Hi everyone I've made a Discord for further discussions: discord.gg/4DWvahY94U. I'm also more likely to respond there as UA-cam comments aren't always the most ideal places for conversation. Thank you!
The video’s title is not accurate. Whoever conducted the survey has a very limited point of view. You should travel more to countries such as Dubai or Singapore which is the richest and also the most educated country in the world to see how Singaporeans are building the cleanest country on this planet with modern architecture. Singapore’s infrastructure is clearly central to socio- economic advancement. An efficient infrastructure facilitates delivery of information, goods and services, supports economic growth and assists in achieving social objectives such as raising the living standards and educational levels. In fact, Singapore currently has the highest standard of living. I highly recommend you to travel to different places, and try to see them with different points of view. Do not just sit there and reading those boring books. Life is fun, so we should think outside of the bottle or the box. Architecture should be fun and exciting instead of following the boring principles that defines by people living in the past. Believe me, stop reading so many useless book. Go out there and see the world. That’s the best to learn.
@@khangvinh4065 you’re right. I agree. I want to travel but my country has been under mandatory lockdown for over a year and now we are not allowed to leave our house except for emergency reasons. My best friend from childhood now lives in Singapore and I’ve been wanting to visit her for years. I have indeed spent too long reading books. However - this year I worked on the construction of a new, modern hospital clinic and I must say - I think we did a great job and the technology we used will make our patients lives better. I’m working on a follow up video to this one - and I’d love to address this comment and my thoughts about the future for sure. Thank you ❤️
@@fenriz2073 lol yes I do really want to say that sometimes. But I just built a brand new modern hospital clinic in a city that really takes historic preservation seriously. But for various reasons this time we decided to do a new modern building with state-of-the art design ideas, technology and very clean geometric lines - except it is not dull and grey, we put splashes of colours and are mixing local art and local cultural designs into it. So far - the clinic staff and patients tell us this is amazing and they are so happy to not have to go into an old building that's a converted Church - because while that's super cool - it was just not functional. Anyway - I think as a designer I do have to take what the local community say into consideration, and as a matter of fact I often value it much more than what I read in books and research. In this case - the end users mostly wanted Modern. So we gave them (mostly) modern and they are so far very happy about it. We'll see what they say in 10 years time though. lol.
Modernism exist specifically to make people feel good. To give buildings large windows and put some distance between them to let natural light in and allow the inhabitants to see the outside world. Bright colors to allow them to have a clear mind and give them the appropriate energy.
In Germany, what many people like and really prefer is architecture from 1871 till 1914. These are very solid buildings with decorated facades, which are nowadays professionally modernised. There one has high ceilings (3m+), large windows and one finds artistic details everywhere. The modern buildings, people normally live in nowadays are primarily driven by economic needs, not by artistic wishes.
I see the same as you. I myself used to live in a small town where we were surrounded by older buildings and it was always beautiful. As a child, I liked big cities, but I found the skyscrapers and concrete blocks rather boring and ugly. Now I've moved into one of these buildings in North Rhine-Westphalia to study and I have to admit that just the thought of the endless corridor, every apartment looks like the other and the general fact that the building doesn't have a nice facade pulls me down. I very much hope that facades are built on such buildings so that they look like the buildings from the Wilhelmine era. am btw himself 19 years old
My father, a retired but renowned architect and city planner, always told me that honoring the human scale is most important for humans to feel good. This is overlooked by most of Modern architecture.
YES! I've seen Modernists house where the living room has a crazy high-ceiling and the bedrooms are in the second floor acesses through an interior balcony without divisions. AND the front wall was entirely replaced by a giant window! Of course no one wanted to be seen in their underwear chilling in their living rooms, so the residents put up giant blindfolds in the best cases or simply sticked brown paper all over the windows in the worst case. Also, I can't imagine what a pain it must be to clean that insanely high ceiling...a truly terrible design!
@@SKyrim190 I have seen classical and ornamented houses for the rich with absurd high ceilings too. They had chandeliers that were impossible to clean. Walking in your underwear was punishable with fysical abuse. Human stupidity is of all times.
@@mankepoot9440 that is a completely improper comparison. You are comparing kings to the "common man". The house I am speaking of is a house for a regular person, not for royalty
To be frank, that's the problem with all architecture. Every time there is somebody with too much money, they NEED to remind everybody else that they are small. Gothic churches for examples. There are thousands and thousands of those in Poland and every single one is the same and always the biggest thing in town. No one ever needed that, but there was sooo much money that they had to do something with, but of course without poor people profiting from it, no no. That's why architecture is big and inhuman - it's to specifically make people feel meaningless.
@@kal_bewe1837 These buildings will always stay until they're unsafe to live in. It's just that Paris is doing a massive gentrification around places where there used to be these ugly appartement blocks. Around older neighborhoods newer buildings adopt a more traditional style. But it kinda feels fake because the level of detail is nowhere the same. I just wanna share my enthusiasm for newer buildings around Paris. They're anything but boring.
Hot take: Modern architecture can be good, but only if it works in tandem to, or in some cases, actively expand, its natural environment. The problem is that most modern structures are boring rectangles and squares that clash against its landscape. Good Modern architecture needs to create bold new lines and contrasts that actively emphasizes the natural landscape. A prime example is Fallingwater by F. L. Wright. It accents the landscape and promotes a feeling of being in tune with the surroundings.
I would like to say as well that from those box and rectangular shapes of modernized buldings, they still have an opportunity to have creative liberty on them. Take for instance the neon lights of Akihabara, Tokyo, in Japan.
Modern architecture is great but the problem lies in the fact that we live in an age where we don't have the benefit of a wealthy economy that can Commission Neo-classical building that are made if Marble and handcrafted by artisans with overly-exaggerated backstories. And because we have to produce architecture at in a budget and in a world with a new context, the idea of Modern architecture has become synonymous with cheaply made or souless. It's pretty unfortunate seeing as modern architecture is the reason why marvels such as the Jewel of Singapore can exist. Another thing I think architecture in the 21st century has a benefit that 20th century architecture didn't, that being the 20th century had to live with this edgy teen called modernism that like breaking rules before it grew up and became contemporary architecture and got awesome shit like this: armarchitecture.com.au/projects/macquarie-park-apartments/
The blindingly bright colors against a more grounded area is an eyesore to say the least. Their is this obnoxious sushi restaurant close by covered almost entirely in glass, very blocky with a large overhead that’s highlighter orange, sitting next to a bargain grocery store on one side, a family owned auto shop on the other and a trailer block a few streets behind it. I get mad every time I pass it on the way to work.
I disagree, The beauty of modern architecture is the emphasize of the future and technology as a whole, it reminds us where we are going. I love the minimalism and brightly lit rooms in Mirror's Edge, everything is just so clean and perfect. That is something past generations couldn't even dream of, their homes had all kinds of imperfections and it was dull and dark, I've been in quite a few old homes from the 1940s or so and it's depressing asf.
I'm a digital artist, and for a few years was dating a city planner. We used to argue over this constantly with him being a massive fan of stripped down modernism (you have people like him to thank if you've had any new construction approved with a Modern design) and me arguing that what they were building were effectively blank, lifeless pages, something that many people find intimidating rather than enjoyable.
The way I think of that is that both are valid subjective experiences. The one that should matter more is the one which is more common (i.e. most likely yours).
Architects seem to think "Who cares what people want? We will give them what we think they should have." They're like self-appointed parents of wayward children. Except the children are grown adults able to think for themselves, and able to decide what does or doesn't look good to them.
After working some years as an architectural illustrator, it's dawned on me that architects aren't actually designers at all, they are nothing but weaponized bureaucrats using the power of the police state to enforce their aesthetic opinions on an often unwilling clientele and public. We as a society need to separate the functional design and requirements of a buildings from aesthetic ones, both in the public approvals process, and within the public accreditation of architectural profession. The government needs to legislate this to make it happen.... (I think it's actually time we stopped ALL professions being their own gatekeepers, regulators, and policers when the public laws are directly invoked by these professions in their work practice. The recent experience with covid vaccinations is another example of legally weaponized professional corruption and overreach run amok.) Most architectural firms are very used to hiring professional engineers in the process of building, it's time the architectural profession itself was split into aesthetic and engineering arms, and architects could specialize in either or both. And both designers and the public approvals process would have a very separate and more flexible and with much less restrictive rules for the creation of the aesthetic part of an architectural design, it would not need a formal qualification to make choices, and the engineering side would not be able to overrule the design side on aesthetic reasons alone...
My biggest complaint with modern architecture is that they claim form folows function, but that's not the case. Comie blocks are an example of a building design focusing on function and they somehow look better than the metal and glass cheese wedge a modernist architect would propose while acting like they designed the building version of Mona Lisa.
@PixelFøx I want to agree with you, but god dam. Use periods, proper comma placement, Italics, correct capitalization, or anything resembling english. You can't just use fuck as a period.
Also demolishing perfectly stable historical architecture to build new structures in its place when they could’ve renovated the old structure and give it a new purpose instead.
I know what you mean. I live in the most inner centre of Hamburg and the problem here is, that we still got lots of patch buildings from the 50s and 60s after the destructions of WW2. And after this came the glass and steel towers people mostly tend to if they talk about Modern architecture which are not awful per se but feel mostly out of place between the restructured collonialism and sometimes historicism buildings that have somehow survived the air raids. But over the years and with it's city centre constantly changing the planers try to fit every new building into the look of the actual city centre that has been established in late 19c to early 20c, after a ravenous fire destroyed the whole city in 1842. (A nice example: www.ece.de/fileadmin/_processed_/csm_EPH_050_44_6c7f456d53.jpg the two buildings are about a century apart) Also have you ever been to the Hafencity (harbour city) area in Hamburg? It is actually the biggest urban redevelopment project in europe. Also the university of construction art and metropolitan development is located there. Also it is somewhat of a playground for architects because the city didn't made up a lot of major restrictions. So the Hafencity became a bit of a museum for Mordern architecture with every building being an exhibit on it's own. Even if most of them where build mostly with the functuality aspect in mind. (as an example: There is actually a dedicated apartment complex for musicians where every flat contains a floating room detached from the buildings structure)
@@CM_CHESS Do you mean you as in a single person, or everyone? Not really sure who your pointing out anyway. The generation that made Modern architecture isn't going to be in a UA-cam comment thread.
I agree. Back when I lived in the city, they were tearing down every suburban house, every historical building, etc. and replacing them all with flat Modern buildings, sterile mansions, and identical highrises. Even the parks and sports facilities were under attack, again being replaced by "the purest form of architecture".
I grew up in Ukraine in a city where all you see is pure concrete socialist blocks, it is not just ugly, I think it's disgusting. As a child I used to play a lot of video games and watch cartoons and TV series/shows, I've learned that there were so many different cultures and styles in architecture, I fell in love with all those different things I could see like those really cool Asian roofs, European castles, domes, and the stained glass in cathedrals, etc. It was not just beautiful, it was gorgeous! Then I would always have to go out in my own city and see all those gray surroundings, concrete, asphalt, metal and glass, I'd be just sad, there was no reason to go anywhere really, there was much more point in staying home and playing video games, where artists actually take time to create details that would, in turn, create an atmosphere of another world of something greater, this is how the historical cities feel, it feels natural yet unearthly, that's the whole point. Nowadays I am a software engineer and live in Budapest, which is of the most beautiful cities on the planet (despite some of its issues), and still, when I leave the city center, I can see all those modern soulless houses made out of glass and concrete, simple shapes and really boring white color, it feels degrading and depressing. Makes me want to change my profession to an urban planner (after some studying) and get some architect friends to create a new company and shape a new (but kind of old) view on how the cities should look like. Sure, maybe Modernism had its purpose in history so that we can conclude it was a mistake and never do it again. :D
Wow i'm also from Ukraine and i agree. I always loved to visit the old part of the city as a kid (and i still do) bacause it's so pretty and atmospheric , while the soviet buildings are ugly as f*ck
Another issue I have noticed is that they have very little greenery. They don't work with and adapt to the environment around them but instead reshape the landscape to a bunch of squares. People get a bit stir crazy when there isn't a sufficient bit of nature around them. We like our plants and animals as much as we like our bots and cars. There has got to be a way to find a balance between natural environments and convenience.
It would be an excellent choice of career. I hope the anti-modernist movement gains enough traction such that the wealthy of the future appreciate classical architecture, like gothic or Doric. It is an unfortunate circumstance of the world wars that thousands of years of cultural architectural development was destroyed, allowing for a niche, perverted and ugly style to dominate simply out of the need for cheap structures, and domination of capitalism to the point of beauty no-longer being a priority.
I feel like we're on the verge of a great artistic style shift, that would be on the same level as Baroque, Romantism and things like that. There's a resurgence of people wanting to stop the destruction of traditional art and fed up with the idea of "art is just interpretation". I might be wrong, but we need to bring beauty back into functionnality
Modern architecture IS beauty, you should play Mirror's Edge (the original) to truly be inspired by the minimalism, the well lit rooms, and so on. There is nothing better, everything is simply perfect.
@@Danuxsy You have terrible taste if you think any form of architecture that has to do with modern is beautiful and perfect in any way. Even the best of modern architecture will only resemble an elaborately colored urban slum at best. No matter how you defend modern architecture, it will always look and smell as a turd. And the latter part of that isn't just metaphorical.
I think they think their buildings are a success if they are polarizing ie. the other architects love it, the general public hates it. "I have succeeded in creating dialogue!" No you haven't... You have succeeded in creating a monstrosity
@@eduardcruceru9004 it baffles me when they use that excuse. . . the cathedral of Notre Dame was build in 1200 with local resources and the technology avaliable at the time , without any truck or super crane. . . And you can't build a good looking building with the insane planification we got T O D A Y ? Just be honest and say it comes down to money
IMO Modern architecture, by articulating on “function over form” idea, is neglecting the psychological aspect that was pretty clear and important for the architects from the past. The buildings are meant to be inhabited, visited and observed by humans that not only have certain physical/functional needs, but also reacts emotionally to the surrounding environment and objects, and architecture that doesn’t take this into account could do a great harm to people’s mental state.
There is nothing wrong with form following function. The problem is that Modernism removed most of a building's function when designing the form. Physical space and how it is utilized is important, but so is emotional, and metaphorical functions. Take your ideal kitchen as an example. What descriptors do you use? Sure "ample counter space" and "good work flow" will be there, so will descriptors such as, "bright," "open," "inviting." As well as "gathering place," "family hub," and "heart of the household" If Modernism only focuses on the literal, physical functions of a space it will miss key elements, and render itself lacking in the minds of most people.
Well, I can see "gathering place" actually being considered by Modernists, as well as "bright" and "open." But "inviting" and "heart of the household" are very subjective attributes. To me that means warmth, therefore maybe some wood elements. But what people mean when they say "form follows function" is that wood is inferior in function to PVC, so why should anyone use it. If you start to attribute all the personal preferences people might have to such a "function" then "form follows function" loses all meaning as a catchphrase and you are missing the point of the modernist philosophy. Which is, at its core, a dehumanizing philosophy, so if you bring the human element back into it, you're a postmodernist, not a modernist.
Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines, "form follows function" can be done well, poorly and everything between. Just like the video about well designed exit signs, I think function should incorporate good aesthetics.
Thank you! The concept in itself makes sense, but how can any one person confidently define the present and future functions of an entire building? Also, modernist architects dislike ornament, but it's not like they make arbitrary decisions. I always said that if you want an example of form purely following function, look at a refinery, the LHC, or the ISS. Not a gram of material is spent on decorative elements, and yet they look as beautiful and intricate as any gothic church. Today's buildings are complex machines, but they tend to hide quite a lot of their functions. Otherwise they'd all look more like the Centre Pompidou in Paris rather than the monolith from 2001.
I thought that the art deco movement of both Classic Art Deco & Streamline Moderne was a nice mix between the classical and modern architecture styles.
So much of this crosses over with modernism in music. There are some very similar themes: artist idealism doing away with things that people perceive as humane or emotionally important. There are some big differences too: I can't think of a direct correlation to 'form must always follow function' for example. I'd love to put the histories of both side by side to try and tease all this out.
It makes me sad to look at modern buildings. I live in a Swiss town full of beautiful decorated buildings, and among these, there are some disgusting gray bland concrete "blocks" of equally disgusting shape ready to completely mess up the landscape... Inside they are so minimalistic and with endless-looking, empty hallways and it's just unbelievable that someone decided to make something like that in such beautiful areas...
You are right. Personally, I think it ought to be a criminal offense to force massive ugliness on people and destroy towns and landscapes with their dysfunctional outputs. Many architects and many planners ought to be jailed!
Yup it feels that traditional architecture just disappeared. We still have some of it left from past centuries and that is it, we no longer build something that could be associated with only particular area. Without those few remaining old buildings there would literally be no reason to visit other cities, only nature tourism would continue to be worthwhile.
@@gdnygma490 there are really large differences between gothic structures in different countries. Maybe you had in mind Neo-gothic that is more or less global.
Oh, and "form follows function" was coined by Louis Sullivan, known for his beautifully decorated skyscrapers. People have ALWAYS produced buildings according to function, with automatic beauty as a result. Castles were built to withstand attacks, towers to spot enemies from far away. Today we view them as fairy tale castles in Disneyland. Adding extra decor, whether to a castle or to a simple hut or barn, also filled a function: making it pleasing to the dwellers, signalling status, and creating job opportunities for artisans. This was also sustainable. A house that is loved for its beauty will last longer and be better taken care of, even if its function may change over time. So, for Modernists to kidnap Sullivan's saying and twisting it to mean Minimalism I find dishonest and disrespectful to both Sullivan and the rest of society who has to live in architectural starvation.
Its not that form follows function, its that form communicates function. To Aristotle, Art was about gathering the materials to express Purpose or Truth.
@@lindsaywebb1904 Have you had the chance to look at the communal Bauhaus buildings? I think it can actually be argued that minimalism in some way was part of the modernist agenda, the reducing of the "unnecessary" in its essence equates to the minimalistic worldview., though i´m sure it remains to be debated.
@@MuunNii Yes, if you mean the ensemble in Dessau, I'm familiar. I'm not sure what you mean by 'minimalistic world view'. The Bauhaus movement though, was not just architecture, it was a movement (across the arts, industrial design, theatre etc) attempting to reclaim authenticity and craft in the machine age. In no way can the architecture (or general artistic output) be regarded as minimalistic - it was mostly a highly wrought, formal response to the socio political issues of the day. I think you could argue that the aesthetics of European modernism might have inspired Minimalism, which appeared in the US in the 60s, but that's it. Minimalism in architecture seems to have developed sometime later (probably as a reaction to postmodernism [historicist] architecture, and with roots in Japanese Zen thinking. (Tadao Ando's House Azuma -1976 is probably a good starting point) and taking off in the 80s with the likes of John Pawson to now, where it is (ironically) just another stylistic plaything.
This is a ridiculous analysis. Cinderella's "castle" is modeled on the royal equivalent of a summer cottage. Its distinctive architectural style was designed mainly to impress Ludwig's nobles and visiting dignitaries. Contemporary military fortifications looked morel like Fort Sumter. Low walls lined with cannons and 30 feet thick of earth and concrete. Completely unrelated. Form follows function *sometimes*. Fighter jets tend to follow this statement. Suspension bridges. Bicycles. Sports cars. It tends to be true when every competing design is intended to maximize a specific function and people learn to like the look of the ones that perform better.
In Asia we paint our concrete jungle with bright pastel colours, deco with neon signs, preserve trees and nature, design pedestrian spaces for people gather, and it's still depressing sometimes. In cities where they don't plan for this I can't even imagine.
That's one thing Latin America gets right. They stick to old building methods and go crazy with the paint like some child at daycare. I rather take that over an American home built today.
You have no idea how much engineering goes into city streets to make them function at all. The problem isn't the design of the city, its the size and number of people living there.
@@ketherga Speak for yourself. I live in a big city in Europe and have no issue walking anywhere because it was built to have both places to live in and places to go shopping in within walking distance. Only in America you have to drive anywhere you need to go. Not because Americans are lazy, but because it was constructed in that way.
There's a movement in Sweden called Arkitekturupproret(the architectural uprising) where people vote for the most ugly buildings recently built around Sweden. There is also the taunting of architects who, while designing these awful monstrosities, lives in picturesque old houses. As the late Terry Pratchett wrote: "Innovative", in this context, might come from the same lexicon as "daring" or "novel" to a career civil servant: it denotes "totally untried and untested, and we reserve judgement on how soon that flat roof is going to leak or those flimsy windows are going to fall out in a light breeze. Even though the building might end up as totally unfit for the purpose, by the time anyone notices we can put it down to normal structural deterioration. Or else we can make veiled suggestions that because the design was so new and innovative, the fault is really with the builders who put it up, or the buyer who uses the building. It's so radical a concept that they aren't able to look after it properly. Either way, it's not our fault if they persist in using it. In any case, anyone worrying about such petty things as whether or not the roof leaks on an award-winning building is self-evidently not a creative professional, and we don't need to waste any breath on non-creative garbage of that sort."
@Dave Cockayne Old buildings need our maintenance to be standing. And back then they didn't consider natural disasters. Now we have earthquake-proof, hurricane-proof, and even fire-proof buildings. Sorry but I still think Modern is better. No offense.
I think some people hate modern architecture because it's so repetitive and boring, there's no character in it. But with more detailed and old buildings I think we can relate to them better than a block of concrete with huge windows. It isn't cozy and it can make you feel small.
Maybe it is compareable with human anatomy: The anatomy of a person is symmetrical, but never 100%. This would look "uncanny". Also different people look different. Modern Buildings look more, like buildungs for robots of the same type and model. But: If you put a Modern Building in a place, where other nonmodern buildings or landmarks exist, it may still look okay because of the contrast. Maybe also the design was nice, when it was just theorie. As people began to build more and more this way, it went from "art/design object" to "ordinary object".
Modern architecture I find hard to relate to or live in on a human level its like a fish bowl or unrealistic lifestyle, especially the idea of living in a western minimalist house, the Japanese and Koreans captured a better more authentic spirt and closeness of the human living in/and environment with natural materials, simplicity and function, even for the ordinary folk, etc better than any western minimalist building could capture.
Living in Silicon Valley, I see so many of these brands that supposedly have such strong internal cultures and identities, but exist in these lifeless buildings. PayPal is in the plainest glass cube ever and the Facebook campus is surrounded by boring walls of solitude. I feel like the exception miiiight be the Apple campus since their building reflects their product design? And then there’s the Google building which is the opposite and for the most part seems like a rainbow unicorn tornado ran through the circus
Great point. The inside of Facebook has ugly, exposed AC vents on its ceiling. With their money, they could have frescos painted in every office, beautiful columns, etc. But Zuck wants everyone there to live in a dull, soulless building.
Apple's architecture seems very "polished", and "high quality", but I think it feels to sterile. I just don't like the interiors of apple stores, I think their campus is kept in a very similar style. Might communicate their brand well or whatever, but I just don't find it very appealing..
ikr it is just so depressing to look at. What are your opinions of the images you get from a google search of "modern architecture with plants"? honestly that is how I hope modern architecture evolves. It feels less souless to me and is good for the environment.
@@greatestaxolotl4933 When I search "greenwall" or "roof garden" or something like that it looks like a bit of nature has been pushed up by a building. "modern architecture with plants" looks overgrown in an unnatural way. It's kinda gross. I preffer "ecotopia" or "utopia garden" where it looks like the city was designed from the begining to be equal parts nature and city.
I went to two colleges, one I got booted from, the other I graduated from. The one I got booted from was in a new(ish) modern building with white tiled floors, white painted walls and white ceilings. It looked sterile, like a hospital. I got depression within the first semester, couldn't stand being in college, thinking about going there made me wanna throw up, so when I was there I couldn't focus, got crap grades, failed one class and got booted. The college I graduated from was in an old damn near critical condition building that had creaky wooden floors, wooden ceilings, huge old wood frame windows and student painted mural walls or plain yellow walls. Every time I was in college I felt like I should get a cup of coffee, put on some slippers and go to class, it felt like home. I was among the top 3 in my class and graduated with no issues or stress.
Your story shows just how much architecture can impact people's mood. I too absolutely hated the university I studied at. An ugly box of glass and concrete, which was ironically quite dysfunctional as there isn't enough space for students to gather, among many other things. The architects got so much praise for it too, which seems preposterous to me. Most students absolutely hate the building. But whether the people you build for like the building doesn't seem to matter, nowadays... :-(
Amazing! Thanks for sharing. The environment was so harsh to your senses, that it sort of 'bullied' you and deprived you of educational progress. Whereas the other one became your 'friend' and helped you succeed. Wish every architect in the world was forced to write an essay based on your - and no doubt millions of other's - experiences. Architects ought to be able to be jailed for causing collective harm!
I had almost the same experience. Lecturers would self deprecatingly joke, "look for the ugliest building on campus to find the Architecture school". Yet the pressure (and sometimes directive) to conform to modernist principles and aesthetics, the hero worship of other students for Modernism, running headlong into my visceral dislike for most of it shattered my confidence and ability to creatively produce at the pace required. At the same time I actually went into psychosis because of an over prescription of relevant medication, I had paranoid delusions about the authoritarian, puritanical nature of broad Modernism. It completely derailed my education. I went back but I never reconcile with it. Nor did i ever finish my masters, thus I never became an Architect. Years later i brought it up with a Psychiatrist. When I told him about it and what school of Architecture i attended, he responded with a forceful "Awful, Awful program". At first i thought he was just being facetiously supportive but he was dead serious. He said he'd had many clients/patients come from schools of Architecture, particularly the one I attended.
I studied in an ugly brutalist building. I graduated fast and with excellent grades as do thousands of people studying in the same building year after year. So, what's your point?
I don't particularly hate modern architecture but I still prefer old architecture for the simple reason that design and looks are features by themselves. Where ornaments might not always have a direct function, they do add distinction which is useful enough. I've more than once found myself lost in a neighborhood where all houses look identical for blocks. I'm aware that part of the reason for that design is cost, but distinctiveness is important and need not be expensive. Regardless, great video!
you raise an interesting point about the identity of an area.Going to more progressive countries is disorientating: block after block of identical nondescript boxes. It is less of a problem in some British cities: we have everything from victorian to Deco and modernist/blandist housing so it's possible to navigate your way without knowing exactly where you are. Distinctiveness need not cost a fortune, and would be easy to do but I doubt it would happen. If it did, it would be an architect's "vision" of distinctive and once again we'd be stuck with top-down imposition of something that relates not one bit to the people in an area.
To combat this issue in the Netherlands, several architects have included colors in the houses/streets so at least some distinctiveness is available. Obviously the issue is most apparent with newly built houses/blocks, the longer an area exists the more it will start to differentiate through different colours of paint, plants, etc.
I reject the argument that decoration has no function, aesthetics would not exist if they did not please people, and don’t all physical functions not in the end aim to please us by satisfying our needs? So why persecute something which does that directly?
when you follow form follows function, nobody buys your shit building and then vandals come in, but they're actually not the first ones the vandalize the area, they're just completing your work. Your building that was built for function then has no function because nobody wants to fucking use it.
@@shadowranger937 I know this is a very popular theory but it honestly has no grounding whatsoever. Neighborhoods designed in modernists styles end up poor for the same reasons neighborhoods designed in other styles do and pretending otherwise is idealist bullshit. People are happily paying millions for apartments in Manhattan built in modernist styles while poor areas remain poor. The fact that the most expensive real estate in the world is found in modernist high rises shows that this theory has no grounding. The fact is that it doesn't matter how nice looking your building is, if it's built poorly, is in a bad location, and underfunded it will still be unpopular. It has never been proven that design has any direct affect on crime, income or any other social markers.
Am I the only one who likes modern architecture? Like the simplicity of it? I think it has potential with some small additions, like if they added some small diversity to the shapes, keeping with the basic polygons. Also adding some colour to the buildings, could be solid colours or even patterns. Or something nice like a vertical garden would make a difference
@@triplemoyagames4195 I think most in the younger generations prefer the modern architecture, just like TESLA it reminds us of the future and how we can be a part of it and I think the future is minimalism and practicality, simpler forms, more light, more perfection.
Ancient engineering: beautiful, colourful, memorable, timeless and perplexing golden or silver ratio formula architecture masterpiece Modern engineering: Shiny rectangle
It really makes me mad because with modern tech you could make even more beautiful objects and buildings but somehow we have the ugliest buildings of any century
1071: spend a full century building an epic, intricately designed art work that will stand for a millennia. 1971: "Make me a big grey rectangle! AND DO IT QUICKLY GOD DAMNIT!
You highlight something important when you say do it quickly. It's not the architects alone who got us into this mess, it's the times themselves. If architects hadn't invented modernism, then engineers and bankers would have done it for them.
@@Maranville I don't know about that, lol. It may be the trend in the last 90 years, but bankers & engineers helped build a lot of stupendous works of architectural art between 1880 and 1930.
@@420fedoras ????? Grid layout, founded in 1835, few remaining old buildings, many sky scrapers, metro, suburban sprawl. VS Medieval layout founded in 956 AD with origins from the 7th century, with a world heritage listed town square, no metro, and a castle. There's some pretty 'subtle' differences.
They really do. They have absolutely no regard for how architecture makes people feel, and only focus on how they can feed their own ego. Making things bland, depressing, boring and ugly is a horrible thing to do. Architecture is about how it makes people feel, not about its own elite club expressing their narcissism.
Some of them had psycological problems, like autism or PDST, their brains works different, they didn´t like to see windows or another feature that can resemble a face. Le Corbusier for example hated streets with lots of people and ornaments, his brain didn´t like excess of information, soo in their view is much more agradable to see simple forms and streets.(My written english sucks, i hope you understand) commonedge.org/the-mental-disorders-that-gave-us-modern-architecture/, read this link!
modern architecture just feels so cold, faceless and depressing, it has no identity and feels very elitist and uninviting as well, and way too square, I really miss some round softer shapes in architecture
This is why some architects and designers like Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid started to experiment with curvilinear shapes in recent decades with the help of computer aided design. Technology definitely has helped with the ability to do more elaborate forms and shapes but unfortunately a lot of projects are still bound by economic limitations where more elaborate designs are difficult to achieve.
@@ARTiculations Zaha Hadid's work is almost passable, but Frank Gehry's work sucks big time. I don't care what other architects or art critics say, what counts is what most people have to endure on a daily basis, it's not like cities are filled with modern art critics, they are filled with normal people, who hate that style.
We slowly face an increase in Modern architecture in Germany which is obviously functional but boring. But I'm still happy that we have all these ancient cities and small towns which, when I compare them to most towns in the States, look like open air museums and let me breathe hundreds of years of history.
@@epiclamp44 They could have even preserved 300 year old buildings, which honestly would be great when you look at 18th century Boston or New York. All these narrow streets of red brickhouses would have looked gorgeous nowadays.
@@filipposrafailkaripidis4203 but even this way of thinking about European cities is a fallacy. Napoleon III tore down most of medieval Paris because he was inspired by the "modern" architectural style of London he encountered while in exile. London itself was rebuilt in this style after the fire of 1666, adhering not to the traditions of what had existed before, but what was the popular style of architecture of the time. What you talk about as somehow a practice that has only been taking place in the States has been taking place for as long as architecture has existed. Different generations continuously build, pull down, rebuild, burn down, remodel, reinterpret, or choose to preserve architecture.
@@odetoajar There is a large difference between changing a style to something that seems more "inspiring" and creating one more grey glass box because it’s simply the most cost efficient way to maximize space for human settlements. Just like there is a "too much" in architecture, there is certainly a "too little".
Classical architecture seems to draw you, to welcome you in to explore your curiosity. Modern seems not to need you at all, and just wants you to go away.
A town hall that looks like a Classical building is telling you something. Its communicating stature and ambition. A modern building could be anything.
In some Modern architecture like a house that has a slanted roof instead of a hip, gable, or flat roof, the exterior walls are recessed from the roof line, large windows, warm colors, and accents can be warm and welcoming.
"Form Follows Function" was always flawed from its very inception, because... Form IS a function. People seek beauty in their environment just as much as in the clothing and food they eat. Not recognizing this simple truth would otherwise lead us to the conclusion that prisons, with their 4 straight walls and stale food, are the models to achieve in all things.
It makes more sense in the context of Louis Sullivan's original conception. Clearly he was not a man afraid of ornament. I think he was talking more about how space is used, how it can aid the function of a building. So for example, the proscenium arches of the Auditorium Building help focus the eye on the stage, they aren't distracting. Yet they are also beautiful in their own right. Same can be said for the windows of the Carson, Scott, Pirie building. They allow light to poor in, and even have some of the function uniformity of later office buildings. Yet there is also a turret to break up the box, and the street level is delightfully encrusted in Sullivan's trademark geometric flower designs.
Excellent video! I really dislike Modernism's lack of concern for the human scale. We went from bricks and divided lite windows to concrete slabs and plate glass. Boo.
Ah see Modern architects have clearly planned for when us puny humans have been crushed by a superior robot up rising. Which is not being planned currently fellow human.
Plate glass isn’t bad, really, as long as that and Modernist principles are used *sparingly*, and only serve certain sections of developments with overall concern for human scale. I love the cozy, energy-saving designs of Village Homes and the wonderful fusion of color, corrugation, concern, and glass of West Village, both in Davis, California. There’s also the subtle incorporation of references to the surrounding wood- and masonry-based 12th-century and Victorian architecture into the Modernist design of London Bridge station.
Yes! This a 1000 times! I dont dislike Modern architecture, but how can we justify giant atriums in this age of eco-consciousness? I'm not saying ceilings higher than 3 feet should be abolished, and I don't dislike the look of a giant open space, but most implementations of atria just seem like a huge waste of space and ressources after the first 5 seconds of awe.
The danish (and others around us) post 1970'ies low height dense built urban style is nice and liveable.. learning from the best things from the small town past of Denmark. I have lived in such a part of town, and it was very nice, kids playing in the streets, people saying hello to each others, organized events and all sorts of friendly co-existing. THAT style of course was a rebellion against the tower blocks of the 1960'ies and 1970'ies.
Architects realized that no matter what purist ideals such designers may have been taught in schools, most people still want to live in traditional style homes that evoke a sense of warmth, comfort and belonging. Many of the ultra-bleak 50's modernist masterpiece homes in Los Angeles are being torn down. They are being replaced with traditionalist tropes that welcome the person to a HOME rather than some modernist "statement", e.g., an airy impersonal space where even the addition of a book or personal photo would seem very out of place. I have been in many modernist homes as an architectural student. I always feel as if I am in a doctor's waiting room or some other impersonal space like the gate of an airport. I don't know how truly human warm loving people live in such spaces without going mad.
It's frustrating that many artistic movements are all, "I've discovered the Winning Idea! This is going to be the only way things should be done from now on, in isolation! We're on the edge of a new enlightenment!" The stakes are always so high, and the movements are kept Pure for long periods of time when a synthesis of multiple lenses would more flexibly address the needs of different subjects. The section about barber poles is so astute! Focusing only on physical function is such a blindspot. There are many assuring "signs" without text, like the Greek touches to government buildings across the US, that give you a better understanding of where you are. Where are those touches of identity? Why can't we Have Both?
@@cactusman1771 Yes! It's great to navigate when you don't know the city. But when you live in it, don't you agree that it feels like the places don't even have a name? That you start using the name of stores, churches, schools, hospitals to refer to places, because no one can relate to numbers? I was born and raised in a city that only 2 avenues have names and when I ask where someone lives and they say numbers I can't figure out immediately where it is. I have to look at a map. Basically 110 north, street 23, number 31, means nothing to the human brain, even though it means a lot to a computer lol
@@Mrlaiobrum I grew up in a city with only numbers. So the street names were just the number ( nineteen hundred for example). I find street names to be more confusing because there is no information in the name. like I can't determine where cherry St. Is from willow St. Without already knowing ,asking or looking it up. With number I can think of the city like a cartesian grid and get a rough idea where to go. I also prefer people to give me an address to somewhere rather than landmark navigation.
When I was a little kid, I used my mom's Tupperware to have modern buildings incorporated in my model railroad layout. Note to self.. To design modern buildings, just buy Tupperware and trace it out onto a blueprint. Done
I’ll be honest, I think Art Deco was the peak of large scale construction design, such as stadiums, skyscrapers, and large public buildings. There’s something I find uplifting about Art Deco architecture and interior design. I’m torn between art deco and neoclassical design. I’m not sure which I like most.
Agree art deco is gorgeous, and some modern designs borrow a lot from art deco. Neoclassical is pretty but when you get in to a bit of art history, it starts to become rather ridiculous. I mean,we can't forever stick to one specific design, one that is a pastiche of classic architecture. If I were an architect, I wouln't like the endless reproducing of the same old over and over. Modern design and architecture can be really cool. Most of it is not, but some of it is. Ugly and poor quality buildings have always been built though. It's just that the old buildings that are still standing often are the ones that were loved enough to be saved.
The error wasn't that form should follow function but rather the limited definition of what the function needed to be. Reminds me of something I read about the limitations of many economic models where they argued that if you neglect a factor you are assigning it a value of zero.
This explains so much! I admit I have a strong visceral hatred for Modern architecture that is probably irrational. But this helps put some of those feelings into words. I think in particular it's the dehumanizing aspect - it feels like an assault on the basic dignity of the human person. Really informative, thank you!
@@SheikhBouAoun Yeah yeah I get your point. I personally like to see new buildings next to old ones but I understand what you mean. And the car thing is a thing I also kinda dislike.
I go to school at Louisiana State University, which is known for its beautiful architecture. But, when I got there, I was pretty diappointed. The quad is beautiful, designed after Italian renaissance architecture with ornamental arches everywhere. But all around that... are modern buildings. Not even nice ones like that. Those built in the 60s and 70s to handle the influx of students, but with a weak budget. These beautiful, peaceful, historic buildings are bordered by sky high concrete blocks. I dread going to class in them, because they're lifeless and depressing.
Where I'm from, we generally call the concrete apartment buildings form the 60's "rabbit cages". Over the years, it turned out that only people without much choice would live in them. So now they have also become "the bad part of town". And as I kid I found it extremely frustrating to figure out exactly where my friends lived when faced with endless rows of completely identical buildings. Of course a building (or whatever you design) have to first and foremost be able to serve it's propose. - But that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't make them interest or even pretty as well.
The Modern building my parents live in used to be an office space. The architect clearly thought that form should follow function, but failed to realize that function could change.
@@teamacio9043 My school had 7m tall walls around it, the only reason it wasnt a prison was that it hadnt any bars in front of the windows, but some idiot thought it was a good ideo to have class rooms in the basement....therefore I didnt even get windows, my elementary school though is a beautiful building finished in 1900.
I'm actually going to go out on a limb and say that I actually like both historic and Modern architecture. Then again, I guess it makes sense, me being from Washington DC and all that.
I'm so sick of unnatural color transitions and hard edges. I live in Seattle and they are turning this place into multicolored lego towers and reflective shit that looks like something the borg would build.
Reminds me how shocked and disgusted I felt when the traditional Ninjago city in the series was transformed into a bustling techno-city just immediately after the finale of a season.
I've always loved the fluid, functional forms of modernist architecture but have never seen any reason why those forms could not serve as the frame for the comforting, warming aesthetics that make a space comfortable or even enjoyable for people to exist in. I think that's why I enjoy Japanese architecture so much, it's both rooted in functional, efficient forms and maintains its humanity and connection to the natural world around it.
Whenever I see modern architecture, it just just feels lonely. It dominates what is around it and often times is not made of the natural elements of the location that it's in. It's not complimentary to its own surroundings. It just feels alone. It isn't exactly a bad thing, it's just...missing. Being alone never felt right. Sometimes it felt good. But it never felt right. -Bukowski
Lonely is a fitting word. It longs for more. I find it sad when they bulldoze a beautiful wooded lot & turn it into one big concrete slab. As much as they can get away with, just to put an office building that remains empty because no one wants to lease it.
The irony is that if Modernist architects were truly committed to form follows function then they'd be all for decoration and contextual clues to purpose
Every thinking human being hates, despises and even thinks modern architecture is disgusting. But why is this? I think at its most fundamental core, it is because when you create something so lacking in personality, morale, culture, style, and un-invoking in emotion and sentimental feeling, you deprive humans of the fundamental basis of human nature and human condition. It can be said modern architecture, with it's pure hatred for deep culture, ornamentation and decoration, IS AN UNNATURAL anomaly in human history. We have just been living it for so long that we've just gotten used to it. It might have had a certain purpose in history due to the critical need to quickly solve a housing and infrastructure crisis after devastating wars, but we must admit it was a mistake to which human still suffer from and we should never repeat these mistake again. When you've been conditioned by something unnatural for so long, you start to think it's all normal......
Because architecture is a piece of "art" that is present in everyone's everyday life. No-one forces you to watch certain genre of movies, read certain books, listen to some music or go to an art exhibition. But seeing and experiencing architecture is unavoidable, and it should thus be created and maintained with a specific set of rules that forbid any insane move being taken.
One thing I also tend to not like is post-Modern architecture. Specifically style commonly encouraged in architecture schools. Though I will admit, this style is very good for students because there’s so much innovation, problem solving, and unique design that goes into it. It still seems to be held up as the ideal and most advanced style of architecture today. I’d like to see it more as a method of learning, than a practical style. It reminds me of high fashion. The best of the best and most elite fashion designers come up with these clothes, but no one would wear them outside of some eccentric celebrity at a Hollywood red carpet event. I’ve seen the work of traditional architects today, and I was actually surprised by what they were making. They weren’t always making classical and gothic buildings, but rather using principles to create modern buildings that seemed so much more beautiful and human. Sometimes even futuristic in aesthetics, yet harmonious and relatable.
"revolutionary" bc the millions of people throughout the millennias where just all wrong... I cant imagine modern Architects aren't just arrogant dolts.
They care more about status and recognition among their peers, not the public who will have to live with their revolutionary architecture for decades to come
Those statements are context appropriate. This was right after massive world wars, when many were homeless and money was scarce. Why waste resources in making decorations when you can just repeat the same plain house 3000 times with prefabricated materials? It isn't very pretty but it was needed and it gave people what they needed. Nowadays those are dated concepts, architects don't follow Le Corbusier's teachings anymore. There's laws protecting historical areas, or forcing new buildings to adhere to the architectural context around it.
@@GrumpyStormtrooper The oldest implements surviving from the stone age -- 20, 30, 40 thousand years old, are covered with beautiful, painstakingly carved ornaments. Those people had even less than the people you are referring to.
@@bradwalton8373 But we have standards of living now, and a system of welfare to help the less fortunate. Modern architecture answers the need they had after the world wars. Is your house fully decorated? I doubt it. My house is from the 1800s, basically no decorations either here.
@@GrumpyStormtrooper I would add that austere Protestantism contributed to austere architecture. The ancient gothic cathedrals were seen as decadent, opulent. Protestant Europe, Protestant USA are far more plain than Catholic & Orthodox settlements.
@@sirmount2636 You're right, but my own house I'm talking about is in Tuscany. It's middle class worker's architecture. The most decorative element are the cotto floors tiles.
After living in the city for ten years, the older buildings are like breaths of fresh air. It’s so draining to live among modern buildings when there’s very little variation. I really do like modern architecture when it’s mixed with different styles, just not entire city blocks of it.
The Victorian bldg is a piece of unplanned chaos in the inside while putting up a facade on the outside. Thats why we term it Victorian..it is dishonest, a facade that lies to you....like make up. I suggest you think beyond just looks because architecture isnt about pretty pictures. It has to be wholesome inside and out. There are many modern buildings that serve that purpose.
“Character” Maybe it’s just me. But seeing that each building is different in its details make it memorable and part of that makes it easier for me to remember where it is. I love the old skyscrapers of New York. They have character. I think that is what I love. I live in a city is just now making tall office buildings that are not plain concrete high rises
Stumbled upon your videos by accident, but it almost feels like a throwback to school days. Reminded of familiar concepts and thought-provoking discourses and issues that has been slowly forgotten in practice. Thanks for the awesome content!
It reminds me of 9-5 corporate slavery. Too square, too utilitarian, soulless, prison like structures. Where's the artistry? The colors and shape diversity?
Agreed. It's pretty much the definition of "bad" modern architecture. A good modernist architect deliberately designs the functional parts of a building to be beatiful as well as serving a practical purpose.
You walk into an old terrace house that's been well renovated and the ceilings are high , natural light is valued and airflow is well designed , it screams haven and retreat from the cares of the world ... 1970's houses are low ceilinged , poor air flow and tiny aluminum windows ... ugly inside and out I must admit ...I'm not a fan of the entire 'profession' of architects. Few are keen on the *reality* of their pretty drawings ... the cost , the practicality or the purpose ... I once had 3 different architects quote on a major renovation with a budget maximum about $300,000 ... they were given a budget and a list of desirable outcomes Number of bedrooms , bathrooms , parking etc ... All produced beautiful designs that several builders looked at and quoted over $500,000 to build ... the architects were offered 10% of the $300,000 to get it built and supervise the construction of their designs themselves ... all fluffed and grumbled that they ...er ...really ... didn't ... er ...like to get into THAT side of things ... then asked us for payment for their (utterly useless) drawings.
10 Minutes of great explanations, especially why it isn't just about being ugly. Me: Seriously tho, most modern buildings are just plain ugly. To elaborate a bit: I see aesthetics as part of the *function*. I will be happier when I can come to a home, or enter some other building, that makes me think: Dang, that's pretty.
I don't see why modernism, form follows function, should exclude decoration or tradition. Can't it just be that the traditional Modernists got the formula right in essence except they didn't really understand the function. They based their principle on an ideal and not reality, that was the great mistake but that doesn't disprove the basic formula of form follows function. A very well done example of Modernism at its best is the Barcelona Pavillion by Mies which has no other function than to shape spaces, which it does in an extraordinary way. But offcourse the architect didn't have to consider a 'real life' program.
I think people forget that there is often quite a lot of decoration in Modernist design. In 2017, they temporarily "painted" the Barcelona Pavillion in an all-white scheme, and it revealed just how many humanist elements there were in its original form. The problem is that they're applied subtly through textures and material choices, and the average person craves more obvious references (take a look at the Cheesecake Factory for example)
Maybe you’re just not really part of their targetted segment? Modern design exists as a solution to problems. And maybe, the problem of the building owner was NOT you?
"I don't see why modernism, form follows function, should exclude decoration or tradition. " Because practically speaking, the appeal of modernist architecture has always been cost reduction. Its about optimizing and stripping down structures to a point where nothing is provided beyond what enables their function at the lowest possible cost. Aesthetics and matters of human life are meaningless within the process. The idea was to re-align all aspects of life with the ideals of industrial production.
I think Modernism has its places. However, due to its nature, it is cheap, "looks smart", and is low risk to implement. Hence it logically makes a huge amount of sense, especially from a business standpoint. While I would love to say that architecture should be designed to improve the lives of all who interact with it, the reality is that it is designed to a budget, and to meet a minimum viable criteria. Since that is what matters to the people who have the purchasing power to construct these buildings. Obviously, I want cities and architecture to be better and nicer, but I think there would need to be a cultural shift to enable that. With the stakes, and quantities of money being so high, its difficult to convince people to take "risks", especially when it involves designers deeply understanding their clients and being given bigger budgets to allow more time to be spent.
I would also like to note that the modern architecture we see never really did have much to do with what the architects imagined, I mean they weren't just imagining single buildings but entire cities and those do undeniably look beautiful. The problem is that we always ended up with single buildings or maybe a neighborhood and rarely with all the features they imagined and when you have lots of single buildings then you don't get the simplicity and neatness of uniformity which looks great in Paris and neither do you get them to particular stand out.
What about the urban environment in the Context of low-income housing. Or even public housing. The potential modernism brings is enormously valuable. More people have the opportunity to be housed at minimal cost to the taxpayer.
@@ori_U100 This has been tried many times and has failed. If you want a really good example, look into Chicago's Cabrini Green, the location of the film Candyman. You cannot separate these buildings from the socio-economic and political causes of poverty. They become prison-like places to "keep" the poor away from everyone else, places from which the inhabitants have little hope of ever escaping. If you make them too nice, even if it's cheaper to do so, the more affluent tax payers complain. They become slums, or more accurately, ghettos. Architecture cannot solve poverty.
@@LAChantrose How about the successful examples like David Ajaye's housing complex at Sugar hill in Harlem NY. Your speaking of a time when politics exploited Architecture. Now there is a bit more independence within Architecture. Designers are taking it to a higher level of consciousness. Its actually nothing new, just more embraced. We are in the age of sustainability, where the conservation of resources is of great interest. Many of the Modernist were on this long ago. You have to look deeper and actually analyse things by asking questions. How much should be invested in something that when put on the scale is not essential? How can we enhance the quality of life for the last fortunate? These are questions Architecture can definitely Help solve.
I live in the Netherlands. I love the old architecture. The new not so much. I also love the cities and towns does not have straight roads infrastructure like (all?) the American cities. That is so ugly and boring.
I lived in San Francisco and have family in the area. We don’t appreciate it either. It’s like an infection of boring slowly crushing actual aesthetics.
cities on the east coast are much more like European cities, it's everywhere inbetween where the infrastructure was built in the last 70 years that all the roads are railway straight. Its something we're addressing now in places with a large amount of growth. Utah where I live has gotten a huge influx of new people and we've got a lot of new infrastructure and business to support. We're making our roads curve to break up the straight lines but it still doesn't feel natural and we're still building in such a way that it makes public transit next to impossible.
I live in Tilburg and in the 60's they demolished actual beautifull buildings to make a 'Modern Industrial city'. And it is so ugly. I do admire there persistance to keep it ugly though, because even recent project are in the same vein. I have the same with Rotterdam or Eindhoven.
i think Modern architecture has potential but only if they get rid of the "no decorations" rule. i personally like the square and clean look but you can have a place that looks clean but still feels nice to be around. I also hate big empty rooms. there should be color in and around modern style buildings, im sure theres a way to make it work. Surround the place with nature, put colorful flowers all around it (possibly in it if the flowers you chose can live indoors) because nature is a great way to make a place less uninviting, but still keep a nice sofisticated look if thats what the place is going for. Colorful murals, warm lights... there are so many possibilities, and its a shame that a style of building that i find so appealing has this restriction because it would look so NICE with decorations and color
another thing is that i personally dont mind glossy or boring exteriors on tall buildings. I think it has a certain beauty to it because its so reflective and the size certainly helps, but a lot of people here hate it, so maybe i have strange taste on this whole thing
"Idealists" we all know that these farleft people are hypocrites, they do not have an iota of idealism in their bones, they are tyrants, they are violent and they pretend to be intellectuals, they are the opposite of intellectualism.
@@reyarturonegro5284 And yet liberals and conservatives are the ones satisfied with a world where their politicians speak in Idealistic empty platitudes. Just listen to ghouls like Biden rattle off about how great America is and how the U.S is somehow the arbiter of the moral good. These liberal politicians drone on about civic nationalism and how freedom comes from a free market. These same leaders are the people okay with supporting far right dictatorships in the global south and overturning democracy in developing countries. Face it under global capitalism, we destroy other nations and then go "Where are these terrorists and despotic rulers coming from? Eh it must just be that the west is good and the east is evil and inferior. Let's ignore the conditions that breed these problems."
@@reyarturonegro5284 Politics creep in and ruin everything nowadays in every topic imaginable like this reply right here on a 2 year old comment. Way to shove it in
Bauhaus movement started in Germany right after ww1 when Germany was ordered to repay huge amounts of money to victors , idea was to rebuild country as cheap and as fast as possible. If you look at it in context of time then it makes sense but greedy businessmen and builders realised this is good for profits, build them fast and cheap, anybody can build grey glass boxes made in china. I think Bahaus was ok in 1919 as temporary measure since Europe was destroyed but there is no excuse now, we have cities that look like a combination of prisons and hospitals, saddest part is when I see a church built like an office, feels sterile and soulless.
I couldn't agree more with you on the church thing. There is absolutely nothing more soul sucking than walking into a church that was made with as little faith and beauty as possible.
Perhaps, you should have also mentioned Peter Blake's "Form Follows Fiasco: Why Modern Architecture Hasn't Worked". Nietzsche said in "Human, All Too Human," that when people stop believing in absolutes, they stop creating great art.
I would make a distionction between modern architecture (from 1950's to 1990's roughly) from post-modern architecture that we sometimes see today with wacky, more artistic design.
They are different, but they share their urge to overscale, lack details, lack any relation to the country's culture and have a complete disregard to it's surroundings
Saying "traditional architecture was associated with evil empires" is like saying "Hitler ate sugar, so eating sugar is bad" or "Hitler was associated with building roads, so building roads is bad."
the former is done by people who want to see the world become better because they love it. The latter is done purely to destroy, by those that hate the world.
I live in the outskirts of Vitória, Brazil, and here I see buildings whose only purpose is to be a car dealership. Structures taylored to the single function of car dealing. If Ford, GM or Nissan decide their car dealerships are no longer viable, they leave, and the building stands there empty and purposeless, waiting for another car manufacturer to rent it. In the meantime, it's a big piece of nothingness, prone to vandalism et al. That's the same for banks, government agencies, shops etc. In the historical city of Mariana, I saw something different. The businesses adapted themselves to the historical structures, and there was no empty spaces I could see. The only thing that stood out was a bank agency that had the original historical building front, but it's interior had been completely repurposed to a Modern Architecture banking office.
Henrique, sou de Brasília, não preciso dizer mais nada. Nasci e cresci em meio ao concreto branco de Oscar Niemeyer, só descobri que havia beleza nas casas e prédios quando visitei Goiás Velho.
@@samsulh314 well, renaisance or baroque mansions are not that disappointing, no? If you are talking about those old medieval buildings than yeah, I concur 😀
@@samsulh314 If I was incredibly rich my home would look like this. www.google.com/search?q=jelgavas+pils&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwityOPJ4ZXgAhWIfywKHUrRDvgQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=969#imgrc=NRgRcWJOgfrG3M:
A leading hotel corporation wanted to build in a our quintessential New England resort town. They went to the zoning board with a very modern, clean looking building. The zoning board members were appalled and told the hotel to come back with a more fitting proposal. The developers came back with a new design. Basically all that was changed was that a faux mansard roof was attached to the top floor along with a couple other decorative elements. The board loved it.
Excellent video. I despise Modern architecture - it is the embodiment of "Big Brother," as far as I'm concerned. I don't understand why architects, or any artists, for that matter, have to get swept up in the latest philosophical craze. The result is that they all wind up copying each other, to an extent, and attract hordes of mindless wannabes.
I don't understand it either, and when we look at the evolution of modern architecture since about 1940, we can see just how little architects have learned in 80 years.
Honestly, EVERY time I see one of those steel and glass blocks anymore, in many cases I just long to slap some stone onto the exterior along with a few carvings, and give them SOME spirit and originality.
Modernism is such an aesthetic anthema to everything I concider, beautiful, human and impressive that I sometimes feel like it’s some cruel joke directed at me. You were right in the point that it has achieved a monopoly in the one place it can’t be avoided as both a forced and unavoidable monolith. It seems to represent a kind of elitism in which it’s ideas are self perpetuated through a grip on higher education and an obsession with the cheap, the product of which is cast down to a an either discontented or apathetic population. When admiring Classical or gothic architecture, I think of the wonders of the human mind and the impossibility of what living beings can achieve, yet does, but it is modernism that reminds of the fact that civilisation, like everything else, is ultimately meaningless and will always tick on without an aim. I can not express how much I hate something which makes me do that.
Indeed. It's like we when from the greatest, wholesome and fulfilling trends we could ever imagine, to the progressively dull and alien-looking monstrosities. I think Art Deco was the last great movement. While it tried to be international, it also was complex, in an attempt to celebrate all of humankind: full of patterns, decorative materials, bold and imposing designs with a lot of simbolism to the sun and pretty futuristic. Then came Streamline Moderne and it was the beginning of the end. It was a stripped-down version of Art Deco, and more than anything it resembled early international-stylized buildings. There was no meaning, no life, just dull lines and some windows.
@@LudiusQuassas I think your right. Art-deco in its use of light, sleek lines, use of windows and open space represents every positive innovation which modernism claims to justify itself with. In reality, Modernism is not a true aesthetic, its just the striped cartilage of what architecture was.
That is why classical buildings where typically cuboid, has evenly spaced windows, had stability and structural supports, arched widows often providing further strength, sloped roofs to divert rainfall, and the common use of a strong highly resistant stone material, hence why they have a far longer lifespan then most modern buildings. The problem with modernism it that cost comes before function, and form is forbidden.
Great video, just one slight disagreement: You say "it's not about what's ugly and what's not". Beauty is incredibly important, there is a good reason it stands beside "the true" and "the good". The sheer ugliness of much of modern architecture plays a major role in why people simply don't want to be there.
Hi everyone I've made a Discord for further discussions: discord.gg/4DWvahY94U. I'm also more likely to respond there as UA-cam comments aren't always the most ideal places for conversation. Thank you!
Porque não presta
Noice
The video’s title is not accurate. Whoever conducted the survey has a very limited point of view. You should travel more to countries such as Dubai or Singapore which is the richest and also the most educated country in the world to see how Singaporeans are building the cleanest country on this planet with modern architecture. Singapore’s infrastructure is clearly central to socio- economic advancement. An efficient infrastructure facilitates delivery of information, goods and services, supports economic growth and assists in achieving social objectives such as raising the living standards and educational levels. In fact, Singapore currently has the highest standard of living. I highly recommend you to travel to different places, and try to see them with different points of view. Do not just sit there and reading those boring books. Life is fun, so we should think outside of the bottle or the box. Architecture should be fun and exciting instead of following the boring principles that defines by people living in the past. Believe me, stop reading so many useless book. Go out there and see the world. That’s the best to learn.
@@khangvinh4065 you’re right. I agree. I want to travel but my country has been under mandatory lockdown for over a year and now we are not allowed to leave our house except for emergency reasons. My best friend from childhood now lives in Singapore and I’ve been wanting to visit her for years. I have indeed spent too long reading books. However - this year I worked on the construction of a new, modern hospital clinic and I must say - I think we did a great job and the technology we used will make our patients lives better. I’m working on a follow up video to this one - and I’d love to address this comment and my thoughts about the future for sure. Thank you ❤️
I dislike both modernist and postmodernist architecture.
The golden rule of architecture: "People have to live with your creations"
And *in* them, for that matter!
There are 3 'golden' rules of architecture, and that's not one of them
90% of famous architects literally never heard that rule or anything like it in their entire life lol and you can tell
@@lindsaywebb1904 rule number 1 is just be yourself :)
What? No ways!
Humans: Have been decorating things since the dawn of time
Modernists: Yeah nah that can't be right
😂
🤣
Lmao are you saying my 10 minute video could have been 10 seconds? 🤣
@@ARTiculations People are in love with imperialism, war and chaos. Math is simply chaos put to words, putting a smiley-face on iT.
@@fenriz2073 lol yes I do really want to say that sometimes. But I just built a brand new modern hospital clinic in a city that really takes historic preservation seriously. But for various reasons this time we decided to do a new modern building with state-of-the art design ideas, technology and very clean geometric lines - except it is not dull and grey, we put splashes of colours and are mixing local art and local cultural designs into it. So far - the clinic staff and patients tell us this is amazing and they are so happy to not have to go into an old building that's a converted Church - because while that's super cool - it was just not functional. Anyway - I think as a designer I do have to take what the local community say into consideration, and as a matter of fact I often value it much more than what I read in books and research. In this case - the end users mostly wanted Modern. So we gave them (mostly) modern and they are so far very happy about it. We'll see what they say in 10 years time though. lol.
"Making people feel good by looking at it" and "having a nice atmosphere inside" are also functions.
essennagerry, you're absolutely right.
Experience isn't a function.
Facilitating experience is a function and limiting it to venues fails its users.
Modernism exist specifically to make people feel good. To give buildings large windows and put some distance between them to let natural light in and allow the inhabitants to see the outside world. Bright colors to allow them to have a clear mind and give them the appropriate energy.
@@jakobholgersson4400 you're saying that as if historical and traditional designs dont do the same thing
In Germany, what many people like and really prefer is architecture from 1871 till 1914. These are very solid buildings with decorated facades, which are nowadays professionally modernised. There one has high ceilings (3m+), large windows and one finds artistic details everywhere. The modern buildings, people normally live in nowadays are primarily driven by economic needs, not by artistic wishes.
I see the same as you.
I myself used to live in a small town where we were surrounded by older buildings and it was always beautiful.
As a child, I liked big cities, but I found the skyscrapers and concrete blocks rather boring and ugly.
Now I've moved into one of these buildings in North Rhine-Westphalia to study and I have to admit that just the thought of the endless corridor, every apartment looks like the other and the general fact that the building doesn't have a nice facade pulls me down.
I very much hope that facades are built on such buildings so that they look like the buildings from the Wilhelmine era.
am btw himself 19 years old
My father, a retired but renowned architect and city planner, always told me that honoring the human scale is most important for humans to feel good. This is overlooked by most of Modern architecture.
That is sort of Jane Jacobs’ argument as well. 😊
YES! I've seen Modernists house where the living room has a crazy high-ceiling and the bedrooms are in the second floor acesses through an interior balcony without divisions. AND the front wall was entirely replaced by a giant window! Of course no one wanted to be seen in their underwear chilling in their living rooms, so the residents put up giant blindfolds in the best cases or simply sticked brown paper all over the windows in the worst case. Also, I can't imagine what a pain it must be to clean that insanely high ceiling...a truly terrible design!
@@SKyrim190 I have seen classical and ornamented houses for the rich with absurd high ceilings too. They had chandeliers that were impossible to clean. Walking in your underwear was punishable with fysical abuse. Human stupidity is of all times.
@@mankepoot9440 that is a completely improper comparison. You are comparing kings to the "common man". The house I am speaking of is a house for a regular person, not for royalty
To be frank, that's the problem with all architecture. Every time there is somebody with too much money, they NEED to remind everybody else that they are small. Gothic churches for examples. There are thousands and thousands of those in Poland and every single one is the same and always the biggest thing in town. No one ever needed that, but there was sooo much money that they had to do something with, but of course without poor people profiting from it, no no. That's why architecture is big and inhuman - it's to specifically make people feel meaningless.
A small village lost in France or in Italy is much more beautiful than the majority of modern big cities
Dude you'd get fresh food and air too! A+++
Sure! But Paris is a fascinating playground for new buildings.
@@user-xg6zz8qs3q What is needed for Paris are traditional buildings
@@kal_bewe1837 These buildings will always stay until they're unsafe to live in. It's just that Paris is doing a massive gentrification around places where there used to be these ugly appartement blocks. Around older neighborhoods newer buildings adopt a more traditional style. But it kinda feels fake because the level of detail is nowhere the same. I just wanna share my enthusiasm for newer buildings around Paris. They're anything but boring.
Or they both are beautiful in their own way so
Hot take: Modern architecture can be good, but only if it works in tandem to, or in some cases, actively expand, its natural environment. The problem is that most modern structures are boring rectangles and squares that clash against its landscape. Good Modern architecture needs to create bold new lines and contrasts that actively emphasizes the natural landscape. A prime example is Fallingwater by F. L. Wright. It accents the landscape and promotes a feeling of being in tune with the surroundings.
I would like to say as well that from those box and rectangular shapes of modernized buldings, they still have an opportunity to have creative liberty on them. Take for instance the neon lights of Akihabara, Tokyo, in Japan.
Modern architecture is great but the problem lies in the fact that we live in an age where we don't have the benefit of a wealthy economy that can Commission Neo-classical building that are made if Marble and handcrafted by artisans with overly-exaggerated backstories. And because we have to produce architecture at in a budget and in a world with a new context, the idea of Modern architecture has become synonymous with cheaply made or souless. It's pretty unfortunate seeing as modern architecture is the reason why marvels such as the Jewel of Singapore can exist. Another thing I think architecture in the 21st century has a benefit that 20th century architecture didn't, that being the 20th century had to live with this edgy teen called modernism that like breaking rules before it grew up and became contemporary architecture and got awesome shit like this: armarchitecture.com.au/projects/macquarie-park-apartments/
When you work in tandem to the natural environment, you are using the natural environment as ornaments and decoration.
The blindingly bright colors against a more grounded area is an eyesore to say the least. Their is this obnoxious sushi restaurant close by covered almost entirely in glass, very blocky with a large overhead that’s highlighter orange, sitting next to a bargain grocery store on one side, a family owned auto shop on the other and a trailer block a few streets behind it. I get mad every time I pass it on the way to work.
I disagree, The beauty of modern architecture is the emphasize of the future and technology as a whole, it reminds us where we are going. I love the minimalism and brightly lit rooms in Mirror's Edge, everything is just so clean and perfect. That is something past generations couldn't even dream of, their homes had all kinds of imperfections and it was dull and dark, I've been in quite a few old homes from the 1940s or so and it's depressing asf.
I'm a digital artist, and for a few years was dating a city planner. We used to argue over this constantly with him being a massive fan of stripped down modernism (you have people like him to thank if you've had any new construction approved with a Modern design) and me arguing that what they were building were effectively blank, lifeless pages, something that many people find intimidating rather than enjoyable.
The way I think of that is that both are valid subjective experiences. The one that should matter more is the one which is more common (i.e. most likely yours).
Architects seem to think "Who cares what people want? We will give them what we think they should have." They're like self-appointed parents of wayward children. Except the children are grown adults able to think for themselves, and able to decide what does or doesn't look good to them.
@@sourisvoleur4854 It's a maffia, claiming that only they see what counts as modern. Basically, it's fascist thinking.
After working some years as an architectural illustrator, it's dawned on me that architects aren't actually designers at all, they are nothing but weaponized bureaucrats using the power of the police state to enforce their aesthetic opinions on an often unwilling clientele and public.
We as a society need to separate the functional design and requirements of a buildings from aesthetic ones, both in the public approvals process, and within the public accreditation of architectural profession. The government needs to legislate this to make it happen....
(I think it's actually time we stopped ALL professions being their own gatekeepers, regulators, and policers when the public laws are directly invoked by these professions in their work practice. The recent experience with covid vaccinations is another example of legally weaponized professional corruption and overreach run amok.)
Most architectural firms are very used to hiring professional engineers in the process of building, it's time the architectural profession itself was split into aesthetic and engineering arms, and architects could specialize in either or both.
And both designers and the public approvals process would have a very separate and more flexible and with much less restrictive rules for the creation of the aesthetic part of an architectural design, it would not need a formal qualification to make choices, and the engineering side would not be able to overrule the design side on aesthetic reasons alone...
My biggest complaint with modern architecture is that they claim form folows function, but that's not the case. Comie blocks are an example of a building design focusing on function and they somehow look better than the metal and glass cheese wedge a modernist architect would propose while acting like they designed the building version of Mona Lisa.
I don't hate modern architecture. I hate the way modern city planners ruin historic cities with it. This is a big problem in Europe in my opinion.
@PixelFøx I want to agree with you, but god dam. Use periods, proper comma placement, Italics, correct capitalization, or anything resembling english. You can't just use fuck as a period.
Also demolishing perfectly stable historical architecture to build new structures in its place when they could’ve renovated the old structure and give it a new purpose instead.
I know what you mean. I live in the most inner centre of Hamburg and the problem here is, that we still got lots of patch buildings from the 50s and 60s after the destructions of WW2. And after this came the glass and steel towers people mostly tend to if they talk about Modern architecture which are not awful per se but feel mostly out of place between the restructured collonialism and sometimes historicism buildings that have somehow survived the air raids.
But over the years and with it's city centre constantly changing the planers try to fit every new building into the look of the actual city centre that has been established in late 19c to early 20c, after a ravenous fire destroyed the whole city in 1842. (A nice example: www.ece.de/fileadmin/_processed_/csm_EPH_050_44_6c7f456d53.jpg the two buildings are about a century apart)
Also have you ever been to the Hafencity (harbour city) area in Hamburg? It is actually the biggest urban redevelopment project in europe. Also the university of construction art and metropolitan development is located there. Also it is somewhat of a playground for architects because the city didn't made up a lot of major restrictions. So the Hafencity became a bit of a museum for Mordern architecture with every building being an exhibit on it's own. Even if most of them where build mostly with the functuality aspect in mind. (as an example: There is actually a dedicated apartment complex for musicians where every flat contains a floating room detached from the buildings structure)
@@CM_CHESS Do you mean you as in a single person, or everyone? Not really sure who your pointing out anyway. The generation that made Modern architecture isn't going to be in a UA-cam comment thread.
I agree. Back when I lived in the city, they were tearing down every suburban house, every historical building, etc. and replacing them all with flat Modern buildings, sterile mansions, and identical highrises. Even the parks and sports facilities were under attack, again being replaced by "the purest form of architecture".
I grew up in Ukraine in a city where all you see is pure concrete socialist blocks, it is not just ugly, I think it's disgusting. As a child I used to play a lot of video games and watch cartoons and TV series/shows, I've learned that there were so many different cultures and styles in architecture, I fell in love with all those different things I could see like those really cool Asian roofs, European castles, domes, and the stained glass in cathedrals, etc. It was not just beautiful, it was gorgeous! Then I would always have to go out in my own city and see all those gray surroundings, concrete, asphalt, metal and glass, I'd be just sad, there was no reason to go anywhere really, there was much more point in staying home and playing video games, where artists actually take time to create details that would, in turn, create an atmosphere of another world of something greater, this is how the historical cities feel, it feels natural yet unearthly, that's the whole point. Nowadays I am a software engineer and live in Budapest, which is of the most beautiful cities on the planet (despite some of its issues), and still, when I leave the city center, I can see all those modern soulless houses made out of glass and concrete, simple shapes and really boring white color, it feels degrading and depressing. Makes me want to change my profession to an urban planner (after some studying) and get some architect friends to create a new company and shape a new (but kind of old) view on how the cities should look like. Sure, maybe Modernism had its purpose in history so that we can conclude it was a mistake and never do it again. :D
I agree
Wow i'm also from Ukraine and i agree. I always loved to visit the old part of the city as a kid (and i still do) bacause it's so pretty and atmospheric , while the soviet buildings are ugly as f*ck
Another issue I have noticed is that they have very little greenery. They don't work with and adapt to the environment around them but instead reshape the landscape to a bunch of squares. People get a bit stir crazy when there isn't a sufficient bit of nature around them. We like our plants and animals as much as we like our bots and cars. There has got to be a way to find a balance between natural environments and convenience.
It would be an excellent choice of career. I hope the anti-modernist movement gains enough traction such that the wealthy of the future appreciate classical architecture, like gothic or Doric. It is an unfortunate circumstance of the world wars that thousands of years of cultural architectural development was destroyed, allowing for a niche, perverted and ugly style to dominate simply out of the need for cheap structures, and domination of capitalism to the point of beauty no-longer being a priority.
@@danhatman3538 yeah , but make sure not to fall into ✨kitch✨ because then it will look even worse
I feel like we're on the verge of a great artistic style shift, that would be on the same level as Baroque, Romantism and things like that. There's a resurgence of people wanting to stop the destruction of traditional art and fed up with the idea of "art is just interpretation". I might be wrong, but we need to bring beauty back into functionnality
I hope you're right
>I might be wrong, but
No you're not.
There is more people doing traditional art than this interpretative stuff you dislike. Just check your local artists and see for yourself.
Modern architecture IS beauty, you should play Mirror's Edge (the original) to truly be inspired by the minimalism, the well lit rooms, and so on. There is nothing better, everything is simply perfect.
@@Danuxsy You have terrible taste if you think any form of architecture that has to do with modern is beautiful and perfect in any way. Even the best of modern architecture will only resemble an elaborately colored urban slum at best.
No matter how you defend modern architecture, it will always look and smell as a turd. And the latter part of that isn't just metaphorical.
Architect "I want people to talk about my buildings"
People "It's crap"
Architect "Success"
I think they think their buildings are a success if they are polarizing ie. the other architects love it, the general public hates it.
"I have succeeded in creating dialogue!"
No you haven't... You have succeeded in creating a monstrosity
Unluckily for the architects, I have no words for their designs. Only the blood falling from my eyes at their gargantuan garbage
Modern architects are shit now why can’t people learn to build like the Greeks and romans did and actually enjoy looking at their creation
@@Tthemagicman because building nice looking buildings is "too hard"
@@eduardcruceru9004 it baffles me when they use that excuse. . . the cathedral of Notre Dame was build in 1200 with local resources and the technology avaliable at the time , without any truck or super crane. . . And you can't build a good looking building with the insane planification we got T O D A Y ? Just be honest and say it comes down to money
IMO Modern architecture, by articulating on “function over form” idea, is neglecting the psychological aspect that was pretty clear and important for the architects from the past.
The buildings are meant to be inhabited, visited and observed by humans that not only have certain physical/functional needs, but also reacts emotionally to the surrounding environment and objects, and architecture that doesn’t take this into account could do a great harm to people’s mental state.
It's also missing the rather significant cultural and artistic components.
that's a right take i agree
You are right
In 20 century we had 3 totalitarian regimes: communism, fascism and Modern architecture
@@Kannot2023 it still exist in architects, they keep forcing modern designs and dont respect people who love old
There is nothing wrong with form following function.
The problem is that Modernism removed most of a building's function when designing the form. Physical space and how it is utilized is important, but so is emotional, and metaphorical functions.
Take your ideal kitchen as an example. What descriptors do you use? Sure "ample counter space" and "good work flow" will be there, so will descriptors such as, "bright," "open," "inviting." As well as "gathering place," "family hub," and "heart of the household"
If Modernism only focuses on the literal, physical functions of a space it will miss key elements, and render itself lacking in the minds of most people.
Well, I can see "gathering place" actually being considered by Modernists, as well as "bright" and "open." But "inviting" and "heart of the household" are very subjective attributes. To me that means warmth, therefore maybe some wood elements. But what people mean when they say "form follows function" is that wood is inferior in function to PVC, so why should anyone use it. If you start to attribute all the personal preferences people might have to such a "function" then "form follows function" loses all meaning as a catchphrase and you are missing the point of the modernist philosophy. Which is, at its core, a dehumanizing philosophy, so if you bring the human element back into it, you're a postmodernist, not a modernist.
Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines, "form follows function" can be done well, poorly and everything between. Just like the video about well designed exit signs, I think function should incorporate good aesthetics.
Thank you! The concept in itself makes sense, but how can any one person confidently define the present and future functions of an entire building? Also, modernist architects dislike ornament, but it's not like they make arbitrary decisions. I always said that if you want an example of form purely following function, look at a refinery, the LHC, or the ISS. Not a gram of material is spent on decorative elements, and yet they look as beautiful and intricate as any gothic church. Today's buildings are complex machines, but they tend to hide quite a lot of their functions. Otherwise they'd all look more like the Centre Pompidou in Paris rather than the monolith from 2001.
I was going to say this. I'm a graphic designer and the fundamentals are the same no matter what your designing.
This statement, that "Modernism removed most of a building's function when designing the form" just doesn't add up.
I thought that the art deco movement of both Classic Art Deco & Streamline Moderne was a nice mix between the classical and modern architecture styles.
Neo-classical is the best, it just look so elegant and respectful. But design and construction costs made it obsolete in these modern times.
honestly think art deco is the pinacol of architecture a mix indeed of old and new, they really should build more art deco buildings
We need an Art Deco Revival
Love art deco
I also like Art Deco. Simple and clean lines, yet not boring.
So much of this crosses over with modernism in music. There are some very similar themes: artist idealism doing away with things that people perceive as humane or emotionally important. There are some big differences too: I can't think of a direct correlation to 'form must always follow function' for example. I'd love to put the histories of both side by side to try and tease all this out.
Would love to see you make a video on this!
@@ARTiculations I will eventually! Perhaps you might be interested in taking part?
@@Tantacrul that would be awesome! I added you on Twitter haha so if you have thoughts feel free to DM me there 😊
You should design a new city and call it Auda city ^.^
@@Fangornmmc no way xD
It makes me sad to look at modern buildings. I live in a Swiss town full of beautiful decorated buildings, and among these, there are some disgusting gray bland concrete "blocks" of equally disgusting shape ready to completely mess up the landscape...
Inside they are so minimalistic and with endless-looking, empty hallways and it's just unbelievable that someone decided to make something like that in such beautiful areas...
You are right. Personally, I think it ought to be a criminal offense to force massive ugliness on people and destroy towns and landscapes with their dysfunctional outputs. Many architects and many planners ought to be jailed!
But they use wood elements inside to make them feel warm and welcoming…. Hahahaha! Swiss architecture can be so cold and formalistic.
@@gardenjoy5223 If there is a victim, there is a real crime.
@@G-ra-ha-m No
If every place on Earth would look the same, what's the purpose of travelling ?
Yup it feels that traditional architecture just disappeared. We still have some of it left from past centuries and that is it, we no longer build something that could be associated with only particular area. Without those few remaining old buildings there would literally be no reason to visit other cities, only nature tourism would continue to be worthwhile.
i drove around europe last summer and all the gothic buildings kinda looked the same
@@gdnygma490 there are really large differences between gothic structures in different countries. Maybe you had in mind Neo-gothic that is more or less global.
@@ligametis I see I know little about Architecture so thats probably it
@@gdnygma490 one is like an original style from medieval times and other is reimagination of it during industrial revolution :)
Modern architecture was invented to make video games more realistic
KHJohan, fair
Giggles to you mate!
nice
一小鳯
KHJohan bo3 😂
How modern buildings are designed:
1. Open Blender
2. Don't delete the default cube
3. Done
100%
Not Simple Enough; Something More Simple Has To Be Made For Something Modern
lol
Great!
The cube takes less time to build, cheaper, less complicated, more practical
Oh, and "form follows function" was coined by Louis Sullivan, known for his beautifully decorated skyscrapers.
People have ALWAYS produced buildings according to function, with automatic beauty as a result. Castles were built to withstand attacks, towers to spot enemies from far away. Today we view them as fairy tale castles in Disneyland.
Adding extra decor, whether to a castle or to a simple hut or barn, also filled a function: making it pleasing to the dwellers, signalling status, and creating job opportunities for artisans. This was also sustainable. A house that is loved for its beauty will last longer and be better taken care of, even if its function may change over time.
So, for Modernists to kidnap Sullivan's saying and twisting it to mean Minimalism I find dishonest and disrespectful to both Sullivan and the rest of society who has to live in architectural starvation.
Its not that form follows function, its that form communicates function. To Aristotle, Art was about gathering the materials to express Purpose or Truth.
Modernists did not promote minimalism, that came later
@@lindsaywebb1904 Have you had the chance to look at the communal Bauhaus buildings? I think it can actually be argued that minimalism in some way was part of the modernist agenda, the reducing of the "unnecessary" in its essence equates to the minimalistic worldview., though i´m sure it remains to be debated.
@@MuunNii Yes, if you mean the ensemble in Dessau, I'm familiar. I'm not sure what you mean by 'minimalistic world view'. The Bauhaus movement though, was not just architecture, it was a movement (across the arts, industrial design, theatre etc) attempting to reclaim authenticity and craft in the machine age. In no way can the architecture (or general artistic output) be regarded as minimalistic - it was mostly a highly wrought, formal response to the socio political issues of the day. I think you could argue that the aesthetics of European modernism might have inspired Minimalism, which appeared in the US in the 60s, but that's it. Minimalism in architecture seems to have developed sometime later (probably as a reaction to postmodernism [historicist] architecture, and with roots in Japanese Zen thinking. (Tadao Ando's House Azuma -1976 is probably a good starting point) and taking off in the 80s with the likes of John Pawson to now, where it is (ironically) just another stylistic plaything.
This is a ridiculous analysis. Cinderella's "castle" is modeled on the royal equivalent of a summer cottage. Its distinctive architectural style was designed mainly to impress Ludwig's nobles and visiting dignitaries. Contemporary military fortifications looked morel like Fort Sumter. Low walls lined with cannons and 30 feet thick of earth and concrete. Completely unrelated.
Form follows function *sometimes*. Fighter jets tend to follow this statement. Suspension bridges. Bicycles. Sports cars. It tends to be true when every competing design is intended to maximize a specific function and people learn to like the look of the ones that perform better.
In Asia we paint our concrete jungle with bright pastel colours, deco with neon signs, preserve trees and nature, design pedestrian spaces for people gather, and it's still depressing sometimes. In cities where they don't plan for this I can't even imagine.
Maybe east Asia but I haven't seen that in India.
Asia is the biggest and most diverse continent on our planet... What city in which country do you mean?
That's one thing Latin America gets right. They stick to old building methods and go crazy with the paint like some child at daycare. I rather take that over an American home built today.
@@kekistanihelpdesk8508 yeah
Which country? Here in China they don’t even bother coloring stuff haha
The function of Modern American cities are great. I love sitting in trafic and not being able to walk anywhere!!!
Modern architecture*
You have no idea how much engineering goes into city streets to make them function at all. The problem isn't the design of the city, its the size and number of people living there.
i don't know man, I might know.
You don't think that happens in Europe?
@@ketherga Speak for yourself. I live in a big city in Europe and have no issue walking anywhere because it was built to have both places to live in and places to go shopping in within walking distance. Only in America you have to drive anywhere you need to go. Not because Americans are lazy, but because it was constructed in that way.
"In a world of steel and glass
we bury our past"
Best quote I've seen in months!
@@danilvanlaethem9463 It's from the song Born in '58 by Bruce Dickenson.
Bruce Dickinson! Dude was a polymath ahead of his time in many ways.
There's a movement in Sweden called Arkitekturupproret(the architectural uprising) where people vote for the most ugly buildings recently built around Sweden. There is also the taunting of architects who, while designing these awful monstrosities, lives in picturesque old houses.
As the late Terry Pratchett wrote: "Innovative", in this context, might come from the same lexicon as "daring" or "novel" to a career civil servant: it denotes "totally untried and untested, and we reserve judgement on how soon that flat roof is going to leak or those flimsy windows are going to fall out in a light breeze. Even though the building might end up as totally unfit for the purpose, by the time anyone notices we can put it down to normal structural deterioration. Or else we can make veiled suggestions that because the design was so new and innovative, the fault is really with the builders who put it up, or the buyer who uses the building. It's so radical a concept that they aren't able to look after it properly. Either way, it's not our fault if they persist in using it. In any case, anyone worrying about such petty things as whether or not the roof leaks on an award-winning building is self-evidently not a creative professional, and we don't need to waste any breath on non-creative garbage of that sort."
The word, “Dystopian” always comes to mind when I see “modern” or “modernist”anything. “Destined for Destruction”.
more like, "Destined to destroy us"
MORE LIKE: DESTINED TO DESTROY OLD-SCHOOLERS!
Get over it. It's here to stay.
Walkernull long live minecraft - typical throw away comment
And that is supposed to mean...
U agree with me or you don't?
@Dave Cockayne Old buildings need our maintenance to be standing. And back then they didn't consider natural disasters. Now we have earthquake-proof, hurricane-proof, and even fire-proof buildings. Sorry but I still think Modern is better. No offense.
I think some people hate modern architecture because it's so repetitive and boring, there's no character in it. But with more detailed and old buildings I think we can relate to them better than a block of concrete with huge windows. It isn't cozy and it can make you feel small.
Maybe it is compareable with human anatomy: The anatomy of a person is symmetrical, but never 100%. This would look "uncanny". Also different people look different. Modern Buildings look more, like buildungs for robots of the same type and model.
But: If you put a Modern Building in a place, where other nonmodern buildings or landmarks exist, it may still look okay because of the contrast.
Maybe also the design was nice, when it was just theorie. As people began to build more and more this way, it went from "art/design object" to "ordinary object".
@melancholistics Form follows function and not vice versa.
If you are a robot and have no sense of beauty then modern architecture will do. It's sterile, barren, dead. No beauty crushes your spirits.
Modern architecture I find hard to relate to or live in on a human level its like a fish bowl or unrealistic lifestyle, especially the idea of living in a western minimalist house, the Japanese and Koreans captured a better more authentic spirt and closeness of the human living in/and environment with natural materials, simplicity and function, even for the ordinary folk, etc better than any western minimalist building could capture.
@@trispectre8366 One of the functions could be: Do not depress everybody.
Or more importantly: why does modern architecture hate people so much?
Because it’s defined by greedy developers, not architects
because architects nowadays feels the lazyness curse now
Living in Silicon Valley, I see so many of these brands that supposedly have such strong internal cultures and identities, but exist in these lifeless buildings. PayPal is in the plainest glass cube ever and the Facebook campus is surrounded by boring walls of solitude. I feel like the exception miiiight be the Apple campus since their building reflects their product design?
And then there’s the Google building which is the opposite and for the most part seems like a rainbow unicorn tornado ran through the circus
Great point. The inside of Facebook has ugly, exposed AC vents on its ceiling. With their money, they could have frescos painted in every office, beautiful columns, etc. But Zuck wants everyone there to live in a dull, soulless building.
Lindon Lamont I know that’s what they’re going for, but it’s not for me. Plus, no way I can get any work done with constant social interaction
@@sevensolaris he's a Jew. :p
Apple's architecture seems very "polished", and "high quality", but I think it feels to sterile. I just don't like the interiors of apple stores, I think their campus is kept in a very similar style. Might communicate their brand well or whatever, but I just don't find it very appealing..
@@sevensolaris Because he is dull and soulless.
The World we live in should be livable. We are not machines. We need more for life than just a building.
ikr it is just so depressing to look at. What are your opinions of the images you get from a google search of "modern architecture with plants"? honestly that is how I hope modern architecture evolves. It feels less souless to me and is good for the environment.
@@greatestaxolotl4933 When I search "greenwall" or "roof garden" or something like that it looks like a bit of nature has been pushed up by a building. "modern architecture with plants" looks overgrown in an unnatural way. It's kinda gross. I preffer "ecotopia" or "utopia garden" where it looks like the city was designed from the begining to be equal parts nature and city.
I wish you were more specific by livability. Most places in Western World is livable.
But you spend almost your time in buildings
👍👌
After this I quickly thought how most people are liking cottagecore or many people want to opt for countryside after retirement
And dark academia too. I love these aesthetics, there are so much more beautiful than the minimalistic modernism.
Personally would enjoy living in a villa near the mediterranean coast.
I would love to do that too someday. The only thing keeping me in cities is that I have to be close to my job.
I went to two colleges, one I got booted from, the other I graduated from.
The one I got booted from was in a new(ish) modern building with white tiled floors, white painted walls and white ceilings. It looked sterile, like a hospital. I got depression within the first semester, couldn't stand being in college, thinking about going there made me wanna throw up, so when I was there I couldn't focus, got crap grades, failed one class and got booted.
The college I graduated from was in an old damn near critical condition building that had creaky wooden floors, wooden ceilings, huge old wood frame windows and student painted mural walls or plain yellow walls. Every time I was in college I felt like I should get a cup of coffee, put on some slippers and go to class, it felt like home. I was among the top 3 in my class and graduated with no issues or stress.
Your story shows just how much architecture can impact people's mood. I too absolutely hated the university I studied at. An ugly box of glass and concrete, which was ironically quite dysfunctional as there isn't enough space for students to gather, among many other things. The architects got so much praise for it too, which seems preposterous to me. Most students absolutely hate the building. But whether the people you build for like the building doesn't seem to matter, nowadays... :-(
100% feel you!
Amazing! Thanks for sharing. The environment was so harsh to your senses, that it sort of 'bullied' you and deprived you of educational progress. Whereas the other one became your 'friend' and helped you succeed.
Wish every architect in the world was forced to write an essay based on your - and no doubt millions of other's - experiences. Architects ought to be able to be jailed for causing collective harm!
I had almost the same experience. Lecturers would self deprecatingly joke, "look for the ugliest building on campus to find the Architecture school". Yet the pressure (and sometimes directive) to conform to modernist principles and aesthetics, the hero worship of other students for Modernism, running headlong into my visceral dislike for most of it shattered my confidence and ability to creatively produce at the pace required. At the same time I actually went into psychosis because of an over prescription of relevant medication, I had paranoid delusions about the authoritarian, puritanical nature of broad Modernism. It completely derailed my education. I went back but I never reconcile with it. Nor did i ever finish my masters, thus I never became an Architect.
Years later i brought it up with a Psychiatrist. When I told him about it and what school of Architecture i attended, he responded with a forceful "Awful, Awful program". At first i thought he was just being facetiously supportive but he was dead serious. He said he'd had many clients/patients come from schools of Architecture, particularly the one I attended.
I studied in an ugly brutalist building. I graduated fast and with excellent grades as do thousands of people studying in the same building year after year. So, what's your point?
I don't particularly hate modern architecture but I still prefer old architecture for the simple reason that design and looks are features by themselves. Where ornaments might not always have a direct function, they do add distinction which is useful enough. I've more than once found myself lost in a neighborhood where all houses look identical for blocks. I'm aware that part of the reason for that design is cost, but distinctiveness is important and need not be expensive.
Regardless, great video!
you raise an interesting point about the identity of an area.Going to more progressive countries is disorientating: block after block of identical nondescript boxes. It is less of a problem in some British cities: we have everything from victorian to Deco and modernist/blandist housing so it's possible to navigate your way without knowing exactly where you are. Distinctiveness need not cost a fortune, and would be easy to do but I doubt it would happen. If it did, it would be an architect's "vision" of distinctive and once again we'd be stuck with top-down imposition of something that relates not one bit to the people in an area.
To combat this issue in the Netherlands, several architects have included colors in the houses/streets so at least some distinctiveness is available. Obviously the issue is most apparent with newly built houses/blocks, the longer an area exists the more it will start to differentiate through different colours of paint, plants, etc.
I reject the argument that decoration has no function, aesthetics would not exist if they did not please people, and don’t all physical functions not in the end aim to please us by satisfying our needs? So why persecute something which does that directly?
when you follow form follows function, nobody buys your shit building and then vandals come in, but they're actually not the first ones the vandalize the area, they're just completing your work. Your building that was built for function then has no function because nobody wants to fucking use it.
@@shadowranger937 I know this is a very popular theory but it honestly has no grounding whatsoever. Neighborhoods designed in modernists styles end up poor for the same reasons neighborhoods designed in other styles do and pretending otherwise is idealist bullshit. People are happily paying millions for apartments in Manhattan built in modernist styles while poor areas remain poor. The fact that the most expensive real estate in the world is found in modernist high rises shows that this theory has no grounding. The fact is that it doesn't matter how nice looking your building is, if it's built poorly, is in a bad location, and underfunded it will still be unpopular. It has never been proven that design has any direct affect on crime, income or any other social markers.
So much of it doesn't age well and just looks dirty as opposed to aged. Thats why I love the old handmade brick. It just gets better and better.
Am I the only one who likes modern architecture? Like the simplicity of it? I think it has potential with some small additions, like if they added some small diversity to the shapes, keeping with the basic polygons. Also adding some colour to the buildings, could be solid colours or even patterns. Or something nice like a vertical garden would make a difference
@@triplemoyagames4195 I love it too, kinda hate when they shit like "soul crushing" tf does even mean
@@whatadayhmm Right? Like people forget you can customize the interior as well. Like Modern Architecture combined with nature, would be a madness
@@triplemoyagames4195 I think most in the younger generations prefer the modern architecture, just like TESLA it reminds us of the future and how we can be a part of it and I think the future is minimalism and practicality, simpler forms, more light, more perfection.
@@Danuxsy Yes. But I think a lot of ppl dislike it because they forget, that a lot of creativity can take place. Even in simplicity
Ancient engineering:
beautiful, colourful, memorable, timeless and perplexing golden or silver ratio formula architecture masterpiece
Modern engineering:
Shiny rectangle
It really makes me mad because with modern tech you could make even more beautiful objects and buildings but somehow we have the ugliest buildings of any century
@@jacksonledford6874 Think of the future, we will be remembered as "cubic" people :-)
That's small m modern, and you really ought to look at actual Modern buildings. This video is full of shit, and completely misses the point.
atleast there is no giant 100 meter tall penis buildings every 100 meters
Because Ancient Architectures are built for Royalty whereas modern engineering are built for the public.
1071: spend a full century building an epic, intricately designed art work that will stand for a millennia.
1971: "Make me a big grey rectangle! AND DO IT QUICKLY GOD DAMNIT!
Yup!
And tear it down after 30 years to replace it with an uglier one.
You highlight something important when you say do it quickly. It's not the architects alone who got us into this mess, it's the times themselves. If architects hadn't invented modernism, then engineers and bankers would have done it for them.
@@Maranville I don't know about that, lol. It may be the trend in the last 90 years, but bankers & engineers helped build a lot of stupendous works of architectural art between 1880 and 1930.
What do you mean, a full century? Quite a lot of the monumental buildings in Europe took (/take) several centuries to complete!
Currently live in a European city and i grew up in a modern city in Australia. No contest. modern cities are uglier.
Which city did you used to live in
@@Coolsomeone234 Melbourne, great city!
@@mkuc6951 thanks
@@mkuc6951 id hardly call melbourne a modern city, at least the city around the tram line area
@@420fedoras ????? Grid layout, founded in 1835, few remaining old buildings, many sky scrapers, metro, suburban sprawl.
VS
Medieval layout founded in 956 AD with origins from the 7th century, with a world heritage listed town square, no metro, and a castle.
There's some pretty 'subtle' differences.
Tall, grey, skyscrapers are just soul crushing
*based
U are soul crushing. (Jk)
But seriously u really want them to look like toys with bright colors???
@@TheBlueCreeper- depends, but possibly, yes - as long as the colors match.
@@Ballum_64 Its a building. Doesn't need to look cute for the two seconds you look at it.
I would say the same but literally
Why modern architects hate people?
They really do. They have absolutely no regard for how architecture makes people feel, and only focus on how they can feed their own ego. Making things bland, depressing, boring and ugly is a horrible thing to do. Architecture is about how it makes people feel, not about its own elite club expressing their narcissism.
HA. Brilliant and true.
Some of them had psycological problems, like autism or PDST, their brains works different, they didn´t like to see windows or another feature that can resemble a face. Le Corbusier for example hated streets with lots of people and ornaments, his brain didn´t like excess of information, soo in their view is much more agradable to see simple forms and streets.(My written english sucks, i hope you understand) commonedge.org/the-mental-disorders-that-gave-us-modern-architecture/, read this link!
I actually like modern architecture, historic architecture is nice to though.
@@kaldozin9757 please.
I hope we look back on our horrid office towers with disgust: nothing but stress factories designed to dehumanize the working class.
a style of buildings where it does not take a communist to see the clear malicious intent towards those who have no choice but to reside in it.
modern architecture just feels so cold, faceless and depressing, it has no identity and feels very elitist and uninviting as well, and way too square, I really miss some round softer shapes in architecture
This is why some architects and designers like Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid started to experiment with curvilinear shapes in recent decades with the help of computer aided design. Technology definitely has helped with the ability to do more elaborate forms and shapes but unfortunately a lot of projects are still bound by economic limitations where more elaborate designs are difficult to achieve.
Residential modern *architectute is great
I completely disagree
@@ARTiculations Zaha Hadid's work is almost passable, but Frank Gehry's work sucks big time. I don't care what other architects or art critics say, what counts is what most people have to endure on a daily basis, it's not like cities are filled with modern art critics, they are filled with normal people, who hate that style.
Window's has edges. macOS and iOS has curves. This is why I like macOS and curves. Modern design is not intuitive or for humans.
We slowly face an increase in Modern architecture in Germany which is obviously functional but boring. But I'm still happy that we have all these ancient cities and small towns which, when I compare them to most towns in the States, look like open air museums and let me breathe hundreds of years of history.
To be fair, the us only has like 300 years worth of architecture
@@epiclamp44 They could have even preserved 300 year old buildings, which honestly would be great when you look at 18th century Boston or New York. All these narrow streets of red brickhouses would have looked gorgeous nowadays.
@@filipposrafailkaripidis4203 but even this way of thinking about European cities is a fallacy. Napoleon III tore down most of medieval Paris because he was inspired by the "modern" architectural style of London he encountered while in exile. London itself was rebuilt in this style after the fire of 1666, adhering not to the traditions of what had existed before, but what was the popular style of architecture of the time. What you talk about as somehow a practice that has only been taking place in the States has been taking place for as long as architecture has existed. Different generations continuously build, pull down, rebuild, burn down, remodel, reinterpret, or choose to preserve architecture.
@@odetoajar There is a large difference between changing a style to something that seems more "inspiring" and creating one more grey glass box because it’s simply the most cost efficient way to maximize space for human settlements. Just like there is a "too much" in architecture, there is certainly a "too little".
I think a major issue is the colors. Guaranteed if the paint jobs were bright, it would look better. Or simply adding vertical foresta
Modern is a bag of squares, circles and glass with a bomb
Classical architecture seems to draw you, to welcome you in to explore your curiosity. Modern seems not to need you at all, and just wants you to go away.
@shanhoff hoffman exactly!
A town hall that looks like a Classical building is telling you something. Its communicating stature and ambition. A modern building could be anything.
that's yet how i feel about classic arch' in france.
the modern buildings are more utilitary than artistic. hence their basic looks
In some Modern architecture like a house that has a slanted roof instead of a hip, gable, or flat roof, the exterior walls are recessed from the roof line, large windows, warm colors, and accents can be warm and welcoming.
"Form Follows Function" was always flawed from its very inception, because...
Form IS a function.
People seek beauty in their environment just as much as in the clothing and food they eat.
Not recognizing this simple truth would otherwise lead us to the conclusion that prisons, with their 4 straight walls and stale food, are the models to achieve in all things.
It makes more sense in the context of Louis Sullivan's original conception. Clearly he was not a man afraid of ornament. I think he was talking more about how space is used, how it can aid the function of a building. So for example, the proscenium arches of the Auditorium Building help focus the eye on the stage, they aren't distracting. Yet they are also beautiful in their own right. Same can be said for the windows of the Carson, Scott, Pirie building. They allow light to poor in, and even have some of the function uniformity of later office buildings. Yet there is also a turret to break up the box, and the street level is delightfully encrusted in Sullivan's trademark geometric flower designs.
Modern architecture is the soylent green of architecture. Pure nutritional supplement and nothing more at the cost of our humanity
Excellent video! I really dislike Modernism's lack of concern for the human scale. We went from bricks and divided lite windows to concrete slabs and plate glass. Boo.
Ah see Modern architects have clearly planned for when us puny humans have been crushed by a superior robot up rising. Which is not being planned currently fellow human.
Plate glass isn’t bad, really, as long as that and Modernist principles are used *sparingly*, and only serve certain sections of developments with overall concern for human scale. I love the cozy, energy-saving designs of Village Homes and the wonderful fusion of color, corrugation, concern, and glass of West Village, both in Davis, California. There’s also the subtle incorporation of references to the surrounding wood- and masonry-based 12th-century and Victorian architecture into the Modernist design of London Bridge station.
City Beautiful : I agree! ☝🏾It’s a pity War has destroyed so much!
And the “Modelur”?
Yes! This a 1000 times! I dont dislike Modern architecture, but how can we justify giant atriums in this age of eco-consciousness? I'm not saying ceilings higher than 3 feet should be abolished, and I don't dislike the look of a giant open space, but most implementations of atria just seem like a huge waste of space and ressources after the first 5 seconds of awe.
I think art deco was the last beautiful style of architecture.
Yes, and streamline moderne, I agree.
The danish (and others around us) post 1970'ies low height dense built urban style is nice and liveable.. learning from the best things from the small town past of Denmark. I have lived in such a part of town, and it was very nice, kids playing in the streets, people saying hello to each others, organized events and all sorts of friendly co-existing.
THAT style of course was a rebellion against the tower blocks of the 1960'ies and 1970'ies.
I think that too
I agree
I also agree.
Architects realized that no matter what purist ideals such designers may have been taught in schools, most people still want to live in traditional style homes that evoke a sense of warmth, comfort and belonging. Many of the ultra-bleak 50's modernist masterpiece homes in Los Angeles are being torn down. They are being replaced with traditionalist tropes that welcome the person to a HOME rather than some modernist "statement", e.g., an airy impersonal space where even the addition of a book or personal photo would seem very out of place. I have been in many modernist homes as an architectural student. I always feel as if I am in a doctor's waiting room or some other impersonal space like the gate of an airport. I don't know how truly human warm loving people live in such spaces without going mad.
In fact it's proven that it leads to depression and psychosis
Late to the party here, but one of the interesting things is that many of these modernist architects live in traditional-style homes.
It's frustrating that many artistic movements are all, "I've discovered the Winning Idea! This is going to be the only way things should be done from now on, in isolation! We're on the edge of a new enlightenment!" The stakes are always so high, and the movements are kept Pure for long periods of time when a synthesis of multiple lenses would more flexibly address the needs of different subjects.
The section about barber poles is so astute! Focusing only on physical function is such a blindspot. There are many assuring "signs" without text, like the Greek touches to government buildings across the US, that give you a better understanding of where you are. Where are those touches of identity? Why can't we Have Both?
Talk about modern urban planning. I live in a new modern city that it's streets have no names, just numbers and it's sooooo depressing
I prefer the numbers makes it easier to navigate.
@@cactusman1771 Yes! It's great to navigate when you don't know the city. But when you live in it, don't you agree that it feels like the places don't even have a name? That you start using the name of stores, churches, schools, hospitals to refer to places, because no one can relate to numbers?
I was born and raised in a city that only 2 avenues have names and when I ask where someone lives and they say numbers I can't figure out immediately where it is. I have to look at a map. Basically 110 north, street 23, number 31, means nothing to the human brain, even though it means a lot to a computer lol
@@Mrlaiobrum I grew up in a city with only numbers. So the street names were just the number ( nineteen hundred for example). I find street names to be more confusing because there is no information in the name. like I can't determine where cherry St. Is from willow St. Without already knowing ,asking or looking it up. With number I can think of the city like a cartesian grid and get a rough idea where to go.
I also prefer people to give me an address to somewhere rather than landmark navigation.
When I was a little kid, I used my mom's Tupperware to have modern buildings incorporated in my model railroad layout. Note to self.. To design modern buildings, just buy Tupperware and trace it out onto a blueprint. Done
@@PitPalmer Umm... my mom's Tupperware
I’ll be honest, I think Art Deco was the peak of large scale construction design, such as stadiums, skyscrapers, and large public buildings. There’s something I find uplifting about Art Deco architecture and interior design. I’m torn between art deco and neoclassical design. I’m not sure which I like most.
Art Deco was created during a time of optimism for the future. I love it too.
Agree art deco is gorgeous, and some modern designs borrow a lot from art deco.
Neoclassical is pretty but when you get in to a bit of art history, it starts to become rather ridiculous. I mean,we can't forever stick to one specific design, one that is a pastiche of classic architecture. If I were an architect, I wouln't like the endless reproducing of the same old over and over.
Modern design and architecture can be really cool. Most of it is not, but some of it is.
Ugly and poor quality buildings have always been built though. It's just that the old buildings that are still standing often are the ones that were loved enough to be saved.
I don’t hate modern architecture, I hate giant simple boxes in the middle of our downtowns. There are awesome modern homes here in Brasilia, Brazil.
The error wasn't that form should follow function but rather the limited definition of what the function needed to be. Reminds me of something I read about the limitations of many economic models where they argued that if you neglect a factor you are assigning it a value of zero.
This explains so much! I admit I have a strong visceral hatred for Modern architecture that is probably irrational. But this helps put some of those feelings into words. I think in particular it's the dehumanizing aspect - it feels like an assault on the basic dignity of the human person. Really informative, thank you!
I don’t understand how anybody thought that making giant cold depressing shoe boxes was a good idea.
I love the old elements! Bring them back!
What about mix'em together with the new ones (Art Deco)?
@@TheBlueCreeper- exactly!
I will!
@@SheikhBouAoun Yeah yeah I get your point. I personally like to see new buildings next to old ones but I understand what you mean. And the car thing is a thing I also kinda dislike.
@@TheBlueCreeper- Art DECO WAS THE BESTTT, BUT MODERNISTS hate it too unfortunately
I go to school at Louisiana State University, which is known for its beautiful architecture. But, when I got there, I was pretty diappointed. The quad is beautiful, designed after Italian renaissance architecture with ornamental arches everywhere. But all around that... are modern buildings. Not even nice ones like that. Those built in the 60s and 70s to handle the influx of students, but with a weak budget. These beautiful, peaceful, historic buildings are bordered by sky high concrete blocks. I dread going to class in them, because they're lifeless and depressing.
I think that is less modernism and more cheap construction. Mies van der Rohe's work is much nicer, even when it's on a budget.
Some sixties and 70's buildings and homes are particularly badly built and ugly.
Temple University is similar to this. Also not a fan of the modern
@@AmbientMorality Sorry to Say but cheap construction in a mantra of modernism, and van der rohe was the exeption, not the rule
Get depressed then. Bcs I'd love a school like yours.
Where I'm from, we generally call the concrete apartment buildings form the 60's "rabbit cages". Over the years, it turned out that only people without much choice would live in them. So now they have also become "the bad part of town".
And as I kid I found it extremely frustrating to figure out exactly where my friends lived when faced with endless rows of completely identical buildings.
Of course a building (or whatever you design) have to first and foremost be able to serve it's propose. - But that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't make them interest or even pretty as well.
The Germans gave a nice term to such square building blocks: Die Selbstverkistung der Menschheit.
The Modern building my parents live in used to be an office space. The architect clearly thought that form should follow function, but failed to realize that function could change.
I think Modern architecture is great…for prisons.
Even prisons of the late 19th century were built to look beautiful.
We need both . but different area
lmao
@@teamacio9043 My school had 7m tall walls around it, the only reason it wasnt a prison was that it hadnt any bars in front of the windows, but some idiot thought it was a good ideo to have class rooms in the basement....therefore I didnt even get windows, my elementary school though is a beautiful building finished in 1900.
@@teamacio9043 school is kids prison they even have walls to imprison the children inside
I'm actually going to go out on a limb and say that I actually like both historic and Modern architecture. Then again, I guess it makes sense, me being from Washington DC and all that.
Me too! I still have to go to DC some day! Perhaps you can show me around! =D
Ditto for Toronto, if I'm ever in the area
I smell a road trip brewing...
Critical regionalism is the way to go
@@Barfeelaadmi Just watch Kenneth Frampton talk. It might help.
I'm so sick of unnatural color transitions and hard edges. I live in Seattle and they are turning this place into multicolored lego towers and reflective shit that looks like something the borg would build.
Nice insult. 😂
Sounds like insane toddlers are in control
@@ata5855 they are
There is no such thing as "unnatural color". Actually you have been taught what is a natural color in architecture and what is not.
Reminds me how shocked and disgusted I felt when the traditional Ninjago city in the series was transformed into a bustling techno-city just immediately after the finale of a season.
I've always loved the fluid, functional forms of modernist architecture but have never seen any reason why those forms could not serve as the frame for the comforting, warming aesthetics that make a space comfortable or even enjoyable for people to exist in. I think that's why I enjoy Japanese architecture so much, it's both rooted in functional, efficient forms and maintains its humanity and connection to the natural world around it.
Whenever I see modern architecture, it just just feels lonely. It dominates what is around it and often times is not made of the natural elements of the location that it's in. It's not complimentary to its own surroundings. It just feels alone. It isn't exactly a bad thing, it's just...missing.
Being alone never felt right. Sometimes it felt good. But it never felt right. -Bukowski
Lonely is a fitting word. It longs for more. I find it sad when they bulldoze a beautiful wooded lot & turn it into one big concrete slab. As much as they can get away with, just to put an office building that remains empty because no one wants to lease it.
The irony is that if Modernist architects were truly committed to form follows function then they'd be all for decoration and contextual clues to purpose
that's modernists with money or making mansions
Every thinking human being hates, despises and even thinks modern architecture is disgusting. But why is this? I think at its most fundamental core, it is because when you create something so lacking in personality, morale, culture, style, and un-invoking in emotion and sentimental feeling, you deprive humans of the fundamental basis of human nature and human condition. It can be said modern architecture, with it's pure hatred for deep culture, ornamentation and decoration, IS AN UNNATURAL anomaly in human history. We have just been living it for so long that we've just gotten used to it. It might have had a certain purpose in history due to the critical need to quickly solve a housing and infrastructure crisis after devastating wars, but we must admit it was a mistake to which human still suffer from and we should never repeat these mistake again. When you've been conditioned by something unnatural for so long, you start to think it's all normal......
Because architecture is a piece of "art" that is present in everyone's everyday life. No-one forces you to watch certain genre of movies, read certain books, listen to some music or go to an art exhibition. But seeing and experiencing architecture is unavoidable, and it should thus be created and maintained with a specific set of rules that forbid any insane move being taken.
And it's often taxpaywr fundet.
One thing I also tend to not like is post-Modern architecture. Specifically style commonly encouraged in architecture schools. Though I will admit, this style is very good for students because there’s so much innovation, problem solving, and unique design that goes into it. It still seems to be held up as the ideal and most advanced style of architecture today. I’d like to see it more as a method of learning, than a practical style. It reminds me of high fashion. The best of the best and most elite fashion designers come up with these clothes, but no one would wear them outside of some eccentric celebrity at a Hollywood red carpet event. I’ve seen the work of traditional architects today, and I was actually surprised by what they were making. They weren’t always making classical and gothic buildings, but rather using principles to create modern buildings that seemed so much more beautiful and human. Sometimes even futuristic in aesthetics, yet harmonious and relatable.
Making people feel safe and happy or content IS a function of architecture.
Perhaps happy is the wrong word; Content by being surrounded by beauty.
It's really messed up when the only acceptable architecture must be "revolutionary." A lot of implicit elitism as well.
"revolutionary" bc the millions of people throughout the millennias where just all wrong... I cant imagine modern Architects aren't just arrogant dolts.
Wrong.
They care more about status and recognition among their peers, not the public who will have to live with their revolutionary architecture for decades to come
"Unnecessary ornamentation." "Superfluous ornamentation." What pig-headed ideas.
Those statements are context appropriate. This was right after massive world wars, when many were homeless and money was scarce. Why waste resources in making decorations when you can just repeat the same plain house 3000 times with prefabricated materials? It isn't very pretty but it was needed and it gave people what they needed.
Nowadays those are dated concepts, architects don't follow Le Corbusier's teachings anymore. There's laws protecting historical areas, or forcing new buildings to adhere to the architectural context around it.
@@GrumpyStormtrooper The oldest implements surviving from the stone age -- 20, 30, 40 thousand years old, are covered with beautiful, painstakingly carved ornaments. Those people had even less than the people you are referring to.
@@bradwalton8373 But we have standards of living now, and a system of welfare to help the less fortunate. Modern architecture answers the need they had after the world wars. Is your house fully decorated? I doubt it. My house is from the 1800s, basically no decorations either here.
@@GrumpyStormtrooper I would add that austere Protestantism contributed to austere architecture. The ancient gothic cathedrals were seen as decadent, opulent. Protestant Europe, Protestant USA are far more plain than Catholic & Orthodox settlements.
@@sirmount2636 You're right, but my own house I'm talking about is in Tuscany. It's middle class worker's architecture. The most decorative element are the cotto floors tiles.
I read a comment once that said "One corinthian order column is more appealing than a city block with Modern Architecture"
After living in the city for ten years, the older buildings are like breaths of fresh air. It’s so draining to live among modern buildings when there’s very little variation. I really do like modern architecture when it’s mixed with different styles, just not entire city blocks of it.
look a Victorian building and compare with a modern box of glass and steel, what looks better?
Classic Architecture is awesome
i think the modern box of glass and steel does :p
METAL B A W X E S
I think there can be beauty in both!
The Victorian bldg is a piece of unplanned chaos in the inside while putting up a facade on the outside. Thats why we term it Victorian..it is dishonest, a facade that lies to you....like make up. I suggest you think beyond just looks because architecture isnt about pretty pictures. It has to be wholesome inside and out. There are many modern buildings that serve that purpose.
Victorian is not Classic Architecture
“Character” Maybe it’s just me. But seeing that each building is different in its details make it memorable and part of that makes it easier for me to remember where it is. I love the old skyscrapers of New York. They have character. I think that is what I love. I live in a city is just now making tall office buildings that are not plain concrete high rises
Stumbled upon your videos by accident, but it almost feels like a throwback to school days. Reminded of familiar concepts and thought-provoking discourses and issues that has been slowly forgotten in practice. Thanks for the awesome content!
It reminds me of 9-5 corporate slavery. Too square, too utilitarian, soulless, prison like structures. Where's the artistry? The colors and shape diversity?
Perhaps because they ARE prisonlike structures?
At least prisons have some contrast to them, posters etc.
I feel like they just make big blocks of concrete because it's less expensive and don't care so much about anything else.
Agreed. It's pretty much the definition of "bad" modern architecture.
A good modernist architect deliberately designs the functional parts of a building to be beatiful as well as serving a practical purpose.
You walk into an old terrace house that's been well renovated and the ceilings are high , natural light is valued and airflow is well designed , it screams haven and retreat from the cares of the world ... 1970's houses are low ceilinged , poor air flow and tiny aluminum windows ... ugly inside and out
I must admit ...I'm not a fan of the entire 'profession' of architects. Few are keen on the *reality* of their pretty drawings ... the cost , the practicality or the purpose ... I once had 3 different architects quote on a major renovation with a budget maximum about $300,000 ... they were given a budget and a list of desirable outcomes Number of bedrooms , bathrooms , parking etc ... All produced beautiful designs that several builders looked at and quoted over $500,000 to build ... the architects were offered 10% of the $300,000 to get it built and supervise the construction of their designs themselves ... all fluffed and grumbled that they ...er ...really ... didn't ... er ...like to get into THAT side of things ... then asked us for payment for their (utterly useless) drawings.
10 Minutes of great explanations, especially why it isn't just about being ugly.
Me: Seriously tho, most modern buildings are just plain ugly.
To elaborate a bit: I see aesthetics as part of the *function*. I will be happier when I can come to a home, or enter some other building, that makes me think: Dang, that's pretty.
Well "ugly" is subjective
I don't see why modernism, form follows function, should exclude decoration or tradition. Can't it just be that the traditional Modernists got the formula right in essence except they didn't really understand the function. They based their principle on an ideal and not reality, that was the great mistake but that doesn't disprove the basic formula of form follows function.
A very well done example of Modernism at its best is the Barcelona Pavillion by Mies which has no other function than to shape spaces, which it does in an extraordinary way. But offcourse the architect didn't have to consider a 'real life' program.
I think people forget that there is often quite a lot of decoration in Modernist design. In 2017, they temporarily "painted" the Barcelona Pavillion in an all-white scheme, and it revealed just how many humanist elements there were in its original form. The problem is that they're applied subtly through textures and material choices, and the average person craves more obvious references (take a look at the Cheesecake Factory for example)
Maybe you’re just not really part of their targetted segment? Modern design exists as a solution to problems. And maybe, the problem of the building owner was NOT you?
"I don't see why modernism, form follows function, should exclude decoration or tradition. "
Because practically speaking, the appeal of modernist architecture has always been cost reduction. Its about optimizing and stripping down structures to a point where nothing is provided beyond what enables their function at the lowest possible cost. Aesthetics and matters of human life are meaningless within the process. The idea was to re-align all aspects of life with the ideals of industrial production.
I think Modernism has its places. However, due to its nature, it is cheap, "looks smart", and is low risk to implement. Hence it logically makes a huge amount of sense, especially from a business standpoint. While I would love to say that architecture should be designed to improve the lives of all who interact with it, the reality is that it is designed to a budget, and to meet a minimum viable criteria. Since that is what matters to the people who have the purchasing power to construct these buildings.
Obviously, I want cities and architecture to be better and nicer, but I think there would need to be a cultural shift to enable that. With the stakes, and quantities of money being so high, its difficult to convince people to take "risks", especially when it involves designers deeply understanding their clients and being given bigger budgets to allow more time to be spent.
I would also like to note that the modern architecture we see never really did have much to do with what the architects imagined, I mean they weren't just imagining single buildings but entire cities and those do undeniably look beautiful. The problem is that we always ended up with single buildings or maybe a neighborhood and rarely with all the features they imagined and when you have lots of single buildings then you don't get the simplicity and neatness of uniformity which looks great in Paris and neither do you get them to particular stand out.
What about the urban environment in the Context of low-income housing. Or even public housing. The potential modernism brings is enormously valuable. More people have the opportunity to be housed at minimal cost to the taxpayer.
@@ori_U100 This has been tried many times and has failed. If you want a really good example, look into Chicago's Cabrini Green, the location of the film Candyman. You cannot separate these buildings from the socio-economic and political causes of poverty. They become prison-like places to "keep" the poor away from everyone else, places from which the inhabitants have little hope of ever escaping. If you make them too nice, even if it's cheaper to do so, the more affluent tax payers complain. They become slums, or more accurately, ghettos. Architecture cannot solve poverty.
@@LAChantrose How about the successful examples like David Ajaye's housing complex at Sugar hill in Harlem NY. Your speaking of a time when politics exploited Architecture. Now there is a bit more independence within Architecture. Designers are taking it to a higher level of consciousness. Its actually nothing new, just more embraced. We are in the age of sustainability, where the conservation of resources is of great interest. Many of the Modernist were on this long ago. You have to look deeper and actually analyse things by asking questions. How much should be invested in something that when put on the scale is not essential? How can we enhance the quality of life for the last fortunate? These are questions Architecture can definitely Help solve.
@@ori_U100 I truly envy your optimism. Unfortunately I do not feel as hopeful, especially given the current political climate.
I live in the Netherlands. I love the old architecture. The new not so much. I also love the cities and towns does not have straight roads infrastructure like (all?) the American cities. That is so ugly and boring.
I lived in San Francisco and have family in the area. We don’t appreciate it either. It’s like an infection of boring slowly crushing actual aesthetics.
Drachten, lelystad en almere, daar wil je nog niet dood gevonden worden. Echt levenloze plaatsen
I'm American. I love old European architecture, especially compared to most of what we have over here, but I much prefer American city planning.
cities on the east coast are much more like European cities, it's everywhere inbetween where the infrastructure was built in the last 70 years that all the roads are railway straight. Its something we're addressing now in places with a large amount of growth. Utah where I live has gotten a huge influx of new people and we've got a lot of new infrastructure and business to support. We're making our roads curve to break up the straight lines but it still doesn't feel natural and we're still building in such a way that it makes public transit next to impossible.
I live in Tilburg and in the 60's they demolished actual beautifull buildings to make a 'Modern Industrial city'.
And it is so ugly. I do admire there persistance to keep it ugly though, because even recent project are in the same vein.
I have the same with Rotterdam or Eindhoven.
i think Modern architecture has potential but only if they get rid of the "no decorations" rule. i personally like the square and clean look but you can have a place that looks clean but still feels nice to be around. I also hate big empty rooms. there should be color in and around modern style buildings, im sure theres a way to make it work. Surround the place with nature, put colorful flowers all around it (possibly in it if the flowers you chose can live indoors) because nature is a great way to make a place less uninviting, but still keep a nice sofisticated look if thats what the place is going for. Colorful murals, warm lights... there are so many possibilities, and its a shame that a style of building that i find so appealing has this restriction because it would look so NICE with decorations and color
another thing is that i personally dont mind glossy or boring exteriors on tall buildings. I think it has a certain beauty to it because its so reflective and the size certainly helps, but a lot of people here hate it, so maybe i have strange taste on this whole thing
Ego driven idealists is the right way to describe them.
"Idealists" we all know that these farleft people are hypocrites, they do not have an iota of idealism in their bones, they are tyrants, they are violent and they pretend to be intellectuals, they are the opposite of intellectualism.
@@reyarturonegro5284 And yet liberals and conservatives are the ones satisfied with a world where their politicians speak in Idealistic empty platitudes. Just listen to ghouls like Biden rattle off about how great America is and how the U.S is somehow the arbiter of the moral good. These liberal politicians drone on about civic nationalism and how freedom comes from a free market. These same leaders are the people okay with supporting far right dictatorships in the global south and overturning democracy in developing countries. Face it under global capitalism, we destroy other nations and then go "Where are these terrorists and despotic rulers coming from? Eh it must just be that the west is good and the east is evil and inferior. Let's ignore the conditions that breed these problems."
Even in architecture, political debate will find it's way to annoy people 🙄
@@reyarturonegro5284 Politics creep in and ruin everything nowadays in every topic imaginable like this reply right here on a 2 year old comment.
Way to shove it in
I can say the same about people who hate this
I think this video's thumbnail answers this question better than any essay could.
It is my goal in the future to have the thesis of the video be evident through just the thumbnail for those who don't have time to watch lol.
Building huge boxes on our streets is NOT 'architecture' it's engineering at it's ugliest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering
@@SuperGreatSphinx He is not wrong.
Bauhaus movement started in Germany right after ww1 when Germany was ordered to repay huge amounts of money to victors , idea was to rebuild country as cheap and as fast as possible.
If you look at it in context of time then it makes sense but greedy businessmen and builders realised this is good for profits, build them fast and cheap, anybody can build grey glass boxes made in china.
I think Bahaus was ok in 1919 as temporary measure since Europe was destroyed but there is no excuse now, we have cities that look like a combination of prisons and hospitals, saddest part is when I see a church built like an office, feels sterile and soulless.
I couldn't agree more with you on the church thing. There is absolutely nothing more soul sucking than walking into a church that was made with as little faith and beauty as possible.
Perhaps, you should have also mentioned Peter Blake's "Form Follows Fiasco: Why Modern Architecture Hasn't Worked". Nietzsche said in "Human, All Too Human," that when people stop believing in absolutes, they stop creating great art.
I would make a distionction between modern architecture (from 1950's to 1990's roughly) from post-modern architecture that we sometimes see today with wacky, more artistic design.
They are different, but they share their urge to overscale, lack details, lack any relation to the country's culture and have a complete disregard to it's surroundings
You mean goopy poopy buildings today?
Saying "traditional architecture was associated with evil empires" is like saying "Hitler ate sugar, so eating sugar is bad" or "Hitler was associated with building roads, so building roads is bad."
Best quote: "Thoughtful evolution as opposed to radical revolution"
the former is done by people who want to see the world become better because they love it. The latter is done purely to destroy, by those that hate the world.
I live in the outskirts of Vitória, Brazil, and here I see buildings whose only purpose is to be a car dealership. Structures taylored to the single function of car dealing. If Ford, GM or Nissan decide their car dealerships are no longer viable, they leave, and the building stands there empty and purposeless, waiting for another car manufacturer to rent it. In the meantime, it's a big piece of nothingness, prone to vandalism et al. That's the same for banks, government agencies, shops etc.
In the historical city of Mariana, I saw something different. The businesses adapted themselves to the historical structures, and there was no empty spaces I could see. The only thing that stood out was a bank agency that had the original historical building front, but it's interior had been completely repurposed to a Modern Architecture banking office.
An interesting insight.
Henrique, sou de Brasília, não preciso dizer mais nada. Nasci e cresci em meio ao concreto branco de Oscar Niemeyer, só descobri que havia beleza nas casas e prédios quando visitei Goiás Velho.
What do u expect? Selling cars in a forest??? Duh! Use your brain cells for once.
@@TheBlueCreeper- you are missing the point, genius.
@@celeridad6972 And you are missing your BRAIN idiot.
Because old imperialist architecture looks good. Simple as that.
I would dread to live in a city that's just the Imperial war ministry copied and pasted all over.
Nah fam. If I was a billionaire, I'd want a modern mansion made of glass and steel. Not some old creepy castle.
@@samsulh314 well, renaisance or baroque mansions are not that disappointing, no? If you are talking about those old medieval buildings than yeah, I concur 😀
Nope
@@samsulh314 If I was incredibly rich my home would look like this.
www.google.com/search?q=jelgavas+pils&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwityOPJ4ZXgAhWIfywKHUrRDvgQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=969#imgrc=NRgRcWJOgfrG3M:
A leading hotel corporation wanted to build in a our quintessential New England resort town. They went to the zoning board with a very modern, clean looking building. The zoning board members were appalled and told the hotel to come back with a more fitting proposal. The developers came back with a new design. Basically all that was changed was that a faux mansard roof was attached to the top floor along with a couple other decorative elements. The board loved it.
Excellent video. I despise Modern architecture - it is the embodiment of "Big Brother," as far as I'm concerned. I don't understand why architects, or any artists, for that matter, have to get swept up in the latest philosophical craze. The result is that they all wind up copying each other, to an extent, and attract hordes of mindless wannabes.
I don't understand it either, and when we look at the evolution of modern architecture since about 1940, we can see just how little architects have learned in 80 years.
Honestly, EVERY time I see one of those steel and glass blocks anymore, in many cases I just long to slap some stone onto the exterior along with a few carvings, and give them SOME spirit and originality.
Modernism is such an aesthetic anthema to everything I concider, beautiful, human and impressive that I sometimes feel like it’s some cruel joke directed at me. You were right in the point that it has achieved a monopoly in the one place it can’t be avoided as both a forced and unavoidable monolith.
It seems to represent a kind of elitism in which it’s ideas are self perpetuated through a grip on higher education and an obsession with the cheap, the product of which is cast down to a an either discontented or apathetic population.
When admiring Classical or gothic architecture, I think of the wonders of the human mind and the impossibility of what living beings can achieve, yet does, but it is modernism that reminds of the fact that civilisation, like everything else, is ultimately meaningless and will always tick on without an aim. I can not express how much I hate something which makes me do that.
Indeed.
It's like we when from the greatest, wholesome and fulfilling trends we could ever imagine, to the progressively dull and alien-looking monstrosities.
I think Art Deco was the last great movement. While it tried to be international, it also was complex, in an attempt to celebrate all of humankind: full of patterns, decorative materials, bold and imposing designs with a lot of simbolism to the sun and pretty futuristic.
Then came Streamline Moderne and it was the beginning of the end. It was a stripped-down version of Art Deco, and more than anything it resembled early international-stylized buildings. There was no meaning, no life, just dull lines and some windows.
@@LudiusQuassas I think your right. Art-deco in its use of light, sleek lines, use of windows and open space represents every positive innovation which modernism claims to justify itself with. In reality, Modernism is not a true aesthetic, its just the striped cartilage of what architecture was.
Modern architecture in practice is like the equivalent of living in/around steel-congrete shoe-boxes with glassed-over cut-outs.
Form follows function and not vice versa.
That is why classical buildings where typically cuboid, has evenly spaced windows, had stability and structural supports, arched widows often providing further strength, sloped roofs to divert rainfall, and the common use of a strong highly resistant stone material, hence why they have a far longer lifespan then most modern buildings.
The problem with modernism it that cost comes before function, and form is forbidden.
Old Architecture: Everything was beautiful and fit perfectly into the atmosphere.
New Architecture: Giant Glass Box
Great video, just one slight disagreement: You say "it's not about what's ugly and what's not". Beauty is incredibly important, there is a good reason it stands beside "the true" and "the good". The sheer ugliness of much of modern architecture plays a major role in why people simply don't want to be there.
I guess I meant to say its not “just” about what’s ugly and what’s not. =)
"Beauty is objective" is just as disturbing as "form must follow function." Just stop with the ideologies already.
@@Maranville "2+2=4" ... so disturbing.
@@johnxantoro5511 yawn
@@Maranville Back from the relativist hellhole from wence you came. You have no power hea, sir.