Why Don't We Build Beautiful Buildings Anymore?

[@UnravelingArchitecture]

QOTD: would you rather live in a city that looks more homogeneous and cohesive ORR a city that features a plethora of iconic buildings?! I’m especially proud of this video! Thank you so much for watching ❤

[@julianledoux8824]

As someone who resides in the Midwest I want to live in a city where people are the main focus, not cars 😩 but I’ll say iconic.

[@johnkelli4940]

It's the delicate balance between function and aesthetics that really matters. Depends which one wins..

[@Zoie3x8]

i would say a balance of both is good : sections or districts of a city should look generally cohesive with themselves and/or eachother - BUT, there should also be a degree of reserved spaces for landmark buildings, if those landmark designs are worthy.

[@MagdalenaTheremin]

I love all the people who cares about the beauty in our cities

[@Zoie3x8]

Not to get too Conspiracy-Theorist, but, looking at the whole process-of-processes of how buildings get made (architecture schools, architects, funding, zoning and code requirements, construction methods, project time limits and deadlines, city ordinances, and on, And On, AND ON, A-N-D-O-N) it seems to me that its not really so much a case of 'why don't we want to build like this anymore ?" and more a case of *[We Are Not Allowed To Build Like This Anymore.]*

[@deborahchychota5578]

The Rockefeller indoctrination. Do your research.

[@chicken3365]

we can't build them anymore.

[@Zoie3x8]

​@@chicken3365 but WHY can't we build them anymore ? Are the new generations not human anymore ? did our brains fall out of our butts and drop into the toilet, flushed forevermore and never to be regained ? No, we as a Society, are Not Allowed to Build Like That, Anymore. Im sure there are many many reasons that can be presented as legitimate and argued very well, but as someone who has armchair-studied atleast a cursory bit of older architecture knowledge and design, im inclined to say 'the knowledge is still there, If We Were Allowed to Build With It', but therein is my point - on the whole of it, we are restricted and prevented from doing so, and i for one, think it is intentionally done. Someone with alot of power and authority, does not want us as public populaces, creating beautiful buildings as a general standard, regardless of materials, construction processes, zoning and coding, or any other reason that could be given.

[@wandile.dlamini_]

This kinda makes me think about how as a student, lecturers most of the time tell us to accommodate the surrounding environment which limits our designs to blending in with the surrounding instead of standing out.

[@UnravelingArchitecture]

I totally get where you're coming from... It's like being told to play it safe instead of letting your creativity run wild, right? Esp when school is the best time to let your creativity to run wild. It can feel a bit stifling when you're encouraged to blend in rather than stand out with your designs. But hey, maybe there's a silver lining here. Sometimes, working within constraints can actually push us to think even more creatively. It's all about finding that balance between honoring the context of your surroundings and still injecting your own unique flair into your work. Who knows, maybe one day you'll find a way to stand out while still fitting right in. Keep pushing those boundaries!!!! It will work out

[@Nick3618W]

Blending in with the surroundings really is what you make of it. If you’re clearing land for a new build, many developers just annihilate everything to make the plots flat, build a cookie cutter house, plant a lawn… but if they didn’t cut down more than necessary, these same homes could be surrounded by mature trees that require essentially zero maintenance because they’re from the surrounding environment and survived decades to hundreds of years before you arrived. When I become an architect, I want my signature to be a flow of form and function, harmonious with the surroundings in a way that stands out, but incorporating what is already there.

[@citytrees1752]

People used to have to accommodate nature instead of industrial templates.

[@monroe-gp3xl]

Came for the intellectual discussion and breakdown of architecture and stayed for the cat

[@corivian]

Very good video! As an architecture student I struggle with this need to make beautiful buildings with soul in a modernist teachers/build environment

[@plutolouu]

this is literally why I'm struggling with if I want to be a architect, due to increase demand of modernism and prioritising quantity and profit over quality

[@jobjg5900]

5:18 Concrete can be used a lot more creatively than it is.

[@TheKaiserofeurope]

I am sketching every Tradisional landmark to every landmark of every nation

[@UnravelingArchitecture]

That’s awesome!!

[@javierpacheco8234]

Im still a student in architecture but the way i think is that both modern architecture and traditional matter, both work and both are habitable for people. If only we could find the formula or the answer to creating a structure that is good in technology and also beautiful. I think that should be the next stage for architecture of this era.

[@scottzagger]

I take issue with a couple of things here-from my background as a builder. Modernism fits in cost somewhere between lesser ornamented traditional styles like Georgian and more ornamented styles. The use of rectangular shapes and vertical rather than horizontal forms has a lot to do with that. Modernism also requires more trades skill in many cases because you need technology and chemistry to do with it what was done with physics in traditional buildings, mainly speaking of managing water here. Also while the majority of 5 over 1s are ugly that has a lot to do with planners outlining the form of them in code. The traditional 5 over 1 as seen in Hausmanns Paris, in Barcelona, etc is not ugly despite looking similar to every other building in the district. Lastly, I wouldn’t jump on people for wanting to make a profit too much, that’s normal across all occupations. The larger problem is cultural, in that we conceive of everything happening in a short period. Buildings rarely last a century anymore and they are typically torn down because the form doesn’t suit the replacement function.

[@cjacobsart]

Doesn’t cost more necessarily to build more beautiful, most houses could easily just change their proportions and look infinitely better. Not to mention traditional building cost less overall because of building wait time

[@judahbateman9849]

This is so thorough and well-researched! I can't believe you only have a 60K followers, you deserve a much larger audience. (EDIT) It does come across as a bit contradictory to critique "5 over 1 buildings" and "building up rather than out" as an urban design strategy while critiquing car centric design in the very next breath 😅

[@Marie-lf8ut]

We don't need to tear down our beautiful architectural buildings to put up new, stark, modern ones. Keep the old like Europeans and add the new. I recently got an estimate to sell my 1889 Victorian house, and the builder told us they would probably tear down the house and build 3 modern homes. That made my stomach turn. I bought this house 35 years ago to save it and not feed into buying a new construction that would condemn more farm land.

[@amenadito8079]

In most european countries you can't tear down old buildings as you wish, not even add a modern toilet without permission. A 130 old house is definetely a piece of history and must be protected

[@NTL578]

Not true at all. Plenty has been torn down in Europe since WW2.

[@zmasterx6825]

Let’s go girl! This is a great video and a great path of greatness you are on

[@dieselsk8]

Here in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, it's just about cost. Nothing beyond than that! Tons of steel, glass, concrete, to shape the ugliest buildings. People like Zaha Hadid, Santiago Calatrava, among others, can draw wonders with the materials mentioned above, but in the end they cost a lot. Keep up the good work and if possible, I would like to see you talk about South American architecture.

[@charlesschauer8927]

I also Hate the evil/angry car faces. The placement & shape of the headlights...especially noticeable at night..looking in rear view mirror..

[@ethanmcquat]

A style always comes back it evolved but never changes

[@areare1813]

Absolutely agree. A lot of cities have now new ugly buildings. We should do more beautiful and fascinating projects.

[@javierpacheco8234]

I love ornament and i try to design my architecture with ornaments. Definitely it's a skill to draw those detail. It takes a while but it is possible.

[@jakub-or2vk]

can u show ur projects?

[@hanac5751]

Just found this video on YT: UGLINESS IS A DISEASE: How Ugly Architecture & Environments Harm Us, presented by channel Heaven Sent Honey. Highly recommend!!!

[@tedfordhyde]

When the norm is that people are wearing pajama clothes to the store and even to work you know we have gone off the edge of ugliness.

[@melissamoore6539]

Beautiful buildings don’t necessarily need labor. What we need is for the bottom line to not be the only thing that is taken into account. Or, to have how people will interact with the building as a community, not as an asset to be part of the design.

[@DjBaapreB]

Beauty is often considered the icing on the cake. In the coming times basic things like adequate water delivery and reliable sewerage may get more attention. Perhaps if buildings are made in such a way that the inhabitants are able to give it personality then even something soulless can become soulful.

[@citytrees1752]

We've lost touch with the beauty and complexity of nature.

[@SP95]

I believe Louis Sullivan's plea regarding "Form follows function" has been diverted by the minimalists overtime and thus misunderstood by newer generations in the 20th century onwards. Unlike his famous vainglorious apprentice, Sullivan kept across all of his work a strong emphasis on ornamentation as he simply wanted to contribute with his own style without betraying his beaux-arts sensibility. That leads you to a relevant point I don't see many people make at 2:22 about how fashion influences architectural styles, probably because you are not a man and therefore care a little more. Minimalism is now represented by this caricatural architect exclusively wearing black turtleneck sweaters throughout his entire life, sometimes with a twist as he/she dares to layer it with a regular black blazer or black coat when he feels a little wilder reflecting his shallow taste. Thankfully this horrendous turtleneck is declining in popularity but the black sweater still haunts most firms. Ironically I should note that I was also wearing a black sweater while typing that, but in my defense I only wear these ten times in a year. As a young european effortlessly dwelling in a beautiful old building in a city built across dozens of centuries thanks to the hard labour of my ancestors like you mentioned, I feel too much uncomfortable to start pestering either northern or southern americans on what they should do given what they have both already achieved on this continent in such a short amount of time compared to every other continents being several millennia older. Transitioning from giant farmer lands to densely urbanized cities takes a bit of time, so that temporary period in time with sprawling generic wooden shallow houses that seems to finally start including more and more concrete or steel recently will still prevail for several extra centuries. We still can't ignore what the northerners were aiming at given the splendor of The 1893 and 1904 World's Fair alongside southerners in Buenos Aires Argentina, wonder what happened in between then and now like you've illustrated across your video. As for Europe in that time, not everyone was living in those magnificent buildings so this is not fair. However I want to come back on your chapter called " housing is a commodity ", as a counter-example, the pretty "Haussmann" buildings in my city Paris were officially literally called " Revenue houses " during their construction when the city has had its 20+ years long overhaul, showing how houses could still be considered a commodity while still maintaining a strong prominence on refined and expensive aesthetics. People were ready to trade space for elegance which is no longer the case today, and so we come back to that black sweater architect paradox where there is not enough demand nor enough offer in the general public for more refined buildings. Given the story of Paris, early New York's skyscrapers and Buenos Aires, I would then put the blame on the new rich lacking a single sense of taste both in fashion, decoration, cars and architecture not providing enough demand for true works of art. This thankfully seems to change as new skyscrapers in NY seems to re embrace some shy shapes of the former art deco era and many wealthy individuals are already building their palaces and large homes with "traditional" styles showing a renewed interest in elegance. I still don't want to waive a 180° shift again such as the likes of those neo traditionalist movements but we can't blame them for finding a quick workaround until architectural firms and their customers finally starts allocating a bigger share of their budgets and dignity to aesthetics again while also coming up with new styles shifting far away from minimalism.

[@UnravelingArchitecture]

You make some really interesting points about the evolution of architectural styles and how they're influenced by various factors (like fashion and cultural shifts.) I'm happy it was digestible in the video. Louis Sullivan's concept of "Form follows function" has indeed been interpreted differently over time, with some architects embracing minimalism while others, like Sullivan himself, maintained a strong emphasis on ornamentation and individual style. It's funny how fashion trends can sometimes become synonymous with architectural movements, (such as the iconic black turtleneck often associated with minimalism, which you are conveniently wearing at the moment). Your observation about the decline of this trend and a renewed interest in more traditional styles is intriguing. It seems like there's a growing appreciation for elegance and refinement, especially among those who are willing to invest in creating true works of architectural art. I think this appreciation will continue to grow, especially after two decades of incredibly sleek design infiltrating everything (esp. tech. Thank you Steve Jobs) While it's important not to completely dismiss modernist or minimalist movements, it's equally crucial to recognize the value of diverse architectural expressions and to strive for a balance between functionality and aesthetic appeal. As you rightly point out, there's ROOM for innovation while still honoring the rich history and craftsmanship of older architectural styles. Finding that balance might require a shift in priorities and a greater emphasis on the importance of aesthetics in architectural design. Time will tell. Thank you for your comment and giving me more to think about. Looking up Haussmann now!

[@evaphillips2102]

Thanks for explaining why these buildings are cheaper nd uglier but cost more to live in.

[@eliholmes5587]

I don't usually comment on KZbin, but man what a solid video, I couldn't agree more with you. So many usa cities feel totally soulless. The lack of walkable cities sucks here

[@Hawk2phreak]

I'm a landlord who would like to develop small multi family buildings that are beautiful and I can't find any examples to even work from. I own several rentals that are over 100 years old and I feel a responsibility to preserve their character as much as possible. Anyone have any examples of 4-8 unit buildings that are designed to be beautiful?

[@shanekeenaNYC]

Everything in moderation. Too much modernization and we end up without a real purpose for building some things and a loss of that bedrock craftsmanship that founded architecture itself. Too much "nostalgic" architecture and we end up as caricatures of ourselves without any legitimate advancement. Would New York be what it was without Art Deco? Not in my lifetime. Can the same be said of any of the modernist towers and housing blocks of today? Not that either.

[@UnravelingArchitecture]

Your insight really hits the nail on the head. It's like a dance between preserving the heart and soul of architecture while still pushing boundaries with modernization. And like you've thought - without the Art Deco flair, New York City just wouldn't have that same vibrant personality we all love. But at the same time, we can't deny the impact of modernist designs shaping our skylines today. It's all about finding that sweet spot where tradition meets innovation, where each style contributes its own flavor to the mix. Our cities become these living, breathing stories where the past whispers in the architecture of yesteryears (woo woo), while the present shouts with the bold statements of today's designers and builders. So, here's to honoring the craftsmanship of old and embracing the possibilities of what's to come - because in that delicate balance lies the true magic of urban evolution. Thank you for the comment! cheers!

[@paulsmith1981]

Ornate stone buildings cost a lot more than a glass box. A lot of this is down to clients going for the cheapest option. Ugly is cheap.

[@mayormccheese6171]

The hardest part is once you know beauty is an objective truth, you will see ugliness everywhere. It's like waking from the matrix.

[@tedfordhyde]

There was a time when even before the building and construction of structures like that they were looked upon in a much more transcendent way and then they were built to the glory of God.

[@incrediblegamer2.o930]

Good work . 👏 ❤ i got my answer

[@julianledoux8824]

I live in Chicago by Lake Meadows in another apartment complex and I hate the area as a resident. The positives I thought would come from loving so deep into a city just aren’t there, and on top of that it’s a boring area for someone in there mid 20s who still has the free time to be social. Chicago has some really amazing neighborhoods that can at times resemble our European counterparts, I just wish I’d have known that the apartment I got wasn’t anywhere close to those other communities 😒

[@UnravelingArchitecture]

Hi hi! It's good to see you around again(: Living in a place that doesn't match up to your expectations can be super disappointing, especially when you're in your mid-20s and looking for a bit of excitement. Chicago's got some cool neighborhoods, like you mentioned, with vibes that can rival European cities. It's a shame your spot isn't quite hitting the mark. I hope your situation changes for you soon. But hey, at least you've got the insight now, right? Haha. Maybe it's time to start scoping out some of those other areas and see if there's a spot that feels more like home. In the meantime, hang in there and try to make the most of what you've got. Who knows, maybe you'll stumble upon some hidden gems in your current neighborhood while you're at it. Keep your chin up!(:

[@bearchrist2513]

when all those "ornamented" buildings were built your right there were no wars. uhhh wait a second . your script reading and memorization skills are next level, what re education camp did you get released from

[@chrisukman]

5 over 1 WOW that is happening here in Glasgow, the housing associations are using that here

[@wassupcuhwatchumeancuh]

Can you put down your sources please? I like to read it 😊

[@davidperrine.architecture]

The commodification of housing is such a problem. It also seems that it will only get worse. I read that last year, around 40% of single family home purchases were made by private equity or other financial entities.... Seems this will continue to be a problem until our government imposes legislation. Also, more cat in videos please :)

[@furripupau]

Minimalism didn't start with modernism. Here's the thing that annoys me about the "historical buildings were all beautiful" crowd: most historical buildings were plain and drab, if not outright ugly. This is a fact. Look at any photo of a city taken in the mid 19th century. Most buildings are plain as can be. The "19th century was beautiful" talk is like when people claim music was better in the 1960s, but they're only listening to 10 or 12 albums, and forgetting the thousands that are absolutely awful.

[@cameron.t]

Maintenance. It’s hard to maintain art after the artist has died or moved on. It’s sad that we’ve moved away from the artisan/apprentice way of life and work The higher design styles were also unpopularized post WWII. Most countries wanted to move away from being too culturally distinct. It was also a way of eschewing away from the fact that the best examples of design weren’t accessible to the common man. Of course, where Modernsim has ended up (rather quickly in this context) is at direct odds with the original and (in my opinion) prime driver of that transition.

[@melissamoore6539]

I don’t have a problem with five over ones. But I do think that they should be condos that are sold, not rented.

[@cms3000]

The reason is that it cost more money, time and the slavery is abolished.

[@bahaar2825]

Beautiful channel❤❤❤

[@omahaflynn5937]

Old Architecture was multi function.... Ornament spires used the Ethernet....free energy

[@charleybrown3018]

Very intelligent

[@skurinski]

Cause architecture and art has been taken over by modernism and post-modernism

[@ericshiel]

We need a podcast!

[@UnravelingArchitecture]

working on it(:

[@DesigningSkills-786]

more Video upload please i realy like your video

[@timothywhite512]

i just watched your video about "the line" and appreciate your insight and analysis. i'm an architect with more than 30 years of having the privilege to be self-employed as an architect actually doing architecture. if one watches the progression of investigation into the narrative behind most architecture - from a layman's perspective, in other words, the guy at this channel(kzbin.info/www/bejne/p3LcmpuXmLt5esk) was not told what to see or how to think about the buildings that we learned about in our "architectural history" class, so if you really want to know the answer to the question that you pose as the title of this video, then it will be helpful to unlearn the narrative that you may have been fed. what was the reason behind the war that necessitated all the rebuilding?(the real reason, not the "ooooh hitler bad" narrative) what are the ramifications if the "way they paid for the old projects" is nothing like what you describe? bottom line: what if the history that we have been spoon fed by our college architecture classes is nothing more than a plausible narrative bearing no similarity to what really made those old buildings possible?

[@Onelegisenough]

I want every single person to search "my lunch break." Trust me, the answers are there

[@Igorchitect]

Survivorship bias is a factor here too…especially built by “common folk” and not for aristocrats and ultra wealthy didn’t survive the test of time.

[@Maryamtheartest]

Your eyes are so beautiful

[@user-tl5om1ow2b]

6:39 - a fair point but it doesn't necessarily solve the problem of cheap/slave labour. It still happens in Qatar etc.

[@troyjulian3356]

Beautiful is subjective ... sustainable architecture to most laypersons is quite cluttered, but that wouldn't stop me from geeking out on passive house features. Fell free to tell me I'm wrong but we should be designing for full sensory experiences rather than visual first impressions.

[@davidp.3479]

I personally think that beauty is from like 80% fully objective. There are rules that just make a building "beautiful" and it is a objective fact. Ask thousand random people walking next Nottre Dame if they think its beautiful. And then ask thousand random people walking next to a 1970s brutalist office block. I dont know the results but I think we both can imagine how it would look like. Though there is obviously so much more to a building than just the visual "beauty" at the first sight. So I agree at that, the affordability, sustainability, etc. are all great factors to consider too.

[@VADACHE]

They do not disregard the price of the rent when they renting the units in those ugly buildings

[@lukawilliams4822]

We have lost our old frequency 👁️🧠

[@張洪鈞]

The beautiful architecture in Europe and North America, beside of the huge public buildings built with golden ratio, Christianity led to the beautiful and practical buildings. But after atheism parties promote to destroy old things, buildings are designed to be industrial architecture, so most building are like factories, designed for efficiency rather than elegance and complicacy. Plastic is also a reason of fast and cheap industrial architecture.

[@jessesdomain444]

Architecture was at its peak during Christ's millennial reign and before the mudfloods

[@quackcement]

was cheap to mass manufacture ornamentation during the Victorian era, but it was so excessive, that Americans eventually stripped their homes of this carpentry when the arts and crafts movement grew.

[@Birdsanimalsfarming]

Also tell about a video still design nad I like your video very much

[@Sharayan-t8b]

Industrial revolution .

[@abugida-t5i]

i guess Today they want something simple elegant and they focus more in geometry science and some said it cost much or will do much more manpower.

[@jpiccone1]

It was frustrating when you sidetracked into "serf" labor (it wasn't) 600 years ago. How is that relevant? A lot of those workers didn't have any other opportunities and had no way of supporting themselves and their families. Even conscription - I'd rather be conscripted to build the Duomo in my home city than get shot fighting in some war I don't understand or care about. Yes, by today's standards, life was cruel. By the standards of 600 years from now, life today will be considered cruel. If we're still here, that is. Not all pre-modernist buildings were attractive - we tend to preserve the ones that are. I'd argue that frilly Victorian architecture is unattractive, especially compared to the Art Nouveau and Arts & Crafts reactions, especially the latter, which has never completely gone away.

[@billwalton4571]

But even the old McDonalds and Pizza Hut buildings, they had a very attractive style. This generation has no character. As society rejected Christianity it lost with it the importance of beauty. Afterall, beauty is evidence of God.

[@face2much]

Hey developer here, when we don’t build enough houses it’s “builders need to do more to address the shortage”. When we do build it’s “these are souless” . Also for the record, the more specific a design aesthetic is the less likely the home is to sell. 8 years I have been in this business, these videos are ridiculous. Those old architecture buildings were COMMISSIONED. If you want a very ornate house hire and architect like rich people did back then, but yall won’t do that, because YOURE afraid of YOUR resale value. Rant done but the liberal crap kills me. You deserve the most glorious architecture in human history to be cheap for you lol the entitlement is wild

[@kaylapaulsen7367]

While I agree that they're almost always too bland, I disagree that the development of 5 over 1s is a bad thing. We have a horrible housing shortage in the US (in the entire western world really), we have endless stretches of low-density residential zoning, we have almost zero mixed-use areas, and through all of this people are trying to move into already crowded areas where the jobs are and the surplus housing isn't. And along comes a building format that comes with reasonable density while being cheaper than high rises. It fits within the draconian building codes of most US cities. And it's mixed use by default! I wish they were more ornamented but I will not mourn the cookie cutter car-only suburbia that gets redeveloped to make the 5 over 1s. Give it a nice facade, it can't boost the cost all that much.

[@UnravelingArchitecture]

Thank you for your comment!! I appreciate your perspective on the benefits of 5 over 1 developments, particularly in addressing the pressing housing shortage in the US and the broader Western world. Indeed, these structures offer a viable solution that aligns with existing building codes and provides reasonable density without the cost implications of high rises. While my initial commentary focused on the aesthetics, it's crucial to recognize the pragmatic value these developments bring, especially in the context of the housing crisis. Prioritizing functionality and efficiency over purely ornamental considerations is a good thing to call to attention! I just hope that with more thoughtful design interventions, we can enhance the visual appeal without significantly inflating costs (as you suggest). Ultimately, it's about finding a !! BALANCE !! between addressing the urgent need for housing and creating spaces that enrich our urban landscapes. Thank you for shedding light on this and the potential they hold in reshaping our cities for the better.

[@JanBanJoovi-ol1qv]

I use to marvel on massive skyscrapers but as I grow older I realised they’re soulless boring structures. They’re so ugly indeed

[@chriskappert1365]

To expensive ! Material is cheap , labor is expensive ....... There was no change in taste , nobody asked what we liked ....... Archicrapts desided what we " liked " ! Ever wondred why these old city's attract so many tourists ?

[@LaMach420]

Silicone moulding is fine, we already use cheap crap, might as well use cheap crap that looks good.

[@melissamoore6539]

Cars cars cars cars. Why build nice buildings when we just drive past them. Places that have people walking around them still build less shitty buildings.

[@ethelibarrola6813]

I really don't like Gaudy architecture. I definitely prefer modern designs

[@RFH-ArtistinFocus-o5q]

A change is coming. we the artist of the Earth, understand this and we will , bring a much needed change to the collective of architectural design, thinking, and expressions , through all expressions of the artistic collective, there is an awakening being noticed. that will impact the creative understanding of ugly ,lol i think people, in a very general sence understand what is needed. to bring this wave of change in the architectural design landscape, they have just misplaced their identities in the rubble of the destructive few. " understand this" that, so much of our history has been alerted , or destroyed . we must return to the creative reasoning of our forthaught.. the thinking process of those in power, was to hinder and destroy this school of thought. we must continue to be the Creative creatures that we are, in order to implement the ticky tack way of thinking, they , the engineer's of this travesty' of this unholy way of thinking, had the end result in mind, they knew the end result. beforhand. and were in agreement this was necessary, to implement this chain of ideas' to make the changes to controll the populace and abuse the beauty of creative thinking. part of the idea is in the fact that this was planned by a privately-owned, very well funded, way of reasoning, and thinking , the cost of negative idea's , and black hearts is. this. the result and topic of your presentation, and the result of a deep seated hatered of all beautiful things. We are the scribes of History. no regrets' no turning away... we are the Vanguard's of this knowledge.

[@CapitalTeeth]

If ugly buildings were made for a justified purpose, like Russia's khrushchyovka's being built to address a severe housing shortage following the destruction of WW2, then I could tolerate it. But nowadays? Listen mf, I'm tired as fuck of seeing humongous windows, concrete rectangles and completely flat surfaces. Minimalism sucks donkey balls. Imagine if Westminster Palace looked like the UN headquarters. Just another concrete rectangle with humongous windows to "save on electricity spent on lighting" or whatever. Point is, nobody would bother to remember Westminster Palace if it were to vanish one day, as it can then just be replaced with yet another concrete rectangle with humongous windows.

[@cosmanvalentin3467]

U forgot Ornament and crime (Adolf Loos).

[@javierpacheco8234]

I don't like Adolf loos he basically wrote a book talking about why ornament isn't necessary in architecture, such ignorant view on ornament and prejudice as well.

[@cosmanvalentin3467]

@@javierpacheco8234 is that what you understood from what he wrote? Sad, and you see that was an essay not a book. Beyond these aspects, architecture (historically or theoretically speaking) is not about whether you like an architect or not, but about his contribution to the evolution of architecture in general. I don't like Eisenman either, but I appreciate him. Bringing up Loos is about something else in case you didn't understand. The cities and architecture of our days do not look like those of the past because of the war or a change of taste, as the current video argues, but because the architectural styles in the 19th century no longer meant anything. The idea of historical style and ornament in ~1800 became useless, it was a matter of aesthetic character. The order promoted by Vitruvius and the Renaissance has atomized, any ornament has no value anymore, why make it, just to please the world? Ornament is meant to order (ornament = kosmos) not only to beautify, and Loos understood that. Have you ever read Heinrich Hübsch? The author of this video indirectly states that the functionalism of Sullivan and Bauhaus leads to the disappearance of the ornament, which is false. This is exactly why I brought Loos into the discussion. The abandonment of ornament is not because of Sullivan or Bauhaus but because of Loos and before him because of Quatremère de Quincy. I like to see young people who are excited to explain arch history, but it's sad to see that they don't seriously research the topics discussed.

[@javierpacheco8234]

Still I believe that getting rid of this art wasn't fair and shouldn't be looked as invaluable, what if we create a new system of ornament that does have function or is important. Without the ornament and the craft, the building can only become interesting in the form, the space, and light. Ornament gives character to a structure.

[@cosmanvalentin3467]

@@javierpacheco8234 I completely agree with you, the ornament was important, but the world understood it back then differently than we understand it now. Why did they understand it that way? Because of the industrial revolution, because architecture became institutionalized and because architecture made a subtle transition from purpose to cause (the object of architecture is no longer important, but the way it is done, how quickly and how much it costs). Obviously, there were people who opposed these things, such as those who support the Arts and Crafts movement. "what if we create a new system of ornament that does have function or is important." This has already been tried in the post-modern period. Some like Venturi did it in a playful way, others like Jencks, the Krier brothers or those who promote the phenomenology of architecture did it more seriously. What you propose here does not work because a system should be born by itself in a culture and be accepted by everyone in that culture. Architects should obey that system, ordinary people as well. Whether you want it or not, if you're a prince or a lord you should stay in a palace, have an emblem, certain ornaments and so on ... or if you're a basketball player you should have a modest and less decorated house regardless how much money do you have. How do you impose this on today's world? Our current world has only one norm, the penny! If you have money, you do what you want, you build what you want and how you want, which is sad (but true) obvious.

[@oliviav.3565]

Demoralization is the goal

[@metalblind95]

Important topic, important video. Like. Suscribe.

[@omahaflynn5937]

You really need to go way back. Young Jedi 🤣

[@Tony-cj6jy]

Le Corbusier made ugly buildings, who cares if it's new.

[@p.m.8316]

USA looks like Soviet Union.

[@shannahsnyder5653]

Wow someone loaded you up with a load of horse pucky.

[@kitty2band]

because we can't... the buildings you refer not even built by our civilisation.

[@kingsoptions]

You lost me at fair labor practices. Total BS. Yall need to stop applying todays sensitivities to yesterdays world.

[@MagdalenaTheremin]

Now is our culture dying- thats why we are living in this awfull blocks

[@aleccullen2696]

The presentation of this video is as ugly as the modern buildings it discusses. i abandoned quickly. We really have lost the plot.

[@charlesschauer8927]

I Hate the look of these new..Ugly.. "Gentrification" buildings/homes..square boxes..

[@LaPalabra369]

something happened....no way we humans built those amazing buildings with horse and buggy, or with thousands of slaves doing all those ornate features and statues and marble work... those are done from master artists!!! They have been lying to us!

[@Render1ng1898]

Because developers are cheap

[@UnravelingArchitecture]

iiiiiiinnn a nutshell lol

[@rikkousa]

Communism and lack of God in our lives could not have helped,

[@RudeAndObscene]

I'm not sure what god has to do with it. Maybe with church's? And communism not as much as you think as, while there was those then stale and now pretty good tower blocks, there was also socialist realism buildings which were quite ornamental.

[@flacidapplebottoms]

That's an absolutely ridiculous notion

[@Space_duckyy]

This video seems similar to another video by @AdamSomething . His video is from a year ago but it's still different

[@melissamoore6539]

Beautiful buildings don’t necessarily need labor. What we need is for the bottom line to not be the only thing that is taken into account. Or, to have how people will interact with the building as a community, not as an asset to be part of the design.