12 ms·

To latch on to this great post there are a couple of other worthwhile discussion points: We're still in a nuclear war mental model. We can't build beautiful th

To latch on to this great post there are a couple of other worthwhile discussion points: We're still in a nuclear war mental model. We can't build beautiful things if we think they'll be destroyed in a war. We still have a societal level PTSD from World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and other things. World War I veterans came back with horrific problems. That's why architects like Frank Lloyd Wright built bunkers that blended in with nature. As they entered into professions like architecture they avoided symmetry, and this was cargo-culted into the present day where we build very weird, stressful objects like Boston City Hall [1], suburban homes that are incoherent and have hidden front entrances (although the car is very prominent) or throw a bunch of scrap metal together and call it art. I'm not religious at all but right now we face a crisis of what we are building for (as opposed to constructing buildings and temples to the glory of some god or gods). I'm hopeful that either the environmental movement or our desire to become a space faring civilization will reinvigorate the passion of our species. There's also no point in building a very beautiful building that will last a long time while you are living in Austin, TX if you think in a few years you'll move to Seattle or maybe Washington DC before finally settling down in Kansas. I have been encouraged to see that remote work has caused people to change their location priorities and invest in their current homes instead. Major headwind is just that most homes that were constructed are either in isolated, car-dependent suburbs and/or they are built using the cheapest materials possible. But you can see that people are willing and want to invest via new offices, garage gyms, etc. I'm really disappointed in our financial overlords who haven't built a single beautiful building for society anywhere in the US. Even their own houses typically look like architectural garbage. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall

version_five 4y ago
Two random comments: 1. When I was younger I though brutalist concrete buildings were ugly, now (even if they still are) i find they are usually the most interesting thing in a city core. 2. > Even their own houses typically look like architectural garbage. Agreed. I can't believe how cheap and ugly so many of the "rich people" houses are. It seems to be a competition for who can have the most different rooflines, and for uses of stone veneer
- mjhay 4y ago
  If you like complicated rooflines, you'll love McMansion Hell: https://mcmansionhell.com/ https://mcmansionhell.com/
  - frobolo 4y ago
    That site is just about equal parts hilarious and traumatic to browse.
  - ask_b123 4y ago
    This is very good! But now I wonder if there's something similar for good architecture.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      She has it behind the paywall ;) > Did you just join my team of patrons?! Yes, yes you did. THANK YOU! As an official patron, you'll have access to my patron-only feed, the **NEW Discord server**, as well as access to the "Good House of the Month!" - The antidote to the month's house roast. > You'll also receive a special slideshow featuring a curated collection of abandoned McMansions! https://www.patreon.com/user?u=3844491 https://www.patreon.com/user?u=3844491
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cjohnson318 4y ago
  > I can't believe how cheap and ugly so many of the "rich people" houses are. If don't have the money to build, then you bid over whatever is on the market; whatever some developer and architect duo thought would differentiate themselves ten or twenty years ago. People prioritize commute, distance to family, distacne to the grocery, school zones, number of bedrooms and space, kitchen/bath vintage, and price way, way before what a home actually looks like on the outside. No one really wants to live in a McMansion, but outward appearance is so far down on the priorities that it doesn't matter.
dr-detroit 4y ago
trilbyglens 4y ago
How is it that America can still be traumatised from the world wars architecturally but europe is not? I don't really buy the argument that america builds badly because of fear of destruction. It's more that we are an utterly utilitarian culture. We have nothing old, and cannot imagine that anything might become old. Our goals are to maximize profits while minimizing cost, so we end up building $10m houses out of shitty plywood and fake bricks glued on the fascade. I don't think the ugliness is anything philosophical either. We are simply an unsophisticated culture, with an education system that never exposes people to art or architecture. We're a nation of Nouveau riche pseudo-sophisticated country people who think that money = culture.
- trgn 4y ago
  > We have nothing old, and cannot imagine that anything might become old. Obviously wrong. America has an enormous amount of beautiful "old" architecture. Most streetcar suburbs are shockingly beautiful, from the utilitarian carriage houses all the way up to the mansions and large public buildings. It all predates WW1. The reason truly is psychological. At the elite level (public institutions, taste makers), it was an infatuation with European iconoclasts wrapped up in an anti-establishment fervor after WW1. Ironically, it's the unenlightened idiots in America that clung/cling most to archaic, conventional notions of beauty and comfort.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    > Obviously wrong. America has an enormous amount of beautiful "old" architecture. [...] It all predates WW1 Your comment shows the difference between American "old" and European "old". In Europe, there are people who live in homes far older than that.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      "Old" is quoted for a reason. They are copied from actually-old designs.
    - spiritplumber 4y ago
at_a_remove 4y ago
I used to have to deal with some Brutalist structures. Ghastly things, look like they were built by some kind of enormous alien wasp-like creatures that spit out a paste of concrete. Unfriendly interiors. Stairwells almost deliberately vertiginous. Floors with the warmth and charm of a Detroit loading dock. A building which does not learn, its unfortunate inhabitants must adapt to it.
- bnralt 4y ago
  > A building which does not learn, its unfortunate inhabitants must adapt to it. That's one of the most interesting and depressing parts of post-WW2 architecture (it's present in certain "high culture" architecture before, but not as ubiquitous). It seems narcissistic, entirely focused on what the architect thought would look cool, and completely detached from the individuals who would actually be using the space. There's a Ludwig Mies van der Rohe building near hear, and the usage of space is simply terrible. It's only a few stories tall, and you have to either wait a long time for the slow and unpleasant elevators to arrive, or rummage around several sets of doors behind them to find the hidden stairs. There's another "urban renewal project" nearby designed by I.M. Pei, and it's a huge deadzone in the middle of a bustling area. It feels almost like finding a dead city from a Lovecraft story - you have these empty huge expanses of concrete that seem much too large for humans. Places where people would congregate, like retail, is deliberately placed underground and away from the road, making the whole area feel abandoned. Say what you will about modern architecture, but I find it much more pleasant than the stuff that was coming out post-war.
  - soco 4y ago
    It's one thing to decide for cool instead of beautiful (or useful) but a whole another thing to get paid for it. Those architects won a contest, right? One the premise of... what? We can build the ugliest, yay? Humans are just details? What exactly is the selling point of brutalism for a communal living area? You want to design your own bunker, be my guest. But something paid by the public should serve the public, not be a practical joke on the citizens. Yet another failure of the local authorities, move on...
nine_k 4y ago
I can't speak about Austin, TX, but here in NYC a number of aesthetically pleasing buildings have been built in last, say, 30 years. Even asymmetric ones, like <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_Spruce_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_Spruce_Street>, look great; I'm saying so as someone who used to see downtown Manhattan every day during commute. (One thing I miss after switching to WFH.)
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  That might be a very subjective opinion. Personally, I find the weird creases on that building disconcerting and unpleasant to look at.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Yeah, that's ... weird. But then again (in my opinion) all skyscrapers look like crap and only become "iconic" by being there for a long time and people get used to them.
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      I don't think that the Art Deco style skyscrapers look like crap. I quite enjoy them. I think most modern sky scrapers look like crap because they're all done in a modern style with no decoration. Other styles never really got a chance to express themselves since everything was taken over by the modernist look.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Art Deco are the best, but I wonder how much of that is "the skyscraper looks good" and how much that is "it looks good on the ground".
DrBazza 4y ago
> We're still in a nuclear war mental model. We can't build beautiful things if we think they'll be destroyed in a war. We still have a societal level PTSD from World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and other things. No, we're in a capitalist mental model. It's the same in the UK. It's build cheap, maximise profit, and a race to the bottom. Want that bas-relief from a master stonemason? No chance. Two reasons - profit. Second reason, so few master stonemasons because... the chase for profit and cheap buildings has removed any superfluous detailing, and hence destroyed a profession. I can't envisage a new Chrysler building being built in the US (or UK) in the near future, or any of the 20-30s skyscrapers with ornate detailing up on the 40+ floor. Yes, I know we're all about steel and glass, but that doesn't stop elegant design and innovation. It's the same on residential housing in the UK. You can just see it evolve over the last century from well built bricks and mortar with detailing, to modern (often grey) boxes, using the cheapest materials erected in the fastest time.
- ericmay 4y ago
  I'm sure capitalism has an effect (similar to how communism built a lot of absolutely disgusting, depressing housing) but I don't think capitalism created American suburban homes out of thin air. There isn't anything inherently cheaper about building a home that isn't symmetrical regardless of materials - in fact the opposite would be true. I think it's less about economic models though and more about a lack of societal awareness and understanding. Really we need more capitalism and more free markets in this space in particular to provide actual market choices and competition to bring prices down. It's a tough problem. A home builder making a profit on suburban homes with car-only infrastructure is more of a symptom than a cause.
  - DrBazza 4y ago
    If I'm a shareholder of a company that builds office blocks, I'll be demanding dividends and a return on my investment. Unless the customer (e.g. Apple and their giant do(ugh)nut) specifically ask for something that isn't structurally significant, a construction firm isn't going to add it.
unethical_ban 4y ago
One of the very few things the Trump admin did that I kind of liked was requiring new federal buildings to have neoclassical/gothic/beaux arts styles. I wish we could look at more federal buildings and say "wow, that's beautiful, that's cultural". That in contrast to brutalism, for which I have a slight soft spot due to growing up with it but damn it's ugly.
marcosdumay 4y ago
> I'm not religious at all but right now we face a crisis of what we are building for That wouldn't be bad at all, but at the same time we are facing a humanistic crisis too. We don't respect the gods to create things for them, and we don't respect the people to create things for them.
hinkley 4y ago
One of the things any tour of London will talk about is how up to his eyeballs in work Christopher Wren was after the London Fire. His concession to get more work done for everyone lining up for a new cathedral was that he wouldn’t build you a bell tower. Most (all?) of the bell towers on his post-fire churches were added on later in his life once things calmed down.
ridgered4 4y ago
Never seen the Boston City Hall before. I clicked thinking "How bad could it be?" and was sort of surprised at my visceral negative reaction. It is truly hideous! The article describes it as Brutalist, but most Soviet Brutalist stuff I've seen at least gives me a sense of simplicity, efficiency and usually symmetry even if the structures are depressing. This building seems to have eschewed even those positive traits!
- eli_gottlieb 4y ago
  Massachusetts strongly dislikes you and wants you to know you should go away. It's built into architecture across the state.
- SxC97 4y ago
  I had the same reaction, I think it might have to do with the many rectangular holes along the top. It gives me a slightly trypophobic reaction.
conductr 4y ago
Since we're talking about ugly city hall buildings... > When you do a city hall, it has to convey an image of the people, and this had to represent the people of Dallas ... The people I met – rich and poor, powerful and not so powerful – were all very proud of their city. They felt that Dallas was the greatest city there was, and I could not disappoint them. – I.M. Pei (architect) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_City_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_City_Hall Despite best intentions this building feel intimidating. Just walking up to it, it hangs over your head, and feels like the weight of government is about to be inflicted upon me and I just want to file a permit for my home security alarm. Just pointing out, the artists themselves have trouble making their designs match their intentions.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  It was used (with a matte painting to make it taller) as the OCP building in robocop, for reference on how "evil" it either already was considered or now is considered.
- chasd00 4y ago
  the inside is even more ridiculous. It would be easier and faster to get in, do what you need to do, and get out if it was just an office building. No one physically goes to City Hall unless there's absolutely no other option.
  - conductr 4y ago
    > unless there's absolutely no other option I hit that scenario a couple times a year. Basic stuff that a city should do online, Dallas does not.
MSFT_Edging 4y ago
I know to each his own, but I love the aesthetic of the Boston City Hall, and while not fully brutalist, a lot of really cool and abstract designs came from brutalism. My favorite college campuses I've been to have fully embraced the brutal with bizarre overhangs, odd shapes, posts, etc. The ugliest campuses to me are either the ones that create a faux old world feel or just opt for business park chic. Same goes for neighborhoods. I love seeing neighborhoods from the 60s or 70s that took a more brutalist/abstract inspiration. Large windows, backless stairs, conversation pits, etc. To me it looks a whole lot nicer than modern home construction trying to mix southern porches with Victorian styles, all on top of a sears foundation.
AlbertCory 4y ago
> That's why architects like Frank Lloyd Wright built bunkers that blended in with nature. Maybe you meant architects like him, but not "him"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright he was born in 1867. Much of his important work was done before WW I. Have you ever been to Taliesyn or Fallingwater? Those are not "bunkers that blended in with nature." Blending in with nature was completely his aesthetic, so much so that Taliesyn in Wisconsin was uninhabitable in the winter. Most of the rest of your post, I agree with.
UncleOxidant 4y ago
> I'm hopeful that ... our desire to become a space faring civilization will reinvigorate the passion of our species. But don't we need that passion (and hope) before we can become a space faring civilization? We kind of had that space-faring passion back in the 60s when the US/NASA did the Apollo program - at that point the general feeling was that the government was capable of doing good things. That general feeling has been gone for a while now and has been replaced with a general distrust of institutions like government. To some extent it seems like you need some level of hope before you can trust.
kansface 4y ago
We did build beautiful things post war! A driving tenant of Modernism was to bring good design to the masses through mass manufacturing - better living through ~science~ good design (see eg MoMA's Good Design Exhibition [1]). If you are thinking chiefly about architecture, consider the Sydney Opera House or the Gateway Arch. If you are thinking about houses, consider the Kaufmann house [2] or the Stahl House[3]. The fact is that we literally do not design homes in the US; over 90% of homes were just built by someone. That someone does not stop to consider design, aesthetics, ergonomics or joy. House developers are more or less doing enterprise sales. They just go by a checklist and the developer with the most checks wins. "Upgrades" merely change the quality of the thing on the checklist (formica -> granite), but thats the extent of it. 1. https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/1714 https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/1714 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann_Desert_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann_Desert_House 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stahl_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stahl_House
- bombcar 4y ago
  I mean the houses are "designed" insofar as plans are drawn up, etc. They're just all the "same" and the builders want the ability to "add uncharges" so you have a basic house that looks pretty decent, but once you select all the available admins (the three car garage, dormers on every root, gables everywhere) you end up with a McMansion.
bulbosaur123 4y ago
What if "beautiful buildings" are simply too expensive to build nowdays and there are cheaper alternatives that are functional, yet look sterile and boring? There is a reason almost nobody builds brick mansions anymore.
- lmm 4y ago
  If these buildings are ugly because we're cheaping out on them then we should at least acknowledge the fact and have an honest conversation about it. But actually they tend to be just as expensive as beautiful buildings.
tablespoon 4y ago
> I'm not religious at all but right now we face a crisis of what we are building for (as opposed to constructing buildings and temples to the glory of some god or gods). We are building for the shareholders and the market. They are our new gods.

version_five 4y ago

Two random comments: 1. When I was younger I though brutalist concrete buildings were ugly, now (even if they still are) i find they are usually the most interesting thing in a city core. 2. > Even their own houses typically look like architectural garbage. Agreed. I can't believe how cheap and ugly so many of the "rich people" houses are. It seems to be a competition for who can have the most different rooflines, and for uses of stone veneer

mjhay 4y ago
If you like complicated rooflines, you'll love McMansion Hell: https://mcmansionhell.com/ https://mcmansionhell.com/
- frobolo 4y ago
  That site is just about equal parts hilarious and traumatic to browse.
- ask_b123 4y ago
  This is very good! But now I wonder if there's something similar for good architecture.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    She has it behind the paywall ;) > Did you just join my team of patrons?! Yes, yes you did. THANK YOU! As an official patron, you'll have access to my patron-only feed, the **NEW Discord server**, as well as access to the "Good House of the Month!" - The antidote to the month's house roast. > You'll also receive a special slideshow featuring a curated collection of abandoned McMansions! https://www.patreon.com/user?u=3844491 https://www.patreon.com/user?u=3844491
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cjohnson318 4y ago
> I can't believe how cheap and ugly so many of the "rich people" houses are. If don't have the money to build, then you bid over whatever is on the market; whatever some developer and architect duo thought would differentiate themselves ten or twenty years ago. People prioritize commute, distance to family, distacne to the grocery, school zones, number of bedrooms and space, kitchen/bath vintage, and price way, way before what a home actually looks like on the outside. No one really wants to live in a McMansion, but outward appearance is so far down on the priorities that it doesn't matter.

dr-detroit 4y ago

trilbyglens 4y ago

How is it that America can still be traumatised from the world wars architecturally but europe is not? I don't really buy the argument that america builds badly because of fear of destruction. It's more that we are an utterly utilitarian culture. We have nothing old, and cannot imagine that anything might become old. Our goals are to maximize profits while minimizing cost, so we end up building $10m houses out of shitty plywood and fake bricks glued on the fascade. I don't think the ugliness is anything philosophical either. We are simply an unsophisticated culture, with an education system that never exposes people to art or architecture. We're a nation of Nouveau riche pseudo-sophisticated country people who think that money = culture.

trgn 4y ago
> We have nothing old, and cannot imagine that anything might become old. Obviously wrong. America has an enormous amount of beautiful "old" architecture. Most streetcar suburbs are shockingly beautiful, from the utilitarian carriage houses all the way up to the mansions and large public buildings. It all predates WW1. The reason truly is psychological. At the elite level (public institutions, taste makers), it was an infatuation with European iconoclasts wrapped up in an anti-establishment fervor after WW1. Ironically, it's the unenlightened idiots in America that clung/cling most to archaic, conventional notions of beauty and comfort.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > Obviously wrong. America has an enormous amount of beautiful "old" architecture. [...] It all predates WW1 Your comment shows the difference between American "old" and European "old". In Europe, there are people who live in homes far older than that.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    "Old" is quoted for a reason. They are copied from actually-old designs.
  - spiritplumber 4y ago

at_a_remove 4y ago

I used to have to deal with some Brutalist structures. Ghastly things, look like they were built by some kind of enormous alien wasp-like creatures that spit out a paste of concrete. Unfriendly interiors. Stairwells almost deliberately vertiginous. Floors with the warmth and charm of a Detroit loading dock. A building which does not learn, its unfortunate inhabitants must adapt to it.

bnralt 4y ago
> A building which does not learn, its unfortunate inhabitants must adapt to it. That's one of the most interesting and depressing parts of post-WW2 architecture (it's present in certain "high culture" architecture before, but not as ubiquitous). It seems narcissistic, entirely focused on what the architect thought would look cool, and completely detached from the individuals who would actually be using the space. There's a Ludwig Mies van der Rohe building near hear, and the usage of space is simply terrible. It's only a few stories tall, and you have to either wait a long time for the slow and unpleasant elevators to arrive, or rummage around several sets of doors behind them to find the hidden stairs. There's another "urban renewal project" nearby designed by I.M. Pei, and it's a huge deadzone in the middle of a bustling area. It feels almost like finding a dead city from a Lovecraft story - you have these empty huge expanses of concrete that seem much too large for humans. Places where people would congregate, like retail, is deliberately placed underground and away from the road, making the whole area feel abandoned. Say what you will about modern architecture, but I find it much more pleasant than the stuff that was coming out post-war.
- soco 4y ago
  It's one thing to decide for cool instead of beautiful (or useful) but a whole another thing to get paid for it. Those architects won a contest, right? One the premise of... what? We can build the ugliest, yay? Humans are just details? What exactly is the selling point of brutalism for a communal living area? You want to design your own bunker, be my guest. But something paid by the public should serve the public, not be a practical joke on the citizens. Yet another failure of the local authorities, move on...

nine_k 4y ago

I can't speak about Austin, TX, but here in NYC a number of aesthetically pleasing buildings have been built in last, say, 30 years. Even asymmetric ones, like <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_Spruce_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_Spruce_Street>, look great; I'm saying so as someone who used to see downtown Manhattan every day during commute. (One thing I miss after switching to WFH.)

throwaway4aday 4y ago
That might be a very subjective opinion. Personally, I find the weird creases on that building disconcerting and unpleasant to look at.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Yeah, that's ... weird. But then again (in my opinion) all skyscrapers look like crap and only become "iconic" by being there for a long time and people get used to them.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    I don't think that the Art Deco style skyscrapers look like crap. I quite enjoy them. I think most modern sky scrapers look like crap because they're all done in a modern style with no decoration. Other styles never really got a chance to express themselves since everything was taken over by the modernist look.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Art Deco are the best, but I wonder how much of that is "the skyscraper looks good" and how much that is "it looks good on the ground".

DrBazza 4y ago

> We're still in a nuclear war mental model. We can't build beautiful things if we think they'll be destroyed in a war. We still have a societal level PTSD from World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and other things. No, we're in a capitalist mental model. It's the same in the UK. It's build cheap, maximise profit, and a race to the bottom. Want that bas-relief from a master stonemason? No chance. Two reasons - profit. Second reason, so few master stonemasons because... the chase for profit and cheap buildings has removed any superfluous detailing, and hence destroyed a profession. I can't envisage a new Chrysler building being built in the US (or UK) in the near future, or any of the 20-30s skyscrapers with ornate detailing up on the 40+ floor. Yes, I know we're all about steel and glass, but that doesn't stop elegant design and innovation. It's the same on residential housing in the UK. You can just see it evolve over the last century from well built bricks and mortar with detailing, to modern (often grey) boxes, using the cheapest materials erected in the fastest time.

ericmay 4y ago
I'm sure capitalism has an effect (similar to how communism built a lot of absolutely disgusting, depressing housing) but I don't think capitalism created American suburban homes out of thin air. There isn't anything inherently cheaper about building a home that isn't symmetrical regardless of materials - in fact the opposite would be true. I think it's less about economic models though and more about a lack of societal awareness and understanding. Really we need more capitalism and more free markets in this space in particular to provide actual market choices and competition to bring prices down. It's a tough problem. A home builder making a profit on suburban homes with car-only infrastructure is more of a symptom than a cause.
- DrBazza 4y ago
  If I'm a shareholder of a company that builds office blocks, I'll be demanding dividends and a return on my investment. Unless the customer (e.g. Apple and their giant do(ugh)nut) specifically ask for something that isn't structurally significant, a construction firm isn't going to add it.

unethical_ban 4y ago

One of the very few things the Trump admin did that I kind of liked was requiring new federal buildings to have neoclassical/gothic/beaux arts styles. I wish we could look at more federal buildings and say "wow, that's beautiful, that's cultural". That in contrast to brutalism, for which I have a slight soft spot due to growing up with it but damn it's ugly.

marcosdumay 4y ago

> I'm not religious at all but right now we face a crisis of what we are building for That wouldn't be bad at all, but at the same time we are facing a humanistic crisis too. We don't respect the gods to create things for them, and we don't respect the people to create things for them.

hinkley 4y ago

One of the things any tour of London will talk about is how up to his eyeballs in work Christopher Wren was after the London Fire. His concession to get more work done for everyone lining up for a new cathedral was that he wouldn’t build you a bell tower. Most (all?) of the bell towers on his post-fire churches were added on later in his life once things calmed down.

ridgered4 4y ago

Never seen the Boston City Hall before. I clicked thinking "How bad could it be?" and was sort of surprised at my visceral negative reaction. It is truly hideous! The article describes it as Brutalist, but most Soviet Brutalist stuff I've seen at least gives me a sense of simplicity, efficiency and usually symmetry even if the structures are depressing. This building seems to have eschewed even those positive traits!

eli_gottlieb 4y ago
Massachusetts strongly dislikes you and wants you to know you should go away. It's built into architecture across the state.
SxC97 4y ago
I had the same reaction, I think it might have to do with the many rectangular holes along the top. It gives me a slightly trypophobic reaction.

conductr 4y ago

Since we're talking about ugly city hall buildings... > When you do a city hall, it has to convey an image of the people, and this had to represent the people of Dallas ... The people I met – rich and poor, powerful and not so powerful – were all very proud of their city. They felt that Dallas was the greatest city there was, and I could not disappoint them. – I.M. Pei (architect) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_City_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_City_Hall Despite best intentions this building feel intimidating. Just walking up to it, it hangs over your head, and feels like the weight of government is about to be inflicted upon me and I just want to file a permit for my home security alarm. Just pointing out, the artists themselves have trouble making their designs match their intentions.

mrguyorama 4y ago
It was used (with a matte painting to make it taller) as the OCP building in robocop, for reference on how "evil" it either already was considered or now is considered.
chasd00 4y ago
the inside is even more ridiculous. It would be easier and faster to get in, do what you need to do, and get out if it was just an office building. No one physically goes to City Hall unless there's absolutely no other option.
- conductr 4y ago
  > unless there's absolutely no other option I hit that scenario a couple times a year. Basic stuff that a city should do online, Dallas does not.

MSFT_Edging 4y ago

I know to each his own, but I love the aesthetic of the Boston City Hall, and while not fully brutalist, a lot of really cool and abstract designs came from brutalism. My favorite college campuses I've been to have fully embraced the brutal with bizarre overhangs, odd shapes, posts, etc. The ugliest campuses to me are either the ones that create a faux old world feel or just opt for business park chic. Same goes for neighborhoods. I love seeing neighborhoods from the 60s or 70s that took a more brutalist/abstract inspiration. Large windows, backless stairs, conversation pits, etc. To me it looks a whole lot nicer than modern home construction trying to mix southern porches with Victorian styles, all on top of a sears foundation.

AlbertCory 4y ago

> That's why architects like Frank Lloyd Wright built bunkers that blended in with nature. Maybe you meant architects like him, but not "him"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright he was born in 1867. Much of his important work was done before WW I. Have you ever been to Taliesyn or Fallingwater? Those are not "bunkers that blended in with nature." Blending in with nature was completely his aesthetic, so much so that Taliesyn in Wisconsin was uninhabitable in the winter. Most of the rest of your post, I agree with.

UncleOxidant 4y ago

> I'm hopeful that ... our desire to become a space faring civilization will reinvigorate the passion of our species. But don't we need that passion (and hope) before we can become a space faring civilization? We kind of had that space-faring passion back in the 60s when the US/NASA did the Apollo program - at that point the general feeling was that the government was capable of doing good things. That general feeling has been gone for a while now and has been replaced with a general distrust of institutions like government. To some extent it seems like you need some level of hope before you can trust.

kansface 4y ago

We did build beautiful things post war! A driving tenant of Modernism was to bring good design to the masses through mass manufacturing - better living through ~science~ good design (see eg MoMA's Good Design Exhibition [1]). If you are thinking chiefly about architecture, consider the Sydney Opera House or the Gateway Arch. If you are thinking about houses, consider the Kaufmann house [2] or the Stahl House[3]. The fact is that we literally do not design homes in the US; over 90% of homes were just built by someone. That someone does not stop to consider design, aesthetics, ergonomics or joy. House developers are more or less doing enterprise sales. They just go by a checklist and the developer with the most checks wins. "Upgrades" merely change the quality of the thing on the checklist (formica -> granite), but thats the extent of it. 1. https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/1714 https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/1714 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann_Desert_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann_Desert_House 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stahl_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stahl_House

bombcar 4y ago
I mean the houses are "designed" insofar as plans are drawn up, etc. They're just all the "same" and the builders want the ability to "add uncharges" so you have a basic house that looks pretty decent, but once you select all the available admins (the three car garage, dormers on every root, gables everywhere) you end up with a McMansion.

bulbosaur123 4y ago

What if "beautiful buildings" are simply too expensive to build nowdays and there are cheaper alternatives that are functional, yet look sterile and boring? There is a reason almost nobody builds brick mansions anymore.

lmm 4y ago
If these buildings are ugly because we're cheaping out on them then we should at least acknowledge the fact and have an honest conversation about it. But actually they tend to be just as expensive as beautiful buildings.

tablespoon 4y ago

> I'm not religious at all but right now we face a crisis of what we are building for (as opposed to constructing buildings and temples to the glory of some god or gods). We are building for the shareholders and the market. They are our new gods.