Classical Proportions, Modern Practicality: A Style That Makes Sense

Washington Post ^ | April 19, 2008 | Katherine Salant

[Lorianne]

I have always associated classical architecture with gravitas -- the large imposing columns and pediments that grace the front of serious places, like courthouses and banks. It hasn't seemed a living tradition that can inform land-use planning and the architecture of everyday life.

But that was before I interviewed several architects who describe themselves as "modern classicists." They espouse a practical, no-nonsense approach to design that extends beyond individual buildings to encompass neighborhoods and whole towns.

They don't limit themselves to the details and proportioning systems used by the original classicists, the builders of ancient Greece and Rome. They also draw on American architectural traditions that have evolved over 400 years, from the most humble and utilitarian barn to the lavish houses of the rich and powerful.

But the way that these modern classicists look at spaces and organize them is strikingly similar to that of their ancient counterparts. All the pieces -- the facade of a house, the streetscape of a block or a multi-block area of a town -- must fit together in a logical and orderly fashion.

The new classicists have had their greatest success in the land-use planning for housing developments, especially those that follow the tenets of New Urbanism, a design approach that has adapted urban traditions to modern American life.

[Lorianne]

[Designer]

Bookmarked for later. Thanks.

[Arguendo]

Looks more appealing than most new architectural trends I’ve seen, and more appropriate for most houses than true Classical architecture (which I love, but has very limited application in most houses).

[chrisser]

Interesting article and some thought-provoking ideas.

As long as they’re voluntary its great, but I suspect this New Urbanism will soon be forced down someone’s throat via the power of the state, probably with “eminent domain”-ing all those who refuse to comply.

But maybe I’m just being paranoid...

[ottbmare]

Yes, you’re just being paranoid. If you want to buy a house, you can buy one of these, or you can buy some other type of house. I don’t see any way the government can force you to buy a particular style of house.

Assuming, of course, that you want to buy at all, which seems to be a moot point in today’s real estate market. < sigh>

[ottbmare]

Cool article. It gives one hope. So, too, does the new magazine, “The New Old House,” which has Virginia architect Russell Versaci as one of its founders and editors. If architects had groupies, I’d be Versaci’s groupie.

For four hundred years, people in this country have been experimenting with architectural styles, but they always come back to the basics. There’s a reason for that: ordinary arrangements of rooms, doors, and windows are convenient for the way American families actually live. Architectural experiments lmay look dramatic, but in the long run few of them work out and have staying power.

I have owned three houses with contemporary styling, because my ex loved modern architecture. Never, never again. Costly disasters, all of them. Would rather live under a bridge than live in a nontraditional house again.