my point was alot of the 'Design' of Gothic came from it's requirements, not percieved beauty. They put those giant pillars and facade up to hold the building u

my point was alot of the 'Design' of Gothic came from it's requirements, not percieved beauty. They put those giant pillars and facade up to hold the building up. They were a very expensive way of building. Now with modern technology like cantilevers, these 'Gothic Buildings' don't actually require those giant pillars of rock and are there purely for nestolgic purposes. Highly expensive nestolgic purposes. & obviously me and you have been looking at different skyscrapers. I live in chicago and I think they are all absolutely stunning & unique. >I don’t think that trade-off is real - can’t think of a single classical, beautiful building I’ve been to where the interior has been downgraded because of the facade. Do you have any examples? Obviously they had a budget on the building. The more you spend on non-functional, artistic requirements the less you have for functional. The whole principle of modern architecture literally bases itself around how awful gothic buildings are for this very reason. Functional, unpretensious designs that let in alot of light.