What missed opportunities to create wonderful architecture and urban spaces. With so many undervalued talented architects, it is really a tragedy that this is happening all over the world.
It's interesting, my experience with the architecture of Dubai was that I generally liked the outside of the buildings shown. They were very exciting and full of energy, but I was not generally crazy about the furnishings and colors inside. Also the classic buildings in France are mesmerizing and gorgeous, that architect who wanted to demolish them, I think he was a bit of lunatic.
I agree completely about Dubai, with the difference of me not being very impressed by the outside of those buildings they have built there. It's a makeshift town, makeshift culture of a nation entirely devoid of taste. Tacky at it's best. What they may have in money they make up for in lack of moderation and respect for anything. And I agree entirely about Le Corbusier. The lunatic would have destroyed the unique beauty of Hausmann Paris, and replaced it with something resembling post apocalyptic life.
the perfect home is much to do with the people inside, and the spaces that can be used. For instance, big kitchen/living room is more social than tiny kitchen separate from rooms for lounging. The latter is still a predominant feature of far too many new homes, which is probably at least partially responsible for the disfunctionality in our families. That separation of spaces, particularly the kitchen, is a strongly patriarchal 'design'. Homes designed by women, true-hearted women, enlightened women, are what we need.
I like to be able to see A d B choices of peoples in the buildings which he uses to ‘ educate’ us. But in the first video the choice of connecting “music” became very annoying. With better editing sound wouldn’t be needed. The overall tone of the video is still to much aimed at the converted. No one living below the poverty line would feel being cared for by elitist architects. Next video try to show examples of Good Designs for the poor. A d B would be able to have access to travel the world and show us work by architects who care about the poor and not so much about middel and upperclass homeowners.
my main criticism of this is that his view is very class-based. architecture, probably by sheer necessity (those with money can buy the land, labor and materials involved) is always invested with the class interests of the overlords of the rest of humanity. the buildings that he goes to as a symbol of what 'we' should idealize are what the top classes choose to emphasize, and many of the buildings that he picks out (and which are heavily featured in architectural magazines) are those which are built by the upper classes for their own pleasure. in this way, I think he misses the point entirely (and I do not miss his--much of what gets built as common architecture IS sad, shoddy and depressing and harkening back to some kind of imagined past where people can be mistakenly viewed as more authentic and psychologically secure) that the upper classes are using their money to build their own technological fantasy world to escape from the common man. who but someone who can afford to buy two home lots can have the privacy that an glass roof and glass walls afford? who wants to live in something that looks very much like the cold, impersonal glass office building that they work in all day long? many do, but many of those are aspirationally wealthy themselves, noveau riche, etc.. the very buildings he takes us into are palaces by comparison that many of us will never get the chance to enter, and then to highlight this contrast, he shows the lower class subdivisions, who really do want comfort. and yet why does he never ask why they NEED comfort from the 'modern' world? because that world has devalued them and left them behind to rot in pseudo tudorbethan or neo-Georgian tenements. they are disguised, and sold for profit, but they are still tenements compared to the 'ideal' architecture that he thinks we should all aspire to. I agree that if something is built, it should be built with the idea that it will stand the test of time and still be as attractive to individuals in the future as in the past. and much of those modern skyscrapers are NOT attractive to people in the present, much less the past and hopefully not the future. yes, the Gherkin is a signature kind of architecture, but I notice that it is almost always featured from OUTside. why? possibly because the psychological impact of being INSIDE the darn thing is horrifying (just guessing; never been there). the homes he features are pleasant, but they are not for everyone and until they ARE for everyone, they are not the homes that should be built. notice how the couple even bought the lot to keep out "those with bad taste" (paraphrase). this is exactly how the upper class views us commoners, and our preferred architecture--sentimental, clinging on to the past, etc. 'read' it and weep!
![The Perfect Home - Alain de Botton [episode three]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5OTfsZewsbc/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Perfect Home - Alain de Botton [episode three]](/img/tr.png)
Lovely show, but the music is driving me nuts.
What missed opportunities to create wonderful architecture and urban spaces. With so many undervalued talented architects, it is really a tragedy that this is happening all over the world.
It's interesting, my experience with the architecture of Dubai was that I generally liked the outside of the buildings shown. They were very exciting and full of energy, but I was not generally crazy about the furnishings and colors inside. Also the classic buildings in France are mesmerizing and gorgeous, that architect who wanted to demolish them, I think he was a bit of lunatic.
I agree completely about Dubai, with the difference of me not being very impressed by the outside of those buildings they have built there. It's a makeshift town, makeshift culture of a nation entirely devoid of taste. Tacky at it's best. What they may have in money they make up for in lack of moderation and respect for anything. And I agree entirely about Le Corbusier. The lunatic would have destroyed the unique beauty of Hausmann Paris, and replaced it with something resembling post apocalyptic life.
the perfect home is much to do with the people inside, and the spaces that can be used.
For instance, big kitchen/living room is more social than tiny kitchen separate from rooms for lounging. The latter is still a predominant feature of far too many new homes, which is probably at least partially responsible for the disfunctionality in our families. That separation of spaces, particularly the kitchen, is a strongly patriarchal 'design'. Homes designed by women, true-hearted women, enlightened women, are what we need.
Amen.
The perfect house is a house I can afford.
Magnificent
this is episode 3
I like to be able to see A d B choices of peoples in the buildings which he uses to ‘ educate’ us.
But in the first video the choice of connecting “music” became very annoying.
With better editing sound wouldn’t be needed.
The overall tone of the video is still to much aimed at the converted.
No one living below the poverty line would feel being cared for by elitist architects.
Next video try to show examples of Good Designs for the poor.
A d B would be able to have access to travel the world and show us work by architects who care about the poor and not so much about middel and upperclass homeowners.
my main criticism of this is that his view is very class-based. architecture, probably by sheer necessity (those with money can buy the land, labor and materials involved) is always invested with the class interests of the overlords of the rest of humanity. the buildings that he goes to as a symbol of what 'we' should idealize are what the top classes choose to emphasize, and many of the buildings that he picks out (and which are heavily featured in architectural magazines) are those which are built by the upper classes for their own pleasure. in this way, I think he misses the point entirely (and I do not miss his--much of what gets built as common architecture IS sad, shoddy and depressing and harkening back to some kind of imagined past where people can be mistakenly viewed as more authentic and psychologically secure) that the upper classes are using their money to build their own technological fantasy world to escape from the common man. who but someone who can afford to buy two home lots can have the privacy that an glass roof and glass walls afford? who wants to live in something that looks very much like the cold, impersonal glass office building that they work in all day long? many do, but many of those are aspirationally wealthy themselves, noveau riche, etc.. the very buildings he takes us into are palaces by comparison that many of us will never get the chance to enter, and then to highlight this contrast, he shows the lower class subdivisions, who really do want comfort. and yet why does he never ask why they NEED comfort from the 'modern' world? because that world has devalued them and left them behind to rot in pseudo tudorbethan or neo-Georgian tenements. they are disguised, and sold for profit, but they are still tenements compared to the 'ideal' architecture that he thinks we should all aspire to. I agree that if something is built, it should be built with the idea that it will stand the test of time and still be as attractive to individuals in the future as in the past. and much of those modern skyscrapers are NOT attractive to people in the present, much less the past and hopefully not the future. yes, the Gherkin is a signature kind of architecture, but I notice that it is almost always featured from OUTside. why? possibly because the psychological impact of being INSIDE the darn thing is horrifying (just guessing; never been there). the homes he features are pleasant, but they are not for everyone and until they ARE for everyone, they are not the homes that should be built. notice how the couple even bought the lot to keep out "those with bad taste" (paraphrase). this is exactly how the upper class views us commoners, and our preferred architecture--sentimental, clinging on to the past, etc. 'read' it and weep!
You did not watch the 3 episodes and you still don't understand the dialectic behind this documentary.