Wether you like or not UKIP, we all must recognise they are totally right. Modern architecture is not sustainable and doesn't adapt to the society. It's all about "what is trendy now", and not about "what is good for the city and its people". Traditional architecture has been succesful in the past and is succesful in the present. It was loved in the past and it is loved now. Building houses or flats is NOT about "I am free to do whatever I want" it is about "I've got a huge responsibility".
While I completely agree with the message of revitalizing classical styles (I can also completely agree that fascism has a way of getting things done, whatever they may be), this type of conservative, enforced art aligns itself along certain parallels with other political entities that have taken a similar route.
Tear it all down and recycle the rubble for real works of art! I would also like houses (even social housing) to meet the same standard. I really do feel you can improve someone's life by putting them into a decent house.
i am going to university this October to study city and regional planning. I will be a tough planner who opposes god awful designs and new estates which strain a local area. I cant wait. Also Heart of Courage by two steps of hell is a nice piece of music, i have it as the intro to my videos on you tube :D
Under UKIP, all architecture courses will be discouraged from teaching 20th century architecture; if taught, the lecturer must make disapproving faces and regularly spit. Any student exhibiting the dangerous signs of original thought will be spanked and, if necessary, have their fingers demolished. I can't wait to see the other arts courses based on UKIP-regulated aesthetics! Music? Elgar and Elaine Page for everyone!
You should not have dragged His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales's development at Poundbury into the political debate. Imagine the embarrassment if he finds out about this. It could put His Royal Highness and the Duchy of Cornwall in an invidious position.
The Georgians modernised, or replaced, Tudor buildings. The Victorians did the same with Georgian architecture. In the twentieth century, Victorian buildings suffered the same treatment, until the 1980s when Victorian finally became chic and desirable again. Notice a pattern? The 20th century architecture than some people seem to dislike will likely become highly sought after in the coming decades (it already is by aficionados). Also, the idea that buildings last for hundreds of years without repair and maintenance is a fallacy. There are countless instances of the stately homes with leaking roofs, and no money to fix them, or old buildings falling into rack and ruin (check the at risk register Historic England). There are many good examples of modern post-war architecture that are well built and still standing. Where modern buildings are in trouble, it's often because they have not been maintained, either due to lack of public funds or intentionally with the aim of replacement. Usually there is no need for them to be demolished at all, but they often are because people can make more money by redeveloping the land they stand on. Sure, buildings from the nineteen fifties, sixties and seventies didn't have double glazing, or much insulation to speak of, but then again neither did houses from earlier times. energy was cheaper then, and there was no requirement to fit such things. Even today, the building industry challenges the imposition of green building codes, citing additional cost (i.e. reduced profit), whereas the real losers are the public who have to pay for the energy to heat (and cool) their buildings. Regarding style and construction methods, the reality is that time and technology moves forward. We have new knowledge, materials and building techniques that we apply to make buildings that perform better, and are quicker to build. We are extremely fortunate to have built environment with a rich architectural history, that benefits from building styles spanning several centuries. The poorest examples haven't survived, and perhaps a few good ones too. Let us now move forward with confidence into the 21st century and make buildings that reflect our own times in Britain's architectural lexicon.
I would add there is a difference between intentional/pretentious ugliness which is postmodernism and modern art and general cheap construction methods which is not ugly on purpose but just trying very hard to be affordable.
Several of the pictures are actually from Berlin, and show the rebuilding of Berlin City Palace, seat of the Hohenzollern (Imperial) House of Germany. Oh UKIP, do your research.
Can somebody tell me whether UKIP is specifically keen on this area. For example, if they become kingmakers would they put aesthetic considerations on the bargaining table?
The real solution is to put an end to public housing. Who would willingly live in a house that looks like a cube? Also, involving public input for common infrastructure would also eliminate a lot of these modern monstrosities. Those who bemoan the pastiche can leave.
In the very olden days people did not have the insane technology we have today, they built it with their bare hands and basic tools. Even today the work these people did in building such as the Houses of Westminster or Buckingham Palace is clear. Just think what we could do now. Instead we get horrid, boring, depressing architecture that can be recreated by any five year old with a crayon. I feel very strongly about architecture, that's one of the reasons I joined UKIP, and have now subscribed
Wether you like or not UKIP, we all must recognise they are totally right. Modern architecture is not sustainable and doesn't adapt to the society. It's all about "what is trendy now", and not about "what is good for the city and its people". Traditional architecture has been succesful in the past and is succesful in the present. It was loved in the past and it is loved now. Building houses or flats is NOT about "I am free to do whatever I want" it is about "I've got a huge responsibility".
While I completely agree with the message of revitalizing classical styles (I can also completely agree that fascism has a way of getting things done, whatever they may be), this type of conservative, enforced art aligns itself along certain parallels with other political entities that have taken a similar route.
What is the music track in the video? I like it. It's epic.
Tear it all down and recycle the rubble for real works of art! I would also like houses (even social housing) to meet the same standard. I really do feel you can improve someone's life by putting them into a decent house.
i am going to university this October to study city and regional planning. I will be a tough planner who opposes god awful designs and new estates which strain a local area. I cant wait. Also Heart of Courage by two steps of hell is a nice piece of music, i have it as the intro to my videos on you tube :D
Hey how did it go? You still in that field? People like you are still sorely needed!
Under UKIP, all architecture courses will be discouraged from teaching 20th century architecture; if taught, the lecturer must make disapproving faces and regularly spit. Any student exhibiting the dangerous signs of original thought will be spanked and, if necessary, have their fingers demolished.
I can't wait to see the other arts courses based on UKIP-regulated aesthetics! Music? Elgar and Elaine Page for everyone!
No, I imagine the teacher would see something that is shit and point out that it is shit.
You should not have dragged His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales's development at Poundbury into the political debate. Imagine the embarrassment if he finds out about this. It could put His Royal Highness and the Duchy of Cornwall in an invidious position.
The Georgians modernised, or replaced, Tudor buildings. The Victorians did the same with Georgian architecture. In the twentieth century, Victorian buildings suffered the same treatment, until the 1980s when Victorian finally became chic and desirable again. Notice a pattern? The 20th century architecture than some people seem to dislike will likely become highly sought after in the coming decades (it already is by aficionados). Also, the idea that buildings last for hundreds of years without repair and maintenance is a fallacy. There are countless instances of the stately homes with leaking roofs, and no money to fix them, or old buildings falling into rack and ruin (check the at risk register Historic England). There are many good examples of modern post-war architecture that are well built and still standing. Where modern buildings are in trouble, it's often because they have not been maintained, either due to lack of public funds or intentionally with the aim of replacement. Usually there is no need for them to be demolished at all, but they often are because people can make more money by redeveloping the land they stand on. Sure, buildings from the nineteen fifties, sixties and seventies didn't have double glazing, or much insulation to speak of, but then again neither did houses from earlier times. energy was cheaper then, and there was no requirement to fit such things. Even today, the building industry challenges the imposition of green building codes, citing additional cost (i.e. reduced profit), whereas the real losers are the public who have to pay for the energy to heat (and cool) their buildings. Regarding style and construction methods, the reality is that time and technology moves forward. We have new knowledge, materials and building techniques that we apply to make buildings that perform better, and are quicker to build. We are extremely fortunate to have built environment with a rich architectural history, that benefits from building styles spanning several centuries. The poorest examples haven't survived, and perhaps a few good ones too. Let us now move forward with confidence into the 21st century and make buildings that reflect our own times in Britain's architectural lexicon.
Albert Speer would be proud
No, he wouldn't. Speer was a Modernist.
So you're planning to demolish Glasgow and replace it with Ionic columns?
Traditional architecture reflect our culture and identity, modern architecture just reflect fashion. This gives me one more reason to like UKIP
How about an ex post facto law that punishes developers for demolishing historic structures (especially churches) to build modern eyesores?
2:06 downing college Cambridge, a gem of regency architecture. The library shown here was build in the nineties.
If I were a Briton, I would vote UKIP.
I would add there is a difference between intentional/pretentious ugliness which is postmodernism and modern art and general cheap construction methods which is not ugly on purpose but just trying very hard to be affordable.
Several of the pictures are actually from Berlin, and show the rebuilding of Berlin City Palace, seat of the Hohenzollern (Imperial) House of Germany. Oh UKIP, do your research.
Can somebody tell me whether UKIP is specifically keen on this area. For example, if they become kingmakers would they put aesthetic considerations on the bargaining table?
Are there any sources that link this to the actual UKI party, or is this a video uploaded by some wingnut?
It's called Heart of Courage.
crusty jugglers
Excellent. UKIP has to be the Way Forward!
The real solution is to put an end to public housing. Who would willingly live in a house that looks like a cube?
Also, involving public input for common infrastructure would also eliminate a lot of these modern monstrosities. Those who bemoan the pastiche can leave.
Modern architecture is blasphemy! It should be abolished. There needs to be a standard for scale and aesthetic added to building codes.
In the very olden days people did not have the insane technology we have today, they built it with their bare hands and basic tools. Even today the work these people did in building such as the Houses of Westminster or Buckingham Palace is clear. Just think what we could do now.
Instead we get horrid, boring, depressing architecture that can be recreated by any five year old with a crayon. I feel very strongly about architecture, that's one of the reasons I joined UKIP, and have now subscribed
hahaha
i live in a 60s tower block surrunded by warhol paintings screw ukip modernity is our future
modern architecture is cool, ukip are lame,
concise summary