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

91–100 of 134 posts

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#91

Post by bdauvergne »

nullc wrote: post #82

The author fails to acknowledge the enormous expense of building anything else. Traditional forms require a considerable amount of on-site highly skilled labor which is often just not available in sufficient quantities, on a sufficient time-table, at an acceptable price.

It's non-sense, past has a lot of example of simple architecture done by people without many resources acommodating the mass. Rome was already 1 million people during the first millenia, there were buildings with 6 or 7 floors, they were not all covered with classical friezes and statues costing extra-labor.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#92

Post by inflatableDodo »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #60
deogeo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complaining about modern architectural style is being a culture warrior, but designing and building it is neutral and impartial...

Building at the high end (the kind of stuff HN cares about) is partly an exercise in artistic style which winds up being political. Building at the low end is apolitical. With razor thin margins that crap doesnt make the cut. No matter how many millions of square feet of warehouse and pole barn you build there is no room for opinions, style and politics when your margin is pennies on the dollar.

>Building at the high end (the kind of stuff HN cares about) is partly an exercise in artistic style which winds up being political.

>Building at the low end is apolitical.

You have an decidedly odd view of what people are interested in and what makes something political.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#93

Post by theoh »

inflatableDodo wrote: post #78
theoh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I probably can't convince you of anything, but there are definitely two sides to this story. You can choose to listen to Stevens Curl if you want to. You can choose to listen to Theodore Dalrymple as well. Like Stevens Curl he is a blowhard with very iffy politics.

As a trained architectural historian (who has spent years in the UK) it's very clear to me where he is coming from, and it's not a rational place. HN is a terrible venue for discussions of architecture because it's full of people who think their own blinkered opinion is the law. Stevens Curl is just like that.

Edit: even the conservative Spectator has Curl's digits: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/modernist-architecture-i...

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#94

Post by DoubleGlazing »

I think the thing a lot of people overlook when critiquing any kind of architecture is that for every architectural style there are good and bad examples. Sometimes, we focus too much on the bad to the detriment of the good.

I have often felt that a lot of the hate for 60s/modernist/brutalist architecture comes from the stand out bad examples. For example the works of John Poulson, an inept architect who landed loads of massive and lucrative contracts because he was really good at bribery. His practice churned out building designs at a ferocious rate and while some are considered decent (e.g. Leeds International Pool) the vast majority are just bland, soulless blocks designed and built to a price point. Many also had serious structural issues too.

There is a lot of modern architecture to love and appreciate if you can filter out the bad.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#95

Post by Udik »

bdauvergne wrote: post #90
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also work and time was cheaper then, they could spend centuries building the same cathedral with nobody complaining about the ballooning price.

If it took centuries there is a reason.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#97

Post by lmm »

jupp0r wrote: post #25

I'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...

Modernism is a name for a specific style; not all that is modern is modernist, or vice versa.

(I'm not surprised you hate the grey concrete one. Most people do).

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#98

Post by Udik »

bdauvergne wrote: post #96
Udik wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it took centuries there is a reason.

Mostly one: they were patient.

I imagine (but I have no real information on this, so I might be wrong) that cathedrals were always works in progress, on which you could throw a small percentage of your surplus in the good years, and keep idle in the bad ones (or maybe also a bit the opposite, in anti-cyclic fashion). See how the Sagrada Familia is being built in Barcelona (and has been, for 137 years): with an annual construction and maintenance budget of around 25 million, a very small yearly amount for such a huge project.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#99

Post by lmm »

nullc wrote: post #82

The author fails to acknowledge the enormous expense of building anything else. Traditional forms require a considerable amount of on-site highly skilled labor which is often just not available in sufficient quantities, on a sufficient time-table, at an acceptable price.

If we acknowledge the aesthetic realities then we can make those tradeoffs with open eyes. Perhaps we decide that cheap is worth being ugly. Perhaps we can find styles that are cheap without being ugly (there are many "international style" buildings in steel and glass that are perhaps bland, but nowhere near as hated as concrete-oriented brutalism). But to even have that conversation we'd need to acknowledge the non-architect's perception of these buildings as ugly as being legitimate.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#100

Post by inflatableDodo »

theoh wrote: post #93
inflatableDodo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I probably can't convince you of anything, but there are definitely two sides to this story. You can choose to listen to Stevens Curl if you want to. You can choose to listen to Theodore Dalrymple as well. Like Stevens Curl he is a blowhard with very iffy politics. As a trained architectural historian (who has spent years in the UK) it's very clear to me where he is coming from, and it's not a rational place. HN is a…

>I probably can't convince you of anything

You might be able to, but if you claim someone is making tedious old right wing arguments, when it according to the reviews he spends his time commenting on Corbusier's fascism and the Spectator lumps him in with Vonnegut, then I can't take your critique all that seriously. Do you think Vonnegut's architectural critiques are also tired right wing arguments?

Post reply on HN