Why Architecture Today Lacks Character
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 лип 2024
- We’ve all commented on a building’s character before. An apartment might have it because of some special oak trim, or a building might not fit with the ‘character’ of its neighborhood. In this video, architectural designer and professor Stewart Hicks takes a close look at the meaning and origins of this elusive concept. Why do we use this word for both people and for buildings? Characters also occur in fiction, does that help explain how buildings tell stories? From the Enlightenment architects Ledoux, Boullée and Lequeu, to the Beetlejuice house, to contemporary practices exploring what it might mean for a building to have a face or a posture, we get to the bottom of why architects might consider architectural character to be a good idea.
__
FOLLOW me on instagram: @stewart_hicks & @designwithco
DESIGN WITH COMPANY: designwith.co
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Architecture: arch.uic.edu/
I asked my old boss on a large downtown construction site why modern buildings are emotionless blocks, while older buildings are full of character. He responded that in the past material was expensive, but labour was cheap. So you could afford the labour hours to work the material onsite to make it beautiful. Today labour is relatively expensive, and material is cheap. So you need to work it fast onsite without much compensation. Best explanation I've heard yet.
Also not many are craftsman today and also a lot of people choose the cheap modern design rather than a great quality but expensive design.
also the rich nowadays are incredibly selfish. Before they'd build beautiful buildings in town centres like libraries and hospitals, sanatoriums and schools, and they'd make them as beautiful as possible so to have a legacy in their own town which they were so proud of.
This doesn't happen anymore, they all bugger off to Sodom and Gomorrah , sorry I mean 'Dubai' where they build meaningless enormous phalluses which are only for the rich whilst literal slaves are building them.
Also national identity is an evil notion now, it's wrong to have pride in your country and its architecture
@@Drobium77 you're on to something here. However, as government has played a larger and larger role in the country every income level has increasingly absolved themselves of ownership of their personal contribution to society. There are exceptions, for example a public pool project I was working on for a small town had a $1m contribution from a local rich guy, but he was a right winger and passed away shortly after.
I think it's an important aspect of why architecture is the way it is today. But it's only an aspect, and not even the (main) reason. Rich catalogues of standardized designs and/or pre-made elements) have existed in civilizations for hundreds if not thousands of years. If the esthetic paradigm were different, and with today's technological possibilities, creating interesting, individual and beautiful buildings would be a cinch.
But for the most part, they're just not being made. It's a lot deeper than just labor costs.
And commercial uniform building codes almost the same nationwide
It would be nice for architecture to have ornamentation. Old buildings have interesting things to look at meanwhile modern they just are plain white walls or glass facade.
Have you never read Adolf Loos?! Ornamentation existed because it served a purpose. Modernists then denied that purpose because it became fashionable to anthropologically denigrate ornamentation as an appendage of 'primitivism'. Nobody challenged that. People like Frank Frank Lloyd Wright abstracing ornamentation did so through recourse to those cultures European sensibilities admired or accepted: Japanese, Mayan and Inca, despite animism underpinning the decorative traditions persisting in all folk and tribal cultures worldwide.
@@andersonarmstrong2650 Adolf Loos does not deserve the attention he is given. He was just a cynic with a loud opinion. The Modernist style he advocated is retrospectively problematic and, is the most widely disliked form of architecture and for good reason. Buildings with ornament have far more character than buildings without. Christopher Alexander, for example, has the most comprehensive account of how they add character, and why in fact, they should be considered essential to buildings.
@@The99Nabz "the modernist style he advocated was retrospectively problematic.." What on earth do you mean? Take me through the problems?
@@andersonarmstrong2650
1. As a result of Modernism's push for flat surfaces and big shapes, Le Corbusier's Cite de Refuge, for example, couldn't protect the building from the sun. There was no solar shading and the building was unbearable to exist in. He had to be taught the more 'primitive' technique of the 'brise-soleil' by the Brazilians because he thought he could do away with whatever he wanted for the sake of his aesthetic.
2. Coving and Wainscotting protected walls from cracking, etc. Modernism has no sense of foresight and long term thinking, hence many early examples didn't last.
3. The style was environmentally unsustainsable: Many of its examples are made up of uninsulated, thin concrete walls with massive single glazed windows. How were they kept liveable? Cheap fossil fuels powering numerous heaters and air conditioning units. Ironically, 'primitive' Architecture was effortlessly sustainable.
4. Etc.
5. Most importantly and most overlooked, as you just did: it is the most widely disliked form of architecture (hence the video this comment section belongs to). Why? Because it was designed not for people, but for machines, as per its mantra. As it turns out, most people prefer buildings that appeal to their humanity. Those people have to live in the buildings. Therefore, architects should design buildings for people.
Constrastingly, and on the topic of ornament, among the many ways that it appeals to our humanity, one is that it creates information at the human-scale. It is architecture of the near-view. Our view.
@@The99Nabz None of this is Loos! This is Corb! Corb was a narcissist. His ideas were nonsense.
Imagine if the only music available was made by people with at least a masters in music theory. It's obvious this would destroy the vitality of music in the world. This is what has happened to architecture. It was once learned through apprenticeships, world travel and experience. It's now taught in academic settings where careerist professors use students to promote their work and develop ever more self-referential fads - deconstructivism, phenomenology, biomimicry, etc. Return to the sensual and intuitive, and character will follow.
keen, i went to uni for arch but spent my life making music software. music no longer has character but neither do people. the word right there i prefer - referentialism. and i enjoy talking about, areferentialism.
"where roads are made, i lose my way" - tagore
I wouldn't argue that alone is the problem, although an certain "elite-professionalism" leads to this issue. It is rather the thought of function over design. Which is good, as things should be usable and not only nice to look at or they would be art. Art has it's place, but we can't just have art and nothing else. But now we have strayed to far away and see things too much in regards of function.
Everything which used to be designed to be beautiful as soon as people could afford it got plain. Clothes - plain T-Shirts, Hoodies and if you're lucky maybe even the brand is printed upon it. People go shopping in their tracksuit and, some people say, the Americans have gone so far as to go shopping in their pyjamas. Rather disgraceful really.
Cars - most Aerodynamic wins and cars look all the same. With exception of SUVs and Pick-Ups. But they aren't pleasant objects to look at and the latter is rather Agricultural and the former represents stereotypical masculinity. They look like power and the cars "faces" are designed very agressive looking. Add to this the look an wrong understandment of freedom and you are finished. But to some people this has an appeal but i doubt they will speak of beauty first when asked for the reasons of their decision to buy this vehicles.
Furniture: Soulles high-gloss plastic crap. Honestly, it looks straight out of hells design apartment to make people depressive and feel alieneated with the cheapest materials possible.
You can go on and on. The newest trend is to not advocate to have an free and "full" life but rather an long one (Covid isn't meant by this, to be clear. It is an exceptionell situation.). Same thing. Function, to be alive, is set above the other, not easily measurable part: happiness, feeling something and fulfillment (in lack of better, more precise words that will exist in english but which i do not know.)
This hurts so bad. Because so true. God damn school lol. Its funny I realize best ideas when on breaks from school
The obvious retort is that a poorly composed piece of music can't kill me, but a poorly designed building can.
Simplistic nonsense! The REAL reason Architecture lacks essential qualities defined as 'character' is many architects are unable to draw the spaces they conceive in three dimensions. Even with current visualisation software, the architect must place themselves inside spaces, not as the endpoint of a process, ie rendering; but as the design process. This requires exhaustive hand sketching describing the progression through spaces at eye level. Models only do this if they're large, but even then the architect only uses the model as a clue giving device to place the eye inside created spaces. The eye must then evaluate the visual dynamics of detailing, spatial dynamics, movement and spaces experienced by building user. 2D drawings are mere abstracted representations of 3D realities. Unless this process is rigorously embraced, the building appearance as designed, will be hit and miss.
The built environment is intrinsically linked to our economic system. So we can theorise as much as we want about what character is and how to bring it back, but at the end of the day when developers pumping out cheap new builds trumps the careful designs of architects, character will stay gone. I do appreciate your insight though, and I will be adding the people you mentioned to my ever growing reading list 😅
+1
In the past people build houses with more character much more.
Its not entirely about money.
I wouldn’t be nearly so displeased if cheap new housing was being pumped out at a sufficient rate. Homelessness, after all, is uglier than most any architecture. Right now corporations seem more focused on buying up what property is available and lobbying for restrictive zoning laws to drive up the price of existing property
But weren’t the early skyscrapers in the 1890s to the 1940s pretty good looking? I’m sure that they considered expenses as well. So maybe ease of building isn’t the case with today’s architecture.
Some of the old water and sewage pumping stations in my area had a neo-gothic(I think) look to them. I suppose they were seen as a thing of pride once which was probably why they made the effort to make them so ornate instead of plain square buildings. You can also find examples at the Henry Ford museum of machinery with ornate castings for parts. I think it's probably correct that such extra details lost out to reasons of economy. Or people just got tired of all the spikey twirly bits poking out.
Nice video. I design buildings for video games and giving them character is so important. Selecting and recomposing the right elements is what it's all about.
Do you work on gta6? I know you do
Im the same with fallout 4 lol. I hate to just make 4 walls and a roof without giving thought to form, function or comfortability. I find videos like this give my creative mind something to chew on while i ponder architectural design in the post nuclear wasteland.
@@johntaylor9776 True it makes thing believable on a subconscious level. Players can feel that. For a post apocalyptic wasteland you must also admire a nice stain, paint splatter or the beauty of cracking concrete haha
@@frankfris3513 for me its form and function redefined. I like to imagine a world where people are forced to look at reconstruction of society as just that, a reconstruction. They have existing layouts of ancient architecture, but its more natural in my mind of how i imagine theyd perceive it. Alot of modernism and brutalism with the forced 2x4 or 4x4 layouts. Houses built through and around preexisting rubbled structures. Dirt and grime piled in corners to allude to a life butrowed out into the wasteland. For me dystopia meets heterotopia in forced functional environment.
Man... I'd love to see what buildings you can make with the building materials provided on conan exiles 👌🍻
This captures some of my quips with current day architecture but not all. A lot of it is utterly soulless in my eyes, even the 'depressing' brutalist architecture has character, albeit not one that's often looked at favourably, the cheap copy-pasted tiramisu blocks (as I like to call them) or glass towers are completely detached spaces from our environment.
The worst part comes when they replace local heritage - erasing and masking history, character, destroying aesthetics and the nearby environment. In the middle of the most lively areas, you get these 'empty' spaces that seemingly don't even look like they're made for humans.
There's a plague of people trying to liken any budding urban area to look like the most 'successful' global giants to attract investors and, in general, be more like them, vainly trying to imitate prestige while destroying what the city actually has. This might be a different case in USA but it still is at the heart of this issue, even if in its own style.
Of course, an argument can be made that because we're living through it it feels so poignant and that bad architecture is just bad architecture, but there is still something to be said about how in the end it's mostly about money, whether materials, design or permits; overall consumerist economy and its values which are held by the ones shaping our world against us. It is almost astonishing how we manage to build and yet not create but destroy in the process leaving ourselves with wasteland far too costly in the name of profit for the very few.
Totally agree! Architectural gimmickery to cover for a complete lack of any design process; or lack of faith in any design process whatsoever. Taking any architectural publication it is easy to strip away the additions designed to 'add character', to what was potentially an interesting design solution. Mies addressed this thoroughly when he said: "We refuse to recognise problems of form, only problems of building. Form is not the aim of our work, but only the result.." In previous ages there were fewer means leading to greater consensus. The basic, industrial buildings from the past are deemed most adaptable and amenable now. Modernism has brought with it an embarrassment of riches disguising a poverty of means.
I strongly agree especially at the cost of local, or worse, native/indigenous culture and identity. I'M not American but in a developing country, this is an abhorrent problem here.
Brutalism absolutely does have some character to it.
Word.
Modern architecture describes or is born from Modern Culture. That’s it, it’s like movies, nowadays they’re just corporate propaganda, nowadays they resemble more to a McDonalds than to a good local Sicilian restaurant. Well, the same happens with architecture and everything that is affected by our culture
I'm a chemist who likes working in AutoCAD. Recently I projected an industry entirely in hexagons, that was beautiful, but was not funded. One day, these designs will be found and either my geniality or absolut arrogance will be revealed. Woderful video profesor.
Thanks for sharing!
check out the work of Walter Netsch and his field theory
My first grounding in spatial design was from the polygonal paper my father brought back from his ICS welding correspondence course. I couldn't get enough of those equilateral triangles that immediately suggested three dimensional representation. Later I got into organic chemistry because of my fascination with bond angles. I never studied hard but passed exams because I could visualise the way atoms connected. When I left school my first job was as a Lab Analyst. However, Architecture was what I wanted to do so I left and studied. Throughout my degree and Masters, lecturers never were able to put their finger on what gave a design force, presence and expressive clarity. No disrespect to this narrator, but spatial visualisation is a poorly understood discipline. Your embrace of this through chemistry at molecular level is to be applauded.
the hexagon is a strong figure.. and also found in nature, bees use it... the strongest materials have their atoms aligned in a hexagonal prism if i'm not mistaken, like titanium.. the atoms inside a diamond probably has the same shape too.. applying heat and pressure to carbon aligns the atoms in a hexagonal pattern which is why carbon fiber and carbon ceramic are strong
@@andersonarmstrong2650 I'm not any of you guys but because of this, I really strongly believe there should be a big collaboration between different fields of study to create something and solve an issue one field is having a problem but is something that another answers with a different perspective. This is exciting and hope that we see hexagons and triangles in architecture soon.
I feel like I have to point out that even a lot of those classical designs were absolutely awful, and their monolithic scale is the thing that saves them. That water building looked like it was built out of children's building blocks. I understand that architects have their own culture of nods and Easter eggs and references but the rest of us don't live in that world, and have to walk past countless awful concrete grey cubes (or if we're lucky, awful piles of random shapes) on our way to work, triggering an unpleasant part of the brain each and every day until we vehemently hate these stale, unintricate, ungilded blocks, rectangles and triangles. I can't believe how architects look back at the architecture of Paris with admiration, and then immediately begin work on horrible projects that this city is a refuge from.
I know, I know, subjective, subjective, just my opinion, life is relative, love is just chemicals in your brain, get back in your box, etc, etc. All I'm saying is that the universal hatred of modern architecture is probably a reason for architects to stop pushing the medium to impress each other and make something that's actually nice for everyone to look at for once
Mood
Im in the first year of architecture school and I already see this kind of thing, totally agree with you
If the hatred for modern architecture is so universal, then I wouldn't exactly call it subjective.
Postmodern Architecture is the worst type of this referential design, it is full of elements that were used in earlier works, but with none of the material and detail qualities that made those elements pleasant to look at, and often without the function that brought those elements into existence, at times even deliberately showing that the elements don"t work as they are used.
It is as if the style had been entirely created by grumpy teenagers:
"you wanted columns and a gable, here you bloody have them, but the columns are crappy steel tubes, and the gable doesn"t even have a roof on it, have i proven my point enough that those things don't make the building any better?"
I 100% agree!
When I studied architecture in the 90ties in Cologne, I allways wonder why my professors loved Le Cobusier and his work. It was just brutal without a heart. I loved to watch the great "Kölner Dom" instead.
Le Corbusier had some brilliant designs. Issue is, when you try to make a knock-off of his work, as so many did, it gets super disgusting.
You are absolutely right! Analysing Corb, his work is classical 'good in theory, shit in practice'. His sketches are single-point perspective in the main, taking a planning focal point but not examining the experience of movement through his spaces. Gothic architecture such as Köln Cathedral are breathtaking because the architecture arose from a known, workable formula aiming at experiential revelation through built form. The detailing and improvisations around this formula, added life to what was always intended to convey a sense of what was intangible..the realm of the soul and its elevation before the Divine. W.R Lethaby (Architecture Mysticism & Myth), and Ruskin, Seven Lamps, Stones of Venice etc, address this representation of the inanimate absolute through design allegory. Corbusier short-circuited this representational transformation into modernism by trying to have it both ways: Being European, his fixation with technology led him into an empirical dead-end only partially redeemed through his art work. His architectural work only navigated this divide late in his career.
@@tylerkochman1007 Honestly, I find his work quite ugly. Its horrendous and uncomfortable.
*chuckles*
“Ninetiesties”
I never got the hype around Le Corbusier. Mies van der Rohe I at least see why he’s symptomatic of the development at the time, but Le Corbusier?? I just don’t get it
"What gives buildings character?"
Usually everything and anything that's there on top/besides of the utility and usability considerations. (In the context of architecture)
"Character" is a feature denomination. Not a value statement. "Character" is "this thing has something extra about it besides the required minimum for it to fulfill its utility as best as it can". The value judgement is in whether someone considers a character of a specific thing to be good/bad.
Look at any of the architecture in rural England and you will see so much character and soul that is devoid in modern architecture. Old architecture took it's surroundings into consideration, using the materials found in that area such as wood, slate or granite, and built in a way that blends with its environment by focussing on colour, landscaping and the foliage around it. Modern architects are more concerned with shapes, form and impressing each other than they are designing places that people can live or will want to look at on a daily basis. No one sees a 16th century cottage in England and says "that's ugly".
U said everything
And that's why historical buildings, even in the early to mid 20th century,are so fascinating especially vernacular buildings like homes or businesses back then. You feel their purpose and looks so lived in.
I live in an early 15th century half-timbered cottage in the English countryside (Suffolk), and absolutely agree with you!
That or because they are the result of generations upon generations of iterative improvements and repairs, making the ugly or dysfunctional disappear over time. Today entire blocks are built at one fell swoop by people who won't live in them, and we expect most of the buildings to rot, decay and be demolished in less than a century.
How many stone masons do you know? How many neighborhood developers plan to construct their new neighborhoods using stone masonry? I just think that a new neighborhood built with stone masonry would have a character score of one billion.
I understood a part of character to just be honesty and craftsmanship. Visibility of technique and purpose. Compare a fire stove with floor heating. Or a plastered wall with brick/sandstone. Or a flat ceiling with an arch or beams. Or timber framing. You recognize the purpose of the object and use it as an aesthetic device, not hide it or fake it. And perhaps the visibly handmade nature of something also makes it have character. I suppose you could design the most quirky building, it will not be comparable if you build it once with drywall and once from sandstone. Material matters, and I am not sure that it is merely a matter of traditionalism and conservatism that we perceive some materials as more valuable than others. There has to be more to it.
Isn't that what John Ruskin was writing about back in the day? I learned a lot from watching this video. I thought John Ruskin and the honesty of materials and craftsmanship found in stone masonry buildings would have been some good information too.
"Material matters, and I am not sure that it is merely a matter of traditionalism and conservatism that we perceive some materials as more valuable than others"
Looking at interior design in the past centuries there is something to be noted - synthetic materials go in and out of style; natural materials don't.
As much as we find new ways to build and new materials to build with, there is (and probably will be) a need for what is "natural", what is "familiar", "expected". And by this I mean a need for nature. Nature surrounds us, we are part of it. Monumental buildings made of stone remind us of mountains. Wood furniture and furnishings in homes remind us of forests. Organic, irregular shapes, filled with details are everywhere, from clouds, to sea waves, to the branches of a tree.
So, rather than a consequence of traditionalism or conservatism, the general approval of the visibility of natural materials in architecture, as far as I see, is a consequence of being human - of being an animal that lives on earth.
Your introduction reminds me of when I was telling my girlfriend that I liked cars with character, and her response was that as far as she could tell from my car preferences, "character" was another way of saying "there are things wrong with it".
As a(n apparently fellow) car enthusiast, I can say that the answer is "yes and no". On one hand, it's no fun to have a daily driver that constantly worries you about whether you'll get to work. Beyond that, though, car are another area where it's well past time to admit that "wrong" from a systems/control perspective is very often "right" from a human perspective, and vice versa.
A perfect example of this is the 1.4, 1.6, and 2.0 liter turbo inline fours that are slowly taking over every market segment. Those exact displacements pervade because at some point someone figured out they were the best for emissions-efficiency, even figured out the exact best bore and stroke for emissions. I've got one of these engines in my car and I can't deny it's a marvel - any 1600cc engine that can spin the front tires without clutch dumping, and still get over 30 MPG with me driving it, is. With modern turbocharging technology, there isn't even any lag - just stand on the gas and feel the power. But it just feels wrong somehow. Normally, I like cars with loud exhausts, but I feel like these modern eco-turbo I4s should be kept as quiet as possible, because they go from boring to annoying as soon you cut the muffler off. A turbo you can barely hear, responding like a supercharger, is missing what made turbos exciting in the first place. Front ends become lager and more bulbous in the name of pedestrian safety, crossovers and hatchbacks replace coupes and sedans for maximum space efficiency, and the remaining notchbacks adopt the profile of a Prius to optimize aerodynamics; the simple visual appeal that came so easily to older cars disappears in the process.
The car hobby itself exists because of an older world where, if you picked the right time and place, you'd find traffic laws enforced laxly if there was anyone around to enforce them at all - not the current world where California seizes cars for street racing and Japan considers street drifters to be on the same level of criminality as Yakuza mobsters.
All head, no heart, is how you get the world we have today, and it sucks. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to get anyone to fight back, because nearly everyone has Sacred Cow'd some part of Beige World.
Houses in movies. There's a topic. How many sci fi movies use FLW buildings or his style for sets?
Which Wright buildings would you use to illustrate these 3 character types?
The documentary 'LA Plays Itself' is essential viewing in this regard.
A house that essentially copied FLW’s Wingspread was shown in an anime, a recent-ish Gundam show to be specific.
Additionally, there was a house said to be “Frank Lloyd Wright” inspired in JoJo’s Bizarre Adventures.
@@vidcas1711 don't forget Fallingwater in Psycho pass
HOUSES IN MOVIES (here are my nominations)
1) Elrod House by John Lautner (Diamonds are forever -Sean Connery aka James Bond)
2) house in the movie 'UPGRADE' (2018 cyberpunk action film,)
3) house in the movie 'PARASITE' (2019 comedy thriller film, the house is quite famous it is replicated in games like roblox and minecraft)
4) Ben Rose House from the 80's movie 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off'
I feel the same with the way Victorian houses are used in horror and Brutalist buildings in dystopian fiction. Recently there was a reverse of it (?) where a Brutalist like place is used in a supernatural fiction while a Victorian building was used for a mystery film and sometimes sci-fi. And their design still made sense.
I'm a 14 year old who had the sudden dream go build houses last night. So happy to find this channel! It's a well researched analysis 👌
Well, kiddo, hope ya achieve your dream, if it's not already been suggested try Minecraft, it may satiate your desire to build.
I'm an international student and have been struggling with those ideas of architecture history. I did not get how did they get into those ideas even try to rewatch lecture videos several times. But this video totally gives me a sense of architecture history. Thank you so much for your video and I'm going to send this to my friends.
I feel like part of the problem is people keep trying to change nature to fit their vision, instead of changing their vision to fit nature.
Because nature is shitty? Sometimes visually appealing for various reasons...but its designs are pure shit.
@@DoremiFasolatido1979
Your point being?, People have died because of bad layout, Destruction has ensued because people slap on the same design on hill and shore, resources are wasted because of bad sun exposure, so tell me, why?, Why shouldn't we make cities that fit the place they're in?
@@vicenteisaaclopezvaldez2450 because some natural environments are unsuitable for building unless terraformed or using unique architecture.
@@DoremiFasolatido1979 nature is only "shitty" is you fail to see its beauty and intricacies.
@@DoremiFasolatido1979 you’re a democrat aren’t you
It’s my first time seeing this guy and I subscribed 5 seconds in because:
1. I’m building my own house soon
2. I’m interested in architecture in general
3. I like his mustache
As an architectural student, this character thing is something very hard to express, because it's intangible. What's also hard is to relate it to the programs, systems, and functions.
.
My professor encourage us to look outside architecture; like philosophy, history, art, politics, etc.
And as a student *it is not too late to switch the profession* for something more rewarding and lucrative.
Go to tech!
If you like design go to UX/UI
If you like systems and wouldn't mind rich life go to full stack development.
Architecture is forsaken discipline.
Too much work for too little money.
@@McRyach I do mind rich life 😌
I quit architecture school after my first year. Most architects I found nauseating. I grew to believe that architecture should be built from a foundation of building craftsmanship upwards. Design is extremely important, but its character is informed by craftsmanship. This level of character is absent in architecture education. Same problem is in our society at large: B. S. artists are rewarded while craftsmen toil. Stone masonry guilds built most of the places everybody understands to have character.
@@steveyv963 agree, to build a 'spirit of place', architect needs to take local attributes which one of them is local craftsmanship. I'm privileged to live in tropical archipelago with lots of craftsmanship and lots of them are beneficial design tools such as ornamental sun shading, porous wall for thermal comfort, and intricate wood interlocks. Looking inside of architecture honestly is boring, but being architect looking outside is interesting!
@@matthewbarry376 I went by the definiton of 'intangibles is an abstract quality' or 'an asset that is not corporeal', hence I conclude the concept of character itself isn't corporeal. But, I could be wrong.
Like other intangible things, character is affected by its physical attributes, such as material, location, history, and many else. So, I agree that humans do identify characters in buildings. In Kevin Lynch's "Image of The CIty", he identify the element of a city that construct such collective images in its people.
I love that you are able to clearly articulate these architecture ideas
When I think of character I think of the work of Frank Lloyd Wright that attempts to take on the character of the surrounding landscape, gothic cathedrals that intimate toward God, or Elizabethan houses that evoke a very specific era. The examples you showed could all be set pieces in a movie based on a novel by H. G. Wells, i.e. museums or mausoleums of science attempting to exact some sense of nameless awe from their audiences.
I was going to take a job with a company just because their offices were in a building that once housed an old sugar mill; lots of exposed brick and beautifully stressed wooden beams. However, they relocated to another city before the interview process was completed. Even if I were an astronomer, I think it would wear on me to approach the cenotaph day after day.
Beauty cannot be argued, for their impact emerges from within whether you like it or not.
Wrong
I can’t believe how relaxing and informative that was.
Architectural schools are the factories of character-less buildings. The analogy is contemporary music, for something to sound cool it had to sound awful first. People love melodies and character in buildings.
Really interesting and good video ; the little facts and shinfo/info dumps make the video so interesting and break it up a little. these glimpes into people form the 16th 17th century creating stuff we never even knew of - or that I never learnt in architecture uni courses - make it so fascinating and the correlation between inventiveness and unique conceptualisation of design back then is amazing and super inspiring.
11/10 would watch again
It was great to hear you discuss the work of Bureau Spectacular! I love the concept of buildings as characters which have their own personalities, dispositions, and roles in a story. I find the medium of comic book as a form of architectural representation to be really intriguing, every student of architecture should really look into their work! Thanks for the great video!
I am designing a building for an upcoming videogame and I think that fiction has a way to influence the world and vice-versa that it's absolutelly worth pointing out and examine in depth.
Very interesting topic, especially when you mention architecture that lives in comics. It's very relevant to how nowadays some interactive digital media seems to blur with spatial design, especially in games such as Minecraft, Decentraland, VR chat, etc. Inside that digital metaverse, buildings serve a slightly different purpose and constraint. Not as a built environment made for living, but made for purely ideological expression with almost little to no constraint financially, physically, and spatially.
Love the dry, subtle humour you have included amongst all the densely packed content.
Thanks! I hope to learn how to de-densify things overall a bit. Love the overall tone and pace of your videos.
Yeah was just throw in gags, stupid outtakes or funny movie overlays to give the audience some breathing space.
Like "Im fascinated by this idea that buildings have stories."? xD
I am glad to see you brought up this topic! I did research in Modern Architecture the past 3 years and "Character" was always an important notion. It splits Le Corbusier from Mies, and it is important among the architects of Brazilian Modern Architecture first generation (Niemeyer, Costa, Reidy, etc). I hope you guys do well on your research!
Very informative. Great work Stewart. I will always appreciate your time and effort.
Top subject for a matter that we often use but it never crossed our mind to talk about it deeper. You just made us think how we differently perceive the word character for houses and people.
In western Europe (based on our experience only) the word character refers as to something that is cheerful, happy, funny, intriguing and suiting in subtle manner while in south-eastern Europe it often means as having strong personality, resistance to vices and durable. Btw just looked into the trailer "beetlejuice" and have no idea how have missed that one - thanks!
Watched this video four times in a row. Empirical aesthetics and anything at the cross section of science and art is immensely interesting! The word "character" in its modern real estate sales form seems to be recurring in other design related areas, taking the place of that nebulous aesthetic appeal which is uncategorized or undefined, a genre without clear definition. More often than not, even those characteristics that can be nailed down are relative in terms of culture, or even temporality. I come into contact with this discussion often in something that can be likened to art versus product design. You mention that the terminology was useless in its application, and this is something that I have to force myself to remember when designing products again and again. At some point it becomes more academia than applicable theory, but one never wants to say to oneself or the customer that something is done just because.
Learned alot of stuff. Hope you keep making interesting content like this and the unbuilt series :)
The word "character" is quite useful since it gets a conversation going across the widest spectrum possible, with an opening onto many subsets, discoveries, branchings and sub-branchings. It is like the words "image" or "color" that starts at the top, and is so high up people at every level can see it and begin thinking about it, dividing and playing with it to figure out the rhythms of its planck-y, deep heart..in me 'umble opinion, that 'tis. ;-7
The word "façade" doesnt quite translate to face. The french word for human face is "visage"
"Face" can have the meaning of face in French and "façade" derives from it. In French you can say "sauver la face" which literary means to "save face", and "pile ou face" to say "heads or tails"
Perhaps, and yet again, best to leave the French out of it! Their contradictory impulses are never helpful 🙂 (Smiley Façade)
honestly I feel like I have been waiting forever for a UA-cam channel like this
Not that I have any background in architecture but as someone who is in the early stages of planning to build a house, I wondered about how give a building character while remaining committed to a budget. Or rather, our largest budget motivation is building a passive home. I've looked at other examples and I can't say I'm especially thrilled with the results.
1. Use natural materials.
2. Dont hide scars of the buildinh
3. Be proportional, symetric.
4. Add esthetic default like a rock a bit biased, or wall-plants growing on the wall...
To me, an architect, that "character/detail/ornamentation" people want, is for those who can either afford it, or personally work on it.
We can get "character" in modern/contemporary architecture, but given how copy pasted this style is, the design must be truly creative to have character. At times, this makes the construction costly.
Whereas some people prefer to have all that character indoors, and go for a simpler facade, since building with characters can also mean you want the world to know you have the money to spend on that.
It's all very personal for houses. For public buildings, it all varies.
im so glad I found this channel!! such good converstation
Very interesting again. Especially the variety of those French architects. It's hard to get away from the estate agent trope "character = flawed in some way". In the East certain shapes like holes in buildings and Torii add a spiritual dimension to a building. Can buildings feel spiritual?
Written language encounters its limits when defining things which a culture does its best to deny, hence the euphemism you mention gains a negative connotation, because the word character is being used to allude to something a culture has either lost sight of, or has denied due to conscious shifts, ie from mystery school to empirically based 'science'. An Egyptian architect would not understand the word 'character' as it is used now, but he or she would identify circumstances where it was present as arising from appeasement of a deity or an stellar alignment necessitating an otherwise inexplicable axial or oriented shift's transformational effect 'lending character' to an architectural form.
This and the comments in the video had made thought about my decision to study architecture, and made me realize that it just sometime i apreciate and enjoy learning and admiring but not something i want to get invested and work to, so maybe this its just my flag to change my career path and pursue something else.
can't believe that I'm watching this for free !!
Honestly got kind of hype for the geometric brutalist designs like for the water observation thing. Thanks a million for some 3d/blender inspiration, Mr. Flanders!
This video reminded me to look up Friedensreich Hundertwasser, and his collaboration with architects to build buildings that are whimsical, but also practical in terms of combing living, communal and green space all in one structure
I live in an old house that has been remodeled many time but it still has more character then newer houses. Many of the walls aren't straight, a stair case so narrow they installed a door on the second floor. It was stripped of the complexity that older houses have which I think exposed all the goofiness that older houses have.
This helped me in my History of Design Thinking course :) Thank you!
I found the best architecture videos on UA-cam. Thanks!
Great content and amazing delivery! thank you!
I don't really prefer using or hearing the term "character" or "soul" for anything, especially music, because many people who use it don't know what they're describing. But you are an exception!
What a lot of places feel like is "this is cheap and it looks ok." so it's mass produced, and we get used to seeing it. Most buildings and insides have been recognized and have set pattern such as "this is what a kitchen/dining/bath/living room is" so it's the same building blocks always smushed together in different ways within a square or rectangular base. Only specialized, custom, or expensive buildings seem to have any deviation from the norm.
5:32] An expanded list of 'character traits' might include valuing the degree to which architecture asserts itself into to immediate environment. I remember Charles Moore mentioning in a lecture that one of the primary decisions to be made in a design conception is whether a building should step forward or stand back in relation to its surroundings, particularly in an urban context, the examples he gave being some of the works of Louis Kahn particularly noting how Kahn's Yale Center for British Art being a decision to step back into the built environment.
i felt compelled to take notes during this….. thank you for making this for free
That algorithm hittin, Hicks. I have never seen a building video and now I need to binge this content 😂
Glad you like it and that the algorithm is working!!
Recently I discovered your channel, what a find!
Boullée is awesome, all of his designs have a "character of grandeur" element you can say, the most awe inspiring of which is the one shown at 6:11 his "Basilique", that drawing is just the entryway to the grand massive dome at the center.... I feel that the closest we got to something resembling the scale and ambition of his designs in real life (apart from the Giza pyramids) were the original World Trade Center towers- two towering monoliths that dominated the skyline, they imbued for more of this character than the new One World Trade center tower does.
Boullée's designs may have been too ludicrous and impossible to ever realistically build but they are some of my favorite precisely for the sheer scale of the mans ambition and imagination, as one of the finest examples of imaginary architecture with many of Hugh Ferris' designs a close second.
I love them too!
You have turned me onto a new architect, thank you.
This right here is the comment I was searching for. Very well said. Really wanted to know the name of the architect and drawing thank you
The decorative arts are to bringing back character.
Love your videos man! Don’t stop
It's pretty much happening to everything today which lacks character. Music, fashion, arts, fictions, movies...
As an millennial architecture grad student. This is gold!
As a borderline Gen Xer/Millenial, I'm glad you like it!!
@@stewarthicks I wish we had youtube back in 2003, your video would've made my professors obsolete.
Make something cool
An architectural Vsauce was deeply needed. Awesome content!
This channel is pure gold
Really awesome video! I will share it with my colleagues.
You’re very underated. Hope your channel gets big soon!
I hope so too!
I learned a lot from watching this video. How about the idea of the character of effort and craftsmanship? I think character disappeared from architecture because craftsmanship is not economical.
took me a while to understand this whole video wheew. great video! can we get more vids on automobiles as well?
This is interesting---I was just now watching a video about Crazy Sergei's apartment in Russia==and then your video popped up showing his room from the video. I am suscribed to both of your channels. My 1928 house in suburban St. Louis could be described as a character house. Real estate salespersons locally call its style "Tudor-Bavarian". It's brick with shed dormers on 2 sides, and has ornamental limestone pieces substituting for some of the bricks.
I’m so used to sponsors that my mind filled in an entire Casper commercial the second he said memory foam.
your videos make me wanna find something to use to design a building or few :)
Jimenez Lai's "Citizens of No Place: An Architectural Graphic Novel" is a book I would recommend to anyone, especially those who are even the tiniest bit interested in architecture.
Underrated video. Great job !
Fascinating Video, thanks for making it! :)
Fantastic video. Thank you!
what a fascinating video!!! Im glad i found this by accident haha :)
By analysing vernacular archictture in dialogue with its geography, Christopher Alexander analysed and articulated the scale and psychological features which make human beings feel comfortable and secure in buildings and communities/ towns (buildings in dialogue with each other) . What a sane man.
Thank you, I'm learning so much from your vids!
Essential, Distinctive, Relative. Thank you.
Another insightful video, thank you.
I just came here from a Wendover Productions video about how buildings in America all look the same for economic and social reasons. This is an interesting counterpoint in that context.
Thank you so much!
In my town you get super high walls n a staircase with freaking statues for lights on the handrail. Old buildings, Jugendstil. Wealthy folks here seem to love old industrial buildings and old military stuff, airplane halls etc. Don't know if much character is left after it's converted from a lost place to lost to the public eye.
Venturis Complexity & Contradiction and Learning from Las Vegas are the best books on this subject, I think
You deserve my subscription (legend)
Louis Kahn makes a fantastic job on re thinking old architecture to make something more corresponding of this times
You are absolutely lost. He is a prime example of what is wrong with todays architecture. His buildings are revolting and inhuman, and I would not hesitate an instant to tear them down.
All those theories were made for societies of roles, hereditarly.
I love it personnaly. 😌
interesting video on a topic I would never otherwise look into haha
Fascinating!
thank you for the great video sir
Sorry haven't got anything intellectually challenging to add, just wanted to compliment you on your language... I love your lexicon! You've got this machine gun, matter of fact, take no prisoners - talk. First time heard it was half listening, UA-cam playing in the background, my brain clicked "That's got to be a music critic video by another supercilious reporter from Rolling Stone," but made sure to note it! When looked it up in History, KABAAM. Tho you look like a supercilious MC from Rolling Stone (just kidding) was pleasantly surprised to discover you talking about my favorite topic in a way that compounded my fascination with architecture. What's really strange is I understand everything your saying. So keep doing what you're doing cuz I love every one of your videos, have seen multiples several times enjoying every aspect.
I just found your channel a couple days ago. I love it!! You are such an archigeek!! But even though you know all of the archispeak, you aren't in love with it so much that you forget that nobody other than architects use this language.
To me, character is something or somebody that's unique. Bring a unique view of materials, form etc... it needs to reflect the individuality of the architect and client. Just don't do the easy thing and copy stuff that's been done before. I'm a cameraman in the film industry so interiors are one big movie set for me to light. And there's so many interiors I'd "re light", re locate windows on the set.... sorry, building. Luckily, we can move the 18k outside the set... that's our sun. Too bad you can't do that in real life.
Those glasses, moustache, and black t-shirt are… iconic. Good choices.
Great topic and great content! You know at 10:34 I have that same book signed by Jimenez Lai.
It's a classic!
I paused so many times. Where or in what does Boffrand talk about Genre? Are there other good readings, etc. on genre? These videos are awesome!
I'm glad you enjoy them! Maybe Livre d'architecture? I got my info second hand from Adrian Forty in 'Words and Buildings.'
What people generally mean by character is that it has elements or traces of beauty left over from a time before the rejection of beauty, the exaltation of ugliness, and before architecture-as-social-engineering by pompous, navel-gazing, pseudo-intellectuals became the mainstream. Character means exactly what anyone that isn't conditioned to think other wise would assume: that it is lively, beautiful, perhaps unique. This usually means that it avoids the post-war psychodrama and vapidity of modernism, and the inane sophistry of the neo-religious post-modernism.
Good video Stewart! I just subscribed. I'm an automotive editor for work and would love to see you do a video on architecture and mobility, maybe a few videos haha. What is your take/approach on personal road vehicles? Do you ever have to account for transportation features or limitations?
Thank you so much for reaching out! I love cars. I read and watch absolutely everything car related. Of course including jalopnik. I'd love to do more content related to architecture and cars. I did one very early on, but its a little superficial. I think it was my third video and I was experimenting with format/delivery, etc....
@@stewarthicks If you ever have story pitches, or potential ideas for the Jalopnik channel, we have worked with creators in a freelance capacity in the past on both articles and videos! Feel free to hit up tips@jalopnik.com if you want anytime. Otherwise I like the channel, so I'll keep an eye out for your stuff.
I feel like this is less of a philosophical issue and more of a practical one. Buildings that have character are typically buildings that were designed to have one use/one owner in perpetuity. Like, it's easy to find even a contemporary public library that has character. That library is likely going to be a public library as long as it's a building. They can do something really bold with the design because it doesn't really have to appeal to potential buyers down the line. Commercial space? Not so much. The space needs to appeal to a wide variety of tenants. Homes don't have character anymore because fewer and fewer people buy homes as lifetime investments. They expect to stay for awhile, but eventually move on. That limits how much you can really personalize a space. "Character" to one person is "an eyesore" to another.
“Character” sounds like the architectural equivalent of the term “personality” when you talk about a person. It’s so broad because it’s a descriptor of the way a building fits into different contexts and the way it interacts with the things around it. An aggressive personality is one which seeks out or creates conflict, a friendly personality is one which takes pleasure in social situations, and so on.
In this way a building lacking character can be understood in the same way as a person lacking a personality - they fail to interact, fail to respond to the situation they’re in, they have nothing to say for themselves, and they have nothing the seek or want out of a situation. A building with character has purpose and it’s own ways of achieving that purpose- a large dining room and tiny kitchen for accommodating many guests at a dinner created by only one or two people has very different character than a dining room with no wall between it and the kitchen, wherein friends and family can share in the cooking, the cleaning, the serving, and the enjoying of a meal as equals.
A building that “lacks character” would be one that doesn’t distinguish itself from its context or use it’s design to fulfill a purpose. The kitchenette from a small hotel room comes to mind - there is no stove, usually no sink, and maybe only a small fridge and a coffeemaker. A hotel room kitchenette lacks almost everything that makes it a kitchen - and has no character as a result. Another example is cubicled work spaces - the only character they have is the rigid segmentation of the workspace into individual offices. What little character is here is flimsy, weak, and doesn’t strike you as serving its purpose very well. That’s what I think about character, at least
Stewart?
The home you inhabit has character because you are in it.
I appreciate your flat is in my favourite Architectural city in the USA and it is in an old paper factory; think it through.
Judging by your surrounding; you bring an awful lot to this party.
I know many people in wonderful spaces with no idea or ability to bring their best features forward; you do not fit into that statement.
So much wonderful around today with too few people with the soul presence, taste level to bring them to life.
The house of pleasure shown is literally what in Portuguese is called "Casa do Caralho".
haha!
You had me at Beetlejuice.