4 ms·

I thought that's exactly what the "Overcoming Fears" section of TFA did, to wit: the fear of (1) beauty [which is for "sentimental traditionalists"], (2) orname

by lainga 8y ago

I thought that's exactly what the "Overcoming Fears" section of TFA did, to wit: the fear of (1) beauty [which is for "sentimental traditionalists"], (2) ornament, (3) tradition [because tradition requires effort, or you get 'McMansion'], (4) symmetry, and (5) [and most pertinent in my mind] looking foolish in the eyes of other architects.

wodenokoto 8y ago
> Postwar architecture has been characterized by fear and taboo. Architects are terrified of producing so much as a fluted column, because they believe their peers will think they are stupid, nostalgic, and unsophisticated. Come on! There is absolutely no attempt to understand or level with contemporary architecture. It is pure ranting. Or this gold nugget: >It should be obvious to anyone that skyscrapers should be abolished. After all, they embody nearly every bad tendency in contemporary architecture: they are not part of nature, they are monolithic, they are boring, they have no intricacy, and they have no democracy. Besides, there is plenty of space left on earth to spread out horizontally Yeah, walking around Manhattan or Hong Kong Island is boring and monotone.
- pluto9 8y ago
  > Yeah, walking around Manhattan or Hong Kong Island is boring and monotone. That got me too. Even if they were boring and monotone, at least the skyscrapers are all confined to one area. The author's proposed solution seems to be "let's take all this ugly and spread it around over a few dozen more square kilometers".
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  > Come on! There is absolutely no attempt to understand or level with contemporary architecture. It is pure ranting. This is getting it backwards: why should we have to understand or level with contemporary architects? Buildings are for the enjoyment of everyone. The whole complaint here, which is supported by sources, is that architects won't understand or level with us, and assume that our wants are kitschy plebian sentimentalism which can be handwaved away. > Yeah, walking around Manhattan or Hong Kong Island is boring and monotone. You say this sarcastically, but I think it's actually true. The only reason walking around Manhattan isn't boring is because it still has enough pre-war architecture that hasn't been torn down. Walking around the downtowns of e.g. Vancouver or Seattle, is quite boring, and I'm saying this as an overall-happy Seattle resident.
- lainga 8y ago
  We've been demanding that people "level with" contemporary architecture since the 1950s, when I think they'd really like to just have a picnic or go to work without feeling like they're trapped in a maze of damp concrete.

by lainga 8y ago

wodenokoto 8y ago

> Postwar architecture has been characterized by fear and taboo. Architects are terrified of producing so much as a fluted column, because they believe their peers will think they are stupid, nostalgic, and unsophisticated. Come on! There is absolutely no attempt to understand or level with contemporary architecture. It is pure ranting. Or this gold nugget: >It should be obvious to anyone that skyscrapers should be abolished. After all, they embody nearly every bad tendency in contemporary architecture: they are not part of nature, they are monolithic, they are boring, they have no intricacy, and they have no democracy. Besides, there is plenty of space left on earth to spread out horizontally Yeah, walking around Manhattan or Hong Kong Island is boring and monotone.

pluto9 8y ago
> Yeah, walking around Manhattan or Hong Kong Island is boring and monotone. That got me too. Even if they were boring and monotone, at least the skyscrapers are all confined to one area. The author's proposed solution seems to be "let's take all this ugly and spread it around over a few dozen more square kilometers".
Analemma_ 8y ago
> Come on! There is absolutely no attempt to understand or level with contemporary architecture. It is pure ranting. This is getting it backwards: why should we have to understand or level with contemporary architects? Buildings are for the enjoyment of everyone. The whole complaint here, which is supported by sources, is that architects won't understand or level with us, and assume that our wants are kitschy plebian sentimentalism which can be handwaved away. > Yeah, walking around Manhattan or Hong Kong Island is boring and monotone. You say this sarcastically, but I think it's actually true. The only reason walking around Manhattan isn't boring is because it still has enough pre-war architecture that hasn't been torn down. Walking around the downtowns of e.g. Vancouver or Seattle, is quite boring, and I'm saying this as an overall-happy Seattle resident.
lainga 8y ago
We've been demanding that people "level with" contemporary architecture since the 1950s, when I think they'd really like to just have a picnic or go to work without feeling like they're trapped in a maze of damp concrete.