Looking at the underground homes for the workers in Metropolis and thinking : Whoa they can afford those apartments on a working mans salary ? What a utopia!
Well, they didn't have Starbucks... Temu.... Shein... iPhones... Netflix.... Uber eats and other crap to waste their money on, thats how they could afford that. Or so legends has it...
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod That is indeed a legend, because in reality the houses are more than twice as expensive as they were back then, Netflix and Uber Eats don't quite account for the difference.
It seems to me the solution is make movies where people live is a distopian society of livable, walkable, beautiful cities with culturally enriching architecture. Then, just give it a couple of decades and the problem will be solved!
I’ve gotta say, if the LA of blade runner got some support for the poor and better hygiene systems, it would be a loooooot more livable than the LA we’ve got now
In many ways, the cities of the future America is building now are WORSE than the dystopian cities cyberpunk imagined, because those at least had sensible Japanese zoning, with human sized pathways (of course portrayed as dingy alleys), active street markets and actual nightlife 😂
I always find it quite remarkable how the living conditions in the early 20th century are romanticized without question. Nice examples of grand boulevards are used as examples. Unfortunately, the living conditions of the working class are forgotten. Rooms were inhabited by shifts, with sometimes catastrophic sanitary conditions. This is constantly forgotten in such videos.
Adding on to your point, the grand boulevards that Paris has now displaced thousand s of working class citizens. In fact they were controversial at the time, not just for the reasons I listed, but the people that were displaced weren’t even allowed to move into the new buildings…
@@CreativeUsernameHere-r1k "Painful" is stubbing your toe or getting an injection. Things that are unpleasant, but not really harmful. "Painful" is not the word to describe losing one's home. That is harmful and destructive. Progress should not be harmful and destructive.
As important as architecture is for all of us, it is not a remedy to poverty and inequality. The craziness for simple and efficient created those horrible buildings since the 1930's everywhere
In some people’s head they just think of classical as anything old. They don’t describe a particular time period or in this case an architectural style.
If you look at how beautiful our cities were in the 1950s, it's clear we should have done more to protect our historic buildings. Instead, we embarked on a reckless demolition spree, tearing down architectural treasures to make way for cold, soulless structures of glass and steel. The result is a cityscape that often feels disconnected from its past, lacking the character and charm that once defined it. Take New York City, for example. In the mid-20th century, we lost iconic buildings like the original Penn Station, a masterpiece of Beaux-Arts design, which was demolished in 1963 to make way for the current steel-and-glass monstrosity. The beautiful old Singer Building, once the tallest building in the world, was also razed in 1968. Then there was the demolition of the lavish Astor Hotel in 1967, a symbol of old-world elegance. These were buildings full of history, craftsmanship, and soul-replaced by structures that lack the warmth and beauty of their predecessors. We should have focused on preserving these architectural gems instead of trading them for the sterile, generic towers we see today. The loss of these buildings is a reminder of what happens when we prioritize progress over preservation, and it’s a regret that many of us feel now, as we walk past the glass and steel that dominates our city streets.
Romanian here, you do not know the half of it, many, many historical old style buildings were torn down during the communist's reigns that destroyed our capital of Bucharest, called the Little Paris of Eastern Europe, the same was about Poland and several parts of Germany, Austria and Hungary were many historical classic buildings were torn down in the name of "progress", for many neo-classic & art deco lovers like myself, buildings like the Chrysler & Empire State Building are hope that one day we could return to such a thing, there an already a growing national history pride in Europe, to try and preserve, restore and upgrade some of them, wiring, piping, heating, gas etc, The burning & restoration of Notre Dame is perhaps the sign we needed to start a new path from this capitalist socialist insanity, that modernism has brought in,
In Germany it's worse, WWII destroyed many many beautiful old towns (because of you know who...). The eastern replacement: totalitarian blocks, the western replacement: brutalism and utilitarianism. Latter is way way way worse! Ugly, dirty, chaotic and scary. Also, not sure about Romania, but in Germany it seems that people do not care about what IS left, they pollute beautiful old facades with mindless spray painting, throw garbage in otherwise beautiful old streets. In one word: it's a mess post-apocalyptic mess and people seem to celebrate it!???
Europe has been in a slow decline for over a 100 years.. and its wrong to blame this on nazi germany cause honestly we could replaced everything that was lost even with communism when that ended we could have restored them but we didnt and we probably wont cause more and more we build with modern architecture this is our leaders fault and the ppls fault for not demanding that we replace everything that was lost during the dark days of communism and both wws that left most of Europe in ruins still im really happy that they are rebuilding Notre Dame to what it was and didnt go with the "modernisation" of it cause there would be nothing more signalising how Europe has lost everything.
In my opinion, the two major things that destroyed our cities were: 1) Allowing private cars into cities. This inevitably led to cities being designed around cars rather than people, and now that the cities have been built we have to have cars in order to live in them. 2) Zoning laws that banned organic mixed use development. Traditional cities had a jumble of residential, retail and commercial spaces all mixed together, often in the same building. Use was determined by natural supply and demand, not bureaucratic diktat. Put these two things together and you end up with inhuman and alienating cities that are literally bad for our psychological health.
you're right on #2, but not on #1 People use cars because it's convenient. The problem is when it's the ONLY convenient way to move around, everyone will use it. Good affordable public transportation solves that problem. Trains are great for hauling large volumes of people quickly without covering it in tarmac. Buses are great for spreading that volume around through planned avenues. Add taxis for those special cases (you need to get there really fast, you're carrying things, etc) and you don't need a car. I live in such a city and I know many who can afford a car yet don't own one (there are some difficult areas though). I lived in a smaller city where taxis jacked up prices and buses are really scarce for some reason while the train only gets you to other cities...... and yeah everyone drives everywhere.
A huge one: 3) Architects, planners, construction crews, and investors all found that modernism and minimalism are FAR cheaper than having any ornamentation.
I think what also made cities and towns ugly is that nowadays people only design buildings and neighborhoods behind a desk, and on a drawing. With duplicates and fast cheap building methodes. In the past people designed more on location, and people just saw if it's fit in its environment, or if its fit together. And what the feeling was of the area. They made a nice environment. Especially a few centuries ago.
Its funny if the people who pay for these buildings (usually corporations or governments) asked and were willing to pay the premium for the extra work needed,most architecture and engineering firms would gladly design in these older styles. The problem is turbo short term cost minded neoliberal governments go with whats the cheapest bare minimum while corporations love the modernist style for how spirit crushingly boring it is.
You're focusing on architectural styles, but what you should be focusing on is scale. The dystopian cities in those movies are massive, with the intention of dwarfing the humanity that live in them. Whereas the cities you seem to prefer are smaller scaled, with shorter buildings and more open space. Building scale is what makes a city either a pleasant place to be, or a nightmare to live in.
They're not separate factors though. Skyscrapers can only be one thing, more or less. 4-5 storey buildings can be anything. Form and function must be in harmony.
Of course. This was just specifically talking about futuristic city depictions. Although I think Logan's Run falls in line with non-street level city design.
That is preposterous and demonstrably untrue. Are strip malls and stroads irritating and poor for traditional village/community life? Absolutely. But are suburban areas worse than giant metropolitan cities full of concrete and steel towers? Definitely not.
@@RextheRebel a city of concrete and steel towers is too vague. The West End neighbourhood of Vancouver for example is full of 1960s era modernist towers but manages to be an extremely livable and beautiful neighborhood, full of parks, trees, greenery, etc. I think what matters more is the layout on the street than the layout in the sky. The same buildings can make entirely different neighborhoods simply based on their arrangement and streetscape
@@RextheRebelIf I had to chose I would take condensed, utilitarian steel towers over endless parking lots, and unsustainable suburbs, with a fertilized lawns that create algae blooms in nearby waterways. At least metropolis isn't a huge tax burden like suburbs.
Logan's Run feels like a finished suburb. The idea that all these indoor spaces would be connected by automated transit, so they could be spread far apart and still be reachable. Fairlane Mall in Dearborn once had a monorail connecting it with the now closed Hyatt hotel, but it seems like that was the exception.
Modern design sometimes undervalues the human need for privacy and space to thrive individually. The cultural narrative dismisses solitude as loneliness, overlooking the restorative power of natural environments and personal space. I used to work in a high-rise in downtown Los Angeles, and I always found the atmosphere dreary and uninviting. Riding the elevator every day, moving between floors, felt like a chore. I still vividly remember an earthquake that sent a wave of panic through everyone in the building. Lately, I've been reflecting on how urban environments often seem detrimental to mental well-being. In contrast, hiking in the mountains brings me a profound sense of peace and comfort. It makes me wonder-what kind of neurotic anxious minds shaped this modern world that feels so far removed from what nurtures us??
You are absolutely right. I would love it if governments around the world would take this more seriously. Although, think about how the cyberpunk, skyscraper feel actually adds to t(e odd few cities. Great work.
One thing to consider as we assess the preserved old centers of beautiful cities is that they are now sanitized. The Medieval core of Rouen is quaint today, but that's because the city now has a modern sanitation system, horses aren't pooping and pissing all over the muddy streets, and (by the industrial era) smoke-belching factories and furnaces aren't turning the air into black pea soup. Riquewihr is a preserved fairytale today, but life would have been very different for people living when those buildings were new. Concepts like LeCorbusier's Garden City and modern American suburbs arose as a direct response to the blight of crowded cities. People wanted the "health" of the country with the convenience of the city. We are fortunate today that we can recreate the convenience of the density of ancient city centers and keep it more sanitary than ever before.
What a great video! I love when futurism builds on the past instead of tearing it down. One of the images you showed was from Utropiia (look it up if you haven't guys, it's astounding!), a passion project by someone who has a deep appreciation for art, history and elevating it to the next level in his composite images, of which there are hundreds, each one as breathtaking as the last.
One effect that's almost always overlooked is how buildings appear when juxtaposed with each other. Having sets of buildings in very similar styles, of similar height, with similar ornamentation, is a hallmark of the European cities chosen here as examples of appealing architecture. The buildings in today's modernist cities are individual edifices of different heights, colors, and styles, and the effect is often jarring and chaotic. More effort needs to be put into having an overall concept, not just of a skyline, but of how the city should appear from the ground.
That's why, imo, NYC is a beautiful city and Dubai is ugly. NYC has a variety of building styles, spanning at least 2 centuries, with varying heights and uses. Whereas a city like Dubai was built all at once and doesn't have the same charm or aesthetic as a city that grew organically over time.
Uniformity can be rather dull. After living for so long in the wildly diverse architectural chaos of Bucharest, I don't see myself living in most places around, say, the Netherlands, I admire their perfect architecture from a distance, but I can't relate.
hey! I just discovered your channel yesterday and cannot stop watching!! Your expertise on these topics is absolutely invaluable and I truly enjoy the way you structure the stories and compose the videos. Keep it up! Maybe a bit of advice: I would suggest to make patreon-exclusive content because looking at the perks of yours now are not really alluring for most. A shoutout means nothing, really. But I would love to support your work nonetheless! Greetings from a Bulgarian living in Amsterdam: As someone who grew up amidst brutalism, I am thankfu every day that I can enjoy the beauty and magic of this city.
I think a good city has a mixed of old style architecture but with some new skyscrapers and keep the old buildings but build some beautiful sky scrapers and build highways underground and keep walk ways above ground
There's nothing wrong with cities going vertical. Cities going vertical is way to avoid sprawl, especially when you don't have much buildable land and/or a high population like Tokyo, New York, or Lagos. Manhattan is filled with skyscrapers but it is one if not the most lively and urbanist friendly places in the US. Lagos is going in the way of skyscrapers because it is a mega city that is set to grow by several million people in the next coming decade. There are a few problems with MODERN skyscrapers. * Lack of mixed use as they mostly tend to be glass office space - When skyscrapers are mixed use, you can have restaurants, hotels, and observation decks open to the public and less "rich enclaves" * Glass is inefficient at using energy * Architecturally bland - older skyscrapers like the Tribune Tower, Empire State Building, and Flatiron building do not have this problem * Not built near transit in some cases (Dubai's Burj Khalifa) - When they are built in city centers, you can put a lot people near things like trains, buses, or streetcars To make it short, going vertical makes sense when you have a high population and low land. Vertical buildings can also be integrated in the streetscape with businesses on ground floors.
its nice seeing someone address the other part of this. theres so many architecture videos talking about how boring these towers are, but i work in a local government and we just spent millions building a wildly overbudget but pretty health center with a kinda donut shape and a unique style thats not nearly so robust as a cookie cutter box building with a standard layout. for the price of this thing we could have built enough spare apartments to house the whole homeless population and pay for the maintenance for 5 years.
@@lunaris69 The homeless issue doesn't have a problem with lack of apartments, but with money. There are plenty of empty apartments being available for rent. Landowners need to be regulated and there should be limit on how many apartments/houses one person/company can own and rent.
@@Tinnuent We've already paved too much of the world. Building even more cities is the last thing we need to do. Increasing density is how we avoid infinite sprawl.
Lovely video! Most dream of an italian village yet expect the future to look modernist dystopian. That tells you a lot why the movement and this channel is so important.
I think you might find Chongqing interesting. It's planned with a Chinese emphasis on modernity, but the chaotic streetfronts, old areas, architectural quirks (eg. trees on buildings), and natural environment is a very nice contrast (it's nicknamed "mountain city" or 山城 in China). Besides Baidu Maps street view, idk any good English-language sources on the non-modern urbanism parts because the Chinese government isn't really proud of that (maybe tourism blogs/vlogs might have something?). In any case visiting is always ideal, it's a massive city for domestic tourism in China for a reason.
First of your videos I watched. Well my friend I am HOOKED. I love this sort of stuff, and mixing in the reasoning and history from famous movies just added to what made it great. I will look for more now!! Also, favourite Architecture style is Art deco, favourite building, the Chrysler Building
Glad to see someone call out I.M. Pei. He’s heralded as a great architect but most of his buildings are hideous. His legacy is ushering in one of the worst architectural eras ever.
i'm from one of the cities you listed that could be swapped out for LA, and i genuinely do not know which if any of the drone footage you used came from my city
Forest Hills at 1:49 was my beautiful neighborhood for 10 years, and that exact spot in the photo was my outdoor gathering spot during the endless Covid quarantine and summer of 2020... Had to pause it and take it in
All their jobs were outsourced so the young left for the growing cities. Wmen have been convinced to forgo motherhood and domestic duties, instead being encouraged to eliminate their own offspring to pursue their own career, subverting the value of labor in a tighter market with service predominant jobs. Those are the two major reasons.
@@RextheRebelThe thing is that the cost of living forces those dwelling in cities to do this. My mom tried to be a housewife but found it economically unfeasible after a certain point. She's not even traditionalist. She just wanted to make sure her children grew up with the mother she herself never had as a child.
@Laz7481 was your mom married when she had you and was she still with your father? I realize we don't live in a country where single income households exist but wmen entering the workforce is one of the original reasons for that.
@RextheRebel Yes, my mom was married when she had me. No, my parents are now divorced, although they did agree to joint custody. I can see why essentially doubling your labor force would lead to wage decline, but at the same time, leaving half the population to be fininancialy dependent isn't moral. Not that it matters now, seeing as nobody has financial freedom unless they find a very well paying job.
I would add that it does seem weird that they went for the dystopian aesthetic, however originally it made sense. There needed to be lots of rebuilding after WW2 and homes fit for heroes was a promise. Well having seperate kitchen and mutiple bedrooms an indoor bathroom. These are luxurious for the time and therefore, the buildings for the people at the time where wonderful. The issue is they were surprisingly cheap to make and when it comes to making money that is more important than everything else and that has pushed design from then on. Instead of the plain and frank ugliness of the buildings have functions working class people could only dream of. They just kept with what had now become the basics for all homes.
This video brought nothing new to me, but I still watched it and loved it as I thoroughly enjoy anything that agrees with the opinions that I have made.
@@connors3356 because suburbs are terrible I saw with my own eyes the country land and forests I grew up around turn into ugly rich homes for people out of state to move to it’s disgusting and needs to be stopped we need natural land not a bunch of spread out houses destroying beauty
@@markfreeman4727 In the past, cost of labor was cheap, very cheap, while cost of materials was high. Today it is the opposite, cost of materials is usually very cheap, compared to cost of labor. So in the past people had lots of time to refine the building materials and make everything look as detailed and pretty as possible because labor was so cheap, while today you want to build everything as fast as possible, with as much automatization and standardization as possible, because cost of labor is so high.
@@manmanman2000 ya i disagree, labor is not expensive, companies are very good at making certain that it's not and about cost, there are simple low cost and inexpensive ways you can make something look nice. And i'm not referring to the artistic master pieces of the past. I mean things that have a semblance of looking nice and are not just a plain eye sore. Think of it in terms of burgers. There are ways you can make a good burger for cheap, but everyone is choosing to make mcdonalds (may contain beef) slivers of meat. Sure it costs less and is fast...but i woudn't even call it a burger.
@@markfreeman4727 It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree. It is a fact, that in the past, the most expensive part of a construction project, by far, was cost of material, while labor cost was almost free. Today the most expensive part of a construction project is by far labor cost.
More curves and organic shapes, I say. I love nouveau architecture, particularly excessively organic designs like those of Antoni Gaudi. Also a big fan of all-natural designs in adobe, wood and turf. Green building ftw.
I see a couple of pictures of classic Philadelphia buildings in this video. You should see Louis Kahn's masterplan for Philly from the 1960s. It would have been an absolute hellscape had it gotten built. Ed Bacon was bad enough as he was, but Kahn with free reign would have been a whole extra step above.
This is another head in the cloud superiority complex but shallow analysis. So much gibberish words to evoke emotion without saying nothing concrete. Also comparing a cathedral to a residential/office building ( has he thought about that maybe indented usage is different?)
It would be cool to see some success stories where modernist style buildings have been replaced with something more tasteful. I think you include an example of one around 12:05, but learning about other instances - or even just proposals - would be interesting. Maybe ID some of the most 'endangered' modernist buildings that we may see replaced with better structures in the next few years?
I would happily make those kinds of videos. The Aesthetic City's video on Le Plessis Robinson is a standout. I have one on future developments coming to Charleston and Savannah.
I love you Alexander. Thank you for being on this subject. I wish Stewart Hicks and architecture schools could be inoculated with you and learn what beauty is. God bless you!
You made one or two good points in the begining with the downfall of classical architecture (although I'd argue there's a lot of beautiful modernist architecture out there) but you lost me when you started saying that we live in Bladerunner. Like we don't. Also I live in a rural area and I went to a proper big city for the first time in my life this year and I had that "amazed face" at the modern skyscrapers, I don't see why you wouldn't they're quite impressive. Are you sure it's not just that you've been living in the city your whole life so you just don't appreciate it? The tourists we get in the rural area where I live say how amazing and beautiful it is, but I find it boring and I'd say that's really just because I grew up there my whole life. In fact, I remembered speaking to an older Swiss couple that were tourists and they told me they think that the Swiss Alps are boring - probably because they'd lived around them for all their years - and they thought it was strange that so many people would want to go visit them.
Old New York looks so dreamy and powerful, I love it! To then see our soulless, hedonistic and homogenisation of everything that was once fiction and created as a warning.. to now be reality and celebrated is truly shocking.
Ironically the densification of lower density areas cause the same sort of issues that are depicted by the underground workers just without being underground. Believe it or not, some people don't want a neighbor in all directions.
People can like European walkable old town aesthetics and also ultra-modern sleek architectural too, why does it have to be either/or? Is the neoclassical revival style actually climate-proof and sustainable? Mere ideological agenda won't help it become widely adopted. If it's still labor intensive, there's no future for it outside luxury sector. And right now we need more affordable construction, not even less.
The thing is that now in a lot of ways the inner cities are the nicer places with character and human scaled design. It's the sprawling suburbs with heavy traffic, strip malls, parking lots, tacky business signs, universal chain businesses, and banal conformity that are truly inhuman and isolating. On the rural edges it just gets dumpier, with trailer parks replacing the subdivisions, and strip malls being the closest thing to a main street. The cities and old streetcar suburbs are the places that still have some character, and we don't build them like that any more.
Verry interesting Video, on a realy importand topic🔥! Especially if one take into account that sience nowadays comes more and more to the conclusion that the simple lack of beauty, detail and nature can have a bad impact on the human psychology. This goes to the point, that a single tree near our home can lower the chance of getting depressed, whilst an ugly, unhuman environment can slow down the healing process of an ill person. It is realy sad that modernists just ignore those facts, desperatly searching for a utopian future, that never will be and that nobpdy wants.😢
Without any considerations for cost, this video feels incomplete. Yes, I would love for cities to be aesthetically pleasant. But people need to be housed, hospitals and schools need to be built, businesses have to operate, all of this in a cost-effective and timely manner. As much as I loved being in Köln and gaped at the magnificent architecture of her cathedral, I also recognize that the reason I gaped is that the time as craftsmanship it probably took was astronomical, not to mention the actual cost to build it. We may frown at the brutalist appearance of commie blocks in Eastern Europe, but truth be told, it was an effective way to quickly build decent housing. Unless, of course, we want to go back to a time when the aristocracy have their lavish palaces while the peasantry live in mud huts.
Any idea what the costs of widespread adoption of neoclassical revival architecture would be? Asking this as someone who just thinks we need more affordable housing and all, no matter the style. Personally, all this debate between "all neoclassical" versus "all modern" is rather unsavory and all too ideological - I believe more than a few people can appreciate European walkable old town aesthetics but also rich-looking sleek minimalism.
@@ionescuflorin7307 I have no idea of the cost of neoclassical architecture. It certainly looks expensive. I love the aesthetic of the style, but housing in particular should above all else be affordable. As for cities being walkable and generally pleasant, it has a lot less to do with architecture and a lot more to do with city planning and proper transportation. As an example, I would name the city of Eindhoven in the Netherlands. For Dutch standards it is a modern city, since it is somewhat recent. It lacks that classical architecture you see in more traditional Dutch cities. Eindhoven is still very pleasant, with bike lanes and decent transportation everywhere, green areas, and excellent urban planning, even in the older industrial region.
Köln Cathedral took 632 years to finish, and was so expensive that work stopped several times, the longest of which being from 1560 to 1842 (it was then heavily damaged during WW2 and in the 1960s and 1970s acid rain crisis and has been under continuous restoration since the early 1950s) Like, I'm a huge huge fan of Gothic architecture, but it's not exactly the most practical style, and is ridiculously expensive when compared to modernist styles. To give an example of cost (I'm adding gothic elements to the interior of one of the rooms of my house) for a gothic styled solid brass doorknob and backing plate it costs $96.99 the same company sells a plain modern styled set (also solid brass) for $23.99 (they have a couple deco designs in the $30 range, and victorian eastlake styles in the $50-$80 range). And that's just for a doorknob and plate. I added decorative corbles to the mantle and while modernist (or those cheap looking "farmhouse" style) cost around $25/ea the only options for Gothic were either antique salvage pieces which were upwards of $350/ea, or finding a specialty millwork shop and getting a set custom made for $125/ea. I had initially wanted to add tracery insets to the wainscoting in the room, but I simply couldn't afford it. Tldr: Gothic is pretty, but super expensive (and a pain in the a** to find) these days
Gothic is expensive and labor intensive, but prefab decor is pretty cheap nowadays. Plus you're talking about a piece ornament VS a piece of ornament, the building materials don't need to change; the overall cost of a building in a historical style is only a few percent higher, and half of it is paying for an architect knowledgeable of ratios and how to properly use columns in the design.
if i could point to a city of the future that actually would have worked I'd say the original EPCOT design yeah the disney connection was weird but from an urban planning and design perspective it was pretty solid
One point I'd like to add is that cities should not only incorporate history and culture but also nature! Plants have been with us throughout evolution and are proven to have a positive effect on our psyche!
while i agree with your point to an extent, i think that the focus on older styles and viewing them as timeless and enjoyable styles ignores the survivorship bias in those buildings. They were built during times of slums, cheap buildings ready to collapse in on themselves. We need to consider the buildings that survived, who financed them, and how they were treated. the reality is that we live in a commodified land system where developers build buildings for profit above all else. Companies wont pay for metropes, for masonry, for craftsmanship when that's so expensive and rare. The video I think also dismisses some people's reactions to skyscrapers. I have recently met someone who was in awe of skyscrapers just due to their size. And the dig against YIMBYists I think is also a bit eesh. The person who said to build a bunch of them in local cities is likely wanting a solution to the housing crisis that grips much of the UK and the Global North. Buildings that house 20,000 people would be a massive benefit and deprecation of rent, making it more affordable for people to live. Don't get me wrong, I want beautiful buildings in my cities. But we need to understand the system in which buildings were and are built.
Any building large enough to house 20,000 ppl is part of the problem. Housing ppl is essential, but housing 20,000 in a skyscraper is the opposite of essential. It's the reason everything sucks.
@@RextheRebel I'd say the fact that affordable housing has been bought up and rent prices are going up and most zoning allowed is less dense than even the historic buildings in cities is a bigger contributor. Like forget a building large enough to house 20,000 people, most cities struggle to even allow a building that can house 12! (on most of their land) Also I'd say before you bash the building, maybe look at the units they provide. I'm not saying that it's an actually good building, but it very much is a livable residence that isn't a slum. But yeah "oh housing ppl is essential, but not THIS way" is silly. It's addressing the problem, a problem that cities in the west are dragging their feet to address.
I have gazed up from ground level at the Sears Tower in Chicago and Salisbury Cathedral in England. The Sears Tower is impressive, but the cathedral in Salisbury is breathtaking and awe inspiring.
I think it's a bit misguided to say architects and planners created this modern environment. Perhaps in the beginning of the 20th century. But our built environment today has been mostly created by real estate speculators and the financial industry, supported by federal government incentives that emphasize uniformity and designed by engineers who prioritize machines over people. Architects and planners are mostly reacting to these forces, not leading them. The idea of an architect as a leading creator is itself an outdated viewpoint that belongs more to the Ayn Rand era, and not the reality of our times. I would even go as far as saying most creative people today are under the control of the corporate elite, from which they get commissions and are dependent on for work. Any current movement, such as The New Urbanism and others, must deal with these forces if they want to make change. and the fact that little continues to change is an example of the entrenchment of the real estate-financial-engineering-government industrial complex.
This and many other videos like this leave out the elephant in the room: Cost. All of those classical architectural details cost a lot of money. They were possible back then when the kings were venerated and regarded as ordained by God to rule, and the peasant artisans were happy to do the labour of fancy masonry for a pittance pay. What is considered a European "public square" in a European city today, was accessible mainly to rich aristocrats only and barely accessible to the majority of rural peasants. This idea that cities were inclusive before and not inclusive now is a fallacy, a romantization of the past. The public squares of the past are accessible today because the people forced it to be accessible and forced it to be inclusive. If today's architecture is oppressing us, we as a people will have to force it to include us.
Beautiful architecture was everywhere. It was the norm. In this moment there has never been this much wealth and knowledge in all of history. There is no excuse.
@@paddy123-h9r beg to differ. you only see beautiful buildings because they were the ones that survived time. peasants usually lived under precarious conditions in poorly made houses built with wood, straw and mud (also very prone to catching on fire). that type of house was the 'norm'. actual beautiful architecure (or any architectural thought) was very sparse and reserved to rich and noble neighborhoods
@@NegraLi34 Look at any photo of any city 100 years back, even poor housing looks better than decayed brutalist housing projects today. This is besides the point anyway, since what I’m saying is that we have the means to make things look better than ever before, but we don’t because capitalism.
Given that the invention of the internet allows for taking advantage of the division of labor without the need to live in the city anymore, it seems to me far more likely that the cities will simply go away. Think about it you can have all the advantages of living in a city and not have to live in a city, why would anybody live in the city? It's really hard for people to imagine but we may see a future where major population centers are tiny by comparison with today and are population centers for different reasons.
What an interested take on the then futuristic and avant garde Bauhaus architecture NOT being utilized by film makers as shorthand for the future but as a commentary on class struggle in the latter half of the 20th century. Such prescience! It's as if they knew that the prevailing architectural style that would become fashionable and ubiquitous decades later was a ruse by evil forces to dehumanize the population! It's like they could read your mind!
2:23 NYC's the Janga building comes to mind when I see this weird structure. Now, I personally love modernism -- what I don't care for are structures without attention to scale. That makes all the difference. You can make contemporary architecture that doesn't dehumanize if you integrate it with nature.
There’s a danger in making old styles kitsch thinking that copying them will revive them. Vitality is not stagnation. The idea should be to create beautiful engaging buildings in an ultimately humanistic way. Not to *dehumanize with oppressive copies of prescribed orthodoxy.
@@RextheRebel lol the stagnant? It’s human nature to get used to things sooner or, yes, later. My point though was to do more of what he was saying in vital new ways, *not* to argue against it.
Cities need lots more life and greenery, wild habitat for birds and other creatures as well as just parks for humans. I like the solarpunk vision. I also have a fascination for heavily decayed brutalism and modernism.
Sci-Fi Author: In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale Architects: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus
Corners and ornaments are expensive. Making square boxes is cheaper. And there is always the city giving rights to build a certain amount of floor space. So square boxes.
If the architecture and urban design our society creates are merciless, disorienting and inhuman, maybe that‘s because our society is, in fact, merciless, disorienting and inhuman. The purpose of a system is what it does.
Looking at the underground homes for the workers in Metropolis and thinking : Whoa they can afford those apartments on a working mans salary ? What a utopia!
:-D
~
Well, they didn't have Starbucks... Temu.... Shein... iPhones... Netflix.... Uber eats and other crap to waste their money on, thats how they could afford that.
Or so legends has it...
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod That is indeed a legend, because in reality the houses are more than twice as expensive as they were back then, Netflix and Uber Eats don't quite account for the difference.
@@jdoe2737 sir... You don't know the meaning of the word "legend".
Besides, did I say that was the ONLY cause? No. I did not.
It seems to me the solution is make movies where people live is a distopian society of livable, walkable, beautiful cities with culturally enriching architecture. Then, just give it a couple of decades and the problem will be solved!
Duloc in Shrek? Sandford in Hot Fuzz?
Yeah, I’m seeing the same pattern here, LOL! 😆
All Marvel movies.
That's not a dystopia if cities are perfect something has to be bad so just cut off the country with no cars
@turtley4444 trains tho
I’ve gotta say, if the LA of blade runner got some support for the poor and better hygiene systems, it would be a loooooot more livable than the LA we’ve got now
That's true
The city planning isn't that bad, it's more the dirtiness, porverty and the surveillance of its citizens.
@@backroomserklärt yep
Sounds the exact same as LA of today but in the future
@@undefined5083 the LA of today has bad land use
I’d love to see a video on unbuilt cities or projects that should have been built
Great idea
Let's start building things we want!
fresno california
There's a channel out there
@MrGriff305-j7sSo you're saying that people should just suck it up and accept ugliness?
In many ways, the cities of the future America is building now are WORSE than the dystopian cities cyberpunk imagined, because those at least had sensible Japanese zoning, with human sized pathways (of course portrayed as dingy alleys), active street markets and actual nightlife 😂
I always find it quite remarkable how the living conditions in the early 20th century are romanticized without question. Nice examples of grand boulevards are used as examples. Unfortunately, the living conditions of the working class are forgotten. Rooms were inhabited by shifts, with sometimes catastrophic sanitary conditions. This is constantly forgotten in such videos.
Adding on to your point, the grand boulevards that Paris has now displaced thousand s of working class citizens. In fact they were controversial at the time, not just for the reasons I listed, but the people that were displaced weren’t even allowed to move into the new buildings…
Progress is usually painful, but beauty and liveable housing did meet in the midle class 1930s east europe for example.
@@CreativeUsernameHere-r1k "Painful" is stubbing your toe or getting an injection. Things that are unpleasant, but not really harmful. "Painful" is not the word to describe losing one's home. That is harmful and destructive. Progress should not be harmful and destructive.
As important as architecture is for all of us, it is not a remedy to poverty and inequality. The craziness for simple and efficient created those horrible buildings since the 1930's everywhere
@@suwakomoriya5145 Correct, very important point. This was (and is) very often the architecture of power.
9:18 The Cologne Cathedral isn’t classical, it’s gothic
In some people’s head they just think of classical as anything old. They don’t describe a particular time period or in this case an architectural style.
that was a weird oversight ngl
"classic" as in traditional
Classical in that it followed the architectural philosophy of the classical period. It has to do with proportion and geometry.
"Gothic" was created as an intended insult by Benightment thinkers, using the general term for the Germanic Tribes that conquered the Western Empire.
If you look at how beautiful our cities were in the 1950s, it's clear we should have done more to protect our historic buildings. Instead, we embarked on a reckless demolition spree, tearing down architectural treasures to make way for cold, soulless structures of glass and steel. The result is a cityscape that often feels disconnected from its past, lacking the character and charm that once defined it.
Take New York City, for example. In the mid-20th century, we lost iconic buildings like the original Penn Station, a masterpiece of Beaux-Arts design, which was demolished in 1963 to make way for the current steel-and-glass monstrosity. The beautiful old Singer Building, once the tallest building in the world, was also razed in 1968. Then there was the demolition of the lavish Astor Hotel in 1967, a symbol of old-world elegance. These were buildings full of history, craftsmanship, and soul-replaced by structures that lack the warmth and beauty of their predecessors.
We should have focused on preserving these architectural gems instead of trading them for the sterile, generic towers we see today. The loss of these buildings is a reminder of what happens when we prioritize progress over preservation, and it’s a regret that many of us feel now, as we walk past the glass and steel that dominates our city streets.
if they were replaced by more of the same it would be better than just keeping old stuff that happened to be built properly
Romanian here, you do not know the half of it, many, many historical old style buildings were torn down during the communist's reigns that destroyed our capital of Bucharest, called the Little Paris of Eastern Europe, the same was about Poland and several parts of Germany, Austria and Hungary were many historical classic buildings were torn down in the name of "progress", for many neo-classic & art deco lovers like myself, buildings like the Chrysler & Empire State Building are hope that one day we could return to such a thing, there an already a growing national history pride in Europe, to try and preserve, restore and upgrade some of them, wiring, piping, heating, gas etc,
The burning & restoration of Notre Dame is perhaps the sign we needed to start a new path from this capitalist socialist insanity, that modernism has brought in,
In Germany it's worse, WWII destroyed many many beautiful old towns (because of you know who...). The eastern replacement: totalitarian blocks, the western replacement: brutalism and utilitarianism. Latter is way way way worse! Ugly, dirty, chaotic and scary. Also, not sure about Romania, but in Germany it seems that people do not care about what IS left, they pollute beautiful old facades with mindless spray painting, throw garbage in otherwise beautiful old streets. In one word: it's a mess post-apocalyptic mess and people seem to celebrate it!???
capitalist socialists? you conservative fruit cakes mostly have no idea what you are saying
Interesting that you blame modernism on capitalism and then cite communist countries for their terrible decisions.
@@stischer47 And you point is, if it ugly its ugly, if its beautifully its beautiful,
Europe has been in a slow decline for over a 100 years.. and its wrong to blame this on nazi germany cause honestly we could replaced everything that was lost even with communism when that ended we could have restored them but we didnt and we probably wont cause more and more we build with modern architecture this is our leaders fault and the ppls fault for not demanding that we replace everything that was lost during the dark days of communism and both wws that left most of Europe in ruins
still im really happy that they are rebuilding Notre Dame to what it was and didnt go with the "modernisation" of it cause there would be nothing more signalising how Europe has lost everything.
In my opinion, the two major things that destroyed our cities were:
1) Allowing private cars into cities. This inevitably led to cities being designed around cars rather than people, and now that the cities have been built we have to have cars in order to live in them.
2) Zoning laws that banned organic mixed use development. Traditional cities had a jumble of residential, retail and commercial spaces all mixed together, often in the same building. Use was determined by natural supply and demand, not bureaucratic diktat.
Put these two things together and you end up with inhuman and alienating cities that are literally bad for our psychological health.
you're right on #2, but not on #1
People use cars because it's convenient. The problem is when it's the ONLY convenient way to move around, everyone will use it.
Good affordable public transportation solves that problem. Trains are great for hauling large volumes of people quickly without covering it in tarmac. Buses are great for spreading that volume around through planned avenues. Add taxis for those special cases (you need to get there really fast, you're carrying things, etc) and you don't need a car. I live in such a city and I know many who can afford a car yet don't own one (there are some difficult areas though). I lived in a smaller city where taxis jacked up prices and buses are really scarce for some reason while the train only gets you to other cities...... and yeah everyone drives everywhere.
A huge one: 3) Architects, planners, construction crews, and investors all found that modernism and minimalism are FAR cheaper than having any ornamentation.
You wouldn't cars in cities if they had high density buildings. Land and housing would as a result be cheaper
I think what also made cities and towns ugly is that nowadays people only design buildings and neighborhoods behind a desk, and on a drawing. With duplicates and fast cheap building methodes. In the past people designed more on location, and people just saw if it's fit in its environment, or if its fit together. And what the feeling was of the area. They made a nice environment. Especially a few centuries ago.
Its funny if the people who pay for these buildings (usually corporations or governments) asked and were willing to pay the premium for the extra work needed,most architecture and engineering firms would gladly design in these older styles. The problem is turbo short term cost minded neoliberal governments go with whats the cheapest bare minimum while corporations love the modernist style for how spirit crushingly boring it is.
You're focusing on architectural styles, but what you should be focusing on is scale. The dystopian cities in those movies are massive, with the intention of dwarfing the humanity that live in them. Whereas the cities you seem to prefer are smaller scaled, with shorter buildings and more open space. Building scale is what makes a city either a pleasant place to be, or a nightmare to live in.
They're not separate factors though. Skyscrapers can only be one thing, more or less. 4-5 storey buildings can be anything. Form and function must be in harmony.
Strip malls and stroads are worse than any brutalisy building in a city that interacts with the street level.
Of course. This was just specifically talking about futuristic city depictions. Although I think Logan's Run falls in line with non-street level city design.
i like strip malls because i enjoy getting naked
That is preposterous and demonstrably untrue. Are strip malls and stroads irritating and poor for traditional village/community life? Absolutely. But are suburban areas worse than giant metropolitan cities full of concrete and steel towers? Definitely not.
@@RextheRebel a city of concrete and steel towers is too vague. The West End neighbourhood of Vancouver for example is full of 1960s era modernist towers but manages to be an extremely livable and beautiful neighborhood, full of parks, trees, greenery, etc. I think what matters more is the layout on the street than the layout in the sky. The same buildings can make entirely different neighborhoods simply based on their arrangement and streetscape
@@RextheRebelIf I had to chose I would take condensed, utilitarian steel towers over endless parking lots, and unsustainable suburbs, with a fertilized lawns that create algae blooms in nearby waterways. At least metropolis isn't a huge tax burden like suburbs.
Logan's Run feels like a finished suburb. The idea that all these indoor spaces would be connected by automated transit, so they could be spread far apart and still be reachable. Fairlane Mall in Dearborn once had a monorail connecting it with the now closed Hyatt hotel, but it seems like that was the exception.
It's interesting to wonder what our cities could've looked like.
Modern design sometimes undervalues the human need for privacy and space to thrive individually. The cultural narrative dismisses solitude as loneliness, overlooking the restorative power of natural environments and personal space. I used to work in a high-rise in downtown Los Angeles, and I always found the atmosphere dreary and uninviting. Riding the elevator every day, moving between floors, felt like a chore. I still vividly remember an earthquake that sent a wave of panic through everyone in the building. Lately, I've been reflecting on how urban environments often seem detrimental to mental well-being. In contrast, hiking in the mountains brings me a profound sense of peace and comfort. It makes me wonder-what kind of neurotic anxious minds shaped this modern world that feels so far removed from what nurtures us??
I live in Houston TX ... The Harris county jail 701 building is more beautiful than other buildings in downtown Houston 🤣🤣
This is one of the best presentations of the case for classical architecture i have seen. Good work.
You are absolutely right. I would love it if governments around the world would take this more seriously. Although, think about how the cyberpunk, skyscraper feel actually adds to t(e odd few cities. Great work.
One thing to consider as we assess the preserved old centers of beautiful cities is that they are now sanitized. The Medieval core of Rouen is quaint today, but that's because the city now has a modern sanitation system, horses aren't pooping and pissing all over the muddy streets, and (by the industrial era) smoke-belching factories and furnaces aren't turning the air into black pea soup.
Riquewihr is a preserved fairytale today, but life would have been very different for people living when those buildings were new.
Concepts like LeCorbusier's Garden City and modern American suburbs arose as a direct response to the blight of crowded cities. People wanted the "health" of the country with the convenience of the city.
We are fortunate today that we can recreate the convenience of the density of ancient city centers and keep it more sanitary than ever before.
The problem is, city planners in the mid 20th century threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Yes, but even considering the filth of the cities of the past. Cities built on modern ideals suck in all aspects of city planning.
What a great video! I love when futurism builds on the past instead of tearing it down. One of the images you showed was from Utropiia (look it up if you haven't guys, it's astounding!), a passion project by someone who has a deep appreciation for art, history and elevating it to the next level in his composite images, of which there are hundreds, each one as breathtaking as the last.
One effect that's almost always overlooked is how buildings appear when juxtaposed with each other. Having sets of buildings in very similar styles, of similar height, with similar ornamentation, is a hallmark of the European cities chosen here as examples of appealing architecture. The buildings in today's modernist cities are individual edifices of different heights, colors, and styles, and the effect is often jarring and chaotic. More effort needs to be put into having an overall concept, not just of a skyline, but of how the city should appear from the ground.
That's why, imo, NYC is a beautiful city and Dubai is ugly. NYC has a variety of building styles, spanning at least 2 centuries, with varying heights and uses. Whereas a city like Dubai was built all at once and doesn't have the same charm or aesthetic as a city that grew organically over time.
Uniformity can be rather dull. After living for so long in the wildly diverse architectural chaos of Bucharest, I don't see myself living in most places around, say, the Netherlands, I admire their perfect architecture from a distance, but I can't relate.
hey! I just discovered your channel yesterday and cannot stop watching!! Your expertise on these topics is absolutely invaluable and I truly enjoy the way you structure the stories and compose the videos. Keep it up! Maybe a bit of advice: I would suggest to make patreon-exclusive content because looking at the perks of yours now are not really alluring for most. A shoutout means nothing, really. But I would love to support your work nonetheless!
Greetings from a Bulgarian living in Amsterdam: As someone who grew up amidst brutalism, I am thankfu every day that I can enjoy the beauty and magic of this city.
I think a good city has a mixed of old style architecture but with some new skyscrapers and keep the old buildings but build some beautiful sky scrapers and build highways underground and keep walk ways above ground
Like we have old town, and slightly less old town with some actually good looking skyscrapers
Nice video! Important topic
Thank you!
Art deco such nice looking buildings
I just realized how much of Arcane's city concept of Piltover/Zahn was inspired by Metropolis...
There's nothing wrong with cities going vertical. Cities going vertical is way to avoid sprawl, especially when you don't have much buildable land and/or a high population like Tokyo, New York, or Lagos. Manhattan is filled with skyscrapers but it is one if not the most lively and urbanist friendly places in the US. Lagos is going in the way of skyscrapers because it is a mega city that is set to grow by several million people in the next coming decade. There are a few problems with MODERN skyscrapers.
* Lack of mixed use as they mostly tend to be glass office space
- When skyscrapers are mixed use, you can have restaurants, hotels, and observation decks open to the public and less "rich enclaves"
* Glass is inefficient at using energy
* Architecturally bland
- older skyscrapers like the Tribune Tower, Empire State Building, and Flatiron building do not have this problem
* Not built near transit in some cases (Dubai's Burj Khalifa)
- When they are built in city centers, you can put a lot people near things like trains, buses, or streetcars
To make it short, going vertical makes sense when you have a high population and low land. Vertical buildings can also be integrated in the streetscape with businesses on ground floors.
Perhaps cities should limit its population growths. Perhaps new cities should be built.
its nice seeing someone address the other part of this. theres so many architecture videos talking about how boring these towers are, but i work in a local government and we just spent millions building a wildly overbudget but pretty health center with a kinda donut shape and a unique style thats not nearly so robust as a cookie cutter box building with a standard layout. for the price of this thing we could have built enough spare apartments to house the whole homeless population and pay for the maintenance for 5 years.
@@lunaris69 The homeless issue doesn't have a problem with lack of apartments, but with money. There are plenty of empty apartments being available for rent. Landowners need to be regulated and there should be limit on how many apartments/houses one person/company can own and rent.
@@Tinnuent We've already paved too much of the world. Building even more cities is the last thing we need to do. Increasing density is how we avoid infinite sprawl.
@@TonboIV Increasing density is how you get further deterioration of people's' mental health. Something's got to go.
This feels like the architectural equivalent of the "Torment Nexus"-meme.
This has inspired me and the story I'm working on to contrast the old buildings with the new, and the beauty that was lost. A very informing video!
I remember seeing Cologne cathedral for the first time. It was 1984, and I was 15. Literally took my breath away.
We need to build some cool new, charming walkable towns again - with Nice architecture. If anyone wants to help me, let me know
I have never been more disappointed by the "future" not looking anything like any art ever predicted.
Lovely video! Most dream of an italian village yet expect the future to look modernist dystopian. That tells you a lot why the movement and this channel is so important.
Thank you as always Michael! Can't wait to have you back on soon ;)
I think you might find Chongqing interesting. It's planned with a Chinese emphasis on modernity, but the chaotic streetfronts, old areas, architectural quirks (eg. trees on buildings), and natural environment is a very nice contrast (it's nicknamed "mountain city" or 山城 in China).
Besides Baidu Maps street view, idk any good English-language sources on the non-modern urbanism parts because the Chinese government isn't really proud of that (maybe tourism blogs/vlogs might have something?). In any case visiting is always ideal, it's a massive city for domestic tourism in China for a reason.
First of your videos I watched. Well my friend I am HOOKED. I love this sort of stuff, and mixing in the reasoning and history from famous movies just added to what made it great. I will look for more now!! Also, favourite Architecture style is Art deco, favourite building, the Chrysler Building
What our cities are missing is a huge red cannon, like in Katsuhiro Otomo's short film Cannon Fodder
Pointed on those skycrapers
Glad to see someone call out I.M. Pei. He’s heralded as a great architect but most of his buildings are hideous. His legacy is ushering in one of the worst architectural eras ever.
i'm from one of the cities you listed that could be swapped out for LA, and i genuinely do not know which if any of the drone footage you used came from my city
Underrated video. I wish more people in my country watched it (I’m Brazilian).
Forest Hills at 1:49 was my beautiful neighborhood for 10 years, and that exact spot in the photo was my outdoor gathering spot during the endless Covid quarantine and summer of 2020... Had to pause it and take it in
Metropolis from 1927 is still an absolute masterpiece !
I read the book "ornament and virtue" and it talks exactly about that...crazy how we just stopped building beautiful
The current limitations of humanity, the ways to surpass them, and the methods of achieving this might give you a glimpse into the future.
Rustbelt and rural Appalachia has 50% less population than in 1950.
America is a dying nation
All their jobs were outsourced so the young left for the growing cities. Wmen have been convinced to forgo motherhood and domestic duties, instead being encouraged to eliminate their own offspring to pursue their own career, subverting the value of labor in a tighter market with service predominant jobs.
Those are the two major reasons.
@@RextheRebelThe thing is that the cost of living forces those dwelling in cities to do this. My mom tried to be a housewife but found it economically unfeasible after a certain point. She's not even traditionalist. She just wanted to make sure her children grew up with the mother she herself never had as a child.
@Laz7481 was your mom married when she had you and was she still with your father?
I realize we don't live in a country where single income households exist but wmen entering the workforce is one of the original reasons for that.
@RextheRebel Yes, my mom was married when she had me. No, my parents are now divorced, although they did agree to joint custody. I can see why essentially doubling your labor force would lead to wage decline, but at the same time, leaving half the population to be fininancialy dependent isn't moral. Not that it matters now, seeing as nobody has financial freedom unless they find a very well paying job.
I would add that it does seem weird that they went for the dystopian aesthetic, however originally it made sense. There needed to be lots of rebuilding after WW2 and homes fit for heroes was a promise. Well having seperate kitchen and mutiple bedrooms an indoor bathroom. These are luxurious for the time and therefore, the buildings for the people at the time where wonderful. The issue is they were surprisingly cheap to make and when it comes to making money that is more important than everything else and that has pushed design from then on. Instead of the plain and frank ugliness of the buildings have functions working class people could only dream of. They just kept with what had now become the basics for all homes.
As someone who lives in Dublin I absolutely hate the architecture that's left over from the past. Everything is too small and insignificant looking.
This video brought nothing new to me, but I still watched it and loved it as I thoroughly enjoy anything that agrees with the opinions that I have made.
I hope the US one day builds more high density residential
why
@@connors3356 because suburbs are terrible I saw with my own eyes the country land and forests I grew up around turn into ugly rich homes for people out of state to move to it’s disgusting and needs to be stopped we need natural land not a bunch of spread out houses destroying beauty
@@DeeRuss you liked your own comment
@@connors3356 No they didn’t. I did.
@@Ac_aSuburbanites can't fathom the idea that anyone disagrees with them.
Cost+ Labor + Materials + Maintenance. You forgot to mention those.
exactly!
they did not have decades of experience or the technology we have today
yet the managed it and somehow we cannot do even half that today?
@@markfreeman4727 In the past, cost of labor was cheap, very cheap, while cost of materials was high. Today it is the opposite, cost of materials is usually very cheap, compared to cost of labor.
So in the past people had lots of time to refine the building materials and make everything look as detailed and pretty as possible because labor was so cheap, while today you want to build everything as fast as possible, with as much automatization and standardization as possible, because cost of labor is so high.
@@manmanman2000 ya i disagree, labor is not expensive, companies are very good at making certain that it's not
and about cost, there are simple low cost and inexpensive ways you can make something look nice. And i'm not referring to the artistic master pieces of the past. I mean things that have a semblance of looking nice and are not just a plain eye sore.
Think of it in terms of burgers. There are ways you can make a good burger for cheap, but everyone is choosing to make mcdonalds (may contain beef) slivers of meat. Sure it costs less and is fast...but i woudn't even call it a burger.
@@markfreeman4727 It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree. It is a fact, that in the past, the most expensive part of a construction project, by far, was cost of material, while labor cost was almost free. Today the most expensive part of a construction project is by far labor cost.
Quite well done. May our cities become beautiful once again.
Can you please explain what are the "Classical Principals" in a future video. Thanks
More curves and organic shapes, I say. I love nouveau architecture, particularly excessively organic designs like those of Antoni Gaudi. Also a big fan of all-natural designs in adobe, wood and turf. Green building ftw.
I see a couple of pictures of classic Philadelphia buildings in this video. You should see Louis Kahn's masterplan for Philly from the 1960s. It would have been an absolute hellscape had it gotten built. Ed Bacon was bad enough as he was, but Kahn with free reign would have been a whole extra step above.
This is another head in the cloud superiority complex but shallow analysis. So much gibberish words to evoke emotion without saying nothing concrete. Also comparing a cathedral to a residential/office building ( has he thought about that maybe indented usage is different?)
It would be cool to see some success stories where modernist style buildings have been replaced with something more tasteful. I think you include an example of one around 12:05, but learning about other instances - or even just proposals - would be interesting. Maybe ID some of the most 'endangered' modernist buildings that we may see replaced with better structures in the next few years?
I would happily make those kinds of videos. The Aesthetic City's video on Le Plessis Robinson is a standout. I have one on future developments coming to Charleston and Savannah.
You'd be shocked to find out what cities like Potsdam or Dresden look like before and now. It is a *MASSIVE* improvement I can tell you.
I love you Alexander. Thank you for being on this subject. I wish Stewart Hicks and architecture schools could be inoculated with you and learn what beauty is. God bless you!
I don't think the future will be a mystery it'll just be bigger taller, and the engineering of the buildings will defy physics more.🤷
You made one or two good points in the begining with the downfall of classical architecture (although I'd argue there's a lot of beautiful modernist architecture out there) but you lost me when you started saying that we live in Bladerunner. Like we don't.
Also I live in a rural area and I went to a proper big city for the first time in my life this year and I had that "amazed face" at the modern skyscrapers, I don't see why you wouldn't they're quite impressive. Are you sure it's not just that you've been living in the city your whole life so you just don't appreciate it? The tourists we get in the rural area where I live say how amazing and beautiful it is, but I find it boring and I'd say that's really just because I grew up there my whole life. In fact, I remembered speaking to an older Swiss couple that were tourists and they told me they think that the Swiss Alps are boring - probably because they'd lived around them for all their years - and they thought it was strange that so many people would want to go visit them.
"Let's create homes, buildings...entire cities, that enrich people's lives", said no corporatist overlord ever.
Old New York looks so dreamy and powerful, I love it!
To then see our soulless, hedonistic and homogenisation of everything that was once fiction and created as a warning.. to now be reality and celebrated is truly shocking.
Ironically the densification of lower density areas cause the same sort of issues that are depicted by the underground workers just without being underground. Believe it or not, some people don't want a neighbor in all directions.
People can like European walkable old town aesthetics and also ultra-modern sleek architectural too, why does it have to be either/or?
Is the neoclassical revival style actually climate-proof and sustainable? Mere ideological agenda won't help it become widely adopted. If it's still labor intensive, there's no future for it outside luxury sector. And right now we need more affordable construction, not even less.
The thing is that now in a lot of ways the inner cities are the nicer places with character and human scaled design. It's the sprawling suburbs with heavy traffic, strip malls, parking lots, tacky business signs, universal chain businesses, and banal conformity that are truly inhuman and isolating. On the rural edges it just gets dumpier, with trailer parks replacing the subdivisions, and strip malls being the closest thing to a main street. The cities and old streetcar suburbs are the places that still have some character, and we don't build them like that any more.
4:35 small complaint but Michael Graves is Post Modern meaning he criticized many elements of modernist architecture.
Verry interesting Video, on a realy importand topic🔥! Especially if one take into account that sience nowadays comes more and more to the conclusion that the simple lack of beauty, detail and nature can have a bad impact on the human psychology. This goes to the point, that a single tree near our home can lower the chance of getting depressed, whilst an ugly, unhuman environment can slow down the healing process of an ill person. It is realy sad that modernists just ignore those facts, desperatly searching for a utopian future, that never will be and that nobpdy wants.😢
The future will be more like the Shire than NYC…
Modern architecture is not a bug, it's a feature. That movie was them, telling us their plan.
Without any considerations for cost, this video feels incomplete. Yes, I would love for cities to be aesthetically pleasant. But people need to be housed, hospitals and schools need to be built, businesses have to operate, all of this in a cost-effective and timely manner.
As much as I loved being in Köln and gaped at the magnificent architecture of her cathedral, I also recognize that the reason I gaped is that the time as craftsmanship it probably took was astronomical, not to mention the actual cost to build it.
We may frown at the brutalist appearance of commie blocks in Eastern Europe, but truth be told, it was an effective way to quickly build decent housing.
Unless, of course, we want to go back to a time when the aristocracy have their lavish palaces while the peasantry live in mud huts.
Any idea what the costs of widespread adoption of neoclassical revival architecture would be? Asking this as someone who just thinks we need more affordable housing and all, no matter the style. Personally, all this debate between "all neoclassical" versus "all modern" is rather unsavory and all too ideological - I believe more than a few people can appreciate European walkable old town aesthetics but also rich-looking sleek minimalism.
@@ionescuflorin7307 I have no idea of the cost of neoclassical architecture. It certainly looks expensive. I love the aesthetic of the style, but housing in particular should above all else be affordable.
As for cities being walkable and generally pleasant, it has a lot less to do with architecture and a lot more to do with city planning and proper transportation.
As an example, I would name the city of Eindhoven in the Netherlands. For Dutch standards it is a modern city, since it is somewhat recent. It lacks that classical architecture you see in more traditional Dutch cities. Eindhoven is still very pleasant, with bike lanes and decent transportation everywhere, green areas, and excellent urban planning, even in the older industrial region.
Köln Cathedral took 632 years to finish, and was so expensive that work stopped several times, the longest of which being from 1560 to 1842 (it was then heavily damaged during WW2 and in the 1960s and 1970s acid rain crisis and has been under continuous restoration since the early 1950s)
Like, I'm a huge huge fan of Gothic architecture, but it's not exactly the most practical style, and is ridiculously expensive when compared to modernist styles. To give an example of cost (I'm adding gothic elements to the interior of one of the rooms of my house) for a gothic styled solid brass doorknob and backing plate it costs $96.99 the same company sells a plain modern styled set (also solid brass) for $23.99 (they have a couple deco designs in the $30 range, and victorian eastlake styles in the $50-$80 range). And that's just for a doorknob and plate. I added decorative corbles to the mantle and while modernist (or those cheap looking "farmhouse" style) cost around $25/ea the only options for Gothic were either antique salvage pieces which were upwards of $350/ea, or finding a specialty millwork shop and getting a set custom made for $125/ea. I had initially wanted to add tracery insets to the wainscoting in the room, but I simply couldn't afford it.
Tldr: Gothic is pretty, but super expensive (and a pain in the a** to find) these days
Gothic is expensive and labor intensive, but prefab decor is pretty cheap nowadays.
Plus you're talking about a piece ornament VS a piece of ornament, the building materials don't need to change; the overall cost of a building in a historical style is only a few percent higher, and half of it is paying for an architect knowledgeable of ratios and how to properly use columns in the design.
Tutor peasant houses are beautiful what are you talking about
I love modernist architecture. Don't see what's so "ugly" about it, that's just your subjective view, no need to push it on others.
if i could point to a city of the future that actually would have worked I'd say the original EPCOT design
yeah the disney connection was weird but from an urban planning and design perspective it was pretty solid
One point I'd like to add is that cities should not only incorporate history and culture but also nature! Plants have been with us throughout evolution and are proven to have a positive effect on our psyche!
while i agree with your point to an extent, i think that the focus on older styles and viewing them as timeless and enjoyable styles ignores the survivorship bias in those buildings. They were built during times of slums, cheap buildings ready to collapse in on themselves. We need to consider the buildings that survived, who financed them, and how they were treated.
the reality is that we live in a commodified land system where developers build buildings for profit above all else. Companies wont pay for metropes, for masonry, for craftsmanship when that's so expensive and rare.
The video I think also dismisses some people's reactions to skyscrapers. I have recently met someone who was in awe of skyscrapers just due to their size.
And the dig against YIMBYists I think is also a bit eesh. The person who said to build a bunch of them in local cities is likely wanting a solution to the housing crisis that grips much of the UK and the Global North. Buildings that house 20,000 people would be a massive benefit and deprecation of rent, making it more affordable for people to live.
Don't get me wrong, I want beautiful buildings in my cities. But we need to understand the system in which buildings were and are built.
Any building large enough to house 20,000 ppl is part of the problem. Housing ppl is essential, but housing 20,000 in a skyscraper is the opposite of essential. It's the reason everything sucks.
@@RextheRebel I'd say the fact that affordable housing has been bought up and rent prices are going up and most zoning allowed is less dense than even the historic buildings in cities is a bigger contributor.
Like forget a building large enough to house 20,000 people, most cities struggle to even allow a building that can house 12! (on most of their land)
Also I'd say before you bash the building, maybe look at the units they provide. I'm not saying that it's an actually good building, but it very much is a livable residence that isn't a slum.
But yeah "oh housing ppl is essential, but not THIS way" is silly. It's addressing the problem, a problem that cities in the west are dragging their feet to address.
3:26 This feel looks like from Radio Gaga
That clip actually used snippets of the movie.
Incredible video!
I have gazed up from ground level at the Sears Tower in Chicago and Salisbury Cathedral in England. The Sears Tower is impressive, but the cathedral in Salisbury is breathtaking and awe inspiring.
There's nothing more dystopian than having a city whose layout is similar to most Japanese cities, but having to commute by car/motorcycle.
Your photo at 4:17 is apparently of the Salk Institute, a research center, in San Diego, not of a city.
Yes, but the principle stands
the future isn't exactly inevitable ...
Is time going to stop or reverse or something
@@archimetropolis time won't stop , but our whole setup just might cease to be
We need sculpture. Architecture without facades is just an elaborate canvas.
I just dont understand why everything is like this now as if architects have no heart
To have great architecture again the world must get rid of most cars by creating viable alternatives do driving.
Trains, trams, public transit in general
@Танкозера And bicycle paths, raised intersections, car free streets in downtown and district commercial centres, and...
What can I say, great analysis and video!
Your content is so good! I wish we were friends 😭
I think it's a bit misguided to say architects and planners created this modern environment. Perhaps in the beginning of the 20th century. But our built environment today has been mostly created by real estate speculators and the financial industry, supported by federal government incentives that emphasize uniformity and designed by engineers who prioritize machines over people. Architects and planners are mostly reacting to these forces, not leading them. The idea of an architect as a leading creator is itself an outdated viewpoint that belongs more to the Ayn Rand era, and not the reality of our times. I would even go as far as saying most creative people today are under the control of the corporate elite, from which they get commissions and are dependent on for work. Any current movement, such as The New Urbanism and others, must deal with these forces if they want to make change. and the fact that little continues to change is an example of the entrenchment of the real estate-financial-engineering-government industrial complex.
This and many other videos like this leave out the elephant in the room: Cost. All of those classical architectural details cost a lot of money. They were possible back then when the kings were venerated and regarded as ordained by God to rule, and the peasant artisans were happy to do the labour of fancy masonry for a pittance pay. What is considered a European "public square" in a European city today, was accessible mainly to rich aristocrats only and barely accessible to the majority of rural peasants. This idea that cities were inclusive before and not inclusive now is a fallacy, a romantization of the past. The public squares of the past are accessible today because the people forced it to be accessible and forced it to be inclusive. If today's architecture is oppressing us, we as a people will have to force it to include us.
Beautiful architecture was everywhere. It was the norm. In this moment there has never been this much wealth and knowledge in all of history. There is no excuse.
@@paddy123-h9r beg to differ. you only see beautiful buildings because they were the ones that survived time. peasants usually lived under precarious conditions in poorly made houses built with wood, straw and mud (also very prone to catching on fire). that type of house was the 'norm'. actual beautiful architecure (or any architectural thought) was very sparse and reserved to rich and noble neighborhoods
@@NegraLi34 other videos on this channel back up what I say
@@paddy123-h9r Then the problem seems to be that you're using this channel as your main source of information.
@@NegraLi34 Look at any photo of any city 100 years back, even poor housing looks better than decayed brutalist housing projects today. This is besides the point anyway, since what I’m saying is that we have the means to make things look better than ever before, but we don’t because capitalism.
Given that the invention of the internet allows for taking advantage of the division of labor without the need to live in the city anymore, it seems to me far more likely that the cities will simply go away. Think about it you can have all the advantages of living in a city and not have to live in a city, why would anybody live in the city?
It's really hard for people to imagine but we may see a future where major population centers are tiny by comparison with today and are population centers for different reasons.
Well done video. Very mindful.
What an interested take on the then futuristic and avant garde Bauhaus architecture NOT being utilized by film makers as shorthand for the future but as a commentary on class struggle in the latter half of the 20th century. Such prescience! It's as if they knew that the prevailing architectural style that would become fashionable and ubiquitous decades later was a ruse by evil forces to dehumanize the population! It's like they could read your mind!
I have zero intellectual respect for anyone who willingly moves into a densely populated city, for any reason.
2:23 NYC's the Janga building comes to mind when I see this weird structure. Now, I personally love modernism -- what I don't care for are structures without attention to scale. That makes all the difference. You can make contemporary architecture that doesn't dehumanize if you integrate it with nature.
There’s a danger in making old styles kitsch thinking that copying them will revive them. Vitality is not stagnation. The idea should be to create beautiful engaging buildings in an ultimately humanistic way. Not to *dehumanize with oppressive copies of prescribed orthodoxy.
What you call stagnation, others call familiarity and structure.
@@RextheRebel lol the stagnant? It’s human nature to get used to things sooner or, yes, later. My point though was to do more of what he was saying in vital new ways, *not* to argue against it.
Why not both? You can imitate old styles but also create new styles that build on traditional motifs.
Reconstructions should respect the original.
Cities need lots more life and greenery, wild habitat for birds and other creatures as well as just parks for humans. I like the solarpunk vision. I also have a fascination for heavily decayed brutalism and modernism.
Coruscant from the Star Wars franchise is the closest representation of what the future of big cities could look like
Feels like we live in a self-service of dystopian realities, the elites take the worst of each story and try to replicate it in the real life!
What's that 0:33
Is that the Roman empire?
Sci-Fi Author: In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale
Architects: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus
The picture at the end (the one with the zeppelin) could be placed on a planet in Warhammer 40k and it'll fit right in.
Corners and ornaments are expensive. Making square boxes is cheaper. And there is always the city giving rights to build a certain amount of floor space. So square boxes.
If the architecture and urban design our society creates are merciless, disorienting and inhuman, maybe that‘s because our society is, in fact, merciless, disorienting and inhuman.
The purpose of a system is what it does.