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

  1. @Colum Mulhern  You sound like architects do not have freedom after finishing studies. You can design whatever you want if you have money. If you don't, then you have to please developers because it is their money. Simple as that. In the US, you often are not even allowed to build modern looking high quality houses. Just look at all those McMansions. I personally love brutalism and bare concrete, I am also sad that we left that style behind and moved to glass boxes. Beauty is still subjective even if you can make statistics that some particular styles are more pleasing to a larger group of people.
    18
  2. You think they don't see something like this? They see, they know and they still think what is being designed nowadays is still better.
    16
  3. It looks tasteless when people choose modern interior but historical exterior. Better just be outdated and have both sides oldschool.
    15
  4.  @jamalgibson8139  in my city most of new buildings are modern and minimalist. Even private houses are like that and people have full freedom to hire their own architect
    12
  5.  @colummulhern8865  You are so ignorant if you think another neoclassical revival is the only way to go. People like different things. What a surprise! And many love modern architecture, it might no longer be brutalism, but new glass buildings are pretty popular. Brutalism have a lot of details to love. From industrial vibe, to materials, forms, relationship with nature.
    8
  6. @Eric Dew  I find beutalism and bare concrete pleasing. So what is the solution then? It is still about forcing someone to follow particular style. With the same analysis you are also allowed to have historical old school interior while people are living with modern exterior.
    8
  7. Beautiful is subjective...
    7
  8. @Colum Mulhern  I personally hate Haussmann architecture and planning. He demolished most of historical city, made it boring and monotonous. As being from Eastern post-soviet Europe I always loved brutalist architecture, pretty much since childhood. In my city Vilnius there is awesome brutalist sports palace right in front of the castle. Way better than modern glass apartments, office buildings or skyscrapers nearby. On the other hand I like small and cozy historical wooden cabins with carvings, sadly they are being demolished atound due to city growth and modernisation. But old palaces or grand houses is not what I find attractive.
    7
  9. @Kungs Zigfrīds   But they become ugly when there is too much of it. That is why people wanted that change, that is why quite a few cities embraced modernism. Even my grandpa told that people started to hate that old style architecture when it was everywhere. Clean and minimal felt and looked cool, people wanted it and didn't care some old houses got demolished. Many people like change and something new even if there is a large group that prefers stagnation. Look at baroque interiors. How the hell you imagine living inside such rooms? It looks so inconvenient, inefficient. Same applies to exterior even if you don't feel that way.
    7
  10.  @jamalgibson8139  for me hellscape is Paris, Barcelona, Vienna. They are repetitive and ugly cities with no green spaces
    6
  11.  @samiral-hayed1656  Have you seen baroque interiors? Overcrowded, shiny, tons of surfaces to clean and take care of. Would you live in true baroque house with dusty carpets (tapestries) on walls? probably not. So you can see why many have the same opinion about exterior. So old beauty standards are as subjective as new ones.
    6
  12.  @TheMastaRob  "nobody visits" is a strange argument. Many people like to visit the strangest places, even slum tourism exists. This doesn't mean it is a nice place to live. And cities like Paris or Vienna are very dense, there is a clear lack of parks, nature, privacy, sunlight, cleanness, playgrounds and many more things. People didn't know they needed these things back then. Also old buildings are uncomfortable, strange layout, wastefully thick walls, lack of windows, dark courtyard, no parking. That is why there are demolitions happening in old Vienna.
    6
  13. @adamcrookedsmile  they adapt those traditional buildings to modern interiors. Also they probably earn a lot and want to live near the city centre but there are only protected old houses
    5
  14.  @fatboyRAY24  So you like historical or you like modern? You can't really choose both. Otherwise you get McMansions. It is not best of both world, it is tasteless mismatch. People have accepted that historical interiors are inconvenient, overcrowded, uncomfortable and it is expensive to maintain ceiling painting, fancy rugs on walls. Why people don't see the same reasons for why historical exterior is not being chosen?
    5
  15. @Eric Dew  Clean but unique forms, surface that reminds natural gravel, less windows and it looks like a cliff or a mountain if vegetation is incorporated right. What was pointless I think was historical revival in late 1800s, early 1900s. It was the same old styles but just worse as it was used on way more modern and larger buildings.
    5
  16. Well, I love concrete brutalism. Everyone has their opinion.
    5
  17.  @adamcrookedsmile  I don't know about you, but I would either buy true historical house or choose an unique modern design. I really can't stand new fake old style buildings. they never look good.
    4
  18.  @gabrielebianchi8976  maybe then even pro-traditional architects change their mind when it needs to be created in digital environment while complying with all requirements.
    4
  19. I don't like private courtyards, I see it as a stolen green spaces from the city. We don't need to create these separate castles.
    4
  20. @marlygee1  Old buildings didn't really stood the test of time. They were being constantly demolished just because they got old. 1800s to build grander newer ones in industrial cities with grand avenues and in 1900s to modernise cities even more for offices and cars. Now we have a lot less of those old buildings and with the help of historical preservation we protect and appreciate some special ones. But if they were all around they would become tiresome. There is jo denying they were overcrowded. Even in classical Greece or Rome, even in Renaissance architecture was a lot more restrained than in 1800-1900.
    4
  21. ​ @HisameArtwork  box is cheap and efficient. Also usually has bigger windows, more natural light.
    4
  22. @Samir Al-Hayed  well, for many baroque is ugly. So there is nothing objective. By the way modern architecture can also be expensive. Curved 3-4 layer glass is very expensive, hanging metal or concrete constructions are also expensive advanced stuff.
    3
  23. Us never abandoned their McMansions. Good luck finding modernist houses there.
    3
  24. Would you love to live in some baroque interior? It doesn't even seem convenient.
    3
  25. You underestimate how many people love modern architecture. It won't be long when growth if such movement stagnates
    3
  26.  @jonathanbowers8964  I really don't see how 19th century architecture is better looking even though I live in a city that both has an old town and brutality areas. I love brutalism. If you are mentally healthy block of concrete isn't capable of having such negative impact. Opposite person is probably mentally ill if doesn't appreciate variety of architecture just due to some grey colour. 19th century buildings are boring and repetitive.
    3
  27. The problem is that new classical buildings aren't original. We copy outdated designs.
    3
  28. @Jerry Martin  it really isn't, as here we often see 19th century planning being worshipped. Those tidy repetitive dense perimeter blocks always have my listed problems.
    2
  29.  @adamcrookedsmile  I am not an architect. I just don't live in US where only acceptable architecture seems to be McMansions and other silly historical imitations. In my country wast majority of new houses, especially luxury ones are modern. I would probably also choose a new modern house because there aren't many historical ones, most of them are wooden and located in busy city centre. And I do not support imitating old buildings in new projects. Many modern buildings are more unique than average old buildings. That's what's called unique, modern doesn't mean featureless, grey and boxy doesn't mean boring.
    2
  30.  @kinnish5267  There are plenty of buildings from that decade.
    2
  31.  @colummulhern8865  there are great examples of eco brutalism. Habitat 67 or housing complex in Ivry sur Seine.
    2
  32. @CampingforCool41  I believe there must be some good ratio between mundane and very unique. Having unique buildings everywhere can be a mess, while same looking buildings are, well, mundane and boring. In the past there were churches and palaces for variety, nowadays we no longer build them and something has to replace their impact on cities.
    2
  33.  @Metronoma1  this tradition architecture is just boring and unimaginative for most students
    2
  34.  @Kultus1337  why do you say that is how it is intended. Maybe better to go with functional exterior and fancy baroque interior. I don't see how mixing styles in any way makes much sense. I understand finding use for true heritage, but building new buildings that look old is questionable.
    2
  35.  @kungszigfrids1482  new glass Lidl designs look very good compared to most grocery stores that look like metal sheds
    2
  36. @Shrekshya Khadka Exactly. I saw a story how in some US suburb family chose to build something different. A modern high quality house. And received a lot of criticism. In Europe in almost all cases nobody would care, but there it was some massive deal. There were endless lines, probably hundreds of similarly looking repetitive older houses in that area. With some McMansions here or there. How can you be so protective of boring old and against something unique new?
    2
  37.  @Nemo_Anom  it is children who think name brutalism comes from brutal. It just means bare concrete. It is a very adaptable material that you can create large, self sustaining, organic continuous shapes. It is beautiful. Way better that random ornamentation on 1900 buildings.
    2
  38. How about most historical buildings? Those don't usually have ornamentation. He mostly shows churches, palaces, upper class houses. Most used to live in stone or log huts. I also don't understand his example about buildings going out of style, no longer valued and being torn down after 50 years. That was the same situation with buildings built in 1900, people had such opinions about buildings he praises in this video.
    2
  39.  @marcusantoninus1838  They fit less square meters and less green spaces.
    2
  40.  @adamcrookedsmile  have you seen Habitat 67, Ministry of Highway Construction in Tbilisi or The Geisel Library? Those are awesome and unique examples of modernist architecture, to be exact brutalist architecture. And there are many more such examples, Heydar Aliyev Centre or Palau de les Arts if you are more into neo-futurism.
    1
  41.  @avancalledrupert5130  In my city probably over 60% will say that new glass towers are the most beautiful buildings.
    1
  42.  @gabrielbifano4256  50s wasn't minimalism. Only some people back then chose modernism.
    1
  43.  @AmaltheaVimes  if there is nature around house, outside your massive modern window wall why would you need more of that inside?
    1
  44. @scarlettdamante4945  I have stepped out of the tourist centre. There Paris is way more interesting, greener and way nicer. But that doesn’t fix the problems I saw in Paris city core that many praise.
    1
  45.  @buragi5441  Brutalism and modernism, especially glass buildings are not outright ugly. Many people love them and even hype them, waiting when new one will be built.
    1
  46.  @buragi5441  general public also loves glass boxes and other modern structures. In my city's news websites or facebook pages almost always comment sections are full of people who say let's demolish these old, boring houses and build some way larger glass towers a few hundred meters from the protected medieval old town. People praise new projects as that means progress, modernisation, higher quality of life. By the way it is Vilnius, Lithuania. Our "New city centre" is built in place of 100-200 year old houses that still keep being demolished.
    1
  47. @buragi5441  come here. You would be outcast if you prefer traditional architecture. Only some old babushkas prefer old style here. If people disliked glass boxes that much there would be at least some resistance. Only resistance we see here are a couple sad people that don't have anything better to constantly complain about modern architecture. Even most private houses have modern style. Even in 1930s modernism was the most popular style here, you can google "Kaunas interwar modernist architecture".
    1
  48. @Ania  My answer is often, "so what?". Usually that is not a problem for professors to provide information about basics, main rules you that usually don't change much in most fields. Even in physics it is fine to often study from 70s books. IT seems something that, of course, needs newer information. Like you wouldn't want to study genetics from decades old book as it is a new field too. Architecture also seems only have incremental changes since early 2000s. City planning changed more.
    1
  49.  @JToroPaz  probably mostly true, but modern boxes can also be very expensive. Curved multi layer reflective glass, massive hanging parts, cantilevers, exotic stone or wood.
    1
  50.  @MihaiRUdeRO  Good old post-soviet Lithuania. I love brutalism here and I am sad when it gets demolished. To be fair I am even jealous of what was Yugoslavia, Romania. Now those countries have even more of that awesome heritage.
    1