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

@LS-uj3fj Well said
1
@biterness2323 It's really not a question of price but entirely ideological. What a building looks like has much less to do with materials than the design choices of the architect. Modernist boxes with floor to floor glazing or unaligned windows are a deliberate architectural expression and are very often more expensive than traditional architecture. In Poundbury you can't distinguish social housing from private. Everyone who builds these days wants to pay a little as possible for what they desire.
1
@biterness2323 I understand. They want to spend the least amount to make a maximum profit. That's their business, and a good developer does just that. Our business is different. We choose what way we approach design, and what I'm saying is that it isn't a question on money but of ideology. If you propose a traditional project that is cheaper than a modernist one he'll choose your project. Traditional is not more expensive, and often lesse expensive, as I've shown many times in my own work.
1
@MrMarinus18 I think you are right. Do you not think the objectivity comes from an innate sense and the subjective from outside influences? When we look at Jackson Pollock painting would we judge it as art if we hadn't been told it is supposed to be art?. Not off subject, just the same pressure on another angle.
1
@YOULOOTWESHOOT101 It's too late for the majority of architects as they have been brainwashed already. Même en France.
1
@stormsoul8910 I didn't produce the excellent video. I only commented on it.
1
@satohime fantastic. That shows that things are moving in the right direction. I hope others will also watch or that you can report on it to your fellow students as part of the assignment. Be careful if you do to appear to be objective and run it past your tutors first. This video is so important, and it’s message shows how people’s attitudes are changing towards architecture. They demand more and they demand change. Architects and students must ask if these citizens have a point and if architects are willing to oblige.
1
@CharlesKruger1942 I don't know what school of architecture you go to, for schools that teach what the video shows can be counted on one hand.
1
@Sharru I've been a practicing architect for just over 40 years and still going strong. Please try to remember that everyone is a consumer of architecture, and that modernist planners and architects make up less than 0,02% of the population. So it's important that those studying architecture see what the general public thinks of their work and so that they might question the mantras that mould them at school. It can only widen their horizons. What do you mean by “just generalizing“? And what nuances are you referring to that the other 99,98% of the population might need to understand?
1
@Sharru 0,02% of the population are modernist planners and architects, not 15%. Beauty is not a concern of modernist architecture. You're not even allowed to use the word. One might find it beautiful (when it's shiny and new) but the vast majority of people outside of architectural circles does not, and especially after 10 years in the rain. That is why even architects and developers strive to demolish them after such a short time, because everyone's sick looking at them, they've become ugly and too costly to restore ,as the materials used to build them are often of less good quality than materials used in traditional architectures. They're built to be fashionable at a certain moment and have no reason to be when out of fashion. Liberate yourself. Look at the video again with open eyes and begin to enjoy your work knowing that you're working to please all citizens and not the 0,02%. Help make our towns beautiful.
1
There is no difference.
1
Because your teachersm demand it. Share and debate, but don't risk failing. Make a difference when you get out and try to take as many as you can with you. Show to those who decide also (politicians etc.)
1
You're an architect?
1
@aartdegoojer6733 It shows youre versed in the details, however you may be misunderstanding a few points. As you say, architrecture that is more human in scale doens't automatically need to use “historic details“. But it doesn't automatically have to abandon them, as we're tahgt to do at atchitectural scool. The word historic implies the CIAM/Bauhaus requirement that everything present in architecture before the 1920s had to be condemned to history. Qualifying any details of architecture before that time as historic is accepting to condemn them to history and refuse their use. In the case of vernacular architecture, for example, which is human scale, cornices, mouldings, cills, overhanging pitched roofs etc. are technological elements developed over time to protect buildings and guarantee their long life. Over time carftsmen, proud of their work, also made them beautiful. Often they used proportion and imitated classical details to enhance them, and wealthy patrons spent more to have them decorated and built using more expensive materials to make them more beautiful. Modernists discarded all these elements thinking they were mainly expunging decoration in order to come back to the essential and claimed to be inventing a new “aesthetic“ for the brave new world. Their stripped architecture, using cement and glass, has never produced buildings that lasted as long as they had done previously. Some of the early buildings were ruins after just a couple of years. However they kept on building them, putting out fires and treating symptoms with elemnts that created new problems, right up to the present day. Construction methods were also developed over millenaia and produced buildings that lasted for centuries with relatively little maintenance. So traditional architecture and construction methods must be the most desirable and ecological way of building, as well as being the most sound investment. Traditional architecture were always by very definition, traditional, and were also contemporary, as is everything we do at any time in history. It isn't either or ans CIAM & co. would like us to believe. For more insight into how modernism became established and survived I suggest you read Making Dystopia, by James Stevens Curl. It's the result of 60 years of reasearch and explains especially the manipulations we've all been subjected to.
1
@1789Henrique Who says it's not affordable?
1
@dangeren904 Thanks for clearing-up these points. Could you confirm that ugly modernist projects being built at the same time are being sold at similar prices?
1
@dangeren904 thanks
1
There is no need for a mix. Why not just do what is right. Modernist architecture might need traditional, but traditional architecture doesn't need modernist, on the contrary.
1
Please do this as best you can wherever you are.
1
why do you think there is still need for modernist architecture after 100 years of failure. Back to tradition is not a step back but a sidestep onto the right path.
1