The Conspiracy Destroying Beautiful Buildings
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 гру 2024
- Make a donation to www.givewell.org/ and pick ‘UA-cam’ and ‘Stewart Hicks’ at checkout to get your donation matched up to $100!
_Special Thanks_
Zach Mortice: Architectural Conspiracy Expert
Evan Montgomery: Co Production
SOM (som.com): Filming Location
_Description_
Could an advanced ancient civilization have built grand utopian cities all over the world-only to have them destroyed or covered up? In this video, we explore the real historical “cover-up” behind these provocative photos, focusing on the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Join me and architectural conspiracy expert Zach Mortice explore the iconic “White City” at the World’s Fair which birthed modern urban planning-and might have accidentally fueled the Tartarian conspiracy theories. We’ll take on why these grand structures vanished, the rise of the City Beautiful Movement, and how Parisian-style boulevards replaced entire communities in American cities.
#Tartaria #WorldsFair #CityBeautiful #Architecture #History #UrbanPlanning
_Membership_
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @stewarthicks
_About the Channel_
Architecture with Stewart is a UA-cam journey exploring architecture’s deep and enduring stories in all their bewildering glory. Weekly videos and occasional live events breakdown a wide range of topics related to the built environment in order to increase their general understanding and advocate their importance in shaping the world we inhabit.
_About Me_
Stewart Hicks is an architectural design educator that leads studios and lecture courses as an Associate Professor in the School of Architecture at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He also serves as an Associate Dean in the College of Architecture, Design, and the Arts and is the co-founder of the practice Design With Company. His work has earned awards such as the Architecture Record Design Vanguard Award or the Young Architect’s Forum Award and has been featured in exhibitions such as the Chicago Architecture Biennial and Design Miami, as well as at the V&A Museum and Tate Modern in London. His writings can be found in the co-authored book Misguided Tactics for Propriety Calibration, published with the Graham Foundation, as well as essays in MONU magazine, the AIA Journal Manifest, Log, bracket, and the guest-edited issue of MAS Context on the topic of character architecture.
_Contact_
FOLLOW me on instagram: @stewart_hicks & @designwithco
Design With Company: designwith.co
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Architecture: arch.uic.edu/
_Special Thanks_
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images, Storyblocks, and Shutterstock.
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
#architecture #urbandesign
I believe one common thread throughout the Tartaria movement is the dislike of modern architecture and its overabundance of glass curtain walls and sheet metal cladding. There is a certain beauty when it comes to stone architecture that can't be overlooked and for that I do sympathize with the notion that many modern structures are boring and uninspired.
While I would love cities made out of marble and stone. I don't think we have enough beautiful stone quarries to actually do that. At least for all humanity.
Also when glass and steel came out. They were beautiful marvels. Today we take them for granted, because they are ubiqutous. I have a feeling we wouldn't care as much for say marble if it was just as cummon, and ubiquitous
On the other hand. We still pretty much put cost over everything else.
I also bring up survivorship bias. Only the beautiful historic buildings have been kept from demolishing. Over decades each beautiful historic was saved each generation. Making it seem like they always built high quality structures.
@@dianapennepacker6854 Architectural historian here - I like to push back on the survivorship bias argument. Unfortunately beauty has really never been a factor in whether buildings get demolished, and neither has the quality of their construction. Take for example NYC's original version of Penn Station, a monumental building that was demolished after the decline of railroads. Grand Central almost met the same fate until it was saved by activists responding to the Penn Station demolition. The most common reason why buildings are demolished is economic and related to outside factors, such as the original use of the building becoming obsolete or the building becoming abandoned due to ownership complications or hardship. And on the flipside, we have millions of older houses from the Victorian era today that were actually built fairly poorly but have been repaired (either in a historically sensitive way or not) by people who found it worthwhile.
I would settle for having the corrugated metal apartment buildings be painted something that isn't gray, navy blue, and mustard yellow. Like, they could have at least gotten imaginative and beautiful with the paint job, and instead what do we get? Some person's idea of cheap and inoffensive.
Someone will always loathe or distain their environment, or something placed in it.
Glass curtain walls go all the way back to the crystal palace in Hyde Park.
Cities build UP because certain locations are in demand (actual or perceived). The absurdity of billionaires row is evident.
The Emperor _does_ have new clothes!
Come to Chicago and see modern architecture in splendid glory. And then go to the gold coast and see boring boxes next to vintage beauties. It's not the movement or style that's the problem. It's the application.
I feel so sad that the Singer Building and the original Penn Station were demolished in New York
Ditto!🤘
The WTYP episode on Penn Station was great in pointing out the numerous problems that the old station had, which all led to its decline and demolition in the 1960s. Those problems, like the notoriously narrow platforms, still plague it today.
The Singer Building, had it survived until today, may have been another candidate for residential conversion like 40 Wall Street.
Are you the guy that prefers modern architecture?
@greysnake2903 not sure who you are questioning within this thread. I think there's considerable bright spots within the entire history of architecture. That includes modern and contemporary buildings.
This comment will probably get buried, BUT! I worked on the Jackson Park restoration. We uncovered tons of artifacts and I even have a few of the white blocks that were buried sitting in my backyard! It was an amazing experience and I’ve very grateful for it.
Whoa, so cool!
What was the quality of the artifact. I heard they were cheap plaster
in regards to your opening segment. I(the average person) dont even require the larger concept of the worlds fair to see this phenomena. There are plenty of photos/videos on UA-cam which highlights the pro car centric modern city, contrasting the older pre car cities... These alone show that practically an entire cities worth of infrastructure in every(America )city was destroyed just in the years of 1930-1970.
Welcome to capitalism. Ignoring the obvious Worlds Fair (Expo's) temporary facades, Old = trash. Add to that the modernist architectural movement (~1930 - 1960) that disliked classic ornamentation and business that loved the reduced costs of simple glass and metal facades and we get the predominant (some say boring) buildings of today.
Remember; everything is a conspiracy if you don't know how anything works.
That doesn't explain the phenomenon in europe where they put fugly buildings in places where cars are banned too.
That’s because maintaining old buildings often worse than building new ones on resources - you people are really really dense
the European cities banning cars is mostly a decade or two old for the most part. cars have existed for ~100 years. hope this helps
Many of the European cities lost buildings in WW2, others (like the US) essentially bombed themselves to make room for cars.
Cheeky of you to include a shot of the Eiffel Tower when mentioning the costs of the Olympic Games. As we all know, that too was supposed to be a temporary structure for the world’s fair.
People still believe in Theme Park architecture... that's why we have "tuscan kitchens" and "farmhouse" in the middle of suburbia. That's why people add fake box beams or LED skylights to their ceilings. Our ugly homes have driven people to engage in architectural cosplay.
there is no faulting architectural cosplay as long as its done right
@pigeon_the_brit565 worse than the real thing, better than not trying at all.
Good architecture understands it's environment and works with it. But it's so common for us just to assign whatever we want wherever we want and it makes everywhere the same. It's sad.
@pigeon_the_brit565 Like the abandoned suburbs in Turkey.
They learned it from Vegas.
The New York Times summed up the whole "Tartaria" thing well: this was not in any way a movement that firmly believes that Tartaria and all the "secret history" is true, it's a movement that verbalize how much modern architecture has alienated them. It's acry that what they know about beauty all their life is being directly at odds with the reality of the current status quo...
The issue is these kinds of movements have habit of becoming people believing the fiction
Wait until you find out modern architecture is intended to be alienating and to harm you psychologically by design. And what group of people are responsible.
@@tann_manLet me guess, the people you're hinting at [[Echo Throughout History]]?
@@daviddavidson1417 yes
@@tann_man In which way modern architecture hurt your little feelings? You might be a weak individual.
Film Master's Student and Architectural Enthusiast here. This video overlooks decades of research that reflects the innate positive effects of biophillic and vernacular architectural/ landscape design.
The city beautiful movement was not about showing off, but the (technically correct albeit somewhat misguided) idea that beauty enriches the environment and will spiritually/ socially/ generally elevate a population beyond the haphazard squalor of late 19th century industrial metropolises, particularly in the United States which had no where near the time or wealth to build the imperial style cities that Burnham sought to mimmic in the World's fair, which was to bring European/ East Asian city planning and design to the masses of the US.
Of course, other factors like education and social services elevate the population much more, its undeniable what the baseline, immediate effect of an environment on a population was. And that was the target of the entire movement.
To hide this video's defense of contemporary design, abandoning traditional and vernacular aesthetic philosophy behind a microscopic reddit conspiracy cult is both dishonest and reductive.
The actual people you should be listening to are in the neo urbanist and new classical movement. It goes far deeper than feelings and paranoia. It lambasts the destruction of neighborhoods just like what the Ben Franklin parkway partially leveleled. It decries the US tunnel vision of car-centric urban design and essentially absent aesthetic culture, and most importantly, it's backed by science.
Towering glass curtain walls, jagged edges, unreadable silhouettes, and exposed steel i-beams make us uncomfortable and deny our brains the millenia old biological fondness for natural, or naturalistic shape language and design. Its even worse that, despite the endless "survivorship bias" claims, our cities used to be filled with interesting and beautiful places, but events like the US interstate system development and World War 2 levelled even more neighborhoods than Ben Franklin Parkway, marginalized minority communities, destroyed cherished monuments, and in the worst of cases, influenced entire metro areas economic collapse/ stagnation.
Not to mention the abhorrent environmental costs of global concrete manufacturing (water), glass, (silica sand/ thermal regulation struggles), and steel (carbon), I can link any papers below if anyone is interested.
I wish I could give this likes more than just once
But do you know any other YT channels that cover the topics that you speak of?
I would argue it's not car centric design that creates this kind of architecture, because modern construction in places that are not car centric still look the same, in fact often they look more like you describe because you need to fit more people into a smaller space, so simple modular forms are more common.
The tram systems were destroyed by Big Oil and General Motors.
@israeldelarosa5461 Some great channels are The Aesthetic City, Adam Something, Kings and Things, Not Just Bikes, Alan Fisher, Haussmann, Climate Town, and to paint a great picture of REAL places that were lost, check out Alexander Rotmensz. These range from more scientific/ editorial approaches to quite trivial & factoid based, and they aren't just on architecture, but also urban design, city life, etc.
@@ARBITRAGEandTIME They were destroyed by operating costs and government regulations "Big Oil" and GM may have buried the corpses for easy profit but they didn't kill it outright.
And yet today people flock to Paris for its architecture and grand designs.Its streets may have been paved with ‘bad’ intentions but it built one of the most iconic cities in all of human history.
💯
The whining about Napoleon III at the end of this video was particularly insufferable. ‘Oh he was a TYRANT’ yeah but not nearly as much of a tyrant as the masses during the French Revolution. Just seems massively historically illiterate to try to impose 1990’s neoliberal definitions of tyranny or political repression into the rebuilding second empire period which had just made it through so much social turbulence.
That Tartarian Empire claim is thoroughly uninteresting to be honest. But the question in the title is a good and important one. Why can't we have beautiful buildings anymore?
It is not cost. That world fair (2:40) is a dramatic illustration of how cheap decoration had become even back then. It is feasible to do this on temporary structures. So why can't we have it on our more permanent ones? We can make a white city with spray paint. Well yeah exactly (*). We can mass produce cast shapes. Yeah exactly, and we can use things like concrete if we want something a bit more durable. And in case we want something custom like at 4:50. Didn't we invent CNC routers in the meantime? And also, casting?
Van Loos' argument that decoration takes too much resources is obsolete. Also the idea that decoration is not a function is quite misanthropic to begin with - I have never heard of any culture where people do not decorate their living spaces. It just so happens that cities are living spaces. So making building exteriors presentable is a really important function. (actually, didn't Van Loos write a “no guys not like that!!~~~” follow up to his ornamentation and crime essay? Maybe he saw the impending self-immolation of his entire profession coming.)
Modernism destroyed our willingness to have new buildings in our neighbourhoods. Turns out making new buildings is REALLY IMPORTANT. I'm sitting here in Auckland, and most land right next to our city centre are old decaying villas built in the 1920s. They may not have any modern bells and whistles like insulation and double glazing, or up to date electric installations. They may back then have been build nastily and cheaply with mass produced (!) ornaments, but they were also not yet Modernist and some thought was given to making them presentable to passers by. Some are visibly rotting away. But they are (in a sort of oblique way) heritage protected, and we will not replace them with (small m) modern buildings until they literally fall down. This should have been a completely absurd situation that *everyone* would try to fix ASAP, but no. It seems everyone thinks it is perfectly reasonable.
Why can't we have beautiful buildings anymore? I don't know. People have simply internalized this as truth. Somehow we (i.e. our past generations, not this weird empire conspiracy) could make them in the past but somehow magically it now became too expensive. Despite having laser cutters, CNC routers, casting, and other mass production technology available now. Isn't that weird?
So we find ourself in a situation that no matter how dilapidated an old building is, people still expect anything that we could possibly build today to look even worse. This situation is entirely absurd. If someone has an old rusty car parked up front, it would be considered an eyesore and nobody would baulk at them replacing that car with a new one. But not so for buildings. Modernism taught us that contemporary architecture creates uncomfortable, alienating places. Nobody wants this in their own neighbourhoods. So where did we go wrong?
The Mysterious Disappearance of Beautiful Buildings is a legit thing. It is in very obvious ways harming our cities. We need to fix that. And this is not really helping, because I never heard anyone blaming the disappearance of some ancient empire.
(*) obligatory mention that ancient Roman buildings and statues were not actually white.
Many features of older buildings are practical as well. Cornices, window caps, peaked roofs in rainy climates. And modern architects are so dead set against adding them as practical features that it often shortens the lifespan of newer buildings
My understanding is that the cost is labor-related, not technology-related; but then again, I'm no architect.
Some new condominiums went up in my town. They are orange and gray. Why would one think people want to look at orange rectangles? I've seen the same orange rectangle in the town next to me too. I wish I could include a photograph.
👍💖
Melbourne has some weird similarities to Auckland in that we have enormous swathes of historic listings of complete junk. We're talking bland, single-storey workers cottages that nobody is allowed to demolish. Historic listings of concrete roads from the pre-war time. Historic listings of abandoned warehouses and factories that have been empty for half a century. History shouldn't mean we abandoned things and never touch them again, it should mean that we maintain our past as a gift to the future generations. If we don't maintain any of it, there's no point having it.
11:30 that was such a sudden and sharp turn in the tone for your conclusion.
It ignored all the other reasons a modern city needs wide boulevards: traffic flow, sanitation, public health, air circulation, civic pride, economic growth, green spaces… just look at Geddes metaphors comparing a city to the human body, parks are the lungs, avenues are the veins, etc.
Your conclusion ignored all that to focus on despotic social control.
I feel your conclusion smacks of another instance where the modern tries to demonize the classical. Equating a preference for grand classical architecture as belonging to an internet conspiracy cult. But maybe that’s just me?
Not just you. I have a somewhat similar comment
I have experienced this kind of loss. I grew up in a gorgeous, older neighborhood in Denver. I lived in a smallish home (by modern standards) on a double lot. The home was torn down so that two homes could be built in its place. Of course, the two new homes are modern and ugly when compared to the old brick home that I grew up in. I am not going to be believing in the Tartarians any time soon, but this sentiment makes more sense.
The reason behind the loss of grand architecture is the lowering of the top marginal corporate tax rate.
Without the pressure to find something to do with all their earnings, lest Uncle Sam take 95% of it, businesses no longer have an incentive to show off their wealth through the hiring of tradesmen and architects. We live in the era of the MVP: the minimum viable product. Corporations need not spend away their punitively-taxable liquidity in the manufacture of beautiful buildings when monolithic glass dicks built by migrant labor are cheaper and there is no taxation anymore.
Raise taxes on corporations, FORCE them to reinvest their capital instead of hoarding it or giving it away to billionaires (who also need a top marginal tax increase), and you will INSTANTLY see corporations restart conspicuous consumption in the name of the Tax Write-Off, which in itself is an artform that is long passed (you don't need to lower your tax bracket when you're not being taxed at the upper brackets.)
We still might not be able to afford homes for awhile after that, but at least things will LOOK better from our tents.
This is the most ridiculous reason I've heard for increasing corporate tax rate, who gives a rats ass about corporations building "nicer looking" office towers? Making a classical looking facades for multi-million dollar projects is a drop in the water, theres not change in structure, there's just no point because modern corporationa prefer not to seem like they're linked to old money and values.
@@jansenart0 You're whole statement is based on the assumption that Corporations don't operate with tax law (the Tax Write-Off, as you say) influencing their decisions anymore. I assure you, tax write-offs are still fully in play. The way the rest of your comment is worded sounds just like something the people who claim Corporations have _too many_ write-offs would say.
In other words, always blame the Corporations, and always tax them (and rich people) as much as possible.
@@BaltimoreAndOhioRR It's simple accounting, and it's clear in the name of the concept: after you breach the top-level corporate tax rate by billions in revenue, you cannot logically write-off enough to bring the rate down!
You can't deny the facts: there was more liquidity among the people and fewer billionaires when taxation on corporations was at its height.
We are now living in neofeudalism and it took only 40 years to get here.
@@jansenart0 fewer billionaires means nothing. Those are just some words to make your argument sound better to the masses who hate corporations and rich people. Guess what? There were fewer $100,000aires during then, also! And fewer $50,000aires, too!
NO WHERE in these United States is a 95% tax rate ever justified! (Yes, I know it's on the amount above a specific, made up, value). We are not the Soviet Union, we are not Communist China.
If I am not mistaken, the Art Museum at the end of the Ben Franklin Parkway was leftover the 1876 Centennial Exposition. There were other building nearby of the same style, but they were demolished after the Exposition. The wide boulevards in addition to hindering the erection of barricades, facilitated the use of artillery to quell disturbances.
The City Beautiful movement also gave many cities large urban parks, with green spaces and places of recreation, so it was not aall bad.
Progress is a voyage where there are more drowning than on the ship
This notion that "progress" is inevitable, or that those who resisted it were fools wasting their time is wrong.
Even the people demanding a halt to AI advance are not wasting their breathe.
You are partly mistaken. The Philadelphia Museum of Art was chartered with the 1876 exposition but the building at the end of the parkway wasn't begun until almost 1900. Up until that point the Fairmount waterworks reservoir was on top of the hill. The water works, a feat to themselves, was also an exhibition in city-wide potable water delivery
Not correct. Both the PMA and the parkway were constructed decades after the bicentennial-by bulldozing dozens of blocks of the city.
@@SubvertTheState That's why when I hear the word "progress" used, I ask to what. So many profess the word but most cant answer that simple question and blind progress is a fools folly.
As a historic preservationist it absolutely drives me up a wall listening to people rant about nonsense like this. They're so close to the point and then Veer off into the lunacy.
It's funny because Tartaria was actually on ancient maps as holding vast swaths of land, but people don't realized Tartaria was a map makers short hand for the unknown "uncivilized" lands not yet properly charted
Yeah I also believe everything I was taught in school and never question history because that would make me sound crazy
Cope
Makes sense why the fekkit says this. All you do is cope
modern architecture and planning is way more guilty of this kind of thing than the subject of this video, in America especially where you almost wiped out whole cities. The right kind of neotraditional, human scale buildings offfer the chance to write at least some of these wrongs
disingenuous to compare a real desire for more beautiful architecture to a crazy conspiracy theory
i mean sure, those provided examples may not be the greatest examples of neoclassical and beaux art archictecture but that doesnt deminish the fact that many of the greatest "classical" works of architecture were actually part of that kind of neoclassical revival
and yeah...no calling this style of architecture oppressive because "some french king used it to exert and show of power" is bullshit
first of all, its not just kings who used to commission these sorts of buildings, but they were also popular amongst the more well-off parts of the general populace to show of their own level of wealth and prosperity
industrialization has indeed made it possible to mass produce these building parts which has actually allowed these excessive styles of traditional architecture to be made available to many people
britain has many famous examples of revivalist styles (not as baroque as the french i suppose, but the idea still stands) and with britain being more of a long standing democracy than a monarchy those buildings are more about overall national pride rather subservience to a king
and of course, the US literally has its own history of neoclassicism and many of the US historic landmarks that built the country are neoclassical buildings
these are like some really sweeping generalizations made in this video that are entirely ignorant to the culture behind this style of architecture
yeah this guy is a hack. Barely worth listening to.
Demoralisation is the ethos of these government agents. Sell people the belief that once was will never be and what is is as good as it will be. It's objectively true to anyone with an eye to see that we are not living in the most technologically advanced time of the history of this planet. The whole Tartaria story is similar to the flat earth movement in that it serves to shoehorn free-thinking individuals into a group to believe a specified narrative. The reality is likely to be much more nuanced. Humans deserve and will receive much better very soon
So true Misato
11:35 - 12:25
Allow me to correct some of your statemens that are not entirely true.
While the political and security aspects of Napoléon III's plan of reshaping Paris are true, you seem to overemphasize those elements in this extract.
First, Napoléon III's planning for the French capital was actually made before he took power in France. One of the reasons _why_ he wanted to make such an audacious and radical plan was an esthetical one. He saw the modern cities of London in Britain and New-York in the United States, and that greatly inspired him for his vision of a _new_ Paris. He took great inspiration from those two capitals, like when he extended the size of Paris, similary to the Great London, or also, when he tasked Adolphe Alphand to make great parks in imitation of London's greeneries. The second emperor of the french not only wanted to make the medieval city of Paris into a modern metropolis of the 19th Century, he wanted to embellish the capital to make it the most beautiful city ever built.
The second reason of this bold plan is also economical and speculative. Indeed, the emperor employed more than 100 000 workers for his transformation of Paris, this in accordance to his promise to the working class to give jobs, while also enriching the many investors, bankers, landlords and speculators by erecting those brand new buildings. This massive project, would also causes to captivate foreign investments and facilitate the flow of money into the city. The construction clearly benefited to all classes and ultimatly participated to the economic growth during the period. In addition before those great works, you actually had to take a whole day to walk across Paris, and most people only walked a few streets near their appartements! So Haussmann's rationnal and srict planning made business and commerce easier by making a safer and (financially) attractive place.
The third and final reason is more a social and sanitary one, the emperor was influenced (profoundly) by the works of Saint-Simon a french socialist of the early 19th Century. This is _also_ why he wanted to make such large boulevards, this was a time were urban life was unhealthy for most of the population. The streets were full of dirt, dangerous, narrow and it smelled terribly, the water was non-potable and full of diseases, and there was no electricity, sewage system and adequate housing. For example, a cholera epidemic in 1832 killed around 20 000 people in the capital alone, and remember that people back then believe that such diseases spread trought air. In response to those hard living conditions, the very saint-simonnien that was Napoléon III who believed in hygienism, sanitized Paris to improve the living conditions of the parisians. You have to understand that some streets were so narrow that there was little to no sunlight or air passing trought those unsanitary neighborhoods.
As you saw it, the idea of a Napoleonian Paris cannot be reduced to an imperial evil plan against the working classes for security purposes. By focusing only on the political and safety aspects, you have missed several key points regarding the _why_ Napoléon III decided to literally rebuild Paris. And don't get me wrong, those constructions had a heavy social cost (the poor people of Paris being expropriated from their houses without compensations, and because of it were forced to settle into the peripheries) and the motive behind it was also political (Napoléon III naming great boulevards in the names of his relatives or his victories, also the need to be remembered as an Augustus who made a backward city into the city of lights we know as today) and, without a doubt, the motive was also about supressing and preventing futur plausible rebellions in the city. However, all of theses cost payed off, the 2.5 billion francs of debt was clearly worth it. Napoléon III believed in the theory of the "dépenses productives" or the productive expenditure. While some destructions were questionnable, most of the buildings that were destroyed were outdated slums who needed to get rid off because the population was growing so massively and so quickly that the urban developpement was chaotic and often not regulated. Yes, Napoléon III's plan was controvertial and its intents debatable, but he, in the end showed us that he was right, we know Paris as the city of light, of love, of beauty, of the arts, of the sciences, we recognise its uniqueness and authentic esthetic, even today.
I'll quote a relevant extract of a brilliant article made by the _Pavillon de l'Arsenal_ on Paris as a model city :
"At different scales and in each of its components, the Haussmannian fabric of Paris reveals a set of characteristics that guarantee a number of fundamental balances: between density and viability, between permanence and resilience, between sobriety and diversity, between long-distance and short-distance connectivity, between identity and universality, between intensity and welcoming urbanism, between attractiveness and inclusiveness..."
the author of this video obviously has no intention on being truthful, he is just trying to defend his aesthetic choices...
I think it’s less that what was was made as a facade hiding a darker truth, but rather that we could make the world more beautiful now without sacrificing functionality, but that doesn’t happen due to the desire to get every ounce of functionality with the least amount of money, and that act causes so many intangible losses that can be felt, but it hard to describe.
It’s hard to argue for beauty when someone asks why we need it. But everyone can appreciate it when it exists and knows it is something that would be a shame to loose.
Thank you for a thought provoking video!
Paris may have been planned for military strategy but thank the French that it's well planned and beautiful. In the best scenario, the economic driver of a project isn't divorced from civic value. And vice versa.
The setbacks on the wide boulevards allow light to bathe the city and provide plenty of space for cultural events. Military parades? Sure, the Arc de Triomphe is an exclamation point on that concept. But is there a more famous avenue for culture than the Champs-Élysées?
It was correct for Paris to limit the height of buildings. That would not have been right for Chicago. I celebrate both! Chicago did well to preserve the Cliff Wall and allow for incredible innovation in other places.
I'm not a fan of all building styles but I appreciate that there are building blocks, learning and progression. There's value in that. I'm glad that Chicago has great examples of this.
I like Federal plaza but boxes of windows have become soulless in parts of the city. On the other hand, without Van der Rohe, would we have 333 Wacker?
Forgive my ramblings.
13:27 "You, you're a details person. You check at least half a dozen reviews before making any big ticket purchase..."
I feel exposed, Stewart!
I think this same mentality needs to be turned towards any modern construction or post-modern architecture as well. Many of those neighborhoods that were "destroyed" by way of the City Beautiful movement were in fact crowded, smoggy, smoke-filled slums. As many know, 75% of those polled rank Classical architecture as the most beautiful style. Following this logic, if we are to make way for new monuments and redesigned cities, they need to incorporate this knowledge. Modern architects, just like those "insensitive Victorians", are just as guilty (more-so, possibly) of subjugating the desires of residents and patterns of vernacular cities and towns to the corporate executives that need vessels for their real-estate holdings, or new office blocks for workers. The CEO and board room have become the new Napoleons: dictating the lay of the land and impacting style on a scale he could only have dreamed of. Napoleon, indirectly at least, inspired untold masses with the style that eventually made its way to the forefront of a more idealistic and egalitarian America. Most of those buildings on Franklin Parkway were designed for the benefit of the public.
Can we just accept that beautiful buildings, full of light and a human touch, are better than Brutalist, post-modern polygons that break our minds and fill our souls with dread?
I've known about the Chicago world fair thing for some time now, but this is the first time I'd ever seen someone try to make it into a conspiracy involving the Tartars. I think this might be one of those situations where someone tries to attach a belief to another group of people that they don't have much contact with.
Um… that entire Subreddit has considered it a conspiracy for YEARS. Did you see the dates on those posts? This video author is trying to DEBUNK those lunatics.
@@VAULT-TEC_INC.cope
The reason behind the loss of grand architecture is the lowering of the top marginal corporate tax rate.
Without the pressure to find something to do with all their earnings, lest Uncle Sam take 95% of it, businesses no longer have an incentive to show off their wealth through the hiring of tradesmen and architects. We live in the era of the MVP: the minimum viable product. Corporations need not spend away their punitively-taxable liquidity in the manufacture of beautiful buildings when monolithic glass dicks built by migrant labor are cheaper and there is no taxation anymore.
Raise taxes on corporations, FORCE them to reinvest their capital instead of hoarding it or giving it away to billionaires (who also need a top marginal tax increase), and you will INSTANTLY see corporations restart conspicuous consumption in the name of the Tax Write-Off, which in itself is an artform that is long passed (you don't need to lower your tax bracket when you're not being taxed at the upper brackets.)
We still might not be able to afford homes for awhile after that, but at least things will LOOK better from our tents.
You really want to make sure the Paris before 1789 is a physical reality...
You have a point but it has more to do with weaker governments than corporate taxes. European nations tax everyone more and they invest it into infrastructure along with strong regulations to ensure the building is there to last and meet the style.
Americans have delegated that responsibility to the elite and they essentially decide what the city looks like not the government (people).
@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 Paris was much better pre-revolution. yes.
I'm kinda not sure what the point of this video is. Most of our architecture was borrowed from somewhere to some degree. Philadelphia's early architecture borrows heavily from English architecture. Los Angeles' from Spanish tradition. Main thing I agree with is that architecture should be inspired from local traditions. I'm sure the Tartaria movement has more to do with a disdain for modern architecture than a love for any particular architectural style. Its funny how many people I meet who dislike modern architecture. Almost everyone I've met prefers traditional styles. Yet a majority of what's built now is modern style. And that's very alienating to people. People can innately recognize beauty.
This guy actually makes the argument that beauty has to be sold to you and not that there is natural demand.
Bug man psychology.
Yeah definitely a "Bug Man" brain level video here.
People desire beauty. It is a human need. I am a true believer in Tartaria. The world's fair is a convenient excuse do destroy our Beautiful heritage. There are many beautiful in the late 1800s that never had any world's fairs and still got demolished. Cincinnati is really good example of this. The before an afters are wild.
What does "Bug man psychology" mean?
Parisian beauty does have to be sold to you. Chicago is inherently beautiful, because it eventually carved its own identity. Not because it became Paris 2.0.
I think people are latching on to Second Empire Paris and these Exhibitions because those are the most recent examples of grand classical architecture available to them. Their paranoia is rooted in a more existential hunger for beauty. Modernism was founded on a puritanical reaction against decadence in the lower classes. Mass production made it possible for middle class people to have an ersatz knock off of wealthy opulence. Was it cheap and tacky? Often times, yes, but the modernists wanted to impose their vision of stark utilitarian "authenticity." A project that ultimately only appealed to wealthy people who could flaunt what we call Voluntary Simplicity today. Modernism was widely embraced by builders and mass producers because it was CHEAP to produce. After WW2 there was a legitimate need to make vast quantities of everything quickly and utilitarian anti-design could be marketed as Space Age. Today, we live in an aesthetic wasteland. There is NO beauty in the contemporary cityscape. Even Mies van der Rohe and Les Corbusier would be horrified by what they set in motion. A conspiracy theory about Tartarians is just more glamorous and satisfying than the fact our quality of life has been, and continues to be, co-opted and defiled by the avarice of Capitalistic Corporate greed.
The streamlined toaster! (which is actually practical - "streamlined" household objects are easier to dust than ones with fussy detail.
Well said! With today's technology. I suspect the actual cost to creating well designed facades would not be as expensive as it would have been around WWII. Today one can carve out granite using CNC machines in the fraction of the time it would have taken even two or three decades ago. And one can get fairly fancy if we also incorporate the use of CGI into various CAD projects like CNC stone cutting. Literally create stone artwork. Even making aethietic columns is pretty practical. Same with overhangs etc. The cost would be much lower today with the correct applications
Thanks for an excellent and informative essay! Now, if only we could find the missing civilization behind the 1967 Montreal Expo. What a world that must've been!
Guys, there are whole YT channels dedicated to revealing the “Old World” buildings in American cities, where the old world refers to previous civilizations with modern design and construction technologies. The thinking is that, since people before circa mid-1900s couldn’t possibly build grand buildings like, say, the old St Louis Courthouse or the Cologne Cathedral, they must have been leftover from a previous civilization and discovered when our civilization moved in. In this telling, the world wars and depression are an Orwellian rewrite of history to explain the collapsed ruins that had to be bulldozed away to erect our cities around these still-standing old world structures. It’s really quite the conspiracy theory!
It’s true
I think a hard pill for modern architects to swallow is that modern architecture is boring most of the time it doesn’t bring joy or excitement that old forms of architecture brings.
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to insinuate paris is bad because it’s wide boulevards make for easy military or having uniform architecture is bad like when send boulevards provide natural light greenery easier form of transportation (which is what a lot of cities need now more the ever), uniform architecture can be really beautiful especially when said architecture is beautiful.
The impetus driving the Tartaria myth isn’t some philosophical nonsense about “erasing history”, it’s the fact that buildings in the past were objectively better looking and we appear to have lost the ability to build them.
exactly
It's kind of interesting how those "objectively better looking" building, look so bloated and downright horrible.
Cope. You haven’t dug deep enough
We need to build more cool, walkable towns - with nice architecture again!
Please consider doing a video on crime prevention by design!
Yeah! Start with the island of Mykonos! Really interesting stuff
I heard that even keeping lawns mowed can reduce crime.
8:37 That is not a majestic boulevard. That is a car sewer that only Le Corbusier and General Motors could love.
Facts.
I don’t think you know what boulevard is….
Without a doubt, this is one of the best constructed, written and realized informational videos I’ve ever seen on UA-cam. I’m an architecture buff and I knew very little of this. I had never heard of the Tartarian theory (wackadoo!!) nor that how Napoleon rebuilt Paris. Excellent job!
It’s kind of hilarious. Especially when one of them has a drawing of a grand building, like there’s one of a proposed city hall for Cleveland, and they failed to consider the building wasn’t destroyed it was never built because it’s a drawing not a photograph 😂
@ I know, right? There are people who have souvenirs from the Chicago World’s Fair that their great grandparents left them and stories written about the experience and yet these people assign an alternate history to it. All anyone has to do these days is just write or say something on the internet and there’s a subculture of Dunning Kruger madmen ready to embrace it. 🤣
I gave you a thumbs up, I hated this video for how short it was. Such a complex and profound topic deserves a long deep dive, not some shallow 15 minute collaboration... I don't know what I expected really I typically love your videos. This left me hungering for more.
Maybe one day you'll drop us a feature length Magnum Opus, but until then I'll just wait for the next short one
A grand event like a World's Fair or Exposition owed a great part of its success to the very fact of its temporary nature. When the opportunity to witness a spectacle was limited (and therefore valuable), FOMO ruled, and eager throngs would travel far at considerable expense to attend. Such a thing was perhaps the most exciting event of many people's lives.
Cope
I think a lot of this comes from the feeling that modern architecture is just......ugly. Those older buildings with their visual hierarchies, their classical proportions, and their detail and their decoration were beautiful. So much of modern construction- especially the 'monumental' buildings of the 20th and 21st centuries, lack visual hierarchy, classical proportions, or attention to detail. Their beauty often pales in comparison to what came before.
What was considered beautiful was largely unchanged in principle for nearly 2000 years. And then modernism and post-modernism came around, and with some exceptions, failed to deliver.
I can’t fathom that we as a society all over the world moved away from building grand, beautiful spaces for everyone to enjoy 😢
"For everyone to enjoy", that statement is a lie. The Palace of Versailles is a testament to French Baroque, Rococo, and Neoclassical beauty as expressed through architecture and garden design, but most of France were not allowed to enter the palace, much less the land it is built on until the French Third Republic. Neuschwanstein Castle is the most beautiful of the "Mad King" Ludwig II's projects that were completed, but this building and all the other buildings WERE off-limits to the public until after the King's death and the Bavarian government deciding to open it up for public visits. The Forbidden City and the Old Summer Palace in Beijing are testaments to East Asian architecture and garden design yet they were only open to the public in 1924, 12 years after the fall of the Chinese Empire. Even the Kingdom of Hawaii has the Iolani Palace that was off-limits to the public until the overthrow of the monarchy.
Point is... Most of the most beautiful buildings on earth are built NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OD EVERYONE. They were built as monuments to their patrons. Shelley's Ozymandias captures the rationale of such monuments well...
@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 sure, but we have now the means to design out cities like emperors were able to design their palaces and gardens. I don't get that mentality of "welp, stalin drank water so i guess it's time to die from dehydration"
@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 By 1900s the sense that 'beauty in public spaces was for all' was already a principle of European public architecture. In the _belle epoque_ luxury and gracious spaces were being democratized on an unprecedented scale. See, for example: Paris, Budapest, Vienna, Prague, old Havana...
@@sohlasattelite"Civic Architecture" is a recent concept that can be traced to Rome but it finds expression with countries and states that have a republican government. Florence during its time as an independent city state - especially under the Medicis - spend on building public spaces like Piazzas and cathedrals partially as a way to buy the public approval of their rule. Same with Venice with the Plaza of San Marco. What did the Kings of England or the Holy Roman Emperor or even the Chinese Emperor built for the public benefit before the French Revolution?
As I said, rulers don't build things for the public good most of the time, they were built mostly to satisfy their ego, and if they built anything like that they are off-limits to most of the public...
@@harbl99My point is that for most of its history between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the French Revolution, any state that doesn't rely on the patronage of the "popular" masses don't build things for their benefit...
I don't think the style of architecture matters as much as the rarity of public spaces now days. Dallas has Fair Park with an esplanade featuring several buildings in Art Deco/ Art Moderne. You could have a public space done in Brutalism and it would work... almost.
public spaces suffer from the tragedy of the commons. Private spaces are MUCH better.
I think the style of architecture certainly does matter; like Milton Keynes, for example
Hopefully these tartarians never find the plans for Germania...
It was definitely a design from a drug fueled mania episode. lol I think it was something like 80% of Germany was on grade A amphetamines in the 1930's and 40's.
It’s interesting because the jewel of San Diego, Balboa Park, has a similar story with it being a world’s fair and the buildings being temporary. But they were preserved and have been the inspiration for a lot of architecture in SoCal. I suppose you could call it theme park architecture, but I call it beautiful and resonant and far preferable to a lot of current architectural trends.
Often some fair buildings were built to last, see also 1904 world's fair in St. Louis. Depending on how low quality the original, it may have been replaced (see San Francisco Palace of fine arts) as well.
The 'Tartarian empire' might only have been spray painted wood and plaster exhibition halls; but with modern materials, moulding, forming, and 3D printing, why can't we achieve more than the flat warship-grey cladding found on so many city buildings?
We certainly can and often do build non-modern themed buildings (see for example McMansions). However, it seems that builders do not have incentives to build more authentic older style homes for many reasons, such as demand for greater space per person, more bathrooms, open concepts, and of course zoning and safety codes that make for example "missing middle" traditional flats or elaborate cornices infeasible.
Thanks, Stewart. This was excellent! Another, slightly more recent example these Tartarian-types might want to look at is Bernard Maybeck's Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco. It was built in 1915 for the Panama-Pacific International Exhibition out of plaster and wood, like the Chicago Exhibition, but the architecture was so grand and popular that it was retained after the Exhibition closed. Of course it deteriorated over the decades. There are numerous photos of it in its later years where you can see plaster elements have fallen off, and the underlyting wood framework and wire lathe are clearly visible. It was eventually demolished and replaced with a concrete replica in the late 60s. The old photos show that it was really just an outdoor stage set, but it is magnificent, and it is set in a beautiful park.
Your story about Franklin Boulevard in Philadelphia reminds me that the kind of sweeping, monumental changes made by these sorts of city planners lasted a very long time. When I was a little kid, Lincoln Center in NYC was being built. It replaced a neighborhood called San Juan Hill, which was a typical working-class neighborhood. By the 1940s it was considered "blighted." All the property was taken by eminent domain and Lincoln Center went up in its place. Even though it was built in a modernist manner, the buildings obviously owe a debt to the kind of architecture that Baron Hausman and Daniel Burnham built decades before. In addition, Lincoln Center was almost completely shut off from the city around it, and on its back side, it was like a fortress, with no visible access to the plaza level or any of the music and theater facilities, with the exception of an entrance to a public library branch. Efforts have been made since to connect it more effectively with the neighborhood, but it's still an alien and rather hostile presence.
Buildings are just that, buildings: Assembled constructions with varying and temporary purposes. Imagine if the people from the 1500s felt that the best looking buildings were from the 1400s and that people kept thinking this way. We'd be stuck in the same place for the last 500 years. Architecture reflects its era and the population building it and is bound to evolve and change.
No conspiracy is required to explain why one century of civilization builds wonderful things and the next century destroys it - it's just human nature to remove the old and replace it with the new, like it or loathe it.
Cope
Many of those big fair buildings were not made of stone, but plaster and wood only meant to stand for the duration of the fair. In the Omaha at a museum I was surprised to learn Omaha had a pretty big fair of its own in 1898 the Trans-Mississippi and International Exposition. Some buildings were reused once, but afterwards it was torn down because it wasn’t meant to last.
I am a Nebraskan and never knew this. Thanks for the information.
People obsessed with neoclassical aesthetics, stark white marble buildings and statues always conveniently overlook that just about everything in Ancient Greece was painted in bright garish colors.
I'm not sure how garish they were. We can identify the pigments used, but a lot of info on tints and shades are lost to us.
Stewart, this presentation / thesis does not come even close to suspending my disbelief.
My favorite quotation from my favorite Architecture critic was Ada Louise Huxtable. She said, "Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves... And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."
The same thing happened in San Francisco when they had the fair. They built one building to last, The Palace of Fine Arts, and everything else was built out of plaster, wood, and chicken wire. When the fair was done, the fake buildings were torn down.
If your really want a beautiful city, you need to maintain cultural connection, otherwise your just re-imagining Disneyland.
Ironically, Disneyland was built to last (being intended as a *permanent* attraction) by people with experience building movie sets, no less. Some of it more than others - the demolition of the Monsanto House of Tomorrow is a story in itself, the wrecking ball bounced off it!
I'd rather live in Disneyland than in a dystopian, cold, grey concrete hell.
Palace of fine arts did not in fact last. The current building is a recreation. Compare to the St. Louis world's fair, the St. Louis art museum did last as well as a couple other buildings.
@@szurketaltos2693 I stand corrected. Thank you. It appears that Walter S. Johnson gift of $2 million helped turn it into a permanent structure.
@@Feynman981 Disneyland is a description of all that is fake. The land of lies and hollow optimism.
A big part the reason why people are sad when an old building is demolished is that they are often beautiful and we know they will be replaced by a bland box that only architects brainwashed in a modernist architecture school will ever think is enjoyable to look at. I also love how architects call a blank box "modern" when it looks exactly the same as something build in 1950
Even though there are a ton more criticisms that can apply to a lot of one world theories, I appreciate how this video both focused on one core perspective and validated said theorist feeling of lack of place despite asserting that the facts of this architectures spread in America are effectively the opposite of what these internet sleuths believe.
This whole Tartarian conspiracy theory just boggles the mind with the whole ancient globe-spanning civilization stuff and I just don't get what it has to do with historic preservation of these City Beautiful buildings. It's like they've never heard of the neoclassical architecture movement in vogue at the time! It's certainly an interesting footnote to the story of these beautiful forgotten buildings but I feel like the pseudohistory detracts from the story as a whole.
I definitely think this was a well-produced, fascinating, and informative video, but in my opinion the pseudohistory mentioned in the start leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Average Joe isn't aware of all the different architectural periods that have occurred.
Worth mentioning that Paris as we know it today was redesigned by Haussmann. Unlike when London was rebuilt after 1666 when much of the city burned down, Paris was rebuilt without any such tragedy. It was an intact and functional city when Napoleon III ordered Haussmann to redesign it. Many thousands of homes were destroyed to build what Paris is today. Thankfully, Paris turned into a functional and beautiful city, but there were significant concerns that the layout of the streets with wide boulevards was a conspiracy from Napoleon III to prevent riots, since it enabled the police to act quickly and shut down any protests that popped up. This conspiracy is actually true, and Napoleon III wanted to prevent any future revolution like had happened in 1789.
Tha k you for the Chicago content that has implications far beyond our great city!! 😊
First the U.S destroyed most of it's own 18/19th century & art-deco/art nouveaux architecture . And now it visits Europe to watch old buildings (that were often re-build after WW2) and invents the mythical Tartaria.
Maybe🤔 they create the conspiracy and control the narrative and then shoot it down. But the fact that they destroyed marble buildings
It's so weird cause they are just looking at neo classical buildings like... Roman and Greek inspired things that are indeed empires that affected the whole world.
and western european culture which has dominated by hundreds of years now. Although one can argue post-war it has declined in power, and architectural prowess.
They call it plaster and staff. It's incredible what can be built out of plaster and staff when labor is cheap. That's the key, cheap labor.
Well, cheap labor and also new technologies. You need both, otherwise your cheap labor isn't skilled enough to create the fine details.
I recently saw a video someone had posted of American "architectural wonders" that had been tragically demolished and looked over many comments, even some from people in Europe, about how these "old world traditional buildings" had been lost forever. But from the demolition photos, including one of a building that was already sagging from fire damage, it was apparent that most of the buildings had steel frames, and that the "traditional" elements were just parts of the non-structural facades. But, in an important way, that's beside the point. History has always given the world pretentious and fake buildings (eg. the fake-stone Regency building boom in 19th century England, or even Mt. Vernon or the White House) that, as they age and become part of the familiar landscape, become beloved icons, and it's only human to miss them when they disappear, even if they were hated when first completed. We adopt these buildings just as Americans adopted the VW Beetle, the boondoggle of a German dictator against whom we fought the most deadly war in history, as a cute counter-cultural icon of the 1960s. Of course, the White City buildings are an exception, since they were not built to last and would have been almost impossible to maintain, but it's easy to picture the "City Beautiful" buildings being cherished, even if the process under which they were built was riddled with arrogance and shadiness. Whatever its origins, it's still nicer to walk through a glorious plaza than a jumbled "organic" slum.
public, government-funded buildings should only be designed and built in such a way that the people will treasure it, and to demolish it would be unthinkable. the most sustainable building is one that people want to keep around.
I mostly agree with you, although your analysis of Napoleon III and the work of Haussman is a little bit simplistic, lol. It's true that there was a political aspect in opening the medieval quarters with big boulevards since they were easy to occupy for revolutionaries, but it was also a time of industrialization, enlightenment and rationalization : bviously the "Ville Lumière" would be up-to-date in terms of urbanism and very audacious at it. Napoleon III is pretty loved by the French people to this day, and isn't remembered as a tyran. He first had this idea of urbanistic renovation of Paris during his stay in London when witnessing their new modern quarters. Haussman's work was indeed extremely controversial and destructive, that's a fact, but also necessary to bring Paris into a modernity and get rid of the dangerous maze-like slums of the old medieval quarters. Also, it wasn't just a cynical and control driven renovation ; Haussman literally moved entire domes to fit at the end of its boulevards, simply for aesthetics... The city is now better for it, even if we lost a big part of its history.
Your 3D models are fantastic.
This was excellent. I’m glad the algorithm knows I’d like it.
it wan't
Off topic a bit but interesting nonetheless. Louis Sullivan designed the Transportation building which was not in that style. Nicola Tesla installed the AC electric lights which was a first for the world at that scale. The current Museum of Science and Industry was the Palace of Fine Arts and built to be permanent, and is the only original building from the fair still standing.
Tesla also had the first remote controlled drone there as well, in the form of what could be described as a toy boat. The US Navy was not interested if I recall correctly.
Penn Station was not plaster over wood. The theme should be, "Don't destroy what you can not build".
You saw the same kind of movement in Europe as well, but decades earlier than in the US. For example, Mainz in Germany still has a Medieval feeling (although it was 80% destroyed in WWII) whereas Wiesbaden across the river has a much more Beaux Arts or "City Beautiful" feel to it. Mainz was an important city for centuries while Wiesbaden was just a village which didn't start growing till the early 1800s. Vienna also replaced a lot of its medieval city with much more elaborate Beaux Arts architecture.
I don't think people mind things being demolished, that much really. They object to things being demolished and replaced with ugly trash. Which is all we get anymore, and everyone knows it.
The city I’m familiar with, Tulsa, was originally built in the 1890’s but by 1917 the skyscraper came into the city. City beautiful didn’t really hit Tulsa like it did Philadelphia. Instead the new city beautiful of urban renewal became an issue for many city’s like those city’s who did similar with city beautiful. I’m curious how urban renewal took off and compared it to other movements like city beautiful.
I think it's actually a way to cope. It's less taxing on the mind to believe that all these beautiful things were made by some long lost civilization, rather than believe that they were actually made by OUR civilization only a century ago. That some other civilization fell in the distant past, not that we are in the process of slipping right now.
Can you provide an accounting for all the fired bricks that were manufactured used in the construction of buildings, homes, forts,, walls, roads, etc. around the world between 1800 and early 1900s? I'll wait.
Towards the end you showed quite a few photos of Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry, would you be able to do a video on it in the future? I always drive past it and awe inspired by its beauty, it must have such an incredible history!
Thank you so much for your work, your videos are very educational.
Really appreciate your analysis here, especially the rhetorical inversion of the anxieties that are reflected by Tartarian conspiracy theorists. However, I think that there is a crosscutting issue going on here. Specifically, fascism -- or at least the sort of tendencies that underlie it. Reading through their reddit spaces, Tartarians are aesthetically aligned with these instances of grand architecture -- partly *because* of the totalitarian aspects (both practical,a la Hausmann, but also aesthetic, a la expressions of power). I think your video does a great job of diagnosing the historical context that explains the negative impulse of the Tartarians ("they took this from us"), but it doesn't address why the positive complaint ("I want an architecture of power") comes about. 10/10 video. wonder what you think?
If any architect of our time could repeat something like this in plaster and on a smaller scale, he would be one of greatest men of our time, even though rain would immediately dissolve his structure
Interesting perspective.
There's so much click bait for architects and they all say they aren't interested in taking on any new projects and the city can not recommend or disclose common architects or builders so they don't collude or can't be found liable
Great explainer!
Are there photos or videos of the demolition of the Chicago World’s Fair? If so, they would have been interesting to include.
You just asked if there is “video” of this fair from 1893. 😂
@@VAULT-TEC_INC. There are short films from the late 19th century.
It's worth the effort to get details right. The correct name of the school in Paris is: École des Beaux-Arts [Beaux, not Baux]
That place in Chicago is where the infamous “O’Block” is located today
That beggining when you say great ancient civilization has build great utopian cities that vanished, and than showing Chicago worlds fair.. little bit sounds like Columbia from Bioshock Infinite(that ingame city was once part of this fair)
St. Louis repeated Chicago's world's fair experience with the exception that one building was designed to remain standing, and it is still there in the city's Forest Park. It's the Art Museum, designed by Cass Gilbert.
Also WUSTL Brookings Hall and the stands at Francis Field.
That Beaux Arts World Fair architecture is my all time favorite. But in St. Louis the Art museum was built to last and the Museum of S&I in Chicago too. A big difference from the rest built from staff. It's not that confusing. But I run into these Tartarians online all the time.
As 2024 will soon be history, I salute your achievements this year and your relentless efforts making this knowledge accessible to most, given they have some interest for it. And the graphics constantly get better and better! But nothing is perfect: you should know that it is the ‘École des Beaux-Arts’ (‘des’ for plural), and that in ‘arts’ both ‘t’ and ‘s’ are mute. I know this sounds picky, however I would have remained silent would the words ‘saucisse’, ‘étang’ or ‘ferraille’ had been misspelled or mispronounced.
Sometimes your ideological social lens distorts the essence...
this feels like the word soup version of the “rule of cool.” please elaborate, i can’t tell if this is a reference or something
@@worldisbetter The beauty of the "haussmannian" architecture in Paris does not depend on the fact that Napoleon could send his troups down the large boulevards to combat a potential local uprising. It is beside the point but, he could have done the same if the buildings were ugly.
@@drgyt2469 well said, thanks for elaborating
nice to see the cliche urbanist tale of neighborhood destruction being the result of something other than freeway construction.
So we just have to accept parking lots, strip malls, stick frame houses, monolithic glass box skyscrapers
No. Those are for bug men.
We will only accept greatness.
🐝🐜
If you wanted to make a video about the City Beautiful Movement then I think you should done that, instead of pretending to do a video on the disappearance of beautiful buildings.
The disappearance of beautiful buildings is a question that applies to outside of America too.
I don't think it's right that you could make a video that purports to be about the disappearance of beautiful buildings without talking about the Modernist and Brutalist movements in architecture and how the aesthetic sensibilites of architects changed. If you were going to actually look at the mystery of the title and not just use it to talk Architecture in American socio-political history then you might look at the example of the King's (then Prince of Wales') architectural project, Poundbury, as an example of different competing aesthetic sensibilites.
The real question - Where did Zach get that fantastic sweater?!?!?! (and great video again Stewart!)
Paid for by big Tartar to keep this cover-up going
Interesting fact Napoleon III got the idea for wide boulevards from Lords Street in Southport where he lived for a time. It is a very beautiful overlooked street.
Architecture is art and if we are forced to look at it, it should be beautiful art, or it could even be meaningful, but modern architecture is neither beautiful or meaningful.
I hate to think the movement to beautify public spaces is being sidelined as something only conspiracy theorists value.
Cities have planning and zoning committees, they represent the public interest, we can demand beautiful buildings in our cities.
The Gateway Arch National park is probably the worst consequence of the City Beautiful movement 😢
I'd think it might be a good idea to do more things like this, a way to show another kind of architecture, also a great video once again
Niggling spell-check for you: Baux Arts, if it means anything, means Cliff Arts. Beaux Arts is the one that means the beautiful stuff (subject to taste, of course).
The whole Expo thing is a chapter in itself - with some famous survivors (Eiffel Tower, Barcelona Pavilion, Brussels Atomium, Habitat 67, the Seattle Space Needle - no Roman pastiche any more). A story that roves from Queen Victoria and the Panama Canal to Walt Disney.
I have to say that french garden looks like an alien though, would love to see an artist's representation of it. People want beautiful architecture so much they are inventing giants. I know it's more expensive but there should be a trend at some point of building with local resources, whatever stone you have locally, or even dirt. So everywhere has a little of a distinctive, local look, thinking about the local climate to inform the design.
Thank god for this! I was following a bunch of Tartarian FB and Insta pages bc of the architecture photos. And then I'd read the captions / comments and go - WTF?? Lol. So I unfollowed them. But I also have always been interested in World Fairs and their architecture and I knew that a lot of our museums and aquariums, etc. came from those World Fairs (Were left over). I live in San Francisco - so the Palace of Fine Arts is my local example. But it was super informative to hear you explain the connection btwn Haussman, the World Columbia Exposition in Chicago, and then the expansion of that style into other American cities. It all makes so much sense now! So Thank You for doing this video :-)
My two favourite cities are Taipei and Tokyo. Despite architecture that is frequently ugly and uninspiring at best, what both cities have is a streetscape that is fun and enjoyable to live in and explore, filled with corners shaped by somebody's odd whimsy.
Contrast these with the grand monumental architecture put in place top down (say Astana in Kazakhstan, or Beijing), and you find yourself somewhere that certainly impresses and individual buildings that are often quite beautiful and sculptural, but also quite sterile and isolating.
The irony is that the latter are meticulously planned, while the former are infamous for their lack of planning.
American cities should aim to be more like Tokyo and less like Astana. Alas, we seem to only get the opposite.
Thanks Stewart, you do good work and you produce excellent material, BUT here I am going to push back on two points. I'll put them in two separate comments, that might help follow up counter-counter points
1) The Tartarian hypothesis
2) The renovation of Paris under Napoleon III and Haussmann.
So firstly the Tartarians.
Nobody believes in Tartaria, or at least if they do they believe it in the same way that Trekkies believe in The Starship Enterprise. It is a dream of a better and more beautiful world, for the Trekkies it's located in the mythic future, for the Tartarians in the mythic past.
Or if you can stand getting spooky, it is a dream from a parallel universe, one in which where we aren't all so crude and ugly, transmitted to us via the internet into our collective subconscious. The Tartarians are portrayed as giants because that is our belief or dream of ancient men as bigger, stronger and more noble, not as the modern men, fatter, weaker and dumber.
This is where things start to get political, modern liberal progressivism is motivated by the myth that "The arc of history bends towards justice". What ever is modern is further down the timeline of Justice (Truth, Beauty etc.) so what ever is older must be oppressive and reactionary.
Stewart, great explanation about the buildings of the Chicago World's Columbian Exposition. Is there an explanation, however, why the buildings for the California-Panama Exposition (1915-1917) still remain to this day and are now "Balboa Park?" Guessing the Tartarians lost interest in tearing those buildings down?
See "Paris, Capital of the 19th Century" and "Paris of the Second Empire in Baudelaire." ... Benjamin reveals the actual conspiracy.