ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ค. 2017
- There's a creepy transformation taking over our cities, says architecture critic Justin Davidson. From Houston, Texas to Guangzhou, China, shiny towers of concrete and steel covered with glass are cropping up like an invasive species. Rethink your city's anatomy as Davidson explains how the exteriors of building shape the urban experience -- and what we lose when architects stop using the full range of available materials.
The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.
Follow TED on Twitter: / tedtalks
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / ted
the biggest problem I see is the loss of the individuality between countries. if you visit a country, where do you go? it's not to these skyscrapers and office buildings. it's all the old architecture.
This. I think that buildings, regardless of height, should look like they belong to a certain place, and should have some soul. It kind of sucks seeing office towers in a city on the opposite side of the world that look like they could be from anywhere.
Yes but don't you think that it is possible to create buildings with a majority of glass on their facade and still look very unique to the country it belongs? It's not the problem of the material but the way we use it.
What if in each city that these buildings were erected, the local, or at least original, flora would be used.
i know im asking the wrong place but does anyone know a trick to get back into an instagram account?
I somehow forgot my login password. I would love any tricks you can offer me.
@Noe Soren Instablaster ;)
Couldn't agree more with everything he said! I never go downtown in Toronto for exactly this reason. It's all glass and steel and every building looks the same. It makes me sad
And downtown Toronto looks just like downtown Manila in the Philippines, just like downtown Harare in Zimbabwe, and just like downtown Sydney in Australia. 😊
I like a highly textured earthy feel to my architecture.
Bricks then
@@MrVitorao I’d say more like a Cob house!
Use Clay. Clay is totally underrated, you can even print clay-mortar (similar to 3-D concrete) with the right ingredients.
@@jml732 I would rather wood with painstaking artisan carpentry covered in high gloss paint. Brick or stone foundation for sure. Slate roof.
If you're worried about street life, then it's really only the first few floors that matter. Step-backs after several floors can be useful in this respect, and requiring additional public improvements and design overview of taller structures works too. In terms of housing, skyscrapers are never going to be the widespread solution because they can't provide the same level of density given by medium rise buildings.
finally a talk about how modern buildings destroy the historic landscape of ancient,, individual cities and just turn them into any other ordinary city.
Depending on the angle of glass towers, the glare caused can be blinding. I remember in the 80s a new glass building was opened in my home town that had a angled facade, after a seasonal change this caused terrible glare down on a busy road, so they had to redesign or tint that side. I assume those lessons have been learnt?
Nope. The so called walkie talkie building built a few years ago in London managed to melt part of someone's car. No lessons learnt at all.
I hope so. I remember a story about some massive glass skyscraper that would reflect and concentrate sunlight so much it would set cars and other things on fire if the angle was right.
@@MrAwesomeSaucem My home town of Hastings N.Z. is where I noticed this building back in the 80s when shiny and new was cool and new wave. It would also get close to 40 Celsius some days.
@@stormveil 😳
@@MrAwesomeSaucem 😱
a) If your city is growing, the only alternative to building up is building out. If you don't want sprawl eating up the countryside, you need to build skyscrapers instead. It's a trade-off. Both options have their pros and cons.
b) The higher you build, the lighter your materials must be. The only material that can compete with glass and steel for this purpose would be carbon composites, but I doubt that a black rectangle would be aesthetically superior to a glass one.
c) Proportionally-speaking, the real estate footprint of glass office towers is actually very small in most nations. They are usually limited to the financial districts in major cities, and that's actually a tiny proportion of the square footage within any nation.
d) That all being said, when I see LOW-RISE brutalist structures being built, especially when they clash with the surrounding architecture, that's when I cringe. If a city's space restrictions don't necessitate high-rise construction, there's little reason the alternative low-rise construction can't be architecturally interesting.
RE Point C: The square literally across the street from that PGG plaza he complained about is one of the most vibrant places in downtown Pittsburgh in terms of people lingering and hanging out.
And, also, I noticed that his picture was taken on a day when there where not umbrella tables or an ice rink set up in the plaza.
RE Point B: The vast majority of buildings in a city are shorter than the Empire State Building, which is clad in limestone.
Wrong, the density in paris is way higher than any cities in the US but there are 0 skycrapers
Actually, Paris is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. All their glass office towers are clustered in the La Défense district. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_D%C3%A9fense
juste kevin La Tour Montparnasse... doesn't exist...
is modern architecture alienating, or is modern society alienating and that modern architecture is only a symptom?
@Geez Haus
most metropolises are crowded yet alienating. i don't know if there is a modern capital that doesn't have this feature. even capitals of rich countries that aren't so crowded are still lonely places.
@Geez Haus
i think it's modern society that creates an atmosphere of alienation, and most modern architecture simply comes about that way as a result. modern commercial buildings for example are corporate and monumental because that's often what modern corporations are -- monumental and structured and not really a community-centric environment.
@@maggyfrog i have to disagree with you the modern architecturual movement came about by people who deliberatly wanted to get rid of decoration and history. And wanted to intentionally destroy old cities to build their dystopian idea of the individual architects designing buildings with function over form not form as a function. Search for Le Corbusier.
@@TheAdekrijger
interesting. maybe they were inspired by alienation, and felt that the old architectures and art genres didn't reflect their perceived alienation. something weird happened all across art, architecture, philosophy, pop culture and even politics when the world started modernizing scientifically and during the industrial revolution.
@G Haus Still, you can plan for different things. Amsterdam's new (and older) neighbourhoods are all very strictly planned by the city. The city even owns the land. Yet the differences between different neighbourhoods is the architectural and urban planning styles. The current new ones resemble the pre-WWII ones in their layout and even when we built modernist neighbourhoods we never stopped using the local material of choice: brick. Modern design doesn't make an area uncmfortable per se, but a high percentage of glass facade without any other material framing it does. The cold looking facades in turn is exacerbated if you combine it with the opennness and undefinedness of public space that comes with modernistic city layouts.
i thought he was gonna talk about the obscene cost of heating and cooling such buildings not this...
It's ok for this how to have an opinion. My opinion is that most of the non glass buildings he showed were ugly. He is very selective about his examples. He almost ignores the amazing communal spaces that have been built with a huge majority fully translucent glass. Paul rudolf, ray kappe, bjarke Ingles, and many more work with a lot of glass and yet; they create extremely inviting spaces that people want to live and interact within. The issue with skyscrapers is more so with form and function. What he fails to admit, is that skyscrapers ARE built to keep people away. They are by nature non inclusive. the people who commissioned them DONT want you to hang around the outside of their building. They are modern fortified strongholds for large competing companies
christopher xavier Excellent point about the purpose of skyscrapers
Anna Deetz thanks I just think we should be pragmatic about buildings and there relation to human behavior. We may feel that buildings should encourage certain behavior. However, we should be realistic about what people building it are attempting to do. Where I am from, private property is a big factor (at least more so then other places in the world). With the absence of such an authoritarian policy toward what people can and can't build, cities become more interesting. In these cities everyone can have a favorite and a least favorite building-all based on individualist opinion
As someone who lives in Utah I gotta say that YES we (probably not everyone.) love our buildings to blend in with the surrounding background. Its relaxing and feels natural when buildings share qualities of their surroundings. Color, shape, texture, material and other expressive design are often expensive unfortunately no matter how welcomed it would be to the public. That's all I wanted to say.
Glass allows us to bring in more light without the chaos of the city!
We just need to use it in a tasteful manner.
Joannot Fampionona But if you are outside, the glass is just reflective. It doesn't welcome, it doesn't comfort, it doesn't calm.
Joannot Fampionona look at the two skyscrapers in Mississauga Ontario perfect example their arcatectually beautiful
Joannot Fampionona modern architecture is horrible. It completely lacks culture, which is the entire reason why humans have architecture-to express culture and diversity. If every city just had glass walls and steel beams, there wouldn't be diversity. Modern architecture actually decreases the quality of living for nearby residents because the buildings just stand out and are simply an eyesore.
IHateHaters
I think you may not know what you are talking about ...
Culture: 1. the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
2. the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society
If hypothetically every single person on earth had homes entirely built of glass, it wouldn't be a lack of culture, it would be *our* culture. And even then we couldn't say that there is no diversity because if you look at all glass buildings there are on Google, you may find an obvious pattern (Cubism) but there is still diversity. and even if there is no diversity, there is more to a building than appearance.
So saying that modern architecture completely lacks culture only shows some ignorance from your part since you don't really use the word culture properly. try to rephrase what you said without the world culture and your hypothesis will fall apart or will have a different meaning...
perhaps you just meant it as "it lacks diversity" (and it would be repeating yourself) but then I say perhaps, But glass can be shaped in an infinity of combination so diversity can be overcome by using it in various shape. just Google "glass building" and you'll see a very wide range of forms you may find those building beautiful ( I particularly love the reflection of the glass, it blends so well with the sky, in environments like woods, the reflection automatically integrates the building with the trees, it integrates very well in almost any environment.
There is a reason it's so often used, it's because most people find it beautiful (I am one of those people, you may not be). It's very useful as well, because you don't need to use as much artificial light, it's environmentally friendly and saves energy, it's cheap to produce (even cheaper than plastic), it's super durable, easy to clean.
You may not really like this material but history clearly shows that it has many advantages over just stone buildings and this is why architects use it more and more and same can't be says for stone, concrete really is way more flexible and therefore more use in modern architecture.
you say that expressing culture and diversity is the entire reason why humans have architecture. Do you actually stand by that?
I just want to point out that saying you don't like may be true, saying it's horrible isn't.
Joannot Fampionona A world were everyone lives in glass domes is a world I wouldn't want to live in. Glass lacks story and background (and privacy). If you look at early American architecture, you have an insight of what kind of lives early Americans lived in. About a century from now, humans would look at oddly shapes of glass called buildings and say "Oh cool...glass." Glass has no cultural value because pretty much every civilization is using it. there's no difference from an American skyscraper to a Chinese skyscraper, its just the same boring buildings. Yet if you look at a Western building about a century ago, you could tell it was Western from the distinctive shapes and curves. Its the same for old Chinese architecture. Architecture is directly linked to our history and culture. Some modern architecture can be neat, but using glass is kind of unoriginal in my book.
the main reason they use glass is because it ends up being a lighter material they can build bigger structures easier. Earthquakes and other disasters are far more dangerous in structures that arent like this.(with glass) glass is more flexible then cement and steel but also stronger, at least the glass they use on the towers your on about, the glass isnt as weak as a pint glass for example... it is far stronger.
These skyscrapers are so tall that wind makes them move higher up if you built them with brick they would just collapse.
Yes variety is good. but all architects would prefer a stable building, it's not good for business if they destroy themselves.
Also, pretty much this entire talk is your opinion which is fine, but i happen to like them, i like alot of londons buildings not alot are glass.
He's not talking about the individual buildings themselves, but the effect of too much glass and concrete on the city itself, making it more unfriendly than a mix of materials.
I live in NYC, and we are having a building boom of these glass boxes, and they are a very cold environment compared to the buildings they are replacing, and not just because of their larger scale.
He didn't say we should build the towers from bricks! He was talking about the facade!
I think the best solution is to build lower levels (say top 3-5 levels with traditional materials and then build further levels with glass towers. (A long time ago I thought it would be neat to re-build the World Trade Centers with a Stone/masonry foundation followed by a Steal mid section with a glass upper section. Mind you not a actual stone foundation but with a stone/masonry facade over the steal/concrete.
William T. Sherman Great solution. I saw a hospital like this, classical facade on the bottom, modern design higher up, in Montreal, and it was beautiful and pleasant to walk by.
The glass buildings even reflect the sunlight mostly onto the ground and makes cities much more hotter !!
At 5:00 he talks about the "glass cage" of PPG Place in Pittsburgh...He does know that PPG stands for Pittsburgh Plate Glass right? It would be ironic if it were made of anything else. I actually like PPG Place, but that's just my opinion.
So many holes in this video, the comments cannot hold them all.
If it was made of something different they'd probably just give it a different name, einstein.
@@sebastiaandewit159 That's exactly what I was going to say.
@@sebastiaandewit159 No no, there's a company called Pittsburg Plate Glass. PPG Industries. And PPG Place is their headquarters, so they couldn't call it 'something else' really (without completely rebranding).
Architectural critic or not, his speech is college freshman level. Almost all of his "success examples" are of buildings that are not more than 10 floors high. The only good example he's giving (which includes copper details) is mainly glass covered tower. Glass reflects the sky and prevents the skyline to feel overcrowded and jarring (especially seen from street level). I live in NY and there are plenty of buildings which use other materials, but if the city had only them it would have felt overwhelming.
But is it an excuse to do the same glass boxes everywhere?In NY we have the Chrysler Building and the Empire State,two beautiful buildings.Also,medieval artists show us how to use glass to make masterpieces in catedrals,why do we need to use the same grey smooth panel everywhere?It isn't a excuse to make the skyline less overcrowded by using the same gray,smooth panels everywhere.Why not using overhangs?Arches?Spires?Balustades?Rather than make buildings tower-like,why not castle-like?
The point is:why must you make your building the same as everyone else:A Glass box?Why not using other materials where glass isn't needed,or use stained glass in beautiful ways?Limitations in budget and time can be a huge factor,but how much is the lack of creativity of these architects the fault behind these bland buildings?
Oh come on, it would look totally epic. Overwhelming? How? It's amazing people can just use knee jerk buzzwords like that and everyone agrees with it without second thought. Glass buildings are just as visible as non-glass buildings, the only difference is that they're totally cold, uninviting and depressing. Depression can also be "overwhelming". Anything can be overwhelming, saying something is overwhelming is not an argument.
TED: 9.6 million subscribers but still not Verified.
now 19.2 million subscribers and STILL NOT VERIFIED lol
Totally agree that glass is not sufficiently expressive, but Superkilen in Copenhagen sucks.
Superkilen's superficial
This is exactly what I've been banging on about for years
Random reflections on corrugated facade is not like "a symphony of glass", it's merely like white noise.
3:25 I admit, that when I was in Salamanca the central Plaza had a kind of "theatrical" feel to it, due to it's deep history and distinct look. It is also true, that it was a meeting place for tourists and locals alike, through all the ages - there were even some stray cats.
BUT, there was a really substantial lack of trees - or any green at all for that matter. Sitting in the middle of this giant "stone bowl" (the ground is slightly angled towards the center) felt like being in the middle of a lifeless stone desert. Especially during the midday heat.
To me, the importance of green for the livelyhood of a city cannot be understated. Let's start building citys that are actually nice to live in, not just citys that are nice to look at.
A few youtube videos below his is the time-lapse of Chanel's store facade reconstruction to glass. It is a spectacular presentation. Not at all Rod McKuen's " 'Little Boxes' and they're all made of ticky tacky".
Wow, very well articulated ❤️ I love architecture
this is great talk!! i Love
The flammable cladding of Grenfell Tower is one of the results of this issue.
Great speech! Very thought provoking.
I think glass towers look pretty...
All those "good" plazas are just flat concrete with very little green or trees... Sad.
Very great video!
Although when visiting a place I agree with him, as someone currently both living and working in mainly-glass buildings in London, having lots of light inside makes my life significantly more pleasant, even if neither building is warm and inviting from the outside. His perspective is solely as an observer, and not as a user.
He mentions the fact that real estate prices are driving lower income people out of cities but then goes on to laude boutique projects and expensive artistic structures.. Sometimes what we need isn't an artpiece, an urban meetingplace or a boutique project, oftentimes all you really need is a home you can afford.
Agreed though it doesn't need to look ugly while being cheap to build
I don't know how it works outside of America, but our biggest problem in this country in that regard is our extreme focus on housing as an investment. Conservative cities construct whatever maximizes the value for the landowner while liberal cities become so defensive they restrict new housing until it is scarce. What we get is housing that is limited in it's color pallet because of concern for resale value, housing that is boring because buildings that hold opinions risk getting blocked by planning offices, towers that can't have personality in shape because they may alter the skyline too much, and housing for the masses that simply attempts to be inoffensive to everyone resulting in something that pleases no one. Rich or poor most Americans participate in this mindset that strangles our ability to provide sufficient amounts of good housing.
The speaker is fantastic at rhetoric. What he presents, though, is his own personal taste.
I see an eyesore at 1:03 rather than a building with character and texture. They seem to have started walkways to a future building. The second building hasn’t been built. The residents are stuck with half-completed walkways to nowhere. Also, he romanticizes the past. Houses with stoops like in 1:30 were designed that way so that doorways were above the piles of horse manure.
At 4:48, he characterizes the modern looking plaza as so uninviting that office workers hurry through it but “otherwise spend as little time as possible” in it. Quite a few people are in the picture. Many of those people are clustered in small groups, indicating that many people stop and congregate together in that plaza. In fact, that space is more crowded than the “successful” plazas he shows at 5:58 and 6:02. Look especially at 6:02, no clusters of congregated people and a large fraction of the small number of people present appear to be riding or walking bicycles. If I didn’t know better, I would have thought he accidentally swapped photos.
What good cities need, is both. People, don't be extremists, manichean, black&white... Life is balance.
One of a kind architecture, high-end beauty palaces or whatever modern homes, towers, rich stuff... AND common housing ..that looks as nice as possible, too. What would our city centers and countries look like, without the work of the richest? King's palaces, Bourgeois boulevards, shiny bridges and monuments? Nobody would come visit Paris, or Newyork, we would all stay at home getting bored. Nice world...
Very interesting to learn more about what drives american cities, thanks!
But strangely, you find also very beautiful housing and buildings in north america, i really enjoyed those victorian neighbourhoods, all traditionnal styles and even commonplace american houses, and town-houses, and many skyscrapers.
I love modern skyscrapers!
The glass covered high rise became ubiquitous after WW2, because they are cheap to build and maintain. Before that buildings were built with pride and it showed in the design, quality and craftsmanship, such as the Chrysler building.
It can look a lot alike when it isn't glass-scrapers as well. Just watch the movie metropolis from 1927. It's like a prediction of how New York might have looked if it never abandoned the concrete style. Even so, I can see certain differences in the architecture of the buildings in metropolis and on many of the glass-scrapers you are showing here.
Although I am not a fan of glass, it cannot be worse than some of the modern architecture monstrosities that we’re shown as alternatives.
This man just voiced my feelings about major downtowns worldwide. I never knew exactly what it was, but it is indeed glass. It makes cities so impersonal, blank, and homogenous.
Lets differentiate architecture once more, and start using more than just glass and concrete.
Thomas van Eldik Like marble, for instance. Or limestone.
In years where I lived in regions of vast flatlands, the mirrored building structures were welcomed, and served to realign the "its so flat and empty" mentality, and restored the original "endless horizon of opportunity" perspective. A terrific creativity injection.
Even just agreeing to not have the whole outside be glass would be enough. I bet it was groundbreaking to have a glass tower at first, but it has worn off
I like all the buildings! Don't pick on these ones just cuz their glass Justin!!!!
Okay, I don't agree that glass is bad. I know a TON of glass buildings in New York that look incredible. I do, however, agree that we should focus on building a wide range of unique buildings (shape, architecture design, materials used). As time progresses we will always see certain architecture come into fashion. I despise the sameness of the 70's and 80's concrete buildings, but they eventually went out of vogue. Glass structure may or may not go out of vogue, but I do believe we will see them become more unique and artistic over time.
The problem is that most of the buildings that he praised lack windows. You go in these buildings and it's eternal night! If I buy an apartment, I want a maximum of natural light and therefore windows.
AWESOME video!
He doesn't argue "these are the most beautiful buildings and we had ought to make them this way," instead he's arguing that architecture should reflect the people and the place, not pure expedience. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so what some appreciate will always offend others, but with nothing ventured there's nothing gained. He's right to compare buildings to people - a boring city makes bored people, an uncomfortable one makes people unsociable, but an artful cityscape brings the best out of people.
He shows PPG plaza as a "dark black cage" and fails to mention Market Square, which is 30m away and full of an eclectic mix of detail.
One advantage of glass is that it reflects light. As a city builds more and higher towers, there is more shadow. Glass buildings can be designed to spread the light around so the streets don't become gloomy.
I guess you are American, reflecting light is a huge disadvantage because it produces more heat and therefore more global warming...
Glass doesn't produce heat. The Sun produces heat.
The Tesla Gigafactory when complete is going to be approx. 13 million sq ft. Can this kind of square footage be built on a much smaller footprint and go vertical and house people? Okay lets make it smaller, 5 million sq ft. Let's say each person needs at least 250 sq ft of living space (it's a squeeze but people all over the world have much less) that's enough living space for 20,000 people. Add another 1 million sq ft for elevators and other infrastructure, meeting spaces and retail. Now let's put this on a one acre footprint (43,560 sq ft). That equals 138 stories. This should not be much of a problem as far as engineering. Change the footprint to be on a two acre plot and you will be at 69 stories. These kind of buildings are capable of being built today in inner cities. This kind of footprint can be found. Who will be brave enough to change the way we live in cities with affordable space for all income levels? Who will be the Elon Musk of a new way of building in our cities? The money is there is the willingness? Oh, and no parking, no need.
GREAT talk. I loved it and 100% agree.
I think ted finally realized that people value quality over quantity rather then having a ton of videos there focusing on making them good
I didnt find this video particularly good, but I do like being able to watch TED talks on youtube
maxybaer123 Couldn't agree more 👌
And it's rather fucking THAN !
>When Ted posts more than 20 videos each day
It's also they're not there
Not just a mildly interesting talk. At 11:13 is the exact point where I favourited and shared haha
Emory Parkway Medical Center on Thornton and I-20 in 9/11/2001 was not a target. So 5 months later the hospital closed and 2 years later a hospital only 27 years old was demolished for a Home Depot Superstore. Why? It was 5 seconds from Charlie Brown jets. He did not mention the vulnerability of glass buildings to jets.
Said by the man in the black suit, no tie and white shirt. Clothing would be a better analogy than airline food. He's not wearing some avant garden fashion statement and no basic printed t shirt either. Maybe because it looks more professional, or because he likes the simplicity, or as a statement of status. Consider that most skycrapers contain offices, they mean professional work in a space were many people come to few space. And even then, these building still "make sense" by his own definition. A bank in a finance center of the world might want to be awe inspiring, delivering a message of "this company is an empire, its huge and powerful. This company stands today, as it will tomorrow"
If you look at all buildings from the 90's around the world they are look the same. Highrises from the 1930's around thr world they all look the same. This is nothing new and it is NOT a problem. It's the modern transformation of cities. It's beautiful. And he only showed the "boxy" boring examples. If you look at all glass towers (and not the very very limited bottom examples he did), their is great difference and variation between them. Now we can have curved towers, arched towers, gravity defying towers, different colored glass. More variation than ever. Don't let the few awful examples he showed you, skew the actuality.
I advise you to look at the 'modernism era' of architecture (1940-1980). Look at these buildings then tell me that all the new buildings look the same. You can't
So how come the two examples cited as succeeding were almost completely devoid of people in the photos shown?
Glass buildings would be easier to take if there were some actual quality and originality in the designs, but in stead we are treated either to some random mannered version of "originality" or just another glass box, like all the rest. It gets old quickly.
Nice speech, Roark.
This is fantastic.
This a really good video, because it's an important topic! I don't wanna live in a glass cabinet where I can see my self 24 hours per day and I wanna sit against a cold stone wall, not against a hot glass mirror. I wanna have shadows and not sun for the whole day and I wanna live in a city with below 35° C. Glass reflects light and produceses therefore a lot more heat. I would end as a grilled chicken if I stayed next to glass buildings.
vary interesting and important issue.
I think concrete glass and steel could make cool looking cities if architects fully embrased the cyberpunk futuristic vibe they can give off, and designed some cool buildings and infrastructure with bright lights, and cool, interesting geometric shapes that compliment the surrounding buildings, instead of just making a bunch of boring boxes that are designed to exist in a vacuum. Give a city it's own style rather than just copy pasting the same exact glass box design 100 times in every city in the world.
Bravo!
Loved the eloquence and the compelling arguments.
Sao Paulo Real Estate broker who got tired of seeing the same lifeless structures gaining ground over beauty for the sake of progress.
A straight copycat of American design from the HVAC, through facades, and tasteless lobbies. Corning and Santa Marina must be making a pretty buck out here. From the most outlandish projects down to the less glamurous addresses, they are building desolate places at breakneck pace.
Luckily Historic Downtown isn't torn down, in many ways by force of landmark decrees, and the deep pockets of State and Municipal Governments who bought many of public buildings at discount rates. Yet many buildings are in a state of disrepair. A few are getting overdue renovations by savvy property owners or public agencies with the budget and the will to get it done.
It would be fantastic if we found a keynote speech spot for this man out here. We need this kind of speaking mind to stirr things up here.
Justin Davidson, your name is in my rolodex.
thaaaank youuuuu.
Glass belongs in places that get cold--the greenhouse effect would benefit those buildings.
Very good.
I blame van der Rohe and Pei for the overuse of glass
someone tell Seattle it's getting ridiculously accurate to this Ted Talks
Remind me of David Owen's book Green Metropolitan, but only office buildings replicate in exact same glass forms, not all architectures.
glass serves as a window that makes the person to feel open or comfortable some have Claustrophobia.
and glass helps a lot. you may use glass or not, i still use glass whenever i like!
Surely makes sense !!
You could put a stone facade with shapes, colors, and engraves at the bottom of skyscrapers so that at street level it feels nice.
The talk raises a lot of points not necessarily specifically related to glass towers - he uses glass towers as a symptom of a wider problem facing cities; identity in a global age, homogenisation & critical regionalism, history, scale, activation at the ground plane, economic inequality, and of course - materiality.
To be fair in all the places he pointed out as not having people there, I couldn't see anywhere to sit down
Then how about making glass brick windows - the bricks are separated by the building's material and it adds a little bit of a texture.
+ Loved the TED show. :3
“Just because a facade is superficial doesn’t mean it’s not also deep” uhh somethings not right there
Why I love the Netherlands over Belgium, brick vs concrete and beautiful tiled roofs at a 45° angle vs flat roofs
I agree. glass are over rated. They should add more trees, vines or plant wall boards around the glass and it will look more warmer. Everything is a matter of contrast and balance.
If you have a beautiful desert to build a city in, one of the first preconceptions you're free to discard as useless in the notion that there's anything necessary about the tower configuration. Outside the constrictions imposed by the past in most cities, what you can do is build a Line.
And its facade? You can make that ego-free if you don't allow other buildings to the sides. Make it a mirror, and your building looks either like a beautiful desert, or like a beautiful sky, depending on where you observe it from.
(That's not to say there's no need for any decorative architecture in which the world, itself, is decorative. At ground level, one could build experimental structures largely aimed at attempting to be visually pleasing in a nice, tradition-respecting organic-looking (well "organic" in a way that Nature is not, somehow) way. There's no hurry to make a hundred of them to order, though. Maybe leave some space for future development - taking due care to make sure they don't become little carcenoma seed points, from which sprawl can ooze out of, and bring about the Paving of the desert.
(There's one thing that's INorGanIc about even the nicest building: it's that it's always Paving, if you look down on in from directly above. The building itself "paves" some earth, and then the service roads, sidewalks parking spaces, etc add to that. In a sense one could call a lawn "green paving", even. It's not beautiful from all angles. Probably not as nice as having a desert in a View, either.)
Glass towers are better functionally than if the windows were smaller - letting in light and opening up the inside means you don't feel disconnected with the world; it's stupid wanting to make living and working in them worse just for aesthetics - I can see a place for this texture for the first half dozen floor at eye level but don't compromise the quality of using the building.
What he calls beauty is completely subjective, his idea of beauty is my idea of impracticality and it is ugly; my idea of beauty includes a lot of glass to make the inside of buildings feel open, he calls ugly because the outside looks plain (you can add curves if you want.
Lots of the buildings he has shown are either buildings which don't need much light (museums and galleries) which don't reflect what he is trying to say about all the glass towers - museums and galleries already strive for artsy buildings, or do have a lot of glass but with a bit of extra material (which I do love and is something we both like, it doesn't appear to compromise the quality of the inside) which is what he should have headlined this talk about rather than acting all whiny and like it was better in the old days.
He should have made this talk about how to make glass towers better, there are glass towers that use local materials, there are glass towers with gardens all around it, there are glass towers which are aware of their surroundings, glass towers are not bad for city life at all - they could be improved without ruining the purpose of glass (also why are views in NYC so expensive? Because people want to live in glass towers)
I see why he is an architecture critic and not an architect, he hasn't actually ever met anyone who has worked on or lives/works in a glass tower and just saw really old imperial buildings which are a terrible use of space if they were made now. This talk was super dumb.
Also he never mentioned Vancouver - so he really knows nothing about how glass cities look
he hates glass like i hate brick
mcrettable I don't particularly like brick either but that's mainly because it's one of the lesser used materials in my area, wher most brick is associated with prussian "freeing" from napoleon.
All of connotations materials can have for you/ your area should be considered including glass
PPG Place (which was built as a HQ of a GLASS company) might look like a "cage" to this speaker, but as a native to Pittsburgh, I've never thought that way. When I remember it, I hear the laughter and screams of children as they run through the jets of water and the murmur of workers conversing as they eat their lunches at the tables. As a child I called it "the glass castle." The glass walls of the plaza felt like protection from a busy city life, definitely a place to "hang out." To each their own.
Pre-hispanic. what a fascinating statement. I've never heard that before.
Im architect from Yemen I’m very happy when he mentions about Yemen 1:01
That's a beautiful neighborhood. I'm dying to visit once the conflict is over
I'd enjoy his point if it wasn't so much centered around city centers. This architectural poverty is much more significant in suburbs.
Skyscrapers aren't like airline food. They're like aeroplanes. He is saying we should have wooden and brick planes as well as steel ones.
I think glass buildings are fine, just maybe add more creative lighting, and plants? Plants also help clear the air like mentioned, while also making the city more inviting and beautiful.
Though something I'm surprised he didn't mention in his long rant about glass buildings was the impact on city animals. Birds are always flying into those mirrored buildings. I would think that would be a good argument to bring up... but nope.
Nah.. When a building exceeds a certain height I think glass facades are the most appealing option besides being practical. Incorporating historical elements in towns we can agree on but not in skyscrapers and office buildings.
1:03 where does this building is located?
If these towers weren’t glass, the street would be dark. The glass reflects sunlight down.
Was I the only one who had to go back to 1:48 for some "eye bleach"? The buildings that he showed off after them looked horrible and twisted like something had gone wrong in construction, while i couldn't get over how good the reflection looked in the glass buildings and how the flat surfaces gave you the ability to still see the top edge and just imagine how tall they are and be amazed.
glass doesn't just offer views, it also decreases energy usage by letting natural light flow into the building.
MassDynamic And then increases it right back by requiring the AC to be running 24/7 all year round. Also, that light isn't always a good thing - being blinded by sunlight at your desk isn't great, neither is the inevitable greenhouse effect indoors
Architecture reached its peak in the 14th/15th century in my opinion
All of Canada feels like that to me! [I suppose population density /walkable towns make a difference in Europe, having 2000 years of trial and error [some of wichs products still last] helps the cityscape]
Since the 1960's environmental psychologists have been publishing an extensive body of research proofing the importance of using building materials with texture in them and complexity in facades. It's nowhere near as subjective as most of us are told to to believe. 95%* of people share 95%* of their aesthetic preferences.
Justin Davidson makes some very good points. Architects and developers really should listen less to each other and their peers and more to the general public. People are happier when surrounded by buildings made with local materials and in vernacular styles. In some situations glass and steel are the best choices to fit a building in a beautiful cityscape, but in many more wood, brick and natural stone are the better choice by far.
I'm willing to bet quite a lot that anyone who claims they don't find the buildings he shows in the beginning beautiful, is an architect or designer or otherwise not a layperson on this subject.
*I don't have the exact figures, but it's in that order of magnitude.
"Without backing away from Modernity" he says, as though that were a good thing.
Brick? Stone? Wood? What if parchment were used for the walls, as Japan often does?
It's about efficiency, building tall and not sprawling far.
No it's about making more money that's all. People just build them in order to make even more money
I disagree. I really like the aspect of a well designed glass building, like the taipei 101, the burj khalifa or the petronas towers.
And covary to what the speakers state, place de La Defense was one of the places I liked most in Paris.
good one 😉
Simplicity and functionality can be beautiful as well. It's perspective I guess.
I think he should have focused on materials from the surround areas. And industries that would benefit from a change of architecture instead of moaning on about how glass is boring.
Funny, just yesterday , 5/24/19 , I was across the hideous copper building in NYC and my friend and I were commenting on how ugly it is....I previously took a ferry from Long Island City and got off at E. 34. The damned thing is *HIDEOUS* . Other than that sad example, NYC's NEW modern architecture is just *SIGH...SPECTACULAR !!! ~;)
At least stop coating glass in highly reflective material! I live in Toronto, and it sucks to walk through basically a death-beam everyday. I hear it's worse in other cities.
Cool
I think that graffitis are part of the solution. Giving space for graffitis gives space for art, for individuality.