I'm studying architecture and tried to make a traditional model my teacher said I will fail the class if I don't make it modern. I feel like teachers want me to design ugly things and call it beautiful. I don't understand it.
It's amazing isn't it, these teachers don't even realise what they are doing. My advice is do what they say to pass your course, then when you get out - design the best traditional architecture you can :)
Universities nowadays are pointless (Elon Musk has the point). Quit it and learn by yourself. Most of the beatiful buildings and cities weren`t built by architecture graduates.
Is this a common occurence in Universities? I am thinking of studying Architecture and love traditional styles. But if this is the case I might have to reconsider.
Norway is currently experiencing what’s being called the “architecture rebellion”, wherein a concentrated movement has sprung up demanding traditional, beautiful architecture, and criticising the soulless, horrendous shit architects make today. In response, the leader of the Norwegian architects Union went on NRK (our version of the BBC) and in a very thinly veiled way called everyone who wants traditional architecture back stupid animals. She said traditional architecture “only appeals to your lizard brain” and that “we need to think more critically than that”. It’s unbelievable how smug, out of touch and condescending these people are
That's a cool analysis, there is certainly a 'kick back' against modern architecture. I must say the politians who push brutalism are the ones with the lizard brain, no regard for human feelings.
That's what I hate about architects. I don't want to think about the recontextualization of heteronormative hierarchies with regard to class consciousness explored through a brutalist twist involving topo facades, I want to look at a nice building. It is infuriating that the people whose job it is to make nice buildings feel that their job is anything but. Like, you get to write an essay about some nonsense, but I have to look at this oppressive concrete monstrosity on my way to work every day. I hate them so much it's unreal.
I have to say I was put off visiting Oslo when I saw how modern it was. It isn't that the city isn't attractive looking, it is clean and modern, but it lacks the character of classic (Edit: incorrectly put modern) architecture. Therefor, when I get around to visiting Norway, it will be to one of the few other Norwegian cities that EasyJet fly to from Gatwick.
@@maxisussex I’d recommend Stavanger or Bergen. Stavanger has the largest collection of wooden buildings in Northern Europe, and a beautifully preserved 18th century old town and 12th century cathedral (though the cathedral is closed for extensive renovation until 2025). Bergen has the magnificently preserved medieval Bergenhus castle and the 15th century wooden dock area from the Hansa period
I miss the Victorian architecture 😢 The modern architecture is soo bad ; people will pay 10-15% more for Victorian. So much for function over form. How does this not have more views
My great great grandfather designed the London parliament building and clock tower. I bailed on architecture after one year. I do real estate valuation now. Eventually I will do development. Why? Because design is controlled by the money. I’d like to use money and investments to influence architecture for beauty and good. I’m convinced you can’t do it as an architect.
I wanted to be an architect until I did a 2 year summer internship at an architecture firm. I realized architects in general have little say of the overall project design. They have “input”, it’s their job to “design” the blueprint and make the clients idiotic idea reality while obeying city planning ordinances and fighting city hall. 8 years of school to be at the bottom of the Totem pole in the design process. Not to mention contractors get involved and always have a reason why they can’t do something and it needs to be redesigned or changed. Unless you’re a large firm or renown architect, you’re basically just the person who knows CAD. The clients restrict the architects creativity by setting boundaries based on their expectations, wants and needs. After a series of potential designs is drafted, the client picks what they like best while insisting on other tedious random changes. After months of meetings, the client is finally satisfied and chooses a final design. Then, the design(s) must be approved by the city, whether it’s a 30 story building or a small shed, the city makes the final approval. Architectural freedom is nearly extinct due to budget inflations and city code. The architect I did the internship under despised modern architecture, ironically, that was much of what he had to design. His favorite styles were Craftsman/cottage and New England styles. Occasionally he had opportunities to design what he wanted, but the majority he was forced to design modern based on the client.
Completely agree with you. In the last 60 years these architects destroyed all our beautiful cities in Europe. We live in dark times in everything : morals, culture, arts, Few people in power are destroying our civilisation.
Yeah, but the Hungarian Parliament was built in Austro-Hungarian times as a prestige object to keep the Hungarian side happy. It was the most expensive structure in the world at that point and nearly bankrupted the Empire.
It’s infuriating that the Scottish Parliament building was build, for hundreds of millions of pounds, instead of just utilising the beautiful New Parliament House/Royal High School, which had been refitted in the 1970s to house the proposed Scottish Assembly
When I was in college 53 years ago I attended a talk by a good friend of Frank Lloyd Wright. He said the famous architect loved 19th century architecture but felt he could not add to it so he turned to the designs that made him famous.
When you think about it, the hatred of traditional styles and objective truths have spread into many aspects of society including painting, performance art, etc. It's an all-encompassing social poison that makes people miserable.
Too many people think they're clever because they argue art can't be compared since taste is subjective. They will actually say Renaissance paintings could be considered less beautiful than a toilet if society/the market decided so.
In the U.S. at least, real architecture stops with Art Deco, which you can still see on some gorgeous examples like Eastern Columbia Building in Los Angeles. One can only imagine what styles we would have today if not for the plague of modernism.
Well said. Architects these days make mediocre buildings and then justify it with world salads made of incomprehensible jargon. And if anyone criticises them for making ugly stuff, they will simply say you are too 'unintellectual' to understand modern architecture. It is your taste that needs refining, not my lack of design skills. This is coming from an architect and urbanist himself. Architecture education is to blame, it has become all about fancy renders, cool photoshop work, outlandish 'concepts' and deceiving powerpoint presentation
@@HariSankerV Extremely well put. I'm an architecture student too. As much as I defend contemporary architecture and disagree with this video and most of the comments, I have to strongly agree. It's all rubbish. I had a lecture today where they were waffling on about how a boxy pavilion is somehow "exciting", "new" and "inspiring" whilst the sheeple nodded on. They showed many drawings and renders of projects and sites and whilst interesting to begin with, quickly slogged on and got very dull with little to no mention or care about what the final outcome actually was. In the instances they do show, they'll present it when the building is new and not 5 years down the line when the eco-friendly roof they added to please the critics is suddenly damp and dripping. I had a similar issue where we designed furniture pieces and the people who I was working with couldn't give a crap what happened to it after they were marked. When it was left outside on display, it rotted and went a dark shade of black. Nasty. Edit: it’s now gone 😂
Traditional architecture is better, it is a style that gets you to smile. You feel warmth. It is elegant. This is true in both the Western world and China.
Everywhere in the world! I am from India and the situation in India is 10x worse here than in Europe. Atleast Europe has managed to protect a significant chunk of architectural heritage, buildings from eras where beauty actually mattered although the new stuff is pretty dreary. India is nothing but a sea of ugly concrete boxes now.
It kills me from the insides to looka at these modern buildings, they look soulless and lifeless and makes the city look like it is designed by robots for robots
Hi. I am from brazil, i can confirm this. Old historical beautiful buildings are being destroyed to make space for ugly crappy brutalist looking buildings. We say that Oscar Niemeyer was a genius but... idk... it looks ugly as hell.
Totally agreed, but the fault isn't only within the architect, these types of buildings are sponsored by rich landlords and shareholders, at least in my city the whole patrimony of 2 centuries being destroyed by a landlord and his ugly looking modern architecture.
The problem is not contemporary architecture, the problem is contemporary architecture that is not well executed. Modern architecture has not existed for decades now, and the solution is not a blind return to the past, but a dialogue between tradition and our contemporary needs and views of the world. Our views of the world are not the same as the views of our ancestors, in the same way the views of medieval people were not the same as those of the ancient Romans, yet they created a new "modern" kind of architecture: gothic architecture, which earned from the past but was completely "modern" Thus, the solution should not be a blind return to "styles" of the past, that would create fake and expensive cities which don't to our current cultural and material needs.
The sad thing is that the architects often know the effects their stuff has on people but they think it is a good thing. Like brutalists thinking it is good that their work makes people feel terrible. And sometimes, they are simply delusional.
I don't understand brutalist architects. Why do they think people want to live in a city that looks like a prison? Even castles whose primary purpose was for defense have more beauty than brutalist buildings.
@@jamalgibson8139 They only think about their own ego when designing those. They want to be avantgarde and do not concider what it is like living there.
I live in Dundee, which is pretty much as post-industrial as you get. I'm sick of all the copy-paste soulless new builds popping up. They're draining the soul from the community and they're poorly made with little space to socialize. Supposedly it's an "improvement".
Even most private housing are still built with traditional architectural styles up to these days. Cars, paintings, furnitures, architecture, these brainless scammers really touched on everything.
The best argument against modern architecture is to observe where the decisionmakers choose to live: in traditional architecture in the old city centers.
In 1900 labour was cheap compared to construction materials. That’s a major reason why there had been more craftsmanship dedicated to ornamental elaborations. I live in Berlin and I’ve studied architecture. I can tell you frankly that not all architecture from that era was "beautiful“ (Whatever that means). Flats in the back aisles of these buildings were dedicated for people with lower income. They often shared a toilet with a neighboring flat or even three. Just one example of numerous. A working class citizen at that time also had a pretty lackluster living environment. Families of eight in a two room flat were no exception. We tend to romanticize a lot of things from the past, without reflecting how the entirety of these past times was like. There was a lot coal smoke and dust in the air. Natural air flow in backyards was impeded. People/children became ill. To put an end to that misconception was the motivation for modernistic architects to design houses and urban planning that met the need of people for more natural light, air flow, lawns and vegetation and overall recreational areas just around the building block they were living in. I don’t agree with all which contemporary architecture brings about, but it’s necessary to reflect about the pros and cons of each era and epoch, without only glorifying or only condemning.
They just don't have a clue do they! They want everyone enslaved and without rights just to build something that's "beautiful" so they can jerk over it all day long.
I've studied architecture too. While your highlighting the less desirable architecture of past eras is interesting, it is not really on point. This video is about major buildings in the city centres which come to symbolise an era, not low-cost housing in the back blocks. The advantages of healthy design that you mention are some pros of contemporary architecture however. But this video is about aesthetics, and how modernism is not artistic, but merely utilitarian. Indeed this was the belief of modernism - with dictums like 'form follows function', 'less is more', and 'ornament is crime'. This was actually propaganda or delusional or wishful thinking. Modernism actually came out of the war era when a housing crisis required quick, cheap, mass-housing. This modernism was therefore a sort of 'rationism'. However later generations, or rather greedy landlords (as Frank Lloyd Wright called them), took advantage of the cheap fashion to create cash-cows, and architecture academics waxed lyrical jargon in praise of the movement. Yet the average Joe soon sees through the shiny facades and realises it's just lipstick on a pig.
You are still talking about relatively modern times. The industrial revolution wasnt exactly a moment in time people felt one with nature This also focuses more on the living conditions than the architecture. No one said that life isnt better now, just that older architectural styles are aesthetically superior
We need to protest and stand up for beauty! Beauty IS function!! Enough fake "f ART" and design schools teaching students that unique idea has more validity than beauty! Anyone can have a unique idea! Not everyone can design beautiful things.
The modern architecture ruined almost all cities in my country, only one city which has 68 years old resist until now. Beauty matter and it's objective. As Scruton used to say; “beauty is an ultimate value-something that we pursue for its own sake, and for the pursuit of which no further reason need be given. Beauty should therefore be compared to truth and goodness, one member of a trio of ultimate values which justify our rational inclinations.” Congratulations for the video, you really have good sense of humor.
I'm American and agree, what country are you referring to? America used to have gorgeous, traditionally styled gothic skyscrapers in New York and Chicago then went all in on bland glass and steel.
You're comparing 'landmark', not always great modern architecture with mass of historical architecture. You're oversimplifying and just glide on the surface of a problem, which usually is... Planning. Not architecture. I could talk more, so if you're all interested - comment below. We will discuss.
@@deXXXXter2 okay good. I agree that modern architecture can have its place - City of Gdynia or Canary Wharf. What I object to is architecture which destroys the character of an area, for example a building that is completely out of scale with its surroundings or is a jarring addition to otherwise beautiful area. Brutalism is a prime example of architecture that violates these principles. Buildings should be visually interesting, welcoming to the inhabitants, built of high quality materials (not acres of raw concrete), and provide large amounts of natural light to those living and working in them. Often, one of the biggest differences between an area that is desirable and isn't is the presence or absence of trees and well-maintained green spaces.
@@ians3586 Yes that is an issue, but as I said - that is mostly regulatory issue. You can find brutalist and contemporary 'stararchitecture' which is integrated into city very well, and i can assure that in most of those cases it is integrated well because of planning documents of this city. Everything can be done, and every style can work with another. You just have to stop letting architects do whatever they want with building 'mass'.
This ignores the fact that certain architectural styles inherently clash. A brutalist building, given some ornamentation, doesnt look too out of place in rome where there are a lot of ancient roman monuments with brutalist queues anyway. But it would look terrible in any city that has a softer style. Glass towers will never look good paired with anything other than glass towers It also ignores the fact that the general populace prefers traditionalist human-focused buildings that feel one with nature as opposed to the esoteric art projects that fill the skylines
I agree: London, being London (a generally attractive city) has what is likely the most abysmal collection of skyscrapers outside of the Middle East. But, you’re ignoring two things: One, more than a few of them (like the Shard) are abysmal because someone in London decided that maintaining sight lines of St. Paul’s, in one case for nearly 10 miles, is The Most Important Consideration, and these buildings were hacked and slivered, and bastardized just so that view of St. Paul’s is maintained. Two: Like a lot of Modernism Is Shite entries, you conveniently forget to show early US skyscrapers that were properly built; beautiful structures in and of themselves and structures which rise from the street without the distraction and urban-killing plazas designed by postwar architects to make their phallic tower stand apart for the architects ego, no matter to the cost to the streets below. Think of the Empire State building and Chrysler tower, and so many of the pre-war towers that cut out the sunlight, true, but contribute to the pavement below, unlike the postwar monsters with their vapid plazas that eat up land and contribute nothing but emptiness and ego at street level. And, as nice as Paris is, it’s not a terribly great example of what should be. True, it does have a density very close to NYC, in an elegant sprawl of 5 story structures, but it also shares the unaffordablity of NYC and London. I could ask, how much of Paris should we tear down to build in greater density to facilitate affordability, but I think the better question is, how can we build better such that we eliminate the NIMBY in order to build without the unnecessary expense of fighting NIMBYS, while at the same time building attractive such that we don’t end up with the all too often horrible American city of today (cities which weren’t horrible when they were built).
The Gherkin is POST-modern, not Modern. Modern Architecture would mean "Form follows function" (quote from Walther Gropius) and not look weird for the sake of it. While weird shapes have been around in the Modernist Period (as Expressionism), theese weirdly-shaped glas-towers are from the Postmodern era. Also note, that Mirror facades have their place in the dark rainy climated of London (there Brutalism would fowl badly), but is out of Place in Dubai (there the refelected sun could torch cars), there Brutalism (like Tel Aviv) would be better. Note the "international Style" has its name from the UNO-Building, not from beeing a "good Idea worldwide". In fact it is rare in Eastern Europe, there Brutalism would be more common. What you are really looking for is Historism, but it should be reserved for Prestige buildings (like Trainstations or Towncenters) and not for residual mass housing.
It is pointless to argue with these ignoramuses. They just keep repeating the same ignorant crap about "beautiful" architecture just because it has ornaments on its facade. So superficial and genuinely dumb
we must demand it! architecture is just as important to cultural identity as food or language or ethnicity. asia should not look like europe should not look lke africa should not look like america
Hey same here in India The classic architecture is fading away and this modern architecture is taking over. I will say London looks pretty good but Indian cities are becoming chaotic and dull.
I couldnt agree more with this video.In my country(Greece) the ugliness of the modern houses is destroying the city.The "modern architecture" has no character,its depressing and the huge problem for me is that everyone is becoming the same.What does this mean?If u see the centre of many cities is full of scyscrapers with this glass all over them trying to make it seem futuristic.In conclusion not only all these beautifull cities such as london become ugly and without character but also everyone looks the same.We have to try maintain our history and go against the modern atrocity in order to build more classical,neo classical houses or invent a new model for every country so we dont become the same.(Sorry for my bad english)
Your English is amazing. I'm always blown away by how well Europeans master English which is a very difficult language to learn. Most of us that have English as a first language are pathetic when it comes to speaking another language.
Architecture all around the world has been post-modern bullshit for decades. Just like you said, they can't come with any ol' shit as an excuse. But it's all comic-villain funny and a disgrace. As if thousands of years of good aesthetics don't mean shit anymore. But we shall never surrender to that crap. Thank you for your videos.
The same can be said for Malaysia's capital Kuala Lumpur, extremely tall skyscrapers springing up everywhere with no proper planning and most of them with boring designs.
The Unique architecture of Filipino Bahay na Bato is absolutely beautiful... I love Intramuros and Acuzar Bataan for the unique architecture... It's a mix of European and Asian traditional architectures... Non like it anywhere else...
I agree, lot of buildings now are just extremely copy pasted everywhere example of that manila. We need to bring back those beautiful buildings that were destroyed in ww2.
As a lifelong fan of traditional architecture I totally agree, and have since I was a kid. As a Midwesterner I suppose it all started when I first looked at Chicago Water Tower as a child which reminded of a fairytale castle.... and then heard the story of how it survived the great Chicago Fire. And my eye was immediately drawn to all the new "modern" ugly buildings surrounding it that were built afterwards. Would that I had Trump's tongue and could move the public toward a revival of aesthetic buildings. But alas I lack the skill to inspire the masses lol. And so I can only watch with regret the beautiful works fade and be replaced by ugly preschool creations in a neverending procession downwards. As J.R.R. Tolkien said once, I am filled with the "heart-wracking sense of the vanished past."
It is the best seen in the un-human and confusing airports architecture. When you arrive to Vienna, walk out of the airport, there is absolutely no place to sit down, especially if it is blazing sun and you need some shed. People sit on the asphalt, leaning to a perfectly vertical concrete wall. It's like neanderthals, but with concrete. The only more or less human place is a little snack stall with a couple benches and tables in front of it. There is no clear meaning for structures in modern architecture. You walk out of a sliding hole in a wall of an airport -- is that the "Gate 5" where your Uber is arriving at? Or is that just a door, and the actual "Gate 5" is on the floor above? Sometimes they install these useful sticks with an information plate that says "Gate 5" and an arrow that points at the hole -- so that you can confirm what that hole in a wall is by reading the info plate, after being tired by reading a thousand bits of useful "information" throughout the whole airport. The normal architecture makes things clear. If it is a "gate" you will clearly see that it is a gate. If it is the "main gate" or "portal" -- you will see it even better. Your language and the language of the normal architecture are the same. No info-sticks are needed.
The “modernists” can use whatever condescending language they can think up, it won’t fool me and it never has. The only result that counts is the finished article, and in the vast majority of cases with architecture since the late 1950’s these results are an unmitigated disaster. As you rightly say here, who would for example want to visit Birmingham (largely rebuilt since the 60’s) in preference to Edinburgh? Who would want to visit Rotterdam (another urban failure) in preference to Amsterdam? The list could go on and on. The one bright light at the end of the tunnel of horrors is that very recently many architects have been adopting a more human style with a vague nod to the past. Also, even more importantly there has been a major revival of traditional style buildings in the United States, Germany, and even France that previously produced some of the worst freaks of modernity. Other European countries are beginning to follow. The U.K. as expected, is overall holding out but inevitably even there they will be forced to surrender to public opinion.
Loved this video. You should see Australia, its a disgrace. Let our heritage be destroyed so some property developers can build some hideous buildings and make themselves lots of money. Government threw a lot of grant money at my town, so they built a hideous modern glass and concrete "community hub" in the middle of my Victorian era main street.
theres a misconception that Capitalism is the cause of Minimalism. this is false, its socialism, but not for the reason that people think its socialism. It's not socialism by any means of policy but instead by culture. We have, as a society, associated showing off wealth and rich people as bad, and so buildings that are large opulent and pretty are the antithesis of our socialist culture. The greatest proof that capitalism is not the cause of Minimalism is the buildings under Laissez faire Capitalism, they are rather opulent, take gilded age mansions for example. In fact, while I believe that "late stage" capitalism doesn't exist, if there was a architectural style to be correlated with it that would be Art Deco with its extravagance and use of gold and details.
@@JackSimmondsTV Marxist ideology is aimed at erasing human individuality. Marxism denies the existence of a soul in man, but also denies individual consciousness. From the point of view of Marxism, the consciousness of a person is determined by his "class function". Marxism is a tool of the Deep State to create a global concentration camp and turn all of humanity into a gray and brainless biomass, like a swarm of insects, where an individual does not have an individual consciousness, but the entire biomass is controlled by the "Collective Mind". Therefore, in architecture, the "Deep State" puppets hate the classical style corresponding to the Conscious Human, and impose an ugly "modern style" such as a barracks or prison for mindless zombies. In our country in Russia, this was strongly manifested during the communist dictatorship, with the exception of the late period of Stalin's rule, when Stalin managed to slightly remove the Deep State globalists from power.
There's no point in arguing matters of taste, but personally, I think that claiming that all X is wonderful and all Y is trash is always wrong. I love both traditional and modern architecture - the house I recently bought is 125 years old - and I’ve seen examples of both that are horrifying as well others that are wonderful. Perhaps you ought to consider that the older buildings that you love are the quality survivors while most of the trashier examples from the same eras have been demolished and replaced. Someday, modern architecture will be winnowed down the same way. But I don't expect you to agree. We can't control our visceral responses. I just feel sorry for those, like you, whose instinctive reactions deny them a broader scope of aesthetic enjoyment.
I love London, but I agree that the new skyscrapers are terrible! At least New York still retains much of its 19th century flavor, along with Art Deco masterpieces like the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building. My favorite city is a tie between Budapest and Vienna. Paris sucks because of the traffic and the nasty xenophobic culture. L.A. is unspeakable, and San Francisco is just plain ugly without. Only its gorgeous natural setting makes it tolerable.
For any of you architecture experts on modernist movement, please research some history facts and political, socioeconomic mood in the years these buildings were build. It is easy to sh*t on anything you don´t like. Next time blame more your local politics which is reason these modern building are there, dont blame architects for it. This story about modernism is way longer than: I dont like it. Contemporary architecture sees these problems and trying to avoid modernist mistakes.
I’m an architect. I was taught that, for the most part, a building must be in harmony with its immediate environment. That does not mean it has to be a carbon copy of it but it must add richness to the urban fabric in a meaningful way. The alternative is to create a “landmark”, which is also important for cities to have, but obviously IN MODERATION.
Great video! Made me laugh. Modern art disgusts me too, its talentless nonsense that exists only to make money for the lazy 'artist', the auction house, the investor that buys the crap and the exhibitions that showcase it. Its a racket that will disappear in time as people wake up to it.
Also a lot of modern art is a money laundering scheme for the very rich. You can objectively value an Old Master piece and know its price really accurately. That is as objective as it gets. Alse there aren't many of those so the ones that survive do not circulate easy. However if the value of art is subjective, then you can make some cheap crap, like say, a Shark in Formaldehyde, have a price of 200 or 300 million. Repurpose a bunch or garbage the same way several times and suddenly you have a storage medium for your ill gotten gains that later you can convert for whatever amount of cash you want whenever you need it.
And? we still have the freedom to design like past styles, it still is possible. Fascism is kind of young if read through historical events, so labeling classical architecture or any kind of traditional style kind of architecture into fascism is kinda misleading when many different kind of styles existed before even fascism came into existence.
Wtf are you talking about bro is really trying to equate political ideaologies to architectural opinions 😂 You have gone off the deep end, you are completely delusional 😮 get off your computer, touch some grass and talk to a real human
Every single skyscraper we make is too late to destroy. How the hell can you quickly destroy a skyscraper without destroying the surrounding area. Stop making these.
I thought I wanted to be an architect and design beautiful buildings. But when I looked into it, I found out they do not even teach the classical orders anymore. Not even as a "base" to start out on. I would have been pushed to churn out the hideous crap of today. No thank you.
To give you some hope, there are some schools that do design classical or traditional architecture. One of them is the Icaa, you can check them on RUclips and learn about it. Hope this helps, I also don't like modern architecture and im studying to become an architect. Also there are firms that do classical architecture, you just gotta search them. Hope this gives you hope.
One architecture rebellion video pointed out that many architects who design this modern crap more often than not live in quaint Victorian neighborhoods
You know what I find hilarious? That architects nowadays feel as if they're useful at all when all they do is take a graphing calculator, draw a few lines, and call it good. How does that pass as doing your job? They're fools.
Intelligent, Funny, Informative and very Truthful. This video is more of a work of art than any of the so called modern paintings, sculptures and buildings. Modern buildings of course are the worse since they are imposed on the spectators and cost a lot of money, many of which is public.
I would invite anyone complaining about the buildings to compare a budget between a classic style building And a modern one, architecture nowadays tries to get the most beautiful buildings with an affordable budget, well the results May be questionable. Professors don't want students to replicate whats trendy, they want students to create new things, which is not as easy as it may sound cause desingning a building takes an enormous amount of time
those marvelous historic buildings went to waste, beautiful London is a mess now, govt should not permit such ugly new development so called buildings within historic part of the city, new london-if so- should be built out of beautiful historic area...
You could have even gone farther regarding the notion of beauty, since nowadays science has shown again and again that humans tend to naturally have the same conception of what beauty is, with minimal individual variations. It's in our DNA. So these people saying everything is a construct and is relative, are demonstrably wrong.
I'd honestly say that beauty is indirectly tied to not only quality of life, but human dignity itself. Do you think it would be remotely fair to live in a world where all people must go through physical pain each day of their lives just because of the greed of a few and the delusional, masochistic whim of a couple more? It is the exact same with this type of horrendous environments, just that it is mental and spiritual pain that is felt by all.
The problem is a minority of smug intellectuals with authority have thrust their disgusting, brutal designs onto the plebs, most of who are disgusted but dont have the words or power to act on it. So we will get ugly building after ugly building, going through phases every ten years. Go to a beautiful church in the city, then go outside and look at a modern building, the contrast is so great it could tear your mind apart.
Too many parts of London have been in trashed since WW2. Glass and steel generics of very low quality have been thrown up for a fast buck, there’s no control over quality except in the areas still owned by the same families over some centuries who in most cases insist on high quality and respect for the surrounding built environment. Examples are Belgravia, Mayfair and Chelsea. The south bank of the Thames has been almost completely trashed by pure junk, a good example being the pathetic London Assembly Building. Yes, with too few exceptions, modern architecture is rubbish, objective not subjective.
I do think what they've done with and around Battersea Power Station is nice. I think it's visually interesting but only the test of time will tell whether it hold up when it's no longer shiny and new. You are absolutely right about those areas. Nothing can match the beauty of Mount Street, for example. It's so nice to see areas that haven't been spoiled by modern architecture.
A couple years back a residential project got finished in The Netherlands with traditional architectural aspects. It's called 'Brandevoort' in Helmond.
Yes, do check out Poundbury and Nansledan in the UK and Du Plessis-Robinson in France. But such projects are few and far in between. None of these places are perfect and doesnt come close to original traditional architecture in its detailing, but considering how much skills have been lost since Modernism took over, they are definitely steps in the right direction.
Outside the Western world, classical style architecture is sometimes built. In the Western world, the influence of the "Deep State" is too strong, which hinders the classical style. With the help of ugly "modern architecture", this Deep State influences the minds of people in order to fool them and turn them into mindless zombies.
I think La Defense iin París or the business distriict in Moscow are more logicsl. I like buildings like St Mary Axe or The Shard...but better in a business district.
Until you find out what are the budgets and who the clients are, there is no money to fund major architectural projects in styles yall find beautiful. Architects have no say. Billionaires do, but yet y'all will blame architects. The only ones who can save your beloved architectural style is to commission the design yourself.
@@vesr-b7s Exactly, what a concept. Scrape the barrel for the workers and the billionaire property developers sit on the top raking in the cash from the almost slave like human labour.
@@vesr-b7sarchitects go to school and focus primarily on these styles, then when these arhcitects become teachers they teach these same styles and lambast anyone who tries to make something traditional. Architects are equally to blame. They share it with investors and politicians
The perfect reflection for this video is pre-war Manila and post-war Manila. There are surviving military aerial photos showing classic architectures in the city.
Thanks for the video, unfortunately you're preaching to the choir. I have a big soft spot for traditional architecture, I was wondering if you'd recomend any books on the subject of how awful modern architecture is? looking online I can't find anything execpt books that ride modern architecture!
I recommend you to watch why beauty matters by Rojer Scruton. He explains how the world forgot about beauty and how after WW2 people decided to design ugly architecture.
Thank you for this video! This and the comments made me see that modern architecture is making cities almost all over the world uglier and more debressing and it was not only happening in my country (Finland). I kinda thought that only we were just so stupid that we dont see value in old beauty when beautiful buildings have been replaced with stupid boxes. And of course all the travel promotional materials around the world show these beautiful places for travellers, but most of the people really live in these ugly neighbourhoods (because the beautiful places still left are so expensive) We all have the same human hunger for beauty around us and it is taken away from us!
I'm studying architecture and tried to make a traditional model my teacher said I will fail the class if I don't make it modern. I feel like teachers want me to design ugly things and call it beautiful. I don't understand it.
They are brainwashed
It's amazing isn't it, these teachers don't even realise what they are doing. My advice is do what they say to pass your course, then when you get out - design the best traditional architecture you can :)
Universities nowadays are pointless (Elon Musk has the point). Quit it and learn by yourself. Most of the beatiful buildings and cities weren`t built by architecture graduates.
very good point
Is this a common occurence in Universities? I am thinking of studying Architecture and love traditional styles. But if this is the case I might have to reconsider.
Norway is currently experiencing what’s being called the “architecture rebellion”, wherein a concentrated movement has sprung up demanding traditional, beautiful architecture, and criticising the soulless, horrendous shit architects make today. In response, the leader of the Norwegian architects Union went on NRK (our version of the BBC) and in a very thinly veiled way called everyone who wants traditional architecture back stupid animals. She said traditional architecture “only appeals to your lizard brain” and that “we need to think more critically than that”. It’s unbelievable how smug, out of touch and condescending these people are
That's a cool analysis, there is certainly a 'kick back' against modern architecture. I must say the politians who push brutalism are the ones with the lizard brain, no regard for human feelings.
Hope Norway turn to traditional architecture and made an example to the rest of the world.
That's what I hate about architects. I don't want to think about the recontextualization of heteronormative hierarchies with regard to class consciousness explored through a brutalist twist involving topo facades, I want to look at a nice building. It is infuriating that the people whose job it is to make nice buildings feel that their job is anything but. Like, you get to write an essay about some nonsense, but I have to look at this oppressive concrete monstrosity on my way to work every day. I hate them so much it's unreal.
I have to say I was put off visiting Oslo when I saw how modern it was. It isn't that the city isn't attractive looking, it is clean and modern, but it lacks the character of classic (Edit: incorrectly put modern) architecture. Therefor, when I get around to visiting Norway, it will be to one of the few other Norwegian cities that EasyJet fly to from Gatwick.
@@maxisussex I’d recommend Stavanger or Bergen. Stavanger has the largest collection of wooden buildings in Northern Europe, and a beautifully preserved 18th century old town and 12th century cathedral (though the cathedral is closed for extensive renovation until 2025). Bergen has the magnificently preserved medieval Bergenhus castle and the 15th century wooden dock area from the Hansa period
I miss the Victorian architecture 😢 The modern architecture is soo bad ; people will pay 10-15% more for Victorian. So much for function over form. How does this not have more views
Very true & thank you
My great great grandfather designed the London parliament building and clock tower. I bailed on architecture after one year. I do real estate valuation now. Eventually I will do development. Why? Because design is controlled by the money. I’d like to use money and investments to influence architecture for beauty and good. I’m convinced you can’t do it as an architect.
Interesting! Thanks for the comment. Houses of Parliament are amazing. Shamefully I don't think we'd get anything as beautiful these days
I wanted to be an architect until I did a 2 year summer internship at an architecture firm. I realized architects in general have little say of the overall project design. They have “input”, it’s their job to “design” the blueprint and make the clients idiotic idea reality while obeying city planning ordinances and fighting city hall.
8 years of school to be at the bottom of the Totem pole in the design process. Not to mention contractors get involved and always have a reason why they can’t do something and it needs to be redesigned or changed.
Unless you’re a large firm or renown architect, you’re basically just the person who knows CAD. The clients restrict the architects creativity by setting boundaries based on their expectations, wants and needs. After a series of potential designs is drafted, the client picks what they like best while insisting on other tedious random changes. After months of meetings, the client is finally satisfied and chooses a final design. Then, the design(s) must be approved by the city, whether it’s a 30 story building or a small shed, the city makes the final approval.
Architectural freedom is nearly extinct due to budget inflations and city code.
The architect I did the internship under despised modern architecture, ironically, that was much of what he had to design. His favorite styles were Craftsman/cottage and New England styles. Occasionally he had opportunities to design what he wanted, but the majority he was forced to design modern based on the client.
Completely agree with you. In the last 60 years these architects destroyed all our beautiful cities in Europe. We live in dark times in everything : morals, culture, arts, Few people in power are destroying our civilisation.
There's no dark times, it's just that idiots have internet access
Compare the Scottish Parliament with the Hungarian Parliament, the difference is night and day.
Eastern Europe seems to understand the difference a little better than our lot
@@JackSimmondsTV first hand experience with 'sophisticated' cubic buildings.
The actual parliament or the parliament building?
Yeah, but the Hungarian Parliament was built in Austro-Hungarian times as a prestige object to keep the Hungarian side happy. It was the most expensive structure in the world at that point and nearly bankrupted the Empire.
It’s infuriating that the Scottish Parliament building was build, for hundreds of millions of pounds, instead of just utilising the beautiful New Parliament House/Royal High School, which had been refitted in the 1970s to house the proposed Scottish Assembly
When I was in college 53 years ago I attended a talk by a good friend of Frank Lloyd Wright. He said the famous architect loved 19th century architecture but felt he could not add to it so he turned to the designs that made him famous.
When you think about it, the hatred of traditional styles and objective truths have spread into many aspects of society including painting, performance art, etc. It's an all-encompassing social poison that makes people miserable.
Too many people think they're clever because they argue art can't be compared since taste is subjective. They will actually say Renaissance paintings could be considered less beautiful than a toilet if society/the market decided so.
In the U.S. at least, real architecture stops with Art Deco, which you can still see on some gorgeous examples like Eastern Columbia Building in Los Angeles. One can only imagine what styles we would have today if not for the plague of modernism.
Couldn't agree more. When you need to write an essay to justify why something you made is good, it's not. Good architecture speaks for itself
exactly
Well said. Architects these days make mediocre buildings and then justify it with world salads made of incomprehensible jargon. And if anyone criticises them for making ugly stuff, they will simply say you are too 'unintellectual' to understand modern architecture. It is your taste that needs refining, not my lack of design skills. This is coming from an architect and urbanist himself. Architecture education is to blame, it has become all about fancy renders, cool photoshop work, outlandish 'concepts' and deceiving powerpoint presentation
What about Vitruvius, Palladio, Alberti, etc...???
@@HariSankerV Extremely well put. I'm an architecture student too. As much as I defend contemporary architecture and disagree with this video and most of the comments, I have to strongly agree. It's all rubbish. I had a lecture today where they were waffling on about how a boxy pavilion is somehow "exciting", "new" and "inspiring" whilst the sheeple nodded on. They showed many drawings and renders of projects and sites and whilst interesting to begin with, quickly slogged on and got very dull with little to no mention or care about what the final outcome actually was. In the instances they do show, they'll present it when the building is new and not 5 years down the line when the eco-friendly roof they added to please the critics is suddenly damp and dripping. I had a similar issue where we designed furniture pieces and the people who I was working with couldn't give a crap what happened to it after they were marked. When it was left outside on display, it rotted and went a dark shade of black. Nasty.
Edit: it’s now gone 😂
Traditional architecture is better, it is a style that gets you to smile. You feel warmth. It is elegant.
This is true in both the Western world and China.
Everywhere in the world! I am from India and the situation in India is 10x worse here than in Europe. Atleast Europe has managed to protect a significant chunk of architectural heritage, buildings from eras where beauty actually mattered although the new stuff is pretty dreary. India is nothing but a sea of ugly concrete boxes now.
It kills me from the insides to looka at these modern buildings, they look soulless and lifeless and makes the city look like it is designed by robots for robots
Then it’s working as intended
Hi. I am from brazil, i can confirm this. Old historical beautiful buildings are being destroyed to make space for ugly crappy brutalist looking buildings. We say that Oscar Niemeyer was a genius but... idk... it looks ugly as hell.
Totally agreed, but the fault isn't only within the architect, these types of buildings are sponsored by rich landlords and shareholders, at least in my city the whole patrimony of 2 centuries being destroyed by a landlord and his ugly looking modern architecture.
The problem is not contemporary architecture, the problem is contemporary architecture that is not well executed. Modern architecture has not existed for decades now, and the solution is not a blind return to the past, but a dialogue between tradition and our contemporary needs and views of the world.
Our views of the world are not the same as the views of our ancestors, in the same way the views of medieval people were not the same as those of the ancient Romans, yet they created a new "modern" kind of architecture: gothic architecture, which earned from the past but was completely "modern"
Thus, the solution should not be a blind return to "styles" of the past, that would create fake and expensive cities which don't to our current cultural and material needs.
The sad thing is that the architects often know the effects their stuff has on people but they think it is a good thing. Like brutalists thinking it is good that their work makes people feel terrible.
And sometimes, they are simply delusional.
Very true, they do indeed
I don't understand brutalist architects. Why do they think people want to live in a city that looks like a prison? Even castles whose primary purpose was for defense have more beauty than brutalist buildings.
@@jamalgibson8139
They only think about their own ego when designing those. They want to be avantgarde and do not concider what it is like living there.
I live in Dundee, which is pretty much as post-industrial as you get. I'm sick of all the copy-paste soulless new builds popping up. They're draining the soul from the community and they're poorly made with little space to socialize. Supposedly it's an "improvement".
Even most private housing are still built with traditional architectural styles up to these days.
Cars, paintings, furnitures, architecture, these brainless scammers really touched on everything.
you're right there - mind you it is attempting to make a comeback
Well private homes are pretty ugly/modern here in Lithuania theyre all boxes with triangle roofs
The best argument against modern architecture is to observe where the decisionmakers choose to live: in traditional architecture in the old city centers.
Except this is bullocks.
I vote that the same way as there are requirements for safety and requirements for ecology there should also be requirements for beauty.
In 1900 labour was cheap compared to construction materials. That’s a major reason why there had been more craftsmanship dedicated to ornamental elaborations.
I live in Berlin and I’ve studied architecture.
I can tell you frankly that not all architecture from that era was "beautiful“ (Whatever that means). Flats in the back aisles of these buildings were dedicated for people with lower income. They often shared a toilet with a neighboring flat or even three. Just one example of numerous.
A working class citizen at that time also had a pretty lackluster living environment. Families of eight in a two room flat were no exception. We tend to romanticize a lot of things from the past, without reflecting how the entirety of these past times was like.
There was a lot coal smoke and dust in the air. Natural air flow in backyards was impeded. People/children became ill.
To put an end to that misconception was the motivation for modernistic architects to design houses and urban planning that met the need of people for more natural light, air flow, lawns and vegetation and overall recreational areas just around the building block they were living in.
I don’t agree with all which contemporary architecture brings about, but it’s necessary to reflect about the pros and cons of each era and epoch, without only glorifying or only condemning.
They just don't have a clue do they! They want everyone enslaved and without rights just to build something that's "beautiful" so they can jerk over it all day long.
I've studied architecture too. While your highlighting the less desirable architecture of past eras is interesting, it is not really on point. This video is about major buildings in the city centres which come to symbolise an era, not low-cost housing in the back blocks.
The advantages of healthy design that you mention are some pros of contemporary architecture however. But this video is about aesthetics, and how modernism is not artistic, but merely utilitarian. Indeed this was the belief of modernism - with dictums like 'form follows function', 'less is more', and 'ornament is crime'. This was actually propaganda or delusional or wishful thinking.
Modernism actually came out of the war era when a housing crisis required quick, cheap, mass-housing. This modernism was therefore a sort of 'rationism'. However later generations, or rather greedy landlords (as Frank Lloyd Wright called them), took advantage of the cheap fashion to create cash-cows, and architecture academics waxed lyrical jargon in praise of the movement. Yet the average Joe soon sees through the shiny facades and realises it's just lipstick on a pig.
You are still talking about relatively modern times. The industrial revolution wasnt exactly a moment in time people felt one with nature
This also focuses more on the living conditions than the architecture. No one said that life isnt better now, just that older architectural styles are aesthetically superior
We need to protest and stand up for beauty! Beauty IS function!! Enough fake "f ART" and design schools teaching students that unique idea has more validity than beauty! Anyone can have a unique idea! Not everyone can design beautiful things.
Are you willing to pay for it then? Of course, there will not be an answer because the answer is no.
The modern architecture ruined almost all cities in my country, only one city which has 68 years old resist until now. Beauty matter and it's objective.
As Scruton used to say; “beauty is an ultimate value-something that we pursue for its own sake, and for the pursuit of which no further reason need be given. Beauty should therefore be compared to truth and goodness, one member of a trio of ultimate values which justify our rational inclinations.”
Congratulations for the video, you really have good sense of humor.
I'm American and agree, what country are you referring to? America used to have gorgeous, traditionally styled gothic skyscrapers in New York and Chicago then went all in on bland glass and steel.
Brazil.
You're comparing 'landmark', not always great modern architecture with mass of historical architecture. You're oversimplifying and just glide on the surface of a problem, which usually is... Planning. Not architecture.
I could talk more, so if you're all interested - comment below. We will discuss.
So was the Trellick Tower good planning?
@@ians3586 Of course it wasn't. But for example city of Gdynia was.
@@deXXXXter2 okay good. I agree that modern architecture can have its place - City of Gdynia or Canary Wharf. What I object to is architecture which destroys the character of an area, for example a building that is completely out of scale with its surroundings or is a jarring addition to otherwise beautiful area. Brutalism is a prime example of architecture that violates these principles. Buildings should be visually interesting, welcoming to the inhabitants, built of high quality materials (not acres of raw concrete), and provide large amounts of natural light to those living and working in them. Often, one of the biggest differences between an area that is desirable and isn't is the presence or absence of trees and well-maintained green spaces.
@@ians3586 Yes that is an issue, but as I said - that is mostly regulatory issue. You can find brutalist and contemporary 'stararchitecture' which is integrated into city very well, and i can assure that in most of those cases it is integrated well because of planning documents of this city. Everything can be done, and every style can work with another. You just have to stop letting architects do whatever they want with building 'mass'.
This ignores the fact that certain architectural styles inherently clash. A brutalist building, given some ornamentation, doesnt look too out of place in rome where there are a lot of ancient roman monuments with brutalist queues anyway. But it would look terrible in any city that has a softer style. Glass towers will never look good paired with anything other than glass towers
It also ignores the fact that the general populace prefers traditionalist human-focused buildings that feel one with nature as opposed to the esoteric art projects that fill the skylines
I’m an architect and I approve this message.
I agree: London, being London (a generally attractive city) has what is likely the most abysmal collection of skyscrapers outside of the Middle East. But, you’re ignoring two things: One, more than a few of them (like the Shard) are abysmal because someone in London decided that maintaining sight lines of St. Paul’s, in one case for nearly 10 miles, is The Most Important Consideration, and these buildings were hacked and slivered, and bastardized just so that view of St. Paul’s is maintained.
Two: Like a lot of Modernism Is Shite entries, you conveniently forget to show early US skyscrapers that were properly built; beautiful structures in and of themselves and structures which rise from the street without the distraction and urban-killing plazas designed by postwar architects to make their phallic tower stand apart for the architects ego, no matter to the cost to the streets below. Think of the Empire State building and Chrysler tower, and so many of the pre-war towers that cut out the sunlight, true, but contribute to the pavement below, unlike the postwar monsters with their vapid plazas that eat up land and contribute nothing but emptiness and ego at street level.
And, as nice as Paris is, it’s not a terribly great example of what should be. True, it does have a density very close to NYC, in an elegant sprawl of 5 story structures, but it also shares the unaffordablity of NYC and London. I could ask, how much of Paris should we tear down to build in greater density to facilitate affordability, but I think the better question is, how can we build better such that we eliminate the NIMBY in order to build without the unnecessary expense of fighting NIMBYS, while at the same time building attractive such that we don’t end up with the all too often horrible American city of today (cities which weren’t horrible when they were built).
The Gherkin is POST-modern, not Modern. Modern Architecture would mean "Form follows function" (quote from Walther Gropius) and not look weird for the sake of it. While weird shapes have been around in the Modernist Period (as Expressionism), theese weirdly-shaped glas-towers are from the Postmodern era. Also note, that Mirror facades have their place in the dark rainy climated of London (there Brutalism would fowl badly), but is out of Place in Dubai (there the refelected sun could torch cars), there Brutalism (like Tel Aviv) would be better.
Note the "international Style" has its name from the UNO-Building, not from beeing a "good Idea worldwide". In fact it is rare in Eastern Europe, there Brutalism would be more common.
What you are really looking for is Historism, but it should be reserved for Prestige buildings (like Trainstations or Towncenters) and not for residual mass housing.
It is pointless to argue with these ignoramuses. They just keep repeating the same ignorant crap about "beautiful" architecture just because it has ornaments on its facade. So superficial and genuinely dumb
Post-modern may try and distinguish itself but the plague of modernism has destroyed all architecture. We will not recover for a millennia.
My country in Eastern Europe needs more classical architecture!!
we must demand it! architecture is just as important to cultural identity as food or language or ethnicity. asia should not look like europe should not look lke africa should not look like america
I am happy that finally people have noticed in which ugliness we live.
Hey same here in India
The classic architecture is fading away and this modern architecture is taking over.
I will say London looks pretty good but Indian cities are becoming chaotic and dull.
Interesting to hear your side of things from India - only some parts of London look good - you should see the rest!
Architecture is supposed to be art we live and work in. These buildings will be up for years. Make them memorable and beautiful!
I couldnt agree more with this video.In my country(Greece) the ugliness of the modern houses is destroying the city.The "modern architecture" has no character,its depressing and the huge problem for me is that everyone is becoming the same.What does this mean?If u see the centre of many cities is full of scyscrapers with this glass all over them trying to make it seem futuristic.In conclusion not only all these beautifull cities such as london become ugly and without character but also everyone looks the same.We have to try maintain our history and go against the modern atrocity in order to build more classical,neo classical houses or invent a new model for every country so we dont become the same.(Sorry for my bad english)
Yeah i agree man, and cool name! I think they will start to realise now that modern architecture is the way forwards and start doing that again
Your English is amazing. I'm always blown away by how well Europeans master English which is a very difficult language to learn. Most of us that have English as a first language are pathetic when it comes to speaking another language.
Architecture all around the world has been post-modern bullshit for decades. Just like you said, they can't come with any ol' shit as an excuse. But it's all comic-villain funny and a disgrace. As if thousands of years of good aesthetics don't mean shit anymore. But we shall never surrender to that crap. Thank you for your videos.
The same can be said for Malaysia's capital Kuala Lumpur, extremely tall skyscrapers springing up everywhere with no proper planning and most of them with boring designs.
The Unique architecture of Filipino Bahay na Bato is absolutely beautiful... I love Intramuros and Acuzar Bataan for the unique architecture... It's a mix of European and Asian traditional architectures... Non like it anywhere else...
I agree, lot of buildings now are just extremely copy pasted everywhere example of that manila.
We need to bring back those beautiful buildings that were destroyed in ww2.
Looked it up... wow! Really cool! You werent kidding when saying it feels like a mixture of european and asian styles. Very well done too
@@theFORZA66 Yes, its truely unique, sadly my countrymen dont appreciate the unique architecture developed in our countrys history, such shame...
As a lifelong fan of traditional architecture I totally agree, and have since I was a kid. As a Midwesterner I suppose it all started when I first looked at Chicago Water Tower as a child which reminded of a fairytale castle.... and then heard the story of how it survived the great Chicago Fire. And my eye was immediately drawn to all the new "modern" ugly buildings surrounding it that were built afterwards.
Would that I had Trump's tongue and could move the public toward a revival of aesthetic buildings. But alas I lack the skill to inspire the masses lol. And so I can only watch with regret the beautiful works fade and be replaced by ugly preschool creations in a neverending procession downwards. As J.R.R. Tolkien said once, I am filled with the "heart-wracking sense of the vanished past."
All architecture has merit. But it has its place also.
I totally agree: modern arquitecture is rubbish!!!
It is the best seen in the un-human and confusing airports architecture. When you arrive to Vienna, walk out of the airport, there is absolutely no place to sit down, especially if it is blazing sun and you need some shed. People sit on the asphalt, leaning to a perfectly vertical concrete wall. It's like neanderthals, but with concrete. The only more or less human place is a little snack stall with a couple benches and tables in front of it.
There is no clear meaning for structures in modern architecture. You walk out of a sliding hole in a wall of an airport -- is that the "Gate 5" where your Uber is arriving at? Or is that just a door, and the actual "Gate 5" is on the floor above? Sometimes they install these useful sticks with an information plate that says "Gate 5" and an arrow that points at the hole -- so that you can confirm what that hole in a wall is by reading the info plate, after being tired by reading a thousand bits of useful "information" throughout the whole airport.
The normal architecture makes things clear. If it is a "gate" you will clearly see that it is a gate. If it is the "main gate" or "portal" -- you will see it even better. Your language and the language of the normal architecture are the same. No info-sticks are needed.
Florence, Prague, Rome.. one of really good examples of beautiful cities
The “modernists” can use whatever condescending language they can think up, it won’t fool me and it never has. The only result that counts is the finished article, and in the vast majority of cases with architecture since the late 1950’s these results are an unmitigated disaster. As you rightly say here, who would for example want to visit Birmingham (largely rebuilt since the 60’s) in preference to Edinburgh? Who would want to visit Rotterdam (another urban failure) in preference to Amsterdam? The list could go on and on. The one bright light at the end of the tunnel of horrors is that very recently many architects have been adopting a more human style with a vague nod to the past. Also, even more importantly there has been a major revival of traditional style buildings in the United States, Germany, and even France that previously produced some of the worst freaks of modernity. Other European countries are beginning to follow. The U.K. as expected, is overall holding out but inevitably even there they will be forced to surrender to public opinion.
Loved this video.
You should see Australia, its a disgrace. Let our heritage be destroyed so some property developers can build some hideous buildings and make themselves lots of money.
Government threw a lot of grant money at my town, so they built a hideous modern glass and concrete "community hub" in the middle of my Victorian era main street.
Artists are either the coolest or most detestable people there are.
theres a misconception that Capitalism is the cause of Minimalism. this is false, its socialism, but not for the reason that people think its socialism. It's not socialism by any means of policy but instead by culture. We have, as a society, associated showing off wealth and rich people as bad, and so buildings that are large opulent and pretty are the antithesis of our socialist culture. The greatest proof that capitalism is not the cause of Minimalism is the buildings under Laissez faire Capitalism, they are rather opulent, take gilded age mansions for example. In fact, while I believe that "late stage" capitalism doesn't exist, if there was a architectural style to be correlated with it that would be Art Deco with its extravagance and use of gold and details.
Modern architecture and art is such a wank 💦
👏 totally agree
@@JackSimmondsTV well yeah you do, you did a whole arse video on the topic 😂
The marxis legacy of Bauhaus🤺
Ooo interesting
@@JackSimmondsTV Marxist ideology is aimed at erasing human individuality. Marxism denies the existence of a soul in man, but also denies individual consciousness. From the point of view of Marxism, the consciousness of a person is determined by his "class function". Marxism is a tool of the Deep State to create a global concentration camp and turn all of humanity into a gray and brainless biomass, like a swarm of insects, where an individual does not have an individual consciousness, but the entire biomass is controlled by the "Collective Mind".
Therefore, in architecture, the "Deep State" puppets hate the classical style corresponding to the Conscious Human, and impose an ugly "modern style" such as a barracks or prison for mindless zombies.
In our country in Russia, this was strongly manifested during the communist dictatorship, with the exception of the late period of Stalin's rule, when Stalin managed to slightly remove the Deep State globalists from power.
There's no point in arguing matters of taste, but personally, I think that claiming that all X is wonderful and all Y is trash is always wrong. I love both traditional and modern architecture - the house I recently bought is 125 years old - and I’ve seen examples of both that are horrifying as well others that are wonderful.
Perhaps you ought to consider that the older buildings that you love are the quality survivors while most of the trashier examples from the same eras have been demolished and replaced. Someday, modern architecture will be winnowed down the same way. But I don't expect you to agree. We can't control our visceral responses. I just feel sorry for those, like you, whose instinctive reactions deny them a broader scope of aesthetic enjoyment.
I love London, but I agree that the new skyscrapers are terrible! At least New York still retains much of its 19th century flavor, along with Art Deco masterpieces like the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building. My favorite city is a tie between Budapest and Vienna. Paris sucks because of the traffic and the nasty xenophobic culture. L.A. is unspeakable, and San Francisco is just plain ugly without. Only its gorgeous natural setting makes it tolerable.
For any of you architecture experts on modernist movement, please research some history facts and political, socioeconomic mood in the years these buildings were build. It is easy to sh*t on anything you don´t like. Next time blame more your local politics which is reason these modern building are there, dont blame architects for it. This story about modernism is way longer than: I dont like it. Contemporary architecture sees these problems and trying to avoid modernist mistakes.
Yes this
Perhaps with advent of 3-D printing it might become cost effective to add decoration to building like they did in days of old.
British architects and Town Planners have succeeded where Hitler failed.
We have got what we deserved.
The gherkin is one of my favourite buildings in london. Otherwise I mostly agree with you. London should be unique not similar to everywhere else.
Modern dont have to mean always that something its better. I think some modern arquitecture its beyond horrible its like a fucking nightmare.
I’m an architect. I was taught that, for the most part, a building must be in harmony with its immediate environment. That does not mean it has to be a carbon copy of it but it must add richness to the urban fabric in a meaningful way. The alternative is to create a “landmark”, which is also important for cities to have, but obviously IN MODERATION.
I am an architect student and you are right.
You speaking facts hate the random ass skycrapers in The City of London
The barbican is one of the most beautiful and well designed and loved buildings in England
Great video! Made me laugh. Modern art disgusts me too, its talentless nonsense that exists only to make money for the lazy 'artist', the auction house, the investor that buys the crap and the exhibitions that showcase it. Its a racket that will disappear in time as people wake up to it.
Completely, it won't stand the test of time like traditional architecture will
Old Art is about craftmanship and beauty. New art is about „I was the first to have this idea, don‘t need any skills for it!“
Also a lot of modern art is a money laundering scheme for the very rich. You can objectively value an Old Master piece and know its price really accurately. That is as objective as it gets. Alse there aren't many of those so the ones that survive do not circulate easy. However if the value of art is subjective, then you can make some cheap crap, like say, a Shark in Formaldehyde, have a price of 200 or 300 million. Repurpose a bunch or garbage the same way several times and suddenly you have a storage medium for your ill gotten gains that later you can convert for whatever amount of cash you want whenever you need it.
it's sad to see all this modern rubbish💀
So tired of this dualistic either/ or rubbish.
What I have found out so far: Fascist love neoclassicism and hate Communist architecture. But, boy, only if they found out about Stalinist Baroque...
And? we still have the freedom to design like past styles, it still is possible. Fascism is kind of young if read through historical events, so labeling classical architecture or any kind of traditional style kind of architecture into fascism is kinda misleading when many different kind of styles existed before even fascism came into existence.
Wtf are you talking about bro is really trying to equate political ideaologies to architectural opinions 😂
You have gone off the deep end, you are completely delusional 😮 get off your computer, touch some grass and talk to a real human
You have never been to Germany. At least your modern buildings have character.
You are just so right, my friend. Demolish is the word.
Art Deco skyscrapers are worth building... not all are horrible:)
Every single skyscraper we make is too late to destroy. How the hell can you quickly destroy a skyscraper without destroying the surrounding area. Stop making these.
I thought I wanted to be an architect and design beautiful buildings. But when I looked into it, I found out they do not even teach the classical orders anymore. Not even as a "base" to start out on. I would have been pushed to churn out the hideous crap of today. No thank you.
To give you some hope, there are some schools that do design classical or traditional architecture. One of them is the Icaa, you can check them on RUclips and learn about it. Hope this helps, I also don't like modern architecture and im studying to become an architect. Also there are firms that do classical architecture, you just gotta search them. Hope this gives you hope.
@@javierpacheco8234 TY
@@jelsner5077 no problem anytime!
Don't. Unless you break free from the sheeple line, it's basically slave labour.
This video is extremely based.
The worse is that a lot of space has been lost for apartments for families to live in London.
One architecture rebellion video pointed out that many architects who design this modern crap more often than not live in quaint Victorian neighborhoods
High rises can be nice but it has to be done thoughtfully
Yee for sure - have their place, where i live for example, no building can be built over 7 storeys - seems sensible
You know what I find hilarious? That architects nowadays feel as if they're useful at all when all they do is take a graphing calculator, draw a few lines, and call it good. How does that pass as doing your job? They're fools.
Intelligent, Funny, Informative and very Truthful. This video is more of a work of art than any of the so called modern paintings, sculptures and buildings. Modern buildings of course are the worse since they are imposed on the spectators and cost a lot of money, many of which is public.
I liked the way that guy was so proud of the blob of orange paint on the side of his painting.
Bernard Finucane: That was not a painting. That was a paint accident unintentionally deposited on a helpless canvas.
I would invite anyone complaining about the buildings to compare a budget between a classic style building And a modern one, architecture nowadays tries to get the most beautiful buildings with an affordable budget, well the results May be questionable.
Professors don't want students to replicate whats trendy, they want students to create new things, which is not as easy as it may sound cause desingning a building takes an enormous amount of time
One World Government , one " culture " , one archicrapture ...........!
i actually like the gherkin--at least it looks like something nature would produce...
Yeah no. Maybe if it wasnt covered in glass
those marvelous historic buildings went to waste, beautiful London is a mess now, govt should not permit such ugly new development so called buildings within historic part of the city, new london-if so- should be built out of beautiful historic area...
There is nothing worse than Bauhaus minimalism on a lattice framework like that bridge that was made of pick up sticks.
You could have even gone farther regarding the notion of beauty, since nowadays science has shown again and again that humans tend to naturally have the same conception of what beauty is, with minimal individual variations. It's in our DNA. So these people saying everything is a construct and is relative, are demonstrably wrong.
I'd honestly say that beauty is indirectly tied to not only quality of life, but human dignity itself. Do you think it would be remotely fair to live in a world where all people must go through physical pain each day of their lives just because of the greed of a few and the delusional, masochistic whim of a couple more? It is the exact same with this type of horrendous environments, just that it is mental and spiritual pain that is felt by all.
Modern architecture is not bad. Look what the Dutch are building for the last 30 Years
London city is not even part of London. It’s not even part of the UK.
The problem is a minority of smug intellectuals with authority have thrust their disgusting, brutal designs onto the plebs, most of who are disgusted but dont have the words or power to act on it. So we will get ugly building after ugly building, going through phases every ten years. Go to a beautiful church in the city, then go outside and look at a modern building, the contrast is so great it could tear your mind apart.
Too many parts of London have been in trashed since WW2. Glass and steel generics of very low quality have been thrown up for a fast buck, there’s no control over quality except in the areas still owned by the same families over some centuries who in most cases insist on high quality and respect for the surrounding built environment. Examples are Belgravia, Mayfair and Chelsea. The south bank of the Thames has been almost completely trashed by pure junk, a good example being the pathetic London Assembly Building. Yes, with too few exceptions, modern architecture is rubbish, objective not subjective.
I do think what they've done with and around Battersea Power Station is nice. I think it's visually interesting but only the test of time will tell whether it hold up when it's no longer shiny and new. You are absolutely right about those areas. Nothing can match the beauty of Mount Street, for example. It's so nice to see areas that haven't been spoiled by modern architecture.
Too bad London was always ugly in an unrepairable sort of way.
Are there any traditional architecture projects being built today? or how about any well known classical architects in the scene right now?🧐
don't think so
A couple years back a residential project got finished in The Netherlands with traditional architectural aspects. It's called 'Brandevoort' in Helmond.
@@tempestosfugi9846 It looks sublime :)
Yes, do check out Poundbury and Nansledan in the UK and Du Plessis-Robinson in France. But such projects are few and far in between. None of these places are perfect and doesnt come close to original traditional architecture in its detailing, but considering how much skills have been lost since Modernism took over, they are definitely steps in the right direction.
Outside the Western world, classical style architecture is sometimes built. In the Western world, the influence of the "Deep State" is too strong, which hinders the classical style. With the help of ugly "modern architecture", this Deep State influences the minds of people in order to fool them and turn them into mindless zombies.
This video is gold, should have a million views
In Kuala Lumpur, there's a building hated by some (Merdeka 118) which contrasts a lot to the Petronas Twin Towers (which locals like)
Huge pimples on a very attractive lady! That's nice way to put it.
Your point is clear and unrefutable
My favourite City is Venice. All you Said in the Video is 100% true
The buildings between the reporter and the Walkie Talkie are lovely.
10:00 as an 'artist', it pains me to see that he was trying to explain things like boys in a class presentation
Please share this with every architecture student and professor.
I think La Defense iin París or the business distriict in Moscow are more logicsl. I like buildings like St Mary Axe or The Shard...but better in a business district.
delete architects
insert artisans
simple as
You should become an artisan
Until you find out what are the budgets and who the clients are, there is no money to fund major architectural projects in styles yall find beautiful. Architects have no say. Billionaires do, but yet y'all will blame architects. The only ones who can save your beloved architectural style is to commission the design yourself.
@@vesr-b7s Exactly, what a concept. Scrape the barrel for the workers and the billionaire property developers sit on the top raking in the cash from the almost slave like human labour.
@@vesr-b7sarchitects go to school and focus primarily on these styles, then when these arhcitects become teachers they teach these same styles and lambast anyone who tries to make something traditional. Architects are equally to blame. They share it with investors and politicians
The perfect reflection for this video is pre-war Manila and post-war Manila.
There are surviving military aerial photos showing classic architectures in the city.
Thanks for the video, unfortunately you're preaching to the choir. I have a big soft spot for traditional architecture, I was wondering if you'd recomend any books on the subject of how awful modern architecture is? looking online I can't find anything execpt books that ride modern architecture!
I recommend you to watch why beauty matters by Rojer Scruton. He explains how the world forgot about beauty and how after WW2 people decided to design ugly architecture.
On the bright side, if you put some bars on these buildings, they can be concerted into prisons or mental institutions.
Thank you for this video! This and the comments made me see that modern architecture is making cities almost all over the world uglier and more debressing and it was not only happening in my country (Finland). I kinda thought that only we were just so stupid that we dont see value in old beauty when beautiful buildings have been replaced with stupid boxes.
And of course all the travel promotional materials around the world show these beautiful places for travellers, but most of the people really live in these ugly neighbourhoods (because the beautiful places still left are so expensive)
We all have the same human hunger for beauty around us and it is taken away from us!
cant lie tall buildings are pretty but not the shitty london ones