4 ms·

There is an important and very profane aspect of ornament on buildings which isn't mentioned in the article: it hides dirt incredibly well. Just compare these

by lqet 3y ago

There is an important and very profane aspect of ornament on buildings which isn't mentioned in the article: it hides dirt incredibly well. Just compare these dirty 19th century facades with a dirty facade of a house from the 70ies: https://photographierer.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/DSC_2356.jpg https://photographierer.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/DSC_23... https://schall-fassadenreinigung.de/wp-content/themes/yootheme/cache/ab/haus-dreckig-fassade-ab0d0039.jpeg https://schall-fassadenreinigung.de/wp-content/themes/yoothe... The latter looks absolutely filthy, while the former, although uncleaned for 150 years, still look nice. I do not buy the efficiency argument given by Adolf Loos at all. What you gain in labor time by removing ornamentation, you will loose in renovation work and (urban) living quality.

stdbrouw 3y ago
Ironically, we're also losing a lot of efficiency because cities are demanding setbacks, bumps, differences in height etc. for bigger buildings to avoid ending up with drab rectangular blocks, but that leads to more heat loss due to more surface exposed to the environment, higher use of materials and a higher risk of water ingress because there's a ton of weak points where different surfaces connect. (It also just doesn't look very good.) Ornament might be an alternative: just make massed buildings look nice instead of demanding that they are broken up into a bunch of lego blocks. A good thread by Alfred Twu here: https://twitter.com/alfred_twu/status/1715230266531475702 https://twitter.com/alfred_twu/status/1715230266531475702 I also wonder if the trend away from ornament has something to do with the trend towards fancier materials and bolder colors -- wasserstrich bricks, wood facades, decorative plasters in bathrooms, highly polished pigmented concrete floors, aluminium window frames in unusual colors, etc. People need their interestingness fix :-)
- pif 3y ago
  > that leads to more heat loss With global warming, that is becoming more and more an advantage, rather than a defect!
  - zilti 3y ago
    Not at all. It leads to energy waste in winter.
  - engineer_22 3y ago
    No, the inverse is also true, more exposed surface leads to more heat gain in summer
  - j-bos 3y ago
    Ah, but heating a building is much more expensive than cooling
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Either way it doesn't matter: buildings are going to be either heated or cooled nearly ever day. Some seasons you heat them, some you cool them, but rarely is the ambient temperature close enough to rely on passive systems for comfort. Of course local climate matters, some places never need any heating/cooling, some need is only some days. Humans have started to demand the building be more comfortable.
- paganel 3y ago
  > A good thread by Alfred Twu here: https://twitter.com/alfred_twu/status/1715230266531475702 https://twitter.com/alfred_twu/status/1715230266531475702 And stalinist architecture gets called all sorts of names. This buiding [1] is located very close to where I live, an excellent example of very early 1950s stalinist architecture and also eerily similar to the "good" example from your linked tweet. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4527856,26.095487,3a,48.4y,348.07h,105.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6bRmwQE2hb1X70_umgC2xw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4527856,26.095487,3a,48.4y,3...
  - stdbrouw 3y ago
    Yeah, I think the building you show is a pretty good example of what Twu would like to see: one big mass, made pretty with consoles, balconies and cornices. You can do a more modern style too, though. I especially like Persian-inspired modern brickwork [1] [2]. What do you consider to be the defining features of Stalinist architecture though? The Wikipedia page portrays it as more or less "whatever happened to be built during Stalin's reign, whatever the style". [1] https://www.yankodesign.com/2021/12/28/creative-brick-design-with-a-built-in-planter-turns-the-outer-facade-of-this-house-into-a-vertical-garden/ https://www.yankodesign.com/2021/12/28/creative-brick-design... [2] https://www.dezeen.com/2016/05/10/kahrizak-residential-housing-caat-studio-tehran-iran-perforated-brick-screens/ https://www.dezeen.com/2016/05/10/kahrizak-residential-housi...
    - paganel 3y ago
      > What do you consider to be the defining features of Stalinist architecture though It's complicated because it has rarely been studied in an ideological-free manner (or not that I know of), so I'm basing my judgements mostly on what I've seen built around me from that era and by reading a couple of local architecture magazines back from those days, magazines that were actively putting forward said "stalinist" style. I'd say that this definition: "whatever happened to be built during Stalin's reign, whatever the style" is generally correct, with a small correction when it comes to the "whatever the style" part, as in it looks to me that there was some consistency in said style going from the mid-to-late 1930s to Stalin's death (in 1953), so that "whatever" part is a little forced. As per said style itself I don't know how best to define it, mostly neo-classical with intense tints of grandiloquence, for example this building from Bucharest, Casa Scânteii [1], is a very good example of that style (said building is a "scaled-down" replica of the Main building of the Moscow State University [2]). A good starting point could be this wikipedia page of a "stalinist" architect named Alexey Shchusev, the style that I'm talking about can be seen in his works going from about ~1935 to his death, so I wouldn't include the Constructivist period (which was in place throughout the '20s) as part of Stalinist architecture proper, but maybe that's just me. For those that know Romanian there's a recently published book about Shchusev called Alexey Shchusev, An Architect of the Imperial Russian Style [4], and by the same author I now see that there's a more general book on Stalinist architecture called Die Architektur Stalins [5], this one in German. Leter edit: There's also an English version of that book on Shchusev: Alexey Shchusev: Architect of Stalin's Empire Style [6] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_the_Free_Press https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_the_Free_Press [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_building_of_Moscow_State_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_building_of_Moscow_State_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Shchusev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Shchusev [4] https://cartier.ro/libraria/arta/alexei-sciusev-un-arhitect-al-stilului-imperial-stalinist/ https://cartier.ro/libraria/arta/alexei-sciusev-un-arhitect-... [5] https://www.amazon.de/Die-Architektur-Stalins-Bd-Bilddokumentation/dp/3898215156 https://www.amazon.de/Die-Architektur-Stalins-Bd-Bilddokumen... [6] https://ribabooks.com/Alexey-Shchusev-Architect-of-Stalins-Empire-Style_9783869224749# https://ribabooks.com/Alexey-Shchusev-Architect-of-Stalins-E...
vallode 3y ago
A part of me thinks that our weariness of spending "more" on architecture and beauty in cities is the same kind of weird frugality people experience with day to day goods. My grandparents will endlessly complain about the lack of good quality products on the market (knives, power tools, clothing) but at the same time refuse to engage in locally-made albeit more expensive merchants. Making buildings pretty may cost more (although, from my own understanding sourcing local tradespeople and using local materials ends up significantly cheaper over time) but the ROI is significantly better, both culturally and financially (pretty buildings age better, they become more appreciated over time in both financial and cultural value). So is it the same with house goods? Are we just unwilling to accept that knives haven't got worse, it's just that we have mass-produced medium-quality low opportunity cost products that we can keep chucking out the window and complaining about? I rambled on, I totally agree that the efficiency of good/pretty architecture is completely understated.
- aargh_aargh 3y ago
  That's why in economy you vote with your wallet, not your mouth. AKA talk is cheap, show me the dough...
  - nativeit 3y ago
    This only works in pure free markets, which generally do not exist.
    - aargh_aargh 3y ago
      What are you arguing? What's unfree about the section of the knives market relevant to the example? The government isn't forcing/incentivizing them to buy the cheaper products. Economic considerations are.
      - MatekCopatek 3y ago
        The average consumer lacks the knowledge and skill to objectively assess the quality of a knife, the seller is aware of that and manipulates them through advertising. Is a democratic election free if everyone voted freely, but was under the influence of widespread propaganda?
rsynnott 3y ago
Unless it was in a city with implausibly clean air, that 19th century one has probably been cleaned at least once (at great expense, probably). Otherwise, it'd be practically black. And cleaning these things is _expensive_, and takes ages. IIRC doing one smallish (but highly ornamented) 19th century building in my university took about a year. By contrast, the house could be cleaned up in a few days. Modern buildings, clad in, essentially, plastic (or just having all-glass surfaces), even easier, of course.
__alexs 3y ago
The 19th C one needs meticulous cleaning by professionals. The 70s one needs a coat of paint from your local DIY store.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
yterdy 3y ago
The first style doesn't become dirtier, it just gets an ambient occlusion map applied to it.
usrusr 3y ago
My personal "founder fantasy" (not a founder type at all) for the last ten years or so has been a renderer/plugin for architecture visualisation that simulates weathering. For exactly the reasons you state. If you want a building to still look good after the honeymoon phase is over, you have to consider how it will look after a few years of realistic maintenance. If an architect talks about sustainability (and they all seem to do, these days), unless they can show evidence of having considered aesthetics after two decades of minimum maintenance it's all just babble.

by lqet 3y ago

stdbrouw 3y ago

Ironically, we're also losing a lot of efficiency because cities are demanding setbacks, bumps, differences in height etc. for bigger buildings to avoid ending up with drab rectangular blocks, but that leads to more heat loss due to more surface exposed to the environment, higher use of materials and a higher risk of water ingress because there's a ton of weak points where different surfaces connect. (It also just doesn't look very good.) Ornament might be an alternative: just make massed buildings look nice instead of demanding that they are broken up into a bunch of lego blocks. A good thread by Alfred Twu here: https://twitter.com/alfred_twu/status/1715230266531475702 https://twitter.com/alfred_twu/status/1715230266531475702 I also wonder if the trend away from ornament has something to do with the trend towards fancier materials and bolder colors -- wasserstrich bricks, wood facades, decorative plasters in bathrooms, highly polished pigmented concrete floors, aluminium window frames in unusual colors, etc. People need their interestingness fix :-)

pif 3y ago
> that leads to more heat loss With global warming, that is becoming more and more an advantage, rather than a defect!
- zilti 3y ago
  Not at all. It leads to energy waste in winter.
- engineer_22 3y ago
  No, the inverse is also true, more exposed surface leads to more heat gain in summer
- j-bos 3y ago
  Ah, but heating a building is much more expensive than cooling
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Either way it doesn't matter: buildings are going to be either heated or cooled nearly ever day. Some seasons you heat them, some you cool them, but rarely is the ambient temperature close enough to rely on passive systems for comfort. Of course local climate matters, some places never need any heating/cooling, some need is only some days. Humans have started to demand the building be more comfortable.
paganel 3y ago
> A good thread by Alfred Twu here: https://twitter.com/alfred_twu/status/1715230266531475702 https://twitter.com/alfred_twu/status/1715230266531475702 And stalinist architecture gets called all sorts of names. This buiding [1] is located very close to where I live, an excellent example of very early 1950s stalinist architecture and also eerily similar to the "good" example from your linked tweet. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4527856,26.095487,3a,48.4y,348.07h,105.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6bRmwQE2hb1X70_umgC2xw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4527856,26.095487,3a,48.4y,3...
- stdbrouw 3y ago
  Yeah, I think the building you show is a pretty good example of what Twu would like to see: one big mass, made pretty with consoles, balconies and cornices. You can do a more modern style too, though. I especially like Persian-inspired modern brickwork [1] [2]. What do you consider to be the defining features of Stalinist architecture though? The Wikipedia page portrays it as more or less "whatever happened to be built during Stalin's reign, whatever the style". [1] https://www.yankodesign.com/2021/12/28/creative-brick-design-with-a-built-in-planter-turns-the-outer-facade-of-this-house-into-a-vertical-garden/ https://www.yankodesign.com/2021/12/28/creative-brick-design... [2] https://www.dezeen.com/2016/05/10/kahrizak-residential-housing-caat-studio-tehran-iran-perforated-brick-screens/ https://www.dezeen.com/2016/05/10/kahrizak-residential-housi...
  - paganel 3y ago
    > What do you consider to be the defining features of Stalinist architecture though It's complicated because it has rarely been studied in an ideological-free manner (or not that I know of), so I'm basing my judgements mostly on what I've seen built around me from that era and by reading a couple of local architecture magazines back from those days, magazines that were actively putting forward said "stalinist" style. I'd say that this definition: "whatever happened to be built during Stalin's reign, whatever the style" is generally correct, with a small correction when it comes to the "whatever the style" part, as in it looks to me that there was some consistency in said style going from the mid-to-late 1930s to Stalin's death (in 1953), so that "whatever" part is a little forced. As per said style itself I don't know how best to define it, mostly neo-classical with intense tints of grandiloquence, for example this building from Bucharest, Casa Scânteii [1], is a very good example of that style (said building is a "scaled-down" replica of the Main building of the Moscow State University [2]). A good starting point could be this wikipedia page of a "stalinist" architect named Alexey Shchusev, the style that I'm talking about can be seen in his works going from about ~1935 to his death, so I wouldn't include the Constructivist period (which was in place throughout the '20s) as part of Stalinist architecture proper, but maybe that's just me. For those that know Romanian there's a recently published book about Shchusev called Alexey Shchusev, An Architect of the Imperial Russian Style [4], and by the same author I now see that there's a more general book on Stalinist architecture called Die Architektur Stalins [5], this one in German. Leter edit: There's also an English version of that book on Shchusev: Alexey Shchusev: Architect of Stalin's Empire Style [6] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_the_Free_Press https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_the_Free_Press [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_building_of_Moscow_State_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_building_of_Moscow_State_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Shchusev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Shchusev [4] https://cartier.ro/libraria/arta/alexei-sciusev-un-arhitect-al-stilului-imperial-stalinist/ https://cartier.ro/libraria/arta/alexei-sciusev-un-arhitect-... [5] https://www.amazon.de/Die-Architektur-Stalins-Bd-Bilddokumentation/dp/3898215156 https://www.amazon.de/Die-Architektur-Stalins-Bd-Bilddokumen... [6] https://ribabooks.com/Alexey-Shchusev-Architect-of-Stalins-Empire-Style_9783869224749# https://ribabooks.com/Alexey-Shchusev-Architect-of-Stalins-E...

vallode 3y ago

A part of me thinks that our weariness of spending "more" on architecture and beauty in cities is the same kind of weird frugality people experience with day to day goods. My grandparents will endlessly complain about the lack of good quality products on the market (knives, power tools, clothing) but at the same time refuse to engage in locally-made albeit more expensive merchants. Making buildings pretty may cost more (although, from my own understanding sourcing local tradespeople and using local materials ends up significantly cheaper over time) but the ROI is significantly better, both culturally and financially (pretty buildings age better, they become more appreciated over time in both financial and cultural value). So is it the same with house goods? Are we just unwilling to accept that knives haven't got worse, it's just that we have mass-produced medium-quality low opportunity cost products that we can keep chucking out the window and complaining about? I rambled on, I totally agree that the efficiency of good/pretty architecture is completely understated.

aargh_aargh 3y ago
That's why in economy you vote with your wallet, not your mouth. AKA talk is cheap, show me the dough...
- nativeit 3y ago
  This only works in pure free markets, which generally do not exist.
  - aargh_aargh 3y ago
    What are you arguing? What's unfree about the section of the knives market relevant to the example? The government isn't forcing/incentivizing them to buy the cheaper products. Economic considerations are.
    - MatekCopatek 3y ago
      The average consumer lacks the knowledge and skill to objectively assess the quality of a knife, the seller is aware of that and manipulates them through advertising. Is a democratic election free if everyone voted freely, but was under the influence of widespread propaganda?

rsynnott 3y ago

Unless it was in a city with implausibly clean air, that 19th century one has probably been cleaned at least once (at great expense, probably). Otherwise, it'd be practically black. And cleaning these things is _expensive_, and takes ages. IIRC doing one smallish (but highly ornamented) 19th century building in my university took about a year. By contrast, the house could be cleaned up in a few days. Modern buildings, clad in, essentially, plastic (or just having all-glass surfaces), even easier, of course.

__alexs 3y ago

The 19th C one needs meticulous cleaning by professionals. The 70s one needs a coat of paint from your local DIY store.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

yterdy 3y ago

The first style doesn't become dirtier, it just gets an ambient occlusion map applied to it.

usrusr 3y ago

My personal "founder fantasy" (not a founder type at all) for the last ten years or so has been a renderer/plugin for architecture visualisation that simulates weathering. For exactly the reasons you state. If you want a building to still look good after the honeymoon phase is over, you have to consider how it will look after a few years of realistic maintenance. If an architect talks about sustainability (and they all seem to do, these days), unless they can show evidence of having considered aesthetics after two decades of minimum maintenance it's all just babble.