![]() |
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
AGING WITH GRACE TRADITIONALISM VERSUS MODERNITY I'm sure it's no great shock to most of you that I love architecture and I'm that especially fond and proud of what can be classified as traditional, Bosnian architecture. What may come as a surprise is that I actually love Western-style architecture as well. I love Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, and South American cities that are nearly entirely made up of skyscrapers - such as Sao Paolo, Brazil. I also love skylines and buildings that can be found in Western Europe and North America - for example Paris, and New York. The conflict for me comes in aging with grace. The Eiffel Tower or the Empire State Building is not going to suit Sarajevo. As this city grows, in my opinion it needs to grow in such a way that honors its past while affording residents the luxuries of the modern era. So I'm going to share examples of what I would consider to be aging with grace. Firstly, here are some examples of traditional, Bosnian architecture in Sarajevo - just to give you an idea what most of the city looks like, and what a "stereotypical Sarajevo scene" is... ![]() Now, the modern part of Sarajevo is in the west end of the city and this area of town is quite different. I've chosen aspects of this part of town I like - buildings and areas I think have aged with grace. There are, of course, numerous areas where I think the buildings don't suit Sarajevo at all - but there are also many areas like these: ![]() Do you think it's important for a city to keep these sorts of things in mind, or does it not matter? Are modern areas of cities supposed to be completely different, or should they look like modern versions of the same city? Does this problem exist at all in America or are the cities simply modern and that's it? What is your impression of the difference between the traditional and modern architecture in this thread?
__________________
Shake it up, shekerim (sweetie)!
BRAVO KENAN, BRAVO TURKEY! Voda (Water)! BRAVO ELITSA, BRAVO BULGARIA! |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
I suppose what I like a lot about the newer architecture is that it has a little color. Color was reserved for non-residential buildings among us, so more or less every home was white. I don't like the new colors for the clay tiles we use on the roof, though - I think they should all be red.
![]() I don't like most of the modern mosques but there are a few I truly, truly love. Like these two: ![]() I especially love the one on the left, even though it's completely foreign architecturally. I also like how affluent, by our standards, most of the new buildings are. They really haven't built anything since the 1990s that looks like the old communist-era buildings, and thank God for that.
__________________
Shake it up, shekerim (sweetie)!
BRAVO KENAN, BRAVO TURKEY! Voda (Water)! BRAVO ELITSA, BRAVO BULGARIA! |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |