4 ms·

It seems that the Bauhaus were trying to make a political point as much as an engineering point. Also, where's the evidence that the simpler geometric forms an

It seems that the Bauhaus were trying to make a political point as much as an engineering point. Also, where's the evidence that the simpler geometric forms and use of cheap materials (concrete in Brutalism) resulted in anything cheaper, more functional, better-looking or long-lasting? How much of it is just a fad? They "Bauhaus"ed the Windows GUI to remove all the ornamentation, and people didn't report it was any easier, more usable (no shadows for buttons, so you don't know what you can click on), or more pleasing to look at (many, including myself, found it childish). Some people say it's faster for the computer, but I suspect that the improvements are very marginal.

paganel 8y ago
> Also, where's the evidence that simpler geometric designs are better than more complex or detailed designs, in either cost, functionality, appearance or long-lasting-hood? Not the OP and I don't have any hard-data at hand, but the no-ornament prefabricated apartment-blocks like they used to build in much of Eastern Europe after WW2 [1] were definitely a lot cheaper to build in a shorter period of time compared to buildings which had ornaments and unique features. In fact, I do have data supporting this, but it's not easily accessible online and it's not in English, more exactly I do have a collection of Romanian architecture magazines published throughout the 1950s where the architects of that time (meaning those that had not been imprisoned by the communists) were discussing about the cheapest and fastest ways to build housing for the country's working class. Those (in-)famous apartment-blocks that started springing up shortly after that (I'd say beginning of the '60s) were the result. You can see details about this on the wiki page for the Khrushchyovka apartment-blocks [2]: > Traditional masonry is labor-intensive; individual projects were slow and not scalable to the needs of overcrowded cities. To ameliorate a severe housing shortage, during 1947–1951 Soviet architects evaluated various technologies attempting to reduce costs and completion time. During January 1951, an architects' convention, supervised by Khrushchev (then the party director of Moscow), declared low-cost, quick technologies the objective of Soviet architects. and > During 1954–1961, engineer Vitaly Lagutenko, chief planner of Moscow since 1956, designed and tested the mass-scale, industrialized construction process, relying on concrete panel plants and a quick assembly schedule. During 1961, Lagutenko's institute released the K-7 design of a prefabricated 5-story building that became typical of the Khrushchyovka. 64,000 units (3,000,000 m2 (32,000,000 sq ft)) of this type were built in Moscow from 1961 to 1968. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Plattenbauten_02_Lobeda_West-2011.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Plattenb... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka
- man-and-laptop 8y ago
  Fair enough. They may be cheaper short-term. But I'm noticing from the flat roofs that they might not be so long-lasting (how likely are they to cave in from snow or rain?). So they might not be cheaper long-term. But I guess they might have their place.
  - bch 8y ago
    How many winter-years of flat roofs would be convincing that they are effective?
  - theoh 8y ago
    The planning of Soviet prefabricated concrete housing was definitely ideological as well as economic. Bauhaus was a bit more idealistic, you're right. There was a notion that building large numbers of minimum houses was the only just way to use scarce resources. There was a housing shortage, and building for the Existenzminimum was seen as the Pareto optimal thing to do (anything more costly/luxurious would be unfair to those left waiting). The best critical book I know about this period is by Hilde Heynen. https://books.google.ie/books?id=hGFZl9sHIhUC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=frankfurt+housing+hilde+heynen&source=bl&ots=RB1M8HRtGy&sig=ACfU3U0wm6mwxrG_xJ8hUHD_29IlqsxvDw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjm56j3qoTgAhXIyqQKHYfuC5EQ6AEwDHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.ie/books?id=hGFZl9sHIhUC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA... BTW, flat roofs have a bad reputation because of problems with the timber rotting due to condensation in the wrong places. With proper use of vapor barriers, a modern timber flat roof should last as well as the alternatives.
ken 8y ago
It sounds very much like an engineer's view to split design into a "political point" and an "engineering point"! I think they would say they were trying to make a point about life and the nature of things. Everything is being labeled "politics" these days, even when I can't tell what it has to do with politics. Is "avoiding pretentiousness" now a political issue? I'm not sure what you mean by "Bauhaus"ed the Windows GUI. If you're talking about Windows 10, I've never heard anyone at Microsoft say that this was intended to be in the Bauhaus style, nor anyone involved with the Bauhaus say that Windows 10 was a design in their style. I wouldn't describe it that way. Bauhaus design was never about ignoring human factors, or hiding the boundaries of objects -- quite the opposite.
- man-and-laptop 8y ago
  When I said "Bauhaus"ed, I'm referring to the simpler shapes and lack of ornamentation, like a piece of modern architecture. I'm not claiming they took any direct influence from Bauhaus. But on that note... The "Metro" design that's used in W8/W10/WM was influenced by the New York subway's graphic design, which may if you follow the chain back lead to Bauhaus. Also, I'm not really an engineer. And I'd find your dismissal patronising even if I was. Stop putting people into buckets.

paganel 8y ago

> Also, where's the evidence that simpler geometric designs are better than more complex or detailed designs, in either cost, functionality, appearance or long-lasting-hood? Not the OP and I don't have any hard-data at hand, but the no-ornament prefabricated apartment-blocks like they used to build in much of Eastern Europe after WW2 [1] were definitely a lot cheaper to build in a shorter period of time compared to buildings which had ornaments and unique features. In fact, I do have data supporting this, but it's not easily accessible online and it's not in English, more exactly I do have a collection of Romanian architecture magazines published throughout the 1950s where the architects of that time (meaning those that had not been imprisoned by the communists) were discussing about the cheapest and fastest ways to build housing for the country's working class. Those (in-)famous apartment-blocks that started springing up shortly after that (I'd say beginning of the '60s) were the result. You can see details about this on the wiki page for the Khrushchyovka apartment-blocks [2]: > Traditional masonry is labor-intensive; individual projects were slow and not scalable to the needs of overcrowded cities. To ameliorate a severe housing shortage, during 1947–1951 Soviet architects evaluated various technologies attempting to reduce costs and completion time. During January 1951, an architects' convention, supervised by Khrushchev (then the party director of Moscow), declared low-cost, quick technologies the objective of Soviet architects. and > During 1954–1961, engineer Vitaly Lagutenko, chief planner of Moscow since 1956, designed and tested the mass-scale, industrialized construction process, relying on concrete panel plants and a quick assembly schedule. During 1961, Lagutenko's institute released the K-7 design of a prefabricated 5-story building that became typical of the Khrushchyovka. 64,000 units (3,000,000 m2 (32,000,000 sq ft)) of this type were built in Moscow from 1961 to 1968. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Plattenbauten_02_Lobeda_West-2011.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Plattenb... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka

man-and-laptop 8y ago
Fair enough. They may be cheaper short-term. But I'm noticing from the flat roofs that they might not be so long-lasting (how likely are they to cave in from snow or rain?). So they might not be cheaper long-term. But I guess they might have their place.
- bch 8y ago
  How many winter-years of flat roofs would be convincing that they are effective?
- theoh 8y ago
  The planning of Soviet prefabricated concrete housing was definitely ideological as well as economic. Bauhaus was a bit more idealistic, you're right. There was a notion that building large numbers of minimum houses was the only just way to use scarce resources. There was a housing shortage, and building for the Existenzminimum was seen as the Pareto optimal thing to do (anything more costly/luxurious would be unfair to those left waiting). The best critical book I know about this period is by Hilde Heynen. https://books.google.ie/books?id=hGFZl9sHIhUC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=frankfurt+housing+hilde+heynen&source=bl&ots=RB1M8HRtGy&sig=ACfU3U0wm6mwxrG_xJ8hUHD_29IlqsxvDw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjm56j3qoTgAhXIyqQKHYfuC5EQ6AEwDHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.ie/books?id=hGFZl9sHIhUC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA... BTW, flat roofs have a bad reputation because of problems with the timber rotting due to condensation in the wrong places. With proper use of vapor barriers, a modern timber flat roof should last as well as the alternatives.

ken 8y ago

It sounds very much like an engineer's view to split design into a "political point" and an "engineering point"! I think they would say they were trying to make a point about life and the nature of things. Everything is being labeled "politics" these days, even when I can't tell what it has to do with politics. Is "avoiding pretentiousness" now a political issue? I'm not sure what you mean by "Bauhaus"ed the Windows GUI. If you're talking about Windows 10, I've never heard anyone at Microsoft say that this was intended to be in the Bauhaus style, nor anyone involved with the Bauhaus say that Windows 10 was a design in their style. I wouldn't describe it that way. Bauhaus design was never about ignoring human factors, or hiding the boundaries of objects -- quite the opposite.

man-and-laptop 8y ago
When I said "Bauhaus"ed, I'm referring to the simpler shapes and lack of ornamentation, like a piece of modern architecture. I'm not claiming they took any direct influence from Bauhaus. But on that note... The "Metro" design that's used in W8/W10/WM was influenced by the New York subway's graphic design, which may if you follow the chain back lead to Bauhaus. Also, I'm not really an engineer. And I'd find your dismissal patronising even if I was. Stop putting people into buckets.