As a student of architecture and a member of a user group on the other side of the "dialog" with a team of modern architects I have to say I left the experience far from satisfied. We were heard, yes. Heard but basically ignored. Time and time again we tried to tell the architects that they were exposing too much concrete, that we wanted a softer gentler building, a more intimate and less imposing space, yet it still ended up everything we feared it would be. They would conscientiously gather our feedback, and then the next set of plans would have all the same problems as previously. No matter how hard we tried, we were only able to get a few details of the plans altered. We weren't able to get them to change the look or feel of the building at all, despite our repeated protests as to its dysfunctionality.
I understand your pains. But, i want you to enlighten me on why are the problems you are having with modern architecture? I can see 1 which is concrete for you. Remember the previous style used stones, bricks that are far more than concrete in terms of hardness. But yet, people accepted it not only that, they are praising buildings with no regulations, enough natural lightning and require effort to cool or warm. I had love to see the reasons why to hate modern architecture. Kind Regards
@mahmudyahayausman7132 hey, I think I might take up the mantel of answeringyour reply. It's not that concrete is bad per se. However the endlessness of the material, is devoid of proportions, only constrained by the element (be it wall, ceiling, floor or facade) itself. It takes away the humanity and its relation to that space, how we order our selves into an environment. There are great modern architectural buildings and there are terrible classical buildings. However the old buildings most of the time seem to tell a language that translates through the eras, where as (atleast it feels like this) a lot of modern architecture rejects that language simply for the sake of it wanting to be its own thing. It's set up to fail ironically, positioning volumes and lines in a way to tell a story with no fluff is a realy difficult thing to achieve with design and most of us architects just aren't good enough to create that type of architecture, it's like we have to reinvent the wheel with every design and project. Instead we should be focusing on a simple and good style/ language that is achievable for most people. I hope a at least sort of answered your question.
Everyone hates modern architecture because no one bothers to check how do their designs impact the people psychologically, culturally and interactively. When the design is detached from the person, it becomes antithetical to it... Hence why, they'd reject it... For it does not answer their needs, wants and feels. And complaining that the people just don't know what's good for them, is failing to actually study what the people actually need, rather than assume based on corporate interest and theories what they'll want. Connect with people, learn society, and invest a good amount of time studying people... Architecture is a part of the design world. Design is 100% focused upon making something for humans. Don't neglect the human part of making something for these very humans.
Yes, I believe that is especially true for the exceptions David mentioned like modern concert halls or museums. As those should be designed to serve the people but are are actually an expression of art (not deign) and a statement by the architect more than anything. But architecture that we use or look at in our day to day life like a train station or a museum should serve the people by being efficient but also inspiring in a calm way instead of being disturbing. And that does not mean we need to repeat the old, I can envision designs that will push the current technology to the limit and astonish the users that we can even build such a beautiful architecture today.
People are attracted to older architecture because their complexity is far greater. You also have complexity set into system. Humans like things that are set into system. In addition to this most buildings today are also abstract, which is not a form that humans are used to. Most modern buildings today are also being build using artificial material like metal, plastic, glass etc. Anything you don't find in nature normally. Because of this they don't blend well together with their surroundings. At last , like previously mentioned in the comment section, architects don't have much artsy freedom when creating a building. Money is what governs most architecture today, like with most things. Both when it comes to the form of the building and especially with placement. There are of course exceptions though. From Oslo, Norway and I think the opera house that has been build here is quite nice. It is placed at the fjord of Oslo and is supposed to resemble an iceberg. Here you have good placement and its white color , which makes it a contrast to grey Oslo makes it also very symbolic. One of the innovations of the building is that you're supposed to be able to walk on the roof, like being able to walk on an iceberg. I think it's a good idea. There's also a lot of abstractness they could have eased down with though, like the box which is on top of the building. But the material though is of white marble and other types of white stone, which makes it blend well together with nature.
Because there's too much more of less. Less (simplicity) is beautiful if surrounded by more (complexity), look around you, more of less, more of less, more of less, you got your answer!
The reason the majority of people hate modern architecture is because it isn't beautiful- cool, innovative, or inventive are the terms we hear and usually we tire of "cool" and "innovative". The classical idea of beauty is no longer desired by modern architects and artists. A modern artist can vomit in a bucket and declare it art and say it is beauty because the artist says so while the masses walk away shaking their heads never understanding the idiocy of it (Duchamp's "Urinal" paradigm). A modern architect can twist our minds in the most unnatural ways that is unsettling and unappealing or force our human experience in the bowels of a "machine" and wonder why people hate it because it is unnatural experience. People enjoy nature and never get sick of it~ they return to nature and glory in its beauty. Classical and traditional architecture is beautiful and still demands respect because it is patterned after nature. There is a symbiotic relationship with nature. It shares the same proportions and geometries as nature and the human body- and the unconscious harmony resonates with people. Traditional architecture is successful because it never abandoned these principles. It respected the place in which it was created so your experiences with architecture in Marrakech, Paris, or Charleston spoke about the climate, culture, and geography. Each are different and held special because of its uniqueness. Modern architecture creates an architecture of nothing or no place and our experiences become no different in modern Hong Kong as in modern Los Angeles. They feel no different from each other. A Classical revival is the answer for a glorious past, a modern present and a better tomorrow. No more living in an eternal future. See www.classicist.org for how we are doing it.
I could never have said it better myself friend. It's like my mind has been published in your comment! Literally everything I stand for in archetecture is right there above me and I think its brilliant.
puhiava Hi, although i can agree with most of what you say, i can say some of the best architecture that i love is from the Art Deco period and although it incorporates nature in its details, its overall lines and shape are influenced in part from industry not nature. Also i love the late Art Deco period from the late 1930's and i also love post modern contemporary buildings. Some of the so called millionaires homes with sweeping lines and shape along with space are fantastic. Again the Ziggurat was one of the earliest building forms and used today, but i don't think that comes from nature, i'm not sure were the influences came from there.
studio7 i love art deco too and when I become an architect I intend on designing art deco skyscrapers with a modern touch and will focus my practice of traditional and vernacular architecture
+puhiava --the majority of people don't think about architecture and the ones that do don't hate modern! There is good and bad architecture like everything else. the world trade centre complex in hongkong is an excellent example of modern architecture and will be great 100 years from now along with the HSBank building that is already over 35years old.
i think modern arquitecture is very distant from nature wich is the main visual space in peoples minds in our times today. arquitecture should be practical and beautiful. i think the beautifull part of todays buildings miss the "mixing with nature" part. Elitism is also a big problem with arquitects too
As a portuguese, born in Lisbon, I have a very good example of how bad or how good can modern architecture to be. In 1998, a new area was built in my city (World Exposition of 1998): The Parque das Nações. I consider this area is absolutly beautiful, impressive, really amazing. I love this kind of architecture! Otherwise, recently, it was constructed a new museum - The National coach museum (to replace the old one) - and I hate, oh yes, I hate this new building! But why?! It is also modern architecture! A pritzker one!!!!! What I want to say is: modern architecture has two faces. It can be loved or hated.
Get a fucking grip. The idiots and morons said the same about the Centro Cultural de Belém, and yet it's quite beloved by now. Newsflash, centuries ago, the same morons and idiots (must be related) said the same shit about the Jeronimos Monastery. As a matter of fact, the National Coach Museum is quite well designed and it will win hearts and minds through the years. It's just more of a brasilian style and portuguese folks are just not that used to it.
For Christ's sake, Luis, are you just not able to deal with other people's opinions? Samuel was just talking about how he likes some modern buildings and not others, he didn't need you to storm in and tell him that his opinions won't matter in the future.
Luis is a post-modernist therefore he is right and can sneeze all of us down here that there to object the form givers. He also seems to think "folks are just not used to it" which implies people MUST GET USED TO IT! Or else. Probably
People hate modern architecture simply because it completely discards any heritage, sympathy for its surroundings and all tried-and-true lessons civilisation has been developing for the past 5,000 years in the name of that which is "innovative". Architects used to be artists. Today, to become a practicing architect, one must receive a license. To receive a license, one must maintain a very high standard of academic achievement. The same skill set and natural talents to achieve academic excellence are not necessarily those that also make a great artist. In some cases, they may even be completely at odds with one another. To compound matters, architects are elitist, egotistical jerks. They spend their careers cultivating a distinctive, personal style that becomes their signature "essence" to garner praise from other architects. They don't care how their personal vanity project will adversely effect the local fabric. They only care about spewing their signature "essence" all over the face of the community. Fortunately, these monstrosities typically are built cheaply and the most offensive of which will either rot away or will actively be removed within fifty years.
Mr. Chipperfield pointed out some very important issues of practicing architecture today. However, based on the comments, I think the talk was quite misunderstood. The point here is that architects, just like everybody else, are a mere servant of the system... It hardly matters if you are an exceptional architect - when the brief of the client demands huge areas built as quickly and as affordably as possible +having to obey an almost endless list of regulations, the solutions are simply reduced to bad, worse or the worst. Contemporary (as modern actually refers to a 20th-century movement) architecture is therefore very much a reflection of our society at large. What he calls for urgently is a dialogue. A society where architecture would be a part of public debate and people could express their approval or disapproval and actually make an impact (like Berliners had in the case of Neues Museum). The prerequisite is an interest in your surroundings and education about what actually is good architecture and what is not (again - it is far too simple to blame architects). Do your surroundings matter to you? Do you notice things that could be better? And most importantly, are you willing to take some time to become involved in the debate about space and willing to learn something new?
@@thepedrothethethe6151 What does efficiency matter if nobody wants to be there? The emotional impact of a space on a person will make or break either... Efficiency needs to also calculate how a person would end up interacting with the structure. If the environment promotes apathy, nihilism, boredom and avoidance... You'd get people that just aren't acting efficient due to having no stimulation, no desire and no will. I heard that depression is "in fashion", to say the least, with people feeling distant, cold... lack motivation, got no power... I walk outside for a bit, I look at my own room in my own house... I look at where people go, and I can fully agree with the rise of depression in the modern age. You are surrounded by blocks, by greys, by glass reflection more glass... The landmarks lack any story or emotion behind them... And it's all just... Detached from people. It does not matter how efficient you believe the building to be... If people don't want to even get near it, let alone, inside it. It's a design that is offensive to the senses. If you want to design something good, you'd actually need to calculate how a person feels there... Now, that's actually hard work, because you need to know psychology, and talk to people, and see how they react to external stimuli... Pretty much, you need to know who the target audience is, and construct the building to suit them, rather than what you believe to be correct. You ain't designing a building for robots. You design it for people.
Its not the fault of the good architects who understands the value and potential of architecture in our lives and in the city, its the bad architects who are to blame wherein they reduce architecture to these artifacts of self gratification and as a means for others to recognize them for fame and or money, and the more meaningful aspects are set aside.
Its not the fault of the good architects who understands the value and potential of architecture in our lives and in the city, its the bad architects who are to blame wherein they reduce architecture to these artifacts of self gratification and as a means for others to recognize them for fame and or money, and the more meaningful aspects are set aside.
Architects today no longer build homes, nowadays they often just build boxes of living space. The home was once something a builder could take pride in, now it’s just a wood- plastic box that’s designed by the same guy who designed the homes of each of the 6 neighbouring properties. Modernism was cool at first, and in moderation still is today. However, people just do it wrong now, which is making our cities less unique, and less interesting. Consumer and mass production culture has poisoned our architecture and it’s absolutely appalling to witness.
There is disconection between architects and the population. For about 60 years, the main focus of architecture universities has been to teach social issues and marxist ideologies. Nowadays architects know more about social justice, gender and race questions than beauty or aesthetics. They built all these crap because they think it is progressive and provocative when normal people only want a cozy place to live.
I believe that the reason modern architecture is often so revolting to us is because it is so unnatural. Despite all our technology, we humans are primitive, natural beings, so being surrounded by steel, sheet glass and plastic makes us subtly uncomfortable. I also believe that we find comfort in buildings that, at least just visually, express a sense of structure that is primitive and, again, natural. For example, pilasters holding an architrave looks good to us because the building looks genuinely sturdy, while a huge cantilever, though it may be held up well enough by steel cables, looks terribly jarring to us because our primitive brains think it's going to collapse. Beauty is very subjective, of course, but I firmly believe that we can create buildings that are beautiful for everyone by using natural materials such as brick and wood and creating simple forms that give the appearance of a good, old-fashioned low-tech structural system.
your brain is primitive to believe that. The classical constructors of buildings took time to understand the metaphorical connection between color, human emotion, passion, and the depth of emotions percieved in darker and lighter shades of colors. They created masterpieces of soft pink marble palatial walls with streaks of white and gray running through it, a dark mahogany table sits in the center of this room, seemingly fashioned from the dryads themselves, with the floral pattern of it's feet as if crafted from petrified fauna, it's top upheld by figures forever encarved - tributaries to the forest spirits represented within it's creation - into the warm darkened welcoming spirit of the long table, itself meant as a gathering place of treasured relationships, decedantly topped with a pure spotless white smooth soft silk cloth, cut as if made to be cut into soft ribbons at it's edges.
@Fantageous I truly agree. I understand why some people like modern architecture but it definitely does not sit with me. I love the older styles, especially Victorian which I know can be extreme in itself. Modern architecture just seems to lack interest: I am sorry but a cement, glass, and metal building is just boring and cheap looking to me.
Almost everything in "Modern" and "Contemporary" architecture are almost the same offshoots of Bauhaus and International Style for me. The only ones that stood out in a good way are Art Deco, Streamline Moderne and Googie.
I believe the blame should mostly go to the selfish architects who are greedy and don’t look to find a solution but only think of their pockets. Like they don’t even intend to collaborate and treat the young ones as dumbs, like their ideas are nothing. And off course can’t close our eyes on the builders who just want to make money and care nothing about people who live in those lifeless buildings which in fact should be the homes of millions of people. Instead they just exist there, no sense of home or community.
The original museum (the stairs for instance) was so much better. The answer to the whole question of why they hate us is, because in our quest to prove original we are building sub standard form and function. Not only that, but we fight to have it our way.
What this guy did was to tell people who have lost and sought to have some of their culture back, that his ego was more important than that. And this video is his half apology. 18:08
Don’t blame him. Just Client want it and he did it. Client is also public. He is also one of those society members. Modern architecture is reflection of our society and trend we choose.
It's ugly people hopefully will forget it or be scared for life while when you look at neo classical buildings like the capitol building and the white house everyone remembers cause of their beauty.
David Chipperfield failed completely in Stockholm trying to build a modern Nobel House. A massive protest from every corner of Sweden managed to protect our city from an Arhitect that clearly was utterly cluless about our history and what people want. It looked like a massive Nuclear reactor and was an egoistic monolog from the Architect. Apple tried to build in our most famous park but we managed to fight that of too. :)
Everybody doesn’t hate it , the last interesting buildings were brutalist , the 80’s and 90’s gave. very little in the way of eye catching buildings especially in housing . Now we are trying to restore and regenerate the last of the interesting buildings and I’m glad to see it .
Modern architecture is just a set of boxes grouped together and they call it a dwelling or a building They need to ask the question, Why are for instance, English country houses so pleasing visually? Even... why are Coronation Street terrace houses more pleasing visually than modern architecture? Modern architects have no idea what is pleasing visually... a box, straight lines, boring external surfaces, flat roofs, exteriors devoid of interest are not pleasing visually... and every year, every new dwelling we see everywhere is more of the same boring architecture architects seem to believe is groundbreaking... and more importantly what people want... in a phrase 'it's not what we want'... How about architects listen to what people want... for a start, at least...
A dialog to this architect means he pretends to listen then does what he wants to do anyway. An architect should work for his client and design the building the client wants. If he doesn't he should be immediately fired.
The Heroic Modern Architecture period between the two WW, was quickly disassembled as it was "too good" for the economic and financial interests of the actual powers. Modern Architecture would not allow speculation and return rates as the "vulgar" construction we are getting every day, more used to see.
i think the problem lyes on the dialogue between the client and the architect, the example that was made last showed how the talks and expectations of the client shaped the modern architects vision to create a solid and beautifull middle and i think thats the key to any project of design ever made. If people are not reactive enough to modern architecture its because the dialogue has turned one sided so the architect has only the voice or the client does. There should be a middle ground for progress to be achieved, i believe firmly that design gets to its best when the old and the new ideas are mixed to create new functional familiar yet not old fashioned designs. This is also applied in the creation of industrial design, concept art and graphic design, you cant go to farfetched so the public in general gets unrelated to it yet you dont have to be monotonous.
White Wii problem with modern architecture especially the - brutalist communist fascist concrete monstrosity ! Is a very simple solution ! You paint it ! And do some renovation
We could do it in real life but the we need people who are rich and to create that beauty that we miss, people should become craftsman, ornament makers, sculptors so those styles can come back.
Modern architecture is the only type of architecture without style or rules. Its open ended, lends itself to and accommodate the varied nature of human activity and behavior. Strips off all ornamentation, decoration, pretence and goes to the core of things - varied use, flexibility and experience. It is for and of its context and nature - in / out spaces. Less clutter, less fuss and no spectacle. A true stage for our lives. Its not dictatorial or exclusive, nor is it representative of a class of society or a people - it is democratic. It seemingly achieves a lot with very little effort - minimalist. It amplifies experience and moves one emotionally, without a spectacle. Now thats what I call art. I love modern architecture. As in Bruce Lee's words: "the style of no style"
People hate modern architecture because it isn’t vernacular and is not relatable. It’s an expression of the architects own ego. It goes terribly wrong so often because it is so detached from its surroundings even though architects are constantly trying to relate to site but they stubbornly do not relate to context, particularly style, and when they do try… they abstract it in some hideous way that again becomes an attention seeking ego trip. The only admirable modernism is the quiet minimalist architect David does, that is meant to compliment its surroundings and serve its users.
ok, commenting before watching the video. Will this be, like so many other video b an office portfolio presentation thinly veiled as a philosophical quandary ?
I don't like modern architecture becuase it's made with bad quality materials and I truly hate it when it's next to old historic buildings. Also there is no character and the way how modernity came to architecture it was very biased and didn't let classical or traditional architecture come into place. People did not understand what louis sullivan really said when he said form follows function. He respected scale, proportion, and ornament in his buildings and houses. Today the way form follows function is portrayed in school and in the job, they misunderstood it really bad. That could be a reason why modern contemporary architecture has no life or reason in their architecture.
Could Architecture be compared to music and musicians where most listeners want to break music down into different styles etc, where as the great creators of music actually sees all styles of music as just music. Nothing is new in shape, form, line, space and colour. Every thing has been done before. "Pablo Picasso once said Good artists copy and great artists steal". Perhaps Man Ray had something to offer when he said "And artist is only as good as his ability to disguise his influences". "Every influence in our past and history is important to our creativity and if we ignore it or try to remove it from our creativity process we will only produce cold objects". If one thing could be blamed for the down fall in architecture to ay it would have to be the share market and public companies who's main object is to produce profit and dividends for the share holders. So building anything beautiful that might last longer is not a possibility. When it comes to home owners and architecture, most home owners have become transient owners and investors and most have no desire to stay in their home for the rest of their lives, or in many cases very a long. So as long as it fill their needs until they move on and the home return more than they originally paid for it then that's all that matters. The bigger question on my mind when thinking about all this stuff happening in the modern world today is " What is happening to beauty" Is the lack of beauty and it's appreciation a result of the lack of respect of our history and our immediate past.
I've read the comments section and have decided to post my own counterpoints as to add some diversity this sea of hate. To start, for those criticizing modernism for being cheap, do you think throwing more money at something will make it more beautiful? Is it the house or it's price that you want to look at? Modernism is the stripping of all that is nonessential to the building's purpose, so why add any more than is needed? Which leads me to my next point of the argument about the lack of ornaments or overall beauty. You must remember that in architecture, a building's function takes precedence over it's aesthetic. It is not a painting to only be admired by the eyes but also a structure to be used by people. If architects focused on looks more then we would have buildings as useful as the uninhabited ones on movie sets and the streets of Disneyland. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to make some parts of a building beautiful to the public eye, but to a modernist these things do not serve the purpose of a building, and as a result must be removed. And lastly, for the complaint that it does not pay any respect to architecture's heritage, I would like to use phones to illustrate my point. In 2007, Apple released the iPhone, what to this day is still hailed as a revolutionary piece of technology. Now imagine if you will if Steve Jobs decided to remove the bottom half of the screen in order to put a physical keypad. Instead of of the simple and smooth design of the iPhone which was intended to serve it's purpose of having touchscreen technology, he decided to use the lower half to dedicate to it's ancestors. From Bell's telephone, to the clunky brick Motorolas of the 80's, and to the flip phones that came before it, all of which had keypads. If these didn't exist then we wouldn't have the iPhone today, so why not pay heritage to them by including keypads in it's design? I hope that you see my point here. Now I know that art is a larger aspect in architecture than it is in phone design, but did most of you not just cringe at the appearance of an iPhone with a keypad? Did you not think that a keypad would ruin the phone's aesthetic nature because it ruins it's practical one? If yes, then you have just though like a modernist. Afterthoughts: As for the rest of the arguments, it's mostly subjective personal taste which I cannot win over. And I also see people mixing up modernism with other styles; I encourage you to research that which you hate to have stronger arguments. One last note I would like to mention is that I do know of people who are weird for the sake of weird. They exist and are pretentious exhibitionists. But there are others who are trying to do something with actual purpose. They are easy to mix up but trust me, there is a profound difference.
User experience is also function. If a building is stark, alienating, boring then you have failed. A large number of poeple seem to find traditional design appealing even in interior design. If a building can serve as a work of art not only to be lived in but also to give people a sense of place, culture and happiness, isn't that something worth pursuing? I don't think all modern design is bad. Charles and ray eames products are beautiful, some of frank lloyd wright's work was simply breath taking and charlotte perriand's work showed the beauty of simplicity. But the philosophy of modern architecture being extremely utilitarian and profit driven affects us culturally and psychologically. Beauty is also function.
David Chipperfield failed completely in Stockholm trying to build a modern Nobel House. A massive protest from every corner of Sweden managed to protect our city from an Arhitect that clearly was utterly cluless about our history and what people want. It looked like a massive Nuclear reactor and was an egoistic monolog from the Architect. Apple tried to build in our most famous park but we managed to fight that of too. :)
People generally, and the great majority of them, hate it. Period. WTF are you doing trying to change their minds? Are you that arrogant? Are you that unwilling to please people? All because you want what you want? Would you be willing to stop wasting our time and patience trying to control us and make us want what you want? For pity's sake.
I suggest you need more nuance. Thee is good modern architecture and cookie-cutter bad modern architecture. There is the Vietnam memorial (enormously popular) and the the modern work of Palm Springs. More sophistication, please.
As a student of architecture and a member of a user group on the other side of the "dialog" with a team of modern architects I have to say I left the experience far from satisfied. We were heard, yes. Heard but basically ignored. Time and time again we tried to tell the architects that they were exposing too much concrete, that we wanted a softer gentler building, a more intimate and less imposing space, yet it still ended up everything we feared it would be. They would conscientiously gather our feedback, and then the next set of plans would have all the same problems as previously. No matter how hard we tried, we were only able to get a few details of the plans altered. We weren't able to get them to change the look or feel of the building at all, despite our repeated protests as to its dysfunctionality.
I understand your pains. But, i want you to enlighten me on why are the problems you are having with modern architecture? I can see 1 which is concrete for you. Remember the previous style used stones, bricks that are far more than concrete in terms of hardness. But yet, people accepted it not only that, they are praising buildings with no regulations, enough natural lightning and require effort to cool or warm.
I had love to see the reasons why to hate modern architecture.
Kind Regards
@mahmudyahayausman7132 hey, I think I might take up the mantel of answeringyour reply. It's not that concrete is bad per se. However the endlessness of the material, is devoid of proportions, only constrained by the element (be it wall, ceiling, floor or facade) itself. It takes away the humanity and its relation to that space, how we order our selves into an environment. There are great modern architectural buildings and there are terrible classical buildings. However the old buildings most of the time seem to tell a language that translates through the eras, where as (atleast it feels like this) a lot of modern architecture rejects that language simply for the sake of it wanting to be its own thing. It's set up to fail ironically, positioning volumes and lines in a way to tell a story with no fluff is a realy difficult thing to achieve with design and most of us architects just aren't good enough to create that type of architecture, it's like we have to reinvent the wheel with every design and project. Instead we should be focusing on a simple and good style/ language that is achievable for most people. I hope a at least sort of answered your question.
Everyone hates modern architecture because no one bothers to check how do their designs impact the people psychologically, culturally and interactively.
When the design is detached from the person, it becomes antithetical to it... Hence why, they'd reject it... For it does not answer their needs, wants and feels.
And complaining that the people just don't know what's good for them, is failing to actually study what the people actually need, rather than assume based on corporate interest and theories what they'll want.
Connect with people, learn society, and invest a good amount of time studying people... Architecture is a part of the design world.
Design is 100% focused upon making something for humans.
Don't neglect the human part of making something for these very humans.
Yes, I believe that is especially true for the exceptions David mentioned like modern concert halls or museums. As those should be designed to serve the people but are are actually an expression of art (not deign) and a statement by the architect more than anything.
But architecture that we use or look at in our day to day life like a train station or a museum should serve the people by being efficient but also inspiring in a calm way instead of being disturbing.
And that does not mean we need to repeat the old, I can envision designs that will push the current technology to the limit and astonish the users that we can even build such a beautiful architecture today.
People are attracted to older architecture because their complexity is far greater. You also have complexity set into system. Humans like things that are set into system. In addition to this most buildings today are also abstract, which is not a form that humans are used to. Most modern buildings today are also being build using artificial material like metal, plastic, glass etc. Anything you don't find in nature normally. Because of this they don't blend well together with their surroundings. At last , like previously mentioned in the comment section, architects don't have much artsy freedom when creating a building. Money is what governs most architecture today, like with most things. Both when it comes to the form of the building and especially with placement. There are of course exceptions though. From Oslo, Norway and I think the opera house that has been build here is quite nice. It is placed at the fjord of Oslo and is supposed to resemble an iceberg. Here you have good placement and its white color , which makes it a contrast to grey Oslo makes it also very symbolic. One of the innovations of the building is that you're supposed to be able to walk on the roof, like being able to walk on an iceberg. I think it's a good idea. There's also a lot of abstractness they could have eased down with though, like the box which is on top of the building. But the material though is of white marble and other types of white stone, which makes it blend well together with nature.
You are right.
Its also charming and full of culture. Modern buildings are no nonsense cynical greed.
that's also one thing I've been thinking about. modern architecture has also been the end of a buildings ability to express its countrys culture.
"artificial material" ? metal? Glass? Are you high or what? Jesus F Christ.
@@LuisManuelLealDias There is no metal, neither glass in nature, nothing organic there
Because there's too much more of less. Less (simplicity) is beautiful if surrounded by more (complexity), look around you, more of less, more of less, more of less, you got your answer!
The reason the majority of people hate modern architecture is because it isn't beautiful- cool, innovative, or inventive are the terms we hear and usually we tire of "cool" and "innovative". The classical idea of beauty is no longer desired by modern architects and artists. A modern artist can vomit in a bucket and declare it art and say it is beauty because the artist says so while the masses walk away shaking their heads never understanding the idiocy of it (Duchamp's "Urinal" paradigm). A modern architect can twist our minds in the most unnatural ways that is unsettling and unappealing or force our human experience in the bowels of a "machine" and wonder why people hate it because it is unnatural experience. People enjoy nature and never get sick of it~ they return to nature and glory in its beauty.
Classical and traditional architecture is beautiful and still demands respect because it is patterned after nature. There is a symbiotic relationship with nature. It shares the same proportions and geometries as nature and the human body- and the unconscious harmony resonates with people. Traditional architecture is successful because it never abandoned these principles. It respected the place in which it was created so your experiences with architecture in Marrakech, Paris, or Charleston spoke about the climate, culture, and geography. Each are different and held special because of its uniqueness. Modern architecture creates an architecture of nothing or no place and our experiences become no different in modern Hong Kong as in modern Los Angeles. They feel no different from each other. A Classical revival is the answer for a glorious past, a modern present and a better tomorrow. No more living in an eternal future. See www.classicist.org for how we are doing it.
I could never have said it better myself friend. It's like my mind has been published in your comment! Literally everything I stand for in archetecture is right there above me and I think its brilliant.
puhiava Hi, although i can agree with most of what you say, i can say some of the best architecture that i love is from the Art Deco period and although it incorporates nature in its details, its overall lines and shape are influenced in part from industry not nature. Also i love the late Art Deco period from the late 1930's and i also love post modern contemporary buildings. Some of the so called millionaires homes with sweeping lines and shape along with space are fantastic. Again the Ziggurat was one of the earliest building forms and used today, but i don't think that comes from nature, i'm not sure were the influences came from there.
studio7 i love art deco too and when I become an architect I intend on designing art deco skyscrapers with a modern touch and will focus my practice of traditional and vernacular architecture
victor vazquez Good luck to you..i would have loved to become an architect..let's hope you do it.
+puhiava --the majority of people don't think about architecture and the ones that do don't hate modern!
There is good and bad architecture like everything else. the world trade centre complex in hongkong is an excellent example of modern architecture and will be great 100 years from now along with the HSBank building that is already over 35years old.
i think modern arquitecture is very distant from nature wich is the main visual space in peoples minds in our times today. arquitecture should be practical and beautiful. i think the beautifull part of todays buildings miss the "mixing with nature" part. Elitism is also a big problem with arquitects too
Architecture is bad because art in general is dominated by something called "contemporary" which is a euphemism for cheapness.
As a portuguese, born in Lisbon, I have a very good example of how bad or how good can modern architecture to be.
In 1998, a new area was built in my city (World Exposition of 1998): The Parque das Nações. I consider this area is absolutly beautiful, impressive, really amazing. I love this kind of architecture!
Otherwise, recently, it was constructed a new museum - The National coach museum (to replace the old one) - and I hate, oh yes, I hate this new building! But why?! It is also modern architecture! A pritzker one!!!!!
What I want to say is: modern architecture has two faces. It can be loved or hated.
Get a fucking grip. The idiots and morons said the same about the Centro Cultural de Belém, and yet it's quite beloved by now. Newsflash, centuries ago, the same morons and idiots (must be related) said the same shit about the Jeronimos Monastery. As a matter of fact, the National Coach Museum is quite well designed and it will win hearts and minds through the years. It's just more of a brasilian style and portuguese folks are just not that used to it.
For Christ's sake, Luis, are you just not able to deal with other people's opinions? Samuel was just talking about how he likes some modern buildings and not others, he didn't need you to storm in and tell him that his opinions won't matter in the future.
Luis is a post-modernist therefore he is right and can sneeze all of us down here that there to object the form givers. He also seems to think "folks are just not used to it" which implies people MUST GET USED TO IT!
Or else.
Probably
really good lecture! much appreciated!
Chipperfield really needs to make a youtube channel!
On the Berlin museum.
He certainly saved some money on the grand hall staircase and put it into the pockets of the planners.
People hate modern architecture simply because it completely discards any heritage, sympathy for its surroundings and all tried-and-true lessons civilisation has been developing for the past 5,000 years in the name of that which is "innovative".
Architects used to be artists. Today, to become a practicing architect, one must receive a license. To receive a license, one must maintain a very high standard of academic achievement. The same skill set and natural talents to achieve academic excellence are not necessarily those that also make a great artist. In some cases, they may even be completely at odds with one another.
To compound matters, architects are elitist, egotistical jerks. They spend their careers cultivating a distinctive, personal style that becomes their signature "essence" to garner praise from other architects. They don't care how their personal vanity project will adversely effect the local fabric. They only care about spewing their signature "essence" all over the face of the community.
Fortunately, these monstrosities typically are built cheaply and the most offensive of which will either rot away or will actively be removed within fifty years.
Broad brush. You can find lots of bad examples, but there are beautiful new buildings going up all the time.
Yeah, I can't remember why that day I was being so dismissive. It was unfair.
+Brett von Henneberg-Römhild I think what you said makes a lot of sense, especially the two first sentences.
It is good to be unfair with the current modern architectural style. It was unfair with everyone else, its payback time.
Rightly said. You should read The fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Mr. Chipperfield pointed out some very important issues of practicing architecture today. However, based on the comments, I think the talk was quite misunderstood. The point here is that architects, just like everybody else, are a mere servant of the system... It hardly matters if you are an exceptional architect - when the brief of the client demands huge areas built as quickly and as affordably as possible +having to obey an almost endless list of regulations, the solutions are simply reduced to bad, worse or the worst. Contemporary (as modern actually refers to a 20th-century movement) architecture is therefore very much a reflection of our society at large.
What he calls for urgently is a dialogue. A society where architecture would be a part of public debate and people could express their approval or disapproval and actually make an impact (like Berliners had in the case of Neues Museum). The prerequisite is an interest in your surroundings and education about what actually is good architecture and what is not (again - it is far too simple to blame architects). Do your surroundings matter to you? Do you notice things that could be better? And most importantly, are you willing to take some time to become involved in the debate about space and willing to learn something new?
You are right, clients should be scolded as much as modernist architects are.
Because it is soulless, boring, cold and simplistic.
MZ_71 But efficient, and actually comfortable inside too!!
KAS BRNS Just search for “Unite D’ Habitation”, interior.
@@thepedrothethethe6151 What does efficiency matter if nobody wants to be there?
The emotional impact of a space on a person will make or break either... Efficiency needs to also calculate how a person would end up interacting with the structure.
If the environment promotes apathy, nihilism, boredom and avoidance... You'd get people that just aren't acting efficient due to having no stimulation, no desire and no will.
I heard that depression is "in fashion", to say the least, with people feeling distant, cold... lack motivation, got no power...
I walk outside for a bit, I look at my own room in my own house... I look at where people go, and I can fully agree with the rise of depression in the modern age.
You are surrounded by blocks, by greys, by glass reflection more glass... The landmarks lack any story or emotion behind them... And it's all just... Detached from people.
It does not matter how efficient you believe the building to be... If people don't want to even get near it, let alone, inside it.
It's a design that is offensive to the senses.
If you want to design something good, you'd actually need to calculate how a person feels there... Now, that's actually hard work, because you need to know psychology, and talk to people, and see how they react to external stimuli... Pretty much, you need to know who the target audience is, and construct the building to suit them, rather than what you believe to be correct.
You ain't designing a building for robots.
You design it for people.
@@cabbagemontage6999 couldn't agree more
Its not the fault of the good architects who understands the value and potential of architecture in our lives and in the city, its the bad architects who are to blame wherein they reduce architecture to these artifacts of self gratification and as a means for others to recognize them for fame and or money, and the more meaningful aspects are set aside.
Its not the fault of the good architects who understands the value and potential of architecture in our lives and in the city, its the bad architects who are to blame wherein they reduce architecture to these artifacts of self gratification and as a means for others to recognize them for fame and or money, and the more meaningful aspects are set aside.
Architects today no longer build homes, nowadays they often just build boxes of living space. The home was once something a builder could take pride in, now it’s just a wood- plastic box that’s designed by the same guy who designed the homes of each of the 6 neighbouring properties. Modernism was cool at first, and in moderation still is today. However, people just do it wrong now, which is making our cities less unique, and less interesting. Consumer and mass production culture has poisoned our architecture and it’s absolutely appalling to witness.
F
There is disconection between architects and the population. For about 60 years, the main focus of architecture universities has been to teach social issues and marxist ideologies. Nowadays architects know more about social justice, gender and race questions than beauty or aesthetics. They built all these crap because they think it is progressive and provocative when normal people only want a cozy place to live.
There is more of capitalism in modern architecture than marxism.
@@ajmaeenmahtab8456 but architects are sold a lie of social justice
I believe that the reason modern architecture is often so revolting to us is because it is so unnatural. Despite all our technology, we humans are primitive, natural beings, so being surrounded by steel, sheet glass and plastic makes us subtly uncomfortable. I also believe that we find comfort in buildings that, at least just visually, express a sense of structure that is primitive and, again, natural. For example, pilasters holding an architrave looks good to us because the building looks genuinely sturdy, while a huge cantilever, though it may be held up well enough by steel cables, looks terribly jarring to us because our primitive brains think it's going to collapse. Beauty is very subjective, of course, but I firmly believe that we can create buildings that are beautiful for everyone by using natural materials such as brick and wood and creating simple forms that give the appearance of a good, old-fashioned low-tech structural system.
your brain is primitive to believe that. The classical constructors of buildings took time to understand the metaphorical connection between color, human emotion, passion, and the depth of emotions percieved in darker and lighter shades of colors. They created masterpieces of soft pink marble palatial walls with streaks of white and gray running through it, a dark mahogany table sits in the center of this room, seemingly fashioned from the dryads themselves, with the floral pattern of it's feet as if crafted from petrified fauna, it's top upheld by figures forever encarved - tributaries to the forest spirits represented within it's creation - into the warm darkened welcoming spirit of the long table, itself meant as a gathering place of treasured relationships, decedantly topped with a pure spotless white smooth soft silk cloth, cut as if made to be cut into soft ribbons at it's edges.
@Fantageous I truly agree. I understand why some people like modern architecture but it definitely does not sit with me. I love the older styles, especially Victorian which I know can be extreme in itself. Modern architecture just seems to lack interest: I am sorry but a cement, glass, and metal building is just boring and cheap looking to me.
I have a feeling a lot of people in the comments are confusing Modern Architecture with Contemporary Architecture
Almost everything in "Modern" and "Contemporary" architecture are almost the same offshoots of Bauhaus and International Style for me. The only ones that stood out in a good way are Art Deco, Streamline Moderne and Googie.
Calm down, they're both bad
All 2 are awful
I believe the blame should mostly go to the selfish architects who are greedy and don’t look to find a solution but only think of their pockets. Like they don’t even intend to collaborate and treat the young ones as dumbs, like their ideas are nothing.
And off course can’t close our eyes on the builders who just want to make money and care nothing about people who live in those lifeless buildings which in fact should be the homes of millions of people. Instead they just exist there, no sense of home or community.
The original museum (the stairs for instance) was so much better. The answer to the whole question of why they hate us is, because in our quest to prove original we are building sub standard form and function. Not only that, but we fight to have it our way.
Corbusier and Mies Van De Rohe, and also mentioned John Soane who was around in the 18th century
What this guy did was to tell people who have lost and sought to have some of their culture back, that his ego was more important than that. And this video is his half apology. 18:08
Don’t blame him. Just Client want it and he did it. Client is also public. He is also one of those society members. Modern architecture is reflection of our society and trend we choose.
It's ugly people hopefully will forget it or be scared for life while when you look at neo classical buildings like the capitol building and the white house everyone remembers cause of their beauty.
David Chipperfield failed completely in Stockholm trying to build a modern Nobel House. A massive protest from every corner of Sweden managed to protect our city from an Arhitect that clearly was utterly cluless about our history and what people want. It looked like a massive Nuclear reactor and was an egoistic monolog from the Architect. Apple tried to build in our most famous park but we managed to fight that of too. :)
Everybody doesn’t hate it , the last interesting buildings were brutalist , the 80’s and 90’s gave. very little in the way of eye catching buildings especially in housing . Now we are trying to restore and regenerate the last of the interesting buildings and I’m glad to see it .
It depends what kind of modern architecture you talkin about --there are some that are good and there are some that are bad
Modern architecture is just a set of boxes grouped together and they call it a dwelling or a building They need to ask the question, Why are for instance, English country houses so pleasing visually? Even... why are Coronation Street terrace houses more pleasing visually than modern architecture? Modern architects have no idea what is pleasing visually... a box, straight lines, boring external surfaces, flat roofs, exteriors devoid of interest are not pleasing visually... and every year, every new dwelling we see everywhere is more of the same boring architecture architects seem to believe is groundbreaking... and more importantly what people want... in a phrase 'it's not what we want'... How about architects listen to what people want... for a start, at least...
A dialog to this architect means he pretends to listen then does what he wants to do anyway.
An architect should work for his client and design the building the client wants. If he doesn't he should be immediately fired.
The Heroic Modern Architecture period between the two WW, was quickly disassembled as it was "too good" for the economic and financial interests of the actual powers. Modern Architecture would not allow speculation and return rates as the "vulgar" construction we are getting every day, more used to see.
praising gehry? errr not my thing.
Gehry is one of the few current architects who does things other than dead brutalist boxes.
I can't stand his crap.
i think the problem lyes on the dialogue between the client and the architect, the example that was made last showed how the talks and expectations of the client shaped the modern architects vision to create a solid and beautifull middle and i think thats the key to any project of design ever made. If people are not reactive enough to modern architecture its because the dialogue has turned one sided so the architect has only the voice or the client does. There should be a middle ground for progress to be achieved, i believe firmly that design gets to its best when the old and the new ideas are mixed to create new functional familiar yet not old fashioned designs. This is also applied in the creation of industrial design, concept art and graphic design, you cant go to farfetched so the public in general gets unrelated to it yet you dont have to be monotonous.
The concept remembers me the Alte Pinakothek in Munich of Hans Döllgast.
Reminded me of professor Snape
Because it is ugly simple as that
White Wii problem with modern architecture especially the - brutalist communist fascist concrete monstrosity ! Is a very simple solution ! You paint it ! And do some renovation
I swear minecraft players have more imagination than modern architects
We could do it in real life but the we need people who are rich and to create that beauty that we miss, people should become craftsman, ornament makers, sculptors so those styles can come back.
Most of the time it's because modern architecture is boring and cheap. I think that's the point he was making.
❤❤❤❤
we shouldnt hate it. We simply have to move on with the next generation of architecture.
I feel as if I'm the only one who likes both new and old architecture styles. I'm a huge fan of both Brutalism and Neoclassical at the same time...
>liking brutalism
I fucking love brutalist architecture. Fite me.
So you are a huge fan of the Stone Age? No shit.
Modern architecture is just our Rococo.
It will end when the oil fiesta ends.
Then people must start to building real buildings again.
Bulshit
It's a pity his speech is not so fluent. Otherwise a great point.
Not so fluent? Huh?
Because it‘s mutilating once beautiful landscapes and creates environments that depress you.
Scarpa's Castelvecchio
Modern architecture is the only type of architecture without style or rules. Its open ended, lends itself to and accommodate the varied nature of human activity and behavior. Strips off all ornamentation, decoration, pretence and goes to the core of things - varied use, flexibility and experience. It is for and of its context and nature - in / out spaces. Less clutter, less fuss and no spectacle. A true stage for our lives. Its not dictatorial or exclusive, nor is it representative of a class of society or a people - it is democratic. It seemingly achieves a lot with very little effort - minimalist. It amplifies experience and moves one emotionally, without a spectacle. Now thats what I call art. I love modern architecture. As in Bruce Lee's words: "the style of no style"
People hate modern architecture because it isn’t vernacular and is not relatable. It’s an expression of the architects own ego. It goes terribly wrong so often because it is so detached from its surroundings even though architects are constantly trying to relate to site but they stubbornly do not relate to context, particularly style, and when they do try… they abstract it in some hideous way that again becomes an attention seeking ego trip. The only admirable modernism is the quiet minimalist architect David does, that is meant to compliment its surroundings and serve its users.
ok, commenting before watching the video. Will this be, like so many other video b an office portfolio presentation thinly veiled as a philosophical quandary ?
*videos *be
no, it is actually a refreshing personal reflection.
Blah, blah, bah... Get to the point and stop rambling, stop mumbling, and stop digressing.
I don't like modern architecture becuase it's made with bad quality materials and I truly hate it when it's next to old historic buildings. Also there is no character and the way how modernity came to architecture it was very biased and didn't let classical or traditional architecture come into place. People did not understand what louis sullivan really said when he said form follows function. He respected scale, proportion, and ornament in his buildings and houses. Today the way form follows function is portrayed in school and in the job, they misunderstood it really bad. That could be a reason why modern contemporary architecture has no life or reason in their architecture.
Could Architecture be compared to music and musicians where most listeners want to break music down into different styles etc, where as the great creators of music actually sees all styles of music as just music. Nothing is new in shape, form, line, space and colour. Every thing has been done before. "Pablo Picasso once said Good artists copy and great artists steal". Perhaps Man Ray had something to offer when he said "And artist is only as good as his ability to disguise his influences". "Every influence in our past and history is important to our creativity and if we ignore it or try to remove it from our creativity process we will only produce cold objects". If one thing could be blamed for the down fall in architecture to ay it would have to be the share market and public companies who's main object is to produce profit and dividends for the share holders. So building anything beautiful that might last longer is not a possibility. When it comes to home owners and architecture, most home owners have become transient owners and investors and most have no desire to stay in their home for the rest of their lives, or in many cases very a long. So as long as it fill their needs until they move on and the home return more than they originally paid for it then that's all that matters. The bigger question on my mind when thinking about all this stuff happening in the modern world today is " What is happening to beauty" Is the lack of beauty and it's appreciation a result of the lack of respect of our history and our immediate past.
So boring!
I've read the comments section and have decided to post my own counterpoints as to add some diversity this sea of hate. To start, for those criticizing modernism for being cheap, do you think throwing more money at something will make it more beautiful? Is it the house or it's price that you want to look at? Modernism is the stripping of all that is nonessential to the building's purpose, so why add any more than is needed? Which leads me to my next point of the argument about the lack of ornaments or overall beauty. You must remember that in architecture, a building's function takes precedence over it's aesthetic. It is not a painting to only be admired by the eyes but also a structure to be used by people. If architects focused on looks more then we would have buildings as useful as the uninhabited ones on movie sets and the streets of Disneyland. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to make some parts of a building beautiful to the public eye, but to a modernist these things do not serve the purpose of a building, and as a result must be removed. And lastly, for the complaint that it does not pay any respect to architecture's heritage, I would like to use phones to illustrate my point. In 2007, Apple released the iPhone, what to this day is still hailed as a revolutionary piece of technology. Now imagine if you will if Steve Jobs decided to remove the bottom half of the screen in order to put a physical keypad. Instead of of the simple and smooth design of the iPhone which was intended to serve it's purpose of having touchscreen technology, he decided to use the lower half to dedicate to it's ancestors. From Bell's telephone, to the clunky brick Motorolas of the 80's, and to the flip phones that came before it, all of which had keypads. If these didn't exist then we wouldn't have the iPhone today, so why not pay heritage to them by including keypads in it's design? I hope that you see my point here. Now I know that art is a larger aspect in architecture than it is in phone design, but did most of you not just cringe at the appearance of an iPhone with a keypad? Did you not think that a keypad would ruin the phone's aesthetic nature because it ruins it's practical one? If yes, then you have just though like a modernist.
Afterthoughts: As for the rest of the arguments, it's mostly subjective personal taste which I cannot win over. And I also see people mixing up modernism with other styles; I encourage you to research that which you hate to have stronger arguments. One last note I would like to mention is that I do know of people who are weird for the sake of weird. They exist and are pretentious exhibitionists. But there are others who are trying to do something with actual purpose. They are easy to mix up but trust me, there is a profound difference.
User experience is also function. If a building is stark, alienating, boring then you have failed. A large number of poeple seem to find traditional design appealing even in interior design. If a building can serve as a work of art not only to be lived in but also to give people a sense of place, culture and happiness, isn't that something worth pursuing? I don't think all modern design is bad. Charles and ray eames products are beautiful, some of frank lloyd wright's work was simply breath taking and charlotte perriand's work showed the beauty of simplicity. But the philosophy of modern architecture being extremely utilitarian and profit driven affects us culturally and psychologically. Beauty is also function.
Beginning of 20th centrury if you say so.
Fhipperfield is a good architect. I do not find that modern or contemporary architecture are boring. However, it is a bit too superficial.
David Chipperfield failed completely in Stockholm trying to build a modern Nobel House. A massive protest from every corner of Sweden managed to protect our city from an Arhitect that clearly was utterly cluless about our history and what people want. It looked like a massive Nuclear reactor and was an egoistic monolog from the Architect. Apple tried to build in our most famous park but we managed to fight that of too. :)
People generally, and the great majority of them, hate it. Period. WTF are you doing trying to change their minds? Are you that arrogant? Are you that unwilling to please people? All because you want what you want? Would you be willing to stop wasting our time and patience trying to control us and make us want what you want?
For pity's sake.
Everybody?
What a dreadful style of presenting a subject as important as architecture. If he designs the way he talks he'll go broke.
I suggest you need more nuance. Thee is good modern architecture and cookie-cutter bad modern architecture. There is the Vietnam memorial (enormously popular) and the the modern work of Palm Springs.
More sophistication, please.
Can someone please tell me who the two architects mentioned in the 1920's are? Couldn't hear what he said.
Pour bugger.
Just a lot of superficial whining from know it alls on this page.
Well consider the fact that many people don't like dystopia architecture.
Omg get to the point
Get to the point!
British accents literally make me feel like im listening in slow motion