Comments by "Mr Glasses" (@mrglasses8953) on "The Aesthetic City" channel.

@char6081 Classical architecture does not save money.
10
@rafap1719 Ornamentation adds to cost, and things like window mullions kill u-values. On commercial real estate it will get cost engineered out 9 times out of 10. The modernist buildings you see also suffer the same fate, as the attention to detail is always lacking vs what is achieved on private housing. Vernacular houses always end up as stupid cartoonish "noddy" housing in the UK, and traditional floor plan layouts don't suit they way people want to live these days - people usually want open plan interiors with the living spaces to the rear with large expanses of glass connecting to the garden.
8
Because building technology and the requirements of modern buildings have moved on. As architects we get little say, we don't set out to design ugly buildings. But everything gets "value engineered" down to a price and so any design elements that increase the build cost get engineered out. This is why the only good modernist buildings these days (or buildings in general) are private homes, as homeowners are not interested in maximising profit.
7
You won't "win the battle" if you see it as rivalry, because traditionalism is inherently anti-creative, and as creatives the majority of architects will not embrace it due to the stifling of innovation. Old and new can co-exist however, I don't have an issue with correctly designed traditional architecture. Or even styles that fuse the two, you can't simply slavishly reproduce the past as it doesn't meet the needs of the present nor does it reflect modern construction technology. Modernism is starting to get tired, however the underlying construction technology will continue to dictate the inherent form of architecture.
6
Traditionalists are usually only interested in facadism, their understanding of architecture usually doesn't extend further than "is the facade pretty to me?" By rigidly sticking to classicism you are limiting what can and cannot be built (show me a classical airport) and not exploiting the full potential of modern construction technology.
5
@tann_man Who? If you're implying it was the Jews, you're wrong. Le Corbusier: French Swiss (and an open Fascist) Mies Van Der Rohe: German Walter Gropius: German Frank Lloyd Wright: American of Welsh descent. Hell - two of the best Mid Century Modernists that humanised the movement were Jews (Richard Neutra and Rudolf Schindler.)
4
@franzrogar No, it isn't. It's easier to hide mistakes with ornaments, when your building is simple you have to get every detail correct.
4
@franzrogar I am an architect, it is no more difficult to draw a corinthian column than a straight line as its a simple matter of cut and paste. When buildings are not ornamental, every tiny detail and proportion matters and the tiniest mistake sticks out like a sore thumb. It is MUCH harder to design a minimalist building well, than it is to design say a classical building well. The ornamentation hides the errors. Clearly you have no design experience whatsoever.
4
The lack of sufficient density kills this scheme. Personally I'm a minimalist, but I don't have a problem with correctly designed traditional architecture - I'm especially fan of English/Scottish Arts and Crafts (CFA Voysey, Lutyens, Charles Rennie Mackintosh.) The problem is small pokey buildings don't address the real problems of modern cities, and by rigidly sticking to traditional form you've painted yourself into a corner. Nor do they address the way people wish to live these days - 90% of my work consists of opening up the house, reorientating the living space towards the private garden, and connecting the interior and exterior spaces. Things that are not features of traditional design. Traditionalists need to be bold and inventive to solve these problems, and you need to utilise modern construction technology to it's full potential, not simply use it to slavishly copy the facades of the past. But that goes against your inherent conservatism. You also have the problem that architects are natural creatives and do not want to just slavishly copy the styles of the past. Saying this, the modern movement is also getting tired at this point, but the underlying construction technologies - reinforced concrete, structural steel, and plate glass ultimately dictates the built form, just as it does for preindustrial architecture. How are you going to incorporate these advancements to your designs? For example, how do you incorporate a frameless glass curtain wall into a traditional building? Or do you think these features and technologies should be ignored/banned? I actually think the work of Frank Lloyd Wright suggests a way forward, especially his mid period work (from Unity Temple in 1908 to Fallingwater in 1937) when he started incorporating modernist forms into his work but still had the holdover of his earlier Prarie style and was playing with vernacular styles. Also, understand that what you are criticising is not architecture, but commercial real estate development. Any architecture was value engineered out of these buildings. But this is a tactic traditionalists use, pick on the worst examples of developer construction and act as if that represents the best of modern architecture, when I suspect that you know full well it doesn't.
3
@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Construction is not allowed in green belt. And why assume all modernist buildings are ugly? What about say Fallingwater or the Kaufmann Desert house?
3
@jonathanjones3126 I personally don't like "decoration," especially not in the interior and plenty of modernist buildings are not ugly at all, e.g. Fallingwater or the Kaufmann Desert House. The problem is bad architecture not style.
3
It's imposible for traditionalists to compete on profitability.
2
Then explain why Tokyo, Seoul or Hong Kong have such low levels of crime? It's not the buildings that are the problem it's the people, as those cities are mostly Brutalist dystopias with some of the highest population densities on Earth.
2
What if I personally don't want a traditional house?
2
The problem you've got is that most architects what to push the envelope and go forward, not slavishly reproduce the forms of the past when the building technology that resulted in those forms is long obsolete. If you're decrying the lack of ornamentation in modern architecture, then by all means you have a valid opinion. But the reason historical form was abandoned was because modern building technologies (structural steel, reinforced concrete, plate glass) enable new possibilities that were not there before. That said I don't have an issue with correctly designed traditional architecture, but understand you are just copying the forms of the past, not creating anything new or advancing architectural form. And most architects will shy away from such an attitude. And I fear that historicism will simply result in nothing but a endless sea of cartooninsh noddy architecture as we currently see in the UK on developer built housing estates, and the examples of correctly designed historical buildings will remain few and far between. However, if you are trying to create something new by imbuing modern buildings with the qualities of historical buildings while not abandoning the innovation and potential of modern construction technology and not simply using it to ape history then more power to you.
2
@the_aesthetic_city Money. In the case of architects, just earning a living. Understand we don't set out to build ugly buildings, regardless of style, but any detailing that isn't necessary will get value engineered out.
1
@damiano_ferraro You do in most countries, or you will end up in prison.
1
You're just copying the past though. The bleeding edge of the modernist movement has created buildings that simply were not possible 100 years ago.
1
This is isn't architecture, it's commercial real estate development.
1
@tomthomson7367 I suggest you look at architects own houses, most of us live in the buildings we design.
1
@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 You have no taste and are clearly arguing from a dogmatic point of view, your opinion is void.
1
@jonathanjones3126 No offence, but needing lots of external stimulation is a sign of a middling intellect. Deep thinkers tend to prefer simple spaces and as little external "noise" as possible.
1
@jonathanjones3126 white walls are not "evil". Stating modernism is designed without concern for people is pure ignorance and it's clear you are not an architect. And stating your opinion as fact or assuming everyone agrees with you is pure hubris. I suspect you are confusing commercial real estate development with architecture. People who require a lot of external stimulation tend to be of middling intellect, and more intelligent people prefer simpler, calmer spaces suitable for contemplation. FYI I like the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, and Arts and Crafts so I'm not completely repulsed by ornament and pattern - in fact Wrights work was what inspired me to become an architect. But I prefer calm and repose hence why I like minimalism, especially the work of people like John Pawson, Claudio Silvestrin and Tadao Ando. It is possible to like different things. Though Classicism IMO is the architectural equivalent of cake decoration.
1
Traditionalists are deviod of creativity, and cannot see past the facade. Their entire movement is nothing more than facadism.
1
@tomthomson7367 Things have developed since the days of the Bauhaus.
1
@tomthomson7367 No, it's because thats the way modern construction technology "wants to be". And many trends in modernism were simply not possible in the 1920s, the work of say Zaha Hadid, Richard Rogers or the Blobitecture movement could never have been constructed back then. The underlying style of any building is ultimately determined by it's underlying construction technology. If you stripped all of the ornament out of say a Greek temple, Roman basilica or Gothic cathedral you'd still be able to tell what style it was, because of how it's built. Style is a product of the methods used to build, not something applied after the fact.
1