All News

To celebrate the new season, we're promoting fall vibes posting. From now until the end of November, you can post with the Autumn flair. Top liked posts will be all put in a poll and voted for at the end to see who has the best autumn architecture photo. The winner can have a special fall winner flair if you want. Requirements are loose. Whatever you feel is a nice autumn aesthetic. Scenes with orange leaves, Victorian or dark gothic architecture, pumpkins, decorated houses as long as you can see the traditional architecture well, etc. We'll be doing the same thing for winter later too! Happy posting! submitted by /u/butterscotchland [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/TeyvatWanderer [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/Kiwibirdy1 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/adventmix [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/caligari1973 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/Future_Start_2408 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/ManiaforBeatles [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/Conscious-Intern-602 [link] [comments]

Stunning beauty submitted by /u/KaligulaG1 [link] [comments]

For more info&photos, see FB: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Klassisknyproduktion/permalink/4166425840237908/fsdasdfasddfdddddsssss or X: https://x.com/michael_diamant/status/1985423571590533194 submitted by /u/MichaelDiamant81 [link] [comments]

Süleymaniye Mosque, grand hilltop structure built in the 16th century on the orders of, and named after, Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent in Istanbul, Turkey. It was designed by Sinan, one of the great architects of his time and architect-in-chief to Süleyman for almost 28 years. During its construction, more than 3,500 workers laboured on the building. Süleyman sought to use his new mosque to rival the grandeur of the Byzantine-built church Hagia Sophia. The Süleymaniye Mosque is smaller than the Hagia Sophia, but it is arguably a more graceful structure. It measures 194 feet (59 m) long and 190 feet (58 m) wide; the main dome is 174 feet (53 m) high and 89 feet (27 m) in diameter. It has four minarets, and domes descend in tiers from the central dome. In addition to the mosque itself, the complex housed many other structures, including a bathhouse, hospital, public kitchen to feed the poor, and several madrasahs (Islamic schools). In the garden behind the mosque, there are two mausoleums housing the tombs of some important figures, including those of Süleyman and his wife, Roxelana. It also houses the tombs of the sultans Süleyman II and Ahmed II. In 1660 the mosque was damaged by fire, and it was later restored by Sultan Mehmed IV in a Baroque style, resulting in considerable harm to the original structure. Further destruction occurred during the earthquake of 1766. It was returned to its original style in the 19th century but was damaged again during World War I, when its courtyard was used as a weapons depot and ammunition ignited another major fire. The mosque was not fully restored again until 1956. Further restoration was undertaken between 2007 and 2010, and work on the outer buildings is ongoing. The Süleymaniye Mosque remains a superb example of the grace and sophistication of architecture at the peak of the Ottoman Empire. The mosque ranks as one of the world’s great buildings. submitted by /u/AnbuAttack [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/ZestycloseExam4877 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/Silvanx88 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/Future_Start_2408 [link] [comments]

"Traditional" architecture is often criticised; having been so since the 20th century; for the uselessness of beauty. I don't agree with the idea that beauty is useless and should be forsaken in favour of practical design. But the lack of rational argumentation in favour of aesthetics isn't doing it any favours. I want to propose my view on this matter. As a fan of medieval art and craftsmanship I am often left wondering what pushed people to make such insanely beautiful and thoughtful works of craftsmanship. From the stylised figures in paintings and sculptures, to the wonderful design of 15th century fashion, to the elegant simplicity of medieval secular architecture. What design philosophy leads to such taste? The answer is the act of deriving aesthetics from practical design. The common point between almost all of pre modern styles is that every aesthetic element can be explained by the invention of a practical feature. Take any flamboyant gothic building for instance: The castle of Montsoreau. There is no ornament added simply for the purpose of ornamentation. It has a long yet thin silhouette because beams of wood can't be as long as the length of the building, the elegantly slender shaped is reinforced by a roof made tall and out of slate to prevent snow buildup and for slates resistance to humidity. The machicolations around the top of the walls are there to allow archers to shoot straight down at invaders hugging the wall ; but they also serve an ornamental purpose and have been designed with that in mind. Finally, the mullioned windows were created to allow more light into the building. They have 4 lights and are thinner than what came before allowing for better light distribution. For it to be possible to add such a window into a stone wall, an arch is built on top of the window. This, coupled with the difference in depth between the supporting wall and window, creates a nook in which benches are carved from the stone. These feature weren't always present, they were invented gradually by improving earlier, simpler styles and designs in order to make buildings more practical. Most importantly : None of these beautiful parts feel fake or out of place because they are consequences of practical features of the architecture. Let's compare this to a modern mansion. It has excellent thermal regulation thanks to insulation and heating technology, it's very bright inside thanks to the reinforced concrete allowing for massive insupirited windows, sanitation is easy and convenient thanks to plumbing, electricity, and ventilation. But what does it have to show (visually) for all of it? A cubic or rectangular silhouette. The product of a movement which explicitly stipulates that all aesthetics should be ripped out of buildings. Looking at most premodern buildings, the aesthetic features are a window into the thought and intricacy of the practical design of the building. In modern buildings, there is no visual difference between the building and a cardboard box with square holes. You do not see the soul behind the design. This results in a boring and uninspiring structure which no one stops to think about. And even when a modern building tries to be beautiful, it often comes off as fake. Tasteless twists of the flawed modernist base principles (https://share.google/4Fw2sf9fDmjbavj79) or forced ornaments which recycle what has already been invented before. I think that a beautiful building isn't one that belongs to a specific historical style. Everyone disagrees on which architectural styles are beautiful. The actual thing that ties all beautiful buildings together; the ones which make you look up while walking down the street; Is the generation of aesthetic through practical features. Note: Some modern buildings do have a unique aesthetic and beauty seemingly derived from the practical design. But only select examples online among the best that have been built. Not at all what you see walking down a city or what not. There are also modern houses that look good in pictures with all the colourful lighting and some shape but are disappointing in person. submitted by /u/15thcenturynoble [link] [comments]

It was built around the Benedictine Abbey of St. Gallen, which was founded in 719 on the grave of the irish hermit, Gallus. From 1755 to 1768, the medieval structure was replaced with new baroque era architecture, giving us the magnificent church. It was dissolved in 1805. In 1821, the double-diocese of Chur-St. Gallen was founded, making the abbey Church a co-Cathedral. Then in 1847, St. Gallen was separated from the diocese of Chur and since then has its own Bishop. submitted by /u/owningthelibs123456 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/ManiaforBeatles [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/ZestycloseExam4877 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/plutopiae [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/Conscious-Intern-602 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/Future_Start_2408 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/RN_Renato [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/inca_unul [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/NathanCS741 [link] [comments]

The firm was founded in 1879 in Madrid, mostly dealing in fire and life insurance. Like any corporation, they needed to come up with a visual emblem to act as the company's brand and identity. While most companies achieve this through a logo or an iconic company product, few if any went to the extent these guys did in commissioning monumental architecture unified by the common motif of a dome with a cupola depicting Ganymede riding atop a phoenix, to act as the company brand. An interesting alternative to having a movie or sports star be the face of your company, to say the least. The company was bought out in the 1990s, but its architectural legacy remains adorning Spanish cityscapes with some of the finest works of the Beaux-Arts style. Pics 1-3 depict the building on Paseo de Gracia, which some of you may have noticed when visiting Barcelona. Today the first floor houses a Muji, not sure about the rest of the building, seemed vacant last I saw it. Pics 4-6 need no introdution as it is the most iconic building the firm ever commissioned, the Metropolis building in Madrid. Pics 7&8 depict a lesser known work they commissioned, but also in Madrid and unlike the other buildings, this one is a skyscraper. Pics 9&10 were the firm's Valencia location Pics 11&12 were the firm's Cordoba location Pics 13-15 were the firm's Valladolid location Pics 16&18 were the firm's Alicante location submitted by /u/ArtisticRide6852 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/Mediocre-Salt-8175 [link] [comments]