9 ms·

Regarding modern architecture, I'm not a fan. It's not like a painting which you can hang up on your wall at your own leisure. No, these are buildings that peop

Regarding modern architecture, I'm not a fan. It's not like a painting which you can hang up on your wall at your own leisure. No, these are buildings that people have to live in and around. I think London is worse off with the Shard. I can't comment on the rest. [edit: removed a paragraph about a tangential topic]

rwmj 8y ago
Also those chairs are really uncomfortable.
- 13of40 8y ago
  I was in a satellite office of my company in Poland a couple of months ago, and scattered around the place were these meter high plastic egg pod things that looked like robots from a Portal game. Took me a while to realize they were garbage cans. For god's sake, people, can't we even let a trash can be itself?
- mrweasel 8y ago
  Sadly I can't remember where I heard it, it may have been in the documentary "Objectified", but there's a designer that raises an interesting point. It's something along the lines of: "Why are there still uncomfortable chairs? It's a solved problem, we know how to design chairs."
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    Not all chairs should be comfortable. Really comfortable chairs in the subway would be ridiculous.
    - extrememacaroni 8y ago
      Why?
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    Honest question: where do I find out how to design a comfortable chair?
- bhaak 8y ago
  The design principle of this chair is something you don't see: "accessible to everyone". An uncomfortable but functional chair that you can afford and own is preferable to a comfortable chair you can't afford and don't own.
theoh 8y ago
Modern architecture wasn't a monolithic movement (and it has changed a lot in the last 100 or so years. It is generally explained and contextualized badly (I spent years in architecture school) partly because architecture is a very anti-intellectual discipline at the best of times. The key modernist move was to throw away history (the classical orders and ornaments) and to some extent this meant throwing away existing techniques and theories as well. So that's why defenders of traditional architecture are often aligned with a certain kind of Enlightenment intellectualism. In a sense, traditional architecture sits easily with faith in reason and analysis, whereas modernism is stereotypically distracted by the need to be avant garde and to avoid kitsch. Within the profession of architecture, though, there is a very strong sense of continuity in terms of architectural values. It might not seem plausible from a surface inspection, but the percentage difference in the genomes of traditional and modern architecture is slight. The continuity inherent in the fairly restricted possibilities for rational, economical assembly of building materials guarantees that the golden rules of construction don't change very much, although superficial appearances might. There are new construction technologies, but tectonics is pretty much a timeless art. The types of accommodation that are created have changed a lot, for example the genre of the office building has developed into something very new and not necessarily something that will last. But if you look at how the Shard is actually put together, I think a 17th C architect seeing it for the first time would get it immediately. They might find the economic/business side of the building's purpose completely inscrutable, though. A major theme of Bauhaus design was avoiding pretentiousness or "striving for effect". Simplicity and economy of means was seen as psychologically preferable to the alternative, which was moribund 19th C ornamentation and kitsch. That went for frivolous things like Bauhaus jewellery just as much as essential programmes like urgently needed housing. Maximum effect with as little wasted effort as possible was the guiding principle across the board. Obviously prestigious, expensive and pretentious buildings, like the Shard, are now built in a modernist style (that didn't take long to start happening at all). That's really architecture slipping back into its old ways (as a symbol of wealth and power, of excess rather than economy). Personally I think the Shard is a great building, but as far as I know it doesn't have a good reason to exist. The major Bauhaus theorists would have hated that.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ken 8y ago
If you go back and read Gropius' old books about the New Architecture, the original point of steel-and-glass skyscrapers was that by building up instead of out, you could devote the rest of the surface to other uses, like parks or shops. There would be enough space between buildings so every window gets sunlight, and there would be livable and walkable space all around. The taller the building, the more space you need between buildings to ensure every floor gets direct light. We've totally butchered the spirit by packing them back-to-back-to-back, and removing all the green. It's like "We took a Beethoven symphony, and made it more efficient by removing all the rests!" No, you ruined it. The space between was part of the work.
- cgy1 8y ago
  I think part of that is, as it turned out, how the towers in a park model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park) was implemented wasn't actually very conducive to human-scale living.
- deogeo 8y ago
  But the abhorrent, sterile steel-and-glass isn't the only style that can be built up. The many art deco or gothic revival skyscrapers should serve as a suitable counter-example.

rwmj 8y ago

Also those chairs are really uncomfortable.

13of40 8y ago
I was in a satellite office of my company in Poland a couple of months ago, and scattered around the place were these meter high plastic egg pod things that looked like robots from a Portal game. Took me a while to realize they were garbage cans. For god's sake, people, can't we even let a trash can be itself?
mrweasel 8y ago
Sadly I can't remember where I heard it, it may have been in the documentary "Objectified", but there's a designer that raises an interesting point. It's something along the lines of: "Why are there still uncomfortable chairs? It's a solved problem, we know how to design chairs."
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Not all chairs should be comfortable. Really comfortable chairs in the subway would be ridiculous.
  - extrememacaroni 8y ago
    Why?
- colechristensen 8y ago
  Honest question: where do I find out how to design a comfortable chair?
bhaak 8y ago
The design principle of this chair is something you don't see: "accessible to everyone". An uncomfortable but functional chair that you can afford and own is preferable to a comfortable chair you can't afford and don't own.

theoh 8y ago

Modern architecture wasn't a monolithic movement (and it has changed a lot in the last 100 or so years. It is generally explained and contextualized badly (I spent years in architecture school) partly because architecture is a very anti-intellectual discipline at the best of times. The key modernist move was to throw away history (the classical orders and ornaments) and to some extent this meant throwing away existing techniques and theories as well. So that's why defenders of traditional architecture are often aligned with a certain kind of Enlightenment intellectualism. In a sense, traditional architecture sits easily with faith in reason and analysis, whereas modernism is stereotypically distracted by the need to be avant garde and to avoid kitsch. Within the profession of architecture, though, there is a very strong sense of continuity in terms of architectural values. It might not seem plausible from a surface inspection, but the percentage difference in the genomes of traditional and modern architecture is slight. The continuity inherent in the fairly restricted possibilities for rational, economical assembly of building materials guarantees that the golden rules of construction don't change very much, although superficial appearances might. There are new construction technologies, but tectonics is pretty much a timeless art. The types of accommodation that are created have changed a lot, for example the genre of the office building has developed into something very new and not necessarily something that will last. But if you look at how the Shard is actually put together, I think a 17th C architect seeing it for the first time would get it immediately. They might find the economic/business side of the building's purpose completely inscrutable, though. A major theme of Bauhaus design was avoiding pretentiousness or "striving for effect". Simplicity and economy of means was seen as psychologically preferable to the alternative, which was moribund 19th C ornamentation and kitsch. That went for frivolous things like Bauhaus jewellery just as much as essential programmes like urgently needed housing. Maximum effect with as little wasted effort as possible was the guiding principle across the board. Obviously prestigious, expensive and pretentious buildings, like the Shard, are now built in a modernist style (that didn't take long to start happening at all). That's really architecture slipping back into its old ways (as a symbol of wealth and power, of excess rather than economy). Personally I think the Shard is a great building, but as far as I know it doesn't have a good reason to exist. The major Bauhaus theorists would have hated that.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ken 8y ago

If you go back and read Gropius' old books about the New Architecture, the original point of steel-and-glass skyscrapers was that by building up instead of out, you could devote the rest of the surface to other uses, like parks or shops. There would be enough space between buildings so every window gets sunlight, and there would be livable and walkable space all around. The taller the building, the more space you need between buildings to ensure every floor gets direct light. We've totally butchered the spirit by packing them back-to-back-to-back, and removing all the green. It's like "We took a Beethoven symphony, and made it more efficient by removing all the rests!" No, you ruined it. The space between was part of the work.

cgy1 8y ago
I think part of that is, as it turned out, how the towers in a park model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park) was implemented wasn't actually very conducive to human-scale living.
deogeo 8y ago
But the abhorrent, sterile steel-and-glass isn't the only style that can be built up. The many art deco or gothic revival skyscrapers should serve as a suitable counter-example.