5 ms·

This article is a perfect encapsulation of our current culture of contempt. It is no longer sufficient, or even possible, to just disagree or have different tas

by whack 8y ago

This article is a perfect encapsulation of our current culture of contempt. It is no longer sufficient, or even possible, to just disagree or have different tastes. "I'm personally not a big fan of that building's aesthetics, but maybe there are others who do like it." That would have been a reasonable opinion to hold... instead we have: "Designed by Thomas Heatherwick, one of architecture’s premier grifters... The depth of architectural thinking at work here makes a kiddie-pool seem oceanic" I hope to God I never have to work with someone like the author. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/02/opinion/sunday/political-polarization.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/02/opinion/sunday/political-...

ilovecaching 8y ago
I think you missed the crux of the argument which is that it’s very proletariat. It does nothing for the community and is designed to benifit the criminally wealthy. Also it’s ugly af. I hope I never have to work with someone with your tastes if you think that’s what beauty is.
- jhbadger 8y ago
  To be fair, I'd say that that is is better than any of the 1960s-1990s "Brutalist" style stuff that reminds me of Communist-style nonsense. That being said, given that that the average inhabitant isn't working class but a professional, why? Aren't there better alternatives at your price level?
  - ilovecaching 8y ago
    Agreed. Brutalist also didn’t age well, partly because upkeep was poor. I’d expect the same of this pinecone.
  - fishnchips 8y ago
    Whatever can be said about the Soviet Bloc architecture, those projects were always either utilitarian or served some propaganda purpose, and a staircase to nowhere would be neither. That said, I dislike the tone of the article.
- phry 8y ago
  > it’s very proletariat. I think you have your terminology backwards here, I figure you meant bourgeoisie
icebraining 8y ago
> I hope to God I never have to work with someone like the author. Hi, Pot (calling the kettle black).
Apocryphon 8y ago
I mean, that's kind of the Baffler's entire shtick. That style of hyperbolic acerbic criticism is very popular in many online publications. Sometimes people enjoy having a good punching bag.
aphextron 8y ago
Great writers have a firmly defined opinion, and make it well known through prose. There’s nothing worse than reading some milquetoast overview of an issue in the name of “fairness”. Not all problems have multiple valid points of view. Some things are either right or wrong, and it’s left to critics to pick a side.
- whack 8y ago
  Some things are indeed objective, and the author has failed utterly in pointing out any of the building's objective flaws. Meanwhile, other things are inherently subjective, which means that by definition, there is no right or wrong answer. Treating an architect with contempt for purely subjective reasons, is not a mark of a "great writer" in any way.
deogeo 8y ago
And I hope to God I never have to live or work in one of those abhorrent bare steel&glass modernist (postmodernist? whatever the style is called) neighborhoods, yet every major city is turning into one. This style of architecture, which appears to be the only one allowed (certainly the only one being built) deserves far worse than contempt. Yet it is architects that treat everyone else with contempt, ignoring the clear public preference for traditional architecture: https://www.dezeen.com/2009/10/16/people-prefer-traditionally-designed-buildings-yougov/ https://www.dezeen.com/2009/10/16/people-prefer-traditionall...
- cam_l 8y ago
  It started life as a style called internationalist. It is brought to you by the same people that champion open plan offices. They are cheaper to build than traditional style buildings, by an order of magnitude. But critically allow for maximising flexible floor space for optimum returns. Architects don't really have much power in the design of these kind of buildings beyond window dressing. Edit. Also, refer to the author's blog for what happens when contemporary architects try to do traditional buildings. The fact is, each historical style of building existed in a larger process of building craft and materials and use. Without this process, the architecture becomes mere pastiche, stuck on, and shoehorned in. Frankensteined architecture.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    > They are cheaper to build than traditional style buildings, by an order of magnitude. Are they? According to [1,2 (especially last post)] (better sources welcome) traditional style is cheaper, and according to [3], there's bias against traditional architecture. Besides, it's the "window dressing", that architects supposedly have power over, that's the ugliest part of modern architecture. Edit: As seen in https://www.city-journal.org/html/can-we-still-build-real-architecture-13553.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/can-we-still-build-real-ar..., 'traditional' architecture is rarely more complicated than a simple rectangular cuboid - it's the 'window dressing' that gives it charm. [1] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-cost-difference-between-building-a-modern-and-conventional-home https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-cost-difference-be... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/architecture/comments/ae2mcs/building_costs_of_traditional_architecture_vs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/architecture/comments/ae2mcs/buildi... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/05/architecture-modernism-vs-traditionalism-olympics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/05/archit...
egypturnash 8y ago
This woman probably got this gig due to her long-running blog, in which she goes on at great length about why "McMansions" are bad architecture. I think the Patreon for it pays a lot of her bills now. Having contempt for buildings has kind of become her entire public persona. I don't think I envy that life.
cam_l 8y ago
Have a look at heatherwick's buildings. Tell me what you think. Nobody does architectural criticism anymore. In the industry it is all breathless, feint praise. Like the Hollywood cliché. I for one, enjoy hearing someone's critical thinking about the architecture underneath the skin of a building. As in, the systems and processes that structure space and movement and interaction and emotion and society. What is the fucking point of architecture if all it does is pretty.
- whack 8y ago
  > I for one, enjoy hearing someone's critical thinking about the architecture underneath the skin of a building. As in, the systems and processes that structure space and movement and interaction and emotion and society The article contains none of that. As another commenter perfectly described: this piece doesn't seem to make any coherent argument. Nowhere does she explain why she dislikes it aesthetically.
  - cam_l 8y ago
    Aesthetics is not architecture! Not sure how much clearer i can be. Talking about architectural aesthetics is like discussing the success of Amazon or Google by way of the colour palette of their website. The articles argument is about the underlying processes which spawned and support the building. It is one valid criticism.

by whack 8y ago

ilovecaching 8y ago

I think you missed the crux of the argument which is that it’s very proletariat. It does nothing for the community and is designed to benifit the criminally wealthy. Also it’s ugly af. I hope I never have to work with someone with your tastes if you think that’s what beauty is.

jhbadger 8y ago
To be fair, I'd say that that is is better than any of the 1960s-1990s "Brutalist" style stuff that reminds me of Communist-style nonsense. That being said, given that that the average inhabitant isn't working class but a professional, why? Aren't there better alternatives at your price level?
- ilovecaching 8y ago
  Agreed. Brutalist also didn’t age well, partly because upkeep was poor. I’d expect the same of this pinecone.
- fishnchips 8y ago
  Whatever can be said about the Soviet Bloc architecture, those projects were always either utilitarian or served some propaganda purpose, and a staircase to nowhere would be neither. That said, I dislike the tone of the article.
phry 8y ago
> it’s very proletariat. I think you have your terminology backwards here, I figure you meant bourgeoisie

icebraining 8y ago

> I hope to God I never have to work with someone like the author. Hi, Pot (calling the kettle black).

Apocryphon 8y ago

I mean, that's kind of the Baffler's entire shtick. That style of hyperbolic acerbic criticism is very popular in many online publications. Sometimes people enjoy having a good punching bag.

aphextron 8y ago

Great writers have a firmly defined opinion, and make it well known through prose. There’s nothing worse than reading some milquetoast overview of an issue in the name of “fairness”. Not all problems have multiple valid points of view. Some things are either right or wrong, and it’s left to critics to pick a side.

whack 8y ago
Some things are indeed objective, and the author has failed utterly in pointing out any of the building's objective flaws. Meanwhile, other things are inherently subjective, which means that by definition, there is no right or wrong answer. Treating an architect with contempt for purely subjective reasons, is not a mark of a "great writer" in any way.

deogeo 8y ago

And I hope to God I never have to live or work in one of those abhorrent bare steel&glass modernist (postmodernist? whatever the style is called) neighborhoods, yet every major city is turning into one. This style of architecture, which appears to be the only one allowed (certainly the only one being built) deserves far worse than contempt. Yet it is architects that treat everyone else with contempt, ignoring the clear public preference for traditional architecture: https://www.dezeen.com/2009/10/16/people-prefer-traditionally-designed-buildings-yougov/ https://www.dezeen.com/2009/10/16/people-prefer-traditionall...

cam_l 8y ago
It started life as a style called internationalist. It is brought to you by the same people that champion open plan offices. They are cheaper to build than traditional style buildings, by an order of magnitude. But critically allow for maximising flexible floor space for optimum returns. Architects don't really have much power in the design of these kind of buildings beyond window dressing. Edit. Also, refer to the author's blog for what happens when contemporary architects try to do traditional buildings. The fact is, each historical style of building existed in a larger process of building craft and materials and use. Without this process, the architecture becomes mere pastiche, stuck on, and shoehorned in. Frankensteined architecture.
- deogeo 8y ago
  > They are cheaper to build than traditional style buildings, by an order of magnitude. Are they? According to [1,2 (especially last post)] (better sources welcome) traditional style is cheaper, and according to [3], there's bias against traditional architecture. Besides, it's the "window dressing", that architects supposedly have power over, that's the ugliest part of modern architecture. Edit: As seen in https://www.city-journal.org/html/can-we-still-build-real-architecture-13553.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/can-we-still-build-real-ar..., 'traditional' architecture is rarely more complicated than a simple rectangular cuboid - it's the 'window dressing' that gives it charm. [1] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-cost-difference-between-building-a-modern-and-conventional-home https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-cost-difference-be... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/architecture/comments/ae2mcs/building_costs_of_traditional_architecture_vs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/architecture/comments/ae2mcs/buildi... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/05/architecture-modernism-vs-traditionalism-olympics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/05/archit...

egypturnash 8y ago

This woman probably got this gig due to her long-running blog, in which she goes on at great length about why "McMansions" are bad architecture. I think the Patreon for it pays a lot of her bills now. Having contempt for buildings has kind of become her entire public persona. I don't think I envy that life.

cam_l 8y ago

Have a look at heatherwick's buildings. Tell me what you think. Nobody does architectural criticism anymore. In the industry it is all breathless, feint praise. Like the Hollywood cliché. I for one, enjoy hearing someone's critical thinking about the architecture underneath the skin of a building. As in, the systems and processes that structure space and movement and interaction and emotion and society. What is the fucking point of architecture if all it does is pretty.

whack 8y ago
> I for one, enjoy hearing someone's critical thinking about the architecture underneath the skin of a building. As in, the systems and processes that structure space and movement and interaction and emotion and society The article contains none of that. As another commenter perfectly described: this piece doesn't seem to make any coherent argument. Nowhere does she explain why she dislikes it aesthetically.
- cam_l 8y ago
  Aesthetics is not architecture! Not sure how much clearer i can be. Talking about architectural aesthetics is like discussing the success of Amazon or Google by way of the colour palette of their website. The articles argument is about the underlying processes which spawned and support the building. It is one valid criticism.