Hi everyone! I’m still alive, and so are hopefully all of you. It was never my intention to go this long without posting. Life happened, and I needed to step back. I’m excited to be releasing a new video at last, and I’m eager to continue creating and sharing content with you.
I'm afraid everything in this went *way* over my head and I had no idea what you were talking about, yet the beautiful buildings you pointed out (and the ugly ones) I agreed with. While the philosophers make no sense, it's weird how people seem to be able to just call out "beautiful" or "ugly" at a glance with a seemingly high degree of agreement. That is interesting to me, and I'd love to know why that happens. It's like it's an intuitive response.
It's pretty simple to me to be honest, at least to start. A beautiful city is one with variety within a set of boundaries, and that emphasizes important buildings over the mundane. Lastly, local, more natural materials should be prioritized over materials such as concrete, metal and glass.
It may be missing points (I wouldn't know) but you broke down Kant much better than I could trying to get through those readings in architecture school haha
I love modern architecture. My dream is so have a small concrete house and then have my beautifully artistic partner paint on the blank walls. He loves the color pink and I love the color yellow. That blank slate has so much potential.
Really cool, that you mentioned @theaestheticcity I love his channel and although you can argue it's a concervative view, I think in this particular case, a bit of more down to earth approach is definitely healthy. Love the video and welcome back :)
Maybe I'm weird, but I actually quite like the design of most of the buildings you pointed out as ugly or hideous. I like IKEAs, that building in Oslo and I can't quite believe you called the Pompidou Centre "hideous". It's a design classic. I don't believe beauty is completely in the eye of the beholder, but there clearly is a certain amount of that. I kind of agree about your point near the end that there should be a generally harmonious "background" architecture, punctured by the occasional standout building. I think maybe we just differ on what is beautiful or ugly.
The problem is when the majority is forced to live with what they consider to be ugly buildings. Like someone with a boombox blasting out wrap music for everyone whether they like it or not. (while I appreciate wrap music as an artform I don't particularly like it)
Yeah not really anything wrong with that first building, uninspiring, yes, but the replacement was more or less the same and not worth the costs, particularly environmentally, of demolishment. I think these tastes vary through generations, what is classic to one generation who see a style being forgotten is old fashioned to the ones before who became accustomed to it as they grew up. Maybe someone will one day even feel nostalgic for brutalism.
Begynner å bli lei av at alt bilrelatert skal fjernes fra Oslo. Jeg begynner også å bli lei av disse anti modernistisk arkitektur kanalene, begynner å bli nok av dem nå.
I'd say the one crucial thing it lacks is a soul. Far too much belongs to the Blah House School. As to some of the organic structures. Most of which seem to be museums. I don't think they will age well.
You’re missing, or intentionally leaving out, the street quality of a building. Sure, a modern tall building is all too often meant to be seen in its entirety, hence the wasteful and anti sidewalk, pedestrian quality of urban plazas designed at the base of modern towers to cause them to stand apart. Many of the new buildings you show seem to be terrible at street level, IKEA most certainly (although newer urban IKEAs built into a downtown layout are quite positively urban). You need to show us how a building serves the sidewalk. Without this aspect the judgements and opinions you render are hollow
It would be swell if you and @the_aesthetic_city were the leading voices in urbanism. NJB, City Beautiful, et cetera - all great, but incredibly modernist, pragmatic takes that think people want to live somewhere because it's "walkable," with no concern for that you are walking IN A PLACE, participating in and with an environment.
Both sides are working towards a similar goal, more livable cities, NJB and similar others are advocating for retrofitting the modern city for more utilitarian aspects of livability and sustainability, like how people move around, noise, and heat Island effects. It's hard to appreciate beautiful buildings when they're behind a 12 lane urban freeway.
Hi everyone! I’m still alive, and so are hopefully all of you. It was never my intention to go this long without posting. Life happened, and I needed to step back. I’m excited to be releasing a new video at last, and I’m eager to continue creating and sharing content with you.
That's great!
I hope you are doing well.
you cannot imagine how much i missed your videos. hope to see more of them
Well said, I really liked the point about beauty being a sum of the parts. Some people find suburbs beautiful, some people find concrete beatiful
I am so so glad you're back to posting! We need more people talking about architecture!
I'm afraid everything in this went *way* over my head and I had no idea what you were talking about, yet the beautiful buildings you pointed out (and the ugly ones) I agreed with. While the philosophers make no sense, it's weird how people seem to be able to just call out "beautiful" or "ugly" at a glance with a seemingly high degree of agreement. That is interesting to me, and I'd love to know why that happens. It's like it's an intuitive response.
It's pretty simple to me to be honest, at least to start. A beautiful city is one with variety within a set of boundaries, and that emphasizes important buildings over the mundane. Lastly, local, more natural materials should be prioritized over materials such as concrete, metal and glass.
Welcome back, I really missed your videos!
Hope you've been well!
Holy shit he's back
this is a fantastic video that deserves way more views
It may be missing points (I wouldn't know) but you broke down Kant much better than I could trying to get through those readings in architecture school haha
Its been a year i thought the channel waa abandoned was a suprise to see this
Good video, glad to have you back
Wuhu! Endlich wieder ein neues Video. :)
godzamit your videos are criminally underrated, keep it up
I love modern architecture. My dream is so have a small concrete house and then have my beautifully artistic partner paint on the blank walls. He loves the color pink and I love the color yellow. That blank slate has so much potential.
how tf does that relate to the video
@@dusantravica6737 how tf can’t you mind your own business
you're back!! Your videos are always so high-quality, and this one is just as good!
Really cool, that you mentioned @theaestheticcity I love his channel and although you can argue it's a concervative view, I think in this particular case, a bit of more down to earth approach is definitely healthy.
Love the video and welcome back :)
Glad you're back!!
Another brilliant video, keep up the amazing work!
Hopefully some of these principles make their way into Australian planning and building practice
great video man! subscribed!
I did not except the "live action" parts 😂😂😂
Would totally live in "Oslo's ugliest building". I think it looks awesome
Thanks for a thoughtful video. So glad to see another video from you. Hoping you will post another very soon.
Sooo ein gutes Video, genau darum geht es eigentlich! Es ist vor allem das Zusammenspiel der Gebäude und nicht das individuelle Gebäude.
Nice to see you back
The "Quizduell" masks catched me offgoard ngl
watched all your videos, its time to make moreee
Actually a really good video
Very good video 👍🏻
love the building at 2:10
Beauty is Control
0:55 does anyone know what and where that building is?
Maybe I'm weird, but I actually quite like the design of most of the buildings you pointed out as ugly or hideous. I like IKEAs, that building in Oslo and I can't quite believe you called the Pompidou Centre "hideous". It's a design classic. I don't believe beauty is completely in the eye of the beholder, but there clearly is a certain amount of that. I kind of agree about your point near the end that there should be a generally harmonious "background" architecture, punctured by the occasional standout building. I think maybe we just differ on what is beautiful or ugly.
The problem is when the majority is forced to live with what they consider to be ugly buildings. Like someone with a boombox blasting out wrap music for everyone whether they like it or not. (while I appreciate wrap music as an artform I don't particularly like it)
Thank u
Art is desire manifest
Guess who is back, back again, he is back, tell a friend. Jokes aside i am happy that you are back again @thehausmann
Hello there!
no way he is alive still
Modern architecture is a curse
👋👍
👍
"The replacement is certainly preferable..." Completely subjective analysis.
Yeah not really anything wrong with that first building, uninspiring, yes, but the replacement was more or less the same and not worth the costs, particularly environmentally, of demolishment. I think these tastes vary through generations, what is classic to one generation who see a style being forgotten is old fashioned to the ones before who became accustomed to it as they grew up. Maybe someone will one day even feel nostalgic for brutalism.
11:34 lol
I like this more philosophical approach.
More more more
Modern architecture is fine and needs no change really
Begynner å bli lei av at alt bilrelatert skal fjernes fra Oslo. Jeg begynner også å bli lei av disse anti modernistisk arkitektur kanalene, begynner å bli nok av dem nå.
I'd say the one crucial thing it lacks is a soul. Far too much belongs to the Blah House School. As to some of the organic structures. Most of which seem to be museums. I don't think they will age well.
You’re missing, or intentionally leaving out, the street quality of a building. Sure, a modern tall building is all too often meant to be seen in its entirety, hence the wasteful and anti sidewalk, pedestrian quality of urban plazas designed at the base of modern towers to cause them to stand apart.
Many of the new buildings you show seem to be terrible at street level, IKEA most certainly (although newer urban IKEAs built into a downtown layout are quite positively urban).
You need to show us how a building serves the sidewalk. Without this aspect the judgements and opinions you render are hollow
It would be swell if you and @the_aesthetic_city were the leading voices in urbanism. NJB, City Beautiful, et cetera - all great, but incredibly modernist, pragmatic takes that think people want to live somewhere because it's "walkable," with no concern for that you are walking IN A PLACE, participating in and with an environment.
Both sides are working towards a similar goal, more livable cities, NJB and similar others are advocating for retrofitting the modern city for more utilitarian aspects of livability and sustainability, like how people move around, noise, and heat Island effects.
It's hard to appreciate beautiful buildings when they're behind a 12 lane urban freeway.