Comments by "RR OO" (@RROO-qy8je) on "Alexander Rotmensz" channel.

I see many people being mad at how Disney-like these newly built traditional buildings look. And if they do whats the problem? I would rather live in a fairytale looking building than in a depressing gray tower. Just because its in fiction doesnt mean it should stay that way. Those fictional buildings were invented by real people with awesome creativity. They could easily have built those buildings in real life and people would just asume its a new architecture style. This is basically the new 21st century architecture style. Fairytale architecture. This is such a dumb comment but there are actually a few people out there that hate these buildings just because they look like fairytales.
297
Did all of those blocks give people affordable homes? Yes. Was it worth it tho? No. Bucharest is supposed to be the main point of Romania. It's supposed to represent the history of Romania. If you destroy all historic buildings then there's no way to show off all that history. People wanna see places with history and uniqueness. Sure the city may be full of affordable homes for unwealthier people. But if people don't wanna travel to see that city then you can't really be proud of it. If people are disgusted and depressed to see your city then that's not something to be proud of.
11
@topsnek4603 Yeah im a traditionalist myself but those people are straight up stupid. They think we should only remain in the past and keep designing the same old architecture styles. Whats funny is if we stopped at the first architecture style we would still be building stone age huts. Architecture needs to evolve. It has been evolving for years. We should always be evolving. Every architecture style has been an evolution of the previous one. You take what came before it and improve onto it with new build techniques and materials. But the problem with the modernist style is that it wasnt an evolution from what came before. They basically reinvented the wheel which no one asked for. Art Deco and Art Nouveau for example was developed around the same time as modernism. They use modern materials and dont use the classical proportions. Yet they are absolutely gorgeous. If a building has elements that come from nature it will guaranteed look beautiful. Modernist architecture has nothing from nature. Straight edges, sharp corners, Massive glass surfaces, Unnatural materials, etc. are all not found in nature hence they're ugly. Sorry for the paragraph but i really got into it.
3
@tann_man Not even devolve but straight up starting from new which is insane. We have so many years of knowledge about architecture and we decided to just throw it out the window. Those styles were improved upon and perfected for thousands of years. Why change something that already works? Its straight up stupid.
3
@Lildizzle420 I totally agree with that statement. I dont necessarily hate modernist architecture, there are some quite interesting buildings built in that style. What i hate is how everything looks the same. I basically hate the international style. Its been about 50 years and we still havent managed to design a new architecture style. We need more diversity. More styles. When i travel somewhere i dont wanna feel like those buildings look exactly like in my country. We are so advanced and have so many tools and robots yet we use them to make simple boxes that even a kid can draw. Modernist architecture is also very inconvenient. Flat roofs in cold/rainy areas is stupid. Leakages happen quite often. Or glass skyscrapers in the desert which makes the buildings 10x hotter.
2
@lws7394 Yeah. Just because something is fiction doesnt mean it should remain fiction. Its not like fiction is outside our reality. Fictional architecture was still invented by the same creative people who design real buildings. Bringing those styles into reality is nothing wrong.
2
Have you ever played Cities Skylines? If not you should definetely check it out because i think you'll like it.
2
No city is perfect and neither are new proposed cities. But what matters is for them to be at least better than current cities. Modern cities clearly arent working. So if your new proposed city is the same thing thats been built for the last 50 years then its basically pointless. New cities should be built only if the design is something new and fixes problems of modern cities.
1
@jonathanstensberg Yeah ive always been saying that. Thats probably the biggest reason. But even if we were to build "fairytale/science fiction" type of buildings it wouldnt be a problem. If it works like a buildings then theres no problem that it looks like Disney. Disney buildings are anyway made out of cardboard and cheap materials.
1
@tann_man Yeah but didnt you know that architecture keeps evolving? It has always been evolving. Every architecture style from the past has evolved into a different style. We dont have to suddenly stop. These buildings are basically just a new style. For example even Art Nouveau looks very kitchy sometimes because its not as old as other styles. Buildings age over time which is why they look the way they do. You think all these old buildings looked dirty when they were first finished? No. They obviously looked all clean and new. We just need to get used to it. Same with the statue of liberty for example. If we tried to rebuild it people would think it looks weird because its orange. When in reality it looked exactly like this when it was finished. Buildings dont have to necessarily follow any classical rules. It needs to follow rules that are found in nature. Art Nouveau doesnt follow any rules yet everyone can agree it looks gorgeous. Thats because they use many flowery motifs and use a ton of curvers which are all found in nature.
1
@pimdegroot9656 Why do you think they got so expensive? Because they are good high quality buildings. Do you suggest we build shitty buildings that dont even last 10 years? I asume not. Gentrification is a very difficult topic. Just because gentrification happens doesnt mean we should build shitty buildings for the poor. They still deserve high quality buildings. We dont live in the middle ages after all. They dont deserve to live in slums.
1
@charlesmartin8159 I guess thats a good point. But there are many buildings out there built out of natural buildings yet people still call them kitchy or fake because the paint looks brand new. Sometimes they make sense but sometimes they dont know what theyre talking about.
1
@nntflow7058 Exactly what im saying but people are just dumb and uneducated.
1
@EliasBac I mentioned its a stupid thing to believe. But this is one of the most common excuses of modernists. And i understand why they find stupid excuses for us not to build them. Because if we start building beautiful again they will have more work to do. Currently they are designing simple boxes that even a baby could design. They wanna do as little effort for as much money possible. Thats why they live in beautiful traditional buildings. Because they look amazing but they dont wanna spend the time on actually designing buildings like that.
1
@guillaumefigarella1704 Isnt it kinda odd that a building needs to be dirty and crumbling for it to look alright in our eyes. These buildings looked clean and new when they were first built. We just need to adapt to them. This is how these buildings should look like. Its how they were intended to look from the architects of the past.
1
@utube1255 You literally proved my point. I was literally talking about stupid people like you in my comment. Guess what. The buildings in China look so shitty and fake because they are made out of cheap materials. Also they dont know how to design using classical proportions. But these buildings are built almost exactly as they were in the past. This is how all the historic buildings used to look like. Im sorry that they arent all ruined and dirty like most historical buildings are. Cleanliness doesnt mean fake.
1