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

Most people prefer traditional architecture

worksinprogress.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 382 posts

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#341

Post by dxdm »

rbanffy wrote: post #145
dxdm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why, indeed.

We really need to understand why people who study a subject and dedicate their lives to studying and perfecting their understanding would show a clear preference for something...

Yes, I would like to understand why this is their preference. Aren't you curious? I don't think it's enough to say: these people are experts, so in this issue of style and taste their answer is automatically correct, no more info needed, thank you.

Also, I'd be surprised if ALL "people who study [this] subject and dedicate their lives to studying and perfecting their understanding" would share the same preference.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#342

Post by jordanb »

TFNA wrote: post #330
jordanb wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge part of the Soviet period before Stalin was the civil war and minimal efforts to do anything other than fight it ("war communism"). After that you got the NEP and things going traditional. Stalin pushed classical and actually within the soviet union Stalinst buildings were considered the best. These are called Stalinka. Khrushchev embarked on a massive post-war building campaign in an effort to improve living…

Again, this comment is not informed (I work in a field largely centered around the early Soviet era). Mass housing construction of dispiriting blocks boomed in the Khrushchev era, and the early Soviet era was indeed tumultuous, but the 1920s and even early 1930s saw architectual designs for public buildings that were remarkably modernist. Wikipedia has more than enough coverage if you want to learn more.

This person may be an expert but I have no way to assess that because this low-effort garbage comment provides absolutely no evidence their background and no effort to back up their claims.

Most of this comment, after saying I'm "not informed" just repeated everything I said in my comment with less details.

This seems to be a comment where someone started with a prompt of "no ur wrong" and had AI elaborate it out into something less juvenile.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#343

Post by rbanffy »

IslandRebel wrote: post #211
rbanffy wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes being "ugly" is the point. You want to bring out emotions - the building can be grandiose, imposing, surprising, but, if you look closely, it's a carefully crafted work of art that's also highly functional. One great example from the city where I grew up: https://hicarquitectura.com/2024/09/lina-bo-bardi-sesc-pompe...

I don't care for this argument at all. There are functional buildings where I live from the Industrial Revolution that look quite nice. I want things to look nice where I live. I don't want them to be ugly and demoralising. As for the building you showed me. I think it looks awful. It actually looks worse than the architecture in movie Equilibrium. https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-architectural-revie...

> It actually looks worse than the architecture in movie Equilibrium.

Taste is extremely subjective. I am an engineer and I've spent a whole career training my tastes (for system design, hardware architecture) to be less subjective and help guide my work towards what's good. Some of that seems to have leaked to building and city planning, because my taste seems to align well with the experts in those fields.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#344

Post by rbanffy »

dxdm wrote: post #341
rbanffy wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really need to understand why people who study a subject and dedicate their lives to studying and perfecting their understanding would show a clear preference for something...

Yes, I would like to understand why this is their preference. Aren't you curious? I don't think it's enough to say: these people are experts, so in this issue of style and taste their answer is automatically correct, no more info needed, thank you. Also, I'd be surprised if ALL "people who study [this] subject and dedicate their lives to studying and perfecting their understanding" would share the same preference.

> their answer is automatically correct,

No, but I'll trust their opinion on building design and urban planning over yours the same way I wouldn't trust you to do brain surgery or landing an airliner. I am a skilled pilot in simulators, but I still wouldn't trust myself to land a real plane.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#345

Post by ericmay »

hardbass wrote: post #271
ericmay wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mention the private equity backed builder, but the designs come from the corrupted ivory tower which just invents more and more ridiculous designs (modernism, brutalism, for example) to try to stay fresh. Same in the art world. (Banksy, Warhol, others) We have not made any progress, and perhaps we don’t need to, when it comes to architecture since World War I. There have been a few projects like La Sagrada Famíli…

What do you think is weird about Banksy? Looks like older pre-modern art to me. If you like neoclassicism and hate brutalism, then I would say you are very strange too. To me, brutalism hits the same things neoclassicism does but much more organically and better.

Idk. I don't see any cultural or artistic resemblance with Balloon Girl versus say, Luncheon of the Boating Party.

Separately it's always peculiar to me that folks go on to defend some art, but I bet if I went around saying neoclassic art is terrible I'd not get much opposition. I wonder why.

> If you like neoclassicism and hate brutalism, then I would say you are very strange too.

What artworks would you compare here?

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#346

Post by hardbass »

Nursie wrote: post #333
hardbass wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many countries in Asia use concrete by default. People don't seem to have any problems with it. Architecture obviously impacts a person's mood and behavior, eg unwalkable architecture would force a lot of driving. I just am not certain if brutalism can be said to cause whatever negative issues you are claiming it does. At least I am sure the movement wasn't designed to be anti human in any way.

> eg unwalkable architecture would force a lot of driving That's purely a utilitarian take. You don't believe that design language could ever have an effect on mood? You said yourself you find neoclassical and gothic styles induce despair. What do you think would be the long term effect of living somewhere that induced despair in you? > At least I am sure the movement wasn't designed to be anti human in any way. A sy…

Lack of drivability isn't just a mechanical thing, it shapes how a locality lives and moves, the kind of community that can form or not and also mood eg whether distances cause a feeling of isolation or one of not feeling cooped up and so on.

I understand what you are trying to get at, its just that I simply am unable to understand the mood of despair as associated with brutalism. Maybe others feel otherwise.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#347

Post by hardbass »

ericmay wrote: post #345
hardbass wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think is weird about Banksy? Looks like older pre-modern art to me. If you like neoclassicism and hate brutalism, then I would say you are very strange too. To me, brutalism hits the same things neoclassicism does but much more organically and better.

Idk. I don't see any cultural or artistic resemblance with Balloon Girl versus say, Luncheon of the Boating Party. Separately it's always peculiar to me that folks go on to defend some art, but I bet if I went around saying neoclassic art is terrible I'd not get much opposition. I wonder why. > If you like neoclassicism and hate brutalism, then I would say you are very strange too. What artworks would you compare her…

Architecture. In both neoclassicism and brutalism, regardless of intended aim, the effect seems to be one of silublime monumental scale that humbles a person.

Both paintings you cited are very much on the traditional and representative end of the spectrum. None of them seem to be on the more abstract 20th century styles.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#348

Post by IslandRebel »

rbanffy wrote: post #343
IslandRebel wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care for this argument at all. There are functional buildings where I live from the Industrial Revolution that look quite nice. I want things to look nice where I live. I don't want them to be ugly and demoralising. As for the building you showed me. I think it looks awful. It actually looks worse than the architecture in movie Equilibrium. https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-architectural-revie...

> It actually looks worse than the architecture in movie Equilibrium. Taste is extremely subjective. I am an engineer and I've spent a whole career training my tastes (for system design, hardware architecture) to be less subjective and help guide my work towards what's good. Some of that seems to have leaked to building and city planning, because my taste seems to align well with the experts in those fields.

The article is about the schism between the experts and what people generally prefer and recommends that said experts should try to take that into account. People almost always prefer traditional architecture. Is it really subjective when a vast majority of people agree? I suppose technically it is, but at the same time not really. There is obviously something that people prefer about it other than it being old.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#349

Post by ericmay »

hardbass wrote: post #347
ericmay wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk. I don't see any cultural or artistic resemblance with Balloon Girl versus say, Luncheon of the Boating Party. Separately it's always peculiar to me that folks go on to defend some art, but I bet if I went around saying neoclassic art is terrible I'd not get much opposition. I wonder why. > If you like neoclassicism and hate brutalism, then I would say you are very strange too. What artworks would you compare her…

Architecture. In both neoclassicism and brutalism, regardless of intended aim, the effect seems to be one of silublime monumental scale that humbles a person. Both paintings you cited are very much on the traditional and representative end of the spectrum. None of them seem to be on the more abstract 20th century styles.

> Architecture. In both neoclassicism and brutalism, regardless of intended aim, the effect seems to be one of silublime monumental scale that humbles a person.

Well why would you discard the intention? I think there is more to compare as well than just the ability of the architecture to humble someone. What does the architecture say? Who does it glorify (in these cases)? How difficult is it to make?

You can also say they're similar but one is good and done well (neoclassicism as you mentioned but there are others) and one is done very poorly (brutalism).

Part of how you could argue that is something like number of visitors. Nobody visits brutalist architecture. It's extremely unpopular outside of academic circles or art establishment points of view.

> Both paintings you cited are very much on the traditional and representative end of the spectrum. None of them seem to be on the more abstract 20th century styles.

I have a hard disagreement here but I'm not sure what there is to really talk about.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#350

Post by sagarm »

magarnicle wrote: post #229
msy wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The work of Dieter Rams, the primary influence for Ive's work at Apple that's set the aesthetic direction for hardware for the last ~20 years to critical acclaim and is a showcase of manufacturing prowess? That Dieter Rams? This is an absurd and ahistorical understanding of modernism.

Isn't that exactly their point? Every new building looks like an iPhone: sleek glass and metal.

I can't believe this has to be said, but glass skyscrapers predate even the first iPhone.

The is hopefully the high watermark of Apple fans thinking Apple invented something they didn't.

Post reply on HN