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

  1. Yes, urbanism is the base, but usually people can only judge what they can see in front of them. Thus the individual architecture of single buildings. Hardly anyone takes the "eagle eyes" view from above to see the whole urbanist mess. That needs to change too, but it's not so easy to explain like architecture.
    2
  2.  @solarissv777  oh it can be, absolutely.
    2
  3. Same in Germany actually, the biggest supporters are the Social Democrats, yet journalists come up with the wildest accusations as they are clueless what to write :D
    2
  4. Definitely the ugliness of modernist buildings contributed a lot to people being nihilist and rejecting progress/change/innovation. It surely also wasn't helpful for mental health in general.
    2
  5. I consider myself progressive and liberal and don't think any of that, on the contrary. These bipartisan good-evil stories don't help us in this cause. We need to look for common ideas that will actually propel this cause forward. The world, humanity, we need beauty to thrive.
    2
  6.  @lowe_sa2976  It's true. The academic world was infested by this thinking to "create the new human" and shoving new ideals down everyone's throat. It's clear to anyone visiting a lecture there.
    2
  7. It does already! New chapters pop up everywhere: France, Belgium, Italy, UK, even beyond Europe: Brasil, Indonesia, India, etc. :))
    2
  8. Oh yes please! Wanna help to ignite it? You will find allies in the group of "StreetLevel Australia"
    2
  9. Architects need to stand up for some values and aesthetics. They shouldn't act as slaves to the developers. There are enough examples of architects who successfully get through with great designs.
    2
  10. Much of the seeming rational reasoning of the current building industry is actually born from the needs of the few (esp developers and architects), while the larger public needs to get considered much more.
    2
  11. There are a few impressive examples. And they work in isolation, as a solitary "statement". But when they are injected into an existing urban realm, they usually just cause harm - as they clash with most other styles, don't integrate, create dead zones in the streets and disturbing people. It's the most despised style for a reason. But this video and movement isn't about style alone, but about humane architecture.
    2
  12. Look at the example of Le Plessis Robinson in an earlier video here, it gave former banlieu people the opportunity to live in a beautiful town now :)
    2
  13. So you won't to impose a style that only a tiny minority accepts onto most people?
    2
  14. Traditional flat roofs are a whole different story than modernist ones. The traditional ones work due to various clever tricks.
    2
  15.  @rodrigoarenas2230  I get your point. Of course flat roofs work now pretty well in various climates. Still the technical effort is larger for drainage etc. and you DO get leakages more easily when not keeping it right, while old sloped roofs can work for a century without too much effort put into it. We see these issues with flat roofs constantly here in Germany, I have to admit. At the same time, it's neither the worst nor the most important aspect. The main reason why we should get more sloped roofs is aesthetical in nature.
    2
  16. All great renaissance movements came with a rediscovery of older architecture. We need to rediscover it, it's not about copying. We need more humanism in architecture, more naturalism, more connection to Earth and its beauty. ❤
    2
  17. What do you mean by that?
    2
  18. Great idea! We definitely have it on the radar as a wonderful example of the renaissance of a city
    2
  19. Indeed! Beauty is a natural human right. All nature is beautiful, after its rolemodel architecture was created for thousands of years. Until stupid modernists came along to tell us we need "machines to live and work in". Wtf.
    2
  20. :D Their logic in a nutshell
    2
  21. One aspect often cited is the perceived lack of human scale and warmth in modernist designs, characterized by their emphasis on clean lines, stark geometries, and minimalist aesthetics. Some argue that these features may create an environment that feels impersonal and cold, potentially affecting individuals' emotional well-being. Another point of contention is the limited connection to nature often found in modernist architecture. The absence of green spaces, natural elements, and biophilic design features can potentially deprive occupants of the benefits associated with nature, such as improved mood, stress reduction, and increased well-being. Furthermore, modernist designs sometimes prioritize functionality and efficiency over human comfort and sensory experiences. The use of repetitive, uniform forms and materials can result in a lack of visual variety and individuality, potentially impacting occupants' psychological engagement and sense of identity within the built environment. It's worth noting that architectural preferences and their impact on mental health can vary among individuals. While some may find modernist architecture visually appealing and conducive to their well-being, others may prefer designs that incorporate elements such as ornamentation, warmth, and a stronger connection to nature. Ultimately, the relationship between architecture and mental health is complex and multifaceted, influenced by a range of factors including individual sensitivities, cultural backgrounds, and personal experiences. It is important to consider these nuances when discussing the potential effects of modernist architecture on mental well-being.
    2
  22. This genocide argument is going way too far and misses the point of this whole discussion.
    1
  23. Why Tokyo architecture and what do you mean by that? From the old Edo era?
    1
  24.  @TheAlison1456  Tokyo hardly preserves anything, they just keep tearing everything down. Highly unsustainable and unjust, as the city is ultra expensive.
    1
  25. True. Yet at least some of them rethink their stance, which is a good signal to others.
    1
  26. Art Deco and Expressionism for instance are wonderful nods between classical and modernist. We can restart from there and then incrementally evolutionise. ❤
    1
  27. Haha, and let me guess: he himself designs cubic bland shoeboxes for other people :D :*[
    1
  28. It's less about specific styles, but about good proportions, details, fractals, signals of beauty. This can be done in any style, but the principles of modernism praise ideals that often prohibit the creation of beauty.
    1
  29. You can be very innovative with classical elements, and many contemporary classical architects show that. I think though, that first architects have to re-learn how to do proper classical, before they can derive something astonishing like a "New Art Nouveau" or "New Art Deco" from that, something entirely new. And after all, innovation can quickly be an elitist endeavour. Innovation isn't even remotely as important as aesthetic quality, that is a prerequisite for humane and livable places. We also don't need the campus of Yale University to look "innovative" to strive for excellence there, not at all.
    1
  30. There are modernist areas without any significant car traffic, but still dead. Then there are classical areas with lots of car traffic (think Champs Elysees) and still full of people. Yes, pedestrianisation does wonders for living quality, but it's not a prerequisite for bustling streets. Friedrichstrasse Berlin turned dead after cars were blocked there for example.
    1
  31. Sure it should. You can build classical with many contemporary touches that tell today's stories. The abandonment of ornament led to buildings becoming silent, but finally that changes again. You can also restart from Art Deco, which is a wonderful bridge to the technology age.
    1
  32. Where's our fellow stone lovers? +1 🪨❤‍🔥
    1
  33. That's simply not true. At least in Europe, "everyday" buildings of past ages are all over the place, not just the extravagant ones. And even very simple buildings of poor people that survived in small towns and villages are so much more charming than almost everything built in the past 100 years.
    1
  34. And btw, please show us this "lot of bad buildings" from the 19th century and earlier, I'm excited to see them ^^
    1
  35. Well, you are right that in Sweden the Social Democrats were responsible for a lot of the harm in the post-war period. Yet after all, in most other countries, it didn't really matter which political party was leading, as also the conservatives destroyed vast parts of the cities and rooted for car-centrism as everyone else. And young politicians nowadays are not to blame for past failures, but they can make up for them. So it's good to see someone recognizes that and goes a different path, together with the local people.
    1
  36. @Sophie James What does that mean, "I'm NZ"?
    1
  37. ​ @Andrew-gn9qp  "Hanseatic cities were developed under Nordic kingdoms" - that's not true. The Hanseatic Cities usually only belonged to Nordic kingdoms much later of their height of power. Also Venice was a patrician city, with dominating influence by rich citizens that crafted the cityscape. Also for various Free Cities of the Holy Roman Empire, while there was an Emperor/King, he didn't really have a say about the urban plans and architecture of these "Reichsstädte". I still see your point, absolutism definitely had a strong effect for coherent planning. But it doesn't really "help" today, look no further than current autocracies and dictatorships. Their planning is just as ugly or even worse than in democratic places.
    1
  38. Yes, like 0.7% of modernist architecture are worth preserving. Maybe a bit more. The bland or ugly rest can be altered to become more appealing and useful. :)
    1
  39. Sure, who would ever deny that
    1
  40. That would be a weird but logical conclusion for architects to make! :D Hopefully they'll realise finally, that they need to serve the broader public, not just themselves and their peers.
    1
  41. Many ancient buildings were built just by normal citizens. No point in stressing this actually.
    1
  42. "Brutalist architecture is beautiful", well there are a few examples that are imposing or something at least. But only if built as a solitary, not in context with historical buildings, as it happened way too often. 97% of people think these buildings are inhumane and oppressively ugly - they were even designed on purpose to be ugly and provoking. That's a bad idea. We need more humane, natural and instinctively beautiful architecture again, that doesn't need explanations why it's supposed to be important. Some brutalist buildings should of course survive - as a warning to humanity.
    1
  43. Where does this channel say what you put in quotes there, esp. about elites and socialists? If you watched this video, they are actually interviewing a social democrat in Gothenburg. And the Uprising has many supportes from all parties.
    1
  44. Not really true. Socialism produced the largest amount of massproduced lame buildings per capita ever, that's for sure.
    1
  45. It obviously isn't love, as it induces hate, depression and pain in most people
    1
  46. Nah, beautiful classical buildings were mass-produced without much craftsmanship in the 19th and early 20th century. Art Deco ditto. Yet these neighborhoods are absolutely loved and usually the most desired in any city.
    1
  47. Well, yeah. Though even such people are allowed to admit their mistakes and change course. Overall, in the 50s and 80s, even socialists built more traditionally than their western counterparts usually.
    1
  48. What do you mean with that Ayn Rand reference?
    1
  49. Great points! 🎉❤
    1
  50. @Sophie James wtf is wrong with you?
    1