was able to find old photos of the buildings next door. there was no pre existing building in this space so luckily there was no historic building destroyed!
This facade is very very weird, she destroy the beauty of the old facade. I'm even amaized the autorities don't made it mandatory to keep the old facade.😮
The reality is we don't know what the old façade really looked like. We don't have any good pictures so we had a find a building a few doors down from the current one. It's possible the building didn't have a façade that they were able to save. - Josh & Kalie
It actually doesn't. That build is a few buildings down on the same street. PS is a heck of a thing and our thumbnail designer is good. :-) - Josh & Kalie
That "new" facade is horrible. The question is why not preserve the architecture while renovating? Sorry, but that is truly sad. The back and interior looks good but please don't let them do that "thing" in the front.
We can see it's not to everyone's taste and we're not sure we'd want a house with that façade, however, we do recongize it's an extension of the hotel and not residential housing so for it to look different and not just blend into the other buildings on the street makes complete sense to us. It can create the building as a bit of a landmark. Our façade should be much more traditional looking. - Josh & Kalie
No, our façade will be more typical let's say. There will be exterior walls right up to the street line with small front facing balconies. Let's see where this series goes. - Josh & Kalie
Preserving the historical heritage is valuing the culture, history and identity of a city and the people who live in it. The Municipal Master Plan states that Porto's identity is the result of the dynamic interaction of multiple dimensions, as is the case with architectural and urban heritage. Thus, they intend to guarantee the preservation and appreciation of the cultural, tangible and intangible, architectural and urban heritage, affirming the history and culture of the City. In this case, this action failed because these facades are from historic buildings in Porto.
We had to get creative because nothing was there and we had nothing to work with. The façade is from a few doors down. That building isn't in great shape but it's alright. The façade for our building is similar to this one (on the left) though. - Josh & Kalie
Thanks for the tour! The details that I found missing in our new construction Portugal condo are things like towel hooks, shower soap shelves and toilet paper holders. Daily functional items… we brought 3m hooks and broom holder hooks from the US and ordered some shower suction type of shelves for the walls from Amazon Spain. I love the natural light from the solar tubes that you said you’ll have in your units.
Don't go for the "down vented" stove. If you barely cook then ok but otherwise it does a very poor job of sucking the steam downwards. I would never buy one again. Personally do not like the industrial look at all. The concrete walls look cold and not welcoming. I could stay in such a place as a hotel but never with my family. I wish the facade would be historically maintained and not replaced with what they have. BUT, you have to live there and like. Sorry, not for us.
Hi Rita, it's interesting you say that because last week, we had a meeting with Alexandra and Filipa and Alexandra said the same thing. She said looks wise, it's nice, but functionality, over the stove hoods are better and that's what we'll use for our units. We feel the same way about the concrete walls everywhere. It's okay for a hotel, it's actually interesting to us, but not for our house that we'll live in day in and day out. - Josh & Kalie
@@LetsGetBuildingWithJandK 100% - it looks nice, but steam rises. You need more downdraft than this style of downdraft hoods provide (because the amount of airflow you need actually means extra intake vents or open windows while cooking!). The best style for in-counter is the "riser" style built ins, where the extractor rises from the back of the countertop while cooking. This is an adequate style for a home kitchen. But, in this case it's honestly - overhead stove hoods are king.
Personally I think the original architectural style of the facade of your building is much more interesting with the wrought iron balcony but it would be better if it was larger than a Juliette style balcony.
I don’t mind the makeover of the façade; I love the old original façades, but open to modernizing. It does stand out for better or for worse on the block. From the point of view of sustainability (concrete is notorious for carbon emissions in production) and partially for look, I’m conflicted over the nearly exclusive use of concrete, but clearly that’s the company’s specialty judging by its name (“liquid stone”). Architects love concrete because you can do virtually any form with it (thus “pedra líquida”) and it’s easy to source and work with. Perhaps more accents/elements with other materials (wood) would break up the brutalist aesthetic. I do very much like that top unit with the pitched ceiling and the slick skylights. I would live there.
The real question Gerald, was that the original façade? :-) Our façade will likely need to come down. There were serious foundational issues that we have already discussed and will continue to explain in these videos and we might end up with a new façade but we won't have a "modern" looking façade like that. It's not on the drawings of what's approved. You're right about the name and Alexandra went even more into that in the speech she gave. A lot of new construction here in Porto is actually being done with concrete and some block but not brick. We'd certainly like some sheetrock or plaster walls on the inside, which is on the cards. The top unit felt very nice and we think that the top unit in our building will be even better as the space is divided a little more interestingly. We'll keep you posted. - Josh & Kalie
In my humble opinion I see some hits and misses. The facade is a definite miss. On the other hand, there are a lot of good and innovative ideas. So, Josh and Kalie my advice is, choose well your take offs from this building.
Thanks for sharing, Carlos. There are many things that are already fixed for our project because it is in the approved plans. It's more of the interior design elements that we'll get to use. - Josh & Kalie
Thanks guys for sharing your adventure. Interesting vision. Not sure if I am crazy about the "bunker" look. Small rooms in a hotel are acceptable, not sure how that would play in a home setting. Maybe a dressing room to compensate the lack of closets.
You're welcome. Thanks for watching. The concrete has grown on us a lot although our place won't look exactly like this. This layout and structure will have similarities but the interiors will be different. We'll have range hoods :-) and built in closets. - Josh & Kalie
I'm sorry, what a terrible façade.... I see those "renovations" of these old and traditional buildings of my beautiful city and I ask myself how can be this allowed. This is not renovation, this is ripping off the city architecture.
Don't you think to differentiate it from a typical house, it's okay? As you know, there's a wide mix of façades in this city and each come from different moments in time. This is that evolution right? - Josh & Kalie
@@LetsGetBuildingWithJandK No, I don't agree. I don't see the erasure of heritage as an evolution or as the right thing to do. That particular building was a total replacement, not a renovation. There is a reason why Urban Planning connected with Historic Architectural Planning exists. The Porto City Council failed here. Unfortunately, money and certain lobbies rule. Pedra Liquida has some other projects that I really like. This is not one of them.
But what is heritage? How far should we go back? When should we let go of something to create something new? We don't have the complete backstory of the building to know its condition. There are many buildings in Porto that are beyond renovating and in need of total replacement whether we like it or not. They weren't renovated in time and have fallen into complete disrepair. The building we bought was unfortunately like that too and had we not stepped in when we did, if nobody else did, it could have caused more serious damage to the buildings to the right and left due to foundational issues in our building that haven't been addressed in more than a decade. - Josh
@@LetsGetBuildingWithJandK Hummm... I've been reading the comments here, and not only many people think as I do, but also you seem to have some difficulty in accepting opinions that differ from yours. Is it a matter of engagement of the video, the more comments the better, no matter what, or is it a difficulty in yourself, to accept that people may think differently? Comment section is to comment, to give an opinion, politely, knowing that others may think differently and accept that fact (which I did, all items above), and life goes on. One of the reasons that makes Europe so attractive to visit is precisely the diversity in its architecture. From pre-historic paintings to the most vanguardist buildings, you can find a little bit of many, many centuries of History coexisting. And that only happens because, mainly, the architectural heritage was respected. How far back should we go, you asked. Well, Rome's Coliseum is a ruin. Most of the middle age European castles are ruins. Most of Amsterdam's channel houses are falling (just a few examples, historically centuries distant apart of one another) Should we take them down? At some point of history for sure many must have thought that was the best thing to do. To restaure and rehab a building, respecting the traditional façade and roof, in the city centre (specially in a historic European city centre), will always be the most intelligent option from my point of view. If not, most of the charming Europe as we know it, wouldn't exist anymore. As I referred, my opinion, given politely. If you have the money and the green light from the Porto City Council to do as you please, by all means, do it. I will keep walking in the Porto city centre thinking how could some replacements be allowed, and be extremely sad and disappointed about it. You can keep replying and questioning, I already politely (for 3 times now) gave my opinion, I'm off. Your video engagement is not my responsibility ;) Stay chill.
@@LetsGetBuildingWithJandK When a house has been ruined due to time and "natural" causes, it's okay to replace it with something modern but to take a beautiful old facade in the city that's adding so much history and signature with a "modern" facade with no distinctive style other than "minimalism" this should be illegal. If everyone did like you do, we wouldn't have any historical buildings left and history and culture would be wiped off all major cities. Luckily people with more respect and understanding of European heritage and culture exists.
Not a fan of the facade either myself, I'm more "mid" to the design than the average commenter here but this type of facade increases energy use significantly (It's Porto, summers are hot, big windows are good for natural light but also not so) Porto architecture is built around this, shutters, small windows. I'm of course not against going bigger windows and the shaded inset windows are kinda smart. However I think they went too brutalist with this; this feels like the 60s and it feels very out of place for Porto.
materials, interior design and backyard are ok. but that façade is just awful. rethink it please, don't let it be an eye sore on the street. maybe get a new architect
We agree. It's those attentions to details that really mark their work and get them recognized in the industry. :-) We're glad that you like it. - Josh & Kalie
loved the look. I think your building and the interiors will be amazing. Will your apartments have normal size refrigerator as well as a Washing machine. Excited for you and wish I were moving to Porto. Maybe one day in the future.
Thanks for your continuing to follow this series, Eric. We really like the ideas they have for our building which are different than this one. There are some similarities though. Let us know when you pay us a visit. - Josh & Kalie
Artists creating on your dime. The longer your with them (and they have all the time in the world), the more it will cost you. Focus on performance, getting them/yourself across the line.
Hey Jon, they're not creating on our dime per se. We've paid them to complete the job based on the m2 in a certain amount of time. Cost overruns will be on them contractually. - Josh & Kalie
@@LetsGetBuildingWithJandK I would just encourage you to keep a log of every single delay and their excuse given. Also record any days that could be argued were weather related with your notes about them (i.e. they were already not on site the day before or after). At the end, after the project is completed and they come to you with cost over runs, they will simple argue (eventually in Portuguese court) that they were outside of their control (weather, you failed to make a timely decision, etc.). Foreigner in Portuguese court - not good. Good luck.
We are personally keeping a journal but also have hired a 3rd party engineer as seen in episode 3. At some point, we have to trust and not let skepticism control our minds. We believe that we've hired right from the beginning, which is where it should all start anyway. - Josh
Ok people. The facade. There's a trend on social networks to put down "modern" or "post modern" architecture. I understand it. Its the social media and everyone has a voice and can (and usually) speak theur mind. Even people that know nothing about architecture. You see, architecture didn't just stopped in the 19th century... There's decades of innovation and experimentarion, taste and attitude, since then and that's what architects do. They sip from that knowledge and try to stand out from the crowd. It's their job. To rip open new frontiers and bring that to the masses. That being said... Be also advised that architects are a very ascetic bunch and sometimes they get too much "into the jungle" of their own bubble. Sometimes the client has to curb their enthusiasm. That's fine. It's the rules of the game. As for myself I think that a city it's an evolving thing. We must preserve some stuff, and we need to tear down some stuff also. Otherwise we'd all be living in in a medieval town. Take Paris. Everybody loves Paris. But medieval Paris was almost completely levelled to bring about the Haussmann city we know today. I have to belive that almost 200 years ago people would be appalled and disgusted by this. But now... It's gorgeous. Perspective. The facade. Not a very big fan, but not hate it. I've seen far far worse, and less tasterlful.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. It's very true. If people look at all of the façades of this (Porto) city, they vary for sure and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. - Josh
Here's the difference, modern architecture does not build on the past, learn from what worked in the past, or appreciate what was in the past. They treat the past as something to get beyond, rather than as something to learn from. It ignores everything that was ever learned, and starts all over with novelty being the sole criteria. But, the novelty is banal, and uses the same boring materials, same boring motifs (being generous in calling it a motif) to the point that a modern building looks like it could be in any city anywhere. The Haussmann buildings still built based on knowledge of city living built up over hundreds/thousands of years. Still is based on human proportions and not arbitrary ones, and learned and improved upon the past. Older buildings used a variety of materials, many of them local and appropriate for the area. Modern ones use concrete. The making of concrete is one of the most environmentally damaging materials possible, and creates more pollution than the entire airline industry. It also makes for buildings that do not endure, and looks terrible in just a few years, certainly don't look improved with age. Architects are in a bubble that tries to convince themselves and others that they're innovating. But they're not. They're trying to show off to other architects with one single goal, as mentioned before, novelty. They consider aesthetics something of the past, and as arbitrary and subjective. So, the uglier, more sore-thumb-looking the better in their silly world. But aesthetics is not subjective as all that, even if most people don't have a very good understanding of what it is, they can recognise beauty and ugliness easily. Is a beautiful woman or handsome man made more attractive by adding a carbuncle to their face? Any rational person would say no, but modern architecture would tell us it's the height of beauty and that we're rubes for not seeing the improvement in appearance that they're claiming. I call that a form of gaslighting. The only question is whether they know they're full of crap or not. It's high time people call it for what it is, gimmick architecture that serves no one's needs, and makes the world an uglier, nastier place to live. And the biggest hypocrisy of all is that these ridiculous modernist architects tend to live in the older, more beautiful parts of their cities. They don't even want to live in the hideous monstrosities they dream up in AutoCad.
@@RonRobertson-lafrance Even though I agree with much of what you say, not sure I'm all in with your perspective. You see, "modern architecture" became modern mainly in the post WW1 aftermath. The reason for this has something to do with the availability of new materials like tensioned concrete that permitted a lot of freedom on construction, opening a vast world of new solutions to architects, but also, and more importantly, the desire of cutting ties with the past. The political veering to more autocratic regimes in Europe were fueled, by the masses desire of replacing the old established order that had brought them so much hardship and humiliation. This desire also permeated intellectual circles, and gave rise to movements like modernism (mainly minimalist, Bauhaus, republic of Weimar) and futurism (mainly Italian fascist) . The aesthetic of these movements were geared towards cleaner more functional and also more imposing architecture. This evolved between wars but after WW2 took hold because of the need in Europe of reconstruction. We needed housing fast and cheap, so a more cookie cutter approach was adopted. For more imposing public building structures brutalist and more volume based architecture evolved. Sleeker cleaner lines, use of concrete, glass, and metal, favored the use of simpler geometric solid design and absence of ornament, just the functional pattern repetition of glass and metal cladding. I'm not praising this approach, just understanding why it happened and the motivation behind it. If Europe needs were reconstruction, the US needs centered around transition to a car centric, suburb oriented policies, where old human sized city centers were demolished opening space for roads and high rise buildings. To cut this tale short, I'm just saying that society lines of force, economical forces and public spending favored up until the end of the 20th century this way of thinking architecture. The community centered movement to bring back to more human scale ways of thinking (mainly urban) construction, is still taking shape and making its way to mainstream societies. It's not the fault solely of architects, but also political decisors, market forces and the public at large that shape things. Times will be different, going forward, but I'm sure it will not be a revival of the past (although much has been made in old styles) but mostly a return to a more human scale architecture, the shape of it still is not clear (and I suspect will only be recognized in retrospect) and still evolving. My self opinions will have little (mostly none)impact on it, but are opinions nonetheless and need to be stated to paint a broader perspective, and contribute to the understanding and development of the future.
@@GLOBOLG I'm well aware of how modern architecture came to be, and that much of it is really fascist-oriented in its philosophy. I do not believe they "sip from the past" as you say, as they expressly broke from the past. I do agree that it's not just architects that have perpetrated this, city planners have a lot to answer for in not knowing the foundations for their work. There was plenty of literature on what makes for a liveable city, almost all entirely ignored now. But architects, architecture schools, and architectural "critics" (probably should be called enforcers of the modernist movement, rather than critics, because they're all in on the garbage being produced) are the main forces in this. It is not cheaper to build these buildings, particularly the ones that they rave about. And it should be a crime to build municipal buildings and public buildings not to last. The public would choose more human-scaled architecture if it were available, that's why nearly every truly desirable part of most cities is the parts with buildings built consciously to be attractive. People act like ornament is something to be avoided, yet think nothing of decorating the inside of their homes, and certainly don't see it as something to be avoided. The outside of the buildings should be thought of in the same way. While it's true that ornamentation can go too far, we are in absolutely no danger of that at this time and it's an overblown concern in any case.
Please don't destroy our city... Portuguese politicians are so corrupt that they agree with anything for money, bit be reasonable, that doesn't have anything to do with Portos' character and beautiful houses. Appreciate the effort, but please leave the houses alone to someone who knows how to restore them according to the Portuguese tradition, following the style of the characteristic Porto houses. This is an American house, not Poetuguese...
I've gotta say, this is a wild comment considering that the whole architecture firm is Portuguese. Porto-owned and Portuguese employees. Don't blame the Americans that simply show you a building that Pedra Liquida has done. Or...have you not watched the video to hear the 3 Portuguese people talk about the project? - Josh
was able to find old photos of the buildings next door. there was no pre existing building in this space so luckily there was no historic building destroyed!
;-) This is why we needed to put something there. Thanks for the comment. - Josh & Kalie
This facade is very very weird, she destroy the beauty of the old facade. I'm even amaized the autorities don't made it mandatory to keep the old facade.😮
The reality is we don't know what the old façade really looked like. We don't have any good pictures so we had a find a building a few doors down from the current one. It's possible the building didn't have a façade that they were able to save. - Josh & Kalie
@@LetsGetBuildingWithJandK The cover picture shows the old façade!!
It actually doesn't. That build is a few buildings down on the same street. PS is a heck of a thing and our thumbnail designer is good. :-) - Josh & Kalie
That "new" facade is horrible. The question is why not preserve the architecture while renovating? Sorry, but that is truly sad. The back and interior looks good but please don't let them do that "thing" in the front.
We can see it's not to everyone's taste and we're not sure we'd want a house with that façade, however, we do recongize it's an extension of the hotel and not residential housing so for it to look different and not just blend into the other buildings on the street makes complete sense to us. It can create the building as a bit of a landmark.
Our façade should be much more traditional looking. - Josh & Kalie
@@LetsGetBuildingWithJandKwe loved the interior and the vibe the architect was able to give it. Just please don’t make the facade look that ugly 😅 👍🏽
No, our façade will be more typical let's say. There will be exterior walls right up to the street line with small front facing balconies. Let's see where this series goes. - Josh & Kalie
The facade wtf, can't belive they allowed that
Why? - Josh & Kalie
Preserving the historical heritage is valuing the culture, history and identity of a city and the people who live in it.
The Municipal Master Plan states that Porto's identity is the result of the dynamic interaction of multiple dimensions, as is the case with architectural and urban heritage. Thus, they intend to guarantee the preservation and appreciation of the cultural, tangible and intangible, architectural and urban heritage, affirming the history and culture of the City.
In this case, this action failed because these facades are from historic buildings in Porto.
@@rikgomes What if we told you that there was no façade when they started? - Josh & Kalie
@@LetsGetBuildingWithJandK That a different story. Because the thumbnail of the video shows two different images in the same space.
We had to get creative because nothing was there and we had nothing to work with. The façade is from a few doors down. That building isn't in great shape but it's alright. The façade for our building is similar to this one (on the left) though. - Josh & Kalie
I think that exposed concrete would be very cold and damp in the winter.
Horrivel….the facade sucks .
Keep with the old style…..otherwise it looks like chit.
No fiiing good taste from that woman.
Sounds like different taste, Cipriano.
We do understand how or why people don't like the façade. It is different. - Josh & Kalie
Thanks for the tour! The details that I found missing in our new construction Portugal condo are things like towel hooks, shower soap shelves and toilet paper holders. Daily functional items… we brought 3m hooks and broom holder hooks from the US and ordered some shower suction type of shelves for the walls from Amazon Spain. I love the natural light from the solar tubes that you said you’ll have in your units.
Don't go for the "down vented" stove. If you barely cook then ok but otherwise it does a very poor job of sucking the steam downwards. I would never buy one again.
Personally do not like the industrial look at all. The concrete walls look cold and not welcoming. I could stay in such a place as a hotel but never with my family.
I wish the facade would be historically maintained and not replaced with what they have.
BUT, you have to live there and like.
Sorry, not for us.
Hi Rita, it's interesting you say that because last week, we had a meeting with Alexandra and Filipa and Alexandra said the same thing. She said looks wise, it's nice, but functionality, over the stove hoods are better and that's what we'll use for our units. We feel the same way about the concrete walls everywhere. It's okay for a hotel, it's actually interesting to us, but not for our house that we'll live in day in and day out. - Josh & Kalie
@@LetsGetBuildingWithJandK 100% - it looks nice, but steam rises. You need more downdraft than this style of downdraft hoods provide (because the amount of airflow you need actually means extra intake vents or open windows while cooking!). The best style for in-counter is the "riser" style built ins, where the extractor rises from the back of the countertop while cooking. This is an adequate style for a home kitchen.
But, in this case it's honestly - overhead stove hoods are king.
Personally I think the original architectural style of the facade of your building is much more interesting with the wrought iron balcony but it would be better if it was larger than a Juliette style balcony.
Remember this isn't our building so it'll be different. We haven't shown our façade in any videos yet, mainly due to security reasons. - Josh & Kalie
I don’t mind the makeover of the façade; I love the old original façades, but open to modernizing. It does stand out for better or for worse on the block. From the point of view of sustainability (concrete is notorious for carbon emissions in production) and partially for look, I’m conflicted over the nearly exclusive use of concrete, but clearly that’s the company’s specialty judging by its name (“liquid stone”). Architects love concrete because you can do virtually any form with it (thus “pedra líquida”) and it’s easy to source and work with. Perhaps more accents/elements with other materials (wood) would break up the brutalist aesthetic. I do very much like that top unit with the pitched ceiling and the slick skylights. I would live there.
The real question Gerald, was that the original façade? :-)
Our façade will likely need to come down. There were serious foundational issues that we have already discussed and will continue to explain in these videos and we might end up with a new façade but we won't have a "modern" looking façade like that. It's not on the drawings of what's approved. You're right about the name and Alexandra went even more into that in the speech she gave. A lot of new construction here in Porto is actually being done with concrete and some block but not brick. We'd certainly like some sheetrock or plaster walls on the inside, which is on the cards.
The top unit felt very nice and we think that the top unit in our building will be even better as the space is divided a little more interestingly.
We'll keep you posted. - Josh & Kalie
In my humble opinion I see some hits and misses. The facade is a definite miss. On the other hand, there are a lot of good and innovative ideas. So, Josh and Kalie my advice is, choose well your take offs from this building.
Thanks for sharing, Carlos. There are many things that are already fixed for our project because it is in the approved plans. It's more of the interior design elements that we'll get to use. - Josh & Kalie
Thanks guys for sharing your adventure. Interesting vision. Not sure if I am crazy about the "bunker" look. Small rooms in a hotel are acceptable, not sure how that would play in a home setting. Maybe a dressing room to compensate the lack of closets.
You're welcome. Thanks for watching. The concrete has grown on us a lot although our place won't look exactly like this. This layout and structure will have similarities but the interiors will be different. We'll have range hoods :-) and built in closets. - Josh & Kalie
I'm sorry, what a terrible façade.... I see those "renovations" of these old and traditional buildings of my beautiful city and I ask myself how can be this allowed. This is not renovation, this is ripping off the city architecture.
Don't you think to differentiate it from a typical house, it's okay? As you know, there's a wide mix of façades in this city and each come from different moments in time. This is that evolution right? - Josh & Kalie
@@LetsGetBuildingWithJandK No, I don't agree. I don't see the erasure of heritage as an evolution or as the right thing to do. That particular building was a total replacement, not a renovation. There is a reason why Urban Planning connected with Historic Architectural Planning exists. The Porto City Council failed here. Unfortunately, money and certain lobbies rule. Pedra Liquida has some other projects that I really like. This is not one of them.
But what is heritage? How far should we go back? When should we let go of something to create something new? We don't have the complete backstory of the building to know its condition. There are many buildings in Porto that are beyond renovating and in need of total replacement whether we like it or not. They weren't renovated in time and have fallen into complete disrepair.
The building we bought was unfortunately like that too and had we not stepped in when we did, if nobody else did, it could have caused more serious damage to the buildings to the right and left due to foundational issues in our building that haven't been addressed in more than a decade. - Josh
@@LetsGetBuildingWithJandK Hummm... I've been reading the comments here, and not only many people think as I do, but also you seem to have some difficulty in accepting opinions that differ from yours. Is it a matter of engagement of the video, the more comments the better, no matter what, or is it a difficulty in yourself, to accept that people may think differently? Comment section is to comment, to give an opinion, politely, knowing that others may think differently and accept that fact (which I did, all items above), and life goes on. One of the reasons that makes Europe so attractive to visit is precisely the diversity in its architecture. From pre-historic paintings to the most vanguardist buildings, you can find a little bit of many, many centuries of History coexisting. And that only happens because, mainly, the architectural heritage was respected. How far back should we go, you asked. Well, Rome's Coliseum is a ruin. Most of the middle age European castles are ruins. Most of Amsterdam's channel houses are falling (just a few examples, historically centuries distant apart of one another) Should we take them down? At some point of history for sure many must have thought that was the best thing to do. To restaure and rehab a building, respecting the traditional façade and roof, in the city centre (specially in a historic European city centre), will always be the most intelligent option from my point of view. If not, most of the charming Europe as we know it, wouldn't exist anymore. As I referred, my opinion, given politely. If you have the money and the green light from the Porto City Council to do as you please, by all means, do it. I will keep walking in the Porto city centre thinking how could some replacements be allowed, and be extremely sad and disappointed about it. You can keep replying and questioning, I already politely (for 3 times now) gave my opinion, I'm off. Your video engagement is not my responsibility ;) Stay chill.
@@LetsGetBuildingWithJandK When a house has been ruined due to time and "natural" causes, it's okay to replace it with something modern but to take a beautiful old facade in the city that's adding so much history and signature with a "modern" facade with no distinctive style other than "minimalism" this should be illegal.
If everyone did like you do, we wouldn't have any historical buildings left and history and culture would be wiped off all major cities. Luckily people with more respect and understanding of European heritage and culture exists.
Not a fan of the facade either myself, I'm more "mid" to the design than the average commenter here but this type of facade increases energy use significantly (It's Porto, summers are hot, big windows are good for natural light but also not so) Porto architecture is built around this, shutters, small windows. I'm of course not against going bigger windows and the shaded inset windows are kinda smart. However I think they went too brutalist with this; this feels like the 60s and it feels very out of place for Porto.
We get that. - Josh & Kalie
materials, interior design and backyard are ok. but that façade is just awful. rethink it please, don't let it be an eye sore on the street. maybe get a new architect
There's no rethink to happen. This isn't the exterior design of our building and we're definitely not getting a new architect. - Josh & Kalie
Not very good comments here, so far. I personally also dont like.
They've been decent. It seems like people don't like the façade. Is that your problem with the "Tree House". - Josh & Kalie
I am okay with the bare concrete wall for an office. But it won't work for me in a home. It seems cold and it is not for my taste.
Awesome! Their buildings are so unique and elevated! I loved their use of natural light.
We agree. It's those attentions to details that really mark their work and get them recognized in the industry. :-) We're glad that you like it. - Josh & Kalie
What did he do? No, no, no. All the charm IS gone.
Who is he? - Josh & Kalie
For god sake don't do it. That is awful. Renovate the old facade and it will be beautiful.
Don't do what? Some façades can't be saved, let's see what happens to ours. - Josh & Kalie
Cement walls give a cold feeling. It's not modern at all
I actually like the facade.
Thanks for sharing. Was there anything else that you liked about it? - Josh & Kalie
loved the look. I think your building and the interiors will be amazing. Will your apartments have normal size refrigerator as well as a Washing machine. Excited for you and wish I were moving to Porto. Maybe one day in the future.
Thanks for your continuing to follow this series, Eric. We really like the ideas they have for our building which are different than this one. There are some similarities though. Let us know when you pay us a visit. - Josh & Kalie
well done. you've contracted an amazing architect!
Thank you very much! We're excited to see what Alexandra does. - Josh & Kalie
The facade is horrible! This is so sad to see how Porto district turns out. Why not preserve the facade, giving it a new fresh?
Artists creating on your dime. The longer your with them (and they have all the time in the world), the more it will cost you. Focus on performance, getting them/yourself across the line.
Hey Jon, they're not creating on our dime per se. We've paid them to complete the job based on the m2 in a certain amount of time. Cost overruns will be on them contractually. - Josh & Kalie
@@LetsGetBuildingWithJandK I would just encourage you to keep a log of every single delay and their excuse given. Also record any days that could be argued were weather related with your notes about them (i.e. they were already not on site the day before or after). At the end, after the project is completed and they come to you with cost over runs, they will simple argue (eventually in Portuguese court) that they were outside of their control (weather, you failed to make a timely decision, etc.). Foreigner in Portuguese court - not good. Good luck.
We are personally keeping a journal but also have hired a 3rd party engineer as seen in episode 3. At some point, we have to trust and not let skepticism control our minds. We believe that we've hired right from the beginning, which is where it should all start anyway. - Josh
Ok people. The facade. There's a trend on social networks to put down "modern" or "post modern" architecture. I understand it. Its the social media and everyone has a voice and can (and usually) speak theur mind. Even people that know nothing about architecture.
You see, architecture didn't just stopped in the 19th century... There's decades of innovation and experimentarion, taste and attitude, since then and that's what architects do. They sip from that knowledge and try to stand out from the crowd. It's their job. To rip open new frontiers and bring that to the masses.
That being said...
Be also advised that architects are a very ascetic bunch and sometimes they get too much "into the jungle" of their own bubble. Sometimes the client has to curb their enthusiasm. That's fine. It's the rules of the game.
As for myself I think that a city it's an evolving thing. We must preserve some stuff, and we need to tear down some stuff also.
Otherwise we'd all be living in in a medieval town.
Take Paris. Everybody loves Paris. But medieval Paris was almost completely levelled to bring about the Haussmann city we know today. I have to belive that almost 200 years ago people would be appalled and disgusted by this. But now... It's gorgeous. Perspective.
The facade. Not a very big fan, but not hate it.
I've seen far far worse, and less tasterlful.
There's some typos here and there. Can't edit it on my phone. Sorry.
And also. I'm not an architect fyi.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. It's very true. If people look at all of the façades of this (Porto) city, they vary for sure and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. - Josh
Here's the difference, modern architecture does not build on the past, learn from what worked in the past, or appreciate what was in the past. They treat the past as something to get beyond, rather than as something to learn from. It ignores everything that was ever learned, and starts all over with novelty being the sole criteria. But, the novelty is banal, and uses the same boring materials, same boring motifs (being generous in calling it a motif) to the point that a modern building looks like it could be in any city anywhere. The Haussmann buildings still built based on knowledge of city living built up over hundreds/thousands of years. Still is based on human proportions and not arbitrary ones, and learned and improved upon the past. Older buildings used a variety of materials, many of them local and appropriate for the area. Modern ones use concrete. The making of concrete is one of the most environmentally damaging materials possible, and creates more pollution than the entire airline industry. It also makes for buildings that do not endure, and looks terrible in just a few years, certainly don't look improved with age. Architects are in a bubble that tries to convince themselves and others that they're innovating. But they're not. They're trying to show off to other architects with one single goal, as mentioned before, novelty. They consider aesthetics something of the past, and as arbitrary and subjective. So, the uglier, more sore-thumb-looking the better in their silly world. But aesthetics is not subjective as all that, even if most people don't have a very good understanding of what it is, they can recognise beauty and ugliness easily. Is a beautiful woman or handsome man made more attractive by adding a carbuncle to their face? Any rational person would say no, but modern architecture would tell us it's the height of beauty and that we're rubes for not seeing the improvement in appearance that they're claiming. I call that a form of gaslighting. The only question is whether they know they're full of crap or not. It's high time people call it for what it is, gimmick architecture that serves no one's needs, and makes the world an uglier, nastier place to live. And the biggest hypocrisy of all is that these ridiculous modernist architects tend to live in the older, more beautiful parts of their cities. They don't even want to live in the hideous monstrosities they dream up in AutoCad.
@@RonRobertson-lafrance
Even though I agree with much of what you say, not sure I'm all in with your perspective.
You see, "modern architecture" became modern mainly in the post WW1 aftermath. The reason for this has something to do with the availability of new materials like tensioned concrete that permitted a lot of freedom on construction, opening a vast world of new solutions to architects, but also, and more importantly, the desire of cutting ties with the past. The political veering to more autocratic regimes in Europe were fueled, by the masses desire of replacing the old established order that had brought them so much hardship and humiliation. This desire also permeated intellectual circles, and gave rise to movements like modernism (mainly minimalist, Bauhaus, republic of Weimar) and futurism (mainly Italian fascist) .
The aesthetic of these movements were geared towards cleaner more functional and also more imposing architecture.
This evolved between wars but after WW2 took hold because of the need in Europe of reconstruction. We needed housing fast and cheap, so a more cookie cutter approach was adopted. For more imposing public building structures brutalist and more volume based architecture evolved. Sleeker cleaner lines, use of concrete, glass, and metal, favored the use of simpler geometric solid design and absence of ornament, just the functional pattern repetition of glass and metal cladding.
I'm not praising this approach, just understanding why it happened and the motivation behind it.
If Europe needs were reconstruction, the US needs centered around transition to a car centric, suburb oriented policies, where old human sized city centers were demolished opening space for roads and high rise buildings.
To cut this tale short, I'm just saying that society lines of force, economical forces and public spending favored up until the end of the 20th century this way of thinking architecture.
The community centered movement to bring back to more human scale ways of thinking (mainly urban) construction, is still taking shape and making its way to mainstream societies.
It's not the fault solely of architects, but also political decisors, market forces and the public at large that shape things.
Times will be different, going forward, but I'm sure it will not be a revival of the past (although much has been made in old styles) but mostly a return to a more human scale architecture, the shape of it still is not clear (and I suspect will only be recognized in retrospect) and still evolving.
My self opinions will have little (mostly none)impact on it, but are opinions nonetheless and need to be stated to paint a broader perspective, and contribute to the understanding and development of the future.
@@GLOBOLG I'm well aware of how modern architecture came to be, and that much of it is really fascist-oriented in its philosophy. I do not believe they "sip from the past" as you say, as they expressly broke from the past. I do agree that it's not just architects that have perpetrated this, city planners have a lot to answer for in not knowing the foundations for their work. There was plenty of literature on what makes for a liveable city, almost all entirely ignored now. But architects, architecture schools, and architectural "critics" (probably should be called enforcers of the modernist movement, rather than critics, because they're all in on the garbage being produced) are the main forces in this. It is not cheaper to build these buildings, particularly the ones that they rave about. And it should be a crime to build municipal buildings and public buildings not to last. The public would choose more human-scaled architecture if it were available, that's why nearly every truly desirable part of most cities is the parts with buildings built consciously to be attractive. People act like ornament is something to be avoided, yet think nothing of decorating the inside of their homes, and certainly don't see it as something to be avoided. The outside of the buildings should be thought of in the same way. While it's true that ornamentation can go too far, we are in absolutely no danger of that at this time and it's an overblown concern in any case.
Please don't destroy our city...
Portuguese politicians are so corrupt that they agree with anything for money, bit be reasonable, that doesn't have anything to do with Portos' character and beautiful houses.
Appreciate the effort, but please leave the houses alone to someone who knows how to restore them according to the Portuguese tradition, following the style of the characteristic Porto houses. This is an American house, not Poetuguese...
I've gotta say, this is a wild comment considering that the whole architecture firm is Portuguese. Porto-owned and Portuguese employees. Don't blame the Americans that simply show you a building that Pedra Liquida has done. Or...have you not watched the video to hear the 3 Portuguese people talk about the project? - Josh