4 ms·

It‘s not under-explored at all. Millions of people work in architecture and city planning. Every city has several departments that deal with planning and constr

It‘s not under-explored at all. Millions of people work in architecture and city planning. Every city has several departments that deal with planning and construction. It‘s just completely dysfunctional. Architecture professors have focused on “innovation” for 100 years and have achieved little. We still flock to the old, 19th century (or older) city centers and love it. We spend thousands to spend a week or two there on holidays. Very few modern places exist where this is the case. In survey after survey, 80% of the people prefer traditional over modern(ist) designs. So the whole profession has failed, since about the introduction of the Bauhaus.

smokel 2y ago
There's a bit of survivorship bias in your reasoning. The extremely wealthy built beautiful things that we still enjoy. But the horrible places that common people had to call home in the 19th century are not treasured in the same way.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  Agreed. I think people prefer what’s familiar, and what’s familiar is what we can afford. Compare traditional to tasteful billionaire penthouse and most people will choose penthouse
- lif 2y ago
  yes, and add to that the 20th century. And yet so many claim all we need is moooore housing. I would love to see quality of life become more of a ubiquitous focus and feature of what is built.
  - Althuns 2y ago
    Agreed. We do need more housing, but it can also be more quality housing. This is the part that most of the "YIMBY" folks miss out on. We have a new, modern, but as cheap as possible building with the smallest legal unit sizes that went in around the corner from us less than 10 years ago. It's now nearly empty because every unit leaks, the appliances and cabinetry already need to be replaced, and it'll have to be half rebuilt to fix several structural problems. The developer, fortunately, failed in getting a second building started because of community pushback. In response, the community has been attacked at the local, and recently international, level for being NIMBYs and "stopping necessary progress". The same folks who promote more sustainable and people focused city design are fighting for these worthless buildings. Their intentions are right in the bigger picture sense, but they leave no nuance for what's actually happening on the ground.
jajko 2y ago
Aesthetically pleasing it is, but also way less practical and way more costly to build. Nice stone facades can't have any thermal insulation on them (and having it inside is less than ideal), in Europe this would be a big problems apart from very south regions. I think mcmansions are trying to find some middle ground, but they don't seem to receive much love (those are not so common in Europe so just judging from far). Medieval castles can be very pretty to visit too, I wouldn't want to live in one if given modern choice regardless of wealth, even if ignoring all the red tape for any sort of change or even repair.
intended 2y ago
This is some strange no? It looks like you are talking about city planning more than architecture when talking about city centers. Modern designs are affected by supply and demand, while modernist designs have been supplanted by many other school. Innovation has ranged from tiny homes, to livable homes, to new materials, to shipping containers, building heights, concrete types, designs and more. I’ve seen architectural styles emerge and evolve from different countries, so it’s hard to read this and find the source of your opinion. The creation of public spaces is highly dependent on the governance of those localities. I was bemoaning the growth of self sufficient enclaves as a real estate solution in Mumbai, but I acknowledge that this is the market providing for its consumers what the government is yet to provide. Is this primarily an attack on academia, under the assumption that everyone hates the combination of “innovation” “modernism” and “professors”?
- cmarschner 2y ago
  Academia here is highly dysfunctional. For one, you don‘t need academics to build houses. It‘s an idea of the 20th century that you would. Previously architecture schools were part of the art departments. A bit of engineering, maybe, but that‘s it. Now that you have academics, they need to be innovative. The old doesn‘t count. Architecture becomes like fashion. Students are scolded if they want to produce anything traditional. This is true for 99% of architecture schools worldwide. Notre Dame is a noticeable exception, as are several summer schools in Europe (by INTbau for example). There is zero reason for neglecting or denying traditional architecture. The Romans have already known how to live well. Without artificial air condition. Perfectly climate adapted. Natural materials. Second, architecture schools are not about education, it‘s about becoming part of a cult. It‘s about telling a story, about winning competitions, and about convincing investors. Not so much pleasing the users of a building.
  - intended 2y ago
    Who the heck denies traditional architecture? My friends were studying architecture along side me in college, they have tons of studies on classical architecture. Heck I know about classical building methods, styles and the economics behind them and I’m not even an architect. And I was not even born in the west. Like, I don’t expect a neophyte architect to use methods that can build houses only up to 3 stories based on stonework. They need to use drywall and construction methods unique to their locality. But there’s thousands of other and file architects, and thousands more who make insane and wonderful things, along with professors who … Dear heavens, What happened on your journey? Besides - there’s always place for new and interesting, if rebellion is your go to motif - have at it. Modern itself was a rebellion against older forms and thinking.
zuppy 2y ago
those places are nice for vacations, but without denser apartment buildings the city tends to expand a lot horizontally and after a while it's very expensive to have a decent public transportation system. it's mostly impractical for large cities to be built this way. i've seen very few cities that managed to make this work.
- cmarschner 2y ago
  Not true, there are many places with traditional courtyard blocks and 3-5 stories that reach the population density of Manhattan
yubblegum 2y ago
> Architecture professors have focused on “innovation” for 100 years and have achieved little. The issue is that architecture is not a science. It has nothing to do with the past 100 years. There is simply, to date, no solid theoretical foundation that can inform design. Corbu made a lame attempt in his early phase to establish a set of axioms, and that didn't work out. So the search in the past 100 years wasn't entirely based on "innovation". The field is searching for something resembling a theoretical framework. > So the whole profession has failed, since about the introduction of the Bauhaus. This is a reactionary statement. There are numerous amazing works of architecture from the 20th. And your dragging in Bauhaus indicates you actually are not well read in the history of modern architecture. (This negative fascination with bauhaus carries a strong whiff of the National Socialist Germany, btw ..) > In survey after survey, 80% of the people prefer traditional over modern(ist) designs. Well, Architecture (contra building design) is high art. It is not for the unwashed. 80% of the people also prefer drivel for their cultural fare.
- bmicraft 2y ago
  > Well, Architecture (contra building design) is high art. It is not for the unwashed. 80% of the people also prefer drivel for their cultural fare. The people should get what the people like, not what the elite likes. Nobody cares what you consider "high art". The term in itself is pretentious. Your "high art" is too desperately trying to make a name by standing out through being weird instead of better.
  - yubblegum 2y ago
    People do get what they like and they should. We are discussing Architecture with a capital A. It has always, since day 1, been an elite concern. No one took polls of e.g. Greeks to see if they approve of the Parthenon. The English common man was not consulted by Christopher Wren. The list goes on and on. What is ironic is that this "traditional architecture" that reactionary ones like you keep raving about is nothing about recyclying "high art" of their ancestors. Materials change. Scale requirements have changed. Techniques have evolved. The forms are reflecting that. It is entirely correct to note that many of such efforts (mostly copycat rehashing of masterpieces of modernist architects by lesser talent) have proven ineffective, but that it is just the nature of the field. Architecture is not software. It takes generations to iterate through the possible solutions. > Your "high art" is too desperately trying to make a name by standing out through being weird instead of better. You have zero idea of what I consider high art in architecture. You are tilting at your own windmills buddy. +There is nothing pretensious about distinguishing high and low cultural efforts. Let's consider our own field: should we all be forced to code in JavaScript and disavow more powerful constructs such as e.g. Haskell since the "common man" is incapable of groking it??

smokel 2y ago

There's a bit of survivorship bias in your reasoning. The extremely wealthy built beautiful things that we still enjoy. But the horrible places that common people had to call home in the 19th century are not treasured in the same way.

whamlastxmas 2y ago
Agreed. I think people prefer what’s familiar, and what’s familiar is what we can afford. Compare traditional to tasteful billionaire penthouse and most people will choose penthouse
lif 2y ago
yes, and add to that the 20th century. And yet so many claim all we need is moooore housing. I would love to see quality of life become more of a ubiquitous focus and feature of what is built.
- Althuns 2y ago
  Agreed. We do need more housing, but it can also be more quality housing. This is the part that most of the "YIMBY" folks miss out on. We have a new, modern, but as cheap as possible building with the smallest legal unit sizes that went in around the corner from us less than 10 years ago. It's now nearly empty because every unit leaks, the appliances and cabinetry already need to be replaced, and it'll have to be half rebuilt to fix several structural problems. The developer, fortunately, failed in getting a second building started because of community pushback. In response, the community has been attacked at the local, and recently international, level for being NIMBYs and "stopping necessary progress". The same folks who promote more sustainable and people focused city design are fighting for these worthless buildings. Their intentions are right in the bigger picture sense, but they leave no nuance for what's actually happening on the ground.

jajko 2y ago

Aesthetically pleasing it is, but also way less practical and way more costly to build. Nice stone facades can't have any thermal insulation on them (and having it inside is less than ideal), in Europe this would be a big problems apart from very south regions. I think mcmansions are trying to find some middle ground, but they don't seem to receive much love (those are not so common in Europe so just judging from far). Medieval castles can be very pretty to visit too, I wouldn't want to live in one if given modern choice regardless of wealth, even if ignoring all the red tape for any sort of change or even repair.

intended 2y ago

This is some strange no? It looks like you are talking about city planning more than architecture when talking about city centers. Modern designs are affected by supply and demand, while modernist designs have been supplanted by many other school. Innovation has ranged from tiny homes, to livable homes, to new materials, to shipping containers, building heights, concrete types, designs and more. I’ve seen architectural styles emerge and evolve from different countries, so it’s hard to read this and find the source of your opinion. The creation of public spaces is highly dependent on the governance of those localities. I was bemoaning the growth of self sufficient enclaves as a real estate solution in Mumbai, but I acknowledge that this is the market providing for its consumers what the government is yet to provide. Is this primarily an attack on academia, under the assumption that everyone hates the combination of “innovation” “modernism” and “professors”?

cmarschner 2y ago
Academia here is highly dysfunctional. For one, you don‘t need academics to build houses. It‘s an idea of the 20th century that you would. Previously architecture schools were part of the art departments. A bit of engineering, maybe, but that‘s it. Now that you have academics, they need to be innovative. The old doesn‘t count. Architecture becomes like fashion. Students are scolded if they want to produce anything traditional. This is true for 99% of architecture schools worldwide. Notre Dame is a noticeable exception, as are several summer schools in Europe (by INTbau for example). There is zero reason for neglecting or denying traditional architecture. The Romans have already known how to live well. Without artificial air condition. Perfectly climate adapted. Natural materials. Second, architecture schools are not about education, it‘s about becoming part of a cult. It‘s about telling a story, about winning competitions, and about convincing investors. Not so much pleasing the users of a building.
- intended 2y ago
  Who the heck denies traditional architecture? My friends were studying architecture along side me in college, they have tons of studies on classical architecture. Heck I know about classical building methods, styles and the economics behind them and I’m not even an architect. And I was not even born in the west. Like, I don’t expect a neophyte architect to use methods that can build houses only up to 3 stories based on stonework. They need to use drywall and construction methods unique to their locality. But there’s thousands of other and file architects, and thousands more who make insane and wonderful things, along with professors who … Dear heavens, What happened on your journey? Besides - there’s always place for new and interesting, if rebellion is your go to motif - have at it. Modern itself was a rebellion against older forms and thinking.

zuppy 2y ago

those places are nice for vacations, but without denser apartment buildings the city tends to expand a lot horizontally and after a while it's very expensive to have a decent public transportation system. it's mostly impractical for large cities to be built this way. i've seen very few cities that managed to make this work.

cmarschner 2y ago
Not true, there are many places with traditional courtyard blocks and 3-5 stories that reach the population density of Manhattan

yubblegum 2y ago

> Architecture professors have focused on “innovation” for 100 years and have achieved little. The issue is that architecture is not a science. It has nothing to do with the past 100 years. There is simply, to date, no solid theoretical foundation that can inform design. Corbu made a lame attempt in his early phase to establish a set of axioms, and that didn't work out. So the search in the past 100 years wasn't entirely based on "innovation". The field is searching for something resembling a theoretical framework. > So the whole profession has failed, since about the introduction of the Bauhaus. This is a reactionary statement. There are numerous amazing works of architecture from the 20th. And your dragging in Bauhaus indicates you actually are not well read in the history of modern architecture. (This negative fascination with bauhaus carries a strong whiff of the National Socialist Germany, btw ..) > In survey after survey, 80% of the people prefer traditional over modern(ist) designs. Well, Architecture (contra building design) is high art. It is not for the unwashed. 80% of the people also prefer drivel for their cultural fare.

bmicraft 2y ago
> Well, Architecture (contra building design) is high art. It is not for the unwashed. 80% of the people also prefer drivel for their cultural fare. The people should get what the people like, not what the elite likes. Nobody cares what you consider "high art". The term in itself is pretentious. Your "high art" is too desperately trying to make a name by standing out through being weird instead of better.
- yubblegum 2y ago
  People do get what they like and they should. We are discussing Architecture with a capital A. It has always, since day 1, been an elite concern. No one took polls of e.g. Greeks to see if they approve of the Parthenon. The English common man was not consulted by Christopher Wren. The list goes on and on. What is ironic is that this "traditional architecture" that reactionary ones like you keep raving about is nothing about recyclying "high art" of their ancestors. Materials change. Scale requirements have changed. Techniques have evolved. The forms are reflecting that. It is entirely correct to note that many of such efforts (mostly copycat rehashing of masterpieces of modernist architects by lesser talent) have proven ineffective, but that it is just the nature of the field. Architecture is not software. It takes generations to iterate through the possible solutions. > Your "high art" is too desperately trying to make a name by standing out through being weird instead of better. You have zero idea of what I consider high art in architecture. You are tilting at your own windmills buddy. +There is nothing pretensious about distinguishing high and low cultural efforts. Let's consider our own field: should we all be forced to code in JavaScript and disavow more powerful constructs such as e.g. Haskell since the "common man" is incapable of groking it??