4 ms·

Pretty much spot on - the "architects" of the world colluded in driving humanity to misery and despair by encasing people in hollow concrete spaces. What I don

by DenisM 7y ago

Pretty much spot on - the "architects" of the world colluded in driving humanity to misery and despair by encasing people in hollow concrete spaces. What I don't understand is how this came to be? In the Soviet Union, for example, all resources come from the single source, so the distribution of funds becomes politicized and all kinds of crazy shit can fester simply because the group promulgating said shit was better at politicking (see: Lysenko). All universities then have to teach the same stuff. Groupthink. Monoculture. I get it. But how did the western world succumb to this? Surely there are different architectural schools? Different funding sources? What is going on the minds of the people who are writing checks for all these modern Paris buildings [1]? [1] By the way, the author forgot to include the Mitterrand library in his list of peace crimes in Paris: https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/diaporama-7866-bnf-20-ans https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/diaporama-7866-bnf-20-ans

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
It's cheaper to build undecorated boxes. Calling it high art is just a cover. There is also a skill shortage since nobody has paid for quality in generations. The craftsmen that meticulously laid intricate art deco brickwork don't exist anymore and no modern mason can seem to do as good a job. Instead we get uninspired generic concrete and glass prisms designed to maximize square footage for the landlords.
- bdauvergne 7y ago
  Also work and time was cheaper then, they could spend centuries building the same cathedral with nobody complaining about the ballooning price.
  - Udik 7y ago
    If it took centuries there is a reason.
    - bdauvergne 7y ago
      Mostly one: they were patient.
      - Udik 7y ago
        I imagine (but I have no real information on this, so I might be wrong) that cathedrals were always works in progress, on which you could throw a small percentage of your surplus in the good years, and keep idle in the bad ones (or maybe also a bit the opposite, in anti-cyclic fashion). See how the Sagrada Familia is being built in Barcelona (and has been, for 137 years): with an annual construction and maintenance budget of around 25 million, a very small yearly amount for such a huge project.
  - jonhendry18 7y ago
    "nobody complaining about the ballooning price." Very few people would have been in a position to complain about the ballooning price.
seszett 7y ago
> the author forgot to include the Mitterrand library But it's glass, wood and greenery, what's so bad about it? There's little concrete there. I find it a really nice place, both from the wooden terrace and from the reading rooms which have a view on the forest.
- DenisM 7y ago
  The insides aren't bad. Not on in the league the Richelieu library, but ok. The greenery is nice-looking, but it upsets me I can't actually walk down there. Feels isolating. But it's the outside that's truly awful. Living to the north I had to walk the entire length of the building to get to the only open entrance at the south. The entire space on top is eerie: wast, windy, exposed, gray, empty, with four impersonal gigantic building towering in the distance. No a person in sight, no one reading a book on the bench (no bench either), no one chatting with a friend, no one decorating their place of business. The ultimate anti-human space. It all makes you feel small and insignificant. It's the same feeling I got from walking the Nazi party rally grounds in Nuremberg - being completely oppressed by the scale and indifference of the architecture. In the latter case it was obviously intended, but I have to wonder what happened with the Mitterrand library? It all stands in stark contrast with, say, the Notre Dame. There are tourists upfront, there are locals in the park behind the building, there is always someone reading a book on the bench, there are children playing, there is tree cover, there are flowers, and if you walk a couple minutes you will be on the riverbank that actually has people on it (mostly locals). Keep walking along the bank and you will find someone practicing a trombone or a violin during their lunch break, or an evening waltz party on occasion.

by DenisM 7y ago

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

It's cheaper to build undecorated boxes. Calling it high art is just a cover. There is also a skill shortage since nobody has paid for quality in generations. The craftsmen that meticulously laid intricate art deco brickwork don't exist anymore and no modern mason can seem to do as good a job. Instead we get uninspired generic concrete and glass prisms designed to maximize square footage for the landlords.

bdauvergne 7y ago
Also work and time was cheaper then, they could spend centuries building the same cathedral with nobody complaining about the ballooning price.
- Udik 7y ago
  If it took centuries there is a reason.
  - bdauvergne 7y ago
    Mostly one: they were patient.
    - Udik 7y ago
      I imagine (but I have no real information on this, so I might be wrong) that cathedrals were always works in progress, on which you could throw a small percentage of your surplus in the good years, and keep idle in the bad ones (or maybe also a bit the opposite, in anti-cyclic fashion). See how the Sagrada Familia is being built in Barcelona (and has been, for 137 years): with an annual construction and maintenance budget of around 25 million, a very small yearly amount for such a huge project.
- jonhendry18 7y ago
  "nobody complaining about the ballooning price." Very few people would have been in a position to complain about the ballooning price.

seszett 7y ago

> the author forgot to include the Mitterrand library But it's glass, wood and greenery, what's so bad about it? There's little concrete there. I find it a really nice place, both from the wooden terrace and from the reading rooms which have a view on the forest.

DenisM 7y ago
The insides aren't bad. Not on in the league the Richelieu library, but ok. The greenery is nice-looking, but it upsets me I can't actually walk down there. Feels isolating. But it's the outside that's truly awful. Living to the north I had to walk the entire length of the building to get to the only open entrance at the south. The entire space on top is eerie: wast, windy, exposed, gray, empty, with four impersonal gigantic building towering in the distance. No a person in sight, no one reading a book on the bench (no bench either), no one chatting with a friend, no one decorating their place of business. The ultimate anti-human space. It all makes you feel small and insignificant. It's the same feeling I got from walking the Nazi party rally grounds in Nuremberg - being completely oppressed by the scale and indifference of the architecture. In the latter case it was obviously intended, but I have to wonder what happened with the Mitterrand library? It all stands in stark contrast with, say, the Notre Dame. There are tourists upfront, there are locals in the park behind the building, there is always someone reading a book on the bench, there are children playing, there is tree cover, there are flowers, and if you walk a couple minutes you will be on the riverbank that actually has people on it (mostly locals). Keep walking along the bank and you will find someone practicing a trombone or a violin during their lunch break, or an evening waltz party on occasion.