Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The argument seems to boil down to, "of course it's ugly, just look at it" Yes, but only because the heart of the modernist movement has been an attempt to deny, belittle and mock the idea that the instinctive aesthetic reaction of the majority to their creations is important or valid. If you think their constructions are ugly, that's not their problem, it's your problem. Firstly, you're too stupid, conservative an…
So lets see: - Modernism isn't a collection a movements across different countries/mediums in the early 20th century, but a "movement" whose "heart" is making intellectuals feel better than regular folks. - No space for differing aesthetic opinions, the only real art is what you feel in your gut. - Modernists are actively trying to change the places you live in work, despite the fact that the height of the movement h…
Crimes in Concrete
81–90 of 134 posts
Re: Crimes in Concrete
#82Re: Crimes in Concrete
#83Re: Crimes in Concrete
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's fascinating how neatly being politically conservative or progressive lines up with the corresponding architectural view Only it's really not that neat. When the brutalist monstrosities (you may correctly infer I don't like most of them one bit, though I do like much modernism) were being designed and built post-war, brutalism particularly was embraced as enthusiastically on all parts of the political spectrum.…
The was a somewhat more "humane" streak at the core of this movement than you make out. Specifically, these buildings were supposed to serve an egalitarian purpose, removing class differences previously expressed with fancy fascades etc. This was also a time of far heavier air pollution than we today ever experience, at least in "the west". The typical multi-family building were therefore built not right at the sidew…
Bear in mind I'm in the UK, where Europe's post-war rebuilding was also large part of the motive. The American experience was necessarily a little different - no bomb damage, and a large profit from WW2, thank-you-very-much.
The huge areas of bomb damage, and decades of soot and other pollutants meant many of those fine classic buildings were looking old, tired and in need of sand-blasting, or at least a good wash. The 50s brought coal restrictions and clean air legislation, so pollution and smog had passed. Cars weren't yet common. Looking to the future concrete was "clean", and very much of the Jetson's future, and you got so much more of it for every pound spent. Steam trains, and Victorian gothic fussiness were of the mucky past. Yet unlike marble, granite and even sandstone and brick it so often weathers and ages horribly.
There was, as you note far more space - and in architect or promotional artistry before they were built this usually had trees, planting, and very often a view through trees. The other style was of people and cars as cells in the futuristic city organism - that Jetson future once again. The 95% reality had a few feature trees set in concrete or flagstones, some feature planters for flowers - horse trough or hot tub sized that in the sea of concrete looked comical afterthought. By the 70s the trees most especially were dying, horribly sad or missing. Turns out mature trees need more than 2 sq m of water capture. I remember very little grass in the brutalist bits of the city I grew up in or those I visited in the 70s and 80s. The sweeping walkways in the sky meant walking a mile to cross a road, or endless steps - horrible if mother with pram, and lastly plenty of dark gloomy spots to get mugged or lost in.
The pre-war modernist, or the garden city movements, and even pre-war social housing had, in the UK, far more of the natural world, grass, large grass verges with mature trees and play spaces or parks. They hadn't yet discovered separating shopping centre from housing, so they were still working communities.
So yeah, it's easy to see why they tried and the motives that brought them, but it's as easy to see why it so often turned out dystopian nightmare to be demolished as soon as affordable. We'll be stuck with those car-first choices for a century though. Today's alternative of finding lowest possible bid unless it's a feature tower block isn't that much better.
Re: Crimes in Concrete
#85The only pre-20thC buildings that remain are the ones that survive. The ones that survive are the ones we like and that are able to survive (not plywood and well built). Survival is the real measurement of how much we like it - it is the ultimate arbiter of aesthetics/beauty/cultural significance/engineering excellence, and it trumps all the chatter of self-appointed critics. If it's garbage, we tear it down or stop…
Unfortunately, the city I live in has been burned, bombed, or otherwise destroyed a couple of times since it became a city in the late middle ages. This destruction happened regardless of likeability or sturdiness of the buildings involved.
Re: Crimes in Concrete
#86It's fascinating how neatly being politically conservative or progressive lines up with the corresponding architectural view. I like brutalism, but I disagree with the removal of Scruton from that position, it seems political. What annoys me about articles like the above is that they seem to ignore the possibility that aesthetics involves a lot of subjectivity. The argument seems to boil down to, "of course it's ugly…
But you look at what young travellers
and photographers actually spend time
appreciating and sharing images of
Abandoned, rusting power plants make great subjects for photography [1] - IMHO "striking photographs" is a poor proxy for beauty, popularity or good public architecture.Re: Crimes in Concrete
#87Pretty much spot on - the "architects" of the world colluded in driving humanity to misery and despair by encasing people in hollow concrete spaces. What I don't understand is how this came to be? In the Soviet Union, for example, all resources come from the single source, so the distribution of funds becomes politicized and all kinds of crazy shit can fester simply because the group promulgating said shit was better…
But it's glass, wood and greenery, what's so bad about it? There's little concrete there. I find it a really nice place, both from the wooden terrace and from the reading rooms which have a view on the forest.
Re: Crimes in Concrete
#88I'm no architect, but I feel it's absolutely crazy to throw completely different styles of buildings into the same box, label them modernist and blanket reject them. I absolutely love some [1], but hate others [2]. I'm sure most people feel the same. [1] https://www.elledecor.com/design-decorate/g8674077/modern-ho... [2] https://www.elledecor.com/design-decorate/g8674077/modern-ho...
We don't need styles, movement or whatever, we need forms evolved for a long time by normal humans (on this point I'm a fan of Christopher Alexander position on architecture, see A Pattern Language or The Timeless Way of Building). Modern architecture is just a fraud based on nothing.
Look at those : * http://www.hugues-bosc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/M... * https://sunnyspainholidays.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/su...
Re: Crimes in Concrete
#89San Francisco is undergoing exactly such a crime wave. The new apartment buildings are just glass and steel, with no redeeming features whatsoever. Compare these new buildings to the Flood Building or the Hobart Building, and you'll shed a tear or two.
The Hobart building is pretty to look at. But if I'm actually going to spend my time in the building, I would much rather have the floor-to-ceiling windows of a generic modern steel-and-glass tower. I wonder how much of this design trend is due to the development of better materials (e.g. more insulating glass).
Re: Crimes in Concrete
#90Pretty much spot on - the "architects" of the world colluded in driving humanity to misery and despair by encasing people in hollow concrete spaces. What I don't understand is how this came to be? In the Soviet Union, for example, all resources come from the single source, so the distribution of funds becomes politicized and all kinds of crazy shit can fester simply because the group promulgating said shit was better…
It's cheaper to build undecorated boxes. Calling it high art is just a cover. There is also a skill shortage since nobody has paid for quality in generations. The craftsmen that meticulously laid intricate art deco brickwork don't exist anymore and no modern mason can seem to do as good a job. Instead we get uninspired generic concrete and glass prisms designed to maximize square footage for the landlords.