects who are sparking a revival of classical styles" (fourth paragraph) and classical styles seems to mean Greek and Roman (examples are Greek-revival, Renaissance-inspired, Doric porticoes and Palladian windows). So I think the article does link the new classicism movement firstly to Greek and Roman styles and only secondly to "speak[ing] of their work in spiritual terms".

I don't think the reference to WorldCat is a reliable source (quote: "new classicism, a contemporary architecture movement that continues the practice of classical and traditional architecture"). Firstly it is a blurb (promotional piece) for "The architecture of John Simpson" not the book itself, so it may have been written by a publicist. Secondly the blurb could have used Wikipedia as the book was published in 2016 and the 11 January 2014 version of this article began "New Classical Architecture is a contemporary movement in architecture that continues the practice of classical and traditional architecture". TSventon (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Architecture#New_Classical_architecture. TSventon (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

New Classical architecture 2

Moved from talk:WikiProject Architecture

 – This returns the discussion to the New Classical architecture page. TSventon (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Masonssi, Coldcreation, I have been discussing the New Classical architecture article (mostly) with Herrikez on the article talk page, here and on Herrikez's talk page. I believed that "New Classical architecture" commonly means new architecture in the Greek/Roman classical style rather than new architecture in classical or other traditional styles as described in this article. Herrikez eventually found a Google books link to The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture where pages 520 to 522 cover "New Classicism" and link it to Classical architecture rather than a range of traditional styles.

I would support removing the content on other traditional styles from the article, as Herrikez and Masonssi were doing. Masonssi and Coldcreation, what would you prefer and why? TSventon (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

We should remove it like Herrikez and I are doing. Why did Coldcreation revert my edits I have no idea. Probably didn't read this disscusion or source that is alredy in article and which I pointed out. Masonssi (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Masonssi, Coldcreation was concerned about the removal of (what appeared to be) reliably sourced texts. It is likely that they had not read all of the preceding discussion, which was spread over three talk pages. The reversion was in line with the Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, which means that when an edit has been reverted by another editor, the two editors should discuss the issue on a talk page rather than edit warring. Hopefully Coldcreation will explain their reasons shortly. TSventon (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The reversion was of an edit by Masonssi. There was no discussion at Talk:New Classical architecture (where this discussion should have taken place) by that user. Sourced material was removed. That was the motive of the revert. I see the problem has been remedied. Coldcreation (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Coldcreation (and Herrikez for information), Masonssi has now been blocked as a sockpuppet so you were right to be suspicious, however I think their edits were in line with the discussion here. I would also remove:

• the first paragraph of the Development section, which focuses on traditionalist architecture in Germany, while the rest of the article focuses on classical architecture in the UK and US
• the third paragraph of Development, about history of architecture at universities, which also seems to be of limited relevance to the the remainder of the article. Most professors named don't have their own articles and I don't think the few that do are relevant to the emergence of new classical architecture.
• the Philosophy section: the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture article confirms that different new classical architects have different ideas, whereas the ideas in the philosophy section are not attributed to individuals. Some of the ideas probably come from Demetri Porphyrios' "Classicism is not a style" (reference now removed), which I don't have access to and is controversial. The current reference, a Youtube video, is a poor source as it does not support the whole section and and it was made to promotes the Driehaus award rather than to give a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Youtube is listed as Generally unreliable in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. TSventon (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Herrikez, can you look for better references for the new Philosophy section? e.g if you are using books as a reference, can you specify the page number(s)? TSventon (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I am not sure how to do that, I tried regenerating the reference from the URL of the respective section, the in page question is page 165 of "Sustainability: Fundamentals and Applications" Herrikez (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)