When is the revolution in architecture coming?

The pictured room is an example of a building that's called a "cholet", a multi-use commercial/residential building built by members of the Aymara ethnic group. They're stores and event halls with residences on top. The event halls are frequently used for extravagant parties and closing business deals (often at the some time). The design, interior and exterior, is crazy-dramatic, but beautiful...and very deliberately a display of wealth and status. It's both capitalist as fuck and the result of a generation of Aymaras building their own city in El Alto.

The rest of this article has moments, but I just have trouble taking the writer seriously after reading that.

And the obligatory link in response to all the concept art: https://www.archdaily.com/346374/can-we-please-stop-drawing-...

Note: I have set aside for the purposes of this article the fact that our ugly buildings are all capitalistic megaprojects and thus we cannot change our design until we change our economic system.

There are plenty of beautiful buildings being built today. Just because the Pritzker Prize isn't awarded to them because the panel awarding this prize believes in hideous monstrosities doesn't mean that the only buildings being built are ugly.

Here are a few counter-examples, out of literally millions of new buildings being built around the world: https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/buildings-redefine..., all of which happen to be "capitalistic megaprojects!"

Also, neither here nor there, but I wonder if Nathan's writing this article because he fired all of his writers after they tried to unionize: "Yes, we were fired by the editor-in-chief of a socialist magazine for trying to start a worker co-op."

https://www.gawker.com/media/the-current-affair-at-current-a...

I don't hate the boxy things, I just hate that there's nothing else being built in Seattle right now except boxy things. And they're not much to look at.

I live in Illinois where JB Prizker is the governor, I went to a drafting school and was an architecture student in college so it shows how important the prize is. Good architecture wasn't ever monopolized by self appointed tastemakers, or how many or what awards it got, people liked what they liked despite what self anointed experts decided what they think is the best. You can look at other prizes that if by the cash prize is less prestigious but not at all similar in taste, meaning building design taste is not standardized and the assuption that all buildings headed by architects only building and copying Prizker prize winners is false. https://architectureprize.com/winners/2021.php

Building codes, materials avaliable, and standardization will cause buildings to have common characteristics, his examples are all designs that have survivorship bias from different cultures around the world and of course he had to mention how left wing he is, how the right is wrong, Trump for some reason and his own assumptions as facts and make everything political like this

>For many of the people who use these terms, they connote a vision that is ugly, fake, and deeply racist.

His articles are always childish and amateurish. He assumes that we need more modern buildings that conform to his own style, which is a deeply out of touch, privileged positon like the Prizker prize apointees and ignores the modern buildings in Singapore or Japan where they can afford such designs. Most people are going for cost efficiency with generic plans prefabs, sometimes green features (cutouts in large buildings exist at seemingly random points but they're sunlight related, and its only a consideration at scale) or just living in a mobile home of some kind due to soaring costs.

Someone said: There are two types of flat roofs: Those that are leaky and those that are not leaky yet.