Comments by "" (@CheeseBae) on "They Built a New City in Guatemala And It's STUNNING" video.

It's strange that people say referencing history in architecture is "pastiche." Women have been wearing makeup for 100 years. Is that pastiche? We've been eating the same foods for hundreds of years, are the recipes "pastiche?" Why does everything have to be new without reference to history? If so, why is 20th century urban planning not "pastiche?" It's been done for a long time now and has been shown to be ineffective, and people generally don't like how it's centered around the automobile.
201
We just have to fight off the hordes of modernist trolls first who insist that beauty doesn't exist.
152
@miguela.6155 referencing history doesn't mean copying history. The thing about traditional architecture is if you copied exactly then you're criticized for being unoriginal and passé, and if you don't copy it exactly but change some things, then you're criticized for not being "authentic." So ultimately arguing about it is nothing more than an exercise in subjectivity and expressing an opinion that is neither correct nor incorrect.
125
@On_The_Piss Neo-classicism is a specific period of architecture that followed Baroque and Rococo styles. If you mean "classicism" in general, it's been around for 2,500 years and like it or not it's not going anywhere. All modernists have managed to do in 100 years is become the defacto architecture of soulless, multinational corporations.
104
@On_The_Piss Modernism was co-opted by the private sector because it gave them an excuse to build as cheaply as possible. "Beauty? Beauty is subjective so just build it as cheaply as possible." If aesthetics are shallow, then do you claim the architecture of Paris, Rome, or Prague has nothing to do with those cities' appeal? Come on. The problem with building purely for function is buildings inevitably lose their initial function. Since they're not built for beauty there's no reason to maintain them so they're destroyed. That's wasteful and terrible for the environment, as modernists' favorite building material (concrete) is responsible for a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions. I'm not sure where you live but, in the USA, historic district homes are generally far more expensive than new builds, so the claim that no one wants to live in classically inspired homes is categorically false. Your arguments seem to have been copy and pasted right out of 1950.
89
@lanxy2398 I never said they should replace existing city centers. All cities have an area of low-rise residentials between the centers and the suburbs where a Cayala could be built.
75
@MrBrandoxxxx Your points are valid but irrelevant to the topic of the video. The land owners were developing this property regardless. Originally it was going to be fully gated and modern. This video is about the choice of traditional architecture and leaving the main square open. If the developers had gone in the other direction the result would have been worse.
65
@On_The_Piss classical doesn't build "purely for beauty." Vitruvius states that [classical] architecture is a balance between beauty, function, and strength. Key word: balance. There's a long history of saving and reusing historic buildings due to their beauty. And "classical" isn't one type of building but thousands of years of evolution. The Haussmann apartments in Paris are classically inspired and some of the most sought after real estate in the world, so claiming that no one wants to live in them is categorically false.
33
@Mayalovestosleep no, "my opinion is better" because the other side relies on outdated arguments, straw men, or resorts to personal attacks.
25
@On_The_Piss The Victorian era buildings I've been in have had huge windows, some 9 feet tall or larger, which flood the rooms with light. You continue to assume classicism and/or traditionalism is only one type of building, and as if we cannot evolve or use modern tech. Troll smarter, not harder! 😉
16
@sicilianknicca_mickygreeneyes I'm not interested in burning anything down, but I think 20th century urbanism was a mistake and we shouldn't build in that style any longer. We should be taking inspiration from Paris, not Houston.
15
@the_yiga_blademaster Modernism began before WW2, yes, but it didn't take hold and become dominant until after WW2. The reason had more to do with the need to build quickly and cheaply due to the destruction of WW2, not because people actually thought it looked better than their traditional buildings. The Modern/Postmodern gotcha-isms are tiresome because neither are based in classicism nor local traditions. Postmodern is not directly opposed to modern, it just recognized the obvious flaws of modern. I'll also note that architects are the only ones who see "modern" as a separate era. I know of no other discipline that does this. For example, interior designers still call all contemporary work "modern."
14
@dragonmaster1334 On_The_Piss is a troll. I mean, look at his name. I've been in many historic buildings with absolutely enormous windows, and they look great from both the inside and outside. His "tiny windows" comment is trolling and has no basis in architectural reality.
4
@On_The_Piss I don't live in Paris, but I would if I spoke French. I've visited many times, and the real estate market in Paris is evidence enough that people love it and want to live there. I can tell you think you're setting me up for a "gotcha" moment, so I can't wait to hear your next lame argument. Which city do you point to as the exemplar modernist city? Brasilia? 🤣Talk about a terrible city...
4
@wintermatherne2524 Not objectively. Speak for yourself, I love ornament. The reason ornament was removed from Western buildings is rooted in racism. All you have to do is read Adolph Loos' "Ornament and Crime" to confirm this fact. Loos writes how the indigenous people of Papua, New Guinea tattoo themselves and ornament all their belongings. Loos then equates ornament with being "inferior," and he claims the more "civilized" you are the less ornament you put on things. So the removal of ornament from buildings in the West was originally meant as a symbol of white supremacy.
2
@the_yiga_blademaster so a modernist building today can get more light than a building meant for the poor hundreds of years ago. And your point? Are you somehow claiming window size is the only thing the poor care about, or that we have to build the exact same way as 200 years ago? You realize traditional architecture has always included technological advances, right? A weird and irrelevant point to make.
2
@On_The_Piss Modernist architecture isn't "an equaliser". There are many modernist residential structures in big cities built for the super wealthy. Secondly, many modernist projects, particularly in urban housing (e.g., tower blocks), have faced criticism over the years for poor living conditions, alienation, and lack of community integration. The cost of construction isn't solely dependent on architectural style but on factors like materials, labor, location, and market demands. Both modernist and traditional structures can be built with varying budgets. Plus, while some modernist structures might be affordable, others, especially iconic ones, can be quite expensive. Concerning windows, Versailles had huge windows hundreds of years ago, not to mention many Victorian buildings, so the idea that large windows equates to modern is blatantly false. You incorrectly believe classicism cannot evolve with technology, but it has evolved constantly for 2,500 years. For example, the ancient Romans added both concrete and the arch to Greek classicism to update it.
2
@On_The_Piss I've lived in historic homes, so you're wrong. Again, classically inspired buildings such as Georgian architecture are often more expensive because the public clearly values them and aspires to live in them. I really don't care what building you live in, nor why you're so upset that someone dare build in a style you don't like in a country you've probably never visited. Classical and traditional architecture are often different and spans a broad spectrum, from modest homes to grand structures. It's true that traditional architectures put a higher emphasis on a building's facade, but it's an obvious falsehood to say interiors were universally disregarded. If nostalgia were the sole reason to value old architecture we'd still be living in caves and reminiscing about wall paintings. By your logic, we could never value or be inspired by historic art, literature, antiques or anything outside of our own lifetimes, which is false. At the end of the day, your judgements mean nothing to me and aren't going to change my personal preferences.
2
@On_The_Piss "...reject classicism which benefited the wealthy." Another myth. Skyscrapers and penthouse apartments are the real symbols of wealth today, not classical buildings. Modern skyscrapers are nothing more than contemporary castles to capitalism. Was Frank Lloyd Wright's "Fallingwater" built for the poor or was it built for a wealthy tycoon? Classical is only for the wealthy? The first renaissance building was an orphanage, the Ospedale degli Innocenti! You seem to be under the impression that only the wealthy can afford beauty, and the poor must suffice with only "function." That is, in my opinion, discriminatory. The truth is, we can build beautifully at an affordable price if we want to, and living in a beautiful place should be available to everyone, especially the poor! What someone else decides to build really isn't up to you, now is it? If someone wants to be inspired by the past that's their choice. It's not your project. Is modernism cheap or expensive? It can obviously be both. Structures can be built in a way to cut costs, or they can be built in a way that's expensive and luxurious. There's no difference between classicism and modernism in this regard, but it remains a fact that corporations have long embraced modernism because its minimalism supports their bottom line. Therefore, modern architecture and corporatism are inexplicably linked. I would actually prefer that corporations NOT build traditionally, because I'd rather traditional architecture not be tainted by corporate greed. "Modernism isn’t about aesthetics." We finally agree! Your problem is the general public still cares about the way their cities look, even if you don't.
2
@avrocat80 Many of us like the old style so get over it. I was in Denver, Colorado recently, and it's been filled with new modern contemporary residential builds and they are absolutely terrible. Boring and unoriginal designs, cheap materials, lots of parking, and modern. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about. There's a general lack of craftsmanship today and modern killed it. Cayala isn't perfect, no design is perfect, but the fact remains you modernists have been unable to come up with anything better. So here we are. Keep your ugly buildings and we'll keep ours, and we'll see what the public prefers. Concerning gentrification, this land was undeveloped so no people were displaced. At least watch the video before commenting.
1
@On_The_Piss as if you actually care, troll.
1
@On_The_Piss well since absolutely no one lives in Paris at all, I guess you win that argument. Have a cookie. How's your modern utopian life in Brasilia, queen?
1