Hearted Youtube comments on The Aesthetic City (@the_aesthetic_city) channel.

  1. 7300
  2. 7200
  3. 6400
  4. 6000
  5. 4400
  6. 3700
  7. 2300
  8. 2100
  9. 2100
  10. 2100
  11. 2000
  12. 2000
  13. 1700
  14. 1600
  15. 1500
  16. 1500
  17. 1400
  18. 1400
  19. 1400
  20. 1300
  21. 1300
  22. 1300
  23. 1200
  24. 1100
  25. 1100
  26. 1100
  27. 1100
  28. 1000
  29. 1000
  30. 1000
  31. 965
  32. 963
  33. 944
  34. 902
  35. 892
  36. 890
  37. 861
  38. 837
  39. 800
  40. 754
  41. 718
  42. 686
  43. 676
  44. 667
  45. 651
  46. 594
  47. 584
  48. 554
  49. 537
  50. 530
  51. 517
  52. 517
  53. 508
  54. 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
  55. 451
  56. 436
  57. 435
  58. 421
  59. 412
  60. 409
  61. 405
  62. 405
  63. 364
  64. 361
  65. 352
  66. 349
  67. 330
  68. 316
  69. 315
  70. 311
  71. 308
  72. 296
  73. 293
  74. 290
  75. 281
  76. 280
  77. 265
  78. 262
  79. 261
  80. 243
  81. 237
  82. 234
  83. 232
  84. 226
  85. 226
  86. 223
  87. 218
  88. 212
  89. 209
  90. 208
  91. 204
  92. 201
  93. 198
  94. 197
  95. 187
  96. 184
  97. 177
  98. 174
  99. 171
  100. 166
  101. 166
  102. 165
  103. 164
  104. 153
  105. 151
  106. 146
  107. 143
  108. 141
  109. 117
  110. 116
  111. 116
  112. 115
  113. 115
  114. 114
  115. 112
  116. 105
  117. 103
  118. 102
  119. 99
  120. 95
  121. 95
  122. 93
  123. 92
  124. 92
  125. 90
  126. 88
  127. 83
  128. 83
  129. 82
  130. 81
  131. 81
  132. 80
  133. 79
  134. 75
  135. 73
  136. 65
  137. 65
  138. 64
  139. 63
  140. 62
  141. 62
  142. 58
  143. 58
  144. 56
  145. 55
  146. 55
  147. 54
  148. 54
  149. 53
  150. 52
  151. 50
  152. 49
  153. 48
  154. 46
  155. 45
  156. 42
  157. 41
  158. 38
  159. 37
  160. 37
  161. 36
  162. 33
  163. 33
  164. 32
  165. 31
  166. 30
  167. 30
  168. 29
  169. 28
  170. 26
  171. 25
  172. 25
  173. 25
  174. 24
  175. 24
  176. 24
  177. 24
  178. 24
  179. 24
  180. 23
  181. 23
  182. 23
  183. 22
  184. 22
  185. 22
  186. 22
  187. 21
  188. 21
  189. 21
  190. 20
  191. 20
  192. 20
  193. 20
  194. 20
  195. 20
  196. 20
  197. 19
  198. 19
  199. 19
  200. 18
  201. 18
  202. 18
  203. 18
  204. 18
  205. 17
  206. 17
  207. 17
  208. 17
  209. 17
  210. 17
  211. 17
  212. 17
  213. 16
  214. 16
  215. 16
  216. 16
  217. 15
  218. 15
  219. 15
  220. 15
  221. 15
  222. 14
  223. 14
  224. 14
  225. 14
  226. 14
  227. 14
  228. 13
  229. 13
  230. 13
  231. 13
  232. 13
  233. 13
  234. 12
  235. 12
  236. 12
  237. 12
  238. 11
  239. 11
  240. 11
  241. 11
  242. 11
  243. 11
  244. 11
  245. 11
  246. 10
  247. 10
  248. 10
  249. 10
  250. 10
  251. 10
  252. 10
  253. 10
  254. 10
  255. 10
  256. 9
  257. 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
  258. 9
  259. 9
  260. 9
  261. 9
  262. 9
  263. 9
  264. 9
  265. 9
  266. 8
  267. 8
  268. 8
  269. 8
  270. 8
  271. 8
  272. 8
  273. 8
  274. 8
  275. 8
  276. 8
  277. 8
  278. 8
  279. 7
  280. 7
  281. 7
  282. 7
  283. 7
  284. 7
  285. 7
  286. 7
  287. 7
  288. 7
  289. 7
  290. 7
  291. 7
  292. 7
  293. 7
  294. 7
  295. 7
  296. 7
  297. 7
  298. 7
  299. 7
  300. 7
  301. 7
  302. 7
  303. 7
  304. 7
  305. 6
  306. 6
  307. 6
  308. 6
  309. 6
  310. 6
  311. 6
  312. 6
  313. 6
  314. 6
  315. 6
  316. 6
  317. 6
  318. 6
  319. 6
  320. 6
  321. 6
  322. 6
  323. 6
  324. 6
  325. 6
  326. 6
  327. 6
  328. 6
  329. 5
  330. 5
  331. 5
  332. 5
  333. 5
  334. 5
  335. 5
  336. 5
  337. 5
  338. 5
  339. 5
  340. 5
  341. 5
  342. 5
  343. 5
  344. 5
  345. 5
  346. 5
  347. 5
  348. 5
  349. 5
  350. 5
  351. 5
  352. 5
  353. 5
  354. 5
  355. 5
  356. 5
  357. 5
  358. 5
  359. 5
  360. 4
  361. 4
  362. 4
  363. 4
  364. 4
  365. 4
  366. 4
  367. 4
  368. 4
  369. 4
  370. 4
  371. 4
  372. 4
  373. 4
  374. 4
  375. 4
  376. 4
  377. 4
  378. 4
  379. 4
  380. 4
  381. 4
  382. 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
  383. 4
  384. 4
  385. 4
  386. 4
  387. 4
  388. 4
  389. 4
  390. 4
  391. 4
  392. 4
  393. 4
  394. 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
  395. 4
  396. 4
  397. 4
  398. 4
  399. 4
  400. 4
  401. 4
  402. 4
  403. 3
  404. 3
  405. 3
  406. 3
  407. 3
  408. 3
  409. 3
  410. 3
  411. 3
  412. 3
  413. 3
  414. 3
  415. 3
  416. 3
  417. 3
  418. 3
  419. 3
  420. 3
  421. 3
  422. 3
  423. 3
  424. 3
  425. 3
  426. 3
  427. 3
  428. 3
  429. 3
  430. 3
  431. 3
  432. 3
  433. 3
  434. 3
  435. 3
  436. 3
  437. 3
  438. 3
  439. 3
  440. 3
  441. 3
  442. 3
  443. 3
  444. 3
  445. 3
  446. 3
  447. 3
  448. 3
  449. 3
  450. 3
  451. 3
  452. 3
  453. 3
  454. 3
  455. 3
  456. 3
  457. 3
  458. 3
  459. 3
  460. 3
  461. 3
  462. 3
  463. 3
  464. 3
  465. 3
  466. 3
  467. 3
  468. 3
  469. 3
  470. 3
  471. 3
  472. 3
  473. 3
  474. 3
  475. 3
  476. 3
  477. 3
  478. 3
  479. 3
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. 2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. 2
  519. 2
  520. As a Martial arts instructor turned designer this conversation is interesting to me. It’s the same debate in the martial arts… traditional versus modern. Traditionalists ascribe great value and even deify the ways of old as inherently better as though crafted by a breed of humanity that was perfect… I often like to point out that those traditions were modern at the time ;)… then there are the modernists who throw out the seemingly useless antiquated techniques and etiquette and focus purely on what works in a sport competition environment and what biomechanics and sports science says about how you should train. The modernists often don’t realize that there is great wisdom in allot of the practices of the old ways in teaching you how to move well for years and how to have longevity in your training. Were the modernists have a point that most of those techniques are ancient warfare skills that have not been passed down well and no longer have a use for people defending themselves today with guns, police, and no spears and swords. In the end I think we need to realize that there is value in both but we cannot freeze time… what was called modern 10 years ago is no longer actually modern. We should have a foundation in the past that allows us to create a new modern that suits the needs and aesthetics of our current time. Personally I prefer modern designs and open concept residential plans. I agree that the typical multi family and commercial modern design tends to be either cheap and tacky or overly showing off uniqueness that does not always look good. But I do not see a good way to fix it other than 1) forcing everyone to build by strict government aesthetics 2) the end of private ownership and returning all land and buildings to communal control. But in all of those cases there will be a resistance and counter movement where after 50 years of nothing changing the next generation will look to the todays modernist movement as refreshing and people will start calling all the modernist stuff you hate as traditional
    2
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. 2
  526. 2
  527. 2
  528. 2
  529. 2
  530. 2
  531. 2
  532. 2
  533. 2
  534. 2
  535. 2
  536. 2
  537. 2
  538. 2
  539. 2
  540. 2
  541. 2
  542. 2
  543. 2
  544. 2
  545. 2
  546. 2
  547. 2
  548. 2
  549. 2
  550. 2
  551. 2
  552. 2
  553. 2
  554. 2
  555. 2
  556. 2
  557. 2
  558. 2
  559. 2
  560. 2
  561. 2
  562. 2
  563. 2
  564. 2
  565. 2
  566. 2
  567. 2
  568. 2
  569. 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
  570. 2
  571. 2
  572. 2
  573. 2
  574. 2
  575. 2
  576. 2
  577. 2
  578. 2
  579. 2
  580. 2
  581. 2
  582. 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
  583. 2
  584. 2
  585. 2
  586. 2
  587. 2
  588. 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
  589. 2
  590. 2
  591. 2
  592. 2
  593. 2
  594. 2
  595. 2
  596. 2
  597. 2
  598. 2
  599. 2
  600. 2
  601. 2
  602. 2
  603. 2
  604. 2
  605. 2
  606. 2
  607. 2
  608. 2
  609. 2
  610. 2
  611. 2
  612. 2
  613. 2
  614. 2
  615. 2
  616. 2
  617. 2
  618. 2
  619. 2
  620. 2
  621. 2
  622. 2
  623. 2
  624. 2
  625. 2
  626. 2
  627. 2
  628. 2
  629. 2
  630. 2
  631. 2
  632. 2
  633. 2
  634. 2
  635. 2
  636. 2
  637. 2
  638. 2
  639. 2
  640. 2
  641. 2
  642. 2
  643. 2
  644. 2
  645. 2
  646. 2
  647. 2
  648. 2
  649. 2
  650. 2
  651. 2
  652. 2
  653. 2
  654. 2
  655. 2
  656. 2
  657. 2
  658. 2
  659. 2
  660. 2
  661. 2
  662. 2
  663. 2
  664. 2
  665. 2
  666. 2
  667. 2
  668. 2
  669. 2
  670. 2
  671. 2
  672. 2
  673. 2
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 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
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1