4 ms·

More down-to-earth and simplistic answer: the classless society (Socialism and derivates like Social democracy) with the need to provide reasonable housing for

More down-to-earth and simplistic answer: the classless society (Socialism and derivates like Social democracy) with the need to provide reasonable housing for the masses and the spread of industrial concrete[0] took us to the optimal solution: the concrete box. Once Alvaro Siza (Pritzker prize) was asked if his architecture was minimalist. He answered (paraphrasing): "No, it's just a minimalism of costs". From wikipedia[1]: "During World War I, Le Corbusier taught at his old school in La-Chaux-de-Fonds. He concentrated on theoretical architectural studies using modern techniques. In December 1914, along with the engineer Max Dubois, he began a serious study of the use of reinforced concrete as a building material. He had first discovered concrete working in the office of Auguste Perret, the pioneer of reinforced concrete architecture in Paris, but now wanted to use it in new ways." "Le Corbusier saw the new society founded in the Soviet Union after the Russian Revolution as a promising laboratory for his architectural ideas. He met the Russian architect Konstantin Melnikov during the 1925 Decorative Arts Exposition in Paris, and admired the construction of Melnikov's constructivist USSR pavilion, the only truly modernist building in the Exposition other than his own Esprit Nouveau pavilion. At Melnikov's invitation, he travelled to Moscow, where he found that his writings had been published in Russian; he gave lectures and interviews and between 1928 and 1932 he constructed an office building for the Tsentrosoyuz, the headquarters of Soviet trade unions." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_cement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_cement [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Architecture has almost nothing to do with it... Hipodromo in Mexico City is one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in the world. Architecturally, it's a bunch of hideously ugly buildings. But there's trees and plants everywhere, and they're beautiful, and that's all you see. The reason everything is ugly is because we don't have trees and nature anymore - we just have roads and parking instead. There's tons of beautiful tree-lined streets in Chicago with ridiculously ugly houses. You don't notice the mismatched, horrible architecture. You just notice the trees & the birds & the squirrels. You don't have to be classical Paris to be beautiful. You just need plants and a neighborhood designed for people to live in - not cars to park in.
- trgn 4y ago
  I think you're describing sense of closure, the public realm as an exterior room. Trees offer that for sure. But Bruges or Amsterdam have very few trees, and they feel calm and verdant as well. The houses are super simple. Simple facades, some windows properly spaced. There's nothing to it. Yet, it feels perfect. I'd agree that that is the most important part, the city must be a ballroom, and that architecture proper comes second. Thing is, we lost both though. No more beautiful architecture, but also a complete misunderstanding of how to build a harmonious public realm. We can only think cars. Parking lot for cars. Streets for cars. Buffer zones for the exhaust, noise, and danger of cars. It destroys all cohesion.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  I'd agree it's possible to have a neighbourhood where most of houses aren't especially beautiful but the general layout, and in particular the placement and extent of greenery can lend a sense of overall beauty - I'd even say I live in such a suburb. But it would be far better still if the houses themselves had their own aesthetic appeal, and had been built to last hundreds of years. Plus greenery can only go so far when you're talking about larger buildings (4+ storeys). But yes, the dominance of cars in our towns and cities is almost certainly part of the problem - when you're rushing through a place at 70 or 80 k/h who cares if it's ugly?
- dionidium 4y ago
  > The reason everything is ugly is because we don't have trees and nature anymore - we just have roads and parking instead. I've spent a bunch of time on the 1940s.nyc site and the most striking difference between 1940s NYC and 2022 NYC is the lack of trees in 1940.
SQueeeeeL 4y ago
It's bizarre to blame communism here when we've seen this as a global phenomenon. It's an issue of neoliberal thinking in general, capitalism also acts to minimizes all costs the exact same way, just drive through any American highway exit and look at the uniformity of the architecture.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
MSFT_Edging 4y ago
I'm going to be a bastard and argue for the soviet take on large scale concrete construction. My personal favorite is the Russian Academy of Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Academy_of_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Academy_of_Sciences

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

Architecture has almost nothing to do with it... Hipodromo in Mexico City is one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in the world. Architecturally, it's a bunch of hideously ugly buildings. But there's trees and plants everywhere, and they're beautiful, and that's all you see. The reason everything is ugly is because we don't have trees and nature anymore - we just have roads and parking instead. There's tons of beautiful tree-lined streets in Chicago with ridiculously ugly houses. You don't notice the mismatched, horrible architecture. You just notice the trees & the birds & the squirrels. You don't have to be classical Paris to be beautiful. You just need plants and a neighborhood designed for people to live in - not cars to park in.

trgn 4y ago
I think you're describing sense of closure, the public realm as an exterior room. Trees offer that for sure. But Bruges or Amsterdam have very few trees, and they feel calm and verdant as well. The houses are super simple. Simple facades, some windows properly spaced. There's nothing to it. Yet, it feels perfect. I'd agree that that is the most important part, the city must be a ballroom, and that architecture proper comes second. Thing is, we lost both though. No more beautiful architecture, but also a complete misunderstanding of how to build a harmonious public realm. We can only think cars. Parking lot for cars. Streets for cars. Buffer zones for the exhaust, noise, and danger of cars. It destroys all cohesion.
wizofaus 4y ago
I'd agree it's possible to have a neighbourhood where most of houses aren't especially beautiful but the general layout, and in particular the placement and extent of greenery can lend a sense of overall beauty - I'd even say I live in such a suburb. But it would be far better still if the houses themselves had their own aesthetic appeal, and had been built to last hundreds of years. Plus greenery can only go so far when you're talking about larger buildings (4+ storeys). But yes, the dominance of cars in our towns and cities is almost certainly part of the problem - when you're rushing through a place at 70 or 80 k/h who cares if it's ugly?
dionidium 4y ago
> The reason everything is ugly is because we don't have trees and nature anymore - we just have roads and parking instead. I've spent a bunch of time on the 1940s.nyc site and the most striking difference between 1940s NYC and 2022 NYC is the lack of trees in 1940.

SQueeeeeL 4y ago

It's bizarre to blame communism here when we've seen this as a global phenomenon. It's an issue of neoliberal thinking in general, capitalism also acts to minimizes all costs the exact same way, just drive through any American highway exit and look at the uniformity of the architecture.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

MSFT_Edging 4y ago

I'm going to be a bastard and argue for the soviet take on large scale concrete construction. My personal favorite is the Russian Academy of Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Academy_of_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Academy_of_Sciences