Hearted Youtube comments on The Aesthetic City (@the_aesthetic_city) channel.
-
7300
-
7200
-
6400
-
6000
-
4400
-
3700
-
Guatemalan here, not only the success of Cayalá has been evident in itself, but other big developers are now starting to build other similar urban projects in different parts of the city. While at the beginning it was perceived purely as an "open mall", now people do, as the video says, use it as a city centre of sorts. While a portion of the population here still criticize it as a symbol of privilege and inequality because of the luxury real state and expensive businesses, you don't have to live there or have an office there, you can just go and hang around for a while, go watch a movie or just walk. The crime and bad state of the city took the opportunity for many people of actually using the city to go for a walk for example. Cayalá gives the people that opportunity again.
Also, since I'm an architecture student, I have heard all kinds of critiques about the architectural style, saying it's a pastiche and it doesn't hold any architectural value. Personally, while I agree that it's a simplistic blending of many architectural styles that don't necessarily represent Guatemala, I do believe new classicism has the advantage of never going out of style, while more modern approaches will look outdated in 20-30 years. In the end, the only people that care are us architects 😂 regular people just look at it and think it's nice, and want to come back there.
2300
-
2100
-
2100
-
2100
-
2000
-
2000
-
1700
-
1600
-
1500
-
1500
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1200
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
965
-
963
-
944
-
902
-
892
-
890
-
861
-
837
-
800
-
754
-
718
-
686
-
676
-
667
-
651
-
594
-
584
-
554
-
537
-
530
-
517
-
517
-
508
-
What I hate most about postmodern architecture is the hypocrisy, especially its terms like "false historical". With this false idea they impose a bad reconstruction of a part of the building, if they are not rebuilding it, they are ruining it.
The other term that I hate the most is historicism, but modern architects have been copying Bauhaus for more than 100 years. Modern architects contradict themselves, or are hypocrites, because when they imitate a style they are modern and original, but if an architect wants to build a building with a traditional design is treated as average.
The other problem is eclecticism, modern architects criticize eclectisism, but they have been mixing concepts of modern architecture, in themselves they are eclepticists, but when they do it it is fine, if an architect wants to mix concepts of human history they treat him as If you are doing something wrong.
The last point is that modern architecture goes against the concepts of the Bauhaus, since many buildings are useless, roofs that retain water, unnecessary shapes that increase the cost of the building, above all they are narcissistic because they design only for their own. ego, the monsters they create are just to draw attention to themselves that's fine.
These people are the ones who criticized and demonized as "useless and banal" the sumptuous and beautiful facades of beauty arts architecture.
When beauty attracts attention they criticize it, but attracting attention is good if it is to inflate the ego of a mediocre postmodern architect.
460
-
451
-
436
-
435
-
421
-
I was in Utrecht this summer for work for a few days. You could see the liveability and desirability aspect just walking to lunch. First, that train station is horrible and uncomfortable. But what I really noticed is that looking for a place to have lunch, you'd walk down the street, and one street would be all the old architecture, and it'd be full of people, and literally the next street would be all modernist crap, and no one was there, you'd just see people rushing to get past it as quickly as possible. Then, the next would be old architecture again, and again, full of people and life. It was such an object lesson in how greatly the architecture affects liveability and desirability. But, we live in such stupid times that people are always making excuses for horrible, ugly boxes, and pretending that's the only choice, when it's not. And worse, is some of those truly hideous buildings actually cost far more than a more elegant and beautiful building would be.
412
-
409
-
405
-
405
-
364
-
Hi Rueben not only was it great to meet you at IMCL in Le Plessis-Robinson last year, but you have saved me a ton of work by producing such a wonderful and informative video. Instead of a post-conference report, I will just show your video to my team!
One point though, "gentrification" is not in itself a problem. After all, how can making a place nicer be a problem? The correct answer is that gentrification often leads to "displacement" and it is displacement that is the problem. As you explain in the video, Mayor (now Senator) Philippe Pemezec and his council, minimized displacement by supporting existing social housing tenants to purchase the rebuilt (or in some cases renovated) apartments. 80% took up the offer (and then re-elected him - why wouldn't they!). So, these families have now moved from working class to middle class AND live in a wonderful place AND have an appreciating asset that their children can inherit. (BTW, I saw plenty of teenagers around the place, but never any indication of anti-social behavior.)
Urban planning is not about laying out roads and utilities and managing construction, it is about building happy and healthy communities. The rest is just a means to an end.
361
-
352
-
349
-
330
-
316
-
315
-
311
-
308
-
296
-
293
-
290
-
281
-
280
-
265
-
262
-
261
-
243
-
237
-
234
-
232
-
226
-
226
-
223
-
218
-
212
-
209
-
208
-
204
-
201
-
198
-
197
-
187
-
184
-
177
-
174
-
171
-
166
-
166
-
165
-
164
-
153
-
151
-
146
-
143
-
141
-
117
-
116
-
116
-
115
-
115
-
114
-
112
-
105
-
103
-
102
-
99
-
95
-
95
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
90
-
88
-
83
-
83
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
79
-
75
-
73
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
58
-
58
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
52
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
46
-
45
-
42
-
41
-
Classical/traditional architectural styles in the United States still exist in the many cities and towns of the East Coast north of Florida, and in the city of Chicago, but is increasingly uncommon everywhere else in the United States. And unlike all the boxy or cube-shaped urban-located buildings commonly associated with modern architecture, it’s usually office parks, strip malls, warehouses, grade schools which take much more space than they normally should, and cookie-cutter tract homes. Sometimes, you will see buildings that look traditionally-designed, but are designed in a way that heavily favors automobiles over pedestrians, which leads to a lot of places that genuinely feel artificial and unnatural despite having a traditionally-designed facade.
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
I like design and I noticed this problem in all fields of creative work, so I came up with the following saying that portrays the problem in my opinion - "Change for the sake of contribution. Contribution for the sake of accreditation. Accreditation for the sake of credit." I think that there are so many designers, architects and artist, and all of them want to create something, so they could, well... so they could live, so they could make money, so they could prosper and become someone, and as you have underlined, to be noticed - to be original. But the truth in design is that you can't have many differences of form that are harmonious - that work, are safe and are aesthetically pleasing, you can only make a wheel one or two ways, everything else would be a downgrade and for the sake of only being different.
I think in some ways we have reached the zenith of some forms. This is the reason the iPhone barely changes anymore, and every smartphone looks almost the same. But this is all speaking purely of design and engineering, and I think that art and architecture is the answer to that problem - don't destroy something that works, but express yourself where you can do it safe, without hurting people and beauty.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Yes, totally. What is addressed here is mostly the destructive forms of modernism though: the ever-repeating profit-maximized bland boxes, international style monotony, socialist same-ness, show-off monstrosities, brutalism, etc.
Classical and traditional vernacular styles can be very simple, too btw. Check for instance traditional Japanese or Arabic houses. Or the styles on the verge to modernism you mention: Art Deco, Streamline Moderne, Expressionism. Early modernist styles definitely are a good nod to start new from. But the nihilism of the past decades needs to end, it just gives people depression.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I'm a history PhD candidate and It's startling how similar my experience in graduate school has been. Just replace "modern" with "postmodern," and practically everything mentioned in the video is the same. A bland European monoculture that raises an autoimmune response against other ideas. It's the same in literature, languages, art history, and religious studies.
In my first few years I tried to bring in alternative viewpoints, but I got smacked down and even accused of having right-wing sympathies (I don't). Eventually I got discouraged and just wanted to graduate, so I started putting gibberish from Lacan, Butler, et al in my (otherwise good) papers and pretended to understand gibberish while other people were speaking it, and the result was that I became well-liked in my department and got money and pats on the head.
Teaching is the only part of the job that feels honest and worthwhile, but we are strongly advised to spend as little time on our classes as possible and direct our energy into publishing, conferences, and grant writing. If I wanted to, I could halve the time I spend on my classes and experience no negative repercussions whatsoever, but seeing the students get excited about history is the only thing that keeps me going.
So, yeah, long story short, it's infested all the humanities I know of. (Is architecture a humanity? I think this channel would say yes.)
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
I'm very excited about the way that the discussion around architecture has been shifting recently!
I remember even a few years ago being annoyed that most of the people publicly supporting traditional architecture were also regressive conservatives (notably trump). It seemed to me that people were unable to separate the notion that "old buildings were more beautiful" from "the past was better than today". The way I saw it, modernity just had a PR problem. Modern medicine, democracy, and social welfare made the average person's life orders of magnitude better and more luxurious than even 100 years ago, and yet we chose to keep building ugly, oppressive buildings and dangerous car-centric cities. It was silly. The people of the past didn't really deserve the beautiful cities they lived in, as they were built on the backs of slavery and conquest. Yet today, when we are much more ethical (though by no means completely, there's a lot of work left to do), we couldn't replicate the beauty of the past?
I couldn't help but wonder if our ugly cities contributed to people's delusion that the past was better. How could cities so well-designed and beautiful be home to such oppressive, disgusting regimes? How could slavers live in grandeur whilst we lived in squalor? I can imagine some people coming to the conclusion that modernity must not be as good as it seems. Without beauty, we fail to see our progress.
It's only been a few years, and yet now the situation is completely different. We have a growing urbanist movement online and in real life. More importantly, it is a movement rooted in egalitarian ideals - we won't replicate the disgusting societies of the past, but instead work towards ones where everybody can live in peace and happiness. One where the beauty is deserved. I couldn't be happier! Keep on fighting the good fight, and day by day we will make the world a better place!
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Münzgasse is a prime example for a very peculiar effect. It was rebuilt already during the 1980ies with DDR means. In fact, it is a Plattenbau. All it took from the old city were the approximate measurements. It does not even claim to be old. And still, Münzgasse works. People flock there in the many small restaurants and the shops, and they did it as soon as it was open to the public.
Münster in Westphalia did a similar experiment after World War II with its Prinzipalmarkt. All the houses there are from the 1950ies, and they don't claim to be anything else. But the Prinzipalmarkt works.
My take is that often it's the overall dimensions that make a place lively. Have small elements with their own aesthetic work together. Don't build solitaires. Build elements to longer chains in a way that each of it works both by itself and as a part in a larger concept. Dare to be not straight, but have small deviation from the straight line. Keep some sights open, to a tower, to the next open space, to some landmark or some nice mountain in the distance, so people can experience the whole while at the same time feel enclosed. Have hard limits on things like eaves height, but give the architect the freedom to fill the space as they see fit. It's not the grand vision, that makes a place beautiful, it's the small things that add together.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
A lot of these modern "architects" are going for shock value, prestige, fame and notoriety. Everybody wants to be the next Andy Warhol of Architects, and frankly, it makes me mad. It's SO selfish and condescending. If you want to be COMPLETELY original, put your shit in an art gallery. Don't subjugate the masses to your atrocities.
And in America, a relatively new country to most in the world, we are the worst of the worst. You have to go SEEKING any original, old-school beautiful architecture. Whereas in many other parts of the world, they keep and maintain their beautiful buildings. There's a reason people love going to Greece, Rome, Japan, and many other places. We're captivated by BEAUTY, not these weirdly, oddly shaped dung balls.
I will say, the last truly original and beautiful structure of modern design is the Las Vegas Sphere. THAT is truly impressive and beautiful. It's one of the rare modern architectures that works, but there is soemthing special about buildings that don't need all the flash and technology FOR it to work. Something that requires real craftsmanship, chisel and stoning, plastering and stone/brick work. I travel to see such works of beauty because it's so inspirational, and don't even get me started on how inviting these buildings are, then you step inside and you're greated to great feats of artwork colored on the walls, statutes, paintings, and just aesthetically pleasing works of art.
There is far too much emphasise on function over beauty, and beauty is important to our well-being. We all love to see it, admire it, be in awe of it, and experience it. But these buildings are actively saying "F U" to our natural human sensibilities, and mocking us for it by forcing us to endure looking at these ugly "works of art" for years upon years until their eventual demise, because another thing of note...these modern structures don't last long. They're easy to tear down and are never missed. There's a reason why we hesitate to tear down historical buildings. Hell, even the colloseum had an uproard over someone mildly defacing the structure and was swiftly punished for it. But if a modern sturcture were in it's place, we would think nothing of it.
Lastly, a beautiful city/town is always a pleasure to be in and visit. Everything just feels like you're in harmony and...welll..beauty. You look forward to the trip. Most large cities lack that charm, grace and sense of style our ancestors had before us. They're not training the younger generation to value the old and build on what already works. They're training them to dismantle what works, what makes humans happy, and turn it upside down. I just don't get it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Criticism suggesting that only the wealthy can afford housing in this beautiful location is simply repugnant in its ignorance. Firstly, if critics are concerned about the wealthy purchasing gated plots of land where they can isolate themselves from the concerns of others in the country, then why don't they criticize similar communities in other parts of Guatemala? It's evident that amidst the failures of the state in construction and architecture, such private initiatives demonstrate that the previous modernist approach was rather misguided, and it's necessary to remove ideologically biased government interference from the realm of construction. In a world where such housing is being mass-produced, the opinions of these "experts" would likely become irrelevant, which is what they fear – journalists thrive on reporting disasters and issues (that's their work), solve those problems, and they'd have nothing left to write about! Similarly, with bureaucrats who, wielding absolute authority, have allowed cities to be disfigured by repugnant architecture, typically permitting this to be done by their well-connected friends.
Secondly, such criticism is simply economically illiterate. Let's recall the early automobiles or mobile phones – initially, these goods were very expensive, affordable only to the truly wealthy. However, the profits earned by pioneers in these markets attracted other producers, competition led to continuous innovations, and these goods ceased to be the privilege of the wealthy, as the video author accurately points out. Observing this phenomenon doesn't require being an economist; it just takes keen observation. But in a world of biases, such clarity is evidently forbidden.
I can only wish the video author good luck; you are doing a significant and important job!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As a 4th year student, soon to go into thesis process I feel painfully wronged by university 🥴 We're taught to develop "ideas and concepts" that in the end serve no purpose, instead of focusing on the habitability and comfort of the space, and as stated in the video, no matter how many bells and whistles you ad, if your building is abandoned all those sustainability certifications are as good as TP 🙄 Plus the love for concrete is a serious issue, that at this point in my career I have no clue how to fight, we are pushed to go for efficiency, profit, brief, all sacrificing our own ideas and believes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Of course we can. We can go to space, can't we build a building that is not an eyesore and an aggregate of waste and pollutants? And urban areas that are not wastelands leading to mental illnesses and psychosis? Of course we can.
And of course not.
Because there is no "we" as an agent or a collective consciousness.
It's a "we" to which 90% of people don't belong and that mostly doesn't even have a face or definable identity. It's a "them" as an aggregate of forces and intentions that is dualistically opposite, and therefore enemy/adversary (Satan means adversary), of whatever is outside it, as well as a parasite feeding off the world's vital lifeblood.
So until the structure of society doesn't change, going towards something not necessarily equal, but resembling and in continuity with how it was "before" (before the industrial revolution was acquired and hijacked by private finance in the guise of "progressivism", which in turn created its false and misdirected counterpart, again dualistic, of "socialism"), there is no way its byproducts will change, if not cosmetically or within a very limited leftover space.
Of course it's still important following a certain path and pushing certain principles, trying to get as much success as possible.
But it should be accompanied and preceded by a lucid vision and critique of the current state. I eould say it must be impregnated with it, as a mutual and simultaneous cause/effect condition
Ho hum
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not only this, but after almost a decade as an architect, i'm starting to highly doubt contemporary building techniques and established building materials. I'm starting to suspect that it's all about fueling heavy industry and not the health of the users, nor durability or sustainability. For example, everyone talks now about saving the planet through lower energy consumption in the use of buildings, but nobody talks about the price that has to be paid in pollution, energy, drinkable water consumption to achieve that low energy consumption. Isnt it better to go with a higher energy consumption after the house was build, but with much lower costs in environmental damage to build the damn thing? It's like we discarded all of humanities gathered wisdom on how to build properly and we replaced it with toxic tech. I'm really glad i see this movement, but i think we should also adres the back end part of things, not just the front end.
Edit: medieval ppl used to harden wood, make it water, fire and insect proof by soaking it in organic natural stuff, i don't remember now what exactly they used, but i remember cow urine and tanine, maybe? Now it can only be done with hard and heavy chemicals and treatment and many of them are petro-chemical products, or at least have petro-chemical byproducts as components. Progress!!!👍....but just for a few.
Also, i'm not even going into the subject that we put much more emphasis and importance on comfort, fashion and superficial desires than on actual human needs and it shows.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Kitsch!
I have heard that word often in discussions about architecture. Many years ago. Now the debate is dead, and other things are discussed, because kitsch is thus also dead, cremated and buried. There is no turning back.
A city in the Netherlands has dug up the remains and built from them. Kitsch, I can hear them say, again. You copy old styles, it is said. But modern architecture copies itself continuously, and modernism is also already ancient. Even older than hip hop rap beep beep whatever it's called.
I suspect the underlying motive is lowering expenses. Why else would concrete "honesty" hang around for so long, when fashion otherwise changes ever faster. Which reminds me that concrete construction isn't really that much cheaper, because a lot of work goes into making elements, and not least transporting them and setting up cranes to lift them. And the question of durability arises. Bohr's Tower in Copenhagen is seven years old and has been under renovation for a year. It is not a unique example, far from it.
The cycle hose - which is admittedly not a block of flats, but at least the architect's design - is ten years old and newly renovated. And there are several other new buildings and constructions that are under repair.
The video about the Dutch city shows and argues for a building tradition that people want to experience and live in.
For me, architecture is not art in the same way as, for example, painting and sculpture. It is not only a medium for the architect's personal expression. A building is first and foremost a practical thing, not the megaphone of a single ego. It is down-to-earth usability, rather than the subjective, self-absorbed manifestation of the architect. Art is a free medium, architecture is a fixed task. Craftsmanship on a grand scale, if you will. And even if you don't want to!
If the architects complain, then the answer is that they themselves make a kind of kitsch when they always make either funny colossi that are ugly, or boring colossi that are ugly. And by ugly I mean: usability-wise backward. Aesthetics is not an objective science. But the ordinary people, who have to stay in and near the buildings, for several reasons prefer something other than what the architects mostly screw up.
The tourists film Nyhavn and call it beautiful. Not the colossi! It's a tipping point that "we" don't care for "your" "new aesthetic", which has long since become so old that it uses a walker and adult diapers.
Details and decorations are kitsch, it was already said in the sixties (1960-69, and not a year more!). Many years later I understood that "the simple, Nordic style" stuck because it is easier, cheaper and simply normal in the construction industry and therefore expensive to change. And then it's "smart" to play with it without scientifically researching whether it should be better and more user-friendly in one way or the other.
Jakriborg in Skåne in Sweden was also criticized by many architects, and was called kitsch. But people like variety on a certain scale, rather than uniformity on a much larger scale—the colossal or monstrous scale, I would call it. New Urbanism is an expression of this: basing construction on studies of what the users are most comfortable with, not what the architects are most comfortable with. Or at least that's how I like to understand the term N.U....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Excellent subject! It does describe the complexity of our current world and culture more than we think, as well as if we actually are slaves of survival and subjects of a messproduced world, free of identity like machines or soldiers, or may we actually enjoy our individual life, creativity, identity and a sensual world. I vote for the later.
However it seems if 8mrd people keep on multiplying, than wars and the tasks of survival will take over and the focus will be on the essentials, not artistic sensual pleasures, at least not in the form of buildings or cities. Identity cannot exist in a uniform messproduced society, yet there are no two identical people. Nature does not reproduce exactly the same twice, so we need to find also ways to ballance our world better and foster individual identity and creativity?
If we look at older European cities, they were actually using many similar elements repeatedly to identify also their age and time, so it is not easy what constitutes identity. People did not like the Eiffel tower, and planned to demolish it after the world expo there, but it has become the landmark of Paris..yet many other individual buildings created only chaos indeed..Would the requirements of simmetry, detailings, etc. solve this lost cultural capacity of ours? I am not sure..We are too many kinds and time is running too fast, hard to catch and nail down the time of "now" in buildings..our ancestors had better chance to do that, did not use internet, tv or global exposure....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Fantastic video! Though if I may be able to bring in some constructive criticism - slow down a bit with the transitions. I feel like currently the transitions are a bit too fast, when in reality I want the time to really let the images sink in and analyze them. Delaying them with a second or two would make a great difference already.
As for the rest of the video - there are many more similar firebombings that happened in Germany, I found out. Not just in what is today considered Germany, but also in places now in Poland like Szczecin (Stettin), Gdansk (Danzig) and Świnoujście (Swinemünde). I'll save you the horrible details of the many that brutally died in what I'd call deliberate firestorms, but the cities itself fared little better. Luckily they have been rebuilt for the most part, but these bombings seem to have been long forgotten. And also, the DDR buildings can go for all I care. Not just because having nostalgia for a regime as brutal as the DDR is just... cringe, but especially because the houses itself look in a bad shape and you could achieve a similar but much nicer result with the designs you showed.
I am very glad this video is made, thank you The Aesthetic City! Here's hoping you'll make one on Gdansk next in the future, that city has an interesting history of its own regarding reconstruction. Cheers!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you thank you THANK YOU so much for this video, and all your videos about the return of classical architecture! I live in Los Angeles and just graduated high school with the goal of attending community college, then transferring to a university. The thing is, I originally wanted to study architecture for a long time but was so disappointed to see that many prestigious architecture programs in the United States ONLY taught the modernist, experimental architecture that lacks warmth and humanity, so I was drawn away from architecture and thought maybe I should just follow another career altogether, like economics or english... but as I'm trying to pick my classes for college I couldnt help but wonder if there was such thing as a new modern city, which is how I fell onto this absolutely amazing video. Your video gives me so much hope that I have a place in the future of architecture, and that maybe my dream of developing my city to become welcoming, safe, cohesive, and beautiful will one day come true. I might even apply to notre dam for their architecture program! haha
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It reminds me of a west african architect I forgot the name of who do architecture just like this. He was tasked by a country in West Africa (probably Ghana or Senegal, but I don't remember) to make a new school for a small village in the countryside and he fully rejected not only modernist designs for local designs, but made it his duty to have the community participate in the construction of the school itself as he rightfully stated not only was this the way buildings were made in village of this kind (and it was mud bricks, so nothing too technologically complicated for the locals to do), but helped the community become attached and find connection to it through their contribution, making it a true beloved center of the village with crowds on its ground even outside school hours (and indirectly through that, attachment and value giving to education in general). One of his anecdotes throughout his projects in Africa was how he constantly had to explain to officials that doing the modernist way in such climates would require tons more of ventilators and air conditionning to make it comfortable to people in it, putting extra strain on the not top-of-the-game electrical grid of countries in developpment. Valuing local culture and the diversity that comes through that, sustainability (even in poorer countries), ecology and community building, that seems all the goals claimed to be valued by architecture schools, don't you think?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Every time I watch a video from this channel, it makes me hate modern architects more and more who want all of all cities to be boxes of concrete and glass with horrendous abstract soulless building. I didn't know that appreciating beauty that naturally draws you to be outside, walk, appreciate the view, feel peace, happier, better mental health and well-being and offer livable, walkable cities is somehow dubbed far-right. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever had to hear in my entire life. Independently of where people are in the spectrum, almost every single person appreciates and likes traditional style for the aforementioned reasons, it's not an opinion, it's a fact, proven scientifically.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
A city and architecture is also about identity and our sensual enjoyment of the world, which was pretty much emptied by the modern! It was only looking for production and efficiency, as well as profit, and we can see the result, a sensually empty, boring and often less liveable or even functional buildings, as some of the spaces in those "plattenbau" buildings were just too narrow, with low ceilings, and uniformity without any identity (reminescents of the ruinns of the slave towns of antic Egypt..). This is why the people of Dresda have rebuilt the city core, to restore its identity and sensual pleasure as well as functions of trade and meeting place for people, they can accept as their own. Life should be more than plain survival and chasing for the profit, it has to be art too, which inspires creativity and emotions as well. I did live in North America and those cities have indeed very little identity, run of a mill skyscapers and endless uniform suburbs..not much of an identity or art, just production of space. Europe has a long historical development and identity that is still holding, hopefully for ever..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have multiple things to say here. First, thank you for diving deep into this topic, having a section related to "how we got here" before the hopeful nod towards what's going on at Notre Dame.
I strongly agree with many of your points. The most important of all is when you've mentioned the pursuit of "novelty". I haven't heard modern architecture's "problem" more neatly distilled down into one word than that. You expand on what I feel in the section about "pseudo-science" and give an example of a laborious review of some architecture. I think one of the clearest failings of modern architecture can be seen when you look at any architecture historian or reviewer talk about each. Classical architecture is usually described by the beauty of its ornamentation, its grandeur, how impactful it is to be around. Many modern architecture is described in abstract, I can't count the number of times where it's merely "look at this big [shape]" "it makes these flowing lines" "it tries to evoke this feeling" or some other really abstract concept, meanwhile it's tantamount to trying to shove a building inside an awkward shape where it doesn't fit and ends up looking strange. Or just a ton of glass. Flat glass. Curved glass. Look, the glass is curved in a crazy direction (this is apparently really costly). "This was a huge engineering challenge to insulate this curved glass!" WHY. Just why?
Also, the focus on the environmental issues. It's absurd that so many designs have lazily thought "we'll put some plants around it" "look the roof has a garden" "vines!". I saw another video where someone mentioned how impractical the upkeep is on all the sideways trees and grass the designers want to put upside-down. That putting the trees on the sidewalk would take up far less space, be far more practical, and you can do many times more. Not to mention it just ends up being a boring, expensive building clad in a bunch of plants arbitrarily for the purpose of mechanically offsetting random environmental figures with X number of trees and Y square feet of garden space.
The second half of the video, highlighting the renaissance was exciting! I didn't have an idea at all about these programs and it makes me happy to see and hear what people have done in them! Thank you for putting in the effort to visit and give an insight into what they do! The interviews were great!
On that note, the AI-generated images felt quite out of place in this video with so much OC...
I would also say that I was wishing to see a bit more, it felt like you had an unprecedented position showing us this view on each program, and I was wondering a bit more of how everything felt.
Like when you showed a student working on an architectural drawing I was like "WOAH, I WANT TO KNOW ALL ABOUT THIS FOR 2 HOURS"... ok that might just be me and my fascination with this kind of work lol
But the classical architecture drawings featured, here and there in little snippets, were all incredibly cool!! I feel the exact same as you, I want to frame them!
I loved seeing at 16:12 "South Bend North Pumping station". There have been many examples where people have remarked that many water pumping stations in cities have far superior and beautiful designs than modern courts or government buildings. Like the Chicago Water Tower from the mid 1800s looks like a Gothic Cathedral and its just housing a water pump lmao. Anyway, that drawing of the Indiana pumphouse is super pretty!
That university that has the strong emphasis on model building is super cool! Not like the architectural drawings are boring, I love those too, but I adore those diaoramas!
Really great video!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1