As a Canadian, I was forced into the metric system back in elementary school in the 70's, however, most textbooks and how people measured things remained on the British imperial system for years afterwards, and so I came to know both. Any real carpenter uses the imperial system of measure because of its simple fractionation and the tricks for proportion that were worked out in ancient times to set ratios that can be used to generate graceful and beautifully proportionality manmade things. I use both system because I can, and each is useful in its own way. If I want something built by a craftsman that is pleasing to the eye, like a house or a table or a statue, then I want it built using imperial measures, and if I want it built by an engineer, like a rocket or a particle accelerator or an iPhone, then metric system would be my choice. Using the right tool for the job will always produce pleasing results.
4 месяца назад+11
This is one of the most unique insights I’ve ever heard. Only from Dominic. Bro even looks like a Greek philosopher lol
I think cost is a major factor in modern architecture that you didn't really mention. Also not all old architecture was beautiful, but only the most beautiful buildings are maintained and preserved.
As a tuckpointer of heritage buildings for 30 years i couldn't agree more. More importantly, money must be a measurement or a weight of something. Currency created on a computer at will is a measurement of fraud.
This was excellent. One other angle which is worth exploring was set out in Simon Thurley's brilliant book, The Building of England. In this, he pointed out that in the 20th century and increasingly after the second world War, the client for major new public buildings tended to be local councils. For hundreds of years, the client was always an individual who was paying with his own funds. Whether this was a king, a Baron or a rich business person, he had a particular interest in the building that was constructed with his money. Once the client was a faceless committee of a local council, the connection between those actually paying and the outcome was severed. Nothing stood in the way of appointing some fashionable architect who wanted his name on some monstrosity that ill-suited the immediate environment.
Sorry, but I can't entirely agree. I was raised and educated elsewhere, thoroughly learning and being entirely conversant with imperial weights and measures during primary school years, whereupon the country metricated everything overnight and so I used that system until emigrating to the UK. My belief is that bad proportioning is due to failure to adhere, wherever possible and appropriate, to the golden ratio. The Ancients were well aware of this number, as was Michelangelo. I'm politically right leaning.
From this I conclude that which I already knew; the British are closer to God than the French. A perch, or rod, is 5 1/2 yards as it was the length of a yoke pulled by a team of two oxen. 4 rods in a chain (22 yards) 10 of them in a furlong and 8 of them in a mile. Easy.
Roger Scruton made such a contribution to this subject of beauty and architecture. Our vile and disconnected properties that we are caged in symbolic of our lost sacred, the modern utilitarian hellscape.
When money is more important than human wellbeing, hopefully they will understand that we are tired of living in convenient boxes, that all look like prison cells both from the inside and outside, when the masses leave the big cities and start over somewhere else, where we can live without all the unnecessary rules and regulations. Plus these living conditions are making everyone sick both mentally and physically.
Love this, Dominic! I lost all my interest in Maths when they brought decimilisation in, in 1971, the year I went to Comprehensive school. I was getting on ok, with fathoms, acres, pecks etc, which we were still taught in the 1960s. I've met other people in my age group who had the same experience, it was like "you've spent 7 years of school teaching us all this stuff, and now you're throwing it out overnight? Bye bye, Maths"!
3:03 well, to be fair, "Michelangelo" was heavily regulated. Only thing; he was working in a time era known as, "The Renaissance". the Renaissance, generally covers the 14th - 16th centuries and is characterized by an effort to revive and surpass the ideas and achievements of classical antiquity, meaning that back then it was less about the money, and more about the art.
Interesting hypothesis. However, I think it's the efficiency and relative low cost of building large scale, the pure productivity of doing things in a simple way, which does it. And developers are not necessarily local, so don't have to see and live amongst their monstrous creations. They are financed by borrowed leveraged, fake money. In essence, being efficient and economical, makes buildings dull and unattractive. That the ultimate reason. He proximal cause of ugly buildings is the lack of ornamentation, detailing, and the excessive scale. Even if skyscrapers were mandated to have the bottom 10 storeys as an ornamental and intricate pedestal, by planning law...he cost of the building would skyrocket, as skilled labour is pricy. And relative to something like rainscreen cladding and glazing, its harder to think about, detail, physically build stonework. Also heavier, pricier etc.
They are designed to make planning officers feel safe, with as little comeback on them, when approving them. What planning officers (pen pushers without a creative bone in their body) want and kickboxing all the policies, no matter how mad, is a developer's No.1 concern. The expense, time and risk of getting planning permission for ANY building is enormous. And nobody thinks about the added cost of a refusal; which actually blights the property and devalues it unless you can get another permission though. "Planning" is a total * show from start to finish. Expensive public funded, money no object, buildings are designed to flatter the ego's of councillors(look what we did); and garner awards.
Good to see you Dom. That was very interesting. When I stand and look at structures like St Pancras Station, I do wonder how that could ever be repeated.
As a secondary school teacher of design, I build into my teaching the sustainability of beauty which you will not find in the UN SDGs. A lot of my influence comes from the late Sir Roger Scruton and videos such as this act to underpin the importance and relevance of human proportion in design.
The straight line is godless and immoral. The straight line is not a creative line, it is a duplicating line, an imitating line. Friedensreich Hundertwasser
I watched a video this week about the short life of modern concrete buildings. It said how concrete used to be different before Portland cement and before Joseph Monier's reinforced concrete. Prior to that, opposing forces had to balance each other out. So domes and arches were very important.
Check the Saif Amous book - the FIAT Standard …… it give a whole chapter over to this topic…… it’s fascinating…… government money corrupts everything - architecture just the tip of the iceberg
Strange how the metric/imperial thing has gotten to be political. I used to work as a carpenter and I was happy to use feet and inches sometimes, and then millimetres on other tasks. My inclination though, was to use imperial whenever I had the choice. Reading a metric tape measure can present problems - the marking system just seems a bit sloppy. I was once working with a younger bloke who had not a clue how to deal with imperial and then further with the fractions which it invites you to use. I'd given him the basics one time, and we were marking-out for skirtings - he read out the measurements and I was writing-down. It got so that he would call out things like "73 and three of the next to smallest ones". A mathematician once told me that he viewed decimals as sterile while fractions were beautiful. I think I know what he meant. Most telling to me is why we don't use the decimal system in dealing with the circle and its degrees.
I must be a centrist then! I still think in both metric and Imperial, sometimes mixing them both! "2 meters minus a daughter" is Two meters ..... minus 1/4" You are talking of a concept called Psycohistory by its inventor Issac Assimov ...... using traits and biasses to predict future events and decisions! As to the "beauty of architecture" ..... most of it is a form and function thing. Having a door that has a golden ratio to the room it is in is not practical, having one that is wide enough to allow a person through it if they are carrying things is. The same with roof height. Modern homes tend to have low ceilings and that is not good in therms of heating and cooling or a persons comfort within the room. Those things will Always be a factor in building. Unfortunately as will cost, so little boxes clipped together in the sky is a cheap way of getting more space inside.
One of the other problems with the metric system is it cannot express all rational numbers.so will always inaccurate. I suppose why it always had to be fixed on its populous rather than a system that can naturally out compete the old systems
Almost anyone else's domestic architecture is better than ours. This could be another theme for a presentation: 'What is wrong with home design in Britain?' One of these is complete lack of imagination, to a partial extent why Channel 4's Grand Designs is so worth watching. Why all the 'mock' styles - Tudor, Edwardian (one of the very worst 'mock' styles) and the rest? I saw some mock Edwardian houses in Stourbridge recently that were horrendous. Plus, the lack of individuality in housing estates. Why not more be-spoke homes? Someone please help the British!
Nah, I don't buy it. At least, once you get to the larger elements of the building. A 20 metre long wall will be no more beautiful or ugly than a 60ft wall. Maybe the smaller elements like doorways, bricks, windows etc. What I think is more important is the golden ratio. I designed a house in metric using software, when it came to place windows and doors I used fibonacci and golden ratios and I have no doubt that it did enhance the aesthetic beauty.
Theres know imagination in design anymore . I don’t see children drawing like when I was at school. It’s all computers click tap and print, hence they call them selfs architects
Is that true of the US? In a career looking at architect's plans for housing in the UK, one day I was confronted with a set of drawings in feet and inches. I assumed the architect was old school, but was advised later he was American. If the US is still using this system as standard, do their buildings generally appear nicer than ours? Maybe they do. I had never thought about it
There are exceptions but on the whole I agree modern buildings are ugly, and I’m an architect. Good architects inherently understand proportion. Then cost comes in!
the key reason why modern buildings will never be as beautiful as those of the empires is because of the cost of labour, not measurement systems, which are relative and fully convertible. ever noticed the similarity between a yard and a metre? somebody had a longer arm. it takes a truly creative comedic mind to link politics with architecture and measurement systems...
If we actually added better wages to trades people like craftsman and all those artisans who make those architectural details and give the beauty of architecture. Then it could be possible. The reason why we don't build beautiful also is because there is no school to teach classical architecture system. These are the two main problems.
I disagree that the mere use of the metric system precludes the creation of beautiful buildings. There are hundreds of buildings in Paris designed by architects using the metric system that are beautifully proportioned - that fact alone disproves the hypothesis. I must add that I am not a metric system devotee - I was born in 1951 and am happy using all the Imperial units as well as metric units (as well as pounds, shillings, pence and guineas!)
People that measure in inches, foot etc are measuring still like a caveman would have done it with no tools. I can't understand how builders in the USA can do calculations on those weird fractional units.
It's a symptom of a spiritual malaise. Mankind is at the mercy of unseen forces, and right now the good guys aren't winning.
1 John 5:19
Lewisham town centre is utterly appalling; such a monstrosity
As a Canadian, I was forced into the metric system back in elementary school in the 70's, however, most textbooks and how people measured things remained on the British imperial system for years afterwards, and so I came to know both. Any real carpenter uses the imperial system of measure because of its simple fractionation and the tricks for proportion that were worked out in ancient times to set ratios that can be used to generate graceful and beautifully proportionality manmade things. I use both system because I can, and each is useful in its own way. If I want something built by a craftsman that is pleasing to the eye, like a house or a table or a statue, then I want it built using imperial measures, and if I want it built by an engineer, like a rocket or a particle accelerator or an iPhone, then metric system would be my choice. Using the right tool for the job will always produce pleasing results.
This is one of the most unique insights I’ve ever heard. Only from Dominic. Bro even looks like a Greek philosopher lol
also they all used the divine proportion in old buildings whereas they never do in modern blocks
I think cost is a major factor in modern architecture that you didn't really mention. Also not all old architecture was beautiful, but only the most beautiful buildings are maintained and preserved.
Beauty and endurance do not make for happy shareholders
Not meant to endure and I got that from the architect of the 'The Gherkin'. They have quite a 'few' problems with cracking glass.
And if you walk around the city blocks near the Gerkin it’s like Gotham City.. very dark and that’s during the day.
As a tuckpointer of heritage buildings for 30 years i couldn't agree more. More importantly, money must be a measurement or a weight of something. Currency created on a computer at will is a measurement of fraud.
Simple, the skills required to create beautiful architecture are now rare due to the lack of practical teaching
This was excellent. One other angle which is worth exploring was set out in Simon Thurley's brilliant book, The Building of England. In this, he pointed out that in the 20th century and increasingly after the second world War, the client for major new public buildings tended to be local councils. For hundreds of years, the client was always an individual who was paying with his own funds. Whether this was a king, a Baron or a rich business person, he had a particular interest in the building that was constructed with his money. Once the client was a faceless committee of a local council, the connection between those actually paying and the outcome was severed. Nothing stood in the way of appointing some fashionable architect who wanted his name on some monstrosity that ill-suited the immediate environment.
Sorry, but I can't entirely agree. I was raised and educated elsewhere, thoroughly learning and being entirely conversant with imperial weights and measures during primary school years, whereupon the country metricated everything overnight and so I used that system until emigrating to the UK. My belief is that bad proportioning is due to failure to adhere, wherever possible and appropriate, to the golden ratio. The Ancients were well aware of this number, as was Michelangelo. I'm politically right leaning.
Georgian architecture ... even plain rectangles can look beautiful if the ratios are correct
That's really fascinating, you make a solid point! I think I'll try using traditional measurements in my next construction project.
Very interesting - well done!
From this I conclude that which I already knew; the British are closer to God than the French. A perch, or rod, is 5 1/2 yards as it was the length of a yoke pulled by a team of two oxen. 4 rods in a chain (22 yards) 10 of them in a furlong and 8 of them in a mile. Easy.
I can listen to Dom talk about literally anything. Such an engaging chap 🙌
Roger Scruton made such a contribution to this subject of beauty and architecture. Our vile and disconnected properties that we are caged in symbolic of our lost sacred, the modern utilitarian hellscape.
Wonder if the ease of metric multiplication deeply ingrained in our thinking encourages repetition?
When money is more important than human wellbeing, hopefully they will understand that we are tired of living in convenient boxes, that all look like prison cells both from the inside and outside, when the masses leave the big cities and start over somewhere else, where we can live without all the unnecessary rules and regulations. Plus these living conditions are making everyone sick both mentally and physically.
Fascinating information sir. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
America doesn't use metric and still has ugly new buildings
Their domestic architecture is pretty good/
Love this, Dominic! I lost all my interest in Maths when they brought decimilisation in, in 1971, the year I went to Comprehensive school. I was getting on ok, with fathoms, acres, pecks etc, which we were still taught in the 1960s. I've met other people in my age group who had the same experience, it was like "you've spent 7 years of school teaching us all this stuff, and now you're throwing it out overnight? Bye bye, Maths"!
3:03 well, to be fair, "Michelangelo" was heavily regulated. Only thing; he was working in a time era known as, "The Renaissance". the Renaissance, generally covers the 14th - 16th centuries and is characterized by an effort to revive and surpass the ideas and achievements of classical antiquity, meaning that back then it was less about the money, and more about the art.
Just compare the Royal Albert Hall to that gopping CoOp concert venue - that looks like a PS2!
Interesting hypothesis.
However, I think it's the efficiency and relative low cost of building large scale, the pure productivity of doing things in a simple way, which does it. And developers are not necessarily local, so don't have to see and live amongst their monstrous creations. They are financed by borrowed leveraged, fake money.
In essence, being efficient and economical, makes buildings dull and unattractive.
That the ultimate reason. He proximal cause of ugly buildings is the lack of ornamentation, detailing, and the excessive scale.
Even if skyscrapers were mandated to have the bottom 10 storeys as an ornamental and intricate pedestal, by planning law...he cost of the building would skyrocket, as skilled labour is pricy.
And relative to something like rainscreen cladding and glazing, its harder to think about, detail, physically build stonework. Also heavier, pricier etc.
I work in the city of London. Our building is about to close and be demolished. It was built in 1997.
The entire square mile is full of short-termism.
The metric system is also designed around water. 1 cubic meter is 1,000 litres and 1,000 kilograms.
The SI have abandoned the litre as it's so flawed
Gas meter? Or metre
@@pierremchughes9917 a 'meter' is a measuring instrument for measuring a quantity. a 'metre' is approximately 1.094 yards. quite different.
They are designed to make planning officers feel safe, with as little comeback on them, when approving them. What planning officers (pen pushers without a creative bone in their body) want and kickboxing all the policies, no matter how mad, is a developer's No.1 concern. The expense, time and risk of getting planning permission for ANY building is enormous. And nobody thinks about the added cost of a refusal; which actually blights the property and devalues it unless you can get another permission though. "Planning" is a total * show from start to finish. Expensive public funded, money no object, buildings are designed to flatter the ego's of councillors(look what we did); and garner awards.
Oh ffs now he thinks we live on a spinning ball....outa here pronto
architecture and your everyday environment really affects your outlook on life, which is why they want all these unimaginative oppressive buildings.
Good to see you Dom. That was very interesting. When I stand and look at structures like St Pancras Station, I do wonder how that could ever be repeated.
As a secondary school teacher of design, I build into my teaching the sustainability of beauty which you will not find in the UN SDGs. A lot of my influence comes from the late Sir Roger Scruton and videos such as this act to underpin the importance and relevance of human proportion in design.
I thought it was about the Fibonacci series and the Golden ratio that brought about pleasing design.
Ratio/Proportion is key, not the unit of measurement.
Can man make buildings any more ugly ? 🤔 , is it possible ?
The straight line is godless and immoral. The straight line is not a creative line, it is a duplicating line, an imitating line. Friedensreich Hundertwasser
Anyone been up that shard in London ? It’s still looking down on the same shithole only from a different angle.
Those technocrats: give 'em an inch and they'll take a kilometer.
I watched a video this week about the short life of modern concrete buildings. It said how concrete used to be different before Portland cement and before Joseph Monier's reinforced concrete.
Prior to that, opposing forces had to balance each other out. So domes and arches were very important.
ruclips.net/video/MJBz66H5QIU/видео.htmlsi=xOwFE0hO0qAVUOEY
Because they were to start with
Metric Bricks are still proportional.
The unit size is 215 x 100 x 65 giving a working dimension with 10mm mortar joints of 225x75. 3x75 = 225
Is that the Stonehenge they constructed in the not so distant past?
Check the Saif Amous book - the FIAT Standard …… it give a whole chapter over to this topic…… it’s fascinating…… government money corrupts everything - architecture just the tip of the iceberg
Mies got it. Seagram bulding was the hard lecture ..
I think it was Mitchell who said if it looks right, it is right.
Strange how the metric/imperial thing has gotten to be political. I used to work as a carpenter and I was happy to use feet and inches sometimes, and then millimetres on other tasks. My inclination though, was to use imperial whenever I had the choice.
Reading a metric tape measure can present problems - the marking system just seems a bit sloppy. I was once working with a younger bloke who had not a clue how to deal with imperial and then further with the fractions which it invites you to use. I'd given him the basics one time, and we were marking-out for skirtings - he read out the measurements and I was writing-down. It got so that he would call out things like "73 and three of the next to smallest ones".
A mathematician once told me that he viewed decimals as sterile while fractions were beautiful. I think I know what he meant. Most telling to me is why we don't use the decimal system in dealing with the circle and its degrees.
Fiat architecture is ab abomination
There is a Dutch guy who has a RUclips channel called The Aesthetic city, in which he speaks about this.
I must be a centrist then!
I still think in both metric and Imperial, sometimes mixing them both! "2 meters minus a daughter" is Two meters ..... minus 1/4"
You are talking of a concept called Psycohistory by its inventor Issac Assimov ...... using traits and biasses to predict future events and decisions!
As to the "beauty of architecture" ..... most of it is a form and function thing. Having a door that has a golden ratio to the room it is in is not practical, having one that is wide enough to allow a person through it if they are carrying things is. The same with roof height. Modern homes tend to have low ceilings and that is not good in therms of heating and cooling or a persons comfort within the room. Those things will Always be a factor in building. Unfortunately as will cost, so little boxes clipped together in the sky is a cheap way of getting more space inside.
One of the other problems with the metric system is it cannot express all rational numbers.so will always inaccurate. I suppose why it always had to be fixed on its populous rather than a system that can naturally out compete the old systems
Almost anyone else's domestic architecture is better than ours. This could be another theme for a presentation: 'What is wrong with home design in Britain?' One of these is complete lack of imagination, to a partial extent why Channel 4's Grand Designs is so worth watching. Why all the 'mock' styles - Tudor, Edwardian (one of the very worst 'mock' styles) and the rest? I saw some mock Edwardian houses in Stourbridge recently that were horrendous. Plus, the lack of individuality in housing estates. Why not more be-spoke homes? Someone please help the British!
Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. The unit of measurement doesn’t come into it,
Great channel, subbed!
Living in and working on a Victorian house the last ten years has encouraged nationalist views and appreciation of that era
A bit of both mate. The emotional me loves inches, ounces and pints but the Physics teacher me loves nanometers, kilograms and liters.
Fibonacci sequence, all of nature recognises this sacred geometry, it is proportion.
Nah, I don't buy it. At least, once you get to the larger elements of the building. A 20 metre long wall will be no more beautiful or ugly than a 60ft wall. Maybe the smaller elements like doorways, bricks, windows etc. What I think is more important is the golden ratio. I designed a house in metric using software, when it came to place windows and doors I used fibonacci and golden ratios and I have no doubt that it did enhance the aesthetic beauty.
Theres know imagination in design anymore . I don’t see children drawing like when I was at school. It’s all computers click tap and print, hence they call them selfs architects
Is that true of the US? In a career looking at architect's plans for housing in the UK, one day I was confronted with a set of drawings in feet and inches. I assumed the architect was old school, but was advised later he was American.
If the US is still using this system as standard, do their buildings generally appear nicer than ours? Maybe they do. I had never thought about it
I don’t blame metric but agree most contemporary buildings are ugly. It comes down to cost, functionality, culture and profit.
With you al the way Dominic 👍
There are exceptions but on the whole I agree modern buildings are ugly, and I’m an architect. Good architects inherently understand proportion. Then cost comes in!
the key reason why modern buildings will never be as beautiful as those of the empires is because of the cost of labour, not measurement systems, which are relative and fully convertible.
ever noticed the similarity between a yard and a metre? somebody had a longer arm.
it takes a truly creative comedic mind to link politics with architecture and measurement systems...
If we actually added better wages to trades people like craftsman and all those artisans who make those architectural details and give the beauty of architecture. Then it could be possible. The reason why we don't build beautiful also is because there is no school to teach classical architecture system. These are the two main problems.
Interesting video
Very interesting!
I disagree that the mere use of the metric system precludes the creation of beautiful buildings. There are hundreds of buildings in Paris designed by architects using the metric system that are beautifully proportioned - that fact alone disproves the hypothesis. I must add that I am not a metric system devotee - I was born in 1951 and am happy using all the Imperial units as well as metric units (as well as pounds, shillings, pence and guineas!)
That’s so funny at the end…about you’ll probably be into left wing politics and the BBC! 😂
What a load of bollocks.
This is amazing content. Thank you Sir.
People that measure in inches, foot etc are measuring still like a caveman would have done it with no tools. I can't understand how builders in the USA can do calculations on those weird fractional units.