Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The mid in fake midcentury modern

nplusonemag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 512 posts

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#171

Post by MockObject »

openplatypus wrote: post #132
jona-f wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would describe your second point as gaslighting. Tastes are different and many people dislike modern (and post-modern) architecture. Talking with architects about this, they told me that building differently today is too expensive, doesn't go well with industrialized construction. I argue that architecture is an academic shitshow. It's design for competition juries and not for the people using it. Which is btw very…

Tastes are different. The author could have written, some buildings are ugly. I don't like them. Yet, the author wrote, “everything” is ugly.

The author is expressing his aesthetic judgement, so overliteral interpretations are really not applicable here.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#172

Post by bnralt »

at_a_remove wrote: post #95
ericmay wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To latch on to this great post there are a couple of other worthwhile discussion points: We're still in a nuclear war mental model. We can't build beautiful things if we think they'll be destroyed in a war. We still have a societal level PTSD from World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and other things. World War I veterans came back with horrific problems. That's why architects like Frank Lloyd…

I used to have to deal with some Brutalist structures. Ghastly things, look like they were built by some kind of enormous alien wasp-like creatures that spit out a paste of concrete. Unfriendly interiors. Stairwells almost deliberately vertiginous. Floors with the warmth and charm of a Detroit loading dock. A building which does not learn, its unfortunate inhabitants must adapt to it .

> A building which does not learn, its unfortunate inhabitants must adapt to it.

That's one of the most interesting and depressing parts of post-WW2 architecture (it's present in certain "high culture" architecture before, but not as ubiquitous). It seems narcissistic, entirely focused on what the architect thought would look cool, and completely detached from the individuals who would actually be using the space.

There's a Ludwig Mies van der Rohe building near hear, and the usage of space is simply terrible. It's only a few stories tall, and you have to either wait a long time for the slow and unpleasant elevators to arrive, or rummage around several sets of doors behind them to find the hidden stairs. There's another "urban renewal project" nearby designed by I.M. Pei, and it's a huge deadzone in the middle of a bustling area. It feels almost like finding a dead city from a Lovecraft story - you have these empty huge expanses of concrete that seem much too large for humans. Places where people would congregate, like retail, is deliberately placed underground and away from the road, making the whole area feel abandoned.

Say what you will about modern architecture, but I find it much more pleasant than the stuff that was coming out post-war.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#173

Post by thundergolfer »

_xnmw wrote: post #157
thundergolfer wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those glass boxes aren’t Postmordernist. They’re mostly aligned with Modernist architecture. Postmordernist architecture is a response and rejection of Modernism, and exhibits eclectic and playful design features. Check out the Postmodernist architecture article on Wikipedia. You may be conflating the general antipathy towards a Postmodernist boogeyman with any sort of modernist, neoliberal design system.

You're right, thanks for the correction. Without a formal training in the arts I don't know my terminology, I just have an amateur feel for what I hate and know some vaguely related terms. In that case I'm against both modernist and postmodern styles and prefer the Baroque? Darn I don't know, I just feel much more at home walking down the street in Warsaw than in NYC or Chicago.

A lot of Postmodern architecture is pretty ugly too, and it is typical for people much prefer the older architectural styles found in Europe.

Part of it is the fault of 20th and 21st century architecture, but also big changes in urban design and property development economics happened throughout the 20th century.

I'm pretty on board with the idea that North American urban design and architecture is an abject failure, but lay the blame not so much with the architects but with greater forces of rapid post-war capitalist expansion and Neoliberal capitalist 'optimization'.

NYC is not as nice as Warsaw in a lot of ways, but it's wildly better than most other USA cities.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#174

Post by frobolo »

mjhay wrote: post #65
version_five wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two random comments: 1. When I was younger I though brutalist concrete buildings were ugly, now (even if they still are) i find they are usually the most interesting thing in a city core. 2. > Even their own houses typically look like architectural garbage. Agreed. I can't believe how cheap and ugly so many of the "rich people" houses are. It seems to be a competition for who can have the most different rooflines, an…

If you like complicated rooflines, you'll love McMansion Hell: https://mcmansionhell.com/

That site is just about equal parts hilarious and traumatic to browse.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#175

Post by crazygringo »

krona wrote: post #148
crazygringo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were proportions mentioned in the article? I couldn't find it. But I'm intrigued now -- I thought I've heard all of the complaints about modern design, but I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone say that proportions have gotten worse. What specifically are you referring to? The only particularly noticeable thing I can think of is cars having gotten more "bulbuous" rather than sleek, but that's entirely due to crumple zo…

This made me weep. Pythagorean ideals of proportion have existed for a millenia. See Ancient Greek/Roman architecture, gothic architecture (e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00004-022-00591-2 ) and then go to visit an average modern city development and look at what modern architects consider to be, I don't know, the 'ideal' diameter of a non-supporting (almost entirely aesthetic) column, or the incongr…

Yes, Pythagorean ideals of proportion have been around for a long time, but they've also been essentially "debunked" in terms of aesthetic beauty. Kind of the same way that precious little of the music we listen to today follows Bach's prescriptions for counterpoint. They were a historical starting point that we've long since evolved away from, in favor of greater freedom and sophistication.

Which isn't to say that the proportions of windows or columns are always ideal in today's architecture... but for every supposedly perfect historical Gothic cathedral, there are plenty of terribly-proportioned historical examples as well. Overall, I see no evidence of problems of proportion getting worse. Modern architects are just as aware of proportion as they've ever been. But thankfully they're freed from archaic notions such as e.g. exact golden ratios.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#176

Post by projektfu »

zip1234 wrote: post #107
_xnmw wrote: post #99

After spending some time living in Europe, I simply cannot go back to North America (except for the few areas built with Old World charm). There's something so comforting about the beauty of European and other traditional architectural styles. (Modern/Postmodern?) glass boxes feel jarringly cold, hostile, and alienating.

America is designed to be looked at while zooming by at 50 mph. Auto infrastructure is incredibly ugly and takes up a massive amount of places. If anyone has an example of non-ugly auto infrastructure I would love to see it.

That usually only happens when it’s buried. Near east Chicago, for example, or the result of the big dig in Boston.

I wish that Atlanta would cover the downtown connector and make the city contiguous.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#178

Post by justinator »

trgn wrote: post #126
phkahler wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> interesting to note that even individual aesthetic disasters like victorian homes, when combined in a neighborhood with common roof-lines, etc. form a charming aesthetic that has been singularly unachievable except in ersatz form since... I just assumed it's all about cost savings. Architecture has been affected by the race to the bottom as much as anything.

No. The race to the bottom doesn't explain the extreme rupture that happened in the 40s. Another thing that may play into it (beyond a psychological breakdown), that's we diverted spending on architecture to spending on maintenance of car infrastructure. The public realm is experience through a car, and as such, sensory details, sense of closure and safety, are irrelevant. Rather, what becomes relevant is asphalt, la…

Ha and yes: and why build beautiful things at all if all you're going to do is speed past it in a blur at 75mph? The futurists preoccupation with speed. I never thought of it like that.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#179

Post by keiferski »

cdrini wrote: post #154
pavlov wrote: post #12

Reminds me of the Parisian art critic who was appalled when they built a modernist colossus that destroyed the beautiful harmony of his home city. The rest of his life he would scrupulously choose walking routes to avoid seeing the monstrosity. The building in question was the Eiffel Tower.

Wow, I'm blown away people here are confidently saying things like "most people don't think the Eiffel Tower is beautiful." Huh? Are you guys joking? Are these comments generated by GPT? It's beautiful because of its geometry. It's beautiful in the way it compliments the city. It's beautiful when it's lit up at night. What more do you want exactly? Who would have the gall to say something like "most people" don't thi…

Instead of being outraged, I suggest you read the comments again. No one said it is ugly or that it isn't beautiful, just that it's not typically thought of as an example of "a beautiful thing." People think of it as a symbol of Paris, not an exemplar of beauty. Especially people that live in Paris and see it everyday.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#180

Post by nottorp »

actionfromafar wrote: post #29
switch007 wrote: post #2

Why is it the articles which would most benefit from pictures are the ones with the fewest?

And also, is there a movie named "Army Soldier II" with Ryan Reynolds in it, or was I just supposed to understand an oblique reference to something else?

It's not like Netflix productions are distinguishable from one another.

But in this case I guess they didn't want to get sued.

Post reply on HN