20 ms·

When is the revolution in architecture coming?

• AYBABTME 5y ago
  The coolest modern airport is definitely Koh Samui in Thailand: https://www.shutterstock.com/search/koh+samui+airport https://www.shutterstock.com/search/koh+samui+airport I wish more significant structures were built in a style that thinks outside the box, and is locally sensitive. I wonder what this would mean for a place like the SF Bay.
  • nagarjun 5y ago
    Bangalore Airport (BIAL) Terminal 2 looks promising: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB2xF5ta0UA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB2xF5ta0UA. From the renders, the airport is unlike any other in India. While T1 is a large glass structure, T2 pays homage to Bangalore's image as India's "Garden City". Trees and natural materials are a central element of the terminal's design.
• imoverclocked 5y ago
  I grew up in a place where new/flat/clean architecture was enviable. Lots. of. stucco. flipped. houses. I now live in a log cabin (completely different location). None of the walls are straight and my interior doors sometimes do not close properly. I've come to love it all. When I return to places with these perfect and completely uninteresting walls, I feel a newfound sense of dread. I sometimes doubt my ability to return to an office/cubicle setting anymore.
• watersb 5y ago
  Are modern buildings more pleasant to live in? Modern buildings incorporate fire-supression systems and HVAC and (when necessary) dynamic resistance to earthquakes or wind loads.
  • jkaptur 5y ago
    Not to mention being accessible to people using wheelchairs.
• mrwnmonm 5y ago
  Abilities distract your soul sometimes.
• supperburg 5y ago
  I recently designed my modest house myself all on paper. I read a pattern language and some other things in preparation. I’m convinced that communities that are nice to live in, even if only in the way they look, must be grown organically so to speak. It must be smaller scale people building the structures and becoming invested in the community. Now all I see are these giant developments that try to simulate that cozy feeling. They get bought immediately from the development company.
• dazag 5y ago
  Doesn't the author know about Jacque Fresco and the venus project? I guess he doesn't handle much information on that area.
• DeathArrow 5y ago
  TLDR: Brutalism and Modernism are ugly, left is good, but left is associated with Brutalism. Right is evil and filled with nazis and racists. Right is associated with nostalgia about beautiful things. You can still be a leftist and admire beautiful things, provided that the architect you admire is not from the evil race. Politics is making everything rot, even architecture.
• oftenwrong 5y ago
  The author's previous article on the subject was discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23582942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23582942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17514463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17514463
• Grakel 5y ago
  This misses a big point: highly skilled craftsmanship will never again be affordable on an architectural scale. So we'll have it again when it can all be done by machine. It costs human lives to build a Notre Dame, both in deaths and in total lifespan output, and as for Sagrada Familia it's still not complete. We now value human life and labor too much to be able to afford it. I personally can't wait to have detailed, warm, organic architecture back again, but I damn sure don't want to carve any stone.
  • chuckee 5y ago
    > highly skilled craftsmanship will never again be affordable on an architectural scale Is that why those award-winning buildings look like that? Because the architects tried to make them cheaper? Is 'detail' requiring highly skilled craftsmanship the only way to make pleasant buildings? Because a few of the buildings (Venice and the Italian village) the article gives as examples of beauty have only the barest, simplest of details.
    • grp000 5y ago
      Those Italian buildings were created as highly practical structures at the time, in waterway locations that constrained the geometry of how the city grew, so they have an interesting and historical appearance. Also a lot of the Italian architecture is not a building, but an entire city, not sure those really count.
    • Grakel 5y ago
      Its very hard to get contractors to work with materials today. So you can have some factory create panels of steel and glass, and the contractor can have (relatively) unskilled cheap labor snap them into place. That's a lot of construction today. Some really beautiful structures do use minimalism, but so many big architects today strive for speed, size, and function. I think most modern beautiful, minimalist structures are usually smaller, built for fewer people, etc. Maybe?
    • mannykannot 5y ago
      I think the statement you quote is incorrect. Our society is quite capable of paying for artisans to restore the architectural splendors of earlier times, and does so. At the same time, expenditure on architecture for its own sake seems to have increased in the last decade or so, at least in centers of wealth (which, in modern times, is where non-utilitarian architecture has its first home, even if it likes to have a weekend place in the country.) What has not happened is that, for the most part, the paymasters for the latter development have demonstrated little interest in adopting styles that demand highly skilled craftsmanship of the sort formerly valued (and still valued, apparently, so long as it dates to a previous era.) Today's vanity architecture reflects the values of those who commission it, rather than being a result of market prices for artisan work.
• unethical_ban 5y ago
  "Modern" anything, when the focus is on "modern" and not on state of the art, will tend to produce somewhat radical things that attempt to do something never done before in the field. These examples of architecture are certainly new, certainly a spinoff from related past designs but with new materials and angles (I'm talking out of my butt a little). I wouldn't mind a "recession" back into Beaux Arts for government and public buildings, but that isn't going to win "modern" design prizes.
• recursivedoubts 5y ago
  I've seen enough revolution. I would be far more interested in an architectural counter-revolution, with the vendee marching on these modern monstrosities with pitch forks, torches and jackhammers.
  • rurban 5y ago
    Architectural revolutions come and go in steady cycles. This guy is of the post-modern school, which hates on the modern school. They do irrational nonsense just to make a point against rationalism. They post eg in /r/evilbuildings Modernism hated art-noveau and previous such schools, like baroque, and esp. rokoko (late baroque), the typical l'art pour l'art extremist schools. Nobody takes them too serious, so they get angry easily. And they usually work in US or British academia.
    • wincy 5y ago
      Wow I just looked up rococo and it's absolutely astounding and beautiful. I wish every building I walked into looked like those buildings, I feel like I'd just be happier even if it were merely cheap imitation.
      • pas 5y ago
        Rococo architecture is absolutely toooo much (to me, of course), the gulag toilet is too little. There are options in the middle. Classicist touches (columns, simple harmonizing forms), big windows, scale, light, green, stairs, plazas. Walkable, connected to the underground public transportation, etc. Sometimes less is more. There's no need to make houses organic looking, instead the architecture should provide spaces and light (hence a lot of glass) for real organic things. Humans, animals, plants. https://media.jlgarchitects.com/jlgblobstorage/2019/04/sdsu-harding-hall.jpg https://media.jlgarchitects.com/jlgblobstorage/2019/04/sdsu-... https://jlg-legolas.azureedge.net/jlgblobstorage/2019/01/first-international-bank-rugby.jpg https://jlg-legolas.azureedge.net/jlgblobstorage/2019/01/fir... Of course you might absolutely not agree.
    • OneTimePetes 5y ago
• throwawaysea 5y ago
  I agree with the sentiment of the article overall but this one sentence felt bizarrely out of place to me: > Here are a couple of works by the greatest architect who ever lived, Antoni Gaudí Really? Apart from the Sagrada Familia, the rest of his more famous works just comes off as weirdly whimsical at best, and discordantly unattractive at worst. It’s strange seeing such a definitive opinion given the grandeur of some of the ancient work the author highlights earlier, which seems far beyond Gaudí. Another irony here is that his work falls under the label of “Catalan modernism”, while the author is railing against modernism and its derivative styles.
  • generationP 5y ago
    > Another irony here is that his work falls under the label of “Catalan modernism”, while the author is railing against modernism and its derivative styles. Gaudi seems to be one of those great artists who never managed to impart his good ideas on his students. Or maybe it was the wrong era for whimsy and measured extravagance.
  • PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    When I visited Casa Mila ("La Pedrera"), one of the most striking things about it was how modern it seemed. It was commissioned in 1902 and finished in 1910. More than 100 years later, almost nothing about it felt dated (other than specific appliances), and several details felt as if they were still coming from the future. I've had this feeling in some of Gaudi's other buildings, as if he was so far ahead of us that more than a century later, we have still not really caught up with his vision.
• snambi 5y ago
  Couldn't agree more. The modern buildings are boring, dumb, tasteless and just plain ugly. Not only that, they look very outdated in 10 years. 20 years down the line, the sight of these buildings are just unbearable.
• alephnan 5y ago
  Society, as an economic participant, has options and alternate goods it can spend its money on. Historically, maybe there was nothing else more interesting to spend money on, so people allocated their time and energy to these grand architecture. Now the Medicis of the world can spend their wealth on space exploration and memes instead. Many of these places are also spiritually motivated, and the world is increasingly atheist.
• chadash 5y ago
  I agree with the premise of the article but there’s also some survivorship bias at play. We know about (and don’t knock down) the particularly beautiful older buildings. If you go to New York City there’s beautiful stuff from the early 20th century (think Chrysler Building) and plenty of unremarkable stuff still standing (think pre-war walk ups). Maybe one in a hundred of the older buildings is remarkably beautiful. Still, there don’t seem to be many large scale projects built to last today. Nothing on the scale of Grand Central for a public building has been attempted in a long time, and it’s a shame because it’s quite awe inspiring to commute through there.
  • barry-cotter 5y ago
    > We know about (and don’t knock down) the particularly beautiful older buildings. We have lots of evidence from paintings and photographs that it's not just survivorship bias, that things have gotten on average uglier. > If you go to New York City there’s beautiful stuff from the early 20th century (think Chrysler Building) and plenty of unremarkable stuff still standing (think pre-war walk ups). Still more aesthetically pleasing than a large majority of what's built now. > Maybe one in a hundred of the older buildings is remarkably beautiful. Not being actively ugly is pretty good too and a great deal more common in older buildings than newer ones. There are many, many more neighbourhoods that people will travel to just to walk around and appreciate that were built before wWW2 than after, in every country that was developed before then, and almost all that weren't.
    • nitrogen 5y ago
      We have lots of evidence from paintings and photographs that it's not just survivorship bias, that things have gotten on average uglier. There's definitely a bias at play here, whatever name you give to it. Maybe a bias toward familiarity, where the longer something has been around, the more people decide they like it. I look forward to the day when I can build my perfect glass and stone paradise and finally escape the terror of older buildings and small spaces designed for people less than 5' tall.
      • 5y ago
• asciimike 5y ago
  ACX had some good commentary on this in recent posts: - https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/whither-tartaria https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/whither-tartaria - https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-modern https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-co... Lots of potential discussions on why we're stuck with "ugly" modern architecture (is it due to materials/construction costs, environmental/safety regulation, architect's desires to be different...), and generally a more enjoyable piece than this one. Plus there's a brief discussion on a hilarious conspiracy theory.
• flenserboy 5y ago
  Standards and building codes, the same sorts of reasons cars, except for a few visual design points, all have the same basic shape and look. Organizations, as well as home buyers, also look for resaleability and the ability to repurpose spaces — odd, though beautiful buildings are thought to be hard to sell, and specialized spaces are considered long-term detriments. Contemporary architecture is a monument to bureaucrats and middle managers.
  • Joeri 5y ago
    For every practical reason for the flat boxy look I’m sure alternative approaches can be worked out, but people have to want to do it first. As someone who is not a car owner I find it striking how functionally blind most people are to the ugliness of cars. Modern cars are designed to look well alone in a vast empty space, and that is how car ads pitch them. But when you see them racked and stacked bumper to bumper like in cities it is shocking just how unsightly they are and just how much space we yield to cars dramatically reducing the livability of the city. People are so functionally blind they can’t even imagine any other way. Surely, you must have cars. The notion that we have chosen to make our cities ugly and unlivable and we could choose otherwise isn’t even conceivable. When people hear I don’t have a car they always assume I rent or borrow one often. They cannot imagine how a family of four can get things done without a car, and literally the “how” question is the one I get most. Maybe something similar has happened to architecture, where social norms have made it impossible for most to even see a different way. Things are the way they are ostensibly for practical and aesthetic reasons, but none of those practical and aesthetic reasons really stand up under scrutiny because ultimately it is down to fashion.
    • GhettoComputers 5y ago
      >Modern cars are designed to look well alone in a vast empty space, and that is how car ads pitch them. >Things are the way they are ostensibly for practical and aesthetic reasons, but none of those practical and aesthetic reasons really stand up under scrutiny because ultimately it is down to fashion. That is wrong, they are all the same looking for aerodynamics since Obama told car manufacturers to make them more fuel efficient. Form follows function, its why they are all generic looking, they are greener, they have a crumple zone for safety, they are not designed round and generic looking for aesthetic reasons. >The Obama Administration today finalized groundbreaking standards that will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/0... The opposite is like Elon Musk asking a costume designer to design a spacesuit, then making engineer fit the function after (not efficient engineering design and in my opinion not very attractive suits either, they look like evil guards in movies). https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-design-spacex-spacesuits-worn-nasa-astronauts-2020-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-design-spacex-spac...
• hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  Just wanted to say thanks for posting this, I loved this article. I certainly disagreed with the author on many points, but it was joyful for me to think about my own aesthetic that has been shaped by our times, and also to see some of the beautiful architecture in the article. Can someone identify the first photo of classic Islamic architecture? I love that style of architecture and art, both intricate and detailed while also always having a "mathematical" beauty at the same time.
  • ido 5y ago
    It appears in this article on Persian architecture https://www.kooleh.com/persian-architecture/ https://www.kooleh.com/persian-architecture/ I think it is in a mosque in Shiraz.
  • eternalban 5y ago
    The Shah's Mosque (Masjid Shah), Isfahan, Iran. This is part of the Naqshe'h Jahan ('The Design of the World') complex. Designed and built by Sufi Architects of Safavid Dynasty, the complex is a symbolic occult representation of 'the world'. The 'Shah' in question here is 'The King of the world', i.e. God. Opposite the mosque is 'The market'. Along the long axis of the square is 'The Palace' of the earthly king, and opposite of that is another (quite beautiful) "Royal Mosque" that was used by the king, God's vice-regent. In the center, the field was used for Polo, the game of kings, symbolic of the "quite serious" (per Rumi) cosmological 'game'. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=shah+mosque+isfahan&t=ffab&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fca%2FImamsquare2.JPG https://duckduckgo.com/?q=shah+mosque+isfahan&t=ffab&iax=ima... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqsh-e_Jahan_Square https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqsh-e_Jahan_Square https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq2Qsm4YfnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq2Qsm4YfnY [p.s. After the revolution, the regime rather ignorantly renamed the Shah's Mosque to Imam's Mosque, confusing the "Shah" in question with an earthly king.]
• chmaynard 5y ago
  See also: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-contemporary-architecture https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-contempo...
• d--b 5y ago
  So. Fucking. True. The state of architecture is a disaster. Ever since Adolf Loos wrote “ornament is crime”, architects have booed anything decorative. We get textures, sure. Oh boy do we get textures. We get all the woods, all the stones, all the 3d printed concrete. Sculpture? Hell, no… And no it’s not that expensive. When you build 234 park avenue, every apartment sells for $10m. maybe there is some of it that can go towards making things fun a little bit. The worst part is even Modernist heroes like Corbusier and Wright did fun stuff. The Church at Ronchamp is weird and playful. And Wright’s blocky mayan influence is crazy and refreshing. Not asking your everyday architect to change overnight, but the people who influence the profession, give the prizes and write the articles seriously need to change.
  • MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
    Every architect I've met is like a jaded COBOL programmer at the government that refuses to leave their niche because change increases the chances of you getting fired.
    • chasd00 5y ago
      That’s a good way to put it. I know a number of architects, 99.9% design the equivalent of Taco Bell’s. Unless you’re exceptional it’s a very mind numbin job where you’re easily replaceable (like most everything else).
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    • galfarragem 5y ago
      Architect here. From my experience I would say completely the oposite, every intern is a Idris or at least a Haskell programmer. Architectural offices, soon or later, will make them Java programmers. COBOL programmers are the government authorities and the typical investor.
      • abrowne 5y ago
• Semiapies 5y ago
  The Neo-Andean architecture that has sprung up in Bolivia during Evo Morales’ Socialist presidency The pictured room is an example of a building that's called a "cholet", a multi-use commercial/residential building built by members of the Aymara ethnic group. They're stores and event halls with residences on top. The event halls are frequently used for extravagant parties and closing business deals (often at the some time). The design, interior and exterior, is crazy-dramatic, but beautiful...and very deliberately a display of wealth and status. It's both capitalist as fuck and the result of a generation of Aymaras building their own city in El Alto. The rest of this article has moments, but I just have trouble taking the writer seriously after reading that. And the obligatory link in response to all the concept art: https://www.archdaily.com/346374/can-we-please-stop-drawing-trees-on-top-of-skyscrapers https://www.archdaily.com/346374/can-we-please-stop-drawing-...
• aaronbrethorst 5y ago
  This argument is ridiculous: Note: I have set aside for the purposes of this article the fact that our ugly buildings are all capitalistic megaprojects and thus we cannot change our design until we change our economic system. There are plenty of beautiful buildings being built today. Just because the Pritzker Prize isn't awarded to them because the panel awarding this prize believes in hideous monstrosities doesn't mean that the only buildings being built are ugly. Here are a few counter-examples, out of literally millions of new buildings being built around the world: https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/buildings-redefined-architecture-past-5-years https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/buildings-redefine..., all of which happen to be "capitalistic megaprojects!" Also, neither here nor there, but I wonder if Nathan's writing this article because he fired all of his writers after they tried to unionize: "Yes, we were fired by the editor-in-chief of a socialist magazine for trying to start a worker co-op." https://www.gawker.com/media/the-current-affair-at-current-affairs-is-that-everyone-has-been-fired https://www.gawker.com/media/the-current-affair-at-current-a...
  • skupig 5y ago
    Your counter-examples appear to be yet more glass behemoths devoid of life or color
    • aaronbrethorst 5y ago
      "That's just like, your opinion, man"
    • nitrogen 5y ago
      Better for a building's inhabitants to be free to bring their own life and color, than for the building to try to impose one decade's view of life and color upon every generation for the next century.
      • chuckee 5y ago
        How do you propose they do that? For example, take your typical steel-and-glass skyscraper, such as the One World Trade Center. How can the inhabitants make the exterior less hostile? Or affect it at all? And isn't the complete absence of any kind of style, color, or pleasant features in general, an imposition of a specific view in itself? And finally, is what you describe even a problem? How many people living in old Art Deco skyscrapers are miserable and trying to leave due to having a century-old style imposed upon them? Or people living in historic neighborhoods? Whereas featureless gray cubes "free them to bring their own life and color"?
• GhettoComputers 5y ago
  The author tends to make very simple logic fallacies in all of his articles. If we apply the same logic to video games or movies we would ask why aren't modern games any good? Its simple survivorship bias. He also uses the Prizker prize as the highest prestige award, I have never heard anyone ever mention it, and at best never remembered what some wealthy people's opinions were or think they were relevant. I live in Illinois where JB Prizker is the governor, I went to a drafting school and was an architecture student in college so it shows how important the prize is. Good architecture wasn't ever monopolized by self appointed tastemakers, or how many or what awards it got, people liked what they liked despite what self anointed experts decided what they think is the best. You can look at other prizes that if by the cash prize is less prestigious but not at all similar in taste, meaning building design taste is not standardized and the assuption that all buildings headed by architects only building and copying Prizker prize winners is false. https://architectureprize.com/winners/2021.php https://architectureprize.com/winners/2021.php Building codes, materials avaliable, and standardization will cause buildings to have common characteristics, his examples are all designs that have survivorship bias from different cultures around the world and of course he had to mention how left wing he is, how the right is wrong, Trump for some reason and his own assumptions as facts and make everything political like this >For many of the people who use these terms, they connote a vision that is ugly, fake, and deeply racist. His articles are always childish and amateurish. He assumes that we need more modern buildings that conform to his own style, which is a deeply out of touch, privileged positon like the Prizker prize apointees and ignores the modern buildings in Singapore or Japan where they can afford such designs. Most people are going for cost efficiency with generic plans prefabs, sometimes green features (cutouts in large buildings exist at seemingly random points but they're sunlight related, and its only a consideration at scale) or just living in a mobile home of some kind due to soaring costs.
• foobarquxbaz 5y ago
  tl;dr: Wednesday
• nitrogen 5y ago
  All but two of the article's examples of bad buildings look amazing. What is supposed to be wrong with them?
• lifeisstillgood 5y ago
  So architecture is a difficult subject, but masterful sarcasm can be recognised anywhere: >>> THE TREE DIED TO AVOID HAVING TO LOOK AT THE BUILDING ALL DAY. Best picture caption this month!
• lifeisstillgood 5y ago
  Ideas: - revolutions in local democracy (when was last time you or anyone else voted on the local planning permissions / building code? When was last time we got opportunity to vote on layout of a town? I live in a rapidly built new town, another thousand houses going up, everyone is moaning about and trying to petition something but the leverage is in the development corporation hands.
• Nursie 5y ago
  "...Alejandro Aravena’s Angelini Innovation Center, was called by the Pritzker jury “remarkably humane and inviting.” His work is “welcoming,” they say, and “deepens our understanding of what is truly great design.” When I read things like this, I feel like I must be of a different species to these jury members, ... " Absolutely! It looks like the toilet block in a gulag.
  • DeathArrow 5y ago
    >Absolutely! It looks like the toilet block in a gulag. Maybe the architects derived a sense of beauty from toilet blocks in a gulag. Even though soviet architecture wasn't exactly beautiful, it wasn't as bad as most modern architecture.
    • s3tz 5y ago
      Depends on what you mean by bad. And which era of Soviet architecture. The block flats look like prisons and feel like the budget ran out 1/3 of the way building them. The early stuff looks excellent, at least the well built parts. The overall build quality is a bit hit or miss on everything.
• dirtyid 5y ago
  As a victim, I found it fascinating how many architecture students who loved classical aesthetics become thoroughly brainwashed into modern aesthetics at architecture school. In no small response to fact that architects generally has to work with the dominant building systems of the era. One learns to love and celebrate modernity through stockholm syndromne. As others have mentioned, ornamentation will come back once it can be done cheaply at scale, labour for such things are cost prohibitive unless you have a pool of underclass or willing to wait decades. It's why modern architecture focus on structural details, the kind of component assembling with very little "craft" but still expresses craftsmanship and a builders expertise. As for vegetation, especially indoors. I dig it, but Changi Airport is a Singapore's jewel for a reason. It's the product of excess. Also at least from my understanding, the planting component of many projects fail hard.
  • IYasha 5y ago
    Cannot agree more on the brainwashing part. It happens in many, if not all, vectors of education. Loss of harmonic perception in many aspects of science.
• aaron695 5y ago
  Wasn't everyone wanking off about how clever they were pointing out Charlie Munger wasn't an architect last week? Ohhhhhh he's doing something different trying to change the nature and expense of dormitory living with his own money, and the "architect" just left the project. Architects are shit, but equally they both allow a differentiation from the normal and also have to differentiate from the normal to justify their fees, which means their buildings are often not practical but do look pretty, which all the chosen Brutalist buildings do look. Beautiful. You just don't want them everywhere. The first set of photos are just staged photos with the colors changed from Instagram, from world famous Disneyland locations that have $$$$ for their up keep. Afrofuturist design is just making dystopian shanty towns look pretty. Perhaps aim higher for Africa. And trees and plants on buildings don't work. They die. How about we work on, trees in the ground in more places. More utilities underground and less public advertising.
• hoseja 5y ago
  Most of all, it feels like all these are cheap and optimized to be buildable without craft.
• cmarschner 5y ago
  Oh yeah I can totally relate. If you want to dive deeper, follow Twitter accounts like @wrathofgnon or @createstreets. Just be prepared to leave the cozy liberal bubble of software… the scene is… more diverse. There seems to be a correlation between modernist architecture and liberalism, and vice versa, which to me is so baffling since it is the same people who advocate for modernist buildings who then enjoy their vacations in Venice. On the other hand, advocates of more traditional architecture are correlated (in my observation) with also traditional (non-democratic) power structures and family/gender values, and in parts support alt right topics such as anti-vax/Covid denial up to blatant racism. I had not expected this. What‘s missing, and the article hints at it at the end, is a middle ground: progressive, but based on emotions and beauty. Embedded into local vernacular (which clings to solving problems with local weather patterns and sourcing of local material) rather than international style, and embedded into its surroundings rather than being antithetical. Using low-carbon materials such as wood, stone, straw, or mud, which, when used correctly, show as good (or better) properties regarding air quality and temperature control than high-tech materials based on oil, and air conditioning or hesting systems that require constant use of a power source. And, as importantly, going back to a language that creates cities we actually enjoy, using a human scale, walkable, complex, and beautiful.
  • TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    It's worth reading the counterpoint - about reactionary "back to the past" architecture in the UK. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/05/the-royal-dystopia-of-poundbury https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/05/the-royal-dystopia-of... I went to visit Poundbury a few years ago and my reaction was "Seriously?!" It's just as ugly and soulless as the output of the concrete box school. Even the name shows a hilarious absence of self-awareness. The fact that these supposed extremes somehow manage to meet is an interesting clue to what is really going on.\ Edit: to add, another clue is the bizarre absence of gardens and independent greenery. There are some micro-lawns but most of the land is given over to roads or buildings. There is very little integration with nature.
    • cmarschner 5y ago
      Very worth reading indeed. Sigh. That makes me even more sad. I had high hopes of Poundbury, and reading that Krier, who has published smart ideas about urban planning, was apologetic towards a super nazi like Speer (and he was, as a new documentary recently reveals) is not forgivable. It seems we only have a choice between the imperialist and aristocrats or the staleness of steel/glass/concrete. There must be a third way.
• akomtu 5y ago
  Why don't you install a couple custom sculptures at your driveway? Ah, those will cost your income for 3 months and you'd rather spend this money on something more useful. Our architecture accurately reflects our culture: hollow, rational, brutalistic, serving one shallow purpose. It's the cult of greed and this architecture is its temple.
• an9n 5y ago
  The intention of modern architecture - like modern art (well alongside facilitating money laundering)- is to demoralise the ordinary citizen, because where would offering the plebs beautiful places to experience end? Spiritual nourishment might make them slightly happier, more content and give them something to be proud of. We can't have that! Take a look at the disgusting 'Algeria' graphic style beloved of horrible globalist corporates for another manifestation of the same agenda.
• dr_dshiv 5y ago
  I live in Amsterdam in the former social housing area where Anne Frank grew up. It was built in the 20s and is known as “the Amsterdam school” [1]. It is incredible: it is mostly lower than 5 floors (human scale), has a classic look and it provides just enough ornamentation for every building to be just slightly different from its neighbor. Inside the apartments, there are slight variations (eg, different stained glass work). It is truly brilliant large-scale community design that worked. It makes me wonder why we can’t offer cities around the world more “cut and paste” approaches? Not everything has to be brand new. Like, create 3-D models of communities and then drop in models of “architecture that works” from other cities. Communities could be involved in setting a vision for their own development. This would be a cheap way to create buy-in for density, if you could get a sense of what the community actually wants by presenting multiple options, rather than preparing millions on just one big proposal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_School
  • omosubi 5y ago
    I've always wondered why "open source architecture" never took off - i know every site has it's own challenges and each city it's own building codes but it seems like it would be pretty easy to make 50 types of buildings and essentially copy and paste them to make a nice city
    • Nasrudith 5y ago
      They do it in suburbs. Not open source but developer recycling of blue prints. I think the USSR had that with their Khrushchyovka and related ilk given to allies.
• ABoredBirb 5y ago
  I'd rather have a sustainable architecture "revolution" - to incorporate passive cooling/heating principles in buildings.
• gnramires 5y ago
  One of my favorite architectures is not anywhere real, but Morrowind (Elder Scrolls game). All cities are astonishingly beautiful. More, they all sort of fit together internally. They form a coherent style. Plus the interiors and the exteriors are both gorgeous and work together. See Ald'ruhn: https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Ald%27ruhn,_Manor_District?file=Ald%2527Ruhn-Under-Skar_Interior_1_Morrowind.png https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Ald%27ruhn,_Manor_Distr... and Vivec (not sure I went there years ago): https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Vivec_City_(Morrowind)?file=Vivec_-_Morrowind.png https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Vivec_City_(Morrowind)?... The function of every building is clear from the outside, and it's clear they are part of the same picture/vision. Of course that's because the game designers made them all at once coherently. So more than any style being particularly bad, I think We have mainly a lack of vision and coordination (the greatest problem of modern humanity). Each building does its own thing. So we over-regulate each building so they can't be too deviant (because there is otherwise no say in style). The result is jarring, boring, uninspired cities. (See my proposal of a new economic system to address this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29043752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29043752) A good start would be having communitarian, and maybe city architects responsible for (at least part of) every project in a certain region. Each neighborhood should be designed as a whole to be most coherent, functional (for everyone, not individually), psychologically well designed.
  • nathias 5y ago
    No, there is only one thing that can achieve this, local urbanism, clear rules that all buildings being built must adhere to.
  • Chris2048 5y ago
    Not sure I agree that those buildings are good looking. Incidentally, I think there are some nice architectures in the "Dishonoured" series (and in fact many Arkane games, Prey included).
• mkl95 5y ago
  Brutalism somehow made it to the 21st century, and it's still popular. The only explanation I can find is that those architects have never lived, studied, or worked in those places. Personally they bring me memories of incompetent teachers, insufficient heating, and specks of dust I'd rather forget.
• JohnWhigham 5y ago
  Minimalism is cancer. It has stripped out the human element in favor of efficiency and cleanliness. It is the very definition of soullessness.
  • vincnetas 5y ago
    I disagree one one thing that minimalism provides 'efficiency'. On contrary, it's much more difficult to have minimalistic door installed without any edgings, as edgings are hiding your sloppy work. Even when they are hand carved. This is to distract you from shortcomings. Same with borderless windows stretching from ceiling to floor. You are not saving on borders, you spending much more to have them removed.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• dusted 5y ago
  Hmm, maybe I'm wrong, but I like brutalism, I really really like the pictures he uses to to state his point, the ones he calls ugly. I don't like the ones he uses as examples of beauty.
  • wffurr 5y ago
    Are you an architect?
    • dusted 5y ago
      If I have to be an architect for my opinion to matter then there's something very, very wrong. No, I am not an architect, but I'm as qualified as any other inhabitant of cities to have an opinion on aesthetics.
      • sethammons 5y ago
        I took the question to be seeking if you have been influenced by the industry / culture that is being criticized, and not gatekeeping.
        • dusted 5y ago
          My apologies, I shouldn't set out so defensively. It's just the form of question that I have happened upon many times when discussing architecture with architects, or art with artists, and there it's definitely an attempt at gatekeeping :)
          • wffurr 5y ago
            Well, the article did also mention leftists favoring Brutalist architecture, and not just architecture award panels. So I suppose you could be a leftist too.
            • dusted 5y ago
              I don't think my political views fit well into the 1 dimensional model of "left" or "right". There are excellent points and values spread throughout the entire political spectrum. I won't pick sides, and I won't be in the center eiter, so I'm out. Also, is "I bet you're a {political label}" still considered an insult ?
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• Zababa 5y ago
  > The Neo-Andean architecture that has sprung up in Bolivia during Evo Morales’ Socialist presidency has also offered a colorful glimpse at something very different to what we think of as “contemporary” without being hidebound. An example: I find that this specific example feels cheap and gives a "made of plastic" impression. I would rather have the big blocks of concrete than that, because both feel hollow but at least the blocks of concrete feel "honest".
• deltron3030 5y ago
  I've expected something about Zaha Hadid and Patrick Schumacher and generative architecture design he calls parametricism (forms are results of simulations about how people interact with the space). Search about him on YT, there some really great content. Here's his site: https://patrikschumacher.com/ https://patrikschumacher.com/
• jcmontx 5y ago
  On one hand, I completely agree, we need more ornamentation. Buildings should not be this bland. On the other hand, there's the high maintenance cost.
• rswail 5y ago
  I really think this is a rant. Righteous maybe, but there are so many straw-man arguments and some mysterious "they". I live in Melbourne, Australia, and we have some of the worst and best. Some of our new apartment buildings are atrocious examples of developer greed. But some are enhancements to our city, and there are public and business buildings that are similar, while still advancing both technology and architecture. A lot of the criticisms in this article aren't about architecture, but about town planning. Mixed-use neighborhoods and human scale development is not just individual buildings, it's how they inter-relate and work together. It's about transport systems and infrastructure as well. The appeal of Gaudi and others is that their architecture is organic and there's no reason modern architecture and infrastructure, especially as we green our cities, won't evolve in that direction.
  • Strs2FillMyDrms 5y ago
    I cannot stop thinking about this rant and how funny it is, it's like if Cinemasins would discuss how everyone is tired of Scorsese's films and why we need more Marvel movies on a column in the NYTimes.
  • seoulmetro 5y ago
    I was with him until he listed what he considered good. It looked like a kid had accidentally spilt lego on an abandoned city. Terrible. I think some of the best architecture can be seen in Singapore.
  • Handytinge 5y ago
    I love Melbourne, but I'm struggling to think of any buildings in the city from the last few decades that evoke beauty or originality. Docklands, La Trobe St, everything I can think of in recent years is fairly generic and risk adverse.
• cblconfederate 5y ago
  > Jeyifous’ work is intricate. It is overflowing with plant life Architecture usually reflects the times. We love abstractions now, not elaborations and intricacy. The impressive colors and shapes of life have been reduced to the principle of natural selection. Software is equally dull and abstract and uncharming. Monoculture has won in this globalized world. Why should there be a next revolution ?
• ollifi 5y ago
  I find it amazing that most commenters find nothing good in contemporary architecture but at the same time seem to believe that if only somebody did the right thing things would be better. I think it is pretty obvious that there are hard constraints at play here. If it would be possible to do different kind of new buildings, somebody in the world surely would be doing them. It’s really hard to find anyone who doesn’t love great historical buildings I don’t think this is a case of wrong people designing structures.
  • batushka3 5y ago
    Well actualy it is. In my own wery oldtown, there is a piece of palace remaining next to parking lot. All the submitions were nothing of rebuild, although plenty of historical data. Only glass, concrete and boxy shapes. Something is broken with architects in general.
    • galfarragem 5y ago
      It's complex. Imagine you inherit a COBOL codebase, would you expand it further or would you try to add a functional microservice in the language of the day? Ok, you can say: the codebase is not COBOL, is C and is beautifully done. However all architects studied Art History and Aesthetics, so, at least, they have a more informed opinion on what defines a good codebase than a layman. Probably we could give them the benefit of the doubt.
      • coldtea 5y ago
        >All architects studied Art History and Aesthetics, so at least they have an informed opinion More like a hive-mind indoctrination on the legacy of tired modernism and its contemporary varieties. Seeing an old building as COBOL - something not to be inspired from and immitate and continue to build similarly, but to rewrite and replace with something entirely else - is an example of that. Better to see a Le Corbusier building as Brainfuck: ++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++ ..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.>+. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck
• mbar84 5y ago
  > So, architects, be bold. Go crazy. Gothic futurism. Do it. All other things being equal, yes please. My bias is to think that all other things are not equal. In particular: 1. The price of creating beautiful unique pieces is probably higher and more uncertain. It's probably cheaper to churn out boxes using prefab components and so the dominant architecture will follow that constraint. 2. It's not the architects that are too timid, it's committees that must be convinced and they are biased toward conservative designs. The more productive call to action would be something like: Look at new fabrication methods, materials, workflows on the building site and ask how the envelope of design can be expanded without introducing cost and risk.
• LostInTheWoods 5y ago
  > WAS THE CONSTRUCTION WORKER AT THE BOTTOM ASKED IF HE LIKED THE BUILDING? IF NOT, WHY NOT? SURELY HIS INPUT SHOULD HAVE MATTERED. A construction worker is strictly implementation. Soliciting design input that isn't relevant to implementation is a recipe for chaos.
  • hairofadog 5y ago
    I think about the guy in the manhole in Die Hard's "cut the power" scene all the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMKQVPV1pf0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMKQVPV1pf0
  • agent327 5y ago
    I believe this sentence should not be taken literally as input from that particular construction worker, but rather be understood in the more general sense of input from the public at large, i.e. non-stakeholders.
• nynx 5y ago
  I find the ones the author hates quite beautiful actually. They could use a bit more green though.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• renlo 5y ago
  the buildings one sees today are the ones that "survived" because they were notable. Older buildings are going to be more interesting as a matter of course because the boring ones were torn down to build other buildings.
  • coffeemig 5y ago
    I live near Detroit and have seen before/after photos. Good on you for speculating the role of survivorship bias, but evidence that you are just plain wrong exists. One example off the top of my head: https://www.birminghammichiganbank.com/birmingham-national-bank-history-1 https://www.birminghammichiganbank.com/birmingham-national-b...
• thepangolino 5y ago
  This reads like a rehash of an article from 2017 with more pictrues and less text. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-contemporary-architecture https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-contempo...
• seemaze 5y ago
  Gerhardt Fjuck [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvU5dmu4sl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvU5dmu4sl8 Bad architecture is so pervasive for the same reason bad software is.
• bobthechef 5y ago
  Hopefully, much of the oppressive and ugly modernist rubbish will wither away over time. Shaming bad architecture openly and mercilessly is a public service (after all, we must live in the damned world built by these architects, and they seem not to care about the damage they inflict, so gloves are off). Also, architecture programs need some disruption. Maybe a ranking based on what they teach. University administration loves, and fears, the almighty ranking. They've got a noose around the neck of academia. Time to put a noose around their necks. Funding and its deprivation is another lever in this regard. In the interim, it's also possible to work with some of the stuff that's already here[0] in very simply ways if financial constraints and practical considerations prevent razing offending architecture and building greenfield. It doesn't take all that much to turn a mediocre building into something that's at least passable. The real difficulty is when the architect has painted you into a corner by producing some weird construction that forms a rigid and perverse totality of which nothing can be saved. Yes, looking at the poop building in the article. You cannot expand or extend or modify that building. Don't let the mood lighting reflecting off its surface fool you here either. You don't fix the problem of oppressive and ugly austerity by building things that look like shit. I also sympathize with taking on local architectural traditions, but only in a way that refines them and in a way that respects aesthetic principles. Gaudy buildings that look like something that belongs in Vegas or Atlantic City are not fun or "whimsical". They're gaudy. [0] https://www.stroik.com/portfolio/infant-of-prague-cloister https://www.stroik.com/portfolio/infant-of-prague-cloister
• jeffbee 5y ago
  Odd that none of the 200 comments so far mention the obvious economic cause. When land is already occupied by a private party, parties who want to buy and develop that land have to compete on price. The land owner wants as much as they can get. Decoration costs money, so that gets jettisoned and the resulting savings flow to the selling land owner.
• deeg 5y ago
  I compare modernist architecture and architects to James Joyce's "Ulysses": lot of writers and critics love Ulysses but to most of us it's incomprehensible. To have any chance of appreciating Ulysses you have to have an understanding of literature and then work at applying that to the text. (I also suspect there's a bit of intellectual snobbery.) I am not an architect but I've done a far amount of amateur studying and I find some modernist architecture interesting and/or fascinating. It definitely helps to understand what the architect was trying to accomplish. I can see why other architects--who have the background to understand--would like the examples in the original article. But public buildings shouldn't require the general public to have a background in architecture to appreciate them. This disconnect between architects and the public is the root of the problem.
• mattlondon 5y ago
  I actually prefer the modern ones to the old ones (... well some of them at least). A bit of an aside - I have often wondered what makes "good" architecture, i.e. what is it about a space that means it is still a "good" place to be. There are many examples of both "old", "post-war", and "modern" architecture in London where the spaces are still great spaces and inspiring and welcoming and just work for their purpose, and likewise there are examples where they are depressing and miserable. What is the "magic formula" for this that makes a building or space work? There has to be some theory on this, but if so why are "bad" buildings still made?
  • coffeemig 5y ago
    Taste. I’m not sure it’s quantifiable.
  • ativzzz 5y ago
    From the article > Beauty. What is beauty? Beauty is that which gives aesthetic pleasure. Beauty is both subjective and objective—subjective because it is “in the eye of the beholder” but objective in that “pleasure” is something you either experience or you do not. If a building isn’t giving people pleasure to look at, then it is not beautiful, because beautiful things are things that you want to keep looking at because seeing them brings joy. This gives me vibes from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The author talks a lot about "quality" and how it's impossible to define exactly what it is. It's either there, or it's not, and we know when it is intrinsically, but efforts to define the "magic formula" fail to capture what quality entails.
• coffeemig 5y ago
  Is 30 too late to become an architect? I have background in arts/3d modeling, etc. But I only seem to hear discouraging things from young people in the industry.
• campbellmorgan 5y ago
  It is easy to agree with the sentiment of this article, but the fundamental premise of this is wrong in modern architecture. That premise is that it is the architect that is in control of the final aesthetic of the building. Architects get work by participating in competitions against other architects for limited budgets. In a few, rare cases (usually public buildings and museums) an extraordinary budget may be approved that goes to funding truly radical buildings that break from the status quo, but in the overwhelming majority of cases architects play a fine line within the following constraints: 1. Planning regulations (in the UK at least, it's very hard to propose buildings that differ significantly from neighbouring buildings) 2. Materials -- building custom window frames / door frames is incredibly expensive. The first thing that tends to get cut as budgets are inevitably squeezed are any custom items 3. Client expectations -- most new large buildings are built with a projection of future occupants. Developers want to be able to make apartments as saleable as possible so usually take the most risk-averse options While I applaud concepts with more colour, detail and originality, you must also consider where you would like to live. Most people (I think) want to build out their own custom surroundings as their home grows on them. Bland buildings make this easier because it is a blank canvas upon which you can begin to construct your own projection of your ideal home. Being locked inside a giant multicoloured artwork conceived of by somebody else might sound appealing to start off with, but will quickly become an aesthetic prison of somebody else's personality.
  • CrazyStat 5y ago
    > That premise is that it is the architect that is in control of the final aesthetic of the building. I disagree. The article frames the question by examining what kind of work architects celebrate and award. It doesn't matter who had the final say in any given design or even all the designs; architects, not client expectations, are responsible for what kind of work gets the Pritzker prize.
• trunnell 5y ago
  The question is what cost are we willing to pay for buildings and cities to be more beautiful? The author doesn’t address cost at all and it is one of the primary inputs to buildings. Not just the construction cost but the operating costs especially the ongoing energy consumption. Productivity and efficiency matters. At the city scale, these have a measurable impact on quality of life. A city that wastes gigawatt-hours of energy every year will be poorer than its neighbors that do not. But perhaps you would pay something extra to live in that beautiful but massive energy sink of a city. How much extra? No one wants to live in a perfectly efficient yet ugly building or city. So the question is, what is worth for buildings to be aesthetically pleasing? P.S. This is not a symptom of capitalism, IMO, as the author incorrectly asserts and the end. Productive use of energy is an equation of life not any particular economic system.
• mywittyname 5y ago
  Most of the beautiful normal buildings in Europe are quite simple in design. It isn't like Italianate design isn't particularly expensive: urban American buildings used to be built in that style a lot up until the 1930s. Modern urban buildings use the same materials and could easily replicate the Italianate design aesthetic. Designers just choose to build with a more boring, minimalist style.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• poulsbohemian 5y ago
  I knew exactly where the author was headed just from the headline, let alone before I saw their first examples, as I've written this same article in my mind a hundred time. I'd go for functional even above beautiful. I walk into so many houses - new, old, whatever - and so few have ever considered that there will be people living in them. Rooms with odd dimensions. Houses facing the wrong direction. Bedrooms where there's no place to actually put a bed. Rooms that can't decide if they are for sleeping, working, lounging, or simply gratuitous square footage. Houses that utterly consume their entire allotment of land, having apparently never read that other great study in architecture, The King of Cauliflower's Castle (Sesame Street books, 1975). I'm not convinced architects are to blame. Yes, as this article points out when it comes to public buildings and spaces, the architects have lost their minds. When it comes to residences though, I'm inclined to think it's a triumvirate of the lack of architecture, builders playing architect, and a public that is generally devoid of good taste, all under the thumb of the ever rising cost of labor and materials. Cover it up with granite and stainless steel and call it a day.
• IYasha 5y ago
  This is exactly a continuation of what happened to art in general in the beginning of 20th century when modernism was (forcibly) introduced as opposition to classicism. Started with paintings and performances, continued in architecture...
• IYasha 5y ago
  BTW, initially I thought the article will be about 3D house printing. And that may actually be the way out of this grey box boredom.