Why do people hate modern architecture, again?

Because of shit like the picture you just posted. It lacks a soul, lacks any kind of regional identity or culture, and honestly it just looks like shit 90% of the time.

I realize we can't just go back to building in stone and shit (most of the quarries that produced the high-quality limestone and sandstone that built the Western world are either closed down or depleted), but there's no reason we have to build disgusting globalist shit.

This building has stood for over 1,000 years and it will stand for 1,000 more. OP's pic will be torn down and replaced with another generic monstrosity in a few decades at most, and nobody will remember or care.

>globalist
Could've just ended there. It's architecture that completely lacks any regional cultural characteristics. OP's pic says Seattle but it could've been anywhere from Berlin to Sao Paulo, it's that generic.

Classical architecture is based on attaining perfection. So each new structure/form builds upon the last, only changing small nudges and details, a degree, a number, ever striving towards perfection.

Modern architecture strives for nothing but uniqueness.

Too add, modern art is based on defeatism, perhaps subconsciously, defeatism that they can't make anything as beautiful as the creations of the past, so in their envy they subverted beauty.

I love how everyone is triggered by the present condition of Hagia Sophia, photshopping minarets out wont change the reality.

more than likely the building still stand out for 1000 years more, with minarets.

Its ugly and activates fight or flight responses.

gothic cathedrals are pleb tier

>

If somebody would bomb it it wouldn't have any significant value

If you know about art history, look at who agrees with you and who agrees with me.
If you know about architecture, think about why gothic cathedrals are built the way they are built and what do they signify.

Because rather than live in those shitty buildings they'd rather die, like their ancestors who jumped off the boat, because they knew that death was better than bondage.

Because it's mostly badly designed and badly built. Some pompous incompetent makes up an ugly shape, writes a pretentious explanation that makes no sense, and the public pays to have the monstrosity built, which then proceeds to be borderline unusable and cost a fortune in maintenance due to it constantly being on the verge of breaking down.

>modern architecture

Stop saying it's modern. Contemporary architecture isn't "modern". It's post-modern.

These terms were a mistake. They don't mean what the constituent words imply anymore, so everyone gets confused by them.

OP's usage of "modern" is correct, because he refer to "modern" architecture, not to "modern architecture".

Modernity is the period in architecture from around 1850-1945. Everything after that is considered post-modern, or simply "contemporary".

Why would you criticize something when you have literally no idea what you're talking about?

yes probably. also,

>museum of modern art museum

pic related is you

Reflect on the difference in meaning between "modern architecture" and "modern" "architecture".

Because modern art in general was/is made for the artist making it, and not an audience. It does not communicate well to the general public, which is going to be the audience for architecture in the majority of cases.

These buzzword-spouting jackasses , don't realize the reason the presentation fails to meet their expectation is because you must be an educated art or architecture enthusiast in order to appreciate what is happening in modern design.

This guy gets close, but the problem is not over-generalization caused by a globalist lack of culture or identity; the architecture itself is far too individualized to the designer. It cannot speak to a wide audience, because it is a self-serving design.

Modern thought didn't stop in 1980, fuccboi. Postmodernism and Modernism existed concurrently for decades. There are still very passionate holdouts - especially in architecture - who have not moved beyond the Modern style. On top of that, the building in question is fundamentally a modern construction, and postmodern architecture barely exists external to some installation or land art (both of which can still be argued to be primarily modern concepts).

You reflect on the concept of jargon, you uneducated pseud. Only an idiot refusing to admit he was wrong, or an ignorant person out of their depth, would argue that modern architecture means anything other than, "architecture designed and styled according to the characteristics of the modern art and philosophy movement" in the context of a discussion on a History and HUMANITIES board. To be perfectly fair, it is more correct to write Modern Architecture than modern architecture, but you're still wrong since no capitalization is perfectly acceptable.

You're the idiot. Or pointlessly pedantic.

Obviously the existence of jargon doesn't make the common language meaningless.
And obviously this guy was using modern in the sense of current. What's the point in pretending not to understand?

What a fucking pseud, go back to /pol/

>don't realize the reason the presentation fails to meet their expectation is because you must be an educated art or architecture enthusiast in order to appreciate what is happening in modern design.

No, modern architecture by and large does just about everything wrong.

>More specifically, very often in cities, the overall form of buildings is given much more priority than materials, surfaces, textures, and details. What we know about the way we appropriate and experience places is that the overall form of a place is not what most dramatically affects our experience of it. It’s more what psychologists call the surface-based cues.

citylab.com/design/2017/07/this-is-your-brain-on-architecture/531810/

>you must be an educated art or architecture enthusiast in order to appreciate what is happening in modern design
More like you have to be brainwashed into liking it, and plenty of people prefer to drop out of that world rather than submit. Let's not act like there isn't a pretty fucking big backlash against contemporary art and architecture at pretty much every level. For every idiot professor still shilling bullshit like op's pic there's another cringing at it.

>it is a self-serving design
>It does not communicate well
So basically you're admitting that it's utter fucking shit made by incompetents? Because architects aren't building this shit for themselves, and if they can't appeal to their audience then they've failed every little bit as a musician or novelist who can't get a listener/reader would.

It's shit not because it's modern but because time hasn't yet filtered most of the crap. Most artistic production of past ages was also crap. Only the good has been kept thus why it seems so good compared to modern architecture.

This isn't wrong, but imo the issue is compounded by the modern pretense that nobody is allowed to call out the bullshit. You can find plenty of mocking comments about bad architecture of the past made by contemporaries of past architects, but if you try to say that modern architecture is shit then automatically you're an ignoramus that should shut the fuck up.

A major reason is underfunding. Most modern architecture projects, even the most expensive ones, are grossly underfunded given their level of ambition. The material is shit. Corners are cut everywhere. Contractors are incompetent and do everything on the cheap. Architect firms headed by a star architect (such as Jean Nouvel and other hacks) employ tens of underpaid and overworked young graduates and interns doing most of the (shit) work while the star architect does little. Also more and more new architects no longer have any training in engineering.

>globalist
Stopped reading there

>lacks any kind of regional identity or culture
Its really just this though

No one knows for certain user, maybe the (t)urks will become civilized beings or extinct in the far future.