This video is gold for me! I have long been looking for a school that taught classical architecture, had this existed two decades earlier I would have gone that way with my career.
Have you ever heard of "Tartaria" theory? I think you should make a video on the so called Qanon of Architecture. It is not the merits of the theory that are important but they way it has spread by feeding off the latent backlash against modernism. The public is so fed up with modernism at this point that they will entertain any nonsense that can possibly save them from the dystopian hell hole that is our modern built environment.
I agree with the concept of architectural "brainwashing", I've used this term before and it truly describes well the modern teaching process. Another problem is that cities are designed by the architects, and they don't manage well what's built and what's not, hence modern public spaces suck!
@@gabrielg.2401yes, the degeneracy is real and everywhere. On a good note, I'll take beautiful buildings designed with the help of AI over human ego driven ugly ones
I feel something is fundamentally wrong with our economy. As I’m not an economist, I cannot exactly explain what though… Maybe the ‘Bitcoin Urbanists’ are on to something?
I feel something is fundamentally wrong with our economy. As I’m not an economist, I cannot exactly explain what though… Maybe the ‘Bitcoin Urbanists’ are on to something?
@@the_aesthetic_city I believe unrestricted consumerism is catching up with us. Infinite growth within a finite system is not sustainable long term. But businessmen still value quantity over quality, which is a shame.
I think the impact of the allure of money and fame is missing from the video. To become a starchitect - a term invented in the last 40 years or so - you have to design something different and outlandish. Something that really sticks out so that your friends in the academy can pronounce you the new new thing. And then clients will flock to you and then each time you have to design something even more different and outlandish to keep the new clients happy and keep the rigamarole going. Architecture now is not about designing useful structures for all stakeholders - it's about maximizing one's own income and reputation.
Well....people dont have money or want to take risks to design something different or special, is not a problem of architectural design, thats just a sympton
As an Architect myself, it's not the modernist designs that irks me. It's getting to that design mentality directly WITHOUT studying or even appreciating the classical designs. We should be masters of BOTH, it's never too late to study. Great video!
So, no studying classical designs? Why not learn from it? An architect doesn't necessarily need to use it directly, only learn - that is the point of this video! Thank you for replying :)
Architects don't understand why (some) classical architecture works so well. PoMo demonstrated this failure. They've thought that stripping classicism down to it's "essence" and embarking on political polemics that were completely irrelevant to ordinary people was somehow a way out of the dead-end that the International Style lead them to. Subitizing and visual processing efficency are probably the two most important aspects of why classical designs "work" but contemporary architects have convinced themselves ideologically that (early 20th century) science cannot shed light on how a building affects a human being.
@@the_aesthetic_city I don't think that Lyndonarana said not to study classical design; just the opposite. I read that lyndonarana said to also study modern and other examples of good design.
I studied architecture in Ukraine in Lviv Polythechnic University and in the first 2 courses of study we studied how people used to build before in 15-17 cent., we made drawings of historical buildings, plans, sections, painted with watercolors, it was studing of classical architefcture the same as in the University of Notre Dame, and at the same time we studied how to design modern architecture. For me it was a big surprise that in the German universities where I finished my master's degree, students did not study this, and 99% of students could not create correct technical sketches by hand, in addition, to enter the faculty of architecture in Ukraine, you have to take a creative exam - draw an antique column, an abstract composition and solve an architectural task, in Germany you just submit your school grades and that's it, so many people in this profession are amateurs here
Закончил второй курс программы архитектуры в одном из московских вузов... Действительно, поначалу изучали класич. архи, но теперь, когда пришла пора делать свои проекты, преподы с ума сходят когда предлагаешь им поработать в традиционной стилистике... Начинают тараторить что-то про цыганщину( Очень не хочется думать, что оставшиеся 3 года бакалавриата буду проектировать хлам с параметрическими фасадами...
We also not making fire with wooden sticks we use a lighter. Using the computer is no issue it's only how you use it. As an architect myself who did the long way from technical school to Uni i think that's what most architects miss. Knowledge of how you make/build it not just drawing with a pencil.
@@o.3825 If you can't draw a shape by hand... it's not about hand, it's about not seeing clearly in your imagination. So drawing by hand is training your imagination, not let the computer drop ideas on me and I'll merge them.
I'm very glad to hear someone say it. It's infuriating how anti-common people a lot of the artistic academic world is. They keep forcing works into public spaces that people without an art history education can not appreciate because it hinges entirely on external context rather than the work itself being appealing.
I'm 72, and consider that much of my life has been compromised by the grotesque ugliness of contemporary architecture. It seems like a horrible joke, but The Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health may be the epitome of outrageousness. I don't know much about what The Lou Ruvo Center does, but suspect that much of it has to do with treatment of traumatic brain injury patients. It's dreadful that the building was designed as it was. However, as a TBI survivor, I can't help seeing the bleak humor in it. In America, The National Civic Arts Society is fighting the good fight for a return of beauty to design. I urge everyone who reads this to go to their website. President Trump had signed an executive order which authorized that in the future, government buildings were to be designed according to classical standards. Of course, Biden reversed this. Is anyone surprised?
Very well said. To me, it’s not about doing away with concepts like “form follows function”, but about accepting that a building’s beauty - as appreciated by common people - is very much a function of a building. I’m so glad that this new architectural movement seems to be gaining traction.
Absolutely! The more fringe/new something is, the faster it goes out of style. I love the looks of the city blocks shown in the video! They are gorgeous! They looked good the day they were made and look good now. I wonder if it will ever be in style to intentionally weather a building/new development to make it look established.
I live in an European city, where we have huge amounts of old buildings. By the look of them, they most of them were built in the 18th and 19th century. They are still in use and are maintained. How sustainable is that? They look very nice and especially so after they get cleaned off the 100 years of muck on them. They of course have their own problems like ridiculous room height: something like 4 meters, where a front door can be 2 by 3 meters. That height wastes huge amount of energy in winter and it also wastes vertical space. The waste of space can be limited a little by making a loft, but you can't have a loft in every room. Also staircases don't often have space for an elevator, which makes life in upper floors difficult. Adding the room height with that and fourth floor is in modern terms sixth floor apartment without an elevator. Not very convenient.
How would you stop an unstoppable trend such as mass production and globalization? Inaccessibility, strong values, affinity with nature and slow pace are what helped us to get the best art in the world. Once we started industrialization, automation, accessibility and even worse AI and 3D printers, we have access to a cheap fast product so industrial minimalism is what we get. Whenever a new aesthetic trend similar to the classical one will come back it will not be less mass produced, industrialised, made affordable and accessible than any minimalistic design. A big reset is what we need, we are already a saturated society.
@@the_aesthetic_citybeware us from thousands of museal copies of old styles. Do domething new! Dont be lazy and just copy! Find out the real reason people like old bulldings and create new styles from these basic pronciples!
@@matswessling6600 The original Renaissance architecture was a "rebirth" in interest of the Classical era. The Baroque continued on that theme, making it its own unique style. The Beaux Arts school freshened classical architecture once again to fit a new century. What they all have in common is the base understanding of the original Classical style, harkening back to ancient Greece and Rome, but tweaking it a little to fit the then contemporary time. We could do that again for the 21st century. But we have to first teach the basics: Proportion. The Classic Orders. Perspective. The importance of light and shadow...Play with the basics and make them relevant to today. But don't toss them out completely. They WORK. They can still work. Instead of "Neo-Renaissance" or "Renaissance Revival" (which the Victorians have already taken) I would prefer to call this movement something original.
I dropped my dream of becoming an architect for reasons shared here. Now at 40, it feels too late for me. I feel personally robbed, along with others who prefer living in beautiful spaces instead of brutalistic nightmares. Thank you for the beautiful work you do, sir.
I just graduated from college and it was this channel, right as it started, that introduced me to traditional architecture and urbanism. My last year of college, my architecture professors didn’t like my work because it wasn’t modern. My professors were always trying to get me to design modern things. I'm so excited to keep learning about traditional architecture and urbanism and practice it in my career.
I know! they hated my work too because I was trying to design primitive huts and circular plans which was supposed to be about community. Modern architecture is for the modern dystopia we live in today- isolated and in despair.
Your professors are a bunch of old farts who have their heads stuck up their ass. They don't realize how much their skit is hated by the general public.
I think i was like you in the first years of college, but at some point i tried to open up to their ideas and understand what they really want. I found that they cared just as much and were excited about materiality and beauty. They were just searching it beyond what is already known, which tbh complicates the search a lot haha :D Nothing wrong with dusting off the books about ornamentation from the different points in time in the past
I just came back from Austria and I met an Austrian student who is studying Architecture in Vienna. I asked him about his thoughts on modern architecture and why there are no beautiful buildings anymore, he said "A part of the reason is that whenever we (the students) draft old style buildings for our lecturer, it is immediately dismissed on the grounds of it being seen as "copying" or not "nothing new". Then when we draft something Modern, it's approved". Shame, especially since Vienna has some beautiful buildings, as well as all of Austria.
Sounds like the stereotypical idea of New = Better Old = Bad Change = Progress But there’s no thought to bad change or good change. SOMETIMES the people in the past got it right. Why not keep the good parts (like the beautiful architecture)?
An interesting case is the Luftwaffe headquarters built during the Third Reich. It truly is a classic case of brutalist architecture. When one considers how the Luftwaffe destroyed massive sections of beautiful and historic European architectural and cultural history, it seems an apt style for their HQ. The retaliation in carpet bombing by the Allies then led to a vicious circle. The loser was Europe as a whole. The controlling elite at Western architectural schools would do well to study the Luftwaffe HQ and reflect on the destructive implications (on aesthetic, cultural and spiritual levels) of their policy misdirection.
What I hate most about postmodern architecture is the hypocrisy, especially its terms like "false historical". With this false idea they impose a bad reconstruction of a part of the building, if they are not rebuilding it, they are ruining it. The other term that I hate the most is historicism, but modern architects have been copying Bauhaus for more than 100 years. Modern architects contradict themselves, or are hypocrites, because when they imitate a style they are modern and original, but if an architect wants to build a building with a traditional design is treated as average. The other problem is eclecticism, modern architects criticize eclectisism, but they have been mixing concepts of modern architecture, in themselves they are eclepticists, but when they do it it is fine, if an architect wants to mix concepts of human history they treat him as If you are doing something wrong. The last point is that modern architecture goes against the concepts of the Bauhaus, since many buildings are useless, roofs that retain water, unnecessary shapes that increase the cost of the building, above all they are narcissistic because they design only for their own. ego, the monsters they create are just to draw attention to themselves that's fine. These people are the ones who criticized and demonized as "useless and banal" the sumptuous and beautiful facades of beauty arts architecture. When beauty attracts attention they criticize it, but attracting attention is good if it is to inflate the ego of a mediocre postmodern architect.
Absolutely true, the hypocrisy is what bothers me most as well. If architects are supposed to have total design freedom, then why isn’t it allowed to design traditionally? Etc, etc.. And referring to Bauhaus is by now also referring to a design tradition, but apparently that is allowed
technological advances like a good flat roof or glass window are good, but do not replace the human intellect that can also create sensual art..with details, shapes and even colors, that the modern cannot even recognize as part of a public communication about space and architecture..we need our cultural routes back..the modern is for a money-slave society not for intelligent and creative people..
We need to stop calling Modernist architecture "modern." There is nothing modern about it. It is just a bunch of stale ideas from the 1930s and '40s that have been rehashed over and over again. Calling 80 year old ideas modern is absurd and we need to stop calling it that. These styles should be called Mid-Century Simplicity and Abstraction or MCSA for short. This is the first step in making this crap go away. Rename it, can it, and dump it in the trash bin of history under failed ideas.
The current minimalist dullness is the result of the denigration of historicism and eclectism, which instead I find the most fascinating cultural and architectural movements ever. Instead of "loving to hate" anything before modernism (while hypocritically and mindlessly replicating the same instructions from the 1940s), I believe we should strip away the modernist dogmatism that sees anything historicist and eclectic as intrinsically evil and cherish the beauty and playfulness it has created and that most people around the world appreciate.
I couldn't agree more. As much as I personally dislike modernist architecture, I only hate it for the way that it has become dogmatic, elitist, and intolerant of other artistic movements.
So recognizable! During my time at university I remember a student who was told by a teacher that he could better leave architecture school after he had shown his traditional design. During my first design studio, a student in my group who designed a traditional house got the lowest grade of the group; and guess what the others designed? A modernist house of course, because this is what the teacher seemed to appreciate. This has to change!
What you call modernist was probably about fluid space, clean interiors, clever insertion on the context and multipurpose solutions. What you call traditional was probably about rigid schemes, outdated decoration, building understood as an isolated composition and fake historic look. Here you are some possible reasons for the grades. It's not about styles. It's about contemporary answers to contemporary problems...
And now a lot of problems with teeth are attributed to our modern soft diet . . . Along with the receding weak jaw. Which is also perceived as less attractive. Chewing food helps develop strong even well placed teeth, in well developed jaws that provide space and foundation for the teeth.
there are plenty of modern buildings that use traditional masonry, wood, concrete, glass, ceramics, metals, and other materials found in historical architecture.
The thing I hated most about architects when I was working in the construction industry was their lack of technical ability. I was witness to several incidents where drawings were returned. Reasons included missing information, conflicting dimensions and materials needing to be formed in a way that is impossible (and there was me thinking it obvious that granite is inflexible). Bering in mind that having to delay work to wait on the architect to fix a design problem generally doesn't go down well with the client as well as making the contractor look incompetent. It was always preferable to do everything possible to build as per original design, even if it was a massive hassle.
@Art-is-craft Here in the Netherlands architecture is only possible as a master programme, after three or four years of building engineering. You start out with the history, the materials, detailing, constructions and all that stuff, and only after that you can start a pure architecture study. Having studied with students from across the globe this is so different. I remember class mates from Asia for example who had never drawn a single technical drawing or something, being completely shocked by the Dutch way of combining technical and esthetic qualities.
@@treinenliefde Classical architects first trained in the building process. Their apprenticeship started with building. They understood through experience the process of building. Today’s architects are designers.
I was very disappointed when I started my college career in architecture. I was already restoring old buildings and had design philosophies shoved at me that I did not agree with or want to have any part in. It eventually ended my desire to be an architect. I spent the next 40 years restoring and designing historically inspired spaces, including my own homes.
Good for you! I agree that architecture school faculties are full of a$$h@les! I taught at one for a few years and regret being one of those despicables a few times. I did teach studios on classical design, however...
Does modern architecture even have aesthetics? The word means the study or appreciation of beauty - something modern architecture actively frowns upon.
The lack of proper architecture programs (read: programs that actually teach architecture rather than modernist politics in an architecture package) is what drove me away from studying architecture. I can definitely understand your experience at seeing the students' works at Nôtre Dame.
This is spot on. I grew up thinking I'd become an architect. I went to the University of Minnesota for Architecture and lost my love for it because it was a brainwashing factory for modernism and sustainability. I ended up in marketing.
You may want to take a look at the German island of Sylt, where some of the Germany's richest people build their holiday homes. Just look up the town of Kampen (Sylt) on Google Street View, and you will instantly understand why. Almost all new houses there are built in traditional style of that region, to the point that sometimes it is impossible to tell, which houses are over a century old, and which are brand new. Even some very modern buildings try to pay homage to the traditional style, for example the newly built "Lanserhof Sylt". Sadly, for a short time in the sixties they managed to build quite a few "modernist boxes" in the town of Westerland, for example the "Kurzentrum Westerland" or "Hanseatenhaus", and these are still considered the ugliest buildings on the whole island to this day. I think the architecture of Sylt would be a great topic for a future video. It perfectly illustrates the point: when it comes to rich people, they often prefer traditional architecture for their own homes. Sylt also demonstrates, that there is literally nothing preventing us from building traditionally, and there are enough architects who are willing to design such buildings if that's what the customer wants to pay for.
I've noticed that at the germans. But I think that the thing there is having an urban planning doctrine or law that cares about the local history and they impose strict colors, style etc. I used to visit my sister in a town in Bavaria, called Herrsching and I was so impressed how they adapted old traditional styles to this modern world. Is like the rich are tired of modern glass buildings and they want to retreat to somwhere they can feel home and relax. And then there's another thing that I consider it very important. People who get rich and know the value of money and are serious hard workers, they will not feel the need to show it in an extravagant way but to prefer living a simple life.
As a interior design student, I feel rather drained as my love for ornate classical and humane design are at conflict with most of my peers prefer for minimalism.
I actually prefer minimalism for interior design, because it allows for more space which I think is what is most important for the most amount of people. However exterior design operates under a different paradigm and should be focused on beauty.
@@tristanthamm505 Yeah, I know what you mean, there is something cool about classical building with clean modern interiors. Like St Pancras Station. Or National Trust tearooms.
Because they've either never traveled, think it will be easier to keep clean (not) or that's all they see being pushed by interior designers... and frankly most people are sheep and think they have to follow 'trends' because they have no taste or style of their own. For example I lived in Italy for 25 years, when I first got there pointy witches toe shoes were all the rage... thank god that finally ended, then the last 15 years everything was grey inside and out, tile, paint, furniture... but in northern Italy it's grey all winter long, why the hell would you want that in your home on a cold, freezing winter night???!! Actually the Italians (not all but most of the youngsters) are worse at following trends than Americans are, it's just dumb. Baa. Be yourself and embrace what makes you happy in your nest, and your job as a future Interior Designer is to lead them to the warmth of an eclectic interior with some character that doesn't look like they could efficiently dissect a neighbor on their kitchen island. 🤣
A building can stand out while still looking beautiful. The Art Deco style balanced having new bold ideas while keeping some traditional elements. When you take a closer look at Art Deco buildings you see that they aren’t just flat walls they have details. They look drastically different from what came before you could even argue Art Nouveau looked drastically different. A building can be bold and stand out while having beauty in its design. Art Deco buildings often have motifs based on the building’s use. An electric building may have electric bolts or a motif of Zeus. Art Nouveau buildings implement natural shapes and motifs of nature. Today’s buildings are bold but they lack that extra flair that past bold buildings had with their motifs.
I like how the student was talking about it, the challenges old architects faced and their solutions for it informed their design, that's how it should be. I don't particularly care if it's replicating a classical historical design, just make it look good while tackling the local challenges and give it that local aesthetic touch.
As much as my father tried pressuring me into an architecture degree, I refused on the basis that I hated all new modern buildings. I'd heard of Notre-Dame, but didn't really want to go all the way to America just to be able to make nice buildings. I'm studying urbanism now in UCL, but the fact that the resurgence in new traditional is even reaching some European schools _(finally)_ is heartening!
I hope a renaissance is occurring! It'd be nice to see new things going up and not feel either indifferent or grossed out, especially when it's amidst beautiful classical stuff. It'd be nice to look forward to something for a change.
I like the modern aesthetic. But personally I’d love a blend of modern aesthetic with the classical. That being said, the modern aesthetic grew out of an environment of pessimism and destruction of the old world that was brought by the carnage of WW2 . The modern aesthetic is an important part of human history and should not be trashed and scrapped from history imo. It is just as valid as the old aesthetics that focused heavily on beauty.
This is like a delicious meal for soul. Especially in Modernity and Bauhaus obsessed Czech Republic. We will be late to join this positive revolution, as we always are, with everything. PS Im too old to study now but boy if there was a school like Notre dame in Czech republic...Damn this hurts
Exactly!!! The Czech Republic has some of the world's finest cultural heritage: gothic, renaissance, baroque, Czech, Austro-Hungarian, German. Even pre-WWII industrial architecture like factory halls or railway infrastructure has some aesthetic value. Everything built after WWII, during the communist era or after 1990 is just plain ugly. With extremely rare exceptions. We absolutely need New Renaissance and start building beautiful houses again! 👍
@@jirislavicek9954 Never been in CR, but have often visited Bulgaria, I suppose that the 1940/1980 part is really similar. As an Italian Architect I had no knowledge of the socialist buildings and ,after a deep observation, I think there's lot to learn from them, not only from the technical part, but even for the aestethics. They are part of the global history, as well as the Golden Gate, the Eiffel tower, Saint Denis or the Pisa tower. Each journey is made of single steps.
Same for Spain, it's also obsessed with the ugliest and most useless modernist architecture, and as always we'll be the last in Europe to start fixing, I fear the amount of damage the already ugly Spanish cities (because of 60s ugly brick and bad quality development) will suffer.
Cities worldwide, before 1900, were humanity's 'old growth forests', and were devastated (clearcut) in the 20th century, mainly because of cars. But restoration of some kind is still possible.
As well as cars I would say the origins of this mindless destruction had roots in a form of cultural and spiritual nihilism. It was a suicidal tendency that is revealed in the nightmares of post WW II architectural exteriors. These exteriors reflect the inner bankruptcy.
These cities grew up under federalism and monarchy as free and private cities are property to be developed into beautiful places, not a canvass for shallow demagouges
@@screwstatists7324I find your comment interesting, but I'm not certain what you are saying because of the structure of your sentence. Are you agreeing with or critiquing the original comment in question? Do you think that the monarchical origin of much architecture discounts its artistic and functional value? Not arguing just curious.
Excellent video. I'm from Argentina, our capital city (Buenos Aires) used to be called "the Paris from South America". Nowadays most of the city has been destroyed and replaced with this new architecture. And this tendency is happening all over the country, since 1950. It's really sad to see old fotos from our cities and comparing them to how they look now.
Classical/traditional architectural styles in the United States still exist in the many cities and towns of the East Coast north of Florida, and in the city of Chicago, but is increasingly uncommon everywhere else in the United States. And unlike all the boxy or cube-shaped urban-located buildings commonly associated with modern architecture, it’s usually office parks, strip malls, warehouses, grade schools which take much more space than they normally should, and cookie-cutter tract homes. Sometimes, you will see buildings that look traditionally-designed, but are designed in a way that heavily favors automobiles over pedestrians, which leads to a lot of places that genuinely feel artificial and unnatural despite having a traditionally-designed facade.
The thing about flat roofs in rainy (and snowy) climates kills me. There are places in Europe that built buildings with flat roofs despite the fact that they have heavy snow and rain each winter, and this results in them having to waste thousands of Euros in maintenance that they wouldn't have had to waste if the roofs were just built in a traditional way (which originally wasn't created for esthetics but for the very practical reason of not allowing the snow to accumulate and damage the roof). That in itself proves that the claim of being "practical" and "sustainable" is pure BS.
I was educated in a more traditional architecture school, and one thing I cannot forget is when one day a classmate brought his project with virtually flat roofs. Our professor asked him to clear his desk and pour a little water in the middle, and it puddled there... then he said "This is going to happen to your project, we are not in California, we have rain and hail".
I writing from Canada can confirm you that it is a necessary advantage to have traditional angular roofs, as steps to a gallery to reach the door several feet above the ground, as space around the house, even lightly paralelogram walls, for the winter conditions.
My boyfriend is a fan of the modern architecture - he's like oh yeah, skyscrapers, and im there in the corner appreciating wooden huts in a village and old churches... Let's just say getting a home together will be tough. Also what you mentioned, about sustainability being about the longevity of the building, is such an important and often overlooked aspect of it, and so is the knowledge of the material. I do hope change is on its way.
It does not shock me at all that these are all very well-known catholic schools in the states. There has been a huge shift in the catholic world back towards tradition.
Sustainability is key, and using less concrete saves CO2. Not to mention keeping the building for more than 40-50 years. In Stockholm (home to the parodically horrible architecture school at the start of the video), the garbage 1970s architecture that replaced the 1700s historic city centre has already had to be torn down and "reimagined" with at least some slight thought of the people using it.
Many people imagine the 2100s or 2200s as this glass utopia full of neo-futurism style buildings, but I like to imagine it having transferred to building traditional and classical styles of architecture, with modernist/contemporary/futurist architecture having just been an edgy phase of the architectural field.
I think it is due to extrapolation from one point, or very short period, and then we all are influenced by sci-fi of 1950-1970's and then we just tend to iterate over those tropes and features. Like, flying cars, like superwide highways, sleek space ships or touchscreen interface that we are slowly starting to hate. Everything is delivered by air or by some gimmick at the edge of physics. And we do not see, or not often, a train or ships used for transport, it still feels like those posters and ideas from 50's, yes the design, clothes and so had changed, but in the core, it is still the same concepts of mid 20th century. Another problem IMHO is that in the past architecture went in spiral and iterated over itself (classical, classicism, neoclassicism) and those took like century after which it went for inspiration back a century or two, but today we iterate over decades instead of centuries. Another thing to consider is that dictatorships of the 20th century loved those "traditional" buildings so the free world perhaps felt need to distance itself from those dictatorships. I am not sure that in the future we would be building in some neoneogothic style, unless we will seriously mess something up, but I think that we will see some revival of more classical designs, maybe in form of layouts or in form of some ornamentation or materials (but that depends on whether we would be talking about houses or public buildings). Maybe we will go back to ornamented columns first? Or maybe frieze will return as it should be easy to produce with our modern machinery? I don't know, but I would say hat this is the way how classical elements can return into current and future architecture.
For me the worst is: eco futurism, they believe that by putting plants the building is "ecological", or they make it less ugly, when it is appearances and without practicality, they never question the humidity problems that a building full of plants would have, The cost of doing this would create more CO2 than making a normal building, ecofuturism is dystopian and polluting. But a traditional brick building of 5 to 7 floors, endure 100 years or more, this is truly ecological.
@@ReyneArturiaPenededragon That is spot on! Imagine how quickly plant buildings degrade due to humidity! They would fall apart so quickly and produce more pollution in maintenance or just the destruction of the building in the end, and are also a waste of money.
As a field architect, I fully agree with your arguments. What I feel through various experiences over the past 30 years of work is that people want to be touched in a variety of ways through architecture. However, they are users and not clients. Clients are only interested in profits from sales and rental income, and public clients are only interested in political propaganda. From south korean architect
There are many buildings in Japan with terrible designs. The few historical buildings remaining after the war have been demolished due to the Japanese belief in new construction, maintenance costs, natural disasters, and other reasons. In addition, ordinary Japanese citizens have no interest in architectural design, and designs by famous architects are praised and built. There is no continuity in the streetscape and it is in a miserable state, which is very unfortunate.😢
I seen this video of architects praising this building in Japan talking about how wonderful it is but it was so inconvenient for the locals it was such an inconvenient structure and people were having troubles finding their way.
I find Europe a strange place for the fact that they have both classical and modern architecture built side-by-side so that they can clearly see the differences yet they just keep building modern slop without any consideration for aesthetic.
Oh my god this video encompass every thought i have so far in architecture school to the smallest details, even my thought that ornamentation and other older techniques are locked on the past only for existing buildings.
As an ex-architecture student, I can say this is quite true. However, this discourse needs to be nuanced : architecture is part of a larger building industry. This industry immensely prefers modern architecture : cheaper, easier, simpler. My professors' main argument against ornamentation were concerns about cost more than style/doctrine. Students are very much left to figure things by themselves however...
Architecture student here! Unsurprisingly, online discourse is ripe with lack of nuance. Seeing the comments section here is equal parts concerning and disheartening. This video seems to have become a magnet for people with this mindset...
Your video rings true in my case. From a very young age I was in awe of these classical buildings throughout Europe being so harmonious and beautiful as well as full of historical and cultural identity that I've always dreamt of being an architect so that I could design buildings and urban areas to be admired for ages to come. When I was finally able to study architecture at university I was so surprised to find that there was indeed zero focus on pre-WWI architecture. Building traditionally was considered old-fashioned from day one and in as some times even considered evil (often comparing traditional ideas to radical national ideals during WWII Germany). You were always pushed to think outside the box and come up with crazy, and frankly, very unappealing models. Feeling like an outsider among most of my peers in class I became completely demotivated and quit architecture school. To this day it saddens me deeply that I had to give up that dream of making the world a more beautiful place through architecture and instead watch it diminish to the same modernistic ideals that I came to hate during those years at university..
You’d like the work of HBRA, they’re the firm that did the Harold Washington Library in Chicago. They’ve done lots of classical extensions to campus buildings, and also do (nice) modern stuff.
There are Art Deco revival buildings happening across New York and Chicago. They're not usually publicised. The Brooklyn Tower is a recent one that got some attention.
I'm a civil engineering student, and when I asked my teacher why we didn't learn how to build and design in styles like neoclassical, Victorian... She told me that it was all outdated. That it is expensive to build, and that if we build like we used to, this would be a "cultural" appropriation from another time, something that can no longer be built, as this building would not have a history.
As it is this statement invalidates itself, by admitting its historical value, higher material richness, artistic merits, while noting it as to avoid precisely for these reasons. It is like saying that it would be too good !
Frank Lloyd Wright actually used quite a bit of ornament in his buildings. The Hollyhock House in LA for example has abstract, stylized depictions of the hollyhock flower throughout the property.
As a teen, I loved classical buildings and wanted to go study architechture. After attending orientation events, I got so disappointed by the way the subject was thought (all modern and lifeless), I decided to study medicine instead. My life would have been very different if I had had different options and it probably would have suited me better.
My criteria for an architect, from my retirement house to city hall, is: "If you could go back in time, would you strangle Le Corbusier in his cradle, or not?"
no, he was an experimental architect who created the modern too, but not forced it on the world, the "Ronchamp Cathedral" is a sensual project that he could also do..and his Villa Savoy is a liveable place..respecting natural space..Turning back to the barrock is not the answer, we need to design our new world based on our classical inheritance but using modern technologies..so not an easy task..
I'm a history PhD candidate and It's startling how similar my experience in graduate school has been. Just replace "modern" with "postmodern," and practically everything mentioned in the video is the same. A bland European monoculture that raises an autoimmune response against other ideas. It's the same in literature, languages, art history, and religious studies. In my first few years I tried to bring in alternative viewpoints, but I got smacked down and even accused of having right-wing sympathies (I don't). Eventually I got discouraged and just wanted to graduate, so I started putting gibberish from Lacan, Butler, et al in my (otherwise good) papers and pretended to understand gibberish while other people were speaking it, and the result was that I became well-liked in my department and got money and pats on the head. Teaching is the only part of the job that feels honest and worthwhile, but we are strongly advised to spend as little time on our classes as possible and direct our energy into publishing, conferences, and grant writing. If I wanted to, I could halve the time I spend on my classes and experience no negative repercussions whatsoever, but seeing the students get excited about history is the only thing that keeps me going. So, yeah, long story short, it's infested all the humanities I know of. (Is architecture a humanity? I think this channel would say yes.)
That’s quite discouraging to hear.. but not surprising. It’s scary to hear that science is devolving into postmodern gibberish - truth becomes relative and subjective, which is problematic as it erodes the foundation of any knowledge we have. I would say architecture is supposed to be a ‘practical art’, only partly ‘humanity’ - one cannot doubt the use or validity of a foundation, as it will lead to a building collapsing. However, the way designs are justified often sounds like nonsensical poetry - so there’s definitely something off there. The book ‘Architectural Principles in the Age of Fraud’ offers a brilliant take on this
In Charleston, SC, there’s a mixed use apartment complex going up that takes inspiration from the history of the city and utilizes traditional architectural design that’s seeking to beautify the city and its skyline while also being a place people can actually live in. It’s a breath of fresh air after seeing two identical postmodern buildings go up on an adjacent street.
Cities with historical charm that value their traditional architecture are leading the charge. When they realize people come to their cities for the historical charm and traditional look they begin to realize they should not only preserve it but actually make more of it.
It not just in architecture that universities have failed, the whole culture in the US is on very shallow grounds. Basic integrity and decency is being lost. If you look at what’s happening in the major universities in the US, it will take generations if ever to return to a civil society. Imagine Harvard and MIT becoming a joke with billions in the bank.
Thank you for making this video. I graduated from Architecture school 18 years ago, and I found parts of it frustrating for many of the reasons mentioned. There was way too much emphasis and time placed on avant garde design theories, rather than studying the past and proven design + construction practices. Now that I’m well into a profession career and in a position where I have to hire new graduates, I often find myself looking for qualities in candidates that schools do not emphasize at all. Design is important, but most Architects spend very little time doing design. In my opinion, students would be better served if they received more instruction on material qualities, construction methods, effective written + verbal communication, and presentation skills. Many would also benefit from some business courses that involve marketing, finance, and project management. I personally love traditional architecture. Although I regret that I didn’t get to study it in school, I enjoy learning about it in my spare time. It is truly fascinating to study something that has continued in some form for thousands of years.
Being an Architect myself who graduated more than 40 years ago, I agree that modern architecture allows for many ugly and unnecessary “experimental” ideas and forms. However, reverting to the Renaissance is as much unnecessary solution. Regardless if we consider modern day-to-day life is better or worse than that of Brunelleschi’s, modern times have (and got to have) a totally different set of values and needs that Renaissance architecture is in no way capable of answering to. Each era has a set of needs and values that should be reflected in its arts and architecture. Borrowing from the past is some sort of bankruptcy of creativity. Anyway, I thank you for the video, I enjoyed it.
I agree with you Might I add that I can only fear the higher cost of rent that having this supposed "Renaissance" will have on residential architecture if this video's way of thinking spreads to developing countries... Not to mentioning the heavily Eurocentric undertones it has... From the other comments lamenting the modern aesthetic (and egregiously lumping all of them under one label), I can't help but compare it to the people who speak so highly of their preferred music genres from the "good old days" when such genres had the advantage of age, with the decades filtering out and forgetting about the bad examples of the genre, allowing only the best to survive. Given this, most discourse on comparing architectures feels inherently flawed given various styles of modernism did not have the advantage of centuries that "classical" styles have had.
I respectfully disagree. There’s a reason we all travel to visit beautiful buildings whether they be in Rome, Cairo, or Beijing. Beauty is universal and timeless. And there is nothing to suggest traditional buildings have to be more expensive, they can actually be cheaper if built using locally available materials such as adobe in subsaharan Africa. As an non-architect I have to say what you modernist architects design is simply ugly and downright criminal I bet most people agree with me as per the research (on the ugly part)
Then study how to do it in the most beautiful, economical and appropriate way! This may be modern or it may be traditional. You are cutting off one of your hands by denying the reality of the requirements for getting to build these days.
As a practicing architect, architecture is greatly influenced by modern-day needs, contemporary issues and client demands. Aspects like environmental design and energy conservation are given preeminence, as they form much of today's client needs. The truth is, few clients today - especially in the commercial sector - would want reconnaissance or traditional architectural outlooks. An architect stuck in the past will quickly become moribund and archaic. The world is increasingly becoming modern and automated, and these aspects must be incorporated in today's architecture.
This video summed up my whole education thus far. I am in honours, one year away from completing my masters degree and i am yet to still be taught core design principles. I have been trying to learn on the side though. I want to become a developer that builds new housing but with traditional values as we have a massive problem with housing in South Africa.
Great video. It does make me angry how architecture has thrown away all the inherited knowledge from the past. It's really not that hard to make a building that is beautiful and functional. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
I fully agree there's too much channeling in architecture schools now, we are groomed to design what our lecturers/school system approve of. but one thing I love about my school? It's very leaned on model building and practicals to get us used to the spaces and feel and experince how our desgins actually come together, instead of some renders and 3d printing everything.
Thank you for this video! As an ordinary citizen who has to put up with uncomfortable and even scary architectural designs when visiting public buildings, I am so happy you did this video! I would love to see what you suggest us citizens can also do in terms of pushing back on local municipalities or regions when they opt for these monstrous designs for public buildings. We should have a say about them, since we fund them through taxes, after all.
THANK YOU for this video. I am not an architect but I love architecture and the creative process, and my dream is to create an international association of architecture to work on projects that counter the modern/postmodern ideals. This is shared with my architects and saved for future reference. The world is about to change. This video is exactly what I needed. Thank you thank you thank you!
A great example of modernist building that ages horribly is brutalism. In cold and rainy North-Eastern Europe it quickly gets this nasty black grime all over it. And it looks horribly depressing against a backdrop of a gray, rainy sky. The only pictures of appealing brutalist architecture I've ever seen were of perfectly clean buildings in some warm and sunny places like Australia.
@@the_aesthetic_city For some optimism, may I present an exception: the Cultural Centre of the Philippines Theatre, a Brutalist piece of the late-60s, in a country ravaged by typhoons and floods.
Same in Northern Spain, one of the rainiest places in Europe and full of modernist concrete architecture that aged horribly and as a result many cities are depressing just from the bad state of the moldy buildings, even though they were built 10 years ago while a traditional building that's been there for 300 years it's fine.
I am an econ major, and face a similar issue. I ahev pretty much graduated, except for 3 more classes. But I feel like dont know anything. There is a lack of professors teaching the practical basis. The focus in our field is rather on what you need to succeed as a PHD applicant.
Modern architecture ages horribly. I believe the most important thing in architecture is not the building… it is what happens in it: LIFE, Love, family, friends. I agree with almost everything but I don’t think Frank Lloyd Wright rejected ornaments, elaborated facades or slope roofs. The others you mention, yes, but definitively Wright didn’t do that.
I went to the Danish Architecture Museum in Copenhagen sponsored by the WEF. It was just a bunch of exhibits highlighting modular block, eco friendly buildings all the while toting them as the present and future of architecture. If that is what these schools are pushing towards the future is bleak, but the good news is that they have turned the job "architect" into a job that can be done by nearly anyone and makes them just as much like replaceable cogs in the wheel as any given assembly line worker.
For me, this is the best video on the channel. It touches on very valid points with a critical view of current teaching. Experimenting and creating with new materials is good too, but it’s important to change the way traditional architecture is viewed. The rejection of this design approach in universities needs to end, and its foundations should be learned since they are essential for creating more beautiful cities.
Beaux Arts disciplines need to be restored throughout the Western academic institutions. Julia Morgan achieved miracles of beauty in the U.S. and she received her training in Paris at the Beaux Arts architecture school.
And I think we should stop calling it "modernism", there is no more modernity in a 100+ years old movement. Call it, idk, twentiethcenturism, shoeboxism...
In my university FA CU UNAM in Mexico City they teach about all the ancient ways to build of many civilizaciones from around the world, their culture and heritage, and we as studients we know about those techniques of art and construction that are even better in climate and sustainability than the tech modern ones. But in projects the style and ways of building are mostly chosen by the client, is rare that a client wants ancient techniques for them but yeah also the architects don’t promote it in new developments but I Can say that in renovations of ancient places architects know they have to respect and embrace the heritage and even reproduce it like in countryside projects is prety common
I agree with what you say. One point that gives me pause, however, is that many of the ornamental feature of vernacular architecture are the direct result of material limitations that the modern age has solved. Think of windows for instance. Long and narrow windows with small glass panels were the only way to have large windows once. They would have absolutely built huge wide windows back then if the technology had allowed it. But now we associate tall and narrow window with classic. If we implement wide windows it's not classic anymore and the house starts looking like a gaudy mishmash. Should new homes be built only with tall and narrow windows? What about large balconies and other moder features that objectively improve the happiness and quality of life? What is the best way to mix tradition and aesthetic with comfort to maximise people happiness?
This Renaissance of traditional architecture is fantastic, but it's only half of the solution. Up until the early 20th century there existed an incredible infrastructure, with highly skilled artisans, to provide architectural ornamentation and decoration on a truly industrial scale. The rise of modernism virtually wiped this out. Which means that we need to start training the stonemasons, carpenters, plasterers, painters, etc. in traditional techniques. Otherwise, with the exception of a few high-profile buildings, there will be no one to actually realize the awesome designs these students are making.
Fully agree - we need both the knowledge and a revival of the crafts, and the second one will be much harder. But it’s also a chicken & egg problem: without architects who design ornament let’s say, there is no need for craftsmanship. Demand will lead to supply, and more supply will bring costs down. It will be hard but I do see a way
This video as well as all the others on this channel are masterpieces. Way to completely deconstruct the modernist consensus and use actual science. these videos are so unbelievably informative and interesting. This is the most high quality content I have ever seen on TH-cam. The argument is so well presented and perfectly articulates what we all sense of the bs of the modernist consensus. Thank you.
I think we seriously need to find the conslusion to the problem which is; people who see and feel no connection to aestetics. There are people who can live with only the functional elements of life and then there are us who get disgusted and put down by ugly places. These other people don't seem to feel that at all. It is time we figure out what that is, what causes it and how to deal with. And ultimately to rid those people in fields where aestetic matters. Why should your opinion have any value if you literally say you find the topic of your opinion irrelevant?
Sometimes, not even via studying you can change things for the better. In my free time I create new Wiki articles of Rotterdam's long forgotten past. The result? What essentially was history lost to time got found and put back for everyone to read and it worked. Channels on social media picked it up and shared it, showing people what they're missing. Sometimes photo's and some info can really do more than 1000 words ever can!
I retired from international shipping and visited Rotterdam on business. I accidentally learned about the horrific destruction of old Rotterdam during WW II. I saw some old black and white and sepia photos from the turn of the century and “it blew my mind” with the magical historic character. Similarly I learned about the destruction of old Antwerp and LeHavre during the War. Other European historic coastal towns and cities were flattened by bombing. The more I study what was lost the heartbreaking it is. If only there would be a popular movement to restore what was lost as a matter of European cultural urgency - it had been done with the Ypres cloth hall after WW I …😢
Architecture should be a sub-discipline of civil engineering, not art. Any efficient form can be made beautiful. Not every beautiful form can be engineered efficiently. The only structures that can stand for 1000 years must be functional AND beautiful - or they will not be left to stand. This is the balance that must be taught.
Bravo !! righto to the hart,, I'm over 20 years in a stone business and it started from seeing buildings build out of stone, but unfortunately, until this day I find very little work that requires STONE work for the buildings that as you mention homely and beautiful that everybody loves,, that's why whole tourism sector is happening,, not because people are traveling to places to see the French Italian or English people,, they go to see the places where architecture is something to be seen,, something to be enjoyed and wondering through the streets of Verona, Rome or Amsterdam makes you wanna be there makes you want to spend time there.. that means something was done right.. Wish you all the best with the channel I will keep following will keep watching and sharing.. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
The flat roof thing was basically my gateway into this. So mindlessly applied. It generally looks bad or at best a nonfactor, removes the chunk of the house that epitomises the combination of function and beauty, few climates are suitable for it without ultimately inadequate solutions to deal with the obvious problems and even where you can get away with it, it won't last as long and isn't practical to maintain (so much for sustainability, another meaningless buzzword).
The problem with beautiful classical design is the price tag. If public sector doesn't start ordering timeless designs, private sector oriented on quick return of the investment will certainly not.
calm down, no one is talking about building Renaissance palaces. if you look at actual traditional not rich palaces buildings they don't seem that expensive. Not to mention that they last more years without costly repairs. look up the video in this channel about a new Dutch town built in traditional style that is cheaper than its neighbors, due also to smart use of social housing.
It is so frustrating to see that all those people dont realise that Architecture isnt about just building something beautiful. You can surely build those old european city buildings like in prag or dresden, but it just isnt effecient, sustainable and practical. Architecture is more than just decorating fassades. For example those buildings in dresden are just new building with new building materials hidden behind “klinker” bricks. How stupid and unsustainable is that. You further have to considerate that all those beautiful old buildings yall are looking up to are only there because they were the most expensive and beautiful of their time and are part of an urban selection over hundreds of years. So of course no one got the recourses to build buildings like that
This explains exactly what happened when I entered my local school of architecture in Scotland in 1973 aged 18. I wanted to be taught how to be an architect and create beautiful structures. Instead I experienced lots of courses In technical aspects of building and structure with the design emphasis on minimalist form expressing function. All this was boring and I dropped out, disillusioned. This failure has always haunted me but looking back it was the wrong architecture course for me. I believe studying architecture is better suited to a mature student It’s significant that the Head of School was a structural engineer and not an architect.
When revivalist architecture can meet the need for light, air, space, and modern amenities in a context of high labor and land costs, all for a comparable price, there will be more of it. Until then, your fight is with structural economic incentives, not a difference in attitudes.
I love how architects and urban designers are encouraged to be artistic and creative yet all they create is mundane, conformist drivel that is unoriginal and lifeless. Traditional architecture was artful and beautiful. Modern/post modern society supposedly values creativity but they destroyed beauty in the process.
It's also weird that they only think that "innovation" can only occur in their strictly defined "modern" minimalistic buildings, they don't even think that you can innovate by.combining old ideas with new ideas.
I really enjoyed this video. I feel like some things you pointed out here are also true for other types of education. Keep doing what you are doing! Informing makes an actual impact.
I’ve found through my studies so far that most isolation towards me comes from faculty rather than piers. I study at a modernist school and am one of, if not the only, person in my class with a more traditional-wired mind. The fellow student like that I have a completely different philosophy from them. The teachers, not so much. I’m never given the ability to explore the classical ideas and they claim that me doing so is “limiting myself”. Somehow they don’t realize the action of telling someone to do something different because it’s “limiting” is limiting in itself.
They don't want you to design classical architecture Becuase they don't like it, so they put punishment on students who do it. Which is wrong and evil.
Thanks for making this video! This is exactly what we need right now!!! I live in Denmark and had been writing to a couple of architect schools asking if they offered classes in classical architecture. Had this been around 20 years ago I would perhaps have picked a different path! I still want to learn about classical architecture but perhaps not take a full architect education.
@@the_aesthetic_city So far I made the Aarhus school of architecture aware of the video and gave them a hint once more that I was interested in taking up the subject. Months earlier I have asked Arkitektur Oprøret, if they were capable of recommending a classical course in architecture, they had no recomendations. This is just a speculation but I believe we lack a network of classical architects in Denmark to pick up the challenge. Danish architects has otherwise previously been open to setting up new movements, the most successful being "Bedre Byggeskik" that rebelled against what it saw as a generic international form of classicism in the late 1800's putting a Danish vernacular style in its place and helped empower local craftsmen. Alas this movement was also conquered by modernism and closed its doors in 1965, despite having a profound impact decades earlier.
This is such an uplifting and true video and gives hope for a better built environment in the future. As most architecture is a commercial process, clients need also to take this on board, not just a functional fast track, minimal cost solution to make money from rental, sale or whatever. In the past people and organisations had pride in their locality and wanted their buildings to be well designed, and be a lasting legacy to them. People appreciate stability, good design, quality and permanence, things lacking in the recent decades.
Il y a un lien fort entre le totalitarisme du 20éme et les fondateurs du "modernisme". Un personnage comme Le Corbusier avait des affinités avec le 3eme Reich et les soviétiques. Il n'est pas étonnant que leur architecture est était extrémiste et dans la négation ou la réfutation de l'histoire des arts et techniques formants l'architecture. Le Corbusier n'as pas d'argument objectif contre les toits à mansardes, il voulait simplement supprimer les chambres de bonnes dans les greniers en supprimant les toitures. C'était une fournaise dans le Paris Haussmannienne et jusqu'à récemment avec l'ardoise noire et l'absence d'isolation. Toutes les justifications idéologiques de Le Corbusier n'empêche pas d'avoir construit vers 1970 des logements insalubres pour les plus modestes et possédant une toiture plate qui fuie davantage. Les quartiers populaires en France, des grands ensembles à la Le Corbusier croule sous les charges, notamment les réfections de toitures terrasses, tandis que les maisons ou les immeubles de toitures plus classiques, souvent occupé par des gens pourtant plus fortuné, finissent pas payer moins de charges d'entretiens… Qui est pauvre doit il entretenir plus et payer plus, à travers son bailleur social, une surface réduite moins couteuse et son loyer. Les toitures sont plates à Marrakech et à forte pente pour les églises Viking ; la pente des toitures est forte à travers le monde contre la pluie pour augmenter l'étanchéité.
I think we come to a point where it’s hard to change because these schools are just “preparing” their students for the industry. If they go in without this “knowledge” they most likely won’t thrive or succeed.
amazing video as always man,its a shame architectural schools are so pitted against beauty. if this renaissance is truly up on its way it has to sweep throughout the entire west. no stone left unturned,there is currently a huge and powerful urge in european goverments to go all green and modern with designing future buildings,ugly bland cubes with some plants.we need all our cities brought back from the ruins of greed and war and weird architechts with questionable political motives.the funding will be enormous but then again the future is quite so ''undecided'' if you will.
Completely agree. Like William Morris tried to do and the Arts and Crafts movement, we also desperately need to revive traditional crafts and skills and artisans. Replacing all these hideous mistakes since WW II will create great beauty and a tremendous amount of positive employment. With a marriage of appropriate technology for aspects of the interiors, we can bring together the best of European architectural traditions and modern tech.
![[여자복식] 이신영.김세연 vs 김보미.정수빈 [PBA팀리그 4라운드 / 휴온스 vs NH농협카드 / 2세트]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FEUGSP21inY/mqdefault.jpg)
Head to squarespace.com/theaestheticcity to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code THEAESTHETICCITY
This video is gold for me! I have long been looking for a school that taught classical architecture, had this existed two decades earlier I would have gone that way with my career.
😂The main problem is always cost. want to be as crazy as architectural design.
Construction and maintenance costs always add up to its beauty
Have you ever heard of "Tartaria" theory? I think you should make a video on the so called Qanon of Architecture. It is not the merits of the theory that are important but they way it has spread by feeding off the latent backlash against modernism. The public is so fed up with modernism at this point that they will entertain any nonsense that can possibly save them from the dystopian hell hole that is our modern built environment.
I agree with the concept of architectural "brainwashing", I've used this term before and it truly describes well the modern teaching process. Another problem is that cities are designed by the architects, and they don't manage well what's built and what's not, hence modern public spaces suck!
Yo make a video on indian architecture of its temple carvings and steeless and cementless construction style
“What I wanted to learn, isn’t being taught”
I feel you bro
It’s sad - but much can all be found in books!
pretty much everything these days has gone to shit
@@gabrielg.2401yes, the degeneracy is real and everywhere. On a good note, I'll take beautiful buildings designed with the help of AI over human ego driven ugly ones
Feels like everything
Happened to me when I came to art school wanting to learn how to draw and paint
It's not just architecture. Everything is turning soo boring. Cost saving and minimalisim has seeped into everything and has gone too far
I feel something is fundamentally wrong with our economy. As I’m not an economist, I cannot exactly explain what though… Maybe the ‘Bitcoin Urbanists’ are on to something?
I feel something is fundamentally wrong with our economy. As I’m not an economist, I cannot exactly explain what though… Maybe the ‘Bitcoin Urbanists’ are on to something?
@@the_aesthetic_city I believe unrestricted consumerism is catching up with us. Infinite growth within a finite system is not sustainable long term. But businessmen still value quantity over quality, which is a shame.
I think the impact of the allure of money and fame is missing from the video. To become a starchitect - a term invented in the last 40 years or so - you have to design something different and outlandish. Something that really sticks out so that your friends in the academy can pronounce you the new new thing. And then clients will flock to you and then each time you have to design something even more different and outlandish to keep the new clients happy and keep the rigamarole going. Architecture now is not about designing useful structures for all stakeholders - it's about maximizing one's own income and reputation.
Well....people dont have money or want to take risks to design something different or special, is not a problem of architectural design, thats just a sympton
As an Architect myself, it's not the modernist designs that irks me. It's getting to that design mentality directly WITHOUT studying or even appreciating the classical designs. We should be masters of BOTH, it's never too late to study. Great video!
City and state government employees are the biggest problem. They approve and even require ugly modern buildings.
So, no studying classical designs? Why not learn from it? An architect doesn't necessarily need to use it directly, only learn - that is the point of this video!
Thank you for replying :)
@@the_aesthetic_city His point was that every architect should know classical architecture even if you are going to design modernist works.
Architects don't understand why (some) classical architecture works so well. PoMo demonstrated this failure. They've thought that stripping classicism down to it's "essence" and embarking on political polemics that were completely irrelevant to ordinary people was somehow a way out of the dead-end that the International Style lead them to.
Subitizing and visual processing efficency are probably the two most important aspects of why classical designs "work" but contemporary architects have convinced themselves ideologically that (early 20th century) science cannot shed light on how a building affects a human being.
@@the_aesthetic_city I don't think that Lyndonarana said not to study classical design; just the opposite. I read that lyndonarana said to also study modern and other examples of good design.
I studied architecture in Ukraine in Lviv Polythechnic University and in the first 2 courses of study we studied how people used to build before in 15-17 cent., we made drawings of historical buildings, plans, sections, painted with watercolors, it was studing of classical architefcture the same as in the University of Notre Dame, and at the same time we studied how to design modern architecture. For me it was a big surprise that in the German universities where I finished my master's degree, students did not study this, and 99% of students could not create correct technical sketches by hand, in addition, to enter the faculty of architecture in Ukraine, you have to take a creative exam - draw an antique column, an abstract composition and solve an architectural task, in Germany you just submit your school grades and that's it, so many people in this profession are amateurs here
Закончил второй курс программы архитектуры в одном из московских вузов...
Действительно, поначалу изучали класич. архи, но теперь, когда пришла пора делать свои проекты, преподы с ума сходят когда предлагаешь им поработать в традиционной стилистике... Начинают тараторить что-то про цыганщину(
Очень не хочется думать, что оставшиеся 3 года бакалавриата буду проектировать хлам с параметрическими фасадами...
@@mike_teals sorry, I don't understand bulgarian, can you speak normall language, like English for example?
We also not making fire with wooden sticks we use a lighter. Using the computer is no issue it's only how you use it. As an architect myself who did the long way from technical school to Uni i think that's what most architects miss. Knowledge of how you make/build it not just drawing with a pencil.
@@o.3825. Modernist who broke away from traditional curriculum were very creative. Disappointing how the 21st century stepped into the wrong path. . .
@@o.3825 If you can't draw a shape by hand... it's not about hand, it's about not seeing clearly in your imagination. So drawing by hand is training your imagination, not let the computer drop ideas on me and I'll merge them.
I'm very glad to hear someone say it. It's infuriating how anti-common people a lot of the artistic academic world is. They keep forcing works into public spaces that people without an art history education can not appreciate because it hinges entirely on external context rather than the work itself being appealing.
Absolutely - the 'ivory tower' problem is a huge one and artists need to take this into account somehow.
I'm 72, and consider that much of my life has been compromised by the grotesque ugliness of contemporary architecture. It seems like a horrible joke, but The Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health may be the epitome of outrageousness.
I don't know much about what The Lou Ruvo Center does, but suspect that much of it has to do with treatment of traumatic brain injury patients. It's dreadful that the building was designed as it was. However, as a TBI survivor, I can't help seeing the bleak humor in it.
In America, The National Civic Arts Society is fighting the good fight for a return of beauty to design. I urge everyone who reads this to go to their website.
President Trump had signed an executive order which authorized that in the future, government buildings were to be designed according to classical standards. Of course, Biden reversed this.
Is anyone surprised?
All of the academic world has become anti-common people not just the artistic side
Yes!👍
Very well said. To me, it’s not about doing away with concepts like “form follows function”, but about accepting that a building’s beauty - as appreciated by common people - is very much a function of a building. I’m so glad that this new architectural movement seems to be gaining traction.
Modernist buildings get worse with age. Traditional buildings get better with age as they begin to look more “lived in”
Agree!
Absolutely! The more fringe/new something is, the faster it goes out of style.
I love the looks of the city blocks shown in the video! They are gorgeous! They looked good the day they were made and look good now. I wonder if it will ever be in style to intentionally weather a building/new development to make it look established.
I live in an European city, where we have huge amounts of old buildings. By the look of them, they most of them were built in the 18th and 19th century. They are still in use and are maintained. How sustainable is that? They look very nice and especially so after they get cleaned off the 100 years of muck on them.
They of course have their own problems like ridiculous room height: something like 4 meters, where a front door can be 2 by 3 meters. That height wastes huge amount of energy in winter and it also wastes vertical space. The waste of space can be limited a little by making a loft, but you can't have a loft in every room. Also staircases don't often have space for an elevator, which makes life in upper floors difficult. Adding the room height with that and fourth floor is in modern terms sixth floor apartment without an elevator. Not very convenient.
That depends entirely on the quality of materials used.
How would you stop an unstoppable trend such as mass production and globalization? Inaccessibility, strong values, affinity with nature and slow pace are what helped us to get the best art in the world. Once we started industrialization, automation, accessibility and even worse AI and 3D printers, we have access to a cheap fast product so industrial minimalism is what we get. Whenever a new aesthetic trend similar to the classical one will come back it will not be less mass produced, industrialised, made affordable and accessible than any minimalistic design. A big reset is what we need, we are already a saturated society.
I have been crying for another Renaissance in Architecture for years. So wonderful to see it happening. I dearly hope this goes "mainstream."
It's up to the new generation of architects! If they demand change, it can happen
@@the_aesthetic_citybeware us from thousands of museal copies of old styles. Do domething new! Dont be lazy and just copy! Find out the real reason people like old bulldings and create new styles from these basic pronciples!
Imagine if we called it a "Neorenaissance" Era in this search for regaining tradition.
@@adrienm1964 ? regaining tradition? no-thanks. We can do houses more beautiful but there is really no need to rectrate old styles.
@@matswessling6600 The original Renaissance architecture was a "rebirth" in interest of the Classical era. The Baroque continued on that theme, making it its own unique style. The Beaux Arts school freshened classical architecture once again to fit a new century. What they all have in common is the base understanding of the original Classical style, harkening back to ancient Greece and Rome, but tweaking it a little to fit the then contemporary time. We could do that again for the 21st century. But we have to first teach the basics: Proportion. The Classic Orders. Perspective. The importance of light and shadow...Play with the basics and make them relevant to today. But don't toss them out completely. They WORK. They can still work. Instead of "Neo-Renaissance" or "Renaissance Revival" (which the Victorians have already taken) I would prefer to call this movement something original.
I dropped my dream of becoming an architect for reasons shared here. Now at 40, it feels too late for me. I feel personally robbed, along with others who prefer living in beautiful spaces instead of brutalistic nightmares. Thank you for the beautiful work you do, sir.
You don't need a degree to be an architect, and is never too late if you have talent.
Seconding that it's never too late, best wishes!
Yes understandable
It's never too late. Start drawing every day, read a number of great books and you can become very good still
Thanks to all for the support. I have a dream and it might still be worth fighting for it.
I just graduated from college and it was this channel, right as it started, that introduced me to traditional architecture and urbanism. My last year of college, my architecture professors didn’t like my work because it wasn’t modern. My professors were always trying to get me to design modern things. I'm so excited to keep learning about traditional architecture and urbanism and practice it in my career.
That is fantastic to read - thank you for watching and I hope you find everything on your journey!
I know! they hated my work too because I was trying to design primitive huts and circular plans which was supposed to be about community. Modern architecture is for the modern dystopia we live in today- isolated and in despair.
Your professors are a bunch of old farts who have their heads stuck up their ass. They don't realize how much their skit is hated by the general public.
We need a million more of you. Don’t ever give up. Your work is badly needed.
I think i was like you in the first years of college, but at some point i tried to open up to their ideas and understand what they really want. I found that they cared just as much and were excited about materiality and beauty. They were just searching it beyond what is already known, which tbh complicates the search a lot haha :D Nothing wrong with dusting off the books about ornamentation from the different points in time in the past
I just came back from Austria and I met an Austrian student who is studying Architecture in Vienna.
I asked him about his thoughts on modern architecture and why there are no beautiful buildings anymore, he said "A part of the reason is that whenever we (the students) draft old style buildings for our lecturer, it is immediately dismissed on the grounds of it being seen as "copying" or not "nothing new". Then when we draft something Modern, it's approved".
Shame, especially since Vienna has some beautiful buildings, as well as all of Austria.
Sounds like the stereotypical idea of
New = Better
Old = Bad
Change = Progress
But there’s no thought to bad change or good change. SOMETIMES the people in the past got it right. Why not keep the good parts (like the beautiful architecture)?
@@Demi-Son amen
An interesting case is the Luftwaffe headquarters built during the Third Reich. It truly is a classic case of brutalist architecture. When one considers how the Luftwaffe destroyed massive sections of beautiful and historic European architectural and cultural history, it seems an apt style for their HQ. The retaliation in carpet bombing by the Allies then led to a vicious circle.
The loser was Europe as a whole.
The controlling elite at Western architectural schools would do well to study the Luftwaffe HQ and reflect on the destructive implications (on aesthetic, cultural and spiritual levels) of their policy misdirection.
Unfortunately, most of the new buildings in Vienna look like they were built in Minecraft
@nomadicfrankland it's still beautiful in the center but most of the buildings built after WWI are an abomination.
What I hate most about postmodern architecture is the hypocrisy, especially its terms like "false historical". With this false idea they impose a bad reconstruction of a part of the building, if they are not rebuilding it, they are ruining it.
The other term that I hate the most is historicism, but modern architects have been copying Bauhaus for more than 100 years. Modern architects contradict themselves, or are hypocrites, because when they imitate a style they are modern and original, but if an architect wants to build a building with a traditional design is treated as average.
The other problem is eclecticism, modern architects criticize eclectisism, but they have been mixing concepts of modern architecture, in themselves they are eclepticists, but when they do it it is fine, if an architect wants to mix concepts of human history they treat him as If you are doing something wrong.
The last point is that modern architecture goes against the concepts of the Bauhaus, since many buildings are useless, roofs that retain water, unnecessary shapes that increase the cost of the building, above all they are narcissistic because they design only for their own. ego, the monsters they create are just to draw attention to themselves that's fine.
These people are the ones who criticized and demonized as "useless and banal" the sumptuous and beautiful facades of beauty arts architecture.
When beauty attracts attention they criticize it, but attracting attention is good if it is to inflate the ego of a mediocre postmodern architect.
Absolutely true, the hypocrisy is what bothers me most as well. If architects are supposed to have total design freedom, then why isn’t it allowed to design traditionally? Etc, etc.. And referring to Bauhaus is by now also referring to a design tradition, but apparently that is allowed
technological advances like a good flat roof or glass window are good, but do not replace the human intellect that can also create sensual art..with details, shapes and even colors, that the modern cannot even recognize as part of a public communication about space and architecture..we need our cultural routes back..the modern is for a money-slave society not for intelligent and creative people..
We need to stop calling Modernist architecture "modern." There is nothing modern about it. It is just a bunch of stale ideas from the 1930s and '40s that have been rehashed over and over again. Calling 80 year old ideas modern is absurd and we need to stop calling it that. These styles should be called Mid-Century Simplicity and Abstraction or MCSA for short. This is the first step in making this crap go away. Rename it, can it, and dump it in the trash bin of history under failed ideas.
The current minimalist dullness is the result of the denigration of historicism and eclectism, which instead I find the most fascinating cultural and architectural movements ever. Instead of "loving to hate" anything before modernism (while hypocritically and mindlessly replicating the same instructions from the 1940s), I believe we should strip away the modernist dogmatism that sees anything historicist and eclectic as intrinsically evil and cherish the beauty and playfulness it has created and that most people around the world appreciate.
I couldn't agree more. As much as I personally dislike modernist architecture, I only hate it for the way that it has become dogmatic, elitist, and intolerant of other artistic movements.
Yes please! Our cities are so ugly. The only beautiful bits are hundreds of years old.
I'm planning on building my own traditional neighborhood in the future. Pray for me that I get enough money to start that project :D
That sounds like an awesome project!
GOOD LUCK!!!
That is ambitious but the best of luck to you!
How will we know if you succeed? Do you have a site scoped out or a name for it? I already want to live there.
Have you looked at Andrew Gould? He has interesting concepts for traditional neighborhoods.
So recognizable! During my time at university I remember a student who was told by a teacher that he could better leave architecture school after he had shown his traditional design. During my first design studio, a student in my group who designed a traditional house got the lowest grade of the group; and guess what the others designed? A modernist house of course, because this is what the teacher seemed to appreciate. This has to change!
That’s because many do not understand there is a philosophy behind all this hideous design.
What you call modernist was probably about fluid space, clean interiors, clever insertion on the context and multipurpose solutions. What you call traditional was probably about rigid schemes, outdated decoration, building understood as an isolated composition and fake historic look. Here you are some possible reasons for the grades. It's not about styles. It's about contemporary answers to contemporary problems...
@@miguel3105
Traditional or classical design is a philosophy of natural design. It is based on human creation.
Saying we don't need old materials and ideas because we have new ones is like to say we don't need teeth because we have blenders.
😂 brilliant way to put it!
And now a lot of problems with teeth are attributed to our modern soft diet . . . Along with the receding weak jaw. Which is also perceived as less attractive. Chewing food helps develop strong even well placed teeth, in well developed jaws that provide space and foundation for the teeth.
Basically the equivalent of replacing all food with slop because they can. A truly revolting mentality.
@@sorbabaric1Humans need MEAT!
there are plenty of modern buildings that use traditional masonry, wood, concrete, glass, ceramics, metals, and other materials found in historical architecture.
The thing I hated most about architects when I was working in the construction industry was their lack of technical ability. I was witness to several incidents where drawings were returned. Reasons included missing information, conflicting dimensions and materials needing to be formed in a way that is impossible (and there was me thinking it obvious that granite is inflexible). Bering in mind that having to delay work to wait on the architect to fix a design problem generally doesn't go down well with the client as well as making the contractor look incompetent. It was always preferable to do everything possible to build as per original design, even if it was a massive hassle.
Classical architects were versed in both design and building. The orders in classic design were not stylistic but practical in nature.
@Art-is-craft Here in the Netherlands architecture is only possible as a master programme, after three or four years of building engineering. You start out with the history, the materials, detailing, constructions and all that stuff, and only after that you can start a pure architecture study. Having studied with students from across the globe this is so different. I remember class mates from Asia for example who had never drawn a single technical drawing or something, being completely shocked by the Dutch way of combining technical and esthetic qualities.
@@treinenliefde
Classical architects first trained in the building process. Their apprenticeship started with building. They understood through experience the process of building. Today’s architects are designers.
@@Art-is-craft indeed, and that's the way it should be everywhere. You can't design something without understanding it.
The dream of a modern architect is an engineer’s nightmare.
I was very disappointed when I started my college career in architecture. I was already restoring old buildings and had design philosophies shoved at me that I did not agree with or want to have any part in.
It eventually ended my desire to be an architect. I spent the next 40 years restoring and designing historically inspired spaces, including my own homes.
Good for you! I agree that architecture school faculties are full of a$$h@les! I taught at one for a few years and regret being one of those despicables a few times. I did teach studios on classical design, however...
NYC here, I'm getting real tired of seeing giant glass rectangles with zero character. Hudson yards is a perfect example, it's depressing.
Modern architecture aesthetics was a massive mistake.
do you wear the same way like one century ago . Nope .
@@ehjo4904 good design aesthetics will last centuries. Modern design will be out dated in 20 years. Cope and seethe. lol.
Does modern architecture even have aesthetics? The word means the study or appreciation of beauty - something modern architecture actively frowns upon.
@@ehjo4904 Buildings have to stand beautiful for centuries, clothes not so much. Having said that, luxury clothes from millenia past still looks nice.
@@celdur4635 Pretty sure like most you do not make the same effort to dress like people did one hundred years ago. Time change
The lack of proper architecture programs (read: programs that actually teach architecture rather than modernist politics in an architecture package) is what drove me away from studying architecture. I can definitely understand your experience at seeing the students' works at Nôtre Dame.
This is spot on. I grew up thinking I'd become an architect. I went to the University of Minnesota for Architecture and lost my love for it because it was a brainwashing factory for modernism and sustainability. I ended up in marketing.
That’s even worst then lmao
Thank god marketing is no brainwashing factory ;)
Sounds like you see sustainability as something negative, what do you mean with that?
Let's force our cities to stop building modernism. Isn't that the best solution?
@@futureradiusnot per se, but it was overemphasized in my opinion compared to other critical factors in design.
You may want to take a look at the German island of Sylt, where some of the Germany's richest people build their holiday homes. Just look up the town of Kampen (Sylt) on Google Street View, and you will instantly understand why. Almost all new houses there are built in traditional style of that region, to the point that sometimes it is impossible to tell, which houses are over a century old, and which are brand new. Even some very modern buildings try to pay homage to the traditional style, for example the newly built "Lanserhof Sylt". Sadly, for a short time in the sixties they managed to build quite a few "modernist boxes" in the town of Westerland, for example the "Kurzentrum Westerland" or "Hanseatenhaus", and these are still considered the ugliest buildings on the whole island to this day.
I think the architecture of Sylt would be a great topic for a future video. It perfectly illustrates the point: when it comes to rich people, they often prefer traditional architecture for their own homes. Sylt also demonstrates, that there is literally nothing preventing us from building traditionally, and there are enough architects who are willing to design such buildings if that's what the customer wants to pay for.
The City of Savannah, Georgia is doing some excellent work compatible to the traditional architecture,
I've noticed that at the germans. But I think that the thing there is having an urban planning doctrine or law that cares about the local history and they impose strict colors, style etc. I used to visit my sister in a town in Bavaria, called Herrsching and I was so impressed how they adapted old traditional styles to this modern world. Is like the rich are tired of modern glass buildings and they want to retreat to somwhere they can feel home and relax. And then there's another thing that I consider it very important. People who get rich and know the value of money and are serious hard workers, they will not feel the need to show it in an extravagant way but to prefer living a simple life.
As a interior design student, I feel rather drained as my love for ornate classical and humane design are at conflict with most of my peers prefer for minimalism.
Get good at both, it's all about context. You wouldn't want a minimalist pub, and you wouldn't want an ornate dental surgery.
I actually prefer minimalism for interior design, because it allows for more space which I think is what is most important for the most amount of people. However exterior design operates under a different paradigm and should be focused on beauty.
@@tristanthamm505 Yeah, I know what you mean, there is something cool about classical building with clean modern interiors. Like St Pancras Station. Or National Trust tearooms.
You can do that with modern design. This video is worthless. Bad design is bad design. It’s not about modern vs traditional
Because they've either never traveled, think it will be easier to keep clean (not) or that's all they see being pushed by interior designers... and frankly most people are sheep and think they have to follow 'trends' because they have no taste or style of their own.
For example I lived in Italy for 25 years, when I first got there pointy witches toe shoes were all the rage... thank god that finally ended, then the last 15 years everything was grey inside and out, tile, paint, furniture... but in northern Italy it's grey all winter long, why the hell would you want that in your home on a cold, freezing winter night???!! Actually the Italians (not all but most of the youngsters) are worse at following trends than Americans are, it's just dumb. Baa.
Be yourself and embrace what makes you happy in your nest, and your job as a future Interior Designer is to lead them to the warmth of an eclectic interior with some character that doesn't look like they could efficiently dissect a neighbor on their kitchen island. 🤣
A building can stand out while still looking beautiful. The Art Deco style balanced having new bold ideas while keeping some traditional elements. When you take a closer look at Art Deco buildings you see that they aren’t just flat walls they have details. They look drastically different from what came before you could even argue Art Nouveau looked drastically different. A building can be bold and stand out while having beauty in its design. Art Deco buildings often have motifs based on the building’s use. An electric building may have electric bolts or a motif of Zeus. Art Nouveau buildings implement natural shapes and motifs of nature. Today’s buildings are bold but they lack that extra flair that past bold buildings had with their motifs.
Modernism isn't a very high form, but art deco is perhaps the least appalling version of it
I like how the student was talking about it, the challenges old architects faced and their solutions for it informed their design, that's how it should be. I don't particularly care if it's replicating a classical historical design, just make it look good while tackling the local challenges and give it that local aesthetic touch.
Couldn’t agree more!
@@the_aesthetic_city well, I guess you need to redo your little video here, because that is not what you say.
As much as my father tried pressuring me into an architecture degree, I refused on the basis that I hated all new modern buildings. I'd heard of Notre-Dame, but didn't really want to go all the way to America just to be able to make nice buildings. I'm studying urbanism now in UCL, but the fact that the resurgence in new traditional is even reaching some European schools _(finally)_ is heartening!
I hope a renaissance is occurring! It'd be nice to see new things going up and not feel either indifferent or grossed out, especially when it's amidst beautiful classical stuff. It'd be nice to look forward to something for a change.
costs will go up ..
I like the modern aesthetic. But personally I’d love a blend of modern aesthetic with the classical. That being said, the modern aesthetic grew out of an environment of pessimism and destruction of the old world that was brought by the carnage of WW2 . The modern aesthetic is an important part of human history and should not be trashed and scrapped from history imo. It is just as valid as the old aesthetics that focused heavily on beauty.
the origin of this is earlier than WW2 and starts with brutalism which is heavily associated with authoritarian regimes, namely fascist regimes
This is like a delicious meal for soul. Especially in Modernity and Bauhaus obsessed Czech Republic. We will be late to join this positive revolution, as we always are, with everything.
PS Im too old to study now but boy if there was a school like Notre dame in Czech republic...Damn this hurts
That is great to hear - we need schools like this in every country
Exactly!!!
The Czech Republic has some of the world's finest cultural heritage: gothic, renaissance, baroque, Czech, Austro-Hungarian, German. Even pre-WWII industrial architecture like factory halls or railway infrastructure has some aesthetic value.
Everything built after WWII, during the communist era or after 1990 is just plain ugly. With extremely rare exceptions.
We absolutely need New Renaissance and start building beautiful houses again! 👍
@@jirislavicek9954 Never been in CR, but have often visited Bulgaria, I suppose that the 1940/1980 part is really similar. As an Italian Architect I had no knowledge of the socialist buildings and ,after a deep observation, I think there's lot to learn from them, not only from the technical part, but even for the aestethics. They are part of the global history, as well as the Golden Gate, the Eiffel tower, Saint Denis or the Pisa tower. Each journey is made of single steps.
Same for Spain, it's also obsessed with the ugliest and most useless modernist architecture, and as always we'll be the last in Europe to start fixing, I fear the amount of damage the already ugly Spanish cities (because of 60s ugly brick and bad quality development) will suffer.
No one ever talks about how nice it is to sit around in a modern area. But everyone talks about charming old towns. Coincidence i dont think so.
Cities worldwide, before 1900, were humanity's 'old growth forests', and were devastated (clearcut) in the 20th century, mainly because of cars. But restoration of some kind is still possible.
That's a pretty good analogy, actually.
As well as cars I would say the origins of this mindless destruction had roots in a form of cultural and spiritual nihilism. It was a suicidal tendency that is revealed in the nightmares of post WW II architectural exteriors. These exteriors reflect the inner bankruptcy.
These cities grew up under federalism and monarchy as free and private cities are property to be developed into beautiful places, not a canvass for shallow demagouges
@@screwstatists7324I find your comment interesting, but I'm not certain what you are saying because of the structure of your sentence. Are you agreeing with or critiquing the original comment in question? Do you think that the monarchical origin of much architecture discounts its artistic and functional value? Not arguing just curious.
Excellent video. I'm from Argentina, our capital city (Buenos Aires) used to be called "the Paris from South America". Nowadays most of the city has been destroyed and replaced with this new architecture. And this tendency is happening all over the country, since 1950. It's really sad to see old fotos from our cities and comparing them to how they look now.
Classical/traditional architectural styles in the United States still exist in the many cities and towns of the East Coast north of Florida, and in the city of Chicago, but is increasingly uncommon everywhere else in the United States. And unlike all the boxy or cube-shaped urban-located buildings commonly associated with modern architecture, it’s usually office parks, strip malls, warehouses, grade schools which take much more space than they normally should, and cookie-cutter tract homes. Sometimes, you will see buildings that look traditionally-designed, but are designed in a way that heavily favors automobiles over pedestrians, which leads to a lot of places that genuinely feel artificial and unnatural despite having a traditionally-designed facade.
Indeed, the US needs good urbanism in addition to good architecture… thank you for replying 🙏🏼
The thing about flat roofs in rainy (and snowy) climates kills me. There are places in Europe that built buildings with flat roofs despite the fact that they have heavy snow and rain each winter, and this results in them having to waste thousands of Euros in maintenance that they wouldn't have had to waste if the roofs were just built in a traditional way (which originally wasn't created for esthetics but for the very practical reason of not allowing the snow to accumulate and damage the roof). That in itself proves that the claim of being "practical" and "sustainable" is pure BS.
Yup, exactly… it’s so common, yet we don’t hear about it very often. One of the many symptoms of this problem
I was educated in a more traditional architecture school, and one thing I cannot forget is when one day a classmate brought his project with virtually flat roofs. Our professor asked him to clear his desk and pour a little water in the middle, and it puddled there... then he said "This is going to happen to your project, we are not in California, we have rain and hail".
I writing from Canada can confirm you that it is a necessary advantage to have traditional angular roofs, as steps to a gallery to reach the door several feet above the ground, as space around the house, even lightly paralelogram walls, for the winter conditions.
Dude! So happy that this is the only TH-cam channel that speaks about the real art of architecture and city planning! Great work, great job, as usual!
Thank you!! 🙏🏼
My boyfriend is a fan of the modern architecture - he's like oh yeah, skyscrapers, and im there in the corner appreciating wooden huts in a village and old churches... Let's just say getting a home together will be tough.
Also what you mentioned, about sustainability being about the longevity of the building, is such an important and often overlooked aspect of it, and so is the knowledge of the material. I do hope change is on its way.
Thank you for reacting - yes that does sound like a challenge! Maybe you can convince him ;) and indeed, the longevity of buildings should be nr 1
It does not shock me at all that these are all very well-known catholic schools in the states. There has been a huge shift in the catholic world back towards tradition.
Well not Utah valley but the point stands.
Utah Valley is located near Provo, which is near Salt Lake City, a religious conservative area, not Catholic but similarly backward looking.
Sustainability is key, and using less concrete saves CO2. Not to mention keeping the building for more than 40-50 years.
In Stockholm (home to the parodically horrible architecture school at the start of the video), the garbage 1970s architecture that replaced the 1700s historic city centre has already had to be torn down and "reimagined" with at least some slight thought of the people using it.
100%!
China and India produce 80% of all global pollution and co2 pollution. Don't worry about it
Save CO2? What are you talking about? Plants need CO2. Green plants produce O2.
@@antoniescargo1529 And concrete production costs energy that is currently emitting fossil CO2 adding to the CO2 already in circulation. Keep up.
Many people imagine the 2100s or 2200s as this glass utopia full of neo-futurism style buildings, but I like to imagine it having transferred to building traditional and classical styles of architecture, with modernist/contemporary/futurist architecture having just been an edgy phase of the architectural field.
I think it is due to extrapolation from one point, or very short period, and then we all are influenced by sci-fi of 1950-1970's and then we just tend to iterate over those tropes and features. Like, flying cars, like superwide highways, sleek space ships or touchscreen interface that we are slowly starting to hate. Everything is delivered by air or by some gimmick at the edge of physics. And we do not see, or not often, a train or ships used for transport, it still feels like those posters and ideas from 50's, yes the design, clothes and so had changed, but in the core, it is still the same concepts of mid 20th century.
Another problem IMHO is that in the past architecture went in spiral and iterated over itself (classical, classicism, neoclassicism) and those took like century after which it went for inspiration back a century or two, but today we iterate over decades instead of centuries. Another thing to consider is that dictatorships of the 20th century loved those "traditional" buildings so the free world perhaps felt need to distance itself from those dictatorships.
I am not sure that in the future we would be building in some neoneogothic style, unless we will seriously mess something up, but I think that we will see some revival of more classical designs, maybe in form of layouts or in form of some ornamentation or materials (but that depends on whether we would be talking about houses or public buildings). Maybe we will go back to ornamented columns first? Or maybe frieze will return as it should be easy to produce with our modern machinery? I don't know, but I would say hat this is the way how classical elements can return into current and future architecture.
For me the worst is: eco futurism, they believe that by putting plants the building is "ecological", or they make it less ugly, when it is appearances and without practicality, they never question the humidity problems that a building full of plants would have, The cost of doing this would create more CO2 than making a normal building, ecofuturism is dystopian and polluting.
But a traditional brick building of 5 to 7 floors, endure 100 years or more, this is truly ecological.
@@ReyneArturiaPenededragon That is spot on! Imagine how quickly plant buildings degrade due to humidity! They would fall apart so quickly and produce more pollution in maintenance or just the destruction of the building in the end, and are also a waste of money.
As a field architect, I fully agree with your arguments. What I feel through various experiences over the past 30 years of work is that people want to be touched in a variety of ways through architecture. However, they are users and not clients. Clients are only interested in profits from sales and rental income, and public clients are only interested in political propaganda.
From south korean architect
There are many buildings in Japan with terrible designs. The few historical buildings remaining after the war have been demolished due to the Japanese belief in new construction, maintenance costs, natural disasters, and other reasons. In addition, ordinary Japanese citizens have no interest in architectural design, and designs by famous architects are praised and built. There is no continuity in the streetscape and it is in a miserable state, which is very unfortunate.😢
they were destroyed in WWII by atomic bombs culturally too..
That is true, but in modern Japan, there are many demolition projects due to redevelopment or scrap-and-build construction.
@@gingi453what?😂
I seen this video of architects praising this building in Japan talking about how wonderful it is but it was so inconvenient for the locals it was such an inconvenient structure and people were having troubles finding their way.
Some of the ugliest streetscapes I've seen in a developed country were in Japan, surprisingly.
I find Europe a strange place for the fact that they have both classical and modern architecture built side-by-side so that they can clearly see the differences yet they just keep building modern slop without any consideration for aesthetic.
Oh my god this video encompass every thought i have so far in architecture school to the smallest details, even my thought that ornamentation and other older techniques are locked on the past only for existing buildings.
Happy to hear that!
As an ex-architecture student, I can say this is quite true. However, this discourse needs to be nuanced : architecture is part of a larger building industry. This industry immensely prefers modern architecture : cheaper, easier, simpler. My professors' main argument against ornamentation were concerns about cost more than style/doctrine.
Students are very much left to figure things by themselves however...
Architecture student here! Unsurprisingly, online discourse is ripe with lack of nuance. Seeing the comments section here is equal parts concerning and disheartening. This video seems to have become a magnet for people with this mindset...
As a current student in a top modernist school this video is spot on and change must and will happen.
Thank you - I hope students will find this and get in action!
I hope that you will somehow also be able to learn some classical principles so you can branch out to that and ride both winds as times change.
change will happen. then that will change too.
Your video rings true in my case. From a very young age I was in awe of these classical buildings throughout Europe being so harmonious and beautiful as well as full of historical and cultural identity that I've always dreamt of being an architect so that I could design buildings and urban areas to be admired for ages to come. When I was finally able to study architecture at university I was so surprised to find that there was indeed zero focus on pre-WWI architecture. Building traditionally was considered old-fashioned from day one and in as some times even considered evil (often comparing traditional ideas to radical national ideals during WWII Germany). You were always pushed to think outside the box and come up with crazy, and frankly, very unappealing models. Feeling like an outsider among most of my peers in class I became completely demotivated and quit architecture school. To this day it saddens me deeply that I had to give up that dream of making the world a more beautiful place through architecture and instead watch it diminish to the same modernistic ideals that I came to hate during those years at university..
Here in America, I would love to see a renaissance of Richardsonian Romanesque, Art Deco and Neo Classical architecture!
You’d like the work of HBRA, they’re the firm that did the Harold Washington Library in Chicago. They’ve done lots of classical extensions to campus buildings, and also do (nice) modern stuff.
Absolutely!
The National Civic Arts Society. Go to their website. You'll like what you find there.
There are Art Deco revival buildings happening across New York and Chicago. They're not usually publicised. The Brooklyn Tower is a recent one that got some attention.
@alexsmith-ob3lu Don't forget Gothic Revival! 🥰
I'm a civil engineering student, and when I asked my teacher why we didn't learn how to build and design in styles like neoclassical, Victorian... She told me that it was all outdated. That it is expensive to build, and that if we build like we used to, this would be a "cultural" appropriation from another time, something that can no longer be built, as this building would not have a history.
how silly because one day we will be the history!
As it is this statement invalidates itself, by admitting its historical value, higher material richness, artistic merits, while noting it as to avoid precisely for these reasons.
It is like saying that it would be too good !
Frank Lloyd Wright actually used quite a bit of ornament in his buildings. The Hollyhock House in LA for example has abstract, stylized depictions of the hollyhock flower throughout the property.
As a teen, I loved classical buildings and wanted to go study architechture. After attending orientation events, I got so disappointed by the way the subject was thought (all modern and lifeless), I decided to study medicine instead. My life would have been very different if I had had different options and it probably would have suited me better.
My criteria for an architect, from my retirement house to city hall, is: "If you could go back in time, would you strangle Le Corbusier in his cradle, or not?"
Yes!
@@sheridansherr8974 Okay you're in.
no, he was an experimental architect who created the modern too, but not forced it on the world, the "Ronchamp Cathedral" is a sensual project that he could also do..and his Villa Savoy is a liveable place..respecting natural space..Turning back to the barrock is not the answer, we need to design our new world based on our classical inheritance but using modern technologies..so not an easy task..
lamo you speak what I thought
hahahahaha yes
I'm a history PhD candidate and It's startling how similar my experience in graduate school has been. Just replace "modern" with "postmodern," and practically everything mentioned in the video is the same. A bland European monoculture that raises an autoimmune response against other ideas. It's the same in literature, languages, art history, and religious studies.
In my first few years I tried to bring in alternative viewpoints, but I got smacked down and even accused of having right-wing sympathies (I don't). Eventually I got discouraged and just wanted to graduate, so I started putting gibberish from Lacan, Butler, et al in my (otherwise good) papers and pretended to understand gibberish while other people were speaking it, and the result was that I became well-liked in my department and got money and pats on the head.
Teaching is the only part of the job that feels honest and worthwhile, but we are strongly advised to spend as little time on our classes as possible and direct our energy into publishing, conferences, and grant writing. If I wanted to, I could halve the time I spend on my classes and experience no negative repercussions whatsoever, but seeing the students get excited about history is the only thing that keeps me going.
So, yeah, long story short, it's infested all the humanities I know of. (Is architecture a humanity? I think this channel would say yes.)
That’s quite discouraging to hear.. but not surprising. It’s scary to hear that science is devolving into postmodern gibberish - truth becomes relative and subjective, which is problematic as it erodes the foundation of any knowledge we have. I would say architecture is supposed to be a ‘practical art’, only partly ‘humanity’ - one cannot doubt the use or validity of a foundation, as it will lead to a building collapsing. However, the way designs are justified often sounds like nonsensical poetry - so there’s definitely something off there. The book ‘Architectural Principles in the Age of Fraud’ offers a brilliant take on this
At my school it’s a fine arts degree
In Charleston, SC, there’s a mixed use apartment complex going up that takes inspiration from the history of the city and utilizes traditional architectural design that’s seeking to beautify the city and its skyline while also being a place people can actually live in. It’s a breath of fresh air after seeing two identical postmodern buildings go up on an adjacent street.
Cities with historical charm that value their traditional architecture are leading the charge. When they realize people come to their cities for the historical charm and traditional look they begin to realize they should not only preserve it but actually make more of it.
It not just in architecture that universities have failed, the whole culture in the US is on very shallow grounds. Basic integrity and decency is being lost. If you look at what’s happening in the major universities in the US, it will take generations if ever to return to a civil society. Imagine Harvard and MIT becoming a joke with billions in the bank.
Thank you for making this video. I graduated from Architecture school 18 years ago, and I found parts of it frustrating for many of the reasons mentioned. There was way too much emphasis and time placed on avant garde design theories, rather than studying the past and proven design + construction practices.
Now that I’m well into a profession career and in a position where I have to hire new graduates, I often find myself looking for qualities in candidates that schools do not emphasize at all.
Design is important, but most Architects spend very little time doing design. In my opinion, students would be better served if they received more instruction on material qualities, construction methods, effective written + verbal communication, and presentation skills. Many would also benefit from some business courses that involve marketing, finance, and project management.
I personally love traditional architecture. Although I regret that I didn’t get to study it in school, I enjoy learning about it in my spare time. It is truly fascinating to study something that has continued in some form for thousands of years.
Being an Architect myself who graduated more than 40 years ago, I agree that modern architecture allows for many ugly and unnecessary “experimental” ideas and forms. However, reverting to the Renaissance is as much unnecessary solution. Regardless if we consider modern day-to-day life is better or worse than that of Brunelleschi’s, modern times have (and got to have) a totally different set of values and needs that Renaissance architecture is in no way capable of answering to. Each era has a set of needs and values that should be reflected in its arts and architecture. Borrowing from the past is some sort of bankruptcy of creativity. Anyway, I thank you for the video, I enjoyed it.
I agree with you
Might I add that I can only fear the higher cost of rent that having this supposed "Renaissance" will have on residential architecture if this video's way of thinking spreads to developing countries... Not to mentioning the heavily Eurocentric undertones it has...
From the other comments lamenting the modern aesthetic (and egregiously lumping all of them under one label), I can't help but compare it to the people who speak so highly of their preferred music genres from the "good old days" when such genres had the advantage of age, with the decades filtering out and forgetting about the bad examples of the genre, allowing only the best to survive.
Given this, most discourse on comparing architectures feels inherently flawed given various styles of modernism did not have the advantage of centuries that "classical" styles have had.
I respectfully disagree. There’s a reason we all travel to visit beautiful buildings whether they be in Rome, Cairo, or Beijing. Beauty is universal and timeless. And there is nothing to suggest traditional buildings have to be more expensive, they can actually be cheaper if built using locally available materials such as adobe in subsaharan Africa. As an non-architect I have to say what you modernist architects design is simply ugly and downright criminal I bet most people agree with me as per the research (on the ugly part)
And don't even get me started on how most "news" outlets parrot the Saudi talking points about NEOM being a model of sustainability.
Exactly, a nice topic for an entire video
...we should rather warn the birds about it.
I do NOT want to learn minimalism. I want to make Beautiful and functional buildings.
Then study how to do it in the most beautiful, economical and appropriate way! This may be modern or it may be traditional. You are cutting off one of your hands by denying the reality of the requirements for getting to build these days.
Of course, beauty is a function…
As a practicing architect, architecture is greatly influenced by modern-day needs, contemporary issues and client demands.
Aspects like environmental design and energy conservation are given preeminence, as they form much of today's client needs.
The truth is, few clients today - especially in the commercial sector - would want reconnaissance or traditional architectural outlooks. An architect stuck in the past will quickly become moribund and archaic.
The world is increasingly becoming modern and automated, and these aspects must be incorporated in today's architecture.
So happy that we finaly are startibg to move in the right direction. As a citicen of Trondheim, I'm allso proud of our new classical architects
This video summed up my whole education thus far. I am in honours, one year away from completing my masters degree and i am yet to still be taught core design principles. I have been trying to learn on the side though. I want to become a developer that builds new housing but with traditional values as we have a massive problem with housing in South Africa.
I’m sad to hear that - I hope your colleagues / co students on university see this and act! Thanks for replying 🙏🏼
Great video. It does make me angry how architecture has thrown away all the inherited knowledge from the past. It's really not that hard to make a building that is beautiful and functional. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
I salute your commitment to change the way architechture is done.
Thank you - we’re just beginning!
I fully agree there's too much channeling in architecture schools now, we are groomed to design what our lecturers/school system approve of.
but one thing I love about my school? It's very leaned on model building and practicals to get us used to the spaces and feel and experince how our desgins actually come together, instead of some renders and 3d printing everything.
Not just architectures are like this but also the things in them, furniture, items people use day to day as well.
As was the goal of the Arts and Crafts movement at the turn of the 20th Century.
Thank you for this video! As an ordinary citizen who has to put up with uncomfortable and even scary architectural designs when visiting public buildings, I am so happy you did this video! I would love to see what you suggest us citizens can also do in terms of pushing back on local municipalities or regions when they opt for these monstrous designs for public buildings. We should have a say about them, since we fund them through taxes, after all.
THANK YOU for this video. I am not an architect but I love architecture and the creative process, and my dream is to create an international association of architecture to work on projects that counter the modern/postmodern ideals. This is shared with my architects and saved for future reference. The world is about to change. This video is exactly what I needed. Thank you thank you thank you!
A great example of modernist building that ages horribly is brutalism. In cold and rainy North-Eastern Europe it quickly gets this nasty black grime all over it. And it looks horribly depressing against a backdrop of a gray, rainy sky. The only pictures of appealing brutalist architecture I've ever seen were of perfectly clean buildings in some warm and sunny places like Australia.
Great example - it really doesn’t work well in rainy climates
@@the_aesthetic_city
For some optimism, may I present an exception: the Cultural Centre of the Philippines Theatre, a Brutalist piece of the late-60s, in a country ravaged by typhoons and floods.
Same in Northern Spain, one of the rainiest places in Europe and full of modernist concrete architecture that aged horribly and as a result many cities are depressing just from the bad state of the moldy buildings, even though they were built 10 years ago while a traditional building that's been there for 300 years it's fine.
The only diversity that truly matters is the diversity of thought
Which is desperately missing in the current western society
I am an econ major, and face a similar issue. I ahev pretty much graduated, except for 3 more classes. But I feel like dont know anything. There is a lack of professors teaching the practical basis. The focus in our field is rather on what you need to succeed as a PHD applicant.
Modern architecture ages horribly. I believe the most important thing in architecture is not the building… it is what happens in it: LIFE, Love, family, friends.
I agree with almost everything but I don’t think Frank Lloyd Wright rejected ornaments, elaborated facades or slope roofs. The others you mention, yes, but definitively Wright didn’t do that.
I went to the Danish Architecture Museum in Copenhagen sponsored by the WEF. It was just a bunch of exhibits highlighting modular block, eco friendly buildings all the while toting them as the present and future of architecture. If that is what these schools are pushing towards the future is bleak, but the good news is that they have turned the job "architect" into a job that can be done by nearly anyone and makes them just as much like replaceable cogs in the wheel as any given assembly line worker.
Are you located in Denmark? If you have interest in studying or promoting classical architecture here perhaps we should connect?
@@Sohave No, sorry, was just passing through as a tourist, but definitely wish you luck. Denmark needs a Renaissance.
Ironically, green principles can be incorporated with traditional exterior designs. 💡
Everything that comes from the WEF should be rejected, they are selfish people with a dictator complex.
For me, this is the best video on the channel. It touches on very valid points with a critical view of current teaching. Experimenting and creating with new materials is good too, but it’s important to change the way traditional architecture is viewed. The rejection of this design approach in universities needs to end, and its foundations should be learned since they are essential for creating more beautiful cities.
Thank you Roberto - and yes, the focus just needs to shift! Not only one view, but multiple views at the same time
Beaux Arts disciplines need to be restored throughout the Western academic institutions. Julia Morgan achieved miracles of beauty in the U.S. and she received her training in Paris at the Beaux Arts architecture school.
And I think we should stop calling it "modernism", there is no more modernity in a 100+ years old movement. Call it, idk, twentiethcenturism, shoeboxism...
In my university FA CU UNAM in Mexico City they teach about all the ancient ways to build of many civilizaciones from around the world, their culture and heritage, and we as studients we know about those techniques of art and construction that are even better in climate and sustainability than the tech modern ones. But in projects the style and ways of building are mostly chosen by the client, is rare that a client wants ancient techniques for them but yeah also the architects don’t promote it in new developments but I Can say that in renovations of ancient places architects know they have to respect and embrace the heritage and even reproduce it like in countryside projects is prety common
I agree with what you say. One point that gives me pause, however, is that many of the ornamental feature of vernacular architecture are the direct result of material limitations that the modern age has solved. Think of windows for instance. Long and narrow windows with small glass panels were the only way to have large windows once. They would have absolutely built huge wide windows back then if the technology had allowed it. But now we associate tall and narrow window with classic. If we implement wide windows it's not classic anymore and the house starts looking like a gaudy mishmash. Should new homes be built only with tall and narrow windows? What about large balconies and other moder features that objectively improve the happiness and quality of life? What is the best way to mix tradition and aesthetic with comfort to maximise people happiness?
Woohoo! Great video man! And I'm happy for you that you found your own path! Also, this video gives me hope!
Thank you - it was a long path for sure!
This Renaissance of traditional architecture is fantastic, but it's only half of the solution. Up until the early 20th century there existed an incredible infrastructure, with highly skilled artisans, to provide architectural ornamentation and decoration on a truly industrial scale. The rise of modernism virtually wiped this out.
Which means that we need to start training the stonemasons, carpenters, plasterers, painters, etc. in traditional techniques. Otherwise, with the exception of a few high-profile buildings, there will be no one to actually realize the awesome designs these students are making.
Fully agree - we need both the knowledge and a revival of the crafts, and the second one will be much harder. But it’s also a chicken & egg problem: without architects who design ornament let’s say, there is no need for craftsmanship. Demand will lead to supply, and more supply will bring costs down. It will be hard but I do see a way
This video as well as all the others on this channel are masterpieces. Way to completely deconstruct the modernist consensus and use actual science. these videos are so unbelievably informative and interesting. This is the most high quality content I have ever seen on TH-cam. The argument is so well presented and perfectly articulates what we all sense of the bs of the modernist consensus. Thank you.
I think we seriously need to find the conslusion to the problem which is; people who see and feel no connection to aestetics. There are people who can live with only the functional elements of life and then there are us who get disgusted and put down by ugly places. These other people don't seem to feel that at all. It is time we figure out what that is, what causes it and how to deal with. And ultimately to rid those people in fields where aestetic matters. Why should your opinion have any value if you literally say you find the topic of your opinion irrelevant?
Sometimes, not even via studying you can change things for the better. In my free time I create new Wiki articles of Rotterdam's long forgotten past. The result? What essentially was history lost to time got found and put back for everyone to read and it worked. Channels on social media picked it up and shared it, showing people what they're missing.
Sometimes photo's and some info can really do more than 1000 words ever can!
I retired from international shipping and visited Rotterdam on business. I accidentally learned about the horrific destruction of old Rotterdam during WW II. I saw some old black and white and sepia photos from the turn of the century and “it blew my mind” with the magical historic character. Similarly I learned about the destruction of old Antwerp and LeHavre during the War. Other European historic coastal towns and cities were flattened by bombing. The more I study what was lost the heartbreaking it is. If only there would be a popular movement to restore what was lost as a matter of European cultural urgency - it had been done with the Ypres cloth hall after WW I …😢
Architecture should be a sub-discipline of civil engineering, not art. Any efficient form can be made beautiful. Not every beautiful form can be engineered efficiently.
The only structures that can stand for 1000 years must be functional AND beautiful - or they will not be left to stand. This is the balance that must be taught.
Bravo !! righto to the hart,, I'm over 20 years in a stone business and it started from seeing buildings build out of stone, but unfortunately, until this day I find very little work that requires STONE work for the buildings that as you mention homely and beautiful that everybody loves,, that's why whole tourism sector is happening,, not because people are traveling to places to see the French Italian or English people,, they go to see the places where architecture is something to be seen,, something to be enjoyed and wondering through the streets of Verona, Rome or Amsterdam makes you wanna be there makes you want to spend time there.. that means something was done right..
Wish you all the best with the channel I will keep following will keep watching and sharing..
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
So obviously true yet ignored by our “betters.”
The flat roof thing was basically my gateway into this. So mindlessly applied. It generally looks bad or at best a nonfactor, removes the chunk of the house that epitomises the combination of function and beauty, few climates are suitable for it without ultimately inadequate solutions to deal with the obvious problems and even where you can get away with it, it won't last as long and isn't practical to maintain (so much for sustainability, another meaningless buzzword).
The problem with beautiful classical design is the price tag. If public sector doesn't start ordering timeless designs, private sector oriented on quick return of the investment will certainly not.
calm down, no one is talking about building Renaissance palaces. if you look at actual traditional not rich palaces buildings they don't seem that expensive. Not to mention that they last more years without costly repairs. look up the video in this channel about a new Dutch town built in traditional style that is cheaper than its neighbors, due also to smart use of social housing.
@@fueyo2229 how about you calm down? I am not talking about renaissance palaces either.
It is so frustrating to see that all those people dont realise that Architecture isnt about just building something beautiful. You can surely build those old european city buildings like in prag or dresden, but it just isnt effecient, sustainable and practical. Architecture is more than just decorating fassades. For example those buildings in dresden are just new building with new building materials hidden behind “klinker” bricks. How stupid and unsustainable is that. You further have to considerate that all those beautiful old buildings yall are looking up to are only there because they were the most expensive and beautiful of their time and are part of an urban selection over hundreds of years. So of course no one got the recourses to build buildings like that
Returning to tradition that works 😻
This explains exactly what happened when I entered my local school of architecture in Scotland in 1973 aged 18.
I wanted to be taught how to be an architect and create beautiful structures.
Instead I experienced lots of courses In technical aspects of building and structure with the design emphasis on minimalist form expressing function.
All this was boring and I dropped out, disillusioned.
This failure has always haunted me but looking back it was the wrong architecture course for me.
I believe studying architecture is better suited to a mature student
It’s significant that the Head of School was a structural engineer and not an architect.
I agree with the concept of architectural "brainwashing", I've used this term before and it truly describes well the modern teaching process.
When revivalist architecture can meet the need for light, air, space, and modern amenities in a context of high labor and land costs, all for a comparable price, there will be more of it. Until then, your fight is with structural economic incentives, not a difference in attitudes.
I love how architects and urban designers are encouraged to be artistic and creative yet all they create is mundane, conformist drivel that is unoriginal and lifeless. Traditional architecture was artful and beautiful. Modern/post modern society supposedly values creativity but they destroyed beauty in the process.
Exactly!
It's also weird that they only think that "innovation" can only occur in their strictly defined "modern" minimalistic buildings, they don't even think that you can innovate by.combining old ideas with new ideas.
I really enjoyed this video. I feel like some things you pointed out here are also true for other types of education. Keep doing what you are doing! Informing makes an actual impact.
Thank you!! Doing my best
I’ve found through my studies so far that most isolation towards me comes from faculty rather than piers. I study at a modernist school and am one of, if not the only, person in my class with a more traditional-wired mind. The fellow student like that I have a completely different philosophy from them. The teachers, not so much. I’m never given the ability to explore the classical ideas and they claim that me doing so is “limiting myself”. Somehow they don’t realize the action of telling someone to do something different because it’s “limiting” is limiting in itself.
They don't want you to design classical architecture Becuase they don't like it, so they put punishment on students who do it. Which is wrong and evil.
Thanks for making this video! This is exactly what we need right now!!! I live in Denmark and had been writing to a couple of architect schools asking if they offered classes in classical architecture. Had this been around 20 years ago I would perhaps have picked a different path! I still want to learn about classical architecture but perhaps not take a full architect education.
There are only two options: or they change their curriculum, or we circumvent the universities and start new educational institutions
@@the_aesthetic_city So far I made the Aarhus school of architecture aware of the video and gave them a hint once more that I was interested in taking up the subject.
Months earlier I have asked Arkitektur Oprøret, if they were capable of recommending a classical course in architecture, they had no recomendations.
This is just a speculation but I believe we lack a network of classical architects in Denmark to pick up the challenge. Danish architects has otherwise previously been open to setting up new movements, the most successful being "Bedre Byggeskik" that rebelled against what it saw as a generic international form of classicism in the late 1800's putting a Danish vernacular style in its place and helped empower local craftsmen. Alas this movement was also conquered by modernism and closed its doors in 1965, despite having a profound impact decades earlier.
This is such an uplifting and true video and gives hope for a better built environment in the future. As most architecture is a commercial process, clients need also to take this on board, not just a functional fast track, minimal cost solution to make money from rental, sale or whatever. In the past people and organisations had pride in their locality and wanted their buildings to be well designed, and be a lasting legacy to them. People appreciate stability, good design, quality and permanence, things lacking in the recent decades.
Il y a un lien fort entre le totalitarisme du 20éme et les fondateurs du "modernisme". Un personnage comme Le Corbusier avait des affinités avec le 3eme Reich et les soviétiques.
Il n'est pas étonnant que leur architecture est était extrémiste et dans la négation ou la réfutation de l'histoire des arts et techniques formants l'architecture.
Le Corbusier n'as pas d'argument objectif contre les toits à mansardes, il voulait simplement supprimer les chambres de bonnes dans les greniers en supprimant les toitures. C'était une fournaise dans le Paris Haussmannienne et jusqu'à récemment avec l'ardoise noire et l'absence d'isolation.
Toutes les justifications idéologiques de Le Corbusier n'empêche pas d'avoir construit vers 1970 des logements insalubres pour les plus modestes et possédant une toiture plate qui fuie davantage.
Les quartiers populaires en France, des grands ensembles à la Le Corbusier croule sous les charges, notamment les réfections de toitures terrasses, tandis que les maisons ou les immeubles de toitures plus classiques, souvent occupé par des gens pourtant plus fortuné, finissent pas payer moins de charges d'entretiens…
Qui est pauvre doit il entretenir plus et payer plus, à travers son bailleur social, une surface réduite moins couteuse et son loyer.
Les toitures sont plates à Marrakech et à forte pente pour les églises Viking ; la pente des toitures est forte à travers le monde contre la pluie pour augmenter l'étanchéité.
Well stated even in translation
I think we come to a point where it’s hard to change because these schools are just “preparing” their students for the industry. If they go in without this “knowledge” they most likely won’t thrive or succeed.
amazing video as always man,its a shame architectural schools are so pitted against beauty. if this renaissance is truly up on its way it has to sweep throughout the entire west. no stone left unturned,there is currently a huge and powerful urge in european goverments to go all green and modern with designing future buildings,ugly bland cubes with some plants.we need all our cities brought back from the ruins of greed and war and weird architechts with questionable political motives.the funding will be enormous but then again the future is quite so ''undecided'' if you will.
Completely agree. Like William Morris tried to do and the Arts and Crafts movement, we also desperately need to revive traditional crafts and skills and artisans. Replacing all these hideous mistakes since WW II will create great beauty and a tremendous amount of positive employment. With a marriage of appropriate technology for aspects of the interiors, we can bring together the best of European architectural traditions and modern tech.