I encourage anyone in SoCal to look into the Livable Communities Initiative, which hopes to bring gentle mixed-use density with courtyards and mobility to major corridors in Los Angeles. One of the main reasons huge 5-over-1 style/mid-rise buildings have been the new-build standard is that it is so expensive to get the proper permitting and meet parking requirements that smaller options do not pencil out. LCI seeks to reform parking, 2nd staircase, setbacks and other requirements and implementing preapproved standard plans with slight variations in a set of pleasing architectural styles, where a neighborhood/street can choose its exact style or design vernacular if they want. This would allow courtyard buildings that can fit the density of a current 8-story building in a 5-story building, and minimize development and construction costs and timelines.
Another thing I observe with ugly modernist architecture (especially high rises) is that it can create deadzones. So taller the building becomes so more expensive is it to built and to maintain and the costs to live there are high. Most of those tall buildings have areas for businesses at the bottom. But I notice that often either the businesses there don;t last long, or it stays empty for a very long time because of the high rent. And don't get me started on wind tunnels and constant shadows, which people also hate.
I generally agree with the points made here, but I'm not totally against high-rise housing in the same way as Mr. Diamant. I think there are ways you can incorporate high-rise housing to have a pleasing ground floor, similar to what's done in Vancouver, where shops and living areas tend to be on the lower floors and offices in the upper floors. I think definitely some areas just need high rises, like Singapore and Hong Kong, because of the local geopolitical situation for citizens of those nations, and it's probably not possible to get the housing needed with courtyards and mid-rises, but you can certainly integrate those high rises into the urban form better than what's being done today. I also think it's possible to build high rises with classical principles, and that high rises don't need to be defined by modernist architecture, because you can find some great examples in, say, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philly, etc. of high rise buildings that used traditional principles and still look stunning to this day. Having said all of that, for basically all of America, we need practically zero high rises. The northeast and Chicagoland are the only areas where high rises even begin to make sense, and even there they're probably overrepresented due to low-rise suburban housing that exists outside of the cities. There are so many tiny cities in the US that built massive skyscrapers in the past 50 years that didn't need to, and only built them because they wanted to be a "modern" city. Hopefully, people like Mr. Diamant can help push us towards building more sustainable cities, and stop the clout chasing with ugly, expensive, and unnecessary modernist buildings.
The case against high rises is that they are bad for the people living in them. Also it is hard to create court yard urbanism with high rises and courtyard urbanism is crucial to bring middle class families back to the cities.
@@michael.diamant I dont know if you've been to Singapore. Just from picture, those 40-stories buildings look like ghettos. But at the ground level they did an amazing job because they used exotic plants and flowers everywhere. Is like you're walking in a gigantic park. Also, their ground floor is missing, is empty space, so you can see in the distance and dont feel enclosed in a jail by those tall buildings. The courtyards in Europe on the other hand are hidden from public access, so in a way Singapore is better. Hong Kong on the other hand is just a depressing concrete ghetto.
When talking towers, people tend to like the lowest floors. So Vancouver is on to something with its towers on a podium. However, they also like the very highest floors. So if you are building towers, you probably want the upper middle sections of it to be the office space,not the very top.
Podium or 5/1 buildings are so common in so many cities in the US. With building codes being almost identical whether you are in SLC, Houston or Buffalo they all look basically the same...a mashup of materials that tries to be cool but look kitschy.
Yes but they dont need to. And the problem is lack of courtyard urbanism. We want middle class families to the cities and not only young professionals or poor.
@@ROForeverMan What do you mean? There is an ever increase in building new traditional architecture, students that want to become classical architects and public demand for new classical and politicians demanding the same. I am in contact with the entire world every day that want to learn more.
It would be interesting to frame this issue as one relating to fertility rates.. allowing for an adequate amount of housing planned in such a way that encourages building families and communities.
Great video! Learned a lot today :). Question: Since the price of renting apartments/ homes is growing exponentially in the US, will the fact that these building being built (in a classic way) which will cost 5-10% as mentioned by the video (or maybe more?) will the price of renting grow even more exponentially or stay relatively the same?
The rent has very little to do with construction costs but demand in attractive locations. Generally new classical is built in the US in allready high demand areas so the rent will be thereafter. If we want lower rent then there need to be better supply of classical urbanism and that is something supplied by the munis.
You ask a really great question! While large high rises and tower blocks might initially be more inexpensive than gentle density with classical styles, those towers won't be worth it because in the long run they will become slums that no one will want to live in. While housing costs are important, the long term effect on the community and its residents should be the main priority. American cities that invested in these sort of arrangements in the '60s and '70s paid the price (St Louis most famously) and now those cities have a fraction of the population, have high rates of poverty and crime, and an environment that fosters a continued decrepit state. The US will have to densify its cities in order to combat housing costs, and move away from car-centric development, which is great. But as we do that, we have to do it properly, and in a way that benefits everyone: middle class and the poor especially. Building beautiful buildings and cities to the point where it's no longer a scarce commodity will eventually mean those benefits will be accessible to everyone, as they once were before the age of modernism.
This is a fantastic interview. I hope you keep on the same track. "The modernist reads the building code like the devil reads the Bible" could not be truer or funnier. I have great respect for Michael being the arena, swinging at the self-absorbed and depressing post-modernists.
Excellent channel. I remember watching an interview with an architect on the Charlie Rose show (a once prominent interview program, that has since been canceled during the me-too mania), who had all the right credentials, and spoke enthusiastically about a building he designed as a significant addition to the Columbia University campus in New York. His pitch was so convincing, practically the next day I went to have a look. And my goodness, it was rubbish! I have seen more sophistication in shopping mall designs. Modernist architects are great salesmen, they can make the pitch, even produce a great coffee table book. But as for their buildings? Just say no. Btw, fantastic interview. This guy gets it.
The "connected to the street" thing is quite disconnected with the increasing needs of housing with limited space. Courtyard urbanism and allat are fine and all for many cities BUT that doesnt make skyscrapers or more commonly high rises undesirable. You can make them look good and people won't be "disconnected" as long as you offer green space and just generally nice coty amenities at the street level. And i like the courtyard idea, a lot of cities should have it, but it can be adapted to highrises as putting common areas on the roofs and allat. Really our green space problem here is orivate yards. But yeah so plsces like NYC can't judt go back to y stories max, it simply doesn't work like that. They could, however, build more housing in the outer boroughs that could act like that gentle density, which i do believe has a place in any city, i just don't think highrises should be disliked so heavily cuz they're honestly not the main killer of good street life. But yeah a mix of all is really ideal especially for a place like Manhattan where we can't restruct ourselves to these ideals in a strict manner vecause thise highrise skyscrapers whatever are there to fit more prople in areas of desirable amenitites, so saying "six stories only" blocks many people from even having the opportunity to experience those neighborhoods and areas. Still good vid tho. Just please get rid of the outdated concept that 6 stories max and highrise bad cuz highrises will solve housing demand in certain areas and do they're kinda unavoidable if you want an affordable market.
To add, I love his point, that making something beautiful makes it ecological, because it makes these areas/homes something to maintain and worth fighting for. Wow
I do find his comments on transit-oriented development offensive, because upper middle-class families are not the only people who deserve to have access to dense or gently dense housing with access to transit. The working class, students, and other young people without accumulated wealth deserve that too. How do we make transit-oriented development safe? Not by excluding young and less wealthy people. By enforcing the fucking law! All of the examples of how bad it can get are from cities notorious for not having enough police personnel to effectively enforce the laws, and then letting criminals go without charge or sentenced leniently if they are apprehended. You simply cannot meaningfully discuss urbanism in 2024 without considering the effect of lawlessness on urban public spaces.
But that is what I do. Based on reality the transit nodes need to be built for people with close contact with politicans for everyone's safety. Bc in the end policing is done much more by the community than by the police.
You should read the death and life of great American cities by Jane Jacobs. She makes a really great point, as noted by Mr. Diamant, about how communities generally police themselves, and that the built environment can influence the general safety of a space. She somewhat coined a phrase called "eyes on the street" that basically means that if a place feels like it's being watched by the community, you're far less likely to get criminal activity, because criminals don't generally like to be seen committing crimes. Of course this isn't applicable all the time, as some cities and communities have people who commit armed robbery in crowded public areas during the day, but in general this is how it works.
@dillinify I fully agree with you but I also see a cognitive dissonance with urbanists on RUclips who tend to be very progressive/liberal which would align with a soft on crime and defund the police sort of mindset. This sabotages the effort toward better urbanism.
@@baerfas I 100% agree that soft on crime and allowing assicial behaviour (open drug use, homeless camps etc) is a big hindrance to urban revival in the US. US urbanism in general is between a rock and hard place and I don't see any improvement on the horizion other than for specific "gated" communities.
I started out enjoying this video and then became really annoyed by it by the end. Diamant makes some good points about different ways to get density and about the utility of more classical forms in upgrading and modernizing buildings. However, if you insist that there be no high rises then you *must* have good public transportation to make all parts of the city interconnected. I am guessing he is not sufficiently aware of the problems of American car culture, the devastating effects of highway construction for most cities, the lack of social integration and resulting social atomization, and of course the ecological consequences. Basically, he only really has solutions for middle and upper middle class people. The reality is that housing affordability is a huge problem for working class and poor people. He also makes the mistake of referring to any housing outside of that as a "slum" without being aware of the disastrous effects of "slum clearance" in the US. He will make reference to these problems here or there but his vision is not up to the scale needed for the problems. Just saying "there is always a housing crisis" doesn't excuse this shortsightedness.
High rises are bad for the people living in them and not necc for density. Almost no European city has them and they achieve good density regardless. And why should poor people live in towers? Why cant they aswell live in courtyard urbanism? It is not a matter of cost but out of ideology. And yes public transport is bad in the US and the only way to solve that is to create more even density = gentle density.
@@michael.diamant public transportation in the US is absolutely amazing…it’s called the Interstate Highway System…and it’s vast, connected, and open to all, 24/7, 365 days a year, connecting millions of miles and billions of acres of land.
@@ROForeverMan yes and? Changing architecture is like turning around a supertanker. We have won the discourse and most politicians. The final battlefield is the institutions. When they are conquered we win and we have allready started.
Maybe have a "beautiful" backdrop and decent lighting. And if you do not think that the Barcelona Pavillion, Kimball Museum or Terminal T4 in Madrid are not beautiful, you have a narrow sophomoric definition of beauty. We should be for well executed appropriate architecture, regardless of the dialect. This is not a black and white issue.
Of course it is a black and white issue. You have the modernist ideology that see beauty as both shallow and relative vs the classical tradition that strive for beauty and have experience in making it. That a clock is right two times a day does not make 99.99% of modernist buildings suddenly beautiful.
No one is denying their beauty, but since when are the exceptions the rule? There are much more bad examples of mass produced modernism than there is of good hand crafted ones, as that school of thought considers beauty subjective, hence why it produced so little of it in a 100 years. So why insist on that when another school made much better results that people are accustomed to and prefer?
Great interview. You asked all the right questions, and Mr. Diamant gave concise answers.
thank you!
I encourage anyone in SoCal to look into the Livable Communities Initiative, which hopes to bring gentle mixed-use density with courtyards and mobility to major corridors in Los Angeles. One of the main reasons huge 5-over-1 style/mid-rise buildings have been the new-build standard is that it is so expensive to get the proper permitting and meet parking requirements that smaller options do not pencil out. LCI seeks to reform parking, 2nd staircase, setbacks and other requirements and implementing preapproved standard plans with slight variations in a set of pleasing architectural styles, where a neighborhood/street can choose its exact style or design vernacular if they want. This would allow courtyard buildings that can fit the density of a current 8-story building in a 5-story building, and minimize development and construction costs and timelines.
Sounds terrific. Will check it out!
Another thing I observe with ugly modernist architecture (especially high rises) is that it can create deadzones. So taller the building becomes so more expensive is it to built and to maintain and the costs to live there are high. Most of those tall buildings have areas for businesses at the bottom. But I notice that often either the businesses there don;t last long, or it stays empty for a very long time because of the high rent. And don't get me started on wind tunnels and constant shadows, which people also hate.
they create bad micro climate as you observed and they tend to create large roads around and lots of dead space.
some of the ugliest recent architecture has been the wealthy highrise apt buildings being built all over NYC...no soul
I generally agree with the points made here, but I'm not totally against high-rise housing in the same way as Mr. Diamant. I think there are ways you can incorporate high-rise housing to have a pleasing ground floor, similar to what's done in Vancouver, where shops and living areas tend to be on the lower floors and offices in the upper floors.
I think definitely some areas just need high rises, like Singapore and Hong Kong, because of the local geopolitical situation for citizens of those nations, and it's probably not possible to get the housing needed with courtyards and mid-rises, but you can certainly integrate those high rises into the urban form better than what's being done today.
I also think it's possible to build high rises with classical principles, and that high rises don't need to be defined by modernist architecture, because you can find some great examples in, say, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philly, etc. of high rise buildings that used traditional principles and still look stunning to this day.
Having said all of that, for basically all of America, we need practically zero high rises. The northeast and Chicagoland are the only areas where high rises even begin to make sense, and even there they're probably overrepresented due to low-rise suburban housing that exists outside of the cities. There are so many tiny cities in the US that built massive skyscrapers in the past 50 years that didn't need to, and only built them because they wanted to be a "modern" city.
Hopefully, people like Mr. Diamant can help push us towards building more sustainable cities, and stop the clout chasing with ugly, expensive, and unnecessary modernist buildings.
The case against high rises is that they are bad for the people living in them. Also it is hard to create court yard urbanism with high rises and courtyard urbanism is crucial to bring middle class families back to the cities.
@@michael.diamant I dont know if you've been to Singapore. Just from picture, those 40-stories buildings look like ghettos. But at the ground level they did an amazing job because they used exotic plants and flowers everywhere. Is like you're walking in a gigantic park. Also, their ground floor is missing, is empty space, so you can see in the distance and dont feel enclosed in a jail by those tall buildings. The courtyards in Europe on the other hand are hidden from public access, so in a way Singapore is better. Hong Kong on the other hand is just a depressing concrete ghetto.
@@ROForeverMan the court yards should be private, that is the point with them.
When talking towers, people tend to like the lowest floors. So Vancouver is on to something with its towers on a podium.
However, they also like the very highest floors.
So if you are building towers, you probably want the upper middle sections of it to be the office space,not the very top.
10:42 he's right, Paris houses millions in relatively low height buildings, they're just built all over and arr beautiful.
Exactly! It is the grid that matters most and not building heights!
This was really great, I learned so much too.
Lovely to hear!
Podium or 5/1 buildings are so common in so many cities in the US. With building codes being almost identical whether you are in SLC, Houston or Buffalo they all look basically the same...a mashup of materials that tries to be cool but look kitschy.
Yes but they dont need to. And the problem is lack of courtyard urbanism. We want middle class families to the cities and not only young professionals or poor.
Solid content! 100%
Thank you! As always, try to observe if the arguments put forward are solid in reality.
thank you for the great video, he answered the questions very well !!
Thanks!
Excellent interview.
Thank you. Invested in a proper mic for next time!
ModernIST architecture, brutalism etc is sooo soul crushing!!! The ugliness is indeed imposed and we have to finally rebel against it !!!!!
Yes and we are doing just that. There are architectural uprisings now all over the world. Where are you situated and I will recommend your closest!
@@michael.diamant All over facebook you mean, with no real world consequences.
@@ROForeverMan What do you mean? There is an ever increase in building new traditional architecture, students that want to become classical architects and public demand for new classical and politicians demanding the same. I am in contact with the entire world every day that want to learn more.
@@michael.diamant And, do those students become what they want ? I also wanted to become an astronaut.
It would be interesting to frame this issue as one relating to fertility rates.. allowing for an adequate amount of housing planned in such a way that encourages building families and communities.
Great video! Learned a lot today :). Question: Since the price of renting apartments/ homes is growing exponentially in the US, will the fact that these building being built (in a classic way) which will cost 5-10% as mentioned by the video (or maybe more?) will the price of renting grow even more exponentially or stay relatively the same?
The rent has very little to do with construction costs but demand in attractive locations. Generally new classical is built in the US in allready high demand areas so the rent will be thereafter. If we want lower rent then there need to be better supply of classical urbanism and that is something supplied by the munis.
You ask a really great question! While large high rises and tower blocks might initially be more inexpensive than gentle density with classical styles, those towers won't be worth it because in the long run they will become slums that no one will want to live in. While housing costs are important, the long term effect on the community and its residents should be the main priority. American cities that invested in these sort of arrangements in the '60s and '70s paid the price (St Louis most famously) and now those cities have a fraction of the population, have high rates of poverty and crime, and an environment that fosters a continued decrepit state.
The US will have to densify its cities in order to combat housing costs, and move away from car-centric development, which is great. But as we do that, we have to do it properly, and in a way that benefits everyone: middle class and the poor especially. Building beautiful buildings and cities to the point where it's no longer a scarce commodity will eventually mean those benefits will be accessible to everyone, as they once were before the age of modernism.
Awesome stuff
Thank you! Share it with as many as you can :)
This is a fantastic interview. I hope you keep on the same track.
"The modernist reads the building code like the devil reads the Bible" could not be truer or funnier. I have great respect for Michael being the arena, swinging at the self-absorbed and depressing post-modernists.
Thank you! We all do our share for a better tomorrow!
One elucidating, informative video! Impeccably done! Thank you.
I hope it can start a discussion. Courtyard urbanism is a solution to many of the ills of the modern US city.
@@michael.diamant Even in the Netherlands! I am Dutch, and I live in Middelburg. "Hartelijk dank, Michael."
@@marcelmoulin3335 I hope you joined your local architecture rebellion then :) and Ruben Hansen of the Aesthetic city is your gift to the world!
Excellent channel. I remember watching an interview with an architect on the Charlie Rose show (a once prominent interview program, that has since been canceled during the me-too mania), who had all the right credentials, and spoke enthusiastically about a building he designed as a significant addition to the Columbia University campus in New York.
His pitch was so convincing, practically the next day I went to have a look. And my goodness, it was rubbish! I have seen more sophistication in shopping mall designs.
Modernist architects are great salesmen, they can make the pitch, even produce a great coffee table book. But as for their buildings? Just say no.
Btw, fantastic interview. This guy gets it.
Thank you, there is a whole movement out there where we fight for proper urbanism and architecture!
The "connected to the street" thing is quite disconnected with the increasing needs of housing with limited space. Courtyard urbanism and allat are fine and all for many cities BUT that doesnt make skyscrapers or more commonly high rises undesirable. You can make them look good and people won't be "disconnected" as long as you offer green space and just generally nice coty amenities at the street level. And i like the courtyard idea, a lot of cities should have it, but it can be adapted to highrises as putting common areas on the roofs and allat. Really our green space problem here is orivate yards. But yeah so plsces like NYC can't judt go back to y stories max, it simply doesn't work like that. They could, however, build more housing in the outer boroughs that could act like that gentle density, which i do believe has a place in any city, i just don't think highrises should be disliked so heavily cuz they're honestly not the main killer of good street life. But yeah a mix of all is really ideal especially for a place like Manhattan where we can't restruct ourselves to these ideals in a strict manner vecause thise highrise skyscrapers whatever are there to fit more prople in areas of desirable amenitites, so saying "six stories only" blocks many people from even having the opportunity to experience those neighborhoods and areas. Still good vid tho. Just please get rid of the outdated concept that 6 stories max and highrise bad cuz highrises will solve housing demand in certain areas and do they're kinda unavoidable if you want an affordable market.
Great interview
Very nice and informative interview! ❤
Thank you! Well, I hate to ask for favours but please share it if you like it :)
Thank you for this. So Frank Gehrey's designs really are dogs*** after all? I thought I was simply not refined enough to appreciate them.
The Emperors new clothes :)
This is a really cool collab!
To add, I love his point, that making something beautiful makes it ecological, because it makes these areas/homes something to maintain and worth fighting for. Wow
@@zz-ci2gnif the discussion about architecture were based on merits rather than ideology, classical architecture would win in every regard!
go back to lifting... we need a traditional mindset applied to your hairstyle
This is my favorite comment
I do find his comments on transit-oriented development offensive, because upper middle-class families are not the only people who deserve to have access to dense or gently dense housing with access to transit. The working class, students, and other young people without accumulated wealth deserve that too. How do we make transit-oriented development safe? Not by excluding young and less wealthy people. By enforcing the fucking law! All of the examples of how bad it can get are from cities notorious for not having enough police personnel to effectively enforce the laws, and then letting criminals go without charge or sentenced leniently if they are apprehended. You simply cannot meaningfully discuss urbanism in 2024 without considering the effect of lawlessness on urban public spaces.
But that is what I do. Based on reality the transit nodes need to be built for people with close contact with politicans for everyone's safety. Bc in the end policing is done much more by the community than by the police.
You should read the death and life of great American cities by Jane Jacobs. She makes a really great point, as noted by Mr. Diamant, about how communities generally police themselves, and that the built environment can influence the general safety of a space.
She somewhat coined a phrase called "eyes on the street" that basically means that if a place feels like it's being watched by the community, you're far less likely to get criminal activity, because criminals don't generally like to be seen committing crimes. Of course this isn't applicable all the time, as some cities and communities have people who commit armed robbery in crowded public areas during the day, but in general this is how it works.
@dillinify I fully agree with you but I also see a cognitive dissonance with urbanists on RUclips who tend to be very progressive/liberal which would align with a soft on crime and defund the police sort of mindset. This sabotages the effort toward better urbanism.
@@baerfas I don't think you know what cognitive dissonance means.
@@baerfas I 100% agree that soft on crime and allowing assicial behaviour (open drug use, homeless camps etc) is a big hindrance to urban revival in the US. US urbanism in general is between a rock and hard place and I don't see any improvement on the horizion other than for specific "gated" communities.
New to your channel, great video, enjoyed it! 😊
Strålande intervju!
I started out enjoying this video and then became really annoyed by it by the end. Diamant makes some good points about different ways to get density and about the utility of more classical forms in upgrading and modernizing buildings.
However, if you insist that there be no high rises then you *must* have good public transportation to make all parts of the city interconnected. I am guessing he is not sufficiently aware of the problems of American car culture, the devastating effects of highway construction for most cities, the lack of social integration and resulting social atomization, and of course the ecological consequences.
Basically, he only really has solutions for middle and upper middle class people. The reality is that housing affordability is a huge problem for working class and poor people. He also makes the mistake of referring to any housing outside of that as a "slum" without being aware of the disastrous effects of "slum clearance" in the US. He will make reference to these problems here or there but his vision is not up to the scale needed for the problems. Just saying "there is always a housing crisis" doesn't excuse this shortsightedness.
High rises are bad for the people living in them and not necc for density. Almost no European city has them and they achieve good density regardless. And why should poor people live in towers? Why cant they aswell live in courtyard urbanism? It is not a matter of cost but out of ideology. And yes public transport is bad in the US and the only way to solve that is to create more even density = gentle density.
@@michael.diamant public transportation in the US is absolutely amazing…it’s called the Interstate Highway System…and it’s vast, connected, and open to all, 24/7, 365 days a year, connecting millions of miles and billions of acres of land.
This guy predicted that in 2030 architecture will be back, lol. Nothing will change maybe not even by 2300.
Then you have missed the developments in Europe and especially Scandinavia.
@@michael.diamant For every 1 building with architecture built, 1000 more ghettos are being built. You are echo chambering yourself.
@@michael.diamant For every 1 building with architecture built, 1000 more ghettos are being built.
@@michael.diamant You are echo chambering yourself.
@@ROForeverMan yes and? Changing architecture is like turning around a supertanker. We have won the discourse and most politicians. The final battlefield is the institutions. When they are conquered we win and we have allready started.
Maybe have a "beautiful" backdrop and decent lighting. And if you do not think that the Barcelona Pavillion, Kimball Museum or Terminal T4 in Madrid are not beautiful, you have a narrow sophomoric definition of beauty. We should be for well executed appropriate architecture, regardless of the dialect. This is not a black and white issue.
I generally agree. You should check out my video “Does Modernism Have a Place in New Urbanism?” on this exact issue.
Of course it is a black and white issue. You have the modernist ideology that see beauty as both shallow and relative vs the classical tradition that strive for beauty and have experience in making it. That a clock is right two times a day does not make 99.99% of modernist buildings suddenly beautiful.
No one is denying their beauty, but since when are the exceptions the rule? There are much more bad examples of mass produced modernism than there is of good hand crafted ones, as that school of thought considers beauty subjective, hence why it produced so little of it in a 100 years.
So why insist on that when another school made much better results that people are accustomed to and prefer?
The buildings you listed are ugly af