Comments by "Carlo Simotti" (@carlosimotti3933) on "Why We Should Revive Traditional Architecture u0026 Urbanism" video.
-
@edwalker598 I don't know if you have an idea of how much the population has grown in cities such as the north american, south american, asian and african ones. Even european cities have an overwhelming majority of buildings built after 1900.
Secodn as the video says it's not about imitating "old" buildings but using certain principles.
And by the way, why should "old" buildings look like fake imitations while "modern" ones not, when they all look the same? Especially when it comes to residential and office buildings, malls etc.
And by the way, do you realize it's passed more time between now and when the modernist movement started, than between when the modernist movement started and the early 1800's? Which is before buildings such as the Big Ben, half of the Louvre, the Arc du Triomphe, Berlin's museums island, etc
3
-
@edwalker598 no you said why copy traditional architecture don't we have enough of it?
My answer was 90% of what's built all over the world is not traditional architecture since it was built afterwards.
And this includes. though I didn't even count them in, slums that were built, especially in England and Scotland and the US, even way before 1900. In fact the "City beautiful" and "Garden city" movements started in answer to that since the last quarter of the 1800's.
Art nouveau is not traditional, hence the name, though still looks good, but it's so rare that doesn't affect statistics anyway. It's just used as a timeframe mark, since it was already a critique of what was being built at the time which was not traditional architecture. It certainly employed traditional concepts such as detailing and craftmanship, but no one complains it "copies" it. Which is further proof of the nonsense in worrying about copying past styles.
Modern style is a composite of various styles and some of it is great, most of it especially what spread after WWII is shit that must be erased, instead it just keeps getting repeated worse and worse and taught in universities as the sole way of bulding.
Examples as Rietveld's or Wright's townhouses and villas are but a mere exception for wealthy people or public use, not the modern standard. Today we don't even have that anymore
3
-
2
-
2
-
@thedrumguy2350 still I don't see what "modern aesthetics" is. Don't throw sentences around if you can't finish them or explain.
Anyone can say what greek, roman, hellenistic, romanesque, gothic, renaissance, baroque, neoclassic ecc aesthetics were. And even rationalist aesthetics in some way.
What is modern aesthetics and what does it belong to?
And by the way, I'm from Rome where buildings spanning 2000+ years cohexist harmoniously. Please tell me of anything built in the last 50-70 years that would aesthetically fit in Rome's city center and add value to its context.
It shouldn't be hard, since they made them fit for 2000+ years, right?
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
-
@the_aesthetic_city thanks mate, by the way a couple good subjects for future videos could be (I am from Rome so I make a couple suggestions based on great examples found here):
1) the popular roman neighborhoods of Testaccio and Garbatella and the middle-class neighborhood of Monte Sacro, all built between the 1910's and the 1930's, the latter two on the "garden city" model, and that are now included among Rome's historical neighborhoods and, despite being working/middle class, are now among the most valued per square foot in the entire city, even more than neighborhoods built before them (such as those built after the annexation of Rome in the Italian state after 1870).
2) the works of architect Ettore Maria Mazzola, who had awarded projects (in the style of Plessis-Robinson) for the demolition and rebuild of communist soviet-style prison ghettos such as the mile-long building of Corviale (Rome) and the Zen neighborhood (Palermo). Of course they did everything to not let these projects be made, despite him proving they would provide an economic profit for the city, not to mention the social one.
In the case of the project for the Zen, the neighborhood's inhabitants (among the poorest in Italy) even taxed themselves in order to finance the paper research and project, yet it was slowly "forgotten" by the local administration
2
-
@alcubz2622 this is not true and has been debunked many times, it's actually the opposite when it comes to durability, maintenance costs, energy consumption and efficiency, waste creation, logistic costs, commercial value maintenance.
Modern architecture just allows for fraud and speculation more, which given the deregulated framework (except of course for the other fraud of energy efficientation and renewables, which is forcibly pushed by the institutions) is totally convenient for speculators which can leave the burden of the countless downsides, in terms of huge economic and social costs, on the owners, municipalities and communities (and on the environment)
1
-
@edwalker598 in fact as I said, 90% are modern buildings which means buildings built after 1900 considering that Art Nouveau is the first considered modern style and it gets its name from the Paris world fair, held in 1900 if I'm not mistaken; or after the 1890's as it's when reinforced concrete started being employed in construction; or after WWI with the foundation of Bauhaus in 1919, though the likes of Gropius, Loos etc had started operating in the early 1900's.
And obviously the biggest boom came after WWII and Modernism became the worldwide standard in the 50's which is when heavy speculation coincidentally started.
And the UK saw its biggest demographic boom starting with the industrial revolution in the late 1700's early 1800's, way before most of the world where the difference is even more striking. London already had 6 millions in 1850.
Paris had 2 million in 1840's when the Haussman plan was laid down (and not completed until the 1890's).
There's way less time gap between the Haussman style and the modernist buildings of the Stuttgart exhibition in 1923, or the Charter of Athens 1937, than from those and today.
Yet the latter is the "new".
And mind you, the works and ideas by Mies, Gropius, Breuer, Lloyd-Wright ecc were far better than the crap made in the last 60 years, despite nothing "new" coming out
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thedrumguy2350 you assume what people say then talk about others projecting. Too bad the video itself says entirely other things.
And an almost entirely different subject, as the main point is mostly residential buildings and neighborhood/city planning and weird stuff such as walkability, density, public spaces ecc.
Then if we want to talk about "representative ornamental" buildings, please tell me of any representative modern buildings, since I don't think private skyscrapers destined to office and/or non-residential real estate investment belong to that category.
What are baroque city centers? Make some examples. What are "their" baroque city centers? Looks every comment poster lives in one according to you, please tell me where it is as I don't know any.
I don't praise Zaha Hadid at all for environmental impact and constructive efficiency, both horrible as all modern architecture is in that regard. Just to outline how "modern" architecture is today mimicking the baroque wow effect, obviously without the Bernini and Borromini doing it but some pretentious know-nothing who can't put one brick over another.
Hadid is just one of the few to come up with some concept of taste, simmetry and decent use of the curve, and sometimes respect for the local language
1
-
1
-
@thedrumguy2350 dude if doging questions was a sport you'd be olympic champion 😂
Given you seem to be obsessed with Baroque, as I said I come from the city in which baroque was born and features the most and most emblematic examples both in buildings and urban design. Yet it's not a baroque city since its center's plan is roman, medieval and renaissance.
There's no such thing as a baroque city, there are only baroque buldings or squares.
Vienna's center, founded by the Romans (ancient Vindibona) is medieval in its plan, with gothic churches, baroque churches and buildings, and neoclassical and some art deco buildings, and the Ring plan which is neoclassical. And so on for the other cities.
They are, guess what, built in various styles comprised in the infamous "traditional architecture" and spanning centuries if not millenniums.
Then one day this became obsolete and bad. Guess what, it is not.
The charter of Athens is a bribery and a fraud, based in money and ideology, and its main promoter Le Corbusier was on Citroen's payroll (other than licking the boots of every person in power, from Hitler to Stalin to his fellow French).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1