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

Crimes in Concrete

firstthings.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 134 posts

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#71

Post by DenisM »

Pretty 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 at politicking (see: Lysenko). All universities then have to teach the same stuff. Groupthink. Monoculture. I get it.

But how did the western world succumb to this? Surely there are different architectural schools? Different funding sources? What is going on the minds of the people who are writing checks for all these modern Paris buildings [1]?

[1] By the way, the author forgot to include the Mitterrand library in his list of peace crimes in Paris: https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/diaporama-7866-bnf-20-ans

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#72

Post by DHPersonal »

titanomachy wrote: post #32
1024core wrote: post #21

San 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).

Glass is still a terrible insulator, even if it is more efficient than what it used to be.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#73

Post by DenisM »

LordHumungous wrote: post #17

It would be helpful if the author provided examples of modern buildings that he considers beautiful, or modern architects who he thinks are doing it right.

The article is promoting a book, which upon cursory examination seems to have a lot of illustrations.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#74

Post by dsfyu404ed »

chris1993 wrote: post #62
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way to read that is the regulation is preventing progress.

But a better way to read it is that regulation is protecting us from the mistakes of the past. Unless you fancy inhaling asbestos?

>But a better way to read it is that regulation is protecting us from the mistakes of the past. Unless you fancy inhaling asbestos?

Well since we're playing the false dichotomy game I'd gladly take prosperity with a side of lung cancer over cancer free stagnation.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#75

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

DenisM wrote: post #71

Pretty 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.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#76

Post by roca »

pjc50 wrote: post #18
ppod wrote: post #2

It'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…

Scruton was a tobacco shill years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/jan/24/advertising.to... He's incapable of not being political. Publishing conspiracy theory garbage about Soros at the time of a major hunt for antisemitism in public life was what got him fired. (The author of the original article, Dalrymple, is also a full time culture warrior)

I hope you've read both sides of that issue, e.g. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/the-scruton-tapes-an-ana...

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#77

Post by stuart78 »

I don't fully understand why architecture is so bitterly divided between its factions. I am the son of an architect (loyal to his faction) and I like a lot of that stuff and a lot of other styles, including much made of concrete. It seems like something built into the culture at an early stage. Some of the Bauhaus practitioners saw their work as an expression of a Socialist agenda and Classicists are taught that only the traditional styles of design and building are acceptable.

There is (or ought to be) a common enemy to all factions, which is cheap disposable architecture. Long-term structure that are also climate change adaptable seems a decent common purpose, for example.

Somehow, however, the capital A Architect class seems to exist above the buildings designed for and by people who do not care about aesthetics, so the cheap and disposable seem to slip under the radar. Perhaps because Lennar Builders and their ilk don't care what academics think of them?

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#78

Post by inflatableDodo »

theoh wrote: post #47
inflatableDodo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a literary review of a book about architecture, so has quotes from the book. I assume the pictures are one level down.

I'm not sure James Stevens Curl is a good person to go to for compelling images of architecture. Check out his website: http://www.jamesstevenscurl.com/james-stevens-curl-architect... He can sort-of draw buildings and architectural details but basically he doesn't really have a great eye for architecture. If he did, he would think twice before making the tedious old right-wing arguments in the book. He's an example o…

Thank you for the link, I read some more of the reviews for his book on there. A. It appears that you are talking nonsense and B. I'm probably going to buy a copy.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#79

Post by dang »

cgrealy wrote: post #66

I am impressed by how much literary wank the author managed to fit into this article while at the same time providing zero arguments other than "waaahhh, I don't like it, therefore everyone else must feel the same".

Maybe so, but Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#80

Post by goodmachine »

It's interesting how architectural modernism works in pop culture (Hollywood films, for example) where the buildings play the bad guy: an arrogant, oppressive or cruelly indifferent character, a stand-in for totalitarianism, for places of extreme wealth or poverty.

Now we're here I can't think of many active celebrations of the form in painting, literature, comics or games either. You?

Post reply on HN