1. An Architect friend told me this many years ago. He presented his design proposal for a multi-storey commercial building. The client asked it he could make the exterior less “Bland”. He replied “Yes”, if the client would let him increase the external walls to 1foot thick. The client took a piece of paper and a pencil. He calculated the loss of usable floor space on each floor, multiplied that by the number of storeys, multiplied that by the annual rent per square foot. Sighed and said “Bland is Grand”
In the past century more people had a sense of civic pride. There was a feeling that they were contributing to the community, nation and society so cost was less of a factor. Also your building was part of the face of your company. You wanted to display success. Now it is all about the numbers. Who is going to see your building and identify it with your company or product? Now the building you work in is just that, the building you work in.
@@glenncordova4027 Yeah, nah, sorry to burst your nostalgic bubble but compared to older forms of cladding glass is cheaper, lighter, easier to build, to clean and to repair and, of course, lets a ton of natural light in. It's not just economics, it's simply a better choice for a skyscraper.
One of the things I've kept finding myself saying over the years is "The future should've been Art Deco." Nothing compares to those architectural monuments to progress and the future
@@tjenadonn6158 so true. For me, government buildings and universities should be Neoclassical while commercial and residential buildings should be Art Deco. I would love to live in a city like that.
I'm an architecture student and having to design buildings ONLY with "Modernist" rules is the most boring thing ever... I'm even thinking about dropping out of college because of it...
@@LeninCake Here in Brazil we have like a "modernist dictatorship" in colleges....They even hate Niemeyer just because he didn't follow all the modernist rules...They only have Mies, Corbusier, Lina Bobardi and Lelé (famous brazilian modernist architect) as references.
you should. school isn't exactly the best place to learn. You just pick up a bunch of debt & when you graduate get paid crap until you "gain more experience" EDIT -- Look at Zuckerberg & Musk, they're both college drop outs & architecting the worlds space race & Virtual Reality.
@@kevinmanan1304 So, here in Brazil we have free college. I won't have debt to pay later but it's very demotivating to be in a place where you're supposed to experiment and innovate but in fact you're forced to follow outdated Modernist rules because your teachers are outdated boomers who don't like new things....
another factor I've heard contributed to the thoroughness of the lack of postwar ornamentation is that the mass-produced ornament factories mostly shut down due to decreased demand, so it got quite expensive to even consider that kind of decoration
Growing up in NYC in the 1960s, I fell in love with the great Art-Deco skyscrapers that dominated Manhattan at the time. My favorite was the Empire State Building, and not just because of its height. The detailing is actually pretty sober -- much more so than the Chrysler Building, for example. But it's the massing, with its beautifully proportioned set-backs, culminating in that fantastic spire at the top, that really floats my boat. I was lucky enough to have a beautiful view of it from my bedroom window. I didn't realize how lucky I was until I was an adult. However, my favorite skyscraper design is Eliel Saarinen's unexecuted design for the Chicago Tribune Tower, which I far prefer to Howells and Hood's as-built tower. Saarinen combines the massing of an Art-Deco skyscraper with ornament that recalls a late Gothic cathedral, with that tremendous vertical energy surging to the top. Magnificent!
Two things to consider: 1. Cities have little wild nature, the sky is usually the biggest natural space. The sky is often beautiful, with al kinds of clouds and many colors during the sunset. How do we treat the sky? Old buildings celebrate the sky and invite you to look up. Modern buildings usually just draw a horizontal line, like a prison wall, communicating hopelessness and boredom. But it gets worse. The sky is often used like a garbage dump, some leftover space where modern buildings put put all kinds of boxes, vents, pipes. Not only are you not invited to look up, you are actively discouraged to do so. 2. Invisible details are not useless, they give a feeling of abundance. Often when you pass by an old, ornate building, it gives you a good feeling instantly, but at the same time it makes you feel that there are more presents waiting for you, if one day you would take more time to study it. Walking through a beautiful old city can feel like you are handed presents everywhere, more than you can open. Not being able to see many of them reinforces this feeling of never ending riches, and because they are designed by humans, it also feels like an abundance of love given to you by previous generations. Functionalism gives exactly the opposite effect, everything feels poor and loveless. It even suggests a shortage of time. Because playful, silly details give the feeling that there is time to play and that the time you take to watch and enjoy this is valuable, not wasted.
In the historically opulent buildings, there is a message behind the ornamentation. In St Peter's at the Vatican, there is not a single detail that was not cared for. Not a single tile out of place. Not a single space which you could accuse for being unfinished. This gives a sense that just like the architects and builders that put their heart and soul into making every little piece perfect, God will care for everyone, no matter how small or insignificant they think they are. If you are a white floor tile on the west side, you belong there and were intended to fill an important role. Beyond the surface value of the sculptures and murals, it's an inspiring creation.
I would argue the reflective glass walls of modern buildings does increase the appreciation of the sky. From the ground the building act as a mirror reflecting the sky and light. Old buildings were the main focus. I like both solutions. Especially when mixed together.
@pietervoogt beautifully stated. I never thought of all these spectacular architectural details in that way before. I always try to take time to look for them and see them, and I know there are so, so many to see. I love to take pictures of old buildings. But to think of their abundance as gifts to be discovered, it’s a new perspective for me, and I thank you.
Wow, really? I was there just a few weeks ago and I didn't know that. All I learned about was the Ulmer Spatz on the roof. To be fair though, beautiful church spires serve a very different function from modern skyscrapers. Their whole job is to advertise the power of God and the church.
@@Maxime_K-G Well, in this case it was more competition with the city of Cologne. Everyone wanted to be the town with the tallest church and by the end Ulm beats the cologne cathedral by a couple of meters.
I think the issue involves what is practical, stylish, or popular. I remember when the AT&T was built. Many architects and historians ridiculed Johnson’s design. In some circles, it was maligned for years. Now, it’s safe say it adds to the uniqueness of Madison Avenue other structures like the IBM Tower, the old Art Deco Newsweek building, the Lotte Palace, the rear of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and the rest of post WW II International Style structures.
Exactly. There is a ballance between something looking visually appealing and being finacially efficient/viable. Why bother putting an extremly ornate top on a super tall building when noone can see it. There is a fine line between too much detail and too little
this Chicago native has been gone since the 70's, but this city has always been a place of pride for me in no small part because of it's magnificent architecture. the Wrigley building, the Water Tower, the Michigan Avenue bridge and my favorite, Tribune Tower, wher you could actually touch stones from all over the world!
I lived in River North during the late 80s and worked in most of the premium skyscrapers in Chicago. The adoption of precast construction has resulted in many modern (cheap and basic) looking structures (State of Illinois, Two Prudential, . I suspect cost savings drive these design decisions.
I loved the details of the Jewelers Building that you shared. It’s really interesting to discover the details and history of the skyscrapers that I’ve seen for my entire life (which is a very loooong time). The view of Chicago’s skyline from over the Marina is breathtaking. The conception of the Marina Towers with spires was terrifying! Can you imagine walking across those little bridges?!? Another wonderful video, Stewart.🌸
2:47 The flying buttresses are very cool. What gets me about them is no one can see them, they're obviously decorative and completely non functional at that altitude but they're made to look authentic as a structural feature. The smaller ones further down 'could' be functional but they're obviously far too small do a thing and are therefore deliberately decorative. The clever interplay of reversing the positions of decorative looking functional and the functional being only decorative isn't lost on me. It's great stuff.
Chicago's one of those cities where you'll walk into what looks like a roman cathedral and find out it's literally just a Walmart. The city's a pretty fun place if you like architecture.
just finished the video, and i really loved the section on setbacks. in addition to the wind and sunlight advantages you mention, stepped designs also allow for creative uses of outdoor space. i used to live in a downtown apartment building with retail and offices on the lower floors that acted as a pedestal. the residential portion was set back on top of it and surrounded by a private courtyard with gardens and fountains. the lower pedestal blocked most traffic noise from reaching the courtyard, which created a quiet, bright, and airy space outdoor space for residents in the middle of the city
Something that occured to me that I don't think you mentioned is how tall buildings interact with each other. The occupants of a skyscraper have a "ground level" view of the skyscraper across the street, especially in densely vertical cities like NY and Chicago. Detailing in those façades now becomes visible, but not to the general public.
I do like some modern skyscrapers that have quite pretty crowns, if it’s because of how they play with light. My favorites are the Bank of America Center in Charlotte (designed by Cesar Pelli) because of how the illuminated glass poles enhance the setbacks and make the tower look ethereal; the never-built Bank of the Southwest in Houston (designed by Helmut Jahn) because of how the roof is helped by the visually interesting corner setbacks; and the Ping An Finance Center in Shenzhen (designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox) for the same reason as the previous one, but with a crown more suggestive of a brilliant cut gem.
It's so great to hear that you think of it as the Adventures in Babysitting building too! I was so excited when I visited Chicago years ago and saw it. As a kid I had no idea that it was a real building and thought it had been made up for the film.
Another fine video by Mr. Hicks -partly illustrated with the innovative photography of Chris Hytha- addressing a fascinating theme. At once academic and entertaining and full of interesting insights. Nice work. Keep it coming ...
Interesting you should include the State Tower building in Syracuse (my home). This Art Deco beauty is designed to draw the eye to its top. For example the bricks that clad its facade become increasingly lighter in color as the building rises. This feature, along with its strong verticality, force your view upward. Kudos to the building's owner for camouflauging the cell antenae affixed to its upper floors.
I remember the first time I saw the Jeweler's Building as a kid 20 years ago while on a boat tour on the Chicago River, I was six years old, yet I instantly recognized it as the inspiration of one of the buildings in SimCity 2000. On a related note to the car elevator in the Jewelers Building, the Art Deco-style Carew Tower in Cincinnati once had an automated car parking garage that would lift cars on an elevator up to parking spots, which opened alongside the rest of the building in 1930. A control panel at the bottom of the garage allowed people to store and retrieve cars, much like a giant mechanical filing cabinet, though people often did not understand how to use it, which led to it becoming operated by attendants. Sadly, that portion of the Carew Tower complex was demolished in the 1980s after becoming obsolete and useless, a victim of a changed culture around cars where parking and retrieving your car manually from a garage or surface lot was seen as more desirable, as well as the increased size of automobiles, which the limited size and capacity of the machinery designed for smaller 1920s and 1930s cars could not accommodate.
'Boring' is a very kind word, most skyscraper built since mid 2010s have forgettable silhouette, while ugly is subjective, chance are you won't be able to tell which is which and forget its name in days, there is indeed some reviving movement to being back the details of the building. Aesthetics do in fact serve a function, it is the cultural identity of the city it situates, it inspire audience, think of it as a hierarchy of needs in terms of actualization, the art deco movement in 1920s symbolized the progression era, even the cross bracing facades of John Hancock building in the 60s 70s represented the re-emphasis of forms follow function while not omitting the details. While there is indeed a need for skyscrapers as functions, and of course social need should be taken care of before decorations, but that do no justify putting another glass box in the middle of historic skyline and tearing the old one down, you would not worship a stainless stain ladle over a pearl necklace, would you? Saying we are progressing and therefore must forgone the aesthetics is a pathetic dystopian excuse for lazy and banal designs. it is not an issue of against new, but against poor design and bad decision.
Kind of a lie. Lots of new skyscrapers respect their environment while being easily recognizable landmarks, even if you think they are ugly. In the 20s there were a buttload of people criticizing the Art Deco movement for "destroying the historic skyline"just like you're doing right now. Criticizing new movements is necessary for us to determine what works and what doesn't, so that we can move on with new, better structures, but completely writing off a movement is not the way to go \
@Joaquim Silva That is exactly why I said 'most' instead of all skyscraper, and for your record, I also mention ugly is subjective. I do agree some contemporary designs take into good consideration like Radisson Blu Aqua Hotel in Chicago is magnificent indeed, and the Leadenhall building in London respect the visual corridor toward the St Paul is another great example. And that is my point exactly, how many of the latest render actually did pay much attention like those 2 examples I mentioned? Yes, just like people criticised the Art Deco movement (I am not sure if they actual do since Mid town in 1920s is pretty empty and thus a perfect sandbox), The Chrysler building become the pinnacle of Art Deco style and get along well with the Grand Central terminal beaux arts style, just like the Eiffel tower as well, Eiffel tower is in front of the Champ de Mars, it provide a new axis linking the Place du Trocadéro toward the École Militaire, forming parallel to the historic Arc de Triomphe axis, Eiffel tower created new things by co-exisiting with the old, things will be quite different if Eiffel tower has to torn down Notre Dame and that is my point exactly, I don't mind new and progress, but bad and poor design. How about the Penn station in New York? Madison Garden Square is a decent mid century design but by tearing the Neo classical old facade that is on par with Grand Central terminal is generally viewed as a great mistake by public indeed, how about Singer building as well? We actually have a term called Brusselization that unplanned and cheap building spamming historical region so bad that Paris has to ban new skyscraper in central district after the Mont Parnasse building is built for decades. Bad design is an obstacle for progress. Better structure? Yes, go ahead! Poor design? Nay. Justification for poor design with the excuse of progress? Double nay
@@ilovemokona2I agree with you. It’s important to keep the old buildings, they can coexist with new buildings but it kills me when an old building gets demolished to make room for a new building. They could’ve found a different location for the new building, or even repurposed the old one. There’s history there. It should be preserved and respected.
I honestly don't think any paticular style of skyscraper is inheritently an eyesore to any city or skyline. The Eiffel Tower was percieved as an eyesore in the beginning. At the end of the day it's all about creating a memorable building. Most of the critique of mordern high-rises and skyscrapers boil down to simply them not being very distinct from each other, and sometimes they can display the "big brother watching you" vibe which means the building looking down on us as opposed to us looking up on the building. I personally love Chicago's skyline as it provides many different styles of skyscrapers and each very memorable to the observer. Would love to see it en person someday. My country hasn't ever build a skyscraper, not because the money or companies aren't here, but because of potential public backlash. But I am sure when the time comes, the architechs at hand will make something memorable, because they have too. Even our tallest residental high-rise has become iconic in it's own right, even though most people would call it ugly, simply because it stands out and have become an identity for the people who live there.
You are leaving out the issue that most modern buildings/high rises don't have local identity, they are the same blocks of steel and glass from China to Germany. Beaux-arts or Neo-Gothic high rises are more beautiful and age better and are quickly more accepted than another glass eyesore.
@@Nostalg1a Maybe the blocks of steel and glass are not unique to a particular place, but they’re among the most beautiful things you can construct :) Neo-Gothic is too spooky and ornate. Who the hell would want to look at a building like that every day? Or even worse, live/work in one
Heck even the Twin Towers were claimed to be eyesores and two boxes and grew on us and it goes with the saying “you don’t know what you got until you lose it”
Another modern day example of buildings with ornamentation would be the work of Lucien Lagrange Studio in Chicago. Among the architect's work, his designs for the Park Hyatt, 840 N. Lake Shore Drive, and 65 E Goethe all have decorative cornices. I once attended a lecture sponsored by The Chicago Architecture Foundation in which the architect explained that his inspiration often comes from 1920s Paris.
I have a fabulous view if the Empire State Building. It's art Deco details and spire are a thrilling thing to see every day. But the building I really love for its detail is the Chrysler Building.
I'm fine with the stylized tops of post modern skyscrapers they are just too far up to be noticed and modern buildings have important requirements for energy efficiency and wind loads. However, I wish there was more attempt to improve the pedestrian experience at the ground level. Sometimes i wish they would just make bolt on exteriors on the first 10floors of buildings that artists could design and remodel over time.
super interesting topic! you have the tone and demeanor of my favorite art history instructors! your tone is so approachable and you explain the fundamentals so well. im constantly amazed when learning about the depths of architecture. how the psychology and principles of design connect with the marvels of engineering and material science. thank you!
New York City has incredible details on the crowns of buildings. They're great for occupants in nearby buildings, but almost unknown to anyone going by. Of course, looking up to appreciate all the thought that people put into the buildings makes everyone think you're a tourist, which Manhattan residents seem to never want to be caught doing. Ironically, very few people actually in Midtown & Downtown New York actually grew up among those buildings. Maybe it's a reflex of denial.
311 S. Wacker Dr. is such a striking building to be so commonly overlooked. I can’t help but feel if the building were located somewhere else, it would’ve been considered an iconic postmodern skyscraper.
I am not an architect, but I love this video and I want all of you who ARE architects to know the beauty and details of buildings DO matter and are appreciated by many of us.
As a Chicago native, I fell in love with architecture at an early age. It probably had something to do with the fact I spent a lot of time in both Beverly on the South Side and Oak Park in the near western suburbs, two places filled with beautifully designed homes. Thank you for this wonderful video sharing this breathtaking photography. I've always thought it would be cool to fly like Superman and visit the tops of these buildings!
I’m SO happy that people are finally bringing this up! I’ve seen quite a few videos criticizing modern architecture recently and I hope that it has an impact and that the people in charge of defining the skylines of our cities notice it and change.
Love the video's Stewart! I'm sure you've made a lot of us appreciate architecture in a new way. You choose niche topics and elaborate on their relevance in an easy to digest yet in depth manner. Absolute youtube legend!!! Now THATs what I call content
A large element is that skyscrapers are built as a commodity and having ornamentation gains you very little to nothing in price. Therefore a boring cube gains you the best ROI and that's all the developers care about. Leading to boring cities.
Actually I have read research that ornaments can add monetary value, I think it was 10% higher value. You should be able to calculate it, take two buildings in the same block (so location is no influence) one from the 1970s and one from 1870 and compare the prices. Also consider publicity/advertisement value. I don't even know if Chrysler still exists but I know the Chrysler building. Imagine millions of tourists sharing pictures of your building.
@@pietervoogt can you find me this research, as I can't find it, I just did a cursory glance at prices in new York and there is zero correlation, and it doesn't work like that in the city I'm in.
@@Alex-cw3rz well ask yourself this. Would you rather live/work in a beautiful ornate building, or a bland boring cube? If you would rather live/work in a beautifully ornate building, how much extra would you be prepared to pay to do so? If you are prepared to pay 10% more to live/work in an ornate building, and the ornamental features add 9% to the cost of the building, then it is in the developers interest to build ornate buildings. The problem then becomes one of a lack of choice when it comes to living somewhere. The prices of rent in these cities effectively negates any difference in perceived value between buildings. If there is such limited supply of available accommodation even the wealthy can't afford to be choosy about where they live. They may have a multi million dollar budget, but if the only apartments on the market are modern cubes then they will have to buy a modern cube even if they want to live in a neoclassical apartment. As for working, well the decision there isn't based on what the employees want, it's based on what the accountants say. You may want to work in a beautiful building, but the decision isn't yours, and the people making that decision don't care what you want they care about the bottom line. If we want a world that values anything other than money then we need to rid ourselves of people who make it their job to manage money. I say all accountants get rounded up and locked away and Excel gets permanently deleted from every computer globally and then we may start to be able to design better buildings and value things like employee happiness and sustainability and cultural impact rather than the bottom line.
@@Alex-cw3rz No, I'm sorry, I can't find it anymore. I read it years ago and I don't remember the quality of the research, nor the exact words (ornament? decoration? traditional details? classical elements?) which make it hard to search for it. I can also imagine that it is more complicated than I just described it because, on second thought, almost no building is the same in quality of plumbing, maintenance, isolation etcetera so small price differences could be ascribed to anything. I hope someone will repeat the research.
Thank you for the video! So interesting. Was in NYC and enjoyed seeing the old, ornate buildings. Your video is insightful as to the different periods and why buildings look the way they do. Thank you again!
I feel like it was only touched on slightly, but are we forgetting that a large reason for the departure from more ornately designed buildings was just the simple fact that after WW2, developers wanted to maximize profits by maximizing rentable square footage? What is the easiest way to do that? Just extrude the building upward. There are plenty of nice skyscrapers that are built these days, its just that a lot of them are just glass curtain walls with some slight ornamentation using mullions or structural expressionism. Also it doesn't help that a lot of modern skyscrapers are simply just too huge to have lots of thoughtful ornamentation without coming at a massive cost. So developers and clients alike choose size instead of style to show off their power. Look at the new chase building in Manhattan for example. Also, for all their faults as a toxic work environment, SHoP Architects does tend to design nice skyscrapers, look at the Brooklyn Tower that is soon to finish its facade work. That one is also a supertall, but they use modern technology to create a neo-gothic look. Unfortunately, those kind of buildings are always reserved for the rich tho lol.
In Barcelona museum dedicated to Antoni Gaudí, concerning the Sagrada Familia you can read something like that : While Gaudi was overseeing the project a visiting bishop once asked of him,” Why do you trouble yourself so much about the tops of the towers? After all, no one will ever see them”. “ Your Grace,” he replied, “ The angels will see them.”
The Eureka Tower in Melbourne has a section of gold at the top that looks as if it's trying to escape from the structure. The gold is a reference to the gold rush that introduced wealth to the region for the first time.
The British cartoonist and critic Osbert Lancaster suggested that if you visited New York in a hot air balloon (in the 1920s), it would look as though you were drifting along the Grand Canal of Venice. He supplied a nice drawing you can find online.
With the advent of accessible CNC routers and design programs, will we see an uptick in sculpted design elements in buildings?? The barriers to entry for sculpting could be reduced thanks to automated processes that minimize the need for specialized human skills like sculpting currently is.
while cnc is great for custom design on a small scale, it does not scale as well as other construction methods. molds, like mentioned in the video with terracotta, can produce elements faster and cheaper at scale
Let's not forget industrial 3D printing. Digitally scuplt an art piece and have it printed in a cement mixture, might be cheaper and less labour intensive once the manufacturing process has been figured out.
Let's not forget industrial 3D printing. Digitally scuplt an art piece and have it printed in a cement mixture, might be cheaper and less labour intensive once the manufacturing process has been figured out.
cnc is certainly revolutionizing prototyping, but the process is inherently inefficient at scale because cnc’ing builds parts through reduction. there will always be elevated time and material requirements at scale when each piece needs to be individually machined down from a blank. molds produce little to no waste material. where they certainly open new potential is in the production of nonstandard elements. with terracotta, the architect is limited to repeating elements. this restriction does not exist with cnc, but the same cost and time disadvantages will likely always apply.
I always thought that the rectangular international style took over skyscrapers of the 1950s to 1980s because their flat roofs could be used as helicopter pads for the rich and trendy occupants of those buildings. But because cities began to ban helicopters outside of emergency usage due to noise pollution and notable crash incidents, architects started to experiment with different shapes again.
Have you heard of the Burnham Plan? It was an urban design plan that would’ve made Chicago a “Paris on the Prairie”. Kings and Things did a video on it.
I'm actually an engineer that works on designing the mounting frames for installations such as 3:49. The Radio-Frequency (RF) transparent material we use for these is called FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (or Plastic)). You can make tubes and plates and bolts that function basically just like steel would, all from super strong and durable plastic, but it's not nearly as strong or stiff (about 1/10th as much). As steel is just much stronger, structurally, we typically anchor the FRP to a steel frame anchored to the building's frame/walls/whatever structure we can find to calc out. We usually insert some thru-bolts back into the beams or columns supporting the outer facade, roofs, etc. There's a rule called the 5% rule (or 10% for lateral loads) where once you calculate that the _increase_ in load from the original design condition is less than 10%, you don't need to calculate nay more. So if you add a small box or even a decent sized frame, you'll probably need/want to check the beam is fine, but as the beam is supporting many thousands of pounds, you don't really need to check any further, that little frame on there is just going to be taking out some of the design slack from the columns and foundations, etc.
Stewart, I've been watching the show "Severance" and the bizarre layout of the office building has me constantly thinking of you. I would love a video where you talk about what the show's creators were thinking when they designed that building set.
Losing the ornaments is not just a thing for skyscrapers. It's a general trend for all kind of buildings, from the smallest to the biggest, and also inside them.
When Canary Wharf in London was developed in the 80s-90s, they intentionally designed buildings in a mix of styles across the 20th century. This was done to attract different industry sectors like newspapers, law firms, and banks. It was believed that if everything looked the same age the area would feel bland and cultureless vs the City of London where skyscrapers weave in next to medieval buildings.
The careful detailing that was done in that period still amazes me to this day. In my humble opinion It was unique and gave these buildings "Character".
It's also interesting what functions the tops of skyscrapers serve. Most of them have antennae, HVAC equipment and/or lightning arrestors. Some are just the roof to their building and that's it. A few have luxurious aspects like a high-end restaurant or a helicopter pad. I think there still is some untapped potential, especially in regards to sustainability. What about building-integrated wind power using low-noise vertical wind turbines? Windcatchers for passive ventillation throughout the entire building? A rooftop greenhouse for growing tropical fruits?
I feel like not just skyscrapers but all modern architecture in general is extremely boring down to even the interiors where decorative door and window trim has be replaced with just a standard board, and decorative crown molding has be replaced by nothing, just removed with a sharp corner between the wall and ceiling.
They are empty shapes, devoid of any meaning, character or personality. And then people apply that same idea to the interior. You'd think a blank canvas would awaken people's creativity, but instead it just makes people more empty-minded. Its quite sad, people don't realize that the quality, beauty and meaning in the built environment around them has a direct effect on their mindset, their outlook on life and their mental health.
The quality of the interior comes down to budget, even minor upgrades from the basic package to architectural can quickly add up when applied across an entire building. And minimialism doesn't have to be boring, it's just often selected because its easy to be cheap when the goal is minimal clutter. (An empty room isn't cluttered sort of logic, but its also not an attractive space)
I honestly think it's unfair that Modernism gets such a bad rap nowadays. I'm sure for some it's simply not to their taste, but the vast majority of the time I think peoples' complaints are not rooted in anything inherent to the style itself, but in the circumstances and motives surrounding its implementation. When created with care and an eye for aesthetics, Modernism can certainly yield beautiful meaningful buildings. But between the oversaturation of the style in today's landscape and the clients' hyperfixation on its economic benefits above all else, it's become the easiest way to phone it in while still fitting in. And after a few decades of this, the style has become firmly associated with uninspired repetition. It's an unfortunate precedent that we've set, but I wouldn't say it's Modernism's fault. Thank you for always giving such nuanced and well-informed takes, Stewart. Your videos truly are a gift.
At the World Trade Center, the first of the world-toppers without a pointed roof, Minoru Yamasaki generally gave the Rockefeller brothers what they wanted, but the flat top was his own idea. He was Presbyterian, so maybe it was a take on "four bare walls and a sermon". His Rainier Tower in his hometown of Seattle does have a pointed apex-- but at the bottom, not the top!
TLDR: most people don't look up at or in buildings. Being raised by a construction engineer and later being a project manager. I was always asked to look at what kind of brick pattern /bonds an old building has. Or to spot the detailing in it. It made me appreciate the work that got into buildings. As an HVAC engineer myself. I now look up inside buildings. The amount of visible plumbing in supermarkets is a lot. And not so pretty. Most people won't notice though so it doesn't matter. Sadly it's also the same with pretty buildings, most people don't care, so it doesn't matter to them. But when it is done and they are among such buildings they do experience the prettiness. Or when it's not there, the coldness of the buildings is palpable.
As an autist, I am very much aware of all the exposed piping and wiring in stores. In some, it's quite an eyesore. In others, the exposed tidily installed technology almost has an elegance to it.
Mark Foster Gage gave a talk at my school (Pratt Arch) on his approach to ornamentation through “kitbashing”. His ability to design through abstract means is incredibly provocative. Generating shape and form with meaningless objects all to create meaning from the meaningless, a toaster, a gun, an eagles, etc.
I just wanted to say I thoroughly enjoyed this video. I subbed instantly. Brilliantly presented and researched topic. Thank you, I mean. As a man who always wanted to be an architect, and was as a child, and now, as a 38 year old man, is still so interested in this I went into the care sector for young people but still to this day I think about the possibility. More like what if I had overcome my adolescent difficulties in maths and got my grade to consider going onto become a real architect and such. I don't regret more like ponder this. Channels I have found like yours are genuinely wonderful. I could carry on but what I mean is simply to say the work you have done and the way you present it is just brilliant and a joy to take in. Thanks a lot. Very cool.
Its rare because its shockingly expensive to upgrade above the basic functional options. For instance 2'x2' recessed lights in drop tile ceilings will generally cost an extra $70 per light to upgrade from basic "flat panel" to "architectural" style. (Multiply by several thousand lights in a new skyscraper and that cost adds up) So sadly due to basic economics it costs extra to make things pretty and its rare to find someone willing to foot that bill for _only_ aesthetic benefits. We all want prettier buildings but its just not always in the budget.
If and when we get flying taxis, I imagine there will be more pressure on architects and developers to make their developments more interesting from height.
My understanding is that 1920s architects anticipated blimps used as commuter vehicles, so, especially along The Chicago River, the bottle shape above the rectangular base allowed for blimps to dock and office workers to catch elevators down or up to their floors. Those details were meant to be seen up close! The Hindenburg disaster ended that design path.
Very interesting. You could also mention the lost of influence of Christianity in our modern/western society. As your guest suggested, those towers were a display of power. They tell a story for the future generations. In the past (in our western society) the religion had this kind of power and the only tower in town and city were churches and cathedrals. Those buildings mimic the religion idea of power. Nowadays religion is not anymore synonym of great power and corporations don’t want to be associated with this idea anymore, they prefer show how organize they are… and when you think about it modern building look like spreadsheets sometimes :)
Once corporations stopped being beholden by moral order, they immediately devolved into profit maximization at the cost of a pleasant society. Going from inspiring towers into featureless modern skyscrapers that are intended for efficiency was a real cultural whiplash.
Olympia Centre (161 E Chicago Ave) may not be considered ornate but it is elegant as the choice of materials on the facade have held up and look timeless. The Watertower condominium was constructed around the same time and premium facade materials were the standard for a luxury condominium. As a young professional at the time, I went to the sales office and was handed massive/detailed book that provided all the building floor plates and plans. The outside cover matched the color of the granite and the interior pages were cream colored. The documents were on a high quality paper befitting the property and I have kept them 30+ years later. For perspective: The monthly HOA fees average $2,000 per month. Don't ask about the taxes as they are brutal. 🤨
I actually like the simplicity of newer skyscrapers. The engineering side of things can honestly be just as beautiful if not more beautiful than the architectural ornamentation from earlier skyscrapers. I think the real problem in architecture is cheap derivative and ugly single family houses that have no density no character and absolutely no uniqueness.
The problem with international and modernist style towers is that they aren't particularly ugly or beautiful, they just are. Would you say a white cube is beautiful? Mathematically sure, but visually, it's just a cube, it doesn't mean anything. Post-WWII buildings are entirely devoid of any meaning or personality, they have no character. They are defined by their blandness. They are aesthetically empty and plain. Architecture devoid of meaning, especially in high density areas with lots of foot traffic, meeting places meant to form communities, creates communities devoid of meaning and emotionless, empty people. Boring cement/glass buildings literally drain you of your will to live. Not to mention that they too are cheap derivative cookie cutter construction, but on a larger much more visible scale. At least a boring house can be customised by the owner, now a big glass office tower, does the community that has to live around it ever get a say on its looks?
@@ricardogens9834 This kind of generalization is always, always wrong. All skyscrapers built since WW2 are devoid of character? What? It just takes one look at London, Shanghai, Moscow, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, Sydney or pretty much any major city in the US to know you're talking crap.
@@theviniso Read my comment again, please. I said, that if you don't know the build, you couldn't place it. The vibrant parts of those major cities tend not to be the skyscrapers in the CBD, it tends to be the midrise mix use neighbourhoods with large sidewalks or pedestrianised streets, with street level shops and restaurants. Looking at Manhattan, the most vibrant parts are not Downtown Wall Street or Times Square, even though they see a lot of foot traffic during the day. The most vibrant parts are Tribeca, Chinatown and Hells Kitchen, where there are 0 skyscrapers, and most construction is pre-1960s, and are very uniquely New York. Ask anyone not involved or interested in architecture to place the SanFran Salesforce tower or London's Leadeanhall Cheese grater or Yokohama's Mirai Landmark tower and the answers would be completely random. Of course the skylines are famous because each has a unique look, but the buildings that make them up are individually uninteresting to any layman. Perhaps up to the 60s there were still some soulful works, but once the brutalist, internationalist and modernist styles became the status quo, there have been very few exceptions.
7:22 I know this is remotely the point, but does anyone know what is the product name of the long gray equipment bag at the back of the room? Is it snow-board bag? Keyboard case? Gun case? Or what? I really need to find this bag because the dimension looks just right for my purpose.
And the buildings you love so much were paid for with what? Lots of money they decided to spend on ornamentation than paying more to the workers, right? If Amazon spent the equivalent on a highly-ornamented building today, you all would blow your stacks.
@@xandercruz900 Amazon has a $500 BILLION dollar annual revenue. They could CERTAINLY make nicer looking buildings AND pay their workers more. They are instead choosing to put their money elsewhere like expanding and investing.
Also, individual clients building high rises before the 40s often worked in the buildings they paid for, so they cared about appearance. Now, they are usually a corporation who will hardly ever see the building, so they don’t care about an appearance that would double the cost.
It depends. Some make me think of decadence and lack of innovation, from social to economic. At least Brutalist were designing social housing, churches, universities, and not just the headquarters of another huge multinational.
I don't think we will ever see an Art Deco or Neoclassical Revival, because we don't use masonry like we once did. But I think we can do a mass contemporary adaption of those styles. NYC and Berlin are good examples of this, go street view explore Soho NYC, where the newer additions relate to the historic neighbours. Also, this is one of the (if not) best video on UA-cam about this topic.
Just like in the "WTF Happened to our skyscrapers?!" video most people here saw, you need to understand that this is not the 1920s, and that those buildings aren't necessarily "better" more than you just like tons of needless ornamentation for the sake of it that just look "prettier" to people 100 years out, to h3ll of the costs to the person actually footing the bill for it. Not to mention increased regulation in terms of construction practices, and safety standards + architects and engineers working with better materials that are more energy efficient and allow for more natural light, and larger floor plans have made those early buildings functionally obsolete. Which is kind of the point of these buildings. To house actual paying tenants with changing needs, and not to just be pretty on a postcard or poster. But to people with surface level takes on this, it's just "new stuff is ugly and boring. Boooooooooo!!!!". And I'm sure the 10000 posts about "corporate greed, blah blah blah" will be made wholly ironically by people praising corporations that spent a massive amount of Gilded Age era currency on the "pretty" they admire as being the height of culture.
Ornamentation isn't needless, it's part of a visual language of building. It creates a character, a memorable image. Modernist skyscrapers have it also, it's just there are different people with different tastes. Hyperoptimization for efficiency isn't good either, especially when we're talking about public spaces and services. Most cost-effective buildings are mass produced, however having kilometers of the exactly same copy-paste architecture creates alienating environment, with lack of character, lack of navigational cues. And spending money on "pretty" things is totally ok as well, it funds artists, it helps us push our culture forward.
The opulent buildings of the past were the height of technology and craftsmanship. They were inspiring and filled the imagination. That's why they survived and are preserved today. Generic rectangular office building #227 will not be remembered. It will be demolished in 70 years time and won't even occupy a page of a history book.
@@JohnFromAccounting > That's why they survived and are preserved today. No, that is not why as there are numerous examples of even more ornate buildings before the "streamline age" of the 20s that only exists in photographs because they have gone to the wrecking ball, quite a few before they got anywhere near 60 years old.
None of the buildings talked about are particularly cheap. They're now made of mythical quantities of enormous chunks of steel and glass, which is about as expensive as common building materials get. You can like trad styles, this or the starchitect lumps that give structural engineers and superintendents aneurysms, but let's not pretend the choice is inherently prosocial or economic instead of aesthetic. None of the buildings talked about are the projects. They're still the same thing, imposition of upper class preference on genpop. Genpop is allowed to opine, yes?
we are builing a horrible dystopia. thats why. cant have nice things, smart things, reasonable things. all you can have is a terrorsystem for the mind and body
things can definitely feel dire, but there is also such capacity for connection, joy, and learning. i hope you find space to do something nice for yourself today 💞
I recommend the short “building sights: the Chrysler Building” where John Malkovich waxes about some of the stuff you’re talking about. Some of the things he says there have really stuck with me.
@@xandercruz900 This kind of video always attracts reactionary conservatives afraid of the future. They'll rally behind anyone saying the past was better in any way whatsoever, no matter the subject.
@@JohnFromAccounting Here are two easy examples for people with silly takes like that: John Hancock Building and the TransAmerica Pyramid. Two buildings that are definitely not trashy and both have become iconic to the cities they are in. Elite Residence in Dubai. Guangzhou International Finance Center Sears Tower Petronas Towers Taipei 101 Even the Burj Khalifa is a wonder of architecture and engineering. Dubai alone is just packed with amazing structures. But what on Earth is the point of me giving you a list when you have no real ability to decern between good architecture and "only old stuff is good"?
Can we all agree post modern and modern are ruining cities and go back to more elegant and timeless design? Maybe throw in some local vernacular for good measure.
>Can we all agree post modern and modern are ruining cities No? Why in the world should we "all agree" like this is some binary? >and go back to more elegant and timeless design? Whatever that means. > Maybe throw in some local vernacular for good measure. "local vernacular"?
❤honestly I never knew how much I loved architecture until I started noticing the history of architecture- well , to be even more honest, I’m not aesthetically over the moon about much modern architecture. I’m an absolute history geek and dwellings and aesthetic always have stories to tell. I’m obsessed with your videos now - have learned so much about my hometown and the buildings I admire - thank you
Philip Johnson also designed the Wells Fargo Center in Denver, which is known locally as the Mailbox building or the Cash Register building, and has a unique, though not ornate, top.
1. An Architect friend told me this many years ago. He presented his design proposal for a multi-storey commercial building. The client asked it he could make the exterior less “Bland”. He replied “Yes”, if the client would let him increase the external walls to 1foot thick. The client took a piece of paper and a pencil. He calculated the loss of usable floor space on each floor, multiplied that by the number of storeys, multiplied that by the annual rent per square foot. Sighed and said “Bland is Grand”
That makes sense. Nothing wrong with flat steel and glass, I suppose, but it is a pity that that's all we see these days.
In the past century more people had a sense of civic pride. There was a feeling that they were contributing to the community, nation and society so cost was less of a factor. Also your building was part of the face of your company. You wanted to display success.
Now it is all about the numbers. Who is going to see your building and identify it with your company or product? Now the building you work in is just that, the building you work in.
@@glenncordova4027 Yeah, nah, sorry to burst your nostalgic bubble but compared to older forms of cladding glass is cheaper, lighter, easier to build, to clean and to repair and, of course, lets a ton of natural light in. It's not just economics, it's simply a better choice for a skyscraper.
@@thevinisoyou refuted none of the previous comment
@@vaderbuckeye36 Feelings aren't refutable.
Neoclassical and Art Deco are my favorite architecture styles. I hope the new generations of Architect will revive those styles.
One of the things I've kept finding myself saying over the years is "The future should've been Art Deco." Nothing compares to those architectural monuments to progress and the future
@@tjenadonn6158 Couldn't agree more
@@tjenadonn6158 so true. For me, government buildings and universities should be Neoclassical while commercial and residential buildings should be Art Deco. I would love to live in a city like that.
@@mmjj7685 Honestly, I'll settle for just more Goth Targets
Hopefully we will. Modernism has done too much harm already, and it's time to pass away from this corpse.
I'm an architecture student and having to design buildings ONLY with "Modernist" rules is the most boring thing ever... I'm even thinking about dropping out of college because of it...
Really depends on the school I think, my school was open to anything as long as it was well-executed
@@LeninCake Here in Brazil we have like a "modernist dictatorship" in colleges....They even hate Niemeyer just because he didn't follow all the modernist rules...They only have Mies, Corbusier, Lina Bobardi and Lelé (famous brazilian modernist architect) as references.
I felt the same way. Be true to what you love and design it well. Make jurists confront their subjective bias and grow.
you should. school isn't exactly the best place to learn. You just pick up a bunch of debt & when you graduate get paid crap until you "gain more experience"
EDIT -- Look at Zuckerberg & Musk, they're both college drop outs & architecting the worlds space race & Virtual Reality.
@@kevinmanan1304 So, here in Brazil we have free college. I won't have debt to pay later but it's very demotivating to be in a place where you're supposed to experiment and innovate but in fact you're forced to follow outdated Modernist rules because your teachers are outdated boomers who don't like new things....
another factor I've heard contributed to the thoroughness of the lack of postwar ornamentation is that the mass-produced ornament factories mostly shut down due to decreased demand, so it got quite expensive to even consider that kind of decoration
@@i3sf252 whose website are you referring to?
Growing up in NYC in the 1960s, I fell in love with the great Art-Deco skyscrapers that dominated Manhattan at the time. My favorite was the Empire State Building, and not just because of its height. The detailing is actually pretty sober -- much more so than the Chrysler Building, for example. But it's the massing, with its beautifully proportioned set-backs, culminating in that fantastic spire at the top, that really floats my boat. I was lucky enough to have a beautiful view of it from my bedroom window. I didn't realize how lucky I was until I was an adult.
However, my favorite skyscraper design is Eliel Saarinen's unexecuted design for the Chicago Tribune Tower, which I far prefer to Howells and Hood's as-built tower. Saarinen combines the massing of an Art-Deco skyscraper with ornament that recalls a late Gothic cathedral, with that tremendous vertical energy surging to the top. Magnificent!
Vertical Energy of Mayan temple # lV
Two things to consider: 1. Cities have little wild nature, the sky is usually the biggest natural space. The sky is often beautiful, with al kinds of clouds and many colors during the sunset. How do we treat the sky? Old buildings celebrate the sky and invite you to look up. Modern buildings usually just draw a horizontal line, like a prison wall, communicating hopelessness and boredom. But it gets worse. The sky is often used like a garbage dump, some leftover space where modern buildings put put all kinds of boxes, vents, pipes. Not only are you not invited to look up, you are actively discouraged to do so. 2. Invisible details are not useless, they give a feeling of abundance. Often when you pass by an old, ornate building, it gives you a good feeling instantly, but at the same time it makes you feel that there are more presents waiting for you, if one day you would take more time to study it. Walking through a beautiful old city can feel like you are handed presents everywhere, more than you can open. Not being able to see many of them reinforces this feeling of never ending riches, and because they are designed by humans, it also feels like an abundance of love given to you by previous generations. Functionalism gives exactly the opposite effect, everything feels poor and loveless. It even suggests a shortage of time. Because playful, silly details give the feeling that there is time to play and that the time you take to watch and enjoy this is valuable, not wasted.
In the historically opulent buildings, there is a message behind the ornamentation. In St Peter's at the Vatican, there is not a single detail that was not cared for. Not a single tile out of place. Not a single space which you could accuse for being unfinished. This gives a sense that just like the architects and builders that put their heart and soul into making every little piece perfect, God will care for everyone, no matter how small or insignificant they think they are. If you are a white floor tile on the west side, you belong there and were intended to fill an important role. Beyond the surface value of the sculptures and murals, it's an inspiring creation.
I would argue the reflective glass walls of modern buildings does increase the appreciation of the sky. From the ground the building act as a mirror reflecting the sky and light.
Old buildings were the main focus.
I like both solutions.
Especially when mixed together.
Ah yes, modern building exude the values of cut throat capitalism.
@@jon9103"lol capitalism's fault"
Said the annoying ideologue
@pietervoogt beautifully stated. I never thought of all these spectacular architectural details in that way before. I always try to take time to look for them and see them, and I know there are so, so many to see. I love to take pictures of old buildings. But to think of their abundance as gifts to be discovered, it’s a new perspective for me, and I thank you.
For a time, Ulm Minster was the tallest building in the world. Tall buildings absolutely don't have to be ugly. They can be beautiful landmarks.
Wow, really? I was there just a few weeks ago and I didn't know that. All I learned about was the Ulmer Spatz on the roof. To be fair though, beautiful church spires serve a very different function from modern skyscrapers. Their whole job is to advertise the power of God and the church.
@@Maxime_K-G Well, in this case it was more competition with the city of Cologne. Everyone wanted to be the town with the tallest church and by the end Ulm beats the cologne cathedral by a couple of meters.
The male tendency to think "Mine is bigger than the other guys" applies even to archbishops overseeing the building of cathedrals
@@dennisenright7725 It’s human nature to strive to be the best. I don’t think that’s specifically male
@@Icetea-2000 bigger doesn't mean better
I think the issue involves what is practical, stylish, or popular. I remember when the AT&T was built. Many architects and historians ridiculed Johnson’s design. In some circles, it was maligned for years. Now, it’s safe say it adds to the uniqueness of Madison Avenue other structures like the IBM Tower, the old Art Deco Newsweek building, the Lotte Palace, the rear of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and the rest of post WW II International Style structures.
The 80s design cues are very unsightly to me. It's a matter of personal taste, but I hate looking at that awful blocky styling.
I think the AT&T looks great from street level but the top just looks awful. It’s certainly unique, though
Exactly. There is a ballance between something looking visually appealing and being finacially efficient/viable. Why bother putting an extremly ornate top on a super tall building when noone can see it. There is a fine line between too much detail and too little
this Chicago native has been gone since the 70's, but this city has always been a place of pride for me in no small part because of it's magnificent architecture. the Wrigley building, the Water Tower, the Michigan Avenue bridge and my favorite, Tribune Tower, wher you could actually touch stones from all over the world!
I lived in River North during the late 80s and worked in most of the premium skyscrapers in Chicago. The adoption of precast construction has resulted in many modern (cheap and basic) looking structures (State of Illinois, Two Prudential, . I suspect cost savings drive these design decisions.
I loved the details of the Jewelers Building that you shared. It’s really interesting to discover the details and history of the skyscrapers that I’ve seen for my entire life (which is a very loooong time). The view of Chicago’s skyline from over the Marina is breathtaking. The conception of the Marina Towers with spires was terrifying! Can you imagine walking across those little bridges?!? Another wonderful video, Stewart.🌸
2:47 The flying buttresses are very cool. What gets me about them is no one can see them, they're obviously decorative and completely non functional at that altitude but they're made to look authentic as a structural feature.
The smaller ones further down 'could' be functional but they're obviously far too small do a thing and are therefore deliberately decorative. The clever interplay of reversing the positions of decorative looking functional and the functional being only decorative isn't lost on me. It's great stuff.
Heh buttress
Chicago's one of those cities where you'll walk into what looks like a roman cathedral and find out it's literally just a Walmart.
The city's a pretty fun place if you like architecture.
Also get stabbed in the financial district or shot on lakeshore drive, the new homeless encampments really spice up the citys landscape :)
@@BadAtRunescape people get so pressed about these cities 😂 they're not that bad
@@WrainTravels That is what I say about most places. Humans are super adaptable and no where is as bad as they seem once you get used to it
I @@BadAtRunescape
@@Jimmy_Jones highlydoubt it
just finished the video, and i really loved the section on setbacks. in addition to the wind and sunlight advantages you mention, stepped designs also allow for creative uses of outdoor space.
i used to live in a downtown apartment building with retail and offices on the lower floors that acted as a pedestal. the residential portion was set back on top of it and surrounded by a private courtyard with gardens and fountains. the lower pedestal blocked most traffic noise from reaching the courtyard, which created a quiet, bright, and airy space outdoor space for residents in the middle of the city
Agree. So many possible aesthetic and pragmatic uses.
Something that occured to me that I don't think you mentioned is how tall buildings interact with each other. The occupants of a skyscraper have a "ground level" view of the skyscraper across the street, especially in densely vertical cities like NY and Chicago. Detailing in those façades now becomes visible, but not to the general public.
I do like some modern skyscrapers that have quite pretty crowns, if it’s because of how they play with light. My favorites are the Bank of America Center in Charlotte (designed by Cesar Pelli) because of how the illuminated glass poles enhance the setbacks and make the tower look ethereal; the never-built Bank of the Southwest in Houston (designed by Helmut Jahn) because of how the roof is helped by the visually interesting corner setbacks; and the Ping An Finance Center in Shenzhen (designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox) for the same reason as the previous one, but with a crown more suggestive of a brilliant cut gem.
It's so great to hear that you think of it as the Adventures in Babysitting building too! I was so excited when I visited Chicago years ago and saw it. As a kid I had no idea that it was a real building and thought it had been made up for the film.
I was surprised when I saw it IRL a few years later as well! It does have that 'movie' vibe!
Another fine video by Mr. Hicks -partly illustrated with the innovative photography of Chris Hytha- addressing a fascinating theme. At once academic and entertaining and full of interesting insights. Nice work. Keep it coming ...
Interesting you should include the State Tower building in Syracuse (my home). This Art Deco beauty is designed to draw the eye to its top. For example the bricks that clad its facade become increasingly lighter in color as the building rises. This feature, along with its strong verticality, force your view upward. Kudos to the building's owner for camouflauging the cell antenae affixed to its upper floors.
New York or Sicily?
@@rangercommandervelvlarumai7589 New York.
That sort of attention to detail takes a building to the… wait for it… *next level*
I remember the first time I saw the Jeweler's Building as a kid 20 years ago while on a boat tour on the Chicago River, I was six years old, yet I instantly recognized it as the inspiration of one of the buildings in SimCity 2000. On a related note to the car elevator in the Jewelers Building, the Art Deco-style Carew Tower in Cincinnati once had an automated car parking garage that would lift cars on an elevator up to parking spots, which opened alongside the rest of the building in 1930. A control panel at the bottom of the garage allowed people to store and retrieve cars, much like a giant mechanical filing cabinet, though people often did not understand how to use it, which led to it becoming operated by attendants. Sadly, that portion of the Carew Tower complex was demolished in the 1980s after becoming obsolete and useless, a victim of a changed culture around cars where parking and retrieving your car manually from a garage or surface lot was seen as more desirable, as well as the increased size of automobiles, which the limited size and capacity of the machinery designed for smaller 1920s and 1930s cars could not accommodate.
Love your channel Stewart. I just told a friend that the Jewelers Building is probably my favorite in Chicago. Thank you for the insight
That's so sad for the bottoms, I hope they all can find new tops
'Boring' is a very kind word, most skyscraper built since mid 2010s have forgettable silhouette, while ugly is subjective, chance are you won't be able to tell which is which and forget its name in days, there is indeed some reviving movement to being back the details of the building.
Aesthetics do in fact serve a function, it is the cultural identity of the city it situates, it inspire audience, think of it as a hierarchy of needs in terms of actualization, the art deco movement in 1920s symbolized the progression era, even the cross bracing facades of John Hancock building in the 60s 70s represented the re-emphasis of forms follow function while not omitting the details.
While there is indeed a need for skyscrapers as functions, and of course social need should be taken care of before decorations, but that do no justify putting another glass box in the middle of historic skyline and tearing the old one down, you would not worship a stainless stain ladle over a pearl necklace, would you?
Saying we are progressing and therefore must forgone the aesthetics is a pathetic dystopian excuse for lazy and banal designs.
it is not an issue of against new, but against poor design and bad decision.
Kind of a lie. Lots of new skyscrapers respect their environment while being easily recognizable landmarks, even if you think they are ugly. In the 20s there were a buttload of people criticizing the Art Deco movement for "destroying the historic skyline"just like you're doing right now. Criticizing new movements is necessary for us to determine what works and what doesn't, so that we can move on with new, better structures, but completely writing off a movement is not the way to go
\
@Joaquim Silva That is exactly why I said 'most' instead of all skyscraper, and for your record, I also mention ugly is subjective.
I do agree some contemporary designs take into good consideration like Radisson Blu Aqua Hotel in Chicago is magnificent indeed, and the Leadenhall building in London respect the visual corridor toward the St Paul is another great example. And that is my point exactly, how many of the latest render actually did pay much attention like those 2 examples I mentioned?
Yes, just like people criticised the Art Deco movement (I am not sure if they actual do since Mid town in 1920s is pretty empty and thus a perfect sandbox), The Chrysler building become the pinnacle of Art Deco style and get along well with the Grand Central terminal beaux arts style, just like the Eiffel tower as well, Eiffel tower is in front of the Champ de Mars, it provide a new axis linking the Place du Trocadéro toward the École Militaire, forming parallel to the historic Arc de Triomphe axis, Eiffel tower created new things by co-exisiting with the old, things will be quite different if Eiffel tower has to torn down Notre Dame and that is my point exactly, I don't mind new and progress, but bad and poor design. How about the Penn station in New York? Madison Garden Square is a decent mid century design but by tearing the Neo classical old facade that is on par with Grand Central terminal is generally viewed as a great mistake by public indeed, how about Singer building as well? We actually have a term called Brusselization that unplanned and cheap building spamming historical region so bad that Paris has to ban new skyscraper in central district after the Mont Parnasse building is built for decades. Bad design is an obstacle for progress.
Better structure? Yes, go ahead! Poor design? Nay. Justification for poor design with the excuse of progress? Double nay
@@ilovemokona2I agree with you. It’s important to keep the old buildings, they can coexist with new buildings but it kills me when an old building gets demolished to make room for a new building. They could’ve found a different location for the new building, or even repurposed the old one. There’s history there. It should be preserved and respected.
I honestly don't think any paticular style of skyscraper is inheritently an eyesore to any city or skyline. The Eiffel Tower was percieved as an eyesore in the beginning. At the end of the day it's all about creating a memorable building. Most of the critique of mordern high-rises and skyscrapers boil down to simply them not being very distinct from each other, and sometimes they can display the "big brother watching you" vibe which means the building looking down on us as opposed to us looking up on the building.
I personally love Chicago's skyline as it provides many different styles of skyscrapers and each very memorable to the observer. Would love to see it en person someday. My country hasn't ever build a skyscraper, not because the money or companies aren't here, but because of potential public backlash. But I am sure when the time comes, the architechs at hand will make something memorable, because they have too. Even our tallest residental high-rise has become iconic in it's own right, even though most people would call it ugly, simply because it stands out and have become an identity for the people who live there.
You are leaving out the issue that most modern buildings/high rises don't have local identity, they are the same blocks of steel and glass from China to Germany. Beaux-arts or Neo-Gothic high rises are more beautiful and age better and are quickly more accepted than another glass eyesore.
@@Nostalg1a That's actually a quirk of Multinational corporations wanting to have similar buildings around the world.
@@Nostalg1a Maybe the blocks of steel and glass are not unique to a particular place, but they’re among the most beautiful things you can construct :)
Neo-Gothic is too spooky and ornate. Who the hell would want to look at a building like that every day? Or even worse, live/work in one
P
Heck even the Twin Towers were claimed to be eyesores and two boxes and grew on us and it goes with the saying “you don’t know what you got until you lose it”
Another modern day example of buildings with ornamentation would be the work of Lucien Lagrange Studio in Chicago. Among the architect's work, his designs for the Park Hyatt, 840 N. Lake Shore Drive, and 65 E Goethe all have decorative cornices. I once attended a lecture sponsored by The Chicago Architecture Foundation in which the architect explained that his inspiration often comes from 1920s Paris.
I have a fabulous view if the Empire State Building. It's art Deco details and spire are a thrilling thing to see every day. But the building I really love for its detail is the Chrysler Building.
I love the interviews with Chris. I followed him on twitter a while ago and love seeing his work.
I'm fine with the stylized tops of post modern skyscrapers they are just too far up to be noticed and modern buildings have important requirements for energy efficiency and wind loads. However, I wish there was more attempt to improve the pedestrian experience at the ground level. Sometimes i wish they would just make bolt on exteriors on the first 10floors of buildings that artists could design and remodel over time.
nice thinking
Like paper doll outfits, or Mr. Potato Head pieces!
Another thoughtful, well crafted video that informs as well as entertains. I appreciate the content. Please keep the video's coming.
super interesting topic! you have the tone and demeanor of my favorite art history instructors! your tone is so approachable and you explain the fundamentals so well. im constantly amazed when learning about the depths of architecture. how the psychology and principles of design connect with the marvels of engineering and material science. thank you!
New York City has incredible details on the crowns of buildings. They're great for occupants in nearby buildings, but almost unknown to anyone going by. Of course, looking up to appreciate all the thought that people put into the buildings makes everyone think you're a tourist, which Manhattan residents seem to never want to be caught doing. Ironically, very few people actually in Midtown & Downtown New York actually grew up among those buildings. Maybe it's a reflex of denial.
Everything classical and neoclassical is so amazing we need to start doing this all over the world again
311 S. Wacker Dr. is such a striking building to be so commonly overlooked. I can’t help but feel if the building were located somewhere else, it would’ve been considered an iconic postmodern skyscraper.
I am not an architect, but I love this video and I want all of you who ARE architects to know the beauty and details of buildings DO matter and are appreciated by many of us.
As a Chicago native, I fell in love with architecture at an early age. It probably had something to do with the fact I spent a lot of time in both Beverly on the South Side and Oak Park in the near western suburbs, two places filled with beautifully designed homes. Thank you for this wonderful video sharing this breathtaking photography. I've always thought it would be cool to fly like Superman and visit the tops of these buildings!
Chippendale Tower aka the Dutch Chair appears in nearly every stylized NYC skyline because of how easy it is to draw.
This was like a visual episode of 99% Invisible: thoughtful, easy listening, with great interview interstitials. All it needs is more Lullatone!
This is quickly becoming one of my favorite channels 🎉 love how in a way is a love letter to architecture but also a love letter to Chicago.
I’m SO happy that people are finally bringing this up! I’ve seen quite a few videos criticizing modern architecture recently and I hope that it has an impact and that the people in charge of defining the skylines of our cities notice it and change.
Love the video's Stewart! I'm sure you've made a lot of us appreciate architecture in a new way. You choose niche topics and elaborate on their relevance in an easy to digest yet in depth manner.
Absolute youtube legend!!! Now THATs what I call content
5:48 Now this is pure art.
A large element is that skyscrapers are built as a commodity and having ornamentation gains you very little to nothing in price. Therefore a boring cube gains you the best ROI and that's all the developers care about. Leading to boring cities.
Actually I have read research that ornaments can add monetary value, I think it was 10% higher value. You should be able to calculate it, take two buildings in the same block (so location is no influence) one from the 1970s and one from 1870 and compare the prices. Also consider publicity/advertisement value. I don't even know if Chrysler still exists but I know the Chrysler building. Imagine millions of tourists sharing pictures of your building.
@@pietervoogt can you find me this research, as I can't find it, I just did a cursory glance at prices in new York and there is zero correlation, and it doesn't work like that in the city I'm in.
@@Alex-cw3rz well ask yourself this. Would you rather live/work in a beautiful ornate building, or a bland boring cube?
If you would rather live/work in a beautifully ornate building, how much extra would you be prepared to pay to do so?
If you are prepared to pay 10% more to live/work in an ornate building, and the ornamental features add 9% to the cost of the building, then it is in the developers interest to build ornate buildings.
The problem then becomes one of a lack of choice when it comes to living somewhere. The prices of rent in these cities effectively negates any difference in perceived value between buildings. If there is such limited supply of available accommodation even the wealthy can't afford to be choosy about where they live. They may have a multi million dollar budget, but if the only apartments on the market are modern cubes then they will have to buy a modern cube even if they want to live in a neoclassical apartment. As for working, well the decision there isn't based on what the employees want, it's based on what the accountants say. You may want to work in a beautiful building, but the decision isn't yours, and the people making that decision don't care what you want they care about the bottom line.
If we want a world that values anything other than money then we need to rid ourselves of people who make it their job to manage money. I say all accountants get rounded up and locked away and Excel gets permanently deleted from every computer globally and then we may start to be able to design better buildings and value things like employee happiness and sustainability and cultural impact rather than the bottom line.
@@Alex-cw3rz No, I'm sorry, I can't find it anymore. I read it years ago and I don't remember the quality of the research, nor the exact words (ornament? decoration? traditional details? classical elements?) which make it hard to search for it. I can also imagine that it is more complicated than I just described it because, on second thought, almost no building is the same in quality of plumbing, maintenance, isolation etcetera so small price differences could be ascribed to anything. I hope someone will repeat the research.
Thank you for the video! So interesting. Was in NYC and enjoyed seeing the old, ornate buildings. Your video is insightful as to the different periods and why buildings look the way they do.
Thank you again!
I feel like it was only touched on slightly, but are we forgetting that a large reason for the departure from more ornately designed buildings was just the simple fact that after WW2, developers wanted to maximize profits by maximizing rentable square footage? What is the easiest way to do that? Just extrude the building upward. There are plenty of nice skyscrapers that are built these days, its just that a lot of them are just glass curtain walls with some slight ornamentation using mullions or structural expressionism. Also it doesn't help that a lot of modern skyscrapers are simply just too huge to have lots of thoughtful ornamentation without coming at a massive cost. So developers and clients alike choose size instead of style to show off their power. Look at the new chase building in Manhattan for example. Also, for all their faults as a toxic work environment, SHoP Architects does tend to design nice skyscrapers, look at the Brooklyn Tower that is soon to finish its facade work. That one is also a supertall, but they use modern technology to create a neo-gothic look. Unfortunately, those kind of buildings are always reserved for the rich tho lol.
In Barcelona museum dedicated to Antoni Gaudí, concerning the Sagrada Familia you can read something like that :
While Gaudi was overseeing the project a visiting bishop once asked of him,” Why do you trouble yourself so much about the tops of the towers? After all, no one will ever see them”. “ Your Grace,” he replied, “ The angels will see them.”
The Eureka Tower in Melbourne has a section of gold at the top that looks as if it's trying to escape from the structure. The gold is a reference to the gold rush that introduced wealth to the region for the first time.
The British cartoonist and critic Osbert Lancaster suggested that if you visited New York in a hot air balloon (in the 1920s), it would look as though you were drifting along the Grand Canal of Venice. He supplied a nice drawing you can find online.
1:07 - Dinkleberg!!
Calling it the Sears Tower did not go unnoticed. Keep it up.
With the advent of accessible CNC routers and design programs, will we see an uptick in sculpted design elements in buildings??
The barriers to entry for sculpting could be reduced thanks to automated processes that minimize the need for specialized human skills like sculpting currently is.
while cnc is great for custom design on a small scale, it does not scale as well as other construction methods. molds, like mentioned in the video with terracotta, can produce elements faster and cheaper at scale
@@winterwatson6811 Good distinction to make. Fast, reliable, and precise large format CNC’s are the ticket then. Impossible? Hard to say.
Let's not forget industrial 3D printing. Digitally scuplt an art piece and have it printed in a cement mixture, might be cheaper and less labour intensive once the manufacturing process has been figured out.
Let's not forget industrial 3D printing. Digitally scuplt an art piece and have it printed in a cement mixture, might be cheaper and less labour intensive once the manufacturing process has been figured out.
cnc is certainly revolutionizing prototyping, but the process is inherently inefficient at scale because cnc’ing builds parts through reduction. there will always be elevated time and material requirements at scale when each piece needs to be individually machined down from a blank. molds produce little to no waste material.
where they certainly open new potential is in the production of nonstandard elements. with terracotta, the architect is limited to repeating elements. this restriction does not exist with cnc, but the same cost and time disadvantages will likely always apply.
I always thought that the rectangular international style took over skyscrapers of the 1950s to 1980s because their flat roofs could be used as helicopter pads for the rich and trendy occupants of those buildings. But because cities began to ban helicopters outside of emergency usage due to noise pollution and notable crash incidents, architects started to experiment with different shapes again.
Have you heard of the Burnham Plan? It was an urban design plan that would’ve made Chicago a “Paris on the Prairie”. Kings and Things did a video on it.
I'm actually an engineer that works on designing the mounting frames for installations such as 3:49.
The Radio-Frequency (RF) transparent material we use for these is called FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (or Plastic)). You can make tubes and plates and bolts that function basically just like steel would, all from super strong and durable plastic, but it's not nearly as strong or stiff (about 1/10th as much). As steel is just much stronger, structurally, we typically anchor the FRP to a steel frame anchored to the building's frame/walls/whatever structure we can find to calc out. We usually insert some thru-bolts back into the beams or columns supporting the outer facade, roofs, etc.
There's a rule called the 5% rule (or 10% for lateral loads) where once you calculate that the _increase_ in load from the original design condition is less than 10%, you don't need to calculate nay more. So if you add a small box or even a decent sized frame, you'll probably need/want to check the beam is fine, but as the beam is supporting many thousands of pounds, you don't really need to check any further, that little frame on there is just going to be taking out some of the design slack from the columns and foundations, etc.
Stewart, I've been watching the show "Severance" and the bizarre layout of the office building has me constantly thinking of you. I would love a video where you talk about what the show's creators were thinking when they designed that building set.
Omg, yes for sure! I have so many thoughts about it and love the show.
Losing the ornaments is not just a thing for skyscrapers. It's a general trend for all kind of buildings, from the smallest to the biggest, and also inside them.
What about the ornamnents inside the building
When Canary Wharf in London was developed in the 80s-90s, they intentionally designed buildings in a mix of styles across the 20th century. This was done to attract different industry sectors like newspapers, law firms, and banks.
It was believed that if everything looked the same age the area would feel bland and cultureless vs the City of London where skyscrapers weave in next to medieval buildings.
This video is perfectly timed with Adam Something's video on a similar subject. Well done Stewart, we're lucky to have you.
The careful detailing that was done in that period still amazes me to this day. In my humble opinion It was unique and gave these buildings "Character".
Thanks!
Thank you!!!
Pretty amazing drone footage!
It's also interesting what functions the tops of skyscrapers serve. Most of them have antennae, HVAC equipment and/or lightning arrestors. Some are just the roof to their building and that's it. A few have luxurious aspects like a high-end restaurant or a helicopter pad.
I think there still is some untapped potential, especially in regards to sustainability. What about building-integrated wind power using low-noise vertical wind turbines? Windcatchers for passive ventillation throughout the entire building? A rooftop greenhouse for growing tropical fruits?
I feel like not just skyscrapers but all modern architecture in general is extremely boring down to even the interiors where decorative door and window trim has be replaced with just a standard board, and decorative crown molding has be replaced by nothing, just removed with a sharp corner between the wall and ceiling.
They are empty shapes, devoid of any meaning, character or personality. And then people apply that same idea to the interior. You'd think a blank canvas would awaken people's creativity, but instead it just makes people more empty-minded. Its quite sad, people don't realize that the quality, beauty and meaning in the built environment around them has a direct effect on their mindset, their outlook on life and their mental health.
Minimalism has also caused the death of craftsmanship and carpentry. Why get an ornate carved chair when you can get a minimal design from IKEA?
The quality of the interior comes down to budget, even minor upgrades from the basic package to architectural can quickly add up when applied across an entire building.
And minimialism doesn't have to be boring, it's just often selected because its easy to be cheap when the goal is minimal clutter. (An empty room isn't cluttered sort of logic, but its also not an attractive space)
I can imagine how beautiful those skyscrapers would be.
I can even imagine how pricey their rooms would be.
I honestly think it's unfair that Modernism gets such a bad rap nowadays. I'm sure for some it's simply not to their taste, but the vast majority of the time I think peoples' complaints are not rooted in anything inherent to the style itself, but in the circumstances and motives surrounding its implementation. When created with care and an eye for aesthetics, Modernism can certainly yield beautiful meaningful buildings. But between the oversaturation of the style in today's landscape and the clients' hyperfixation on its economic benefits above all else, it's become the easiest way to phone it in while still fitting in. And after a few decades of this, the style has become firmly associated with uninspired repetition. It's an unfortunate precedent that we've set, but I wouldn't say it's Modernism's fault.
Thank you for always giving such nuanced and well-informed takes, Stewart. Your videos truly are a gift.
At the World Trade Center, the first of the world-toppers without a pointed roof, Minoru Yamasaki generally gave the Rockefeller brothers what they wanted, but the flat top was his own idea. He was Presbyterian, so maybe it was a take on "four bare walls and a sermon". His Rainier Tower in his hometown of Seattle does have a pointed apex-- but at the bottom, not the top!
yes it looks like its stuck in the ground upside down.
TLDR: most people don't look up at or in buildings.
Being raised by a construction engineer and later being a project manager. I was always asked to look at what kind of brick pattern /bonds an old building has. Or to spot the detailing in it.
It made me appreciate the work that got into buildings.
As an HVAC engineer myself. I now look up inside buildings.
The amount of visible plumbing in supermarkets is a lot. And not so pretty.
Most people won't notice though so it doesn't matter.
Sadly it's also the same with pretty buildings, most people don't care, so it doesn't matter to them.
But when it is done and they are among such buildings they do experience the prettiness.
Or when it's not there, the coldness of the buildings is palpable.
As an autist, I am very much aware of all the exposed piping and wiring in stores. In some, it's quite an eyesore. In others, the exposed tidily installed technology almost has an elegance to it.
A true Chicagoian calling the building "Sears Tower".
Mark Foster Gage gave a talk at my school (Pratt Arch) on his approach to ornamentation through “kitbashing”. His ability to design through abstract means is incredibly provocative. Generating shape and form with meaningless objects all to create meaning from the meaningless, a toaster, a gun, an eagles, etc.
It's mostly a western issu IMO. In east Asia there are tons of creative Skyscrapers being buildt.
Thank you, I was just about to say that!
But even then, there are still crazy designs being made in North America
I just wanted to say I thoroughly enjoyed this video. I subbed instantly. Brilliantly presented and researched topic. Thank you, I mean.
As a man who always wanted to be an architect, and was as a child, and now, as a 38 year old man, is still so interested in this I went into the care sector for young people but still to this day I think about the possibility. More like what if I had overcome my adolescent difficulties in maths and got my grade to consider going onto become a real architect and such.
I don't regret more like ponder this. Channels I have found like yours are genuinely wonderful.
I could carry on but what I mean is simply to say the work you have done and the way you present it is just brilliant and a joy to take in.
Thanks a lot. Very cool.
A man in a plain black t-shirt and no hat is asking why buildings don't have ornate tops anymore. 😀
Great video, I just love and wish there'd be more Ornate buildings now and I get a bit sad seeing what has been lost over the years!
that's true in my POV it would be dope if we had more elaborate & unique building's in North America but it's rare to see.
Its rare because its shockingly expensive to upgrade above the basic functional options. For instance 2'x2' recessed lights in drop tile ceilings will generally cost an extra $70 per light to upgrade from basic "flat panel" to "architectural" style. (Multiply by several thousand lights in a new skyscraper and that cost adds up)
So sadly due to basic economics it costs extra to make things pretty and its rare to find someone willing to foot that bill for _only_ aesthetic benefits. We all want prettier buildings but its just not always in the budget.
@@jasonreed7522 yet USA miltary gets $$$ for tool meant for chaos
Another superb vid with great input from Chris, his work is amazing.
If and when we get flying taxis, I imagine there will be more pressure on architects and developers to make their developments more interesting from height.
My understanding is that 1920s architects anticipated blimps used as commuter vehicles, so, especially along The Chicago River, the bottle shape above the rectangular base allowed for blimps to dock and office workers to catch elevators down or up to their floors. Those details were meant to be seen up close! The Hindenburg disaster ended that design path.
A great subject (exterior decoration, or the lack of it) covered in this excellent video. Many thanks again to Prof. Hicks.
Very interesting. You could also mention the lost of influence of Christianity in our modern/western society. As your guest suggested, those towers were a display of power. They tell a story for the future generations. In the past (in our western society) the religion had this kind of power and the only tower in town and city were churches and cathedrals. Those buildings mimic the religion idea of power. Nowadays religion is not anymore synonym of great power and corporations don’t want to be associated with this idea anymore, they prefer show how organize they are… and when you think about it modern building look like spreadsheets sometimes :)
Once corporations stopped being beholden by moral order, they immediately devolved into profit maximization at the cost of a pleasant society. Going from inspiring towers into featureless modern skyscrapers that are intended for efficiency was a real cultural whiplash.
Olympia Centre (161 E Chicago Ave) may not be considered ornate but it is elegant as the choice of materials on the facade have held up and look timeless. The Watertower condominium was constructed around the same time and premium facade materials were the standard for a luxury condominium. As a young professional at the time, I went to the sales office and was handed massive/detailed book that provided all the building floor plates and plans. The outside cover matched the color of the granite and the interior pages were cream colored. The documents were on a high quality paper befitting the property and I have kept them 30+ years later. For perspective: The monthly HOA fees average $2,000 per month. Don't ask about the taxes as they are brutal. 🤨
I actually like the simplicity of newer skyscrapers. The engineering side of things can honestly be just as beautiful if not more beautiful than the architectural ornamentation from earlier skyscrapers. I think the real problem in architecture is cheap derivative and ugly single family houses that have no density no character and absolutely no uniqueness.
The problem with international and modernist style towers is that they aren't particularly ugly or beautiful, they just are. Would you say a white cube is beautiful? Mathematically sure, but visually, it's just a cube, it doesn't mean anything. Post-WWII buildings are entirely devoid of any meaning or personality, they have no character. They are defined by their blandness. They are aesthetically empty and plain. Architecture devoid of meaning, especially in high density areas with lots of foot traffic, meeting places meant to form communities, creates communities devoid of meaning and emotionless, empty people. Boring cement/glass buildings literally drain you of your will to live. Not to mention that they too are cheap derivative cookie cutter construction, but on a larger much more visible scale. At least a boring house can be customised by the owner, now a big glass office tower, does the community that has to live around it ever get a say on its looks?
@@ricardogens9834 This kind of generalization is always, always wrong. All skyscrapers built since WW2 are devoid of character? What? It just takes one look at London, Shanghai, Moscow, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, Sydney or pretty much any major city in the US to know you're talking crap.
@@theviniso Read my comment again, please. I said, that if you don't know the build, you couldn't place it. The vibrant parts of those major cities tend not to be the skyscrapers in the CBD, it tends to be the midrise mix use neighbourhoods with large sidewalks or pedestrianised streets, with street level shops and restaurants. Looking at Manhattan, the most vibrant parts are not Downtown Wall Street or Times Square, even though they see a lot of foot traffic during the day. The most vibrant parts are Tribeca, Chinatown and Hells Kitchen, where there are 0 skyscrapers, and most construction is pre-1960s, and are very uniquely New York. Ask anyone not involved or interested in architecture to place the SanFran Salesforce tower or London's Leadeanhall Cheese grater or Yokohama's Mirai Landmark tower and the answers would be completely random. Of course the skylines are famous because each has a unique look, but the buildings that make them up are individually uninteresting to any layman. Perhaps up to the 60s there were still some soulful works, but once the brutalist, internationalist and modernist styles became the status quo, there have been very few exceptions.
7:22 I know this is remotely the point, but does anyone know what is the product name of the long gray equipment bag at the back of the room?
Is it snow-board bag? Keyboard case? Gun case? Or what? I really need to find this bag because the dimension looks just right for my purpose.
Its a snowboard bag!
Developers chose money over appearance. And some architectural firms were more than happy to cater to the frugalness.
And the buildings you love so much were paid for with what? Lots of money they decided to spend on ornamentation than paying more to the workers, right?
If Amazon spent the equivalent on a highly-ornamented building today, you all would blow your stacks.
@@xandercruz900 Amazon has a $500 BILLION dollar annual revenue. They could CERTAINLY make nicer looking buildings AND pay their workers more. They are instead choosing to put their money elsewhere like expanding and investing.
Also, individual clients building high rises before the 40s often worked in the buildings they paid for, so they cared about appearance. Now, they are usually a corporation who will hardly ever see the building, so they don’t care about an appearance that would double the cost.
I love 80s architecture, a nice mix of modern and art deco, and more importantly aren't just glass blocks or brutalist concrete slabs
It depends. Some make me think of decadence and lack of innovation, from social to economic. At least Brutalist were designing social housing, churches, universities, and not just the headquarters of another huge multinational.
I was wondering where those photographs were coming from in my feed on reddit! thank you so much for this video!!!!
This video sponsored by Bottoms.
I don't think we will ever see an Art Deco or Neoclassical Revival, because we don't use masonry like we once did. But I think we can do a mass contemporary adaption of those styles. NYC and Berlin are good examples of this, go street view explore Soho NYC, where the newer additions relate to the historic neighbours.
Also, this is one of the (if not) best video on UA-cam about this topic.
Just like in the "WTF Happened to our skyscrapers?!" video most people here saw, you need to understand that this is not the 1920s, and that those buildings aren't necessarily "better" more than you just like tons of needless ornamentation for the sake of it that just look "prettier" to people 100 years out, to h3ll of the costs to the person actually footing the bill for it. Not to mention increased regulation in terms of construction practices, and safety standards + architects and engineers working with better materials that are more energy efficient and allow for more natural light, and larger floor plans have made those early buildings functionally obsolete.
Which is kind of the point of these buildings. To house actual paying tenants with changing needs, and not to just be pretty on a postcard or poster.
But to people with surface level takes on this, it's just "new stuff is ugly and boring. Boooooooooo!!!!". And I'm sure the 10000 posts about "corporate greed, blah blah blah" will be made wholly ironically by people praising corporations that spent a massive amount of Gilded Age era currency on the "pretty" they admire as being the height of culture.
Ornamentation isn't needless, it's part of a visual language of building. It creates a character, a memorable image. Modernist skyscrapers have it also, it's just there are different people with different tastes.
Hyperoptimization for efficiency isn't good either, especially when we're talking about public spaces and services. Most cost-effective buildings are mass produced, however having kilometers of the exactly same copy-paste architecture creates alienating environment, with lack of character, lack of navigational cues.
And spending money on "pretty" things is totally ok as well, it funds artists, it helps us push our culture forward.
The opulent buildings of the past were the height of technology and craftsmanship. They were inspiring and filled the imagination. That's why they survived and are preserved today. Generic rectangular office building #227 will not be remembered. It will be demolished in 70 years time and won't even occupy a page of a history book.
Thank you! I'm tired of seeing this kind of opinion on YT, it seems the almighty algorithm loves people complaining about modern architecture.
@@JohnFromAccounting > That's why they survived and are preserved today.
No, that is not why as there are numerous examples of even more ornate buildings before the "streamline age" of the 20s that only exists in photographs because they have gone to the wrecking ball, quite a few before they got anywhere near 60 years old.
None of the buildings talked about are particularly cheap. They're now made of mythical quantities of enormous chunks of steel and glass, which is about as expensive as common building materials get.
You can like trad styles, this or the starchitect lumps that give structural engineers and superintendents aneurysms, but let's not pretend the choice is inherently prosocial or economic instead of aesthetic. None of the buildings talked about are the projects. They're still the same thing, imposition of upper class preference on genpop. Genpop is allowed to opine, yes?
The days of discovering a quality UA-cam channel is always great.
oh wow I am honored to be first.
the little 3d renders bouncing and falling down are adorable! i love it :)
we are builing a horrible dystopia. thats why. cant have nice things, smart things, reasonable things. all you can have is a terrorsystem for the mind and body
things can definitely feel dire, but there is also such capacity for connection, joy, and learning. i hope you find space to do something nice for yourself today 💞
@@winterwatson6811 sure thing :) thanks for the good wishes
I agree, not because of our architecture, not at all, but rather because of our technology.
It's just change. Nothing special. I mean why aren't you dressing like in 1920s with coat and hat.
@@rokos.1239 i am, tho. almost daily
I recommend the short “building sights: the Chrysler Building” where John Malkovich waxes about some of the stuff you’re talking about. Some of the things he says there have really stuck with me.
every skyscraper built between 1960 and 1990 is hideous and trashy
That's pure ignorance. Swear people that arent seriously interested in architecture always default to cringe takes like this.
@@xandercruz900 Name one.
@@xandercruz900 This kind of video always attracts reactionary conservatives afraid of the future. They'll rally behind anyone saying the past was better in any way whatsoever, no matter the subject.
@@JohnFromAccounting
Here are two easy examples for people with silly takes like that: John Hancock Building and the TransAmerica Pyramid. Two buildings that are definitely not trashy and both have become iconic to the cities they are in.
Elite Residence in Dubai.
Guangzhou International Finance Center
Sears Tower
Petronas Towers
Taipei 101
Even the Burj Khalifa is a wonder of architecture and engineering. Dubai alone is just packed with amazing structures.
But what on Earth is the point of me giving you a list when you have no real ability to decern between good architecture and "only old stuff is good"?
Sooo.. What about WTC?
10:55 i searched that building on google maps 3D and it's exactly the same. it was meant to happen in 2008 but it never did.
Can we all agree post modern and modern are ruining cities and go back to more elegant and timeless design? Maybe throw in some local vernacular for good measure.
nah
nah
>Can we all agree post modern and modern are ruining cities
No? Why in the world should we "all agree" like this is some binary?
>and go back to more elegant and timeless design?
Whatever that means.
> Maybe throw in some local vernacular for good measure.
"local vernacular"?
Nah
Being from Chicago I got a kick out the Willis Tower being referred to as the Sears Tower. I will always think of it as the Sears Tower.
Drone virtual tours would be a great way to explore a new city!!
Not safe.. what if they malfunction and you fall
I would enjoy seeing this kind of in-depth look into the bromo-seltzer tower
❤honestly I never knew how much I loved architecture until I started noticing the history of architecture- well , to be even more honest, I’m not aesthetically over the moon about much modern architecture. I’m an absolute history geek and dwellings and aesthetic always have stories to tell. I’m obsessed with your videos now - have learned so much about my hometown and the buildings I admire - thank you
There are some beautiful skyscrapers being built, today. The Brooklyn Tower, for example.
Well done presentation. Thanks for sharing.
Philip Johnson also designed the Wells Fargo Center in Denver, which is known locally as the Mailbox building or the Cash Register building, and has a unique, though not ornate, top.