Why Architecture Today Lacks Character

[@chadparsons50]

I asked my old boss on a large downtown construction site why modern buildings are emotionless blocks, while older buildings are full of character. He responded that in the past material was expensive, but labour was cheap. So you could afford the labour hours to work the material onsite to make it beautiful. Today labour is relatively expensive, and material is cheap. So you need to work it fast onsite without much compensation. Best explanation I've heard yet.

[@javierpacheco8234]

Also not many are craftsman today and also a lot of people choose the cheap modern design rather than a great quality but expensive design.

[@Drobium77]

also the rich nowadays are incredibly selfish. Before they'd build beautiful buildings in town centres like libraries and hospitals, sanatoriums and schools, and they'd make them as beautiful as possible so to have a legacy in their own town which they were so proud of. This doesn't happen anymore, they all bugger off to Sodom and Gomorrah , sorry I mean 'Dubai' where they build meaningless enormous phalluses which are only for the rich whilst literal slaves are building them. Also national identity is an evil notion now, it's wrong to have pride in your country and its architecture

[@chadparsons50]

@@Drobium77 you're on to something here. However, as government has played a larger and larger role in the country every income level has increasingly absolved themselves of ownership of their personal contribution to society. There are exceptions, for example a public pool project I was working on for a small town had a $1m contribution from a local rich guy, but he was a right winger and passed away shortly after.

[@rheinhartsilvento2576]

I think it's an important aspect of why architecture is the way it is today. But it's only an aspect, and not even the (main) reason. Rich catalogues of standardized designs and/or pre-made elements) have existed in civilizations for hundreds if not thousands of years. If the esthetic paradigm were different, and with today's technological possibilities, creating interesting, individual and beautiful buildings would be a cinch. But for the most part, they're just not being made. It's a lot deeper than just labor costs.

[@patrick383ironworker]

And commercial uniform building codes almost the same nationwide

[@javierpacheco8234]

It would be nice for architecture to have ornamentation. Old buildings have interesting things to look at meanwhile modern they just are plain white walls or glass facade.

[@andersonarmstrong2650]

Have you never read Adolf Loos?! Ornamentation existed because it served a purpose. Modernists then denied that purpose because it became fashionable to anthropologically denigrate ornamentation as an appendage of 'primitivism'. Nobody challenged that. People like Frank Frank Lloyd Wright abstracing ornamentation did so through recourse to those cultures European sensibilities admired or accepted: Japanese, Mayan and Inca, despite animism underpinning the decorative traditions persisting in all folk and tribal cultures worldwide.

[@The99Nabz]

@@andersonarmstrong2650 Adolf Loos does not deserve the attention he is given. He was just a cynic with a loud opinion. The Modernist style he advocated is retrospectively problematic and, is the most widely disliked form of architecture and for good reason. Buildings with ornament have far more character than buildings without. Christopher Alexander, for example, has the most comprehensive account of how they add character, and why in fact, they should be considered essential to buildings.

[@andersonarmstrong2650]

@@The99Nabz "the modernist style he advocated was retrospectively problematic.." What on earth do you mean? Take me through the problems?

[@The99Nabz]

@@andersonarmstrong2650 1. As a result of Modernism's push for flat surfaces and big shapes, Le Corbusier's Cite de Refuge, for example, couldn't protect the building from the sun. There was no solar shading and the building was unbearable to exist in. He had to be taught the more 'primitive' technique of the 'brise-soleil' by the Brazilians because he thought he could do away with whatever he wanted for the sake of his aesthetic. 2. Coving and Wainscotting protected walls from cracking, etc. Modernism has no sense of foresight and long term thinking, hence many early examples didn't last. 3. The style was environmentally unsustainsable: Many of its examples are made up of uninsulated, thin concrete walls with massive single glazed windows. How were they kept liveable? Cheap fossil fuels powering numerous heaters and air conditioning units. Ironically, 'primitive' Architecture was effortlessly sustainable. 4. Etc. 5. Most importantly and most overlooked, as you just did: it is the most widely disliked form of architecture (hence the video this comment section belongs to). Why? Because it was designed not for people, but for machines, as per its mantra. As it turns out, most people prefer buildings that appeal to their humanity. Those people have to live in the buildings. Therefore, architects should design buildings for people. Constrastingly, and on the topic of ornament, among the many ways that it appeals to our humanity, one is that it creates information at the human-scale. It is architecture of the near-view. Our view.

[@andersonarmstrong2650]

@@The99Nabz None of this is Loos! This is Corb! Corb was a narcissist. His ideas were nonsense.

[@atomicsmith]

Imagine if the only music available was made by people with at least a masters in music theory. It's obvious this would destroy the vitality of music in the world. This is what has happened to architecture. It was once learned through apprenticeships, world travel and experience. It's now taught in academic settings where careerist professors use students to promote their work and develop ever more self-referential fads - deconstructivism, phenomenology, biomimicry, etc. Return to the sensual and intuitive, and character will follow.

[@atomictraveller]

keen, i went to uni for arch but spent my life making music software. music no longer has character but neither do people. the word right there i prefer - referentialism. and i enjoy talking about, areferentialism. "where roads are made, i lose my way" - tagore

[@99Cafer99]

I wouldn't argue that alone is the problem, although an certain "elite-professionalism" leads to this issue. It is rather the thought of function over design. Which is good, as things should be usable and not only nice to look at or they would be art. Art has it's place, but we can't just have art and nothing else. But now we have strayed to far away and see things too much in regards of function. Everything which used to be designed to be beautiful as soon as people could afford it got plain. Clothes - plain T-Shirts, Hoodies and if you're lucky maybe even the brand is printed upon it. People go shopping in their tracksuit and, some people say, the Americans have gone so far as to go shopping in their pyjamas. Rather disgraceful really. Cars - most Aerodynamic wins and cars look all the same. With exception of SUVs and Pick-Ups. But they aren't pleasant objects to look at and the latter is rather Agricultural and the former represents stereotypical masculinity. They look like power and the cars "faces" are designed very agressive looking. Add to this the look an wrong understandment of freedom and you are finished. But to some people this has an appeal but i doubt they will speak of beauty first when asked for the reasons of their decision to buy this vehicles. Furniture: Soulles high-gloss plastic crap. Honestly, it looks straight out of hells design apartment to make people depressive and feel alieneated with the cheapest materials possible. You can go on and on. The newest trend is to not advocate to have an free and "full" life but rather an long one (Covid isn't meant by this, to be clear. It is an exceptionell situation.). Same thing. Function, to be alive, is set above the other, not easily measurable part: happiness, feeling something and fulfillment (in lack of better, more precise words that will exist in english but which i do not know.)

[@jeremygranfors9162]

This hurts so bad. Because so true. God damn school lol. Its funny I realize best ideas when on breaks from school

[@notnullnotvoid]

The obvious retort is that a poorly composed piece of music can't kill me, but a poorly designed building can.

[@andersonarmstrong2650]

Simplistic nonsense! The REAL reason Architecture lacks essential qualities defined as 'character' is many architects are unable to draw the spaces they conceive in three dimensions. Even with current visualisation software, the architect must place themselves inside spaces, not as the endpoint of a process, ie rendering; but as the design process. This requires exhaustive hand sketching describing the progression through spaces at eye level. Models only do this if they're large, but even then the architect only uses the model as a clue giving device to place the eye inside created spaces. The eye must then evaluate the visual dynamics of detailing, spatial dynamics, movement and spaces experienced by building user. 2D drawings are mere abstracted representations of 3D realities. Unless this process is rigorously embraced, the building appearance as designed, will be hit and miss.

[@hal8437]

The built environment is intrinsically linked to our economic system. So we can theorise as much as we want about what character is and how to bring it back, but at the end of the day when developers pumping out cheap new builds trumps the careful designs of architects, character will stay gone. I do appreciate your insight though, and I will be adding the people you mentioned to my ever growing reading list 😅

[@SuperMrHiggins]

+1

[@sanuku535]

In the past people build houses with more character much more. Its not entirely about money.

[@daltongarrett3393]

I wouldn’t be nearly so displeased if cheap new housing was being pumped out at a sufficient rate. Homelessness, after all, is uglier than most any architecture. Right now corporations seem more focused on buying up what property is available and lobbying for restrictive zoning laws to drive up the price of existing property

[@kingofburgundy6323]

But weren’t the early skyscrapers in the 1890s to the 1940s pretty good looking? I’m sure that they considered expenses as well. So maybe ease of building isn’t the case with today’s architecture.

[@dalepatten5612]

Some of the old water and sewage pumping stations in my area had a neo-gothic(I think) look to them. I suppose they were seen as a thing of pride once which was probably why they made the effort to make them so ornate instead of plain square buildings. You can also find examples at the Henry Ford museum of machinery with ornate castings for parts. I think it's probably correct that such extra details lost out to reasons of economy. Or people just got tired of all the spikey twirly bits poking out.

[@FelipeCosta-ho4wf]

I'm a chemist who likes working in AutoCAD. Recently I projected an industry entirely in hexagons, that was beautiful, but was not funded. One day, these designs will be found and either my geniality or absolut arrogance will be revealed. Woderful video profesor.

[@stewarthicks]

Thanks for sharing!

[@jeremydonovan8350]

check out the work of Walter Netsch and his field theory

[@andersonarmstrong2650]

My first grounding in spatial design was from the polygonal paper my father brought back from his ICS welding correspondence course. I couldn't get enough of those equilateral triangles that immediately suggested three dimensional representation. Later I got into organic chemistry because of my fascination with bond angles. I never studied hard but passed exams because I could visualise the way atoms connected. When I left school my first job was as a Lab Analyst. However, Architecture was what I wanted to do so I left and studied. Throughout my degree and Masters, lecturers never were able to put their finger on what gave a design force, presence and expressive clarity. No disrespect to this narrator, but spatial visualisation is a poorly understood discipline. Your embrace of this through chemistry at molecular level is to be applauded.

[@pihermoso11]

the hexagon is a strong figure.. and also found in nature, bees use it... the strongest materials have their atoms aligned in a hexagonal prism if i'm not mistaken, like titanium.. the atoms inside a diamond probably has the same shape too.. applying heat and pressure to carbon aligns the atoms in a hexagonal pattern which is why carbon fiber and carbon ceramic are strong

[@lesteryaytrippy7282]

@@andersonarmstrong2650 I'm not any of you guys but because of this, I really strongly believe there should be a big collaboration between different fields of study to create something and solve an issue one field is having a problem but is something that another answers with a different perspective. This is exciting and hope that we see hexagons and triangles in architecture soon.

[@crazydragy4233]

This captures some of my quips with current day architecture but not all. A lot of it is utterly soulless in my eyes, even the 'depressing' brutalist architecture has character, albeit not one that's often looked at favourably, the cheap copy-pasted tiramisu blocks (as I like to call them) or glass towers are completely detached spaces from our environment. The worst part comes when they replace local heritage - erasing and masking history, character, destroying aesthetics and the nearby environment. In the middle of the most lively areas, you get these 'empty' spaces that seemingly don't even look like they're made for humans. There's a plague of people trying to liken any budding urban area to look like the most 'successful' global giants to attract investors and, in general, be more like them, vainly trying to imitate prestige while destroying what the city actually has. This might be a different case in USA but it still is at the heart of this issue, even if in its own style. Of course, an argument can be made that because we're living through it it feels so poignant and that bad architecture is just bad architecture, but there is still something to be said about how in the end it's mostly about money, whether materials, design or permits; overall consumerist economy and its values which are held by the ones shaping our world against us. It is almost astonishing how we manage to build and yet not create but destroy in the process leaving ourselves with wasteland far too costly in the name of profit for the very few.

[@andersonarmstrong2650]

Totally agree! Architectural gimmickery to cover for a complete lack of any design process; or lack of faith in any design process whatsoever. Taking any architectural publication it is easy to strip away the additions designed to 'add character', to what was potentially an interesting design solution. Mies addressed this thoroughly when he said: "We refuse to recognise problems of form, only problems of building. Form is not the aim of our work, but only the result.." In previous ages there were fewer means leading to greater consensus. The basic, industrial buildings from the past are deemed most adaptable and amenable now. Modernism has brought with it an embarrassment of riches disguising a poverty of means.

[@lesteryaytrippy7282]

I strongly agree especially at the cost of local, or worse, native/indigenous culture and identity. I'M not American but in a developing country, this is an abhorrent problem here.

[@bipbipletucha]

Brutalism absolutely does have some character to it.

[@nineteenfortyeight]

Word.

[@josecarlosxxx]

Modern architecture describes or is born from Modern Culture. That’s it, it’s like movies, nowadays they’re just corporate propaganda, nowadays they resemble more to a McDonalds than to a good local Sicilian restaurant. Well, the same happens with architecture and everything that is affected by our culture

[@frankfris3513]

Nice video. I design buildings for video games and giving them character is so important. Selecting and recomposing the right elements is what it's all about.

[@3c3c3c]

Do you work on gta6? I know you do

[@johntaylor9776]

Im the same with fallout 4 lol. I hate to just make 4 walls and a roof without giving thought to form, function or comfortability. I find videos like this give my creative mind something to chew on while i ponder architectural design in the post nuclear wasteland.

[@frankfris3513]

@@johntaylor9776 True it makes thing believable on a subconscious level. Players can feel that. For a post apocalyptic wasteland you must also admire a nice stain, paint splatter or the beauty of cracking concrete haha

[@johntaylor9776]

@@frankfris3513 for me its form and function redefined. I like to imagine a world where people are forced to look at reconstruction of society as just that, a reconstruction. They have existing layouts of ancient architecture, but its more natural in my mind of how i imagine theyd perceive it. Alot of modernism and brutalism with the forced 2x4 or 4x4 layouts. Houses built through and around preexisting rubbled structures. Dirt and grime piled in corners to allude to a life butrowed out into the wasteland. For me dystopia meets heterotopia in forced functional environment.

[@GoodCookinAquarius]

Man... I'd love to see what buildings you can make with the building materials provided on conan exiles 👌🍻

[@BrooksMoses]

Your introduction reminds me of when I was telling my girlfriend that I liked cars with character, and her response was that as far as she could tell from my car preferences, "character" was another way of saying "there are things wrong with it".

[@ChainsawChuck13]

As a(n apparently fellow) car enthusiast, I can say that the answer is "yes and no". On one hand, it's no fun to have a daily driver that constantly worries you about whether you'll get to work. Beyond that, though, car are another area where it's well past time to admit that "wrong" from a systems/control perspective is very often "right" from a human perspective, and vice versa. A perfect example of this is the 1.4, 1.6, and 2.0 liter turbo inline fours that are slowly taking over every market segment. Those exact displacements pervade because at some point someone figured out they were the best for emissions-efficiency, even figured out the exact best bore and stroke for emissions. I've got one of these engines in my car and I can't deny it's a marvel - any 1600cc engine that can spin the front tires without clutch dumping, and still get over 30 MPG with me driving it, is. With modern turbocharging technology, there isn't even any lag - just stand on the gas and feel the power. But it just feels wrong somehow. Normally, I like cars with loud exhausts, but I feel like these modern eco-turbo I4s should be kept as quiet as possible, because they go from boring to annoying as soon you cut the muffler off. A turbo you can barely hear, responding like a supercharger, is missing what made turbos exciting in the first place. Front ends become lager and more bulbous in the name of pedestrian safety, crossovers and hatchbacks replace coupes and sedans for maximum space efficiency, and the remaining notchbacks adopt the profile of a Prius to optimize aerodynamics; the simple visual appeal that came so easily to older cars disappears in the process. The car hobby itself exists because of an older world where, if you picked the right time and place, you'd find traffic laws enforced laxly if there was anyone around to enforce them at all - not the current world where California seizes cars for street racing and Japan considers street drifters to be on the same level of criminality as Yakuza mobsters. All head, no heart, is how you get the world we have today, and it sucks. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to get anyone to fight back, because nearly everyone has Sacred Cow'd some part of Beige World.

[@peachesandcream8753]

Look at any of the architecture in rural England and you will see so much character and soul that is devoid in modern architecture. Old architecture took it's surroundings into consideration, using the materials found in that area such as wood, slate or granite, and built in a way that blends with its environment by focussing on colour, landscaping and the foliage around it. Modern architects are more concerned with shapes, form and impressing each other than they are designing places that people can live or will want to look at on a daily basis. No one sees a 16th century cottage in England and says "that's ugly".

[@JoaoVitor-xy2my]

U said everything

[@lesteryaytrippy7282]

And that's why historical buildings, even in the early to mid 20th century,are so fascinating especially vernacular buildings like homes or businesses back then. You feel their purpose and looks so lived in.

[@tamaracarter1836]

I live in an early 15th century half-timbered cottage in the English countryside (Suffolk), and absolutely agree with you!

[@jeanf6295]

That or because they are the result of generations upon generations of iterative improvements and repairs, making the ugly or dysfunctional disappear over time. Today entire blocks are built at one fell swoop by people who won't live in them, and we expect most of the buildings to rot, decay and be demolished in less than a century.

[@steveyv963]

How many stone masons do you know? How many neighborhood developers plan to construct their new neighborhoods using stone masonry? I just think that a new neighborhood built with stone masonry would have a character score of one billion.

[@mk-themakening4448]

I understood a part of character to just be honesty and craftsmanship. Visibility of technique and purpose. Compare a fire stove with floor heating. Or a plastered wall with brick/sandstone. Or a flat ceiling with an arch or beams. Or timber framing. You recognize the purpose of the object and use it as an aesthetic device, not hide it or fake it. And perhaps the visibly handmade nature of something also makes it have character. I suppose you could design the most quirky building, it will not be comparable if you build it once with drywall and once from sandstone. Material matters, and I am not sure that it is merely a matter of traditionalism and conservatism that we perceive some materials as more valuable than others. There has to be more to it.

[@steveyv963]

Isn't that what John Ruskin was writing about back in the day? I learned a lot from watching this video. I thought John Ruskin and the honesty of materials and craftsmanship found in stone masonry buildings would have been some good information too.

[@gabrielaribeiro6155]

"Material matters, and I am not sure that it is merely a matter of traditionalism and conservatism that we perceive some materials as more valuable than others" Looking at interior design in the past centuries there is something to be noted - synthetic materials go in and out of style; natural materials don't. As much as we find new ways to build and new materials to build with, there is (and probably will be) a need for what is "natural", what is "familiar", "expected". And by this I mean a need for nature. Nature surrounds us, we are part of it. Monumental buildings made of stone remind us of mountains. Wood furniture and furnishings in homes remind us of forests. Organic, irregular shapes, filled with details are everywhere, from clouds, to sea waves, to the branches of a tree. So, rather than a consequence of traditionalism or conservatism, the general approval of the visibility of natural materials in architecture, as far as I see, is a consequence of being human - of being an animal that lives on earth.

[@Kmaaq]

It’s my first time seeing this guy and I subscribed 5 seconds in because: 1. I’m building my own house soon 2. I’m interested in architecture in general 3. I like his mustache

[@gerrysnatabraja]

As an architectural student, this character thing is something very hard to express, because it's intangible. What's also hard is to relate it to the programs, systems, and functions. . My professor encourage us to look outside architecture; like philosophy, history, art, politics, etc.

[@McRyach]

And as a student *it is not too late to switch the profession* for something more rewarding and lucrative. Go to tech! If you like design go to UX/UI If you like systems and wouldn't mind rich life go to full stack development. Architecture is forsaken discipline. Too much work for too little money.

[@gerrysnatabraja]

@@McRyach I do mind rich life 😌

[@steveyv963]

I quit architecture school after my first year. Most architects I found nauseating. I grew to believe that architecture should be built from a foundation of building craftsmanship upwards. Design is extremely important, but its character is informed by craftsmanship. This level of character is absent in architecture education. Same problem is in our society at large: B. S. artists are rewarded while craftsmen toil. Stone masonry guilds built most of the places everybody understands to have character.

[@gerrysnatabraja]

@@steveyv963 agree, to build a 'spirit of place', architect needs to take local attributes which one of them is local craftsmanship. I'm privileged to live in tropical archipelago with lots of craftsmanship and lots of them are beneficial design tools such as ornamental sun shading, porous wall for thermal comfort, and intricate wood interlocks. Looking inside of architecture honestly is boring, but being architect looking outside is interesting!

[@gerrysnatabraja]

@@matthewbarry376 I went by the definiton of 'intangibles is an abstract quality' or 'an asset that is not corporeal', hence I conclude the concept of character itself isn't corporeal. But, I could be wrong. Like other intangible things, character is affected by its physical attributes, such as material, location, history, and many else. So, I agree that humans do identify characters in buildings. In Kevin Lynch's "Image of The CIty", he identify the element of a city that construct such collective images in its people.

[@eliseruiz8922]

I'm a 14 year old who had the sudden dream go build houses last night. So happy to find this channel! It's a well researched analysis 👌

[@Garry_Combine]

Well, kiddo, hope ya achieve your dream, if it's not already been suggested try Minecraft, it may satiate your desire to build.

[@PinkBroBlueRope]

I feel like I have to point out that even a lot of those classical designs were absolutely awful, and their monolithic scale is the thing that saves them. That water building looked like it was built out of children's building blocks. I understand that architects have their own culture of nods and Easter eggs and references but the rest of us don't live in that world, and have to walk past countless awful concrete grey cubes (or if we're lucky, awful piles of random shapes) on our way to work, triggering an unpleasant part of the brain each and every day until we vehemently hate these stale, unintricate, ungilded blocks, rectangles and triangles. I can't believe how architects look back at the architecture of Paris with admiration, and then immediately begin work on horrible projects that this city is a refuge from. I know, I know, subjective, subjective, just my opinion, life is relative, love is just chemicals in your brain, get back in your box, etc, etc. All I'm saying is that the universal hatred of modern architecture is probably a reason for architects to stop pushing the medium to impress each other and make something that's actually nice for everyone to look at for once

[@stefanwalicord2512]

Mood

[@JoaoVitor-xy2my]

Im in the first year of architecture school and I already see this kind of thing, totally agree with you

[@jamil3286]

If the hatred for modern architecture is so universal, then I wouldn't exactly call it subjective.

[@AnarchistMetalhead]

Postmodern Architecture is the worst type of this referential design, it is full of elements that were used in earlier works, but with none of the material and detail qualities that made those elements pleasant to look at, and often without the function that brought those elements into existence, at times even deliberately showing that the elements don"t work as they are used. It is as if the style had been entirely created by grumpy teenagers: "you wanted columns and a gable, here you bloody have them, but the columns are crappy steel tubes, and the gable doesn"t even have a roof on it, have i proven my point enough that those things don't make the building any better?"

[@DrBernon]

I 100% agree!

[@PhuongNguyen-og5lp]

I'm an international student and have been struggling with those ideas of architecture history. I did not get how did they get into those ideas even try to rewatch lecture videos several times. But this video totally gives me a sense of architecture history. Thank you so much for your video and I'm going to send this to my friends.

[@MidnightSt]

"What gives buildings character?" Usually everything and anything that's there on top/besides of the utility and usability considerations. (In the context of architecture) "Character" is a feature denomination. Not a value statement. "Character" is "this thing has something extra about it besides the required minimum for it to fulfill its utility as best as it can". The value judgement is in whether someone considers a character of a specific thing to be good/bad.

[@tusk70]

When I studied architecture in the 90ties in Cologne, I allways wonder why my professors loved Le Cobusier and his work. It was just brutal without a heart. I loved to watch the great "Kölner Dom" instead.

[@tylerkochman1007]

Le Corbusier had some brilliant designs. Issue is, when you try to make a knock-off of his work, as so many did, it gets super disgusting.

[@andersonarmstrong2650]

You are absolutely right! Analysing Corb, his work is classical 'good in theory, shit in practice'. His sketches are single-point perspective in the main, taking a planning focal point but not examining the experience of movement through his spaces. Gothic architecture such as Köln Cathedral are breathtaking because the architecture arose from a known, workable formula aiming at experiential revelation through built form. The detailing and improvisations around this formula, added life to what was always intended to convey a sense of what was intangible..the realm of the soul and its elevation before the Divine. W.R Lethaby (Architecture Mysticism & Myth), and Ruskin, Seven Lamps, Stones of Venice etc, address this representation of the inanimate absolute through design allegory. Corbusier short-circuited this representational transformation into modernism by trying to have it both ways: Being European, his fixation with technology led him into an empirical dead-end only partially redeemed through his art work. His architectural work only navigated this divide late in his career.

[@MasterGhostf]

@@tylerkochman1007 Honestly, I find his work quite ugly. Its horrendous and uncomfortable.

[@mrpedrobraga]

*chuckles* “Ninetiesties”

[@dominicweber]

I never got the hype around Le Corbusier. Mies van der Rohe I at least see why he’s symptomatic of the development at the time, but Le Corbusier?? I just don’t get it

[@douglasfur3808]

Houses in movies. There's a topic. How many sci fi movies use FLW buildings or his style for sets? Which Wright buildings would you use to illustrate these 3 character types?

[@andersonarmstrong2650]

The documentary 'LA Plays Itself' is essential viewing in this regard.

[@vidcas1711]

A house that essentially copied FLW’s Wingspread was shown in an anime, a recent-ish Gundam show to be specific. Additionally, there was a house said to be “Frank Lloyd Wright” inspired in JoJo’s Bizarre Adventures.

[@elijahpautu1222]

@@vidcas1711 don't forget Fallingwater in Psycho pass

[@pihermoso11]

HOUSES IN MOVIES (here are my nominations) 1) Elrod House by John Lautner (Diamonds are forever -Sean Connery aka James Bond) 2) house in the movie 'UPGRADE' (2018 cyberpunk action film,) 3) house in the movie 'PARASITE' (2019 comedy thriller film, the house is quite famous it is replicated in games like roblox and minecraft) 4) Ben Rose House from the 80's movie 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off'

[@lesteryaytrippy7282]

I feel the same with the way Victorian houses are used in horror and Brutalist buildings in dystopian fiction. Recently there was a reverse of it (?) where a Brutalist like place is used in a supernatural fiction while a Victorian building was used for a mystery film and sometimes sci-fi. And their design still made sense.

[@anthonyraymundo9102]

I love that you are able to clearly articulate these architecture ideas

[@l-y-d-s]

honestly I feel like I have been waiting forever for a KZbin channel like this

[@joannagrant87]

11/10 would watch again

[@JJLL195]

Beauty cannot be argued, for their impact emerges from within whether you like it or not.

[@wa-bu3ke]

Wrong

[@CattoShark]

I am designing a building for an upcoming videogame and I think that fiction has a way to influence the world and vice-versa that it's absolutelly worth pointing out and examine in depth.

[@Archimarathon]

Love the dry, subtle humour you have included amongst all the densely packed content.

[@stewarthicks]

Thanks! I hope to learn how to de-densify things overall a bit. Love the overall tone and pace of your videos.

[@Archimarathon]

Yeah was just throw in gags, stupid outtakes or funny movie overlays to give the audience some breathing space.

[@Abysshe]

Like "Im fascinated by this idea that buildings have stories."? xD

[@springinfialta106]

When I think of character I think of the work of Frank Lloyd Wright that attempts to take on the character of the surrounding landscape, gothic cathedrals that intimate toward God, or Elizabethan houses that evoke a very specific era. The examples you showed could all be set pieces in a movie based on a novel by H. G. Wells, i.e. museums or mausoleums of science attempting to exact some sense of nameless awe from their audiences. I was going to take a job with a company just because their offices were in a building that once housed an old sugar mill; lots of exposed brick and beautifully stressed wooden beams. However, they relocated to another city before the interview process was completed. Even if I were an astronomer, I think it would wear on me to approach the cenotaph day after day.

[@alexanderackerman3807]

I feel like part of the problem is people keep trying to change nature to fit their vision, instead of changing their vision to fit nature.

[@DoremiFasolatido1979]

Because nature is shitty? Sometimes visually appealing for various reasons...but its designs are pure shit.

[@vicenteisaaclopezvaldez2450]

@@DoremiFasolatido1979 Your point being?, People have died because of bad layout, Destruction has ensued because people slap on the same design on hill and shore, resources are wasted because of bad sun exposure, so tell me, why?, Why shouldn't we make cities that fit the place they're in?

[@traplover6357]

@@vicenteisaaclopezvaldez2450 because some natural environments are unsuitable for building unless terraformed or using unique architecture.

[@mygetawayart]

@@DoremiFasolatido1979 nature is only "shitty" is you fail to see its beauty and intricacies.

[@AGPMandavel]

@@DoremiFasolatido1979 you’re a democrat aren’t you

[@laizerwoolf]

Very interesting topic, especially when you mention architecture that lives in comics. It's very relevant to how nowadays some interactive digital media seems to blur with spatial design, especially in games such as Minecraft, Decentraland, VR chat, etc. Inside that digital metaverse, buildings serve a slightly different purpose and constraint. Not as a built environment made for living, but made for purely ideological expression with almost little to no constraint financially, physically, and spatially.

[@hmlqrt2716]

The word "façade" doesnt quite translate to face. The french word for human face is "visage"

[@seimori]

"Face" can have the meaning of face in French and "façade" derives from it. In French you can say "sauver la face" which literary means to "save face", and "pile ou face" to say "heads or tails"

[@temptemp563]

Perhaps, and yet again, best to leave the French out of it! Their contradictory impulses are never helpful 🙂 (Smiley Façade)

[@jsihavealotofplaylists]

I don't really prefer using or hearing the term "character" or "soul" for anything, especially music, because many people who use it don't know what they're describing. But you are an exception! What a lot of places feel like is "this is cheap and it looks ok." so it's mass produced, and we get used to seeing it. Most buildings and insides have been recognized and have set pattern such as "this is what a kitchen/dining/bath/living room is" so it's the same building blocks always smushed together in different ways within a square or rectangular base. Only specialized, custom, or expensive buildings seem to have any deviation from the norm.

[@ThePress00]

To me, an architect, that "character/detail/ornamentation" people want, is for those who can either afford it, or personally work on it. We can get "character" in modern/contemporary architecture, but given how copy pasted this style is, the design must be truly creative to have character. At times, this makes the construction costly. Whereas some people prefer to have all that character indoors, and go for a simpler facade, since building with characters can also mean you want the world to know you have the money to spend on that. It's all very personal for houses. For public buildings, it all varies.

[@Its_RichieRich]

I found the best architecture videos on KZbin. Thanks!

[@HaydenBuchanan]

I can’t believe how relaxing and informative that was.

[@Abysshe]

Watched this video four times in a row. Empirical aesthetics and anything at the cross section of science and art is immensely interesting! The word "character" in its modern real estate sales form seems to be recurring in other design related areas, taking the place of that nebulous aesthetic appeal which is uncategorized or undefined, a genre without clear definition. More often than not, even those characteristics that can be nailed down are relative in terms of culture, or even temporality. I come into contact with this discussion often in something that can be likened to art versus product design. You mention that the terminology was useless in its application, and this is something that I have to force myself to remember when designing products again and again. At some point it becomes more academia than applicable theory, but one never wants to say to oneself or the customer that something is done just because.

[@runningfromabear8354]

Not that I have any background in architecture but as someone who is in the early stages of planning to build a house, I wondered about how give a building character while remaining committed to a budget. Or rather, our largest budget motivation is building a passive home. I've looked at other examples and I can't say I'm especially thrilled with the results.

[@pierren___]

1. Use natural materials. 2. Dont hide scars of the buildinh 3. Be proportional, symetric. 4. Add esthetic default like a rock a bit biased, or wall-plants growing on the wall...

[@RSEFX]

The word "character" is quite useful since it gets a conversation going across the widest spectrum possible, with an opening onto many subsets, discoveries, branchings and sub-branchings. It is like the words "image" or "color" that starts at the top, and is so high up people at every level can see it and begin thinking about it, dividing and playing with it to figure out the rhythms of its planck-y, deep heart..in me 'umble opinion, that 'tis. ;-7

[@alaskanuni]

As an millennial architecture grad student. This is gold!

[@stewarthicks]

As a borderline Gen Xer/Millenial, I'm glad you like it!!

[@myndwork]

@@stewarthicks I wish we had youtube back in 2003, your video would've made my professors obsolete.

[@period5304]

Make something cool

[@federicozimerman8167]

Architectural schools are the factories of character-less buildings. The analogy is contemporary music, for something to sound cool it had to sound awful first. People love melodies and character in buildings.

[@estebanley1124]

It was great to hear you discuss the work of Bureau Spectacular! I love the concept of buildings as characters which have their own personalities, dispositions, and roles in a story. I find the medium of comic book as a form of architectural representation to be really intriguing, every student of architecture should really look into their work! Thanks for the great video!

[@CoMo272]

can't believe that I'm watching this for free !!

[@Strawberryknight]

It's pretty much happening to everything today which lacks character. Music, fashion, arts, fictions, movies...

[@cicero4988]

I am glad to see you brought up this topic! I did research in Modern Architecture the past 3 years and "Character" was always an important notion. It splits Le Corbusier from Mies, and it is important among the architects of Brazilian Modern Architecture first generation (Niemeyer, Costa, Reidy, etc). I hope you guys do well on your research!

[@kw272]

I live in an old house that has been remodeled many time but it still has more character then newer houses. Many of the walls aren't straight, a stair case so narrow they installed a door on the second floor. It was stripped of the complexity that older houses have which I think exposed all the goofiness that older houses have.

[@roblesolivasnoealexander6099]

This and the comments in the video had made thought about my decision to study architecture, and made me realize that it just sometime i apreciate and enjoy learning and admiring but not something i want to get invested and work to, so maybe this its just my flag to change my career path and pursue something else.

[@thisismyshow9697]

Honestly got kind of hype for the geometric brutalist designs like for the water observation thing. Thanks a million for some 3d/blender inspiration, Mr. Flanders!

[@megmal1301]

I love the idea of approaching architecture in a deeply personal way and playing with colors, materials, and forms. What I’d also love to see is how these newer “characteristics” could be integrated within different contexts and utilize passive + sustainable design techniques. So many of these projects, save the house for the water surveyor, don’t feel very anchored in their context and sit on the landscape as an object instead of addressing it. Maybe that is another conversation altogether lol

[@planetsec9]

Boullée is awesome, all of his designs have a "character of grandeur" element you can say, the most awe inspiring of which is the one shown at 6:11 his "Basilique", that drawing is just the entryway to the grand massive dome at the center.... I feel that the closest we got to something resembling the scale and ambition of his designs in real life (apart from the Giza pyramids) were the original World Trade Center towers- two towering monoliths that dominated the skyline, they imbued for more of this character than the new One World Trade center tower does. Boullée's designs may have been too ludicrous and impossible to ever realistically build but they are some of my favorite precisely for the sheer scale of the mans ambition and imagination, as one of the finest examples of imaginary architecture with many of Hugh Ferris' designs a close second.

[@stewarthicks]

I love them too!

[@ViolentKisses87]

You have turned me onto a new architect, thank you.

[@rolio222]

This right here is the comment I was searching for. Very well said. Really wanted to know the name of the architect and drawing thank you

[@stripping_architecture]

Top subject for a matter that we often use but it never crossed our mind to talk about it deeper. You just made us think how we differently perceive the word character for houses and people. In western Europe (based on our experience only) the word character refers as to something that is cheerful, happy, funny, intriguing and suiting in subtle manner while in south-eastern Europe it often means as having strong personality, resistance to vices and durable. Btw just looked into the trailer "beetlejuice" and have no idea how have missed that one - thanks!

[@karstsumpterable]

I’m so used to sponsors that my mind filled in an entire Casper commercial the second he said memory foam.

[@simonbowden8408]

Very interesting again. Especially the variety of those French architects. It's hard to get away from the estate agent trope "character = flawed in some way". In the East certain shapes like holes in buildings and Torii add a spiritual dimension to a building. Can buildings feel spiritual?

[@andersonarmstrong2650]

Written language encounters its limits when defining things which a culture does its best to deny, hence the euphemism you mention gains a negative connotation, because the word character is being used to allude to something a culture has either lost sight of, or has denied due to conscious shifts, ie from mystery school to empirically based 'science'. An Egyptian architect would not understand the word 'character' as it is used now, but he or she would identify circumstances where it was present as arising from appeasement of a deity or an stellar alignment necessitating an otherwise inexplicable axial or oriented shift's transformational effect 'lending character' to an architectural form.

[@steveyv963]

I learned a lot from watching this video. How about the idea of the character of effort and craftsmanship? I think character disappeared from architecture because craftsmanship is not economical.

[@mr.e1708]

What people generally mean by character is that it has elements or traces of beauty left over from a time before the rejection of beauty, the exaltation of ugliness, and before architecture-as-social-engineering by pompous, navel-gazing, pseudo-intellectuals became the mainstream. Character means exactly what anyone that isn't conditioned to think other wise would assume: that it is lively, beautiful, perhaps unique. This usually means that it avoids the post-war psychodrama and vapidity of modernism, and the inane sophistry of the neo-religious post-modernism.

[@adrianjohnson7920]

By analysing vernacular archictture in dialogue with its geography, Christopher Alexander analysed and articulated the scale and psychological features which make human beings feel comfortable and secure in buildings and communities/ towns (buildings in dialogue with each other) . What a sane man.

[@yesh7183]

Venturis Complexity & Contradiction and Learning from Las Vegas are the best books on this subject, I think

[@rupertfergusson]

The decorative arts are to bringing back character.

[@gpcampello]

An architectural Vsauce was deeply needed. Awesome content!

[@stevenmoussa8590]

im so glad I found this channel!! such good converstation

[@SaiSantoshMARU]

Very informative. Great work Stewart. I will always appreciate your time and effort.

[@nataliabennett8157]

Really interesting and good video ; the little facts and shinfo/info dumps make the video so interesting and break it up a little. these glimpes into people form the 16th 17th century creating stuff we never even knew of - or that I never learnt in architecture uni courses - make it so fascinating and the correlation between inventiveness and unique conceptualisation of design back then is amazing and super inspiring.

[@MerlinTheCommenter]

That algorithm hittin, Hicks. I have never seen a building video and now I need to binge this content 😂

[@stewarthicks]

Glad you like it and that the algorithm is working!!

[@sideways5153]

“Character” sounds like the architectural equivalent of the term “personality” when you talk about a person. It’s so broad because it’s a descriptor of the way a building fits into different contexts and the way it interacts with the things around it. An aggressive personality is one which seeks out or creates conflict, a friendly personality is one which takes pleasure in social situations, and so on. In this way a building lacking character can be understood in the same way as a person lacking a personality - they fail to interact, fail to respond to the situation they’re in, they have nothing to say for themselves, and they have nothing the seek or want out of a situation. A building with character has purpose and it’s own ways of achieving that purpose- a large dining room and tiny kitchen for accommodating many guests at a dinner created by only one or two people has very different character than a dining room with no wall between it and the kitchen, wherein friends and family can share in the cooking, the cleaning, the serving, and the enjoying of a meal as equals. A building that “lacks character” would be one that doesn’t distinguish itself from its context or use it’s design to fulfill a purpose. The kitchenette from a small hotel room comes to mind - there is no stove, usually no sink, and maybe only a small fridge and a coffeemaker. A hotel room kitchenette lacks almost everything that makes it a kitchen - and has no character as a result. Another example is cubicled work spaces - the only character they have is the rigid segmentation of the workspace into individual offices. What little character is here is flimsy, weak, and doesn’t strike you as serving its purpose very well. That’s what I think about character, at least

[@mattpipes5106]

This video reminded me to look up Friedensreich Hundertwasser, and his collaboration with architects to build buildings that are whimsical, but also practical in terms of combing living, communal and green space all in one structure

[@Robin_Goodfellow]

I just came here from a Wendover Productions video about how buildings in America all look the same for economic and social reasons. This is an interesting counterpoint in that context.

[@PeteCollingsArchitect]

Jimenez Lai's "Citizens of No Place: An Architectural Graphic Novel" is a book I would recommend to anyone, especially those who are even the tiniest bit interested in architecture.

[@elvibora6218]

This channel is pure gold

[@crisoliveira2644]

The house of pleasure shown is literally what in Portuguese is called "Casa do Caralho".

[@stewarthicks]

haha!

[@pablotrujillomorales8033]

Recently I discovered your channel, what a find!

[@PranyaGulati]

i felt compelled to take notes during this….. thank you for making this for free

[@truerthanyouknow9456]

Those glasses, moustache, and black t-shirt are… iconic. Good choices.

[@mrs.manrique7411]

I would love a part of a comic strip showing a building space far off from the main entrance and main areas being turned into storage space by the main characters. "Oh, you asked what we use that cleft chin area for? Storage."

[@williamreymond2669]

5:32] An expanded list of 'character traits' might include valuing the degree to which architecture asserts itself into to immediate environment. I remember Charles Moore mentioning in a lecture that one of the primary decisions to be made in a design conception is whether a building should step forward or stand back in relation to its surroundings, particularly in an urban context, the examples he gave being some of the works of Louis Kahn particularly noting how Kahn's Yale Center for British Art being a decision to step back into the built environment.

[@bargemouvier]

I figured this guy was a professor because he: knows how to use tech, the glasses, has a nice looking apartment

[@J.S.McDuff]

11:13 I think what you're looking for is *random association*, where one item (a comic book or theoretical universe) and another item (buildings) combined together create a new neuro pathway to an item. What is a baseball without a hoop but a soccer goal? *Concrete Hand Soccer* of course! I was taught this is art school, that if you ever run out of ideas, just try to associate it with something random and something might be a good idea after a while! (Like Concrete hand soccer is not a good idea). I LOVE THIS VIDEO AS A CONSTRUCTION WORKER

[@pierren___]

Amalgam are important To catch a bigger picture. However he explains here that coherence is necessary, role assignation, which your theory doesnt have.

[@J.S.McDuff]

@@pierren___ You know, thats a great point! Thanks for helping me find a word to a phrase that I can look into

[@pierren___]

@@J.S.McDuff Thanks

[@parvizentekhabi9960]

Thank you for the great presentation! I am using it in my classroom.

[@animeaos]

Learned alot of stuff. Hope you keep making interesting content like this and the unbuilt series :)

[@myragroenewegen5426]

Decorators, gardeners and graffiti artists are the angels who save bad buildingsf from themselves when that which is authentically worth thinking about and engaging one's heart with is missing and in this sense character CAN be build on anything. But we shouldn't be making these people be heroes --they can go much further with more inspiring bones to work with. I might agree that with the thought "Character" is used to the point of being meaningless on it's own, but only because it's so central to what "good" mean architecturally that it's testament to saying "We really should CARE about how things look." Buildings set the context for how we experience them. That experience IS character. "Character" also often refers time-- to the visual authenticity and personality that layers onto a building over time. This is what makes a useful, safe structure a place. But the very fact that we're talking about it means that we probably all KNOW and CARE about that. So much of recent architecture is dealing with people who don't - who don't respect and preserve old, artizanal things, or make things with thought of what kind of specialness or warmth or place they bring to the world.

[@felipearenas4422]

Really awesome video! I will share it with my colleagues.

[@appaenthusiast6218]

Really got me sitting here interested in architecture out of nowhere

[@scotthofland8858]

Essential, Distinctive, Relative. Thank you.

[@andersonarmstrong2650]

'Personality' as it applies to Architecture, is a term exchangable for 'soul', yet no one would suggest an inanimate object 'possesses' a soul therefore the discussion is about allegory or imbued personality. As Mies might've said: 'God is in the details'. The question then arises: how is this allegory represented? A Mies invests the minutae with the clarity of the monumental. A Scharoun or Aalto embraces the spirit of a culture and encapsulates this spirit in built form, inspired by place. Both approaches occupy opposite ends of a design spectrum most accurately defined within Expressionism. Both approaches owe their roots to the Gothic, both in theory through the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas and in practice through the infinitely variable richness of the Gothic guilds. Without the spiritual there is no 'Architecture'. Formal expression of ritual, custom and foundation mythologies transforms the humblest shed. Really then, the secularization of space in Western culture, has left a void, some architects have silently and secretly addressed through detailing, while others hafe addressed through the monumentalisation of ritual. Indeed, what else is a successful stadium, gallery or auditorium design in the 21st century? This is the real issue.

[@pierren___]

An inanimate object does carry "scars " from its builders To

[@andersonarmstrong2650]

@@pierren___ The 'scarring' goes much deeper! Wrong architects, wrong architecture, wrong site! Eyesores the very least of it. A Chinese friend pointed to a building and said it should never have been built. I agreed but her issue was Feng Shui.

[@pierren___]

@@andersonarmstrong2650 true, but it has also positive scars, like gothic churches or wood european houses

[@andersonarmstrong2650]

@@pierren___ I agree. Scars arising from change of function or from material updates. However, from this one can see the vanity of those architects thinking to make a virtue of 'scarring', implying repurposed spaces, or makers markings, in new builds..

[@oktavia_kirana]

This helped me in my History of Design Thinking course :) Thank you!

[@domesticcat1725]

I live in the Netherlands and I have to say, the new buildings here tend to feel like the opposite of what people are complaining about. It's basically overflowing with character. The centre of The Hague is full of beautiful and unique high rises like the ministry towers or the industrial looking Zurichtoren. Amsterdam is well known for having apartment complexes that are actually complex, like the Valley and the Pontsteiger. And Rotterdam is basically made of character, like it's literally a playground for architects. Every building post-WW2 is some combination of colourful, odd-shaped, experimental, or a straight-up abomination, and with 80 years of buildings that were futuristic at the time the chaos is turning into its own kind of order

[@WelfareChrist]

In Philosophy of Science we have an adjective for a word like “character”, saying such words are “undetermined” meaning that it lacks specific enough constraints to convey anything particularly meaningful. These words tend to, but do not always, arrive when we are attempting to maintain ambiguity which we can then interpret in whatever way we find flattering, as opposed to using more specific language which might then invite scrutiny and critique. In other words it’s language we use to obfuscate when we aren’t sure what we’re trying to say. “Character” definitely seems to fit this description.

[@sadboy_otoroshi7692]

Me before watching the video: What? Mild inconvenineces that you'll eventually grow accostumed to. They break monotony and stuff? Me after watching the video: Character used to be a semi-objetive metric through which architects could determine purpose, feel and function of a building and how it related to the people that would inhabit them. But after 1950 function overtook form and character became smudged and paint over with engulfing simplicity. Very cool video :)

[@JBColourisation]

Fascinating Video, thanks for making it! :)

[@EBProductions]

Form follows function is the death of character

[@ivac9075]

You had me at Beetlejuice.

[@DrBernon]

I think a house's character is more like the movie character. It is the set of traits that differentiate it from others. And I think older buildings had more character for one very important thing. In the past, a house was built by the owners, either directly or under their requirements and specifications. And the owners expected to live in that house forever, and then pass it down to their children, as opposed to now where the builders just want to sell it. With that, houses were though out much more thoroughly, and made to be practical and inviting, but also had differences based on the owner's requests. On top of that, old houses were made by hand with no machinery, and the location was usually the lesser yielding patch of land from the property. That usually meant they were built on rocky ground. That combination, meant houses flowed with the topography instead of having a flat ground like we do today. And all that combined, makes a house have its own character, or personality.

[@nickelcadmium1401]

You’re very underated. Hope your channel gets big soon!

[@stewarthicks]

I hope so too!

[@unltdconciousness]

I have found it very interesting how so many people from my parents' generation struggle to accept modern housing design - i.e. blocky "boxes" as opposed to early to mid 1900's designs. I've asked my mom why she hates modern design so much and she's said that they just don't have the same feel as older houses do. It seems to me that for the layman or people with more traditional expectations, the character of a house really rests in it's sense of history and the degree to which the house feels lived in. As traditions are overtaken with modern interpretations, there is always a transition period in which the preceding generation challenges the viability and character of modern movements. Architecture is no different. But what I really find so interesting about this discussion is that in say 100 years, the houses our parents criticized for lacking character very well could be the standard by which our children set their expectations for character. I think this is - and always has been - true of everything.

[@adamcastorp6415]

The history behind a particular style of architecture is hugely important because it's what "grounds" us. A European castle "belongs" in the setting of rolling green hills dotted with trees. But, take this same structure, place it in a random location in Southeast Asia, and suddenly, it looks jarring. When removed from its cultural and historical context, it loses meaning. I guess that modern architects figured out that they can avoid running into such a problem by designing their buildings in a vacuum, isolated from a connection to a time, place, or people. That way, their buildings can be placed anywhere. I mean, from an aesthetic perspective, it doesn't really matter that the Gherkin is in London, does it? It could just as well have been built in China, and it wouldn't have made a difference. This is precisely why ordinary people feel out of place in modern buildings. Architecture used to be the aesthetic expression of a culture. Now, it's a playground for intellectuals whose main concerns are wholly unlike anything that ordinary people - the people who will actually have to live in these spaces - care about. Beauty has been dispensed with after being deemed too constraining, boring, and old-fashioned, and what has taken its place is the design of buildings that look "interesting"; except that this "interesting" really is illusory since the vast majority of architectural innovation taking place currently relies on pushing the boundaries of issues that only academics who have spent years in studying could give a hoot about. What the average person continues to see is a multitude of oppressively-sleek structures, lacking in detail and charm, typically constructed out of the same 3 materials. When a building is ugly, nobody is going to care what deeper meaning the architect was trying to convey. The average laymen may lack the vocabulary to express these thoughts effectively (as do I), but the real problem doesn't lie with ordinary folk lacking education. Because beauty should be immediately recognizable. Yes, formal training will deepen one's appreciation for and understand of good architecture, but it is not a prerequisite for making a sound judgement about whether or not a particular building is welcoming or pleasant to be in. The average laymen may lack the vocabulary, but his instincts are correct. I seriously doubt that there will ever come a time when modern architecture becomes the "standard by which children set their expectations for character". And for the simple reason that, when given a chance to design or build structures on paper or in a virtual environment where costs or building codes aren't limiting factors, they most often choose to take inspiration from grand historical marvels, like well-known castles, or from buildings from popular media, which themselves have taken inspiration from grand historical marvels. Look at the stuff that kids build in Minecraft. How much of it attempts to mirror modern architecture? Very little. And why? Because modern architecture simply isn't inspiring. It's not immediately-appreciable like castles, pyramids, temples, cottages, etc. In many cases, it's something that one has to develop a taste for - and that's not a good indicator.

[@kevinn1158]

I just found your channel a couple days ago. I love it!! You are such an archigeek!! But even though you know all of the archispeak, you aren't in love with it so much that you forget that nobody other than architects use this language. To me, character is something or somebody that's unique. Bring a unique view of materials, form etc... it needs to reflect the individuality of the architect and client. Just don't do the easy thing and copy stuff that's been done before. I'm a cameraman in the film industry so interiors are one big movie set for me to light. And there's so many interiors I'd "re light", re locate windows on the set.... sorry, building. Luckily, we can move the 18k outside the set... that's our sun. Too bad you can't do that in real life.

[@francopieru9666]

Louis Kahn makes a fantastic job on re thinking old architecture to make something more corresponding of this times

[@avo9x]

You are absolutely lost. He is a prime example of what is wrong with todays architecture. His buildings are revolting and inhuman, and I would not hesitate an instant to tear them down.

[@dlwatib]

Character results from a unique, delightful synthesis of opposing attributes, generally resulting from a process of growth and development. It's obvious from this video that the beginning of the fall of architecture happened during the so-called Enlightenment. They obviously had no idea what gave a building character.

[@Bunny-ch2ul]

I feel like this is less of a philosophical issue and more of a practical one. Buildings that have character are typically buildings that were designed to have one use/one owner in perpetuity. Like, it's easy to find even a contemporary public library that has character. That library is likely going to be a public library as long as it's a building. They can do something really bold with the design because it doesn't really have to appeal to potential buyers down the line. Commercial space? Not so much. The space needs to appeal to a wide variety of tenants. Homes don't have character anymore because fewer and fewer people buy homes as lifetime investments. They expect to stay for awhile, but eventually move on. That limits how much you can really personalize a space. "Character" to one person is "an eyesore" to another.

[@bernardmaree790]

You deserve my subscription (legend)

[@kenlodge3399]

Sorry haven't got anything intellectually challenging to add, just wanted to compliment you on your language... I love your lexicon! You've got this machine gun, matter of fact, take no prisoners - talk. First time heard it was half listening, KZbin playing in the background, my brain clicked "That's got to be a music critic video by another supercilious reporter from Rolling Stone," but made sure to note it! When looked it up in History, KABAAM. Tho you look like a supercilious MC from Rolling Stone (just kidding) was pleasantly surprised to discover you talking about my favorite topic in a way that compounded my fascination with architecture. What's really strange is I understand everything your saying. So keep doing what you're doing cuz I love every one of your videos, have seen multiples several times enjoying every aspect.

[@PedroPereira-si3sy]

Great content and amazing delivery! thank you!

[@fischerbasham678]

Whats the building that comes up at 6:18? is it fantasy?

[@fischerbasham678]

Nevermind, I found it. It's by Étienne-Louis Boullée, the guy Professor Hicks talks about right afterwards lol

[@landonjones1516]

in so far a minute marker 9:37, this is the best video ever!

[@CUBETechie]

5:09 in march April 2018 we changed the location of our workshop to a newly built one it had this atmosphere you could easily get lost there it also doesn't feel like it was designed to be a workshop at all more like an office and on the first floor you will find meeting rooms some of them are very strange you go in one room and in the same room on the other side of the room you find a door to another one. If you go to the workshops and machine hall it doesn't look fitting for a workshop. The locker rooms are okay. It feels like straight from the Stanley Parabel game

[@kenshinhimura2322]

I think it’s post modernism. Modern buildings and homes have very strict lines and you have to be a minimally to love in one. I like regular houses or older homes because those places does have character.