Comments by "" (@colummulhern8865) on "The Aesthetic City" channel.

  1. Should be shown to architectural students once a week
    3700
  2.  @javierpacheco8234  You'll just have to be patient until you get out of school. Many of us are demanding radical change in architectural education. Beginning with an end to bullying and a beginning with tolerance and understanding.
    221
  3.  @javierpacheco8234  If you're a student you'll just have to navigate your way through and start designing traditional buildings when you get out. Don't put yourself in danger by trying unless the teachers approve in advance. Schools are beginning to change, but there is a lot of resistance from the cult of modernism.
    59
  4.  @ligametis  You're obviously an architectural student Labas. And you have to behave in a certain way, like things you're told to like and produce what is required for your projects or you'll fail. Please try to keep an open mind, even if you have to always pretend to your tutors that you'll be an obedient member of the cult when you get out. Following the narrative they preach is the easy way, and people will think you're part of an elite when you qualify, but deep down you'll always know it's not the case. Look on the internet for the architects and architecture they don't allow you to see. Imagine you could spend you whole carreer building beautiful buildings that people will like and that will help their mental well-being, instead of doing the exact opposite, as you're being conditioned to. I don't use the word taught, because you recieve no teaching. Feel free tp contaxct me on my mail address.
    36
  5.  @CampingforCool41  It doesn't cost any more to make beautiful buildings than to make modern boxes. Many of my own muildings are less expensive than their modernist equivalents. Don't just think of classical buildings as being made entirely of stone and covered with sculpture. Most of the charming places we know are composed of modest but well composed and well proportioned and detailed buildings. These should always be preferred to the boxes that cost very often more to build. The difference isn't financial but ideological.
    28
  6. And using the word eco doens't make anything any more acceptable. Ugly is ugly and wrong is wrong.
    16
  7.  @ligametis  So you ARE a student of architecture. I'm not for any revival, just bring architecture back to the main stream, as opposed to the absecne of architecture. If you look you'll see that traditional architectures never went away (survival). They're just censured by architectural press and architectural education to avoid students like you taking an interest and producing decent architecture that would show the cult for what it is. Keep an open mind. (relationships with nature.... ar you serious? Have another look at the video)
    13
  8.  @BadhopRUS  You say that without really knowing, as it looks so good. It is not a gated community and is sold at market prices. You could move there tomorrow if you liked. Or if more architects designed like this you wouldn't have to. It has all the current amenities including parking and is sustainable. I don't know how you can imagine the contrary.
    10
  9. delighted to see you as a student liking this. Please share, and don't fail school if they don't allow you to do it. Wait until you qualify. Show it to the other students and debate at school.
    10
  10.  @quangduongsong373  You can make your point without insult. But this does show how you also are affected by your architectural education, of which arrogance is an important part. I know it. We've all been there and I have the advantage of having been able to admit what was happeneing to me and to stand up for myself. That plus maybe 30 years more than you of talking about it. Please try to reflect on what you are being moulded to become (even inwardly without admitting it to anyone). You are not being taught how to provide beautiful towns for your fellow countrymen, but to play a game that only architects are allowed to play. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to inflict what they do on the world. Traditional architectures are everything between vernacualr and classicism. In China you have chinese architecture which is very rich and very ecological. It is the expression of a system developed to assemble natural and locally produced materials in order to shelter people from the elements wherever they are in the world. This has been taken from everone by a self appointed pseudo-elite. In the 1920's in Europe a handful of architects, interested mainly in their own promotion, declared that these century long local vocabulaires and thousands of years of human intelligence were no longer valid and that architects were no longer allowed to use them. That they were going to give us an new aesthetic. 100 years later we see that towns and villages all over the world have been destroyed by these declarations and what they gave us was a total failure. Despite this, schools of architecture continue to forbid you to even think of using your rich herritage to build, repair and extend what is left of the wonderful heritage we all have. And you let yourself be bullied by these people. Me not. Modernism is superior to nothing. It is a failure and its buildings often don't last more that 10 years before they have to be demolished. Architects cannot learn from their experiments the same way as others do. They continue their destructive path despite the evidence and the fact that tpopulations are at last beginning to organise themselves against them. So you. I can tell you you are wrong. If you ever take the trouble to look and read you'll realise it yourself, and you might see how joyful it is doing what is right and perpetuations vour heritage.
    9
  11. Building traditional costs no more than building modernist. The only difference is the idology. Plessis Robinson is almoust all commercial developer work, as iare cayala, Poundury etc. No-one builds these to not make money. When you begin architectural studies you'll find this out. Youll have to suffer and produce modernist projects until you get out. There are great traditional architects and craftsmen in France, but they get no publicity, quite the opposite. Please follow your dream and help make France beautiful again.
    9
  12. It's the same everywhere, with a few exceptions, but there are more and more schools of architecture beginning to give classical courses, sometimes under pressure from students.
    9
  13.  @gabrielebianchi8976  Everyone building anything wants to use the minimum budget, unless they have limitless cash and want to express that in their building, as used to happen. The choice of syle is purely an ideological one made by the architect. And as they get exculisvely modernist training they have not learned how to build simple traditional buildings afte 7 years of training. Those that do use traditional architectures have had to teach themselves, and rely on the help of other classical architects.
    7
  14.  @uioplkhj  Any architect can choose whatever way he will build. Developers etc. are only interested in getting the maximum amout of sellable floorspace for the minimum cost. You can do this and avoid modernism. If you build beautiful traditional buildings people will choose you as their architect if that's what they want to build.
    6
  15. Solid masonry constrruction if often cheaper to build than the galss boxes. The main difference is in the long term maintenance and even the life expectancy of a building. Traditional build has been seen to last hundreds and even thousands of years with ^relatively little maintenace. Modernist buildings often last less than 20, and might last longer with heavy and costly mainteance.
    5
  16. Nice words, but totally untrue. We get conditioned to say things like that at a school of architecture. As James Stevens Curl says, look with your eyes, not with your ears.
    5
  17.  @HF7-AD  That's great that students are beginning to resist the brainwashing. You can't imagine the pleasure, and how difficult it is, to produce beautiful traditional buildings. Often they have to be very discreet to be exactly right. Totally the contrary to our training where we have to make our buildings stand out. Developers don't care what it looks like as long as it's cheap and as big as it's allowed to be. Every project you get is an opportunity to do what is right. To do the best you can. There's no excuse to do otherwise.
    4
  18.  @transientbeing1887  I did of course read it all if you had the patience to read it all. Too long a discussion for this type of list though. This video is the feed back from consumers of architecture. I looked at it again after reading your piece. The act that architects refuse to take heed is just what the video is about. Just a few points You might be surprtised the see, if you look again at the video, that there isn't a single parking lot in it. That's just the impression you get from what is shown. Almost all the stars were shown along with their reference buildings. Koolhasas,. Foster, Hadid, Nouvel etc. (mins. 2.24, 4.20, 6.30,7.09, 11,13 12.29) Why do architects have to follow blindly a failed agenda, 100 years later, despite all the evidence and the protests of those who have to live with their little agenda?. Why is the modern style an absolut must and the rest is not? The Venice Charter was also written in the 1960s. The bit about new interventions into the existing having to be different came from the slanted english translation of the french original. This shows the zeitgeist at the time. Look again at the conclusionfrom minute 11.57 and ask yourself if he has a point or not. Bauhaus was a dismal failure. It was only open for 13 years and architecture courses were only availbale for the last 5. It was closed several times and the last time by Mies. Philip Johnson admired everything German at the time (including its army) and brought the Bauhaus teachers to the US and managed to get them all important posts in schools of architectecture where the re-wrote the syllabuses and imposed modernism that wasn't acceptable in Europe. One writer (wife of a former Bauhaus teacher) said maodern architecture was Hitler's revenge. Later Johnson regretted having help modernism to establish in the world and said so. Read “Making Dystopia“ by James Stevens Curl for full information.
    4
  19.  @transientbeing1887  I'll have to be brief as I have a lot to do, and notably on a site for a developer. Developers didn't invent modernism. They like it because they think it's cheaper than traditional architecture, which it is not. They are only interested in spending the least amount and selling for the most. If you make the argument that classical (I'm not talking about stone and classical columns - Look at the faubourg architecture of Paris for example. Side streets just off the boulevards that predate Haussmann) it can be cheaper and that people buying like it better he'll have no problem. The whole of Poundbury and Cayala are being built by developers to make money, and the downturn in the property market in England never affected building or selling in Poundbury. So it is basically architets past and present that have influenced developers. Foster & Partners are Pritzker Prize winners, modern heroes to which nearly all students aspire. Him or Gehry, or Hadid or Koolhas etc. The fact that you single him out doesn't make any of the others any better, but they're all hailed as gods and given as examples of excellence. If you ever get the chance to watch “The Competition“ please do so, and if you could see the rubbish debates among architects after you might be able to admit that architects as a whole are totally uncapable of seeing the reality of starchitects and the whole system. For bullying you can have look online. Ill treatment might be a better word. There is an infamous film of a crit where Peter Eisenmann destroys a poor girl in a crit. He doesn't even address her directly. I myself saw it at school, as did my daughter and I've spoken to many young architects that have experienced the same. It's the very nature of the crit system. As for modernism. You must produce modernist projects at school (almost all schools) if you don't what to fail. Teachers take the same stance as yourself, that traditional today is only a gimmick and real architecture is modernist. In the past examples are Quinlan Terry, who when he qualified went to burnt his work on the steps of the AA. Robert Adam was failed in his final year and was able to be retreived by an external examiner. (Both are Dreihaus Prize winners) Even Francis Terry (son of Quinlan) had to do moderrnism to get through school. My daughter was delighted when told at school that nothing was off limits and that there weren't any wrong answers. When she made her first design for simple brick houses as an infill project she was told “.... but not like this...“ Traditional was off bounds. I had to produce modernism at school, and I can go on like this. I disagree with your first 3 conclusions, and on the last one I would say that even those at the bottom of the class are considered as part of a class of artistic elite that mere mortals just can't understand. Tone of voice here is calm (just in case the wording might not sound that way)
    4
  20.  @svart-rav8072  Thank you svart. Modernism is a deliberate break with past traditions as with industrialization some architects (those that got all the publicity, but a small number) thought they aere superior to their predescessors as they had modern techniques and machines, and that industry was going to solve all our problems and give us a brighter future. Le Corbusier wrote that architects should refuse the past and that all the principles will be revised. Also the moden movement was also called the international style. The same building could be built in Norway, Borneo, Brasil and Congo using the same modern mateirals. Therefore no-one needed learn their local architectectures, techniques and specifities. The fact that urbanization was rampant, and don't forget the rebuilding after the second world war, particularly in Europe, could ahve been handled much differently. Prefabricated concrete with no decoration (they still called it architecture, but it wasn't) suited those who wanted to build as quickly and cheaply as possible. They accompained it with a modernist doiscourse and it became just the nor. $Compare that to the recent recontruction of Leipzig, or other places at the time, like Echternach in Luxembourg, where tradesmen rebuilt in a similar manner to what had been destroyed. Corbusier and Mies were villains interested mainly in thier own promotions. Corb wanted to demolish half of Paris (you might think it was just a project, but that's exactly what he tried to do) and his secretaty would live on one side of Paris and he on the other, so that he could drive to meet her for work , thus creating employment in the petrol industry and wearing down tyres that had to be replaced by the tyre industry. Totally misguided as he was on many fronts. They decided architecture would become this and it did, but we know today it wasn't a good idea. Modern materials were experimantal, and didn't work for decades. Houses leaked, oveheated in the summer, were freezing in the winter and cracked due to thermal movement. Instead of going back to using materials that we know last for thousands of years they couldn't admit they were wrons and continued adding complexities to try to solve their problems, and we're still doing that to the presnt day, even though we know the whole idea of impermeable facades is wrong. It was part of the midset at the time as you say, but managed to impose itself through manipulation and censuring architects that didn't agree with them in the architecrtural press. When they got a hold of architectural education in the US there was no going back. Until recently. Why can we not look back? Should we try again and again to re-invent architectecture? They've been messing with peoples towns and cities for a century, and people are at last beginning to cry out for change. Change might mean looking at where it all went wrong and starting from there. Trying to imagine where we would be today if thousands of years of tradition hadn't been scrapped. We can use many of what has been good over the past 100 years, but the architecural expression is an insult to our fellow citizens. Technology is useful. We can use it to share ideas for example, but it shoudl be a tool, not an end, and it isn't housing and doens't need to find an expression in architecture at the expense of the architectures that are par of our dna. You say architecture should be novel and creative. I disagree. That is the little elitist game I was talking about for architects by architects. People are now saying stop, and build uns beautiful buildings and towns we can live happily in. Modern comes from the french to be fashionable. Classical is always valid. But I'm not asking people to put columns everywhere. We all have great examples of local architecture in our towns. Thoise are the models. Not Nouvel, Hadid, Mies. Read with an open mind. Research. Become part of the solution, not part of the problem.
    4
  21.  @KolyaUrtz  Another architectural student. Read below and watch the video again. You're showing what the elitest group and it's schools are all about. No-one else has the right to an opinion, particularly the consumer (person walikng in the street)
    4
  22.  @KolyaUrtz 1 - I'm not so sure that “some styles which are new today will be established as traditional“. Modernosm has been around for a century and we still haven't seen thier beauty except for maybe in a handful of objects. The masses of buildings being pumped out over the last 80 years are almost all ugly and dysfunctional. Many are demolished after only a few years. Tradition is a way of doing things that has developed over a very long time and differs depending on what part of the plant you live in. Materials, climate, resources and whatever plant and animal life are present have influenced our ancestors since they left caves and was fairly coninuous until the 1920's, despite the industial revolution, when it was decided to reject it all and reinvent somethng because those at the time were persuaded that technology was goig to give us better. That we knew better and were better equipped than pour predescessors. We can't invent tradition. We can invent styles, but why? and if it's not as good as what we've got should we use it anway? They've been trying for the last hundred years and haven't managed, but there are others, who get little publicity, who have kept the traditions alive. Not there's an ecological urgency we can see that the building industry is driving un into the wall. We need to rethink and we can start by looking where we were at when it all went wrong. Ask ourelves whs it legitimate to try reinventing things and if it was a success or a failure. For 2 - so some students do propose traditional architectures and pass? Look at Cayal in Guatemala for example, or Poundbury. No need for classical columns. For 3 - I agree. But many also pretend to be respecting the genius loci and destrioy it (Hadid in Antwerp) 4 - We have improved in technology, but whether we have improved in building methods and materials is more than debatable. Buildings don't last any more. Reinforced concrete is problematic and has a limited life. It's not a question of wall thickness. Look online for the discovery they've made very recently about how Romans made their concrete. Theirs lasts thousands of years, our doesn't last very log if exposed to the elements. Main problem is the nature of cement against that of lme. Cement is self destructing. Steel can be sueful but also problematic. Steel buildings with impermeable skins is another recipe for disster. Glass facades have to be replaced periodically. Why not use the techniques and materials that last for centuries. Especially as we know we can't continue wasting and rebuilding towns every 50 years. We know more about psycholo^gy today than 50 years ago, and we know today the effects of modernist architecture on the human brain (look at ann sussman videos for ex.) Most insulating mateiral come from the oil and mining industries. PUR is another disaster waiting to ahppen (not to mention Grenfell Tower) 5 - don't understand. We can't continue to consider buildings as consumer goods we can dispose of after 20 years. We need to stop waste and reduce the impact we're having on this world. I thought young people wer genuinely concerned and afraid of this. (of cours, but maybe not for architecture) 6 - That's what I mean about archtects thinking the exact opposite of “normal“ people. And believe me. It isn't the normal people who are wrong. You were a normal person also at one stage, but school brainwashes you. It did me for a while. 7 - beutiful buildings always existed also, because they were built considering others, considering their context and those who paid for them wanted them to be beautiful as they were their expression în the community. Now it's a corporate image, an XL spreadsheet and an architect trying to get the admiration of other architects.
    4
  23.  @LO-dm6uf  In my humble opinion, contemporary styles are a major part of the problem. And it would see, from every recent opinion poll, the vast majority of people agree. And architects disagree. Heydar Aliyev is a one off, and owes a lot to generation by computer, but you couldn't use it as a model for building towns or define it as being a style. Only 10 years old I suggest we see how long it lasts and what it's like in another 10 years. Maybe the local climate will be kind to it, maybe not. Greeted by everyone with enthusiasm when it was built, I've heard that local people are getting tired looking at the Bilbao Guggenheim. The Sydney Opera house was never, as far as I know, able to house an opera, and the inside bears no relation to the outside appearance. It is an expensive sculpture that has becone a symbole of the city, and as such that's fine. These are all one-offs, and still are, in my opinion, no comparison to many of the classical concert halls and opera houses, and I'm also talking about smaller local examples. I must say that I find the Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg particularly hideous and incomprehensible. But that's just me (and the vast majority of non architects I presume). Please look at Cayala, which is being built as we speak on what was a green field site, and tell me again that we shouldn't be building towns like this.
    4
  24.  @WEMO11  It's a private development with no social housing. The developer targets middle and upper class buyers, but that's not what influences the architecture. If you look at Poundbury there is 30% social housing and the architecture is no different to the more expensive units.
    4
  25.  @ThrownAwayVoices  The decorative, but very ofteh technically neccessary elements in facades and roofs can be seen as making traditional buildings more expensivet o build, but the loadbearing logic of traditional building make them cheaper. So they are not more expensive. Often modernists use expensive materials on facade, canrtilevers etc. to try to give some interest. Developers should be made aware that classical and traditipnal are not more expensive to build but are what people want, and will then sell better.
    4
  26.  @Game_Hero  That' question is a good start for a student from Brasil. There is of course the colonial architecture, but what methods and materials were used in thos lost cities being discovered in the Amazon. Towns the size of London at the time. Much of their intelligence was lost. Classicism is present outside Rome, but it was adapted to materials, climates and local tradirions all over the empire, giving rise to other local forms of architecture. Travellers always brought ideas and tdetails home from their travels and travelling carftsmen also brought their know-how and details. So there's no limit, but alwways use a local framework as a starting point or as a reality check.
    4
  27.  @quangduongsong373  Maybe start by looking at the video above, because I don't think you did.
    3
  28.  @ania7930  They still talk about Bauhaus and Le Corbusier as if they are revolutionary and currently relevant. They haven't really learned anything since, except from what current stars are building using new systems developed by industry and for which they claim credit. Still experimantal and often a failure, they, like their idology are caught in a time warp.
    3
  29.  @VishalDubey  You'll have to convince them. If it's clients you talk about, then inform them that what is fashionable today is will be out of fashion tomorrow. So their investment is less safe in the long run. Classical means always valid. If you want to build something in solid traditional materials, especially if they are natural materials, then the only way of making sure it won't be out of fashion, and therefore a candidate for demolition, is to use traditional architecture. Traditional buildings don't cost more than modernist ones, and often cost less.
    3
  30. They're really fun to do, need a lot of creativity and knowledge, and are so rewarding when you see them finished.
    3
  31. ​ @tombriand2851  My pleasure Tom. People like you are badly needed.
    3
  32.  @TheAnadromist  You don't need to use faux wod to buid nice buidings. On the contrary.
    3
  33.  @laeihbvaljefhbvalejfhbv  Of course your approach would be valid. I don't know what local vernacular styles you have, but you would need to see ifyou can adampt it to 3 or 4 floors.
    3
  34.  @ThrownAwayVoices  I am. And thanks very much.
    3
  35.  @rafaeljanaguite9118  In which school are you allowed to use classiacal styles? All schools I know used to forbid except Notre.-Dame in the US. I know there are about 10 schools in the UK that are becoming more open to their use.
    2
  36.  @transientbeing1887  Which school did you attend? There are only a couple in the world that have this approach. And by the way. I am an architect ans so is my daughter. So I know when she was at school things hadn't changed since my day. The model used for education today comes from the failed Bauhaus (only 5 years of architectural teaching)
    2
  37.  @KolyaUrtz  The only thing limiting clasical buildings is the fact that they must have some form of sloping roof sitting on a simple structure that carries their weight to the foundations in a logical manner. That usually give a simple geometrical form or a collection of forms. They can be adapted to fulfill just about any function as long as their size is adequate. It's humans that have the problem adapting and want buildings to adapt to them. Befoe the industrial revolution man had just about perfected every manner of building with natural materials. We know now that in the interest of ecology we should return to using natural materials and we have the architectectures to show us how to assemble them so that they can last for thousands of years in some cases. If we've learned so much from materials, living environments and physics how come many buildings don't last for more that20 years. I've seen a £10M award-winning building demolised recently after 3 because of irremdiable technical problems with its structure. Many more closed for refurbishment and repair after a couple of years (even award-winning ones). We are very wrong when we assume we know better than those who built cathedrals 800 and 1000 years ago, or thos who built the pantheon 2000 years ago.
    2
  38.  @LO-dm6uf  The video doesn't say thsat beuuty can only be found in classical archiutecture but asks why architects refuse to use the architectecture that gave us beauty. Some of the examples shown are present day developments like Poundbury. Cayla is not at all a gated community but one open to everyone to live, work and visit, and it sells at normal market prices. The difference between it and other developments is the architrcture and the urbanism, whicu is the capable hands of Léon Krier and Estudio Urbano. You probably assume that it's gated and for the rich because it looks good. It's impossible to tell the difference between social housing and private in Poundbury for example, where 30% is social and mingles with the private. I'm afraid this is my choice for what architects should be providing for everyone to live in. You admit your own choice is “too boxy“. 70 times the average wage means someone earning an average wage would spend less than 30% of thier wage to buy something there. That's less than the average people spend on housing, and if it's a working couple it's even more affordable.
    2
  39.  @alexandrapatricio2727  It's usually private developers, companies or individuals who decide to demolish an old buiding and replace it with something new (usually much less good). City Hall provides the planning regulations that almost always make the “operation“ profitable, without which the original building would not be demolished. If the developer etc. doesn't see a profit at the bottom of an XL spreadsheet he wouln't even consider proceeding. Companies calculate the costs of their building over a 20 year period and then want something to fit their current corporate image. So the fight for heirtage protection should firstly be at a political level. Only the general population can make a difference here. Change will not come from within the building industry or architectural profession. Only 4% of buildings are demolished becuase of a structural problem, and less than 0,02% of those who decide what our towns and cities look like are modernist planners and architects. So why let them destroy the places we live in?
    2
  40.  @ideaseeds01  building traditional is no dearer than building modernist. All of the classical schemes you see in this make money for the developers.
    2
  41.  @manuelsen69  Looks marvellous. There's a good example of how to build in Brasil.
    2
  42. There are more and more schools waking up to the demand. There is certainly a chang. Notre-Dame in Indiana is the main classical school and has been for a long time. Students leaving there are guaranteed a job as they're snapped-up by pracices immediately.
    1
  43. Classical and traditional architectures are always valid and produce beautiful and long lasting buildings. They use tried and tested methods whereas moderinsm uses experimental materials that so far have proved to have very short lives. Difference for exapmple between lme and cement.
    1
  44. Poundbury was built on a green field site. Urbanism and archtecture are traditional, and very successful.
    1
  45.  @ligametis  I didn't say architects had no liberty after school. Are you a student? Architects are conditioned at school and only allowed to get through if they appear to adhere to the modernist ideology.. So when they get out they still behave in a way that meets with the approval of the cult. Much like the behaviour in a sect where they watch each other. If you like brutalism it's obvious you have been brainwashed at a school of architecture, because there's nothing to love in brutalism. It deliberately doesn't try to be loved. So what does that say about anyone who would deliberately impose it on the rest of humanity and affect negatively people's mental health?
    1
  46.  @ligametis  I'm 99% sure they are ugly. Compare them with anything Haussmann had built. Architectural education prepares you to think differently to normal people. You are trained (to say that you) find beauty in ugliness. Being incomprehensible to normal people allows the architectural profession to give the impression that they have some genius somewhere that others don't. That they know some truth that others can't see. That's the only way they can become a pseudo-elitist body and get away with wht they do with impunity.If you reflect on your path from joining architectural school you'll see this. At what point in your education was something revealed to you that gave you that gift of genius the ordinary man hasn't got? Architectural education hasn't changed and is the same the world over apart from a very few schools. You're left to your own devices and just have to find out by yourself how to please a panel of bullies. Your'e probably doing quite well. Actually I just looked at Habitat 67. It is horrendous. An insult to anyone that has to live or look at it. That illustrates precisely my point. Would you have found that beautiful before you began architectural studies? I could go on like this for ever, but until you actually decide to reflect on what has happened to you you'll be locked in this twisted and dangerous logic. I say all this very camply and with no emotion. I was a modernist student too until I began looking at the twisted opinions I was spouting when those close to me kept saying they were flabbergasted at what I was showing them as good architecture. I realised I was making mysel appreciate horrible buildings and getting a buzz that people were thinking I might know something they didnt (sound familiar?).
    1
  47.  @rafaeljanaguite9118  Philippines? It's nice to know you can use architectures other than modernist ones. Beware of fashion and take heed of the destruction modernism has brought on your towns and cities. I don't think modernism will last the drive for ecology.
    1
  48.  @svart-rav8072  Is there something wrong with what I said? Maybe you could elaborate. I don't expect you to really. I can spot an architectural student a mile off. Please at least take a step back and realise that you're being manipulated and think again when you qualify. Ask one of your teachers to attemp a reply here. I know architects try to make everyone believe that the opposite is true, when we know it isn't. Every opinion poll taken over the last few years (I don't think they had them before) show that what architets call beautiful and what everyone else calls beautiful are exactly the opposite. And we, who have studied architecture, know that we haven't been shown where everyone else is wrong and we are right. You just have to obey, fit yourself in to a mould dictated by a failed idology dreamt-up by misquided people a century ago. If their reaction at the time was against excessive decoration then it's legitimate that the avant-garde today is reacting against not only the blandness of the brave new world but the ecological cost. Scentific research show through eye tracking that people's eyes do not engage with modernist buildings (look at research - Ann Sussmann). Socialogical and psychological research show that modernist surroundings negatively affect the mental health and social behaviour of those living and experiencong them. I could go on forever and in great detail, but I will just say this one simple thing. Today scientific research is able to explain what we knew all along. In the 1920s a handful men, interested mainly in their own promotion, decided that everything belonging to the past in architecture should be expunged and EVERYTHING re-invented. All the principles were to be be revised, and that architects should set themselves against the past. If they condemned architecture to history, I,and many more like me, think that it is an illigitmate order, and we refuse to refuse the lessons and examples of the past. Why should we deprive ourselves, and especially our fellow citizens for whom we build, of our rich heritage, fruit of human endeavoiur and intelligence over thousands of years? Especially when you see what they have given us since. It's purely an ideological decision to which I do not adhere. 100 years ago they might not have realised what mess we would be in today, but now that we know the consequences we should have a hard look at reality and listen to those who haven't been brainwashed. They shouldn't still be presenting Le Corbusir & Co. as if it their ideas are still revolutionary?, but showing how they have failed.
    1
  49.  @moongladex  I don't understand your question Haziq. And schools of architecture don't teach beauty. Indeed beauty was deliberately expunged from architeure a century ago. Building had to seem to be functional and then stop...
    1
  50.  @KolyaUrtz  “Almost all professors value aesthetics“ is a very broad state,ent which actually say nothing. Do they allow you to produce traditional or classical projects and allow you to pass? or do they say “you can't do that any more? They saythe appreciate historic buildings as long as the are old, and anything after the 1920 must be totally different. That is the main problem that has influenced negatively our built envirnoment since. We actually haven't made progress in materials. The more we try the more problems we have, and the more solutions we have to find for the new peoblems we've given ourselves. Cement should be outlawed to start with. It is responsable for the vast majority of problems in building.Find and look at a video on hot-mix lime, and see if you still think that today's materials are superior. Ecologically and in every way lime renders are superior to cement renders, concretes etc. Imagien the centuries of research and human intelligence it took to develop and ask yourself if Corbusier & Co were right to condemn it all to history. It is not at the height of ecological excellence today. Look at that rather than the machines for living. Human needs are for beautiful surroundings in which they feel good. Building shouldn't be a game for a small self appointed elite. If you try traditional you'll love it.
    1