M/M Radical Classicism

Image of the State Rooms, 10 Downing Street, London Erith & Terry Architects courtesy of Quinlan & Francis Terry.

Architecture is about environment, and today our entire environment has become a key issue globally. The built environment affects the quality of our personal and professional lives. HRH Prince Charles has expressed similar sentiments for decades now. He hasn’t been wrong.

What we do, and the quality level to which we achieve is in direct correlation to a certain degree to our environment both physical and its psychological surroundings. I will paint this picture for you, as an example of environment and community, and why I am so wrapped up in Classicism. My family has always held architecture in importance, with a great sense of traditional Classicism. I too, of course, nonetheless have always felt the media pressure of what “they” claim is current or modern, against what we know is great and sustaining. There is a huge difference.

In my case, I find it most satisfying to be in a humanistic beautiful environment, one that embraces the timeless traditions of the past while moving into the future. Therefore, in my position, am I a Young Fogey? I would say hardly yet in some circles that may be spot on, as I understand it.

Whatever the Architectural Establishment is of a given moment does not interest me. My outlook is because Classicism has sustained itself, and is coming into its own for those with fresh eyes. It is proving once again to be the style of choice for both public and private buildings. What is ironic though is that those of us today, young and old, who are focused passionately on Classicism, are the same ones the media are now claiming to be positively avant-garde.

The human aspects and impacts of Classicism are enormous, especially when compared to the alternatives. Look, there is a certain degree of elegance in simplicity, but I speak of elegance in a mathematical sense. There is no elegance, nor human aspects, in Deconstruction and no amount of conceptual talk, media hype, or worse pseudo-intellectual posturing they often resort to can make it otherwise. The reason far too many fell for it is that most designers today come out of cult-like programs that push Decon with no real skills or historical reference.

They just make it up as they go along. Students aren't exposed to the sad reality that what they have paid for all too often is simply nothing more than a good talk up, often by failed professors who themselves are victims of the system they are now a part of promoting. They graduate lacking the proper level of mathematical skills and constructional understanding, let alone historical reference, to honestly appreciate and recognize architectural flaws (just scan the media for lawsuits against Decon buildings by well-known figures to prove it.) This is not sustainable.

The media, and the masses, in design have such an insecure desire to be constantly new that they resort to all sorts of trickery to advance their position. We can advance our Classical position as eco-friendly and sustainable with science and mathematical truths. Whereas they do not understand the language, they use it nonetheless to bastardize their anti-architecture, especially the term "fractal" which they use often out of context, without a shred of intellectual understanding of its definition. They can lie to themselves, and each other, until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, it is worthless.

That is not the case with traditional Classical design. It is proven, and honest. It is inherently eco-friendly, and sustainable. It is humanistic. If one designs and builds in the Classical tradition, then one builds solidly to last with local, quality natural materials. It is a skilled sustainable form of design, and a style that is conducive to humanity - and this is what green is all about today. So if we speak of sustainability? Classicism once again has proven itself.

The most talented and fearless architect I know is Quinlan Terry. He is an elegant friend, and a great supporter of our Classicist position. Mr. Terry is also a true gentleman architect. One who has stood his ground for traditional sustainability and quality for decades. He is the author of what I consider a significant paper outlining the importance and eco-friendly aspects (and sustainable nature) of traditional building Designing A Sustainable Future. Mr. Terry's career has produced structures that in 100 years are not only going to be still standing, but are still going to be stunningly beautiful.

This has made me consider what particular book on architecture I would consider my favorite. One, say set of books, on architecture? I would have to say it would be "The Four Books on Architecture," by Andrea Palladio, brilliant then, brilliant now. But then one may ask, what specific elements of Classicism compel me to favor this form architecture. It is just like a perfect square. I can sum that up in four words: Order, Sustainability, Beauty, Longevity.

Why is it important that a traditional approach to structural design be sustained and what impacts do I believe this will have on modern living? It is a matter of continuity. It is a matter of quality. It is a matter of having a human connection. When I started to study architecture in the academic settings (post-high school) Modernist academia tried to disconnect me from all I knew. However, they did not succeed in any form of disconnect, if anything they brought me closer to Classicism. The more I experienced firsthand the pathetic nature of the people behind Modernism and Deconstruction, as well as the type of people drawn to it? Lord, it made me run like a bat out of hell.

Modern living should be simply quality living, with life and light. As an abstract analogy to make my point, it is not living as a frozen fool in an empty room, who cannot leave his glass cube for sake of leaving a footprint that may be criticized as a stain. That is not human, that is simply an insecure unrealistic hell.

If we speak of modern living, as in being "of today" that does not mean Modernism. A designer must realize that true contentment is timeless, and does not reside outside, in hype or trends; contentment comes from within, when one comes to terms with what truly makes man feel human, honest and alive. In addition, when one understands the core principles of sustainability and longevity that come from seeking light and truth in one's environment, they may be utterly surprised where they find themselves, both physically and mentally, and what they are then able may accomplish.

I was asked not too long ago, “As far as the future is concerned in relevance to community, what are your thoughts on the importance of architecture and its development?” Architecture must develop with quality, timelessness, and beauty. Consider the fact that that structures of 500 years, or more, ago may have taken 100 years or more to build, are still standing and beautiful. The built environment of the past 100 years, (yes, sorry to say that Modernism is both technically and historically antique already,) which has been allowed to sink has fallen into a pit of darkness. Poor design through the use of unproven technologies, concepts, scales, materials and methods of construction have all failed. This has allowed developers irresponsible ways to build cheaply, and I can tell you, cheap is not always cheap, yet it is always unsustainable (not to mention just plain ugly.) There is no brand meaning, value, or ROI to such structures.

My position holds that Classicism, done properly, is timeless and sustainable. No, it is not cheap, yet it is an expense that in the end is not expensive. I am also trained in environmental science. Yes, I believe in science and technology, but a science and technology that is not abused, or bastardized. It is from the abuse of design, technology, and plain greed, which results in architectural development being ultimately expensive and destructive to the environment.

So one may also ask what my thoughts are that these facts I outline will be called Fogeydom. It may well be a valid reference to my position that architecture should support Universal laws, mathematics and science, and have a connection to history in its design. Fine, if it defines one rejecting foolish trends that have no shelf life. Alternatively, because one does not have an insecure need to feel new, or put another way is secure enough not to be overly troubled by what others think, that is also acceptable.

While studying under Dr. Nikos Salingaros, the facts confirmed my belief that anti-architecture is neither beautiful, nor good. I ask you, do you know anyone who truly has a burning desire to live and work in an environment that is ugly? Say a structure that looks and feels like a garbage can exploded? I certainly do not. Is that simply Fogeydom? Well, if that is what they want to call it.

So then, this takes me back to the beginning of this article, and I ask myself if it is dangerous to call this position avant-garde. After careful consideration, I recall Oscar Wilde who once said "All great ideas are dangerous."