5 ms·

This kind of architecture is absolutely cringe-y. The architects basically out themselves as detached sociopaths, and the patrons out themselves as gullible idi

by trgn 5y ago

This kind of architecture is absolutely cringe-y. The architects basically out themselves as detached sociopaths, and the patrons out themselves as gullible idiots. A building like this is a shtick. "Cool" for about 5 minutes. It will not age gracefully. The people behind this project confuse architecture with sculpture.

colordrops 5y ago
I'm curious, what are examples of architecture you admire?
- hannasanarion 5y ago
  I like architecture that isn't covered in dead trees a few months after completion because the idiot billionaire funder doesn't understand that there's no sun on the north side of a building in the northern hemisphere.
  - WJW 5y ago
    Plenty of trees grow on the north side of hills though. Not every tree needs full sunlight.
- trgn 5y ago
  Architecture which does not fetishize the engineering aesthetic, which is mindful of its impact on the public realm, and which does not consider the building-proper as an artistic expression in and of itself. Basically, anything before modernism, before WW1 is generally good. Or really, anything before cars. The rise of car culture and the decline of architecture are directly correlated. I personally had a hard time articulating why I found contemporary architecture so revolting, it was just a feeling. Then I found videos by Leon Krier (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFiYL8AvvnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFiYL8AvvnY), or Nathan Lewis's blog series on the topic (https://newworldeconomics.com/category/traditional-city-post-heroic-materialism/ https://newworldeconomics.com/category/traditional-city-post...), and everything suddenly just clicked.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Wow, everything you list as bad is everything I consider good. Nothing is worse for a neighborhood than the tyranny of ordinances requiring homogenized, historic designs. It's a good thing there's more than one building in the world. Everyone should be able to live, work, and design spaces they like, within the local scale (so no 80 floor highrises next to houses if they don't want it, but props to the houses if they do want the highrise). That means you might end up with a glass box next to a pre-WW1 stone box. That's a good thing -- there's no reason a long-passed generation should have the final say in architecture at the expense of the present.
f00zz 5y ago
Nah, personally I think MahaNakhon in Bangkok looks pretty cool.
- trgn 5y ago
  That's exactly my point. Buildings should not look "cool", they should look timeless. A good building needs to last centuries. What looks cool now, will look stupid 5 years from now. It's fine if a building looks off its time, it's not fine if a building looks like a joke. When the only assessment we can make about a creative work, e.g. a building (but fine arts just as well), is that it looks "cool", or "interesting", or "contemporary", or "futuristic", what that really means is that we are hesitant to say it looks "beautiful", "attractive", "timeless". Strong assessments like the latter are axiomatic and require a confidence in your aesthetic sensibilities. That these sensibilities are globally shared, that you are empathetic enough to step outside of your own head and look at it as an older person, as a child, as somebody who won't be born until a century from now. Modern spectacle architecture (like that Bangkok tower) today does not inspire that confidence. It defies being called beautiful, because innately we experience it as not that. It might look "cool", or futuristic, but that's about it. A building like that is infantile branding, it looks like a tetris-game because the kind of people who design and finance this are childish, confusing technological prowess with worth and beauty.
  - jdmichal 5y ago
    Once upon a time, even having a skyscraper at was "cool" and stood out. Now I'm sure you laud those early buildings as "timeless". Once upon a time, that all-glass skyscraper was "cool" and stood out, even among the other skyscrapers. Now, we don't blink twice at such towers being stood up. My point being that architecture as a field and as an art form both progress forward in society. Right now buildings like the MahaNakhon stand out. In the future, they may just be the first instances of the next "timeless" trend. Also, there's plenty of beauty to find in the MahaNakhon, especially at night... And I'll talk for myself in saying that I find beauty in the execution of technological prowess. The same way I see beauty in well-laid masonry or tile design. They're just using different material.
  - 5y ago
GoToRO 5y ago
yes. All "modern" buildings have this "look at me!" design, but they are crap for residents.

by trgn 5y ago

colordrops 5y ago

I'm curious, what are examples of architecture you admire?

hannasanarion 5y ago
I like architecture that isn't covered in dead trees a few months after completion because the idiot billionaire funder doesn't understand that there's no sun on the north side of a building in the northern hemisphere.
- WJW 5y ago
  Plenty of trees grow on the north side of hills though. Not every tree needs full sunlight.
trgn 5y ago
Architecture which does not fetishize the engineering aesthetic, which is mindful of its impact on the public realm, and which does not consider the building-proper as an artistic expression in and of itself. Basically, anything before modernism, before WW1 is generally good. Or really, anything before cars. The rise of car culture and the decline of architecture are directly correlated. I personally had a hard time articulating why I found contemporary architecture so revolting, it was just a feeling. Then I found videos by Leon Krier (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFiYL8AvvnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFiYL8AvvnY), or Nathan Lewis's blog series on the topic (https://newworldeconomics.com/category/traditional-city-post-heroic-materialism/ https://newworldeconomics.com/category/traditional-city-post...), and everything suddenly just clicked.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Wow, everything you list as bad is everything I consider good. Nothing is worse for a neighborhood than the tyranny of ordinances requiring homogenized, historic designs. It's a good thing there's more than one building in the world. Everyone should be able to live, work, and design spaces they like, within the local scale (so no 80 floor highrises next to houses if they don't want it, but props to the houses if they do want the highrise). That means you might end up with a glass box next to a pre-WW1 stone box. That's a good thing -- there's no reason a long-passed generation should have the final say in architecture at the expense of the present.

f00zz 5y ago

Nah, personally I think MahaNakhon in Bangkok looks pretty cool.

trgn 5y ago
That's exactly my point. Buildings should not look "cool", they should look timeless. A good building needs to last centuries. What looks cool now, will look stupid 5 years from now. It's fine if a building looks off its time, it's not fine if a building looks like a joke. When the only assessment we can make about a creative work, e.g. a building (but fine arts just as well), is that it looks "cool", or "interesting", or "contemporary", or "futuristic", what that really means is that we are hesitant to say it looks "beautiful", "attractive", "timeless". Strong assessments like the latter are axiomatic and require a confidence in your aesthetic sensibilities. That these sensibilities are globally shared, that you are empathetic enough to step outside of your own head and look at it as an older person, as a child, as somebody who won't be born until a century from now. Modern spectacle architecture (like that Bangkok tower) today does not inspire that confidence. It defies being called beautiful, because innately we experience it as not that. It might look "cool", or futuristic, but that's about it. A building like that is infantile branding, it looks like a tetris-game because the kind of people who design and finance this are childish, confusing technological prowess with worth and beauty.
- jdmichal 5y ago
  Once upon a time, even having a skyscraper at was "cool" and stood out. Now I'm sure you laud those early buildings as "timeless". Once upon a time, that all-glass skyscraper was "cool" and stood out, even among the other skyscrapers. Now, we don't blink twice at such towers being stood up. My point being that architecture as a field and as an art form both progress forward in society. Right now buildings like the MahaNakhon stand out. In the future, they may just be the first instances of the next "timeless" trend. Also, there's plenty of beauty to find in the MahaNakhon, especially at night... And I'll talk for myself in saying that I find beauty in the execution of technological prowess. The same way I see beauty in well-laid masonry or tile design. They're just using different material.
- 5y ago

GoToRO 5y ago

yes. All "modern" buildings have this "look at me!" design, but they are crap for residents.