Why Originality In Architecture Is OVERRATED

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Get an exclusive @Surfshark deal! Enter promo code AESTHETIC for an extra 3 months free at surfshark.deals/aesthetic

[@seanrowshandel1680]

Why are you guys being so weird? Novelty and originality was explored, most famously, in "Victorian" buildings and all the "steampunk" stuff (are YOU some kind of ZOMBIE who's constantly BEGGING TO BE SHOT BY THE KING?), and the MODERN building styles are about exploring OUR CONCEPT of harmony and beauty? When you all get nuked for lack of having accepted me as your superintendent (or whatever happens to you), ...gotta go

[@clonecommando-cn6bo]

I’m annoyed by the fact that not more cities have more beautiful colors and decor on their buildings to make it nicer to live in each of them and then to have more uniqueness to each city. These overwhelmingly bizarre buildings are fine as long as there is not any more of them being built

[@TheNightshadePrince]

That basket is in Ohio and it is a basket factory so it isn’t weird like these other ones. I think it should be removed from the video.

[@danziger9996]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/anu5eXaifr5_g5Y

[@Sohave]

Is there an architectural school or academy teaching classic architecture? I was looking for one in my home country Denmark and could not find one, they had all fallen to Modernism. I wrote an email to Arkitekturoprøret in Denmark they confirmed that we lack such a dedicated line and they could not even host a guest lecture in the local architect academy. I think this should be the next step of our movement, to set up lines that allow people to study the classical movements and become classical architects. I bet you have come across at least a couple of classical architects. Perhaps some of those would be interested in teaching?

[@neotradnous]

My modernist architecture school shoves the idea of “the concept” on us from day one. Every single building and project must have some hyper innovative, unique and interesting “concept” that can describe the project in a sentence or two. The problem is that the concept tends to be some completely whacky formal move that makes the entire project a gimmick. Something that stands out like a sore thumb. “The roof is lifted 20 feet with a glass core inside”, “a huge staircase spirals around the building”, “one half of the building is glass and the other half is concrete”, and so on. The problem with this concept idea is that the university has yet to justify its necessity in our projects, at least over other forms of design. I very quickly realized what type of scam this concept idea is, when I would observe old traditional buildings and wonder to myself… “what exactly was the ‘concept’ of a Victorian era house?” Or “how did architects arrive to the concept of a Japanese pagoda?” And then I realized that they didn’t. There was no concept. Building was based on function and the vernacular. The concept idea is truly a poison to architectural academia

[@the_aesthetic_city]

This is key, and I aim to make a video about architectural education at some point. I also very much recognise this from my own time at university

[@TheWampam]

Those buildings of course had concepts. The Victorian concept may have been to show of the owners education by evoking the idea of a ancient temple. The Pagoda is, as a religious building of course full of symbolism. Having a concept means giving a very short description of the core of your design and why your design should be the one built, before the detailed planning starts.

[@neotradnous]

@@TheWampam symbolism doesn’t equate to concept. The two are actually pretty separate. And on your point about the Victorian houses maybe being designed to represent religious temples: that begs the question, what was the concept of the religious temple…? Concept doesn’t equate to purpose, use or function. At least not in the way modern architectural academia defines concept.

[@malvarmarakontobro]

@@TheWampam There's no objective reason why you must have a concept before choosing a design for a building. You can build a beautiful and functional building without trying to be clever with "subtle nods" "references" or "homages".

[@nevermeltingicecream]

You are absolutely correct. It's an insufferable intersection of corporatism and postmodern philosophy. 'Sell it to me in two phrases or less' says a CEO and almost the same says the postmodern professor: 'Show me the great potential of your idea'. Just bizarre how much modern visual design landscape is ego driven

[@strongbad635]

The most understandable way of explaining modernism as a philosophy is "buildings are meant to exist as objects" instead of "buildings are meant to create places"

[@johnperic6860]

That's not really a great representation of the modernist movement. That might be half true for movements like Bauhaus, but that's just one school of modernist thought. Modernism as a movement is rooted in movements like that impressionist and arts and crafts movements, which essentially advocate for both humanist ideas as well as preach the breakdown of form into more abstract and subjective forms (you see this in the transition from impressionism to post- impressionism, etc. or Arts and Crafts to Art Deco).

[@the_aesthetic_city]

I do agree!

[@duncanweller1]

You could call them nonsense devices. After all, nonsense can go a long way if you can get people to believe you.

[@pierren___]

Not originally. Thats post-modern. Modernism = buildings are made to serve a purpose.

[@bart_u]

​@@johnperic6860the notion that modernism is derived from Arts & Crafts is nonsense. The latter advocated the use of, well, crafts, and learning from the vernacular. The opposite of the machine-like and industrialised approach that modernists took.

[@brad5426]

Be original was the worst advice I was berated with at university. Stressed myself out and convinced myself I wasn't a designer more times than I know.

[@CheeseBae]

Students should never be asked to be "original." Can you imagine going to a math class and the teacher demanding you to solve an equation in an original way?

[@gabbar51ngh]

Thing is everyone wants to be different and leave their mark. Not realising sticking to what works eventually wins out in the end.

[@nfrmis4825]

Yeah i like drawing and i realised i need to see a tree to draw a tree and copying other that draw tree good makes me draw tree good too

[@zvezdoblyat]

​@@CheeseBae"1+1=2?! No, you have to be original, give me another answer, like 1+1=5⁸ or something!"

[@AntiMatter-g8g]

As an artist I agree with you! I was always criticized for lack of originality and it even make me feel down a bit because of it.

[@ruben4447]

Originality is good but not when its used separately from beauty. Beauty is not just a specific style of architecture. There are only some ground rules to beauty such as symmetry or the golden ratio. With those you can invent infinte types of original architecture that is also beautiful. But modern architecture only focuses on the originality aspect and not on using the ground rules of beauty together with originality.

[@ruben4447]

@AlfredMorganAllen There are also modern buildings that use the rules of beauty and they look beautiful. But not many modern buildings do it.

[@sapereaude5476]

Симметрия не обязательна для красоты. В мире полно несимметричных прекрасных зданий особенно в стиле ар-нуво

[@ruben4447]

@@sapereaude5476 I dont understand your language. Could you please type that again in english?

[@sapereaude5476]

@@ruben4447 symmetry is not necessary for the beauty of architecture. the world is full of asymmetrical beautiful buildings especially in the art-nouveau style

[@ruben4447]

@@sapereaude5476 I obviously didnt name all of them. I do know there are some general rules of nature that were used to design buildings from the Romans till 1940s. Then the modernists came and decided to design without using those rules.

[@JulioCesarZambonin]

I am inheriting a property over 100 years old in southern Brazil, built by Italian immigrants. A mansion with a stone basement in a colonial style. I hope to be able to find an architect who will help me renovate the space and perhaps do something similar to what was done in Guatemala.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Here is an international list with good firms: newtrad.org/links/

[@mbathroom1]

Totally agree, I am so glad someone is finally covering this! I can't stand all the ugly buildings you see everywhere and the ironic part is the more they try to be different, the more things stay the same. Almost every major city's skyline outside Europe, especially in East Asia and North America, look so similar that i can't tell almost any of them apart. It all leads to an ugly homogenised horrible world where nothing beautiful or actually original remains

[@PowerControl]

All after war German cities look alike. And alle new German buildings are only „Bauhaus“-inspired cubes.

[@mbathroom1]

that sucks@@PowerControl

[@SirSayakaMikiThe3rd]

I get what you are trying to say, but New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc. have instantly recognizable skylines and have great examples of modern architecture as well as the definitive examples of Art Deco architecture and other traditional styles. Where it is an issue is smaller cities that are building up right now. Ultimately, I feel this is a very eurocentric comment that ignores that many of these cities are much younger and have been ravaged by war or natural disasters. It also ignores the fact that cities like London absolutely have the same issues. The Girkin and the Shard are, imo, more egregious than iconic buildings like the US Bank tower, Bank of China Tower, Tokyo Skytree, Sears Tower, etc.

[@troublemak3r134]

I love how architects say that traditional buildings are too expensive nowadays yet splurge money on things like this: 6:15

[@rachelnidhugain5398]

Couldn't agree more with the point of distinguishing originality in architecture with necessity in architecture for public health. We live in a society where so kuch focus has been to allow artistic-genius freedom to architects with little reflection for the impact on public life. There is a huge need for reform in how oroginality of concept and design is encouraged, but instead to look towards byildinng standards as mentioned in this video. Always love your videos 💚💚

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Thank you Rachel!

[@karenryder6317]

How did the concept of "decoration" get completely eliminated from all modern architecture? I get that there was a decoration excess in the late 19th century, and brutalist modernism resulted. Yet the pendulum has never swung back toward the middle. We've had no decorations on buildings for multiple decades now. How does a society keep from overreacting in architectural trends? As with the "Originalism" noted here, one concept shouldn't dominate all other building standards.

[@dutchbuildings7644]

Excellent video! Something that could also be considered is that modern architects focus on "originality" because they are simply incapable of producing anything beautiful and grand. To me it seems much easier to create something unique than to create something beautiful.

[@nygren83]

That's not necessarily true, humans have a natural capacity for beauty and to create something pretty artists really only need to refine that by careful looking and study, and of course do lots of technical study to be able to apply it in practice. Creating beautiful things is the bread and butter of an artist, getting it to mean something is the difficult part. New doesn't automatically mean anything, but it can also be very difficult. Creating something truly new at all costs can have you fighting your own intuitions. Making it work on a technical level can be hard if you are forbidden to use what is known to work, and doing something ugly goes against most artists' intuitions. Often the only things that haven't been done already are the things that are so ugly nobody has ever had a reason to do it. I had a graphic design teacher who once made us design something ugly on purpose just to show us how difficult that is. It really was very difficult; my whole body was screaming at me. It felt like purposefully putting your hand on a hot stove.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

That could certainly be true, as I know what is taught at architecture schools (and more importantly, what isn’t), but I felt I was already harsh enough as is. I don’t just want to bash and where possible, look for the best even in modernist architects. I think they could produce beauty if they would open up for different ideas

[@bod-essebod-esse4142]

And it massages their ego.

[@AverytheCubanAmerican]

An example of an original and creatively designed building that served its purpose well and didn't ruin the harmony of its location is the Big Duck on Long Island. A building shaped like a 6.1-meter-tall duck! The Big Duck isn't new at all, it was built in 1931 by farmer Martin Maurer in Riverhead. Long Island once had a big duck farming industry, specifically farming Pekin ducks which are also known as Long Island ducks. Mauer was selling ducks and duck eggs and so to stand out among the different farmers, he built a duck-shaped building to house his store! In 1937, Martin moved the building four miles southeast to Flanders, where it occupied a prominent location near the duck barns and marshes of Maurer's then new duck ranch. During the 1970s, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation began imposing restrictions due to the runoff from the farms which, on an island, can obviously lead to very bad things. The Big Duck closed as a duck egg store in 1984. In 1988, Suffolk County Department of Parks and Recreation acquired it and moved it closer to Hampton Bays but moved it back to its Flanders location in 2007. Suffolk County continues to own it, maintains its interior and pays for staffing while Southampton Town maintains the exterior. The original 27-acre duck farm was purchased by the town in 2006. Today the Big Duck houses a gift shop selling memorabilia.

[@garyjackson3531]

That sort of building was a popular form back in the early 20th Century. There were giant shoes, cows, a pharmacist's cup, even a coffee saucer and cup. In LA, there's a giant donut and a hot dog stand shaped like a hot dog and bun! It was an interesting time in marketing. Now I want to visit the duck!

[@guardianangel1337]

Great video as usual! I like the end note. It's important that more people demand a more "down to earth" construction (figurativly and literally), instead of absurd mega projects. I'd love to see a video about traditional materials and cradle2cradle materials in general. "We should see buildings as material storage" is also a great concept that deserves a video

[@the_aesthetic_city]

I’m definitely going to make videos about materials. Stone is one of them. So underrated - and a fascinating story

[@ofacid3439]

I was always fascinated by avantgarde and things but some modernist buildings would better show up anywhere but real streets of real cities. In USSR there was a trend of «layout designing» when some buildings and blocks looked impressive only as models in expos presented from a bird's-eyeview but suсked when finally built in given surroundings. People destined to dwell them quickly realised that, for instance, a picturesque circle-shaped 800-apt house is a pure hell to live an everyday life

[@bryanhaycock672]

Often times, originality is just rebelliousness disguised as a virtue.

[@jktech2117]

indeed

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Beautifully said!

[@Game_Hero]

since when rebelliousness was a vice in a democratic society? I think it has purpose.

[@he11ange1]

That's why the Arts faculty is the wokistes part of the university. They are basically people who always seek change no matter the necessity or not. The same philosophy is also reflected thru their work.

[@garyjackson3531]

​@@Game_Hero More times than not, the rebels are rebelling against common sense and good taste.

[@DrOktobermensch]

Buildings that are liked by people are preserved and find new uses. Unwanted ones get abandoned. Form that only ever follows function leads to obsolescence quicker than if buildings were designed with intention of delivering desirable environment.

[@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un]

Two of my favorite original modern buildings with a stunning design that fit so nice are right next to each other: The Bird's Nest Stadium (Beijing National Stadium) and the Water Cube. The Bird's Nest Stadium was a joint venture among architects Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron of Herzog & de Meuron, project architect Stefan Marbach and CADG, which was led by chief architect Li Xinggang. It's a combination of the crackle glazed pottery that is local to Beijing, and the heavily veined Chinese scholar stones. This inspiration shows just how passionate the Chinese are with their history and culture. And while not being a bird's nest, Li Xinggang said it's still a compliment as eating bird's nest is something for special occasions. For the Water Cube, Chinese partners felt a square was more symbolic to Chinese culture and its relationship to the Bird's Nest stadium while the Sydney-based PTW Architects came up with the idea of covering the cube' with bubbles, symbolizing water. Contextually, the Cube symbolizes Earth, while the circle (represented by the elliptic stadium) represents heaven, a common motif in ancient Chinese art. Using the Weaire-Phelan geometry, the Water Cube's exterior cladding is made of 4,000 ETFE bubbles. The ETFE cladding, supplied and installed by the firm Vector Foiltec, allows more light and heat penetration than traditional glass, resulting in a 30% decrease in energy costs. The venue was also designed to capture and recycle 80% of the water falling on the roof or lost from the pools.

[@montagnegign3978]

'Modern architecture is repetitive' Meanwhile classical architecture using greek order system for 2000 years:

[@are3287]

There's a highrise tower thats now one of the tallest buildings in my town and my jaw dropped the first time I saw it in the horizon when it was built, had to check if it was real with how weird and asymmetrical it was

[@the_aesthetic_city]

It happens so often...

[@Game_Hero]

Love your videos as a subscriber because they are considerate and don't dehumanize those you're criticizing, showing your views are not some reactionnary dogmatism but a well-thought inclusive philosophy. Would really love one on when modern architecture or building materials DO work and especially why, since you mention it sometimes but I'd really like you going deeper into it.

[@HighFlyingOwlOfMinerva]

There is no "reactionary dogma" in tried and tested idea's and this video in itself is the very proof of that. The only *genuine* reactionary dogma is that of modernism that runs after the "new" and "hip" thing (while being the exact same intellectually lazy thing over and over by now) which is also being aided by lazy developers and propagandists disguised as "city planners", and ironically, traditionalism has far more genuinely unique styles that have been created, be it the Roman era, Middle Ages, 1800s, 1930s or post-2000s. Similar looking, sure, but never "the same" - something I can't say of modernism with its dull Soviet-era appartment blocs or "futurist" skyscrapers (both of which can give you depression, by the way).

[@Game_Hero]

@@HighFlyingOwlOfMinerva Can you read again my comment? Not sure you understod what I was trying to say. Dogmatism as in "new=bad and old=good, destroy everything modern", that's dogmatism and this sort of tribalistic mentality for everything really pollutes the internet, which is why I praise the video for not doing it and having nuances. It makes it more convincing.

[@HighFlyingOwlOfMinerva]

@@Game_Hero Some believe that Art Nouveau, Art Deco and Jügendstil are "modern" styles. Some styles even explicitly label itself as 'modernist' like Catalan modernism, yet when people look at them all they aren't exactly modernist as they lend some elements from traditionalism unlike the brutal, soul crushing post-WWII styles, which in itself are extreme inventions from the USSR and the U.S. What was new _before_ WWII wasn't bad for the large part after +100 years, what was new _after_ WWII still is just utter shit for the large part after as early as 75 years, this isn't new or shocking and certainly no "reactionary dogmatic thinking" like you originally implied. And yes, a lot of people advocate for this mindset. Can you honestly blame them for living under such insolence for the last, what, 80 years? I wouldn't blame them in the slightest. Look at before/after video's and photo's of cities like Berlin, Cologne or Rotterdam and you'll understand why.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Thank you! It’s what I try to do, although I still am critical of Modernist ideas because I genuinely feel it’s warranted. Somebody has to speak about it, and I wonder why there’s so little other channels doing it. I will take a look at that subject in a future video I think, but it will be more of a quest of ‘what is modern’? I feel ‘modernity’ has been sort of captured / claimed by Modernism, but are there different ways of being modern?

[@Bombur888]

@@HighFlyingOwlOfMinerva TF are you on? He implied the exact opposite of that. You really should reread his comments.

[@P.Aether]

I like design and I noticed this problem in all fields of creative work, so I came up with the following saying that portrays the problem in my opinion - "Change for the sake of contribution. Contribution for the sake of accreditation. Accreditation for the sake of credit." I think that there are so many designers, architects and artist, and all of them want to create something, so they could, well... so they could live, so they could make money, so they could prosper and become someone, and as you have underlined, to be noticed - to be original. But the truth in design is that you can't have many differences of form that are harmonious - that work, are safe and are aesthetically pleasing, you can only make a wheel one or two ways, everything else would be a downgrade and for the sake of only being different. I think in some ways we have reached the zenith of some forms. This is the reason the iPhone barely changes anymore, and every smartphone looks almost the same. But this is all speaking purely of design and engineering, and I think that art and architecture is the answer to that problem - don't destroy something that works, but express yourself where you can do it safe, without hurting people and beauty.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Beautifully said!

[@rosezingleman5007]

I found it impossible to be “original” in architecture school so I went into restoration work instead.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

A fine choice!

[@MelvinLim]

great video. I share your perspective, which is why I've been studying more about classical architecture and trying to get more hands on in construction.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Thank you, and wonderful! There is so much to discover and learn still, from the classics. It’s a rabbit hole deep as it can get, and then it becomes even stranger why architects don’t dive into it with passion. It will actually help modernist designs to get better too (up to a certain point). Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright, all classically trained!

[@GeorgeVenturi]

You call it ORIGINALITY, I call it EGO

[@josemartymario3137]

The best comment

[@garyjackson3531]

Gary Cooper starred in a movie called The Fountainhead, based on the book. It's about an egotistical architect who literally blows up a construction project because the builder decided to deviate from his original design. The movie glorifies this. It's worth seeing.

[@nevermeltingicecream]

Another great video, I agree with every word, thank you! I also want to add that when people say that all newer buildings built in older/classic styles are 'kitsch', they are forgetting that by that metric, such styles as classicism (roman architecture revival) is also kitsch. Baroque architecture also incorporates a lot of roman elements. So what, are they kitsch? Also, why only a cubical form ISN'T kitsch? How come minimalism is never kitschy? Everyone knows it is. In fact, almost all of it today is kitsch. Perhaps, in fact, modern architects are afraid to build in classic style because cubical buildings would look kitschier in comparison.

[@phfish475]

Great video ♥ Really hope some politicians from Norway are watching this 🙏

[@franciscodanconia4324]

As a layman I think my biggest problem with post-modern architecture is how mathematical it is. We have advanced so much in technology and science that building are built to mathematical models rather than aesthetic desires and craftsmanship. A modern skyscraper can basically be built with any number of interchangeable workers with minimal artistic skills. Whereas an older structure, say a medieval cathedral had a mathematical and engineering underpinning but was built by actual artisans, stonemasons, carpenters, and painters. There’s a soul in the ornamentation. In the artistry of a carpenter building an ornate pulpit. A carved stone gargoyle. All that is missing from modern architecture because all the elements that go into it are mass produced and just assembled by line workers.

[@hatmanbuilder]

The problem is not only in the architecture, but in the art in general. It's just more obvious with architecture because, as you said, ot's a public art. Originality shouldn't be the number 1 goal of art, it must follow Beaty and Harmony. But actually I have no idea how to fix this... I'm.. pretty pessimistic about it actually.

[@ImpeRiaLismus]

Originality has no value to me, when beauty is being ignored. I believe the thought process of a modern architect is mainly ego driven.

[@sirrliv]

The idea of "Originality" in 21st Century architecture is nothing but a farce, a cruel joke. When every new skyscraper is just the same boring sheets of glass and stainless steel, every new public space the same bizarre jumble of impractical open spaces, concrete and aluminum everywhere, geometric shapes that would make a toddler yawn, and weird meaningless cutouts that make you question if the architect has ever seen a building, calling these things "Original" in any sense becomes an insult to the term. Worst of all is how the prevalence of such architectural styles has robbed cities of their unique identity, with the skyline of Austin now looking no different from Seattle of Stockholm. Everywhere just looks like the same game of Cities: Skylines. And that's not even getting into how such modern designs give engineers nightmares, with no consideration given to basic physics like load paths and structural integrity. Some designs can be downright dangerous with their reliance on single means of egress; think about how your fancy rooftop restaurant halfway up the tower will get everyone in the top floors killed when they can't escape a fire. And it would be nothing short of a miracle for many of these buildings to last even the entirety of my lifetime before developing severe structural issues. To still say nothing of how such bland and oppressing aesthetics contribute to societal depression; it's a proven psychological fact that pretty things inherently make people happy, and I would struggle to believe anyone could find beauty in much of modernist architecture. It may be a personal extreme, but had I a time machine I would go back to the founding of the Bauhaus and burn it to the ground.

[@virginiacreager4331]

The separation from the modern design and it’s day to day impact is key. Going to work or live in a dark depressing square building especially on a dark grey day is oppressive to the spirit.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Absolutely! I should do a video about this topic - how people experience the city & architecture

[@AntiMatter-g8g]

I agree with you most artists and architects nowadays always think about originality and generate things that are completely different from the surroundings without thinking that their work destroyed the harmony of the environment they lived in. They were just so fixated with their own pride to stand out without thinking that their work coz more harm than good. I just hate that type of mindset coz just by learning from the best people around you instead of being proud of them coz they attained some heights most people just criticized them for lack of originality even tho their own ideas of originality is base of the works that is already generated by the other people.

[@lzbscalle7943]

I've had an idea to create revised futurism. Futurism if we continued with traditional craftsmanship instead of the foghorn looking modernist futurism

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Yes, continue where we left off with the building traditions - I believe it is possible and at some point new styles will be invented that will be in harmony with previous periods - like Art Nouveau built on what came before

[@lzbscalle7943]

@@the_aesthetic_city Must also add that I love your videos! Even though I'm not an architect, I am a total geek

[@marcusrauch4223]

I get your point. I’m thinking up a sci-fi setting where human architecture styles are basically historical styles with modern materials and building techniques.

[@lzbscalle7943]

@@marcusrauch4223 I'm thinking like what if we never invented modenism. How would our interpretation of futuristic sci fi architecture look like then?

[@ferno056]

​@@lzbscalle7943Maybe start with Art Deco? As a style it was presented frequently as a style of the future without completely forgetting the past.

[@MartijnMcFly]

I love experimental concept-art and architecture. I love looking at them, and they're great for exploring new ideas - what works and what doesn't. But it shouldn't conflict with the existing structures surrounding it. That's why they're, for the most part, better off staying on a piece of paper. For example: I dig brutalism hard, and I'd love to work and commute in such structures, but I wouldn't want to love in such structures for the very same reasons I want to work in them.

[@dsdonovan]

Outstanding observations! Please keep up the good work.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Thank you! And I will 🙏🏼

[@jontalbot1]

Architecture doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Commissioners often want originality as a means of branding the company or place. The biggest cliche is the exciting new opera house, preferably by water.

[@craven5328]

I think it's fascinating how you talk about the separation of art from craftsmanship. In a way, I've always felt that craftsman/artisans have sort of gotten the short end of the stick, and it's a shame.

[@luisevonleuchtenberg718]

examples for harmonious buildings after 1800: Jugendstil / art nouveau, Antonio Gaudi, and some buildings of Friedensreich Hundertwasser - these buildings are like living beings, organic, beautiful, creative; they make peple who use them happy.

[@normalman4762]

I really like alot of Hundertwassers work since it's original and stands out for sure but its not at the cost of all the other features that make a great building

[@W.Gaster]

I do not understand modern art thinking, they want risky forms, gravity-defying features and to play with New materials, and then, when a one in one million genious like calatrava that does exactly that appears, they condemn him to humilliation and controversy

[@cameronf3343]

Architecture students of the comments: Please, for the love of god, be the generation that ends this “original” sci fi bullshit. Nobody wants it. Bring back the pretty 19th and 20th century charm with modern sustainability qualities. That’s how you make fantastic cities. Columns, carvings, large windows. We believe in you. Please.

[@marcelgrabowski5939]

I like how fast_forward is code used in stellaris in order to advance game quickly, and it is used as well to portray passage of time in english in general. And yes and yes, balance is necessary, going extreme in one direction at anything is always bad, *always* , there is no exception. Extremums are *BAD*

[@LuisVargas-kj3yl]

Great Video! I have an idea similar as the Guatemalan City is Las Catalinas in Costa Rica it’s very new and they made an Italian themed city with ancient architecture and not modern! 🇨🇷🤩

[@trvst5938]

The one made for the rich..

[@LuisVargas-kj3yl]

Huh? That place is public everyone can go visit @@trvst5938

[@_Diana_S]

Price range from $749 thousand for 2-bedroom to $8.5 million for a villa, and, maybe, higher. You ain't going to find affordable airbnb there to experience this town.

[@LuisVargas-kj3yl]

@@trvst5938 I know I don’t have a house there but someone can walk freely through the town

[@santiagobydesign]

This is the second video of yours I watch and I just wanted to say that not only is your content incredibly intelligent and logical, it is refreshing and very entertaining. Subscribed! 🔔

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Thank you @bigplantpapi! This video wasn't watched by a lot of people yet I feel it is a quite important one. Happy to hear you like the content, it really motivates me to make more & better videos! And yes - I am in a way flabbergasted that I'm one of the few KZbinrs making videos with this angle / view on things... It seems so logical, yet where is all the content?

[@benjaminjo]

A lot of these modern "architects" are going for shock value, prestige, fame and notoriety. Everybody wants to be the next Andy Warhol of Architects, and frankly, it makes me mad. It's SO selfish and condescending. If you want to be COMPLETELY original, put your shit in an art gallery. Don't subjugate the masses to your atrocities. And in America, a relatively new country to most in the world, we are the worst of the worst. You have to go SEEKING any original, old-school beautiful architecture. Whereas in many other parts of the world, they keep and maintain their beautiful buildings. There's a reason people love going to Greece, Rome, Japan, and many other places. We're captivated by BEAUTY, not these weirdly, oddly shaped dung balls. I will say, the last truly original and beautiful structure of modern design is the Las Vegas Sphere. THAT is truly impressive and beautiful. It's one of the rare modern architectures that works, but there is soemthing special about buildings that don't need all the flash and technology FOR it to work. Something that requires real craftsmanship, chisel and stoning, plastering and stone/brick work. I travel to see such works of beauty because it's so inspirational, and don't even get me started on how inviting these buildings are, then you step inside and you're greated to great feats of artwork colored on the walls, statutes, paintings, and just aesthetically pleasing works of art. There is far too much emphasise on function over beauty, and beauty is important to our well-being. We all love to see it, admire it, be in awe of it, and experience it. But these buildings are actively saying "F U" to our natural human sensibilities, and mocking us for it by forcing us to endure looking at these ugly "works of art" for years upon years until their eventual demise, because another thing of note...these modern structures don't last long. They're easy to tear down and are never missed. There's a reason why we hesitate to tear down historical buildings. Hell, even the colloseum had an uproard over someone mildly defacing the structure and was swiftly punished for it. But if a modern sturcture were in it's place, we would think nothing of it. Lastly, a beautiful city/town is always a pleasure to be in and visit. Everything just feels like you're in harmony and...welll..beauty. You look forward to the trip. Most large cities lack that charm, grace and sense of style our ancestors had before us. They're not training the younger generation to value the old and build on what already works. They're training them to dismantle what works, what makes humans happy, and turn it upside down. I just don't get it.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Hear hear! And yes the Sphere is something I definitely have to behold, because it is a truly 21st century thing and perfect for Las Vegas - although one shouldn’t want one in the centre of Amsterdam

[@beefjerkythesecond]

This is currently my most exciting channel to watch. You point out and put words to such problems that i wasn't able to articulate before.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

That’s fantastic to hear - doing my best! It’s quite a challenge to distill thoughts and put them forward as clearly as possible, so it’s reaffirming to hear it succeeded (for some at least :)

[@ronblack7870]

practicality for the people inside should be the primary goal . looking cool is nice but not if it makes the windows leak

[@themk4982]

I think the fundamental issue is people thinking originality is good. It isn’t good or bad, it’s neutral. If it leads to good results, good. If it leads to bad results, bad. Originality or uniqueness is not a virtue in and of itself.

[@rosenengel111]

Originallity is often, to make thyself a name, to be known, to get the ego bigger. For the normal people wgo have to live with - its a penalty.

[@doeixo]

Its very naïve to depict architects as narcisistic experimental artists. Buildings look like shit not because of architects' mental onanism but because of regulations

[@impasse0124]

Has anyone here ever seen the Cleveland Clinic building in Las Vegas? The epitome hideous architecture in the name of creativity. I think I’d rather stay sick than be treated there lol.

[@Game_Hero]

Since when was Las Vegas not hideous?

[@impasse0124]

@@Game_Hero idk lol I’ve never been there. I only saw the building in a video.

[@erynn9968]

I'm not an architect - and not even close - but I have a weird feeling when a KZbinr tries to school architects with basic notions that they have probably leaned on their 1st year. We have failed projects not because architects don't know basic things about their profession, like what's their purpose and how to do things. Their craft is very complex to know it all and a million other things we can't imagine. We have failed projects because sometimes people make mistakes lol, either at the design stage or at the stage of approval. But you can't make the whole video on this sensation, I agree.

[@workingproleinc.676]

Construction worker here. It's simply "why"? It's Cheap and does cost less,then something what you see in Old Buildings. (Ornaments,Figurinas,etc) "Minimalism" vs "Full fleshed out obyects" You have to calculate,Worker,Materials,Time. Welcome to Capitalism.

[@robscoggins]

I think that’s a pretty weak argument for cheap shoddy architecture. So many things are mass manufactured for aesthetics to enrich the dull ugly façade of “modernist” architecture that there really is no excuse for the ugly, degenerate forms imposed on us. It’s merely a page out of the Marxist playbook to disorient and demoralize the public in order to gain our compliance to evermore restrictions on our personal autonomy.

[@anthonykranjc4379]

I might not say that "weirdness" and "originality-prostitution" are so much the problem in modern architecture. I don't mind a bit of weird. I would say that the biggest problem with modern architecture is that it tends to be so cold, frigid, mechanical, industrial, and sterile. I suppose maximization of profitability has played a role in architecture becoming so sterile and cold. Can't love Adolf Loos enough for his "Ornament and Crime". I briefly was an architecture student at university and I remember the priority given on "concept"--it seemed almost too left-hemisphere and analytical, not sensual, touchy-feely, and warm enough. Also, the occasional exceptionally weird modernist building does not so much seem to be the big problem. The greater problem are the gazillions upon gazillions of hectares of highly cold and sterile modernist (post-modernist or whatever) architecture that now covers the urbanscape, I think. Yuch!

[@dmisso42]

Oh, so true! In my early Architectural learning I tried my hand at a circular plan. It didn't take me long to realise that almost all of the furniture's rectangular and the most efficient shape for habitasble building is also rectangular. (Tried sleeping in a circular bed? Very efficient!) London has so many modern buildings that are inefficient. And UGLY. Shame.

[@kaloyanpetrov7863]

I actually like the building at 6:14 I like how colorful it is. When I like more colorfull and whimsical architecture that is way I Like styles like rococo or the styles of secession in late 19th and early 20th century (pre WW1) for example art Nuevo and the buildings of Antonio Gaudy.

[@busysaru888]

The old buildings in Vienna are fantastic! More of that, please!

[@spacejunk2186]

These buildings a super funny in my opinion. The worst thing about these places is the lack of greenery. Everything looks bad if its only concrete and glass.

[@iaincphotography6051]

I don't see much to complain about with the Heydar Aliyev Centre in Bacu designed by Zaha Hadid Architects. And that includes the inside as well as the outside.

[@KCKingdomCreateGreatTrekAgain]

Biggest problem is we’ve lost the ability to define truth and especially beauty. Since we have NO STANDARDS OF BEAUTY anymore it is up to each person and invariably the architect thinks it’s beautiful when most of society says otherwise. Standards matter. Truth matters.

[@lorenzo3987]

Your videos are so important, keep making them! About 11:25, I must confess I have a bone to pick with Calatrava. He must be one of the most delirious architects ever. He brings the disregard of context and sustainability to the next level. In Venice, the wettest city on earth, he designed an entire bridge of glass, steps included. The result: old people falling left and right breaking bones because of the slippery steps. The city had to apply some sticky anti-slip strips, de facto rejecting his concept of "cleanness and transparency". Not to mention the style of it, a real eye sore. In Rome he designed a delirious double-sail structure (which in all fairness I don't consider ugly) that is, 20 years later, still incomplete and in decay due to its financial unsustainability. Between 2021 and 2023, 3 millions had to be allocated just for ordinary and extraordinary maintenance to make the construction site safe. The economical, social and environmental damage these failed buildings and infrastructures cause is often irreparable..

[@DB-rd4hb]

No. Originality for the sake of originality is not the goal, especially among top tier firms. Most contemporary (Modern is in incorrect term) Architecture is driven from function outwards. Good Architects are factoring in the surroundings, light, views, movement, acoustic, materials, motifs, historical context etc but are not married to classical or normative solutions. If you google docs about the Pompidou in Paris by Renzo Piano / Richard Rogers or Seattle Public Library by OMA / REX you’ll find, at first glance, odd looking Architecture whose forms are driven by the interior function and whose exterior makes new and unexpected relationships with surrounding. Similar with Bilbao. Often misunderstood at first but communities fall in love when they experience and live with. The grand vision is not always immediately understandable.

[@Tindog81476]

It's interesting in my home near Salt Lake City in Utah we actually can't have buildings with too many funky or flairy bits because of earthquakes. The architects are sometimes like "but we can build them in California and Tokyo they get earthquakes" and it's like well there are different kinds of earthquakes, and ours here are the worst kind you can get (for a building). So we have modern buildings, but they can't make them too nonsquare because of that, otherwise, they are a literal pain to build. In case you were curious the three type of earthquakes (at least from engineering standpoint) are side-to-side, up-and-down, and twist (Those aren't the official names but refer to the three directions the building can move). California for example is a slip fault so it's earthquakes move side-to-side, so their buildings have to stand really good sideways forces. Where I live though it's all three combined into one, which can make constructing a building quite difficult. I love the old styles of architecture, and it would be great to see some more of them here, but at the same time too, having all the facades fall of the building as everyone is trying to escape the earthquakes is not an acceptable risk. Certainly does make you think though what type of architecture or design would work here, given our earthquake limitations.

[@smrk2452]

This bothers me every day in NYC.

[@Dev1nci]

Contemporary architecture does value innovation however the idea has never been to make each building completely unique. As with contemporary music that samples other music mainly within 50 years of its creation- so architecture does the same. The argument of the video is not necessarily a bad debate, it's just framed without any rigour.

[@Dev1nci]

Good discourse exist when you speak with authority. To speak with authority you need to frame your counter-argument correctly so that you can accurately deconstruct it in your argument. Modernism (from the generalised archi-school framing of modernism) started as a need for adequate housing for people who were dying in slums in post-first-world-war Europe. The expression of the architecture itself was taken from the industrial building techniques already exhibited on large-scale factories etc. It also arose as a distaste of the ideals that lead to the war, general people associated architecture based on desire instead of need as criminal. Want: lavish architecture beautifully expressed; Need: adequate hygiene, air, light and solar control. Modernist architecture is all about needs OVER wants. Le Corbusier, the sort of leader of the movement, wrote a piece called 'Architecture or Revolution', he thought people might revolt if they did not change architecture. It worked quite well until the mental health aspect started to manifest itself. Its safe to say that mental-health has only really come into focus during COVID for much of society, so obviously they didn't account for it back then. But the movement was also marred by the socio-economic problems that accompany architecture that is trying to solve that specific problem. Thereafter Post-Modernism tried to rectify some of the problems seen in modernism without losing the ground it had gained (there are many very good things that have come out of modernism). However the post-modernists tried to symbolised the irony of trying to return architecturally while society had irreparably changed. Some used historical references with a twist which became more and more Mannerist (yes the movement on the tail end of the renaissance), meaning that they became too exaggerated toward it's demise. Architects have since been searching out a style that synthesises all the lessons learn till now. Some have become too experimental without really revealing anything of use, others have sought to learn from natural geometric laws which can now be leveraged through computer programs. I think there is merit in that last endeavour because don't forget that traditional architecture, no matter how old, is contrived however no-one can argue with nature. (But I digress). Whatever the architect's stance is, in most cases the ultimate aim is to make spaces that general people will enjoy and derive meaning from (not simply ego, which is a ridiculous argument). What form it should take is an exceptionally difficult question to answer because most vernacular architectures expresses an architectural imperative: available technology. However we no longer have that limitation. The position of this video actually is: Since we no longer have the needs that the modernists were addressing, should architecture not return to pre-modernist expression? The best way to do this would be to have an open, honest, respectful series of debates with knowledgeable people on either side of the debate with case-studies that vary in scale and typology.

[@johncox2284]

As a society we lost the plot when we separated originality from beauty. We had an architecture student next door for a while and I asked him about how much instruction he was getting in aesthetics. He said zero. They are actually discouraged from designing classic, monumental architecture in favour of simple glass boxes. Build a box then move on to the next one.

[@stvp68]

I like a lot of new buildings. There has to be a way to integrate new forms with existing traditional neighborhoods.

[@marcusrauch4223]

I prefer to keep them separate, to keep the architectural styles of the areas cohesive.

[@HenryLeslieGraham]

ugly buildings make life uglier

[@jktech2117]

obv comment made before watching vid to farm likes if you wanna social acceptance at least put effort on it. edit: so funny to see that the comment made by someone without even watching the video and saying the most obv stuff ever to get likes has more likes than many elaborate comments i see here and is replying and talking to them. idk why people come to a more intellectual video to then applaud the most banal thing.

[@GlasbanGorm]

@@jktech2117 No, the answer was obvious long before a video was made about the problem, in order to farm likes and views for a channel, for monetary purposes.

[@jktech2117]

​@@GlasbanGormone thing is trying to pay your bills and other thing is just wanting cheap quick attention.

[@HenryLeslieGraham]

its a good thing commenters like you are around to tell me what my intentions are. thank goodness! before id never be able to know why I did anything! @@jktech2117

[@mirekcerny2081]

The desire to be 'original' is a form of pride; "*I* want to be something special". This is the source of modern architecture; modern architecture is an architecture of pride. (And pride is the worst sin a human can commit).

[@roar5853]

I miss classic buildings

[@javierpacheco8234]

There are some firms that do classical architecture. The reason why classical architecture is not relevant is because of cost and lack of craftsmanship jobs. Being honest there are a lot of Traditional old houses that are abandoned so I think we should restore them. Nostalgia is nice and I like nostalgia,but I think it's bad to stay with the past forever, that destroys new ideas and new architecture designs. I'm an architecture student and like to study architecture history.

[@roar5853]

@@javierpacheco8234 Thank you for taking the time to comment, but anyone with common sense will already know what you're talking about.

[@ramochai]

@@javierpacheco8234Love of classical architecture isn't nostalgia. Classic is timeless. Whereas what most of you regard to as modern is a bunch of ideas from mid 20th century. For me that's more nostalgia than Renaissance era buildings. One stood the test of time, the other failed.

[@glennk.7348]

So well thought out and written! Subscribed! 👍

[@keboonplumeria5266]

Sweden is setting its way into Denmark, and ironically Denmark is setting some of their standards to '80s Japan.

[@MrHorse-by3mp]

That's one good thing about America. Our cities were always ugly and boring so there was never anything to ruin in the first place. Now we have office buildings where there used to be warehouses. No big loss.

[@hydrocharis1]

I think this video kinda puts a lot of quite different architectural history on one heap, but I'd say this is especially true for the really recent architecture, say past 2010. (St)architects competing in architectural contexts and presenting to shareholders try to stand out, make impressive-looking renders with impossible looking buildings and accompany it with some vague inspirational quotes how they revolutionize the idea of a building. Then the engineer has to figure out how to build all the crazy cantilevers and heights, and the state has to pay the inevitable cost overruns. When the building finally stands, it looks nothing like promised, sticks out like a sore thumb in its context and soon suffers from all kind of practical issues, as the design elements that were done away with to be 'revolutionary' turned out to have some kind of function after all. Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel and inevitably we end up with all kind of forms of wheels but round ones. The 'function over form' that architects have always cried to condemn all traditional kinds of building styles sounds extremely hollow and hypocritical in this regard. Not mentioning building beautiful.

[@normalman4762]

Id argue that Mondernism and wacky deaigns have a place AS THE EXCEPTION. Now i believe some Modernist creations like for example fredrich hundertwassers Creations hit the sweet spot of blending in enough but still standing out

[@zvezdoblyat]

As a lover of classical architecture, I love these videos and I wish there were more of them. However, I also understand the time it takes to make an excellent video, so you're doing great!

[@loninappleton]

This one could have been twice as long for showing all the eyesores I had missed in regularly reading architecture magazines. Liked and looking forward to more. However many things mentioned for the architecture revolution would start with public competition and public voting on major institutional buildings as well as residences. My town struggled with building a new library for decades. At no time through the various proposals was the public truly invited to participate in something like a competition of three finalists. No, the library board and director knew best. And (as I recall) not even the common council took a position the proposals submitted one at a time. Cost was the big factor, then COVID came then post COVID costs for the delays. But through all that there was no option for a traditional vs modern style in competiton for public approval. Notice I did not mention the so-called "listening sessions" that were held for minimal public input. I went to one or more of those and it was the usual suspects of those who really like to hear themselves talk.

[@nouzen4283]

Bro, I've been really enjoying your videos. Before your channel, I had never seen anyone else talking about the topic.

[@starnejme6902]

That's funny that Shakespeare, who invented hundreds of new words stated that he avoided invention.

[@НиколайВ-ф3д]

Modern architects create volumes according to the multiplied demand for square meters, and in most cases, awkward-looking facade designs try to hide the areas required by the investor. In this regard, unfortunately, the relevance of using some methods of constructing a facade is lost. An eye-friendly environment begins with the volume of proposed urban development, which I would invite those who agree with the video to discuss.

[@SisterSunny]

woooo! Another video! It's always a joy to watch your ideas, they're always so full of fascinating ideas

[@Laroling]

The strange part is that especially in Amsterdam, while they attempt 'original buildings' in the 'Zuid As' all originality is sucked out of the city due to gentrification.

[@cmwHisArtist]

It’s just easier and cheaper to build a box. I don’t even think it’s possible anymore to build the ornate structures like they used to in the past. We’re taught from a young age we’ll never earn a living as an artist. If you let a creative mind run rampant, they’re likely to invent things that put the rest of the know it alls to shame.

[@marbellaotaiza801]

😂 The statue's face in the thumbinail 👀

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Oh the wonders of AI 😂

[@EduardQualls]

This problem with "originality" is one that has plagued music since c. 1900. This pressure for "originality" has pushed "classical" music out of the center of people's lives (where it had been for centuries) into the periphery, with dancehall and theater/movie music taking the "tonal" flag, which thence, later, moved into "pop," "rock and roll" or "country" music. The fact is that any orchestra that wants to have a reasonable income _must_ cushion (or smother) any new, "original" "noise-as-music" with tonal, real music, simply because audiences will not sit still for the cacophony of "modern" "original" noise: they could simply stay at home and run the blender.

[@Game_Hero]

what's the problem with that but allowing more diverse music? I mean I like "classical" (not sure if the term includes romantic era compositions) as much as the next guy but I couldn't live without my synthwave, city pop, Beatles and jazz. Tastes change, the tastes behind Mozart were already changed from the polytonal chorals of the 12th century and that wasn't a bad thing wasn't it?

[@Mouritzeen]

Incredible coincidence how I was looking through this channel yesterday and then out of nowhere a new upload the next day

[@marbellaotaiza801]

Almost as if channels just uploaded content at indeterminate times...

[@Mouritzeen]

@@marbellaotaiza801 Keep your smile 😊

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Something had been brewing ;) it was written in the stars!

[@ekbergiw]

Tom Scott's opinion on the spherical homes doesn't really matter. The people who live in those houses love them and from the interviews it seems like they are quite sought after, furthermore spherical homes are classical. Great architects like Lequox and Ledoux both created plans for spherical homes. The challenges with curved walls are the space where real innovation can occur. As the old saying goes 'necessity is the mother of invention'. Furthermore the cost savings that spherical homes bring only get larger as the volume of those spheres become larger, making them optimal candidates for the next generation of large middle class housing.

[@mdjey2]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@christovitchjames5612]

Architecture embodies the thoughts of a civilization.

[@TankNamedTom]

Another point to be made (hopefully you can make a video on this topic as well) is that modern architecture can be incredibly expensive - more so than its fans want to acknowledge or admit. Years ago I worked for a gym that was of modern design, id est: sharp angles, concrete, steel, and glass, and some living rooftops. The building took millions of dollars to construct but not even five years after it was built it was already having issues. The roof was leaking everywhere, the concrete was cracking, some rust in the steel beams, and the glass would never stay clean. Modern Architecture is immensely more expensive than people realize and often very poorly designed; it doesn’t just give way for lazy aesthetic design but also poor planning and construction. Modern architecture allows for more corners to be cut without people noticing (hence why the buildings don’t last very long). This in-turn creates the architectural equivalent of “fast fashion” - wasting resources and increasing pollution.

[@kaixokaleabilbao2770]

It all began with the Eiffel Tower and since it paid off for Paris that’s why all architects want to replicate the same effect on cities

[@jaspermolenaar1218]

There are many assumptions made in this video that don’t seem very realistic. 3000 years of building tradition has seen many innovations, often driven by the need to be original, creating stark contrasts to existing buildings. That is far from a modern idea. It is also quite absurd to call out modern architecture on showing repetition of façade themes, while this is also a basic principle of traditional Building. But what mostly misses here is an awareness that ‘modern’ buildings establish a freedom of form, allowing them to house any program. This allows investors and developers to make highly efficiënt products. As with anything this can be done in good or poor quality. It doesn’t intrinsically have a relation with architectural style. Architects already have a limited role in establishing the built environment, to improve it many more parties need to be adressed. Good quality should be the goal in any building style, not limitation of design principles!

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Thank you for your reaction. I agree innovation has always been a key part of the building traditions, but it was not always for the sole purpose of ‘just doing something new’. That seems to be more important nowadays. Instead, most innovations were functional or aesthetic, like the pointed arch, or flying buttresses to make cathedral windows bigger. Modernism indeed allowed for more design freedom, due to fully leveraging new construction methods, and sometimes this led to these designs being more functional (in certain aspects) as well. But that’s not the point I’m making - I’m talking about these new construction methods being abused to create wacky forms just to attract attention for the architect, or just for the sake of it. The creation of extremely discordant facades is the strongest proof that it’s often not even about function: these facades hardly offer any value or function above just ‘standing out’. In contrast, due to the (subtle) use of classical proportions and traditional design principles, even ‘wacky’ Art Nouveau designs blend quite well with earlier styles. Also, I believe the notion we just need to aim for more ‘quality’ is enough, or that it says anything at all. What ‘quality’ are we talking about? Quality in what terms? Execution, thoughtfulness of the design, use of materials? Who measures that quality? The architect or the public? How about aiming for more beauty, instead of just ‘quality’? Even starting a conversation about what is beautiful is already worthwile in my opinion.

[@jaspermolenaar1218]

@@the_aesthetic_city thank you for your elaborate reaction! I agree that it’s important to discuss what is beautyful and what qualities matter. But also to be aware that that is a relative notion. While Art Nouveau architecture is much appreciated now, it was often considered ‘extremely discordant’ when first appearing in it’s time. There is also no such thing as ‘the public’ agreeing that classical proportions are always better or ‘the architect’ only aiming to make his building stand out. Things are usually a lot more complicated, and the role of the architect should not be overestimated. If a building stands out in a bold way, there’s also a cliënt aiming for that effect and a zoning commission approving it. In some areas urban planning asks for diversity, in others for unity. A building can be bold or subtle, standing out or blending in, timeless or dating quickly. This can all be done in many styles, from classical to contemporary. In the end I think it’s more a question of taste than principle, that you are just not a fan of modern architecture, while I don’t think your arguments why make a very strong case..

[@Kharmazov]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

[@the_aesthetic_city]

💯💯

[@TrekDelta]

"Or the one".

[@franciscodanconia4324]

While I agree that some modernist architecture can be downright ugly, I must disagree that an architect has some sort of social responsibility. The building they design belongs to only one entity, the person or company that owns it. It doesn’t belong to the public at large and they should have little to say about how it is expressed.

[@marklanders6833]

I disagree. A large and depressing looking gray modern cube put in a place where I have to see it everyday on my way to work will definitely have an effect on my psyche.

[@florinivan6907]

@@marklanders6833 Maybe but if you take this idea to its logical extreme then you end up with an orwellian system of control over architects and the people/companies that hire them. If you start imposing too harsh a rulebook on how buildings can or cannot look due to public interest you end up with 1984. Say you made a law that punishes anyone with 10 years in prison for designing an 'ugly' building. If you take it to its logical extreme. Ie if you go the north korean route where they actually have some very harsh laws governing design. Be careful. You desire for a 'happy' psyche doesn't justify concentration camps for the ones who don't design buildings the way you want them.

[@marklanders6833]

@@florinivan6907 If I look at what society has become since the age of post-modernism and the urban environments it has created, I can fill a piece of a much larger puzzle portraying our decline. _"Beauty will save the world"_ ~ *Dostoevsky*

[@Annie-ex3ge]

Totally agrea. Imo, art should always have a foundation in craftsmanship. Also, when creating objects of daily use, eg. buildings, one should always take into account context and the impact on your clientele. If one isn't sure about the latter, do your market research! We don't need baroque scrolls everywhere, but sustainability, durability good microclimate and appealing, harmonious proportions will always be preferred!

[@anticarrrot]

I'm pretty sure that if artists of the past had followed your advice, and listened to populat opinion, we wouldn't have a lot of landmarks we value today. The Effiel springs to mind.

[@mainstreet3023]

You seem to think that only past architecture is valuable. Don’t live in the past. Sure there are eyesores but much beauty too.

[@ravenfeeder1892]

Architects aren't the problem. They are supplying what the client wants and the city authorities are happy to approve. If the clients wanted something that would fit in, or the authorities only approved such things then that's the design the architects would supply.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Say the architects… if that is true, how is it possible that there’s such a mismatch between what people like (according to virtually all polls and studies) and what gets built? 70 to 90% of the population prefers traditional buildings, one would expect more traditional buildings to get built. But they don’t get built, because of the architectural dogma of Modernism - which is taught in every architecture school around the world as sole way of looking at (new) architecture.

[@ravenfeeder1892]

@@the_aesthetic_city Things don't get built without money and planning permission, neither of which architect supply. Designs would just be that, designs, and not physical buildings otherwise. Now clients and municipalities often want award winning buildings as a matter of prestige and architects are the ones giving the awards, so it's not simple. But at the end of the day it's a financial and political decision, not an artistic one.

[@ramochai]

@@ravenfeeder1892Architects still hold influential power to persuade their clients to go for classical styles. Almost none of them want it. Therefore they are a part of the problem.

[@boardthirteen_interiors]

Your videos are amazing. Should be shown in design schools. Any channels or videos anyone could recommend about architecture in Thaialand? I live there and would like to learn more.

[@grimperpl]

The problem with many architects is their ego. And yes, it;s true that they are thaught from the very beginning to show up. But it's not true that it's modernism fault. Gothic cathedrals are made to show up as well. Modernism was a response to all faults of old architecture: dark, unergonomic, expenesive and generally bad for the people.

[@rousemotorsport]

The pride is at the root of modern architecture. If a building is just beautiful and blends naturally into its surrounding area as though it has always been there, the architect does not get the recognition of being progressive and original.

[@OscarBorrem]

Glad to see you're sponsored!

[@zivmontenegro8303]

As an architecture enthusiast and soon to attend college to study architecture, i find it increasingly sad that many nee buildings in my area looks cheap and the same. Dont get me wrong, other buildings looks amazing especially the colourful buildings. It'd be nice, since I've been wondering how people built such magnificent buildings, whether it be a cathedral or buildings around the city about how were they built. The ornamentation, the material they used, the stones, etc. Thanks and props to you for another great video!❤🎉