Chicago is one of the few cities that does it well. Older pre war buildings and skyscrapers mixed with more modern or modernist buildings. Downtown Chicago is impressive. We don't have to go back to 17th century. Modern can be beautiful, it just has to be done right and for the most part it hasn't.
Beyond classical and traditional architecture, I think it's also worth giving particular attention to the term vernacular architecture. Vernacular architecture is distinct because it uses materials and building practices are more local and better suited for an area's natural environment. The effect is an even more definite sense of place. This, I think, beyond just building in "traditional" styles, is something we're really missing today in a lot of places.
The moment you said "beauty" when talking about the Eiffel tower is the moment i left, the people of Paris had nothing but hate towards it at the time of its construction, saying it was a ugly piece of metal inside their beautiful haussmannian city,It's really funny to see how it changed overtime mostly because of the way it was portrait by foreigners and became a national symbol, and I'm not even saying modern has something better and otherwise, but we build things for some specific reasons, the baby boom after WW2 is one of them, and Paris also built these rectangle concrete tower but they put them in suburbs mostly for the poor because it was easy and fast to build
@@alexanderrotmensz Which classical principle does it follow ????? It was an all metal infrastructure in the middle of an haussmannian city, the building itself was designed to showcase the achievements of the industrial France, people hated it because it was "ugly" and "useless", Guy de Maupassant said "I only go on top for diner because it was the only place in Paris where you couldn't see it. And it seems you're forgetting why we build these things, stone was used at that time because it these places it was some of the only options to build a house, now you have concrete which is cheaper and because we want to build fast, because in some places (mostly after the war), people actually needed it. Again i'm not saying these classical styles are ugly but they cost more to build and that's what matters the most today. That's way i said France also have these soulless buildings, but it's for the poor, the immigrants and so on. And the only reason we still have those haussmannian houses is because they were built before the concrete revolution. Most buildings in Europe you like to showcase are from late 18 hundreds.
So Chicago on the river is beautiful and thats why they have boat tours…..that picture focuses too much on the marina towers (corn on the cob buildings ) …..which are cool and unique.
Yeah, the photo makes the riverwalk look really bleak. So I see where he's coming from. The corn cobs would be ugly on their own, but they work because they're a small portion of a really architecturally diverse skyline.
If you need an example of modern architecture that works, check the buildings on your video at 8:05. This is an area of Florence built in 1950, and tourists love it!
I don't really love it. It feels like a half-assed attempt at imitating traditional architecture. I only went there because it was near the authentically historic parts of Florence. You kind of have to go through that area because it's in the middle of everything. I guess it was better than if they'd made it straight-up modernist (glass and concrete everywhere), but it still has this fake uncanny valley vibe.
I hope you're saving the Gateway Arch and accompanying National Park for the part 2 or it's own video as it is certainly a controversial yet admittedly iconic modernist structure meant to dominate and symbolize a city. ⚜
Literally working on a St Louis video right now! I didn't bring up the arch because I think the rest of the city's modernist development is more noteworthy.
@@alexanderrotmensz I guess in the sense of how much of it was used to destroyed good classical urbanism. We still have plenty of great historic mixed-use missing middle development though!
I disagree that tourists always go to the classical neighbourhoods - places like Canary Wharf in London, Toronto CBD and Manhattan are very popular with tourists and I believe it is because they were able to make such a standard with modern architecture.
Now that I've been to Canary Wharf, it wasn't exactly flooding with tourists, and after about an hour you get kinda bored. And when you speak to locals they'll say its nice and clean but boring and "a lot of cement and glass". Also, Manhattan is mostly not modern.
@@alexanderrotmensz Canary Wharf is quite small area-wise, so taking a whole hour to get bored is not bad at all, and it is surprisingly far from the centre (classical neighbourhoods without any tourist attractions in zone two are more empty in my experience). A similar modern area in London is around London Bridge and it is flooding with tourists. Although, admittedly it is a mix of classical and modern, the modern buildings are really dominating the views, and don’t seem to be hurting the area’s popularity. About Manhattan: as someone who hasn’t been there, my image of it (and I assume many others) is dominated by its downtown skyscrapers, a lot of which are modern (a lot are also classical, I know). Basically, tourists go to see the things they can’t see in their home towns - be it modern skyscrapers, parks with geese, or one of the 100 flavours of classical architecture.
It’s a matter of density and planning codes. The building I live in is a pre-war early modern 7 story block. At the time it was built it was probably pretty out there, most of the surrounding buildings where 2-3 story wooden buildings; pretty but didn’t do a great job of housing a lot of people. Like those buildings, it came without parking spaces. This building now fits in very well as part of the local urban fabric because most of the density of the surrounding area was increased mainly due to limited building land in my city and low car use for most of the 1950s-1970s in this city. It’s plain masonry walls, curved balconies and it’s continuity at street level give it a sense of permanence. I think, with careful planning in terms of density, targeted growth and more control of things like materials, modern buildings can be built to fit into a ‘’traditional’ urban landscape. My main dislike of recreating ‘traditional’ or ‘classical’ architecture is that it often ends up looking like a tacky pastiche of the real thing. You need to incredibly discerning with material choices and type of craftspeople you employ; things which a developer of city council simply may not be able to cover with a constrained budget. It’s also worth remembering that most of what we see as traditional architecture actually replaced much loved urban cores at the time. They generally did this for similar reasons; changes in living patterns, increasing populations and better technology.
Lol. Using the Eiffel Tower as an example of "good modern" that works well with Paris is hilarious. One Parisian author, Guy de Maupassant, hated its modernity, and supposedly had lunch there every day "Because it is in the one place in Paris where I don't have to see it." This video is an opinion piece, and while personal taste is valid, it's not reasonable to present it as fact. Meanwhile, I like the concept of New Urbanism, but it doesn't work. It's better to call it what it is: New Suburbanism. It is a very nostalgic idea of what a city should be, and doesn't recognize the scale of needs in a modern city. The concept of neighborhoods being designed on a walkable human scale makes sense, but when it goes into a demand for traditional aesthetics or tries building new small towns it inevitably becomes indistinguishable from conventional development. That's what happened to one traditionally styled New Urbanist community, Mountain House, CA, which is indistinguishable from any other exurb.
@@Nostalg1a What a profound rebuttal. I no longer admire the work of Eero Saarinen, Frank Lloyd Wright, and John Lautner, and now make myself a disciple of Palladio and John Ruskin.
@@jonathanraithel1025 Just using your own logic that you used to dismiss a whole video. Do better next time, also, I didn't command you to change what you like/admire.
@@Nostalg1a I pointed out that the video made up lies, like the idea that the Eiffel Tower is traditional and uncontroversial. That is untrue, and I pointed out the documented fact that many Parisians hated it when it was built, as it was too modern and ugly for them. I also pointed out that New Urbanism is often nothing more than marketing for conventional construction. Mountain House is a New Urbanist community in California, but is a hollow mockery of any critique of urban planning. The fact remains that while the creator of the video has a dislike of modern aesthetics, they are presenting that dislike by saying that modern style is factually ugly, which is misrepresentation. My comment contained facts that refute the creator, you can't even achieve that much, but pretend to do so in a disrespectful tone. Add something to the conversation, or stay out of it. If you are going to be rude, at least show enough thought to earn the right to be. I honestly admire traditional and modern architecture equally, but to pretend that all traditional architecture is good while all modern architecture is bad is absurd. And as this video is so substantially weak, it should have been presented differently, namely, "I would prefer for modern architecture not to exist because I do not like it, the same way I don't think modern fusion cuisine should be permitted because I don't like it either."
@@jonathanraithel1025 You are just cherry picking to try to dismiss a video as a whole (for example he never mentioned Mountain House and might even agree with you, in the process you are purposely dismissing many of the achievements New Urbanism has a accomplished and I say this as not being a fan of new urbanism). Not only that you can't even apply your own logic that you are using to critique, making you a hypocrite, hence the disrespectful tone. But even yourself are lying, you can't find evidence that all Parisian hated it only a few on the artistic and societal elite aka a loud minority. If that many Parisian had hated it they would have dismantled it our passed laws to forbid it like they did with Tour Montparnasse.
It really isn't, there is a reason they spend more time in the tours talking about the classical and art deco buildings than the monotonous glass towers.
@@Nostalg1a Doesn't matter if Chicago has a wealth of older architectural styles that are even better than its modern architecture. Chicago literally created modern architecture from day 1 including but not limited to the first skyscraper. When the tower fell the Sears/Willis tower literally was the tallest building in the USA. Chicago still holds its own and is still at the forefront of architectural innovation.
@@JokersAce0 Who care's about "architectural innovation?" The comment you made was criticizing people for pointing to the Loop in Chicago as an example of how ugly modern architecture is. The other guy pointed out how it makes sense to point to the Loop as an example of this as it is now full of ugly internationalist and other modern structures. Pointing out how Chicago's architecture is "innovative" doesn't defend your point whatsoever.
@@gch8810 No because calling the loop and its buildings ugly is ridiculously incorrect and if you were trying to convince people that modern architecture is ugly then showcasing the loop is literally the last example anyone with a brain would use.
I completely dissagree. There 100% has to be room for modernism even when it is not a word class structure. It is stupid to knock all modern architecture that isn’t world class. Remember back in the day people thought Brooklyn brownstones were ugly and modern. Now they are classic and beloved. Modern today = classic tommorow. Also it is not true that modern buildings were always world class back in the day
Who thought that brownstones were ugly? Nouveau rich pretending to be modern. Who dictates what is beautiful and what isn't as a whole? Not them. Numbers speak, people have always enjoyed things like brownstones more than glass boxes, that hasn't and will never change.
@@Piterdeveirs333 exactly, that's why millions of people visit the beautiful city of Houston, and no-one wants to see Paris, cause beauty is in the eye of the beholder!! Wait...
The comparison picture on the right is Chicago, just FYI.
Damn haha
it’s kinda funny to me because Chicago is known for both its historic and modern architecture
Chicago is one of the few cities that does it well. Older pre war buildings and skyscrapers mixed with more modern or modernist buildings. Downtown Chicago is impressive.
We don't have to go back to 17th century. Modern can be beautiful, it just has to be done right and for the most part it hasn't.
Beyond classical and traditional architecture, I think it's also worth giving particular attention to the term vernacular architecture. Vernacular architecture is distinct because it uses materials and building practices are more local and better suited for an area's natural environment. The effect is an even more definite sense of place. This, I think, beyond just building in "traditional" styles, is something we're really missing today in a lot of places.
The moment you said "beauty" when talking about the Eiffel tower is the moment i left, the people of Paris had nothing but hate towards it at the time of its construction, saying it was a ugly piece of metal inside their beautiful haussmannian city,It's really funny to see how it changed overtime mostly because of the way it was portrait by foreigners and became a national symbol, and I'm not even saying modern has something better and otherwise, but we build things for some specific reasons, the baby boom after WW2 is one of them, and Paris also built these rectangle concrete tower but they put them in suburbs mostly for the poor because it was easy and fast to build
Eiffel Tower follows the classical principles, modernist architecture specifically doesn’t
@@alexanderrotmensz Which classical principle does it follow ????? It was an all metal infrastructure in the middle of an haussmannian city, the building itself was designed to showcase the achievements of the industrial France, people hated it because it was "ugly" and "useless", Guy de Maupassant said "I only go on top for diner because it was the only place in Paris where you couldn't see it.
And it seems you're forgetting why we build these things, stone was used at that time because it these places it was some of the only options to build a house, now you have concrete which is cheaper and because we want to build fast, because in some places (mostly after the war), people actually needed it. Again i'm not saying these classical styles are ugly but they cost more to build and that's what matters the most today.
That's way i said France also have these soulless buildings, but it's for the poor, the immigrants and so on. And the only reason we still have those haussmannian houses is because they were built before the concrete revolution. Most buildings in Europe you like to showcase are from late 18 hundreds.
So Chicago on the river is beautiful and thats why they have boat tours…..that picture focuses too much on the marina towers (corn on the cob buildings ) …..which are cool and unique.
Yeah, the photo makes the riverwalk look really bleak. So I see where he's coming from. The corn cobs would be ugly on their own, but they work because they're a small portion of a really architecturally diverse skyline.
Seems like that dude just wants people to hate modernism as much as he does, because people often call that area of Chicago beautiful
And overrated
@diodelvino3048 Its beautiful if you like toy design...
If you need an example of modern architecture that works, check the buildings on your video at 8:05. This is an area of Florence built in 1950, and tourists love it!
I don't really love it. It feels like a half-assed attempt at imitating traditional architecture. I only went there because it was near the authentically historic parts of Florence. You kind of have to go through that area because it's in the middle of everything. I guess it was better than if they'd made it straight-up modernist (glass and concrete everywhere), but it still has this fake uncanny valley vibe.
I hope you're saving the Gateway Arch and accompanying National Park for the part 2 or it's own video as it is certainly a controversial yet admittedly iconic modernist structure meant to dominate and symbolize a city. ⚜
Literally working on a St Louis video right now! I didn't bring up the arch because I think the rest of the city's modernist development is more noteworthy.
@@alexanderrotmensz I guess in the sense of how much of it was used to destroyed good classical urbanism. We still have plenty of great historic mixed-use missing middle development though!
It's funny, all the modern buildings you used a an example of not ugly modern buildings I think are pretty hideous
I disagree that tourists always go to the classical neighbourhoods - places like Canary Wharf in London, Toronto CBD and Manhattan are very popular with tourists and I believe it is because they were able to make such a standard with modern architecture.
Now that I've been to Canary Wharf, it wasn't exactly flooding with tourists, and after about an hour you get kinda bored. And when you speak to locals they'll say its nice and clean but boring and "a lot of cement and glass". Also, Manhattan is mostly not modern.
@@alexanderrotmensz Canary Wharf is quite small area-wise, so taking a whole hour to get bored is not bad at all, and it is surprisingly far from the centre (classical neighbourhoods without any tourist attractions in zone two are more empty in my experience). A similar modern area in London is around London Bridge and it is flooding with tourists. Although, admittedly it is a mix of classical and modern, the modern buildings are really dominating the views, and don’t seem to be hurting the area’s popularity.
About Manhattan: as someone who hasn’t been there, my image of it (and I assume many others) is dominated by its downtown skyscrapers, a lot of which are modern (a lot are also classical, I know).
Basically, tourists go to see the things they can’t see in their home towns - be it modern skyscrapers, parks with geese, or one of the 100 flavours of classical architecture.
People go to Manhattan for the Art Deco stuff, not the later buildings. At least I do, when I think of NYC I think Art Deco.
Great video thanks
Sagrada Familia makes CAHSR look like it went up in a weekend.
This is a really underrated video!
Thank you!
It’s a matter of density and planning codes.
The building I live in is a pre-war early modern 7 story block. At the time it was built it was probably pretty out there, most of the surrounding buildings where 2-3 story wooden buildings; pretty but didn’t do a great job of housing a lot of people. Like those buildings, it came without parking spaces.
This building now fits in very well as part of the local urban fabric because most of the density of the surrounding area was increased mainly due to limited building land in my city and low car use for most of the 1950s-1970s in this city. It’s plain masonry walls, curved balconies and it’s continuity at street level give it a sense of permanence.
I think, with careful planning in terms of density, targeted growth and more control of things like materials, modern buildings can be built to fit into a ‘’traditional’ urban landscape.
My main dislike of recreating ‘traditional’ or ‘classical’ architecture is that it often ends up looking like a tacky pastiche of the real thing. You need to incredibly discerning with material choices and type of craftspeople you employ; things which a developer of city council simply may not be able to cover with a constrained budget. It’s also worth remembering that most of what we see as traditional architecture actually replaced much loved urban cores at the time. They generally did this for similar reasons; changes in living patterns, increasing populations and better technology.
Lol. Using the Eiffel Tower as an example of "good modern" that works well with Paris is hilarious. One Parisian author, Guy de Maupassant, hated its modernity, and supposedly had lunch there every day "Because it is in the one place in Paris where I don't have to see it." This video is an opinion piece, and while personal taste is valid, it's not reasonable to present it as fact.
Meanwhile, I like the concept of New Urbanism, but it doesn't work. It's better to call it what it is: New Suburbanism. It is a very nostalgic idea of what a city should be, and doesn't recognize the scale of needs in a modern city. The concept of neighborhoods being designed on a walkable human scale makes sense, but when it goes into a demand for traditional aesthetics or tries building new small towns it inevitably becomes indistinguishable from conventional development. That's what happened to one traditionally styled New Urbanist community, Mountain House, CA, which is indistinguishable from any other exurb.
You comment is an opinion piece, and while personal taste is valid, it's not reasonable to present it as fact.
@@Nostalg1a What a profound rebuttal. I no longer admire the work of Eero Saarinen, Frank Lloyd Wright, and John Lautner, and now make myself a disciple of Palladio and John Ruskin.
@@jonathanraithel1025 Just using your own logic that you used to dismiss a whole video. Do better next time, also, I didn't command you to change what you like/admire.
@@Nostalg1a I pointed out that the video made up lies, like the idea that the Eiffel Tower is traditional and uncontroversial. That is untrue, and I pointed out the documented fact that many Parisians hated it when it was built, as it was too modern and ugly for them.
I also pointed out that New Urbanism is often nothing more than marketing for conventional construction. Mountain House is a New Urbanist community in California, but is a hollow mockery of any critique of urban planning.
The fact remains that while the creator of the video has a dislike of modern aesthetics, they are presenting that dislike by saying that modern style is factually ugly, which is misrepresentation.
My comment contained facts that refute the creator, you can't even achieve that much, but pretend to do so in a disrespectful tone. Add something to the conversation, or stay out of it. If you are going to be rude, at least show enough thought to earn the right to be.
I honestly admire traditional and modern architecture equally, but to pretend that all traditional architecture is good while all modern architecture is bad is absurd. And as this video is so substantially weak, it should have been presented differently, namely, "I would prefer for modern architecture not to exist because I do not like it, the same way I don't think modern fusion cuisine should be permitted because I don't like it either."
@@jonathanraithel1025 You are just cherry picking to try to dismiss a video as a whole (for example he never mentioned Mountain House and might even agree with you, in the process you are purposely dismissing many of the achievements New Urbanism has a accomplished and I say this as not being a fan of new urbanism). Not only that you can't even apply your own logic that you are using to critique, making you a hypocrite, hence the disrespectful tone.
But even yourself are lying, you can't find evidence that all Parisian hated it only a few on the artistic and societal elite aka a loud minority. If that many Parisian had hated it they would have dismantled it our passed laws to forbid it like they did with Tour Montparnasse.
I agree! Most modern buildings are disgustingly ugly, and the worst part is that they destroy beautiful buildings to make way for ugly ones!
Chinese city… thats chicago. 2 of the most famous towers there too marina city.
Reflects pretty badly on the modernist Chicago architecture
Criticizing the Chicago loop is a bad example of criticizing modern architecture.
I knew that picture immediatley from Wilco hahaha
It really isn't, there is a reason they spend more time in the tours talking about the classical and art deco buildings than the monotonous glass towers.
@@Nostalg1a Doesn't matter if Chicago has a wealth of older architectural styles that are even better than its modern architecture. Chicago literally created modern architecture from day 1 including but not limited to the first skyscraper. When the tower fell the Sears/Willis tower literally was the tallest building in the USA. Chicago still holds its own and is still at the forefront of architectural innovation.
@@JokersAce0 Who care's about "architectural innovation?" The comment you made was criticizing people for pointing to the Loop in Chicago as an example of how ugly modern architecture is. The other guy pointed out how it makes sense to point to the Loop as an example of this as it is now full of ugly internationalist and other modern structures. Pointing out how Chicago's architecture is "innovative" doesn't defend your point whatsoever.
@@gch8810 No because calling the loop and its buildings ugly is ridiculously incorrect and if you were trying to convince people that modern architecture is ugly then showcasing the loop is literally the last example anyone with a brain would use.
I disagree
I completely dissagree. There 100% has to be room for modernism even when it is not a word class structure. It is stupid to knock all modern architecture that isn’t world class. Remember back in the day people thought Brooklyn brownstones were ugly and modern. Now they are classic and beloved. Modern today = classic tommorow. Also it is not true that modern buildings were always world class back in the day
You are wrong because we humans know what ugly and beautiful
@@bigzclipz5104 and every human has a different ugly and beautiful
Who thought that brownstones were ugly? Nouveau rich pretending to be modern. Who dictates what is beautiful and what isn't as a whole? Not them. Numbers speak, people have always enjoyed things like brownstones more than glass boxes, that hasn't and will never change.
@@Piterdeveirs333 exactly, that's why millions of people visit the beautiful city of Houston, and no-one wants to see Paris, cause beauty is in the eye of the beholder!! Wait...