6 ms·

Modern architecture and urban planning, especially in the US, really has failed, and defending the ugly, unsustainable, car-dependent human-deserted urban hells

by bedobi 5y ago

Modern architecture and urban planning, especially in the US, really has failed, and defending the ugly, unsustainable, car-dependent human-deserted urban hells it has produced in the name of progressivism is really, really strange. Examples of architecture and urban planning that actually aligns much better with progressivism would be the Netherlands and other places in Europe that have banned cars and appreciate the value of quiet, walkable neighbourhoods that are at a human scale, conducive to public life and align with and satisfy the aesthetic tastes of the public. Of course, architects and urban planners really, really hate that last part. They still suffer from megalomaniacal delusions like those of Le Corbusier. They want to make statements, and if that means torturing the public so be it. (they're totally progressives though!) Meanwhile, most people just want to exist in spaces that aren't hostile to human life and joy.

OneTimePetes 5y ago
Needs more glass gurkens ... sorry, non-constructive, but the architecture appealing to the powerful is always ignoring the needs of the citizens - since medieval times. Look at the noble towers in tuscany.. and you already can see the ugly powers-that-bee-blowjob-architecture that carries through to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa.
rsj_hn 5y ago
Of the many, many differences between modern and traditional architecture is that if you look at a modern building you have absolutely no idea where it is. It could be in Melbourne, Vancouver, Chicago, Santiago, Los Angeles, etc -- it doesn't matter, because there is no notion of working with local materials, using traditional local idioms. It doesn't try to "fit" into a neighborhood, it tries to stand out. Yes, there are some exceptions, but they are very few. The other thing that really bothers me is the lack of proper scale. It doesn't seem human scaled at all. Here walkability is a big problem as it's very unpleasant to walk around modern architecture. In the Federal building in San Francisco, which seems to be designed to intimidate, this is the view of someone walking by the north side: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7795358,-122.4125483,3a,75y,134.57h,88.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYzpSvRhVg-TN1IPQ4H0ckw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DYzpSvRhVg-TN1IPQ4H0ckw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D183.33746%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7795358,-122.4125483,3a,75y,... East side: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7798315,-122.4116884,3a,75y,226.09h,110.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPA-03x8-yufxc4scC9qC0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7798315,-122.4116884,3a,75y,... south side: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.778619,-122.4117745,3a,75y,313.27h,85.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slqttE8VpnqgXVHK2Ti4u6A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DlqttE8VpnqgXVHK2Ti4u6A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D271.53812%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.778619,-122.4117745,3a,75y,3... West side: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7785627,-122.412846,3a,75y,44.26h,100.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbu4CJUvi2_KXoodv1B_HJQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dbu4CJUvi2_KXoodv1B_HJQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D43.223248%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7785627,-122.412846,3a,75y,4... Suffice it to say, it doesn't promote walkability. Meanwhile, here is a much older federal building just a few blocks down: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7808148,-122.4143869,3a,75y,171.88h,77.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNzsSJqKzwNVZNyXW_WkezQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7808148,-122.4143869,3a,75y,...
- rbanffy 5y ago
  It looks like it was awarded to the lowest bidder. Remember, they need to spend money responsibly and the minimum possible for the entire lifetime of the structure. A tall brick allows putting the largest number of people inside a structure that can be cheaply and quickly built. Imagine the people would be protesting if they tried to make it beautiful and it got also expensive in the process.
- m000 5y ago
  I would say that the design of the federal building in SF has less to do with modern architectural trends, and more to do with the plausible (?) fear that some wacko will ram through an unprotected entrance in a van loaded with TNT.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    That really doesn't require 50 foot high massive walls of blank concrete going up from the sidewalk. You can use bollards to address that threat with setbacks and still have human scale architecture. The bollards will stop any vehicle and they can look quite nice: https://www.degemmill.com/content/uploads/2017/07/Bollards-_-Site-Amendities_-Architectural-_-Decorative-Bollard.jpg https://www.degemmill.com/content/uploads/2017/07/Bollards-_... Then a setback can even be paved with cobblestones or slate or other material pleasant to walk on, with trees, and behind that a beautiful, human scaled building is possible. Here are the bollards in front of the older federal building: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7807829,-122.4146106,3a,75y,152.34h,85.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sACQ-y7VCUgBJ-mjgUJzpbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7807829,-122.4146106,3a,75y,...
    - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
      They even make planters built to be bollards. EG https://www.tymetal.com/crash/crash-bollards/security-planter/ https://www.tymetal.com/crash/crash-bollards/security-plante... or https://www.grainger.com/category/security/access-barriers-and-crowd-control/decorative-security-barriers-and-bollards?attrs=Item%7CSecurity+Planter&filters=attrs https://www.grainger.com/category/security/access-barriers-a...
haklos 5y ago
US is all about exploitation at scale. Their architecture expresses what they themselves are.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Architects are not necessarily progressives. There was some debate a few years ago about whether Le Corbusier was a fascist. And although he wasn't a Nazi, there are other kinds of fascism, and the evidence strongly implies he leaned that way. https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/6/2/article-p196_196.xml?language=en https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/6/2/article-p196_196.xm... Philip Johnson is another architect with far-right sympathies. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/dept-of-design/philip-johnson-the-man-who-made-architecture-amoral https://www.newyorker.com/culture/dept-of-design/philip-john... Demagogues who want "classical architecture" are reliably fascist. Speer and Hitler both created a watered down classicism fined tuned for functional oppressiveness. But you can see "classicist fascism" throughout Europe, especially in Italy and Spain. It's not any less monumental and oppressive than modernism. It has much more stone, much less glass, and - sometimes - slightly more interesting windows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_architecture I agree completely that the antidote to both is a human scale communalism. But they don't seem to teach that in most architecture schools. Or if they do, most students remain more interested in showy egotism than inspired functional, humane spaces.
- bedobi 5y ago
  > Demagogues who want "classical architecture" are reliably fascist dedinitely the ones who are, well, demagogues, and want state aggrandizing statement "classical" buildings, yes but saying the only choice is between that or modern eyesores is kind of a false dichotomy, there's plenty of space for normal people who just want pleasant urban spaces for humans to happily exist in without taking it to either extreme
- ethbr0 5y ago
  My experience was that human scale communalism is highly taught in architecture schools, at the same time as idolization of celebrity architects. It's quite the dichotomy. The economic reality is also that most clients (who are paying) want one of two things: (1) the cheapest box that meets all their functional requirements or (2) a grand monument.
  - 5y ago
MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
The evolution of Yale University, architecturally 1752 / 1922 / 1963 / 2008: https://twitter.com/arch_crimes/status/1449201145952440322 https://twitter.com/arch_crimes/status/1449201145952440322
skewart 5y ago
The Trump style ban didn’t have anything to do with walkability or scale or urban design. It only required federal buildings to have specific kinds of glued-on decorations. Not sure how you got to street planning from there. In any case, architectural style and city planning are orthogonal. You can have nice walkable, cozy streets with “modern” buildings - there are lots of examples of this in Japan, Taiwan, and other parts of East Asia. And you certainly can have sprawling, hostile streets with neo-historical buildings - lots of examples in the US. The biggest culprit preventing more walkable human-scaled streets in new cities tends to be governments and policy-makers, not architects. Decisions about zoning, land rights, transit investment, and even building codes, have a far bigger impact on the built environment than any architect does.

by bedobi 5y ago

OneTimePetes 5y ago

Needs more glass gurkens ... sorry, non-constructive, but the architecture appealing to the powerful is always ignoring the needs of the citizens - since medieval times. Look at the noble towers in tuscany.. and you already can see the ugly powers-that-bee-blowjob-architecture that carries through to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa.

rsj_hn 5y ago

Of the many, many differences between modern and traditional architecture is that if you look at a modern building you have absolutely no idea where it is. It could be in Melbourne, Vancouver, Chicago, Santiago, Los Angeles, etc -- it doesn't matter, because there is no notion of working with local materials, using traditional local idioms. It doesn't try to "fit" into a neighborhood, it tries to stand out. Yes, there are some exceptions, but they are very few. The other thing that really bothers me is the lack of proper scale. It doesn't seem human scaled at all. Here walkability is a big problem as it's very unpleasant to walk around modern architecture. In the Federal building in San Francisco, which seems to be designed to intimidate, this is the view of someone walking by the north side: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7795358,-122.4125483,3a,75y,134.57h,88.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYzpSvRhVg-TN1IPQ4H0ckw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DYzpSvRhVg-TN1IPQ4H0ckw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D183.33746%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7795358,-122.4125483,3a,75y,... East side: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7798315,-122.4116884,3a,75y,226.09h,110.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPA-03x8-yufxc4scC9qC0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7798315,-122.4116884,3a,75y,... south side: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.778619,-122.4117745,3a,75y,313.27h,85.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slqttE8VpnqgXVHK2Ti4u6A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DlqttE8VpnqgXVHK2Ti4u6A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D271.53812%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.778619,-122.4117745,3a,75y,3... West side: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7785627,-122.412846,3a,75y,44.26h,100.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbu4CJUvi2_KXoodv1B_HJQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dbu4CJUvi2_KXoodv1B_HJQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D43.223248%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7785627,-122.412846,3a,75y,4... Suffice it to say, it doesn't promote walkability. Meanwhile, here is a much older federal building just a few blocks down: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7808148,-122.4143869,3a,75y,171.88h,77.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNzsSJqKzwNVZNyXW_WkezQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7808148,-122.4143869,3a,75y,...

rbanffy 5y ago
It looks like it was awarded to the lowest bidder. Remember, they need to spend money responsibly and the minimum possible for the entire lifetime of the structure. A tall brick allows putting the largest number of people inside a structure that can be cheaply and quickly built. Imagine the people would be protesting if they tried to make it beautiful and it got also expensive in the process.
m000 5y ago
I would say that the design of the federal building in SF has less to do with modern architectural trends, and more to do with the plausible (?) fear that some wacko will ram through an unprotected entrance in a van loaded with TNT.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  That really doesn't require 50 foot high massive walls of blank concrete going up from the sidewalk. You can use bollards to address that threat with setbacks and still have human scale architecture. The bollards will stop any vehicle and they can look quite nice: https://www.degemmill.com/content/uploads/2017/07/Bollards-_-Site-Amendities_-Architectural-_-Decorative-Bollard.jpg https://www.degemmill.com/content/uploads/2017/07/Bollards-_... Then a setback can even be paved with cobblestones or slate or other material pleasant to walk on, with trees, and behind that a beautiful, human scaled building is possible. Here are the bollards in front of the older federal building: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7807829,-122.4146106,3a,75y,152.34h,85.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sACQ-y7VCUgBJ-mjgUJzpbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7807829,-122.4146106,3a,75y,...
  - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
    They even make planters built to be bollards. EG https://www.tymetal.com/crash/crash-bollards/security-planter/ https://www.tymetal.com/crash/crash-bollards/security-plante... or https://www.grainger.com/category/security/access-barriers-and-crowd-control/decorative-security-barriers-and-bollards?attrs=Item%7CSecurity+Planter&filters=attrs https://www.grainger.com/category/security/access-barriers-a...

haklos 5y ago

US is all about exploitation at scale. Their architecture expresses what they themselves are.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

Architects are not necessarily progressives. There was some debate a few years ago about whether Le Corbusier was a fascist. And although he wasn't a Nazi, there are other kinds of fascism, and the evidence strongly implies he leaned that way. https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/6/2/article-p196_196.xml?language=en https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/6/2/article-p196_196.xm... Philip Johnson is another architect with far-right sympathies. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/dept-of-design/philip-johnson-the-man-who-made-architecture-amoral https://www.newyorker.com/culture/dept-of-design/philip-john... Demagogues who want "classical architecture" are reliably fascist. Speer and Hitler both created a watered down classicism fined tuned for functional oppressiveness. But you can see "classicist fascism" throughout Europe, especially in Italy and Spain. It's not any less monumental and oppressive than modernism. It has much more stone, much less glass, and - sometimes - slightly more interesting windows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_architecture I agree completely that the antidote to both is a human scale communalism. But they don't seem to teach that in most architecture schools. Or if they do, most students remain more interested in showy egotism than inspired functional, humane spaces.

bedobi 5y ago
> Demagogues who want "classical architecture" are reliably fascist dedinitely the ones who are, well, demagogues, and want state aggrandizing statement "classical" buildings, yes but saying the only choice is between that or modern eyesores is kind of a false dichotomy, there's plenty of space for normal people who just want pleasant urban spaces for humans to happily exist in without taking it to either extreme
ethbr0 5y ago
My experience was that human scale communalism is highly taught in architecture schools, at the same time as idolization of celebrity architects. It's quite the dichotomy. The economic reality is also that most clients (who are paying) want one of two things: (1) the cheapest box that meets all their functional requirements or (2) a grand monument.
- 5y ago

MrBuddyCasino 5y ago

The evolution of Yale University, architecturally 1752 / 1922 / 1963 / 2008: https://twitter.com/arch_crimes/status/1449201145952440322 https://twitter.com/arch_crimes/status/1449201145952440322

skewart 5y ago

The Trump style ban didn’t have anything to do with walkability or scale or urban design. It only required federal buildings to have specific kinds of glued-on decorations. Not sure how you got to street planning from there. In any case, architectural style and city planning are orthogonal. You can have nice walkable, cozy streets with “modern” buildings - there are lots of examples of this in Japan, Taiwan, and other parts of East Asia. And you certainly can have sprawling, hostile streets with neo-historical buildings - lots of examples in the US. The biggest culprit preventing more walkable human-scaled streets in new cities tends to be governments and policy-makers, not architects. Decisions about zoning, land rights, transit investment, and even building codes, have a far bigger impact on the built environment than any architect does.