Why Don't We Build Beautiful Buildings Anymore?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июл 2024
- Why don't we construct beautiful buildings like we used to? Let's uncover the evolution of design principles and the societal shifts that have influenced our built environment.
From the grandeur and intricate craftsmanship of previous periods, we explore the rich tapestry of architectural styles that once defined our skylines. However, as we fast forward to the modern era, a noticeable trend emerges - a departure from ornate aesthetics towards a more utilitarian approach.
Through meticulous analysis, let's examine the factors driving this shift, including economic pressures, technological advancements, and changing cultural preferences. From the rise of functionalism to the prevalence of minimalist design, each trend leaves its mark on our urban landscapes, shaping the way we interact with our surroundings. Whether you're an architecture aficionado or simply curious about the intersection of art and society, this video offers valuable insights into the past, present, and future of architectural design. Jjoin the conversation on why the pursuit of beauty in our buildings matters now more than ever.
#Craftsmanship #BeautyInBuildings #Aesthetics #architecturalhistory #ModernArchitecture #Minimalism #Architecture #Design #UrbanDevelopment
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 - Why do we no longer build beautiful and pretty buildings?
2:21 - Reason 1
2:38 - Reason 2
4:29 - Reason 3
5:58 - Reason 4
6:38 - A note on labor
7:50 - Housing is a commodity
8:26 - A note on the 2008 2009 recession
9:47 - a 5 over 1 tangent
10:52 - what residential blocks looked like post war
11:47 - Reason 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📸 Let's Connect on IG:
@perri.arch
/ perri.arch
💖 Consider supporting my Patreon to help me through grad school!!: / natalieperri 💖
LINK TO WEBSITES: www.unravelingarchitecture.com/
www.natalieperri.com/
LINK TO AMAZON STOREFRONT: www.amazon.com/shop/unravelin...
DISCLAIMER:
The architectural information shared on this channel is intended for general educational purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice. Prior to taking any action based on this information, it is strongly advised to consult with qualified legal professionals. Your reliance on the content presented here is entirely at your own risk, given the potential variations in individual circumstances. This channel is sponsored by Unraveling Design, LLC, and some videos may include affiliate marketing links. While purchasing through these links incurs no extra cost to you, it does contribute to the channel's sustainability through earned commissions. We value your presence on this educational journey and hope our content proves informative and engaging.
Section 107 of the Copyright Act defines fair use as follows:
“[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QOTD: would you rather live in a city that looks more homogeneous and cohesive ORR a city that features a plethora of iconic buildings?!
I’m especially proud of this video! Thank you so much for watching ❤
As someone who resides in the Midwest I want to live in a city where people are the main focus, not cars 😩 but I’ll say iconic.
Im still a student in architecture but the way i think is that both modern architecture and traditional matter, both work and both are habitable for people. If only we could find the formula or the answer to creating a structure that is good in technology and also beautiful. I think that should be the next stage for architecture of this era.
I am sketching every Tradisional landmark to every landmark of every nation
That’s awesome!!
This kinda makes me think about how as a student, lecturers most of the time tell us to accommodate the surrounding environment which limits our designs to blending in with the surrounding instead of standing out.
I totally get where you're coming from... It's like being told to play it safe instead of letting your creativity run wild, right? Esp when school is the best time to let your creativity to run wild. It can feel a bit stifling when you're encouraged to blend in rather than stand out with your designs.
But hey, maybe there's a silver lining here. Sometimes, working within constraints can actually push us to think even more creatively. It's all about finding that balance between honoring the context of your surroundings and still injecting your own unique flair into your work. Who knows, maybe one day you'll find a way to stand out while still fitting right in. Keep pushing those boundaries!!!! It will work out
Blending in with the surroundings really is what you make of it. If you’re clearing land for a new build, many developers just annihilate everything to make the plots flat, build a cookie cutter house, plant a lawn… but if they didn’t cut down more than necessary, these same homes could be surrounded by mature trees that require essentially zero maintenance because they’re from the surrounding environment and survived decades to hundreds of years before you arrived. When I become an architect, I want my signature to be a flow of form and function, harmonious with the surroundings in a way that stands out, but incorporating what is already there.
I take issue with a couple of things here-from my background as a builder. Modernism fits in cost somewhere between lesser ornamented traditional styles like Georgian and more ornamented styles. The use of rectangular shapes and vertical rather than horizontal forms has a lot to do with that. Modernism also requires more trades skill in many cases because you need technology and chemistry to do with it what was done with physics in traditional buildings, mainly speaking of managing water here. Also while the majority of 5 over 1s are ugly that has a lot to do with planners outlining the form of them in code. The traditional 5 over 1 as seen in Hausmanns Paris, in Barcelona, etc is not ugly despite looking similar to every other building in the district. Lastly, I wouldn’t jump on people for wanting to make a profit too much, that’s normal across all occupations. The larger problem is cultural, in that we conceive of everything happening in a short period. Buildings rarely last a century anymore and they are typically torn down because the form doesn’t suit the replacement function.
Very good video! As an architecture student I struggle with this need to make beautiful buildings with soul in a modernist teachers/build environment
Let’s go girl! This is a great video and a great path of greatness you are on
Very intelligent
more Video upload please i realy like your video
I love ornament and i try to design my architecture with ornaments. Definitely it's a skill to draw those detail. It takes a while but it is possible.
can u show ur projects?
Good work . 👏 ❤ i got my answer
I live in Chicago by Lake Meadows in another apartment complex and I hate the area as a resident. The positives I thought would come from loving so deep into a city just aren’t there, and on top of that it’s a boring area for someone in there mid 20s who still has the free time to be social. Chicago has some really amazing neighborhoods that can at times resemble our European counterparts, I just wish I’d have known that the apartment I got wasn’t anywhere close to those other communities 😒
Hi hi! It's good to see you around again(: Living in a place that doesn't match up to your expectations can be super disappointing, especially when you're in your mid-20s and looking for a bit of excitement. Chicago's got some cool neighborhoods, like you mentioned, with vibes that can rival European cities. It's a shame your spot isn't quite hitting the mark. I hope your situation changes for you soon.
But hey, at least you've got the insight now, right? Haha. Maybe it's time to start scoping out some of those other areas and see if there's a spot that feels more like home. In the meantime, hang in there and try to make the most of what you've got. Who knows, maybe you'll stumble upon some hidden gems in your current neighborhood while you're at it. Keep your chin up!(:
Absolutely agree. A lot of cities have now new ugly buildings. We should do more beautiful and fascinating projects.
5:18 Concrete can be used a lot more creatively than it is.
Came for the intellectual discussion and breakdown of architecture and stayed for the cat
Also tell about a video still design nad I like your video very much
Here in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, it's just about cost. Nothing beyond than that! Tons of steel, glass, concrete, to shape the ugliest buildings. People like Zaha Hadid, Santiago Calatrava, among others, can draw wonders with the materials mentioned above, but in the end they cost a lot.
Keep up the good work and if possible, I would like to see you talk about South American architecture.
We need a podcast!
working on it(:
Doesn’t cost more necessarily to build more beautiful, most houses could easily just change their proportions and look infinitely better. Not to mention traditional building cost less overall because of building wait time
The commodification of housing is such a problem. It also seems that it will only get worse. I read that last year, around 40% of single family home purchases were made by private equity or other financial entities.... Seems this will continue to be a problem until our government imposes legislation.
Also, more cat in videos please :)
Everything in moderation. Too much modernization and we end up without a real purpose for building some things and a loss of that bedrock craftsmanship that founded architecture itself. Too much "nostalgic" architecture and we end up as caricatures of ourselves without any legitimate advancement. Would New York be what it was without Art Deco? Not in my lifetime. Can the same be said of any of the modernist towers and housing blocks of today? Not that either.
Your insight really hits the nail on the head. It's like a dance between preserving the heart and soul of architecture while still pushing boundaries with modernization. And like you've thought - without the Art Deco flair, New York City just wouldn't have that same vibrant personality we all love. But at the same time, we can't deny the impact of modernist designs shaping our skylines today.
It's all about finding that sweet spot where tradition meets innovation, where each style contributes its own flavor to the mix. Our cities become these living, breathing stories where the past whispers in the architecture of yesteryears (woo woo), while the present shouts with the bold statements of today's designers and builders. So, here's to honoring the craftsmanship of old and embracing the possibilities of what's to come - because in that delicate balance lies the true magic of urban evolution. Thank you for the comment! cheers!
I believe Louis Sullivan's plea regarding "Form follows function" has been diverted by the minimalists overtime and thus misunderstood by newer generations in the 20th century onwards.
Unlike his famous vainglorious apprentice, Sullivan kept across all of his work a strong emphasis on ornamentation as he simply wanted to contribute with his own style without betraying his beaux-arts sensibility.
That leads you to a relevant point I don't see many people make at 2:22 about how fashion influences architectural styles, probably because you are not a man and therefore care a little more. Minimalism is now represented by this caricatural architect exclusively wearing black turtleneck sweaters throughout his entire life, sometimes with a twist as he/she dares to layer it with a regular black blazer or black coat when he feels a little wilder reflecting his shallow taste. Thankfully this horrendous turtleneck is declining in popularity but the black sweater still haunts most firms. Ironically I should note that I was also wearing a black sweater while typing that, but in my defense I only wear these ten times in a year.
As a young european effortlessly dwelling in a beautiful old building in a city built across dozens of centuries thanks to the hard labour of my ancestors like you mentioned, I feel too much uncomfortable to start pestering either northern or southern americans on what they should do given what they have both already achieved on this continent in such a short amount of time compared to every other continents being several millennia older. Transitioning from giant farmer lands to densely urbanized cities takes a bit of time, so that temporary period in time with sprawling generic wooden shallow houses that seems to finally start including more and more concrete or steel recently will still prevail for several extra centuries.
We still can't ignore what the northerners were aiming at given the splendor of The 1893 and 1904 World's Fair alongside southerners in Buenos Aires Argentina, wonder what happened in between then and now like you've illustrated across your video. As for Europe in that time, not everyone was living in those magnificent buildings so this is not fair.
However I want to come back on your chapter called " housing is a commodity ", as a counter-example, the pretty "Haussmann" buildings in my city Paris were officially literally called " Revenue houses " during their construction when the city has had its 20+ years long overhaul, showing how houses could still be considered a commodity while still maintaining a strong prominence on refined and expensive aesthetics. People were ready to trade space for elegance which is no longer the case today, and so we come back to that black sweater architect paradox where there is not enough demand nor enough offer in the general public for more refined buildings. Given the story of Paris, early New York's skyscrapers and Buenos Aires, I would then put the blame on the new rich lacking a single sense of taste both in fashion, decoration, cars and architecture not providing enough demand for true works of art. This thankfully seems to change as new skyscrapers in NY seems to re embrace some shy shapes of the former art deco era and many wealthy individuals are already building their palaces and large homes with "traditional" styles showing a renewed interest in elegance.
I still don't want to waive a 180° shift again such as the likes of those neo traditionalist movements but we can't blame them for finding a quick workaround until architectural firms and their customers finally starts allocating a bigger share of their budgets and dignity to aesthetics again while also coming up with new styles shifting far away from minimalism.
You make some really interesting points about the evolution of architectural styles and how they're influenced by various factors (like fashion and cultural shifts.) I'm happy it was digestible in the video. Louis Sullivan's concept of "Form follows function" has indeed been interpreted differently over time, with some architects embracing minimalism while others, like Sullivan himself, maintained a strong emphasis on ornamentation and individual style.
It's funny how fashion trends can sometimes become synonymous with architectural movements, (such as the iconic black turtleneck often associated with minimalism, which you are conveniently wearing at the moment). Your observation about the decline of this trend and a renewed interest in more traditional styles is intriguing. It seems like there's a growing appreciation for elegance and refinement, especially among those who are willing to invest in creating true works of architectural art. I think this appreciation will continue to grow, especially after two decades of incredibly sleek design infiltrating everything (esp. tech. Thank you Steve Jobs)
While it's important not to completely dismiss modernist or minimalist movements, it's equally crucial to recognize the value of diverse architectural expressions and to strive for a balance between functionality and aesthetic appeal. As you rightly point out, there's ROOM for innovation while still honoring the rich history and craftsmanship of older architectural styles. Finding that balance might require a shift in priorities and a greater emphasis on the importance of aesthetics in architectural design. Time will tell.
Thank you for your comment and giving me more to think about. Looking up Haussmann now!
6:39 - a fair point but it doesn't necessarily solve the problem of cheap/slave labour. It still happens in Qatar etc.
While I agree that they're almost always too bland, I disagree that the development of 5 over 1s is a bad thing. We have a horrible housing shortage in the US (in the entire western world really), we have endless stretches of low-density residential zoning, we have almost zero mixed-use areas, and through all of this people are trying to move into already crowded areas where the jobs are and the surplus housing isn't.
And along comes a building format that comes with reasonable density while being cheaper than high rises. It fits within the draconian building codes of most US cities. And it's mixed use by default! I wish they were more ornamented but I will not mourn the cookie cutter car-only suburbia that gets redeveloped to make the 5 over 1s. Give it a nice facade, it can't boost the cost all that much.
Thank you for your comment!! I appreciate your perspective on the benefits of 5 over 1 developments, particularly in addressing the pressing housing shortage in the US and the broader Western world. Indeed, these structures offer a viable solution that aligns with existing building codes and provides reasonable density without the cost implications of high rises. While my initial commentary focused on the aesthetics, it's crucial to recognize the pragmatic value these developments bring, especially in the context of the housing crisis. Prioritizing functionality and efficiency over purely ornamental considerations is a good thing to call to attention! I just hope that with more thoughtful design interventions, we can enhance the visual appeal without significantly inflating costs (as you suggest). Ultimately, it's about finding a !! BALANCE !! between addressing the urgent need for housing and creating spaces that enrich our urban landscapes. Thank you for shedding light on this and the potential they hold in reshaping our cities for the better.
Your eyes are so beautiful
i just watched your video about "the line" and appreciate your insight and analysis. i'm an architect with more than 30 years of having the privilege to be self-employed as an architect actually doing architecture. if one watches the progression of investigation into the narrative behind most architecture - from a layman's perspective, in other words, the guy at this channel(ruclips.net/video/qAyihacVFDg/видео.html) was not told what to see or how to think about the buildings that we learned about in our "architectural history" class, so if you really want to know the answer to the question that you pose as the title of this video, then it will be helpful to unlearn the narrative that you may have been fed. what was the reason behind the war that necessitated all the rebuilding?(the real reason, not the "ooooh hitler bad" narrative) what are the ramifications if the "way they paid for the old projects" is nothing like what you describe? bottom line: what if the history that we have been spoon fed by our college architecture classes is nothing more than a plausible narrative bearing no similarity to what really made those old buildings possible?
Important topic, important video.
Like.
Suscribe.
U forgot Ornament and crime (Adolf Loos).
I don't like Adolf loos he basically wrote a book talking about why ornament isn't necessary in architecture, such ignorant view on ornament and prejudice as well.
@@javierpacheco8234 is that what you understood from what he wrote? Sad, and you see that was an essay not a book. Beyond these aspects, architecture (historically or theoretically speaking) is not about whether you like an architect or not, but about his contribution to the evolution of architecture in general. I don't like Eisenman either, but I appreciate him.
Bringing up Loos is about something else in case you didn't understand. The cities and architecture of our days do not look like those of the past because of the war or a change of taste, as the current video argues, but because the architectural styles in the 19th century no longer meant anything. The idea of historical style and ornament in ~1800 became useless, it was a matter of aesthetic character. The order promoted by Vitruvius and the Renaissance has atomized, any ornament has no value anymore, why make it, just to please the world? Ornament is meant to order (ornament = kosmos) not only to beautify, and Loos understood that. Have you ever read Heinrich Hübsch?
The author of this video indirectly states that the functionalism of Sullivan and Bauhaus leads to the disappearance of the ornament, which is false. This is exactly why I brought Loos into the discussion. The abandonment of ornament is not because of Sullivan or Bauhaus but because of Loos and before him because of Quatremère de Quincy.
I like to see young people who are excited to explain arch history, but it's sad to see that they don't seriously research the topics discussed.
Still I believe that getting rid of this art wasn't fair and shouldn't be looked as invaluable, what if we create a new system of ornament that does have function or is important. Without the ornament and the craft, the building can only become interesting in the form, the space, and light. Ornament gives character to a structure.
@@javierpacheco8234 I completely agree with you, the ornament was important, but the world understood it back then differently than we understand it now. Why did they understand it that way? Because of the industrial revolution, because architecture became institutionalized and because architecture made a subtle transition from purpose to cause (the object of architecture is no longer important, but the way it is done, how quickly and how much it costs). Obviously, there were people who opposed these things, such as those who support the Arts and Crafts movement.
"what if we create a new system of ornament that does have function or is important."
This has already been tried in the post-modern period. Some like Venturi did it in a playful way, others like Jencks, the Krier brothers or those who promote the phenomenology of architecture did it more seriously. What you propose here does not work because a system should be born by itself in a culture and be accepted by everyone in that culture. Architects should obey that system, ordinary people as well.
Whether you want it or not, if you're a prince or a lord you should stay in a palace, have an emblem, certain ornaments and so on ... or if you're a basketball player you should have a modest and less decorated house regardless how much money do you have. How do you impose this on today's world?
Our current world has only one norm, the penny! If you have money, you do what you want, you build what you want and how you want, which is sad (but true) obvious.
We have lost our old frequency 👁️🧠
Beautiful is subjective ... sustainable architecture to most laypersons is quite cluttered, but that wouldn't stop me from geeking out on passive house features. Fell free to tell me I'm wrong but we should be designing for full sensory experiences rather than visual first impressions.
I personally think that beauty is from like 80% fully objective. There are rules that just make a building "beautiful" and it is a objective fact. Ask thousand random people walking next Nottre Dame if they think its beautiful. And then ask thousand random people walking next to a 1970s brutalist office block. I dont know the results but I think we both can imagine how it would look like. Though there is obviously so much more to a building than just the visual "beauty" at the first sight. So I agree at that, the affordability, sustainability, etc. are all great factors to consider too.
because we can't... the buildings you refer not even built by our civilisation.