Youtube comments of (@the_aesthetic_city).
-
1100
-
595
-
491
-
389
-
327
-
237
-
180
-
162
-
150
-
144
-
143
-
139
-
134
-
113
-
107
-
103
-
101
-
101
-
95
-
89
-
87
-
85
-
84
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
71
-
71
-
67
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
59
-
59
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
45
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
29
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
Happy to help! Midjourney 6.1:
“aerial photo of a vast high density traditional Arabian city, 7 stories tall, lush streets, fountains, human scaled, haussmann urbanism meets Arabian Emirati traditional architecture, palm trees, green, domes and wind catchers, extreme population density, arabian liveable urbanism”
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
It’s not about the aesthetics of the tower (the green always helps), it’s about the concept of building skyscrapers with trees, which doesn’t solve a single problem. The tower needs to be engineered so it can carry all that extra weight, requiring a lot of extra concrete & rebar (much more CO2). The maintenance costs are sky high (watering, gardening). The trees have limited space for their roots, unlike those planted directly in the ground - no mycorrhizal fungi that connect them with other trees like in a forest, etc etc. It looks cool, but that’s about it - at street level the tower is anonymous and boring, rent is high, and about everything about it is impractical. That’s why I see it like a regular skyscraper with a funny gimmick, thus the ‘frivolous concept’, but I prefer pragmatic solutions - if we want to solve the world’s problems while also providing value & well-being to citizens, we need to identify real solutions from fake solutions.
But I will discuss this definitely in a future video
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The USA is a whole other story, indeed. But as ‘NotJustBikes’ already covers the topic of suburbanisation and car infrastructure, I’m focusing on these topics - and here in Europe at least, they are urgent.
Here I portray a broader movement of the population. I challenge your notion that the public is somehow unaware of good design - I believe many ‘ordinary’, uneducated people will instantly and intuitively feel when a design is good or not, and when they like a space or don’t like a space. We are witnessing enormous failures of an entire class of experts, looking at the inability of urbanists to create loved, compact, sustainable places - so I believe it is not the public who needs to get in action, but it’s the experts. Movements like the Uprising are a form of creating ‘skin in the game’, or accountability, for architects and planners who otherwise can more or less design whatever they want (in the European context at least)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It seems you’re missing the point of the video: novelty should be pursued as the key & only value. It only has value if it offers some function, not if it is applied just to scream for attention, or to stand apart by showing off originality.
Regarding your examples: none of them are unique to Modernist architecture. Skyscrapers can be built using traditional design principles to make them more pleasing and letting them fit in the urban fabric - and you can build up to 60 meters tall with natural stone, if needed. Kath Kuni constructions in India, but also Japanese temples and constructions in Turkey have withstood earthquakes for centuries. Space usage is normally worse with many Modernist buildings. Unfettered views? The Crystal Palace offered those too. Sustainable architecture? Traditional architecture trumps any modernist construction by using truly sustainable and reusable materials (stone, wood, earth, brick) that last for centuries, even millennia instead of a meagre 50-100 years. All these were innovations at some point, but they were implemented in harmonious, intelligent and beautiful ways.
Finally: if the owner is pleased it’s validated, you say. But we’re not alone on this world, there’s a thing like ‘neighbors’ and ‘society’. If 90% of society hates a building, the owner might still like it, it can still be unethical.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There is not a single good answer to this; but the principles have been summarized well on institute-of-traditional-architecture.org. The book A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander is helpful, and it also doesn’t hurt to know & understand the classical design tradition (the Robert Adam book, now out of press, is a good one. It is very useful to learn proportion systems - ‘Beauty Memory Unity’ dives into that, but it is a more arcane subject and much knowledge seems to have been lost. They are still reinterpreting Vitruvius’ texts for example, and many architects just improvise nowadays. How some older buildings were ‘set out’ is a mystery, but some drawings have remained and they always used a compass to set out various types of squares and rectangles to obtain guidelines.
There are endless local vernacular styles one could learn from, that have adapted to local materials and climate - and other Classical styles like Chinese or Indian, even Mayan architecture - not only Greco-Roman like many think. They all use symmetry to some degree, many have tripartite designs, so by studying and drawing these, you’ll get there.
It is a good starting point to learn how to use the compass and ruler to do things like split a line, create various angles, and then move on to draw one classical order, like the Tuscan or Doric, using The American Vignola as a guide. It will give you a feel for various proportions and it is fun to do, and not too overwhelming.
Anyway - I should make a longer post about this perhaps. Good luck!
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for your reaction. I agree innovation has always been a key part of the building traditions, but it was not always for the sole purpose of ‘just doing something new’. That seems to be more important nowadays. Instead, most innovations were functional or aesthetic, like the pointed arch, or flying buttresses to make cathedral windows bigger.
Modernism indeed allowed for more design freedom, due to fully leveraging new construction methods, and sometimes this led to these designs being more functional (in certain aspects) as well. But that’s not the point I’m making - I’m talking about these new construction methods being abused to create wacky forms just to attract attention for the architect, or just for the sake of it. The creation of extremely discordant facades is the strongest proof that it’s often not even about function: these facades hardly offer any value or function above just ‘standing out’. In contrast, due to the (subtle) use of classical proportions and traditional design principles, even ‘wacky’ Art Nouveau designs blend quite well with earlier styles.
Also, I believe the notion we just need to aim for more ‘quality’ is enough, or that it says anything at all. What ‘quality’ are we talking about? Quality in what terms? Execution, thoughtfulness of the design, use of materials? Who measures that quality? The architect or the public? How about aiming for more beauty, instead of just ‘quality’? Even starting a conversation about what is beautiful is already worthwile in my opinion.
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
-
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
-
Exactly - concrete can be made to last far longer than 50 years. But in most regular construction, this choice isn't made to save costs.
Many buildings, especially office bulidings, are built as an investment object. After 50 years, the investment (the building) is fully depreciated so there is no need to give it a longer life span... Technically, yes, there are many ways to make it last longer. Different type of rebar, coatings, more cover, you name it. But if it doesn't make financial sense, it won't happen.
This is why a system that doesn't have this fundamental problem would be the better alternative, but it requires a change of mindset in finance and in policy.
If we start building concrete buildings that last for 200 years or longer, I'm not opposed - but that will also be more expensive, and then other options might become more competitive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You’re wrong on almost all accounts.
- modern can be more expensive than traditional, especially when architects choose for novel, special, difficult constructions. Traditional construction is predictable and straightforward, if executed well it can last for hundreds of years and can in some cases lower costs too. When it is not cheaper, it will still be cheaper long term as they will sustain for longer (most modern buildings have a 50 year economic lifespan)
- load bearing masonry can last far longer than modern reinforced concrete constructions
- traditional architecture can be built as fast as modern in almost all cases, when modern materials are used. It is design dependent. Some techniques require more time, but those often lead to far more sustainable buildings (like Pozzolan cement / Roman concrete)
- modern reinforced concrete buildings will deteriorate over time (see my concrete video) and will be either very expensive or impossible to refurbish. Traditional buildings using traditional materials are often easier and cheaper to repair (as is noticeable in many old European cities).
Conclusion: if you want quick, ugly, ‘cheap’ buildings that start to rot after 20 years and are demolished after 50, then yes, modernist architecture with those miraculous construction materials are a better choice
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, we disagree. Some architects changed their minds, but very few. As stated in the video, most changed their minds back and either ignored the project and the King's ideas, or started a vicious campaign to smear Poundbury in every appalling way imaginable. Only very recently, the media have become somewhat milder about the project.
Of course it's not black & white, and of course the town was designed by architects and a planner (we even get to see and hear him in this video, and I mention many of the actual architects). The King's advocacy has actually meant a lot for the movement of traditional architecture and urbanism, as there were very few championing it, especially not with the stature of King Charles. We felt that the story of Poundbury should be told in a different light for once, taking its lessons seriously, and that is why the video is like it is!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1