Modernist and contemporary architecture is based on something Adolf Loos proclaimed in 1910. The Bauhaus movement started in 1919. International Style was first showed in 1932.
Is it time for a change from all that modern-simple-minimalist-deconstructivist style? Is there a way to make new buildings with the same level of decoration and perfection as the ones from the neoclassical, jugendstil, etc. and still maintain a modern style and technology, instead of just making a recreation of classic architecture? How should architecture evolve from now?
There's nothing wrong with aesthetically recreating older forms of architecture, that endless push for novelty is just retarded.
How to integrate modern values of accessibility, sustainability, comfort, etc. into older forms of architecture though, that is a good question.
>Is it time for a change from all that modern-simple-minimalist-deconstructivist style? There's currently a developer trying to build this crazy techno-baroque tower in New York.
That looks horrific
Don't think they have funding sorted out yet, but that's hardly a surprise. Hard to sell investors on the need for expensive things like 150-ft tall eagle/angel balconies.
Yeah. Not exactly the elegant blending of classical architecture and modern functionality that one might hope for, but it may be a sign that the age of featureless modernism is coming to an end.
Nobody is trying to build that, retard. It was just a concept.
what the fuck
>Is it time for a change from all that modern-simple-minimalist-deconstructivist style? From an aesthetic standpoint, absolutely.
The problem is one of 21st century financial and socio-political structures. Most urban construction projects are tied to huge publicly traded companies or are funded by investment firms, both of which are accountable to shareholders that want maximal revenues and minimal expenses. A featureless glass and metal tower with the footprint of a city block offers the most usable square footage at the lowest cost.
Modernism in architecture owes more to the demands of developers than to academic theorists of architecture. To get away from this bland style of building, we'll need a pretty substantial cultural shift.
SOMEBODY PLEASE I DONT UNDERSTAND EXPLAIN IT IM CRYING RIGHT NOW
I DONT UNDERSTAND
>that feel when Wim Delvoye's laser-cut steel gothic towers will never be built as full scale buildings
That's really aesthetic
Is anyone else here obsessed with residential architecture?
modernism is dated and people are already sick of post-modernism. I suspect something new is coming but I don't know when.
You want more?
>all the landmark build for man will eventually fall
That church was finished in 1876. It survived two world wars. But it was not maintained, and due to damage done by the weather, it started falling apart in the 2000s. For lack of money, the city council ended up deciding to destroy it and make a square in its place.
I'm a fedora but that feels wrong. Well at least it was neogothic and not gothic.
Unless man unmakes them, the pyramids should last for a very long time.
>there will never be a cathedral in the shape of a snail
"In Abbeville, a Medieval city in northern France that was almost entirely destroyed by the Germans in 1940, and now the local Socialist municipality is finishing the work left unfinished by the Luftwaffe.
In the same city, the 18th century chapel of the Medieval hospital is now marked for demolition by the Socialist municipality. Demolition should start in 2017 (...) city coffers are empty, religious attendance is at its lowest since the end of the Roman Empire, many municipalities show disregard for Christianity, if not frank hostility in some cases"
>religious attendance is at its lowest since the end of the Roman Empire Could I see these figures?
Would be pretty cool to build in space, desu senpai.
SOME RICH GUY WITH A HARD ON FOR ARCHTIECTURE PLEASE
THIS CANNOT BE HAPPENING
We have incredibly powerful constructions technology, it makes no sense to recreate older forms of architecture when they would have killed to get the power we have, and would have made very different buildings if they had. Returning to the past never works, but you can move forwards in their spirit.
What style of house did y'all grow up in? Did you like it?
maybe [spoiler]literally a third of my fantasizing is about houses[/spoiler]
Yes but of the manorial kind
It was a shit prefabricated house... from the 60s :(
German style middle class suburban house
Just translated what it said in a forum, couldn't find anything else...
They could have turned it into a library, museum, residential building, office space or literally whatever the fuck they wanted.
There have been many projects like this in the past few years. I even saw a gothic church converted into a skate park in the Netherlands.
>le point It's not a conspiracy. Some buildings fall apart and can't always be repaired. Abbeville still has a lot of more interesting historical buildings and monuments that should last some more centuries.
I literally grew up in a basement of a city apartment. Poor.
Damn that house looks dope as fuck. Where do I find cool pictures of houses man?
Why are we not building monumental and decorated shit like pic related? I don't say we should make classic style buildings necessarily, but we could at least decorate them a bit and make them actually be something a foreigner should remember when going to another city.
Which brings me to another point: cities and specially countries should find a way to make modern designs following their traditions and culture. Nowadays, all big cities are filled with glass buildings which look all the same. You can hardly differentiate a city in Japan than one in Germany, for example.
It's part of the conspiracy by the global plutocratic class to strip away the cultural identities of nations so that they may worship only technology and the almighty dollar.
It's part of the subconscious desire of the western democratic class to strip away edifices of power so that they may live in an equal, safe and comfortable society free of dangerous and coercive higher forces
There's always hope.
oooooooooooooooooooor maybe its because theyre really really expensive to maintain
just a wild idea, really, not as rational as your theories
yeah that's why nobody ever built monumental buildings and why they're only sketches in the workbook of some deranged architects, because it's simply not possible to build them
wow that would be amazing to see a city or even just a small town done in this style.
I get a real "house on stilts" feel for this thing, with the safe capsule above the streets and the filth within.
>How should architecture evolve from now? There's a serious lack of Yakov Chernikhov in this thread.
these things look beksinskian as fuck
Yeah, this is how his work ended up looking like.
why not have aesthetic buildings to raise the land value
I think gothic is neat and most modern art is disappointing, but shouldn't we be experimenting and creating new things? Isn't that what modern architects are trying to do?
Why have they failed?
Yes, we should have new architecture that's just as intricate and beautiful as Gothic. It's time to move on, and not settle for either lamenting on the past or mediocrity like "modern art" today
Thank god. Gothic architecture is shit. All examples of it should be destroyed. The same goes for brutalism, too.
>All examples of brutalism should be destroyed.
Stupid. I agree that most brutalist buildings are just not aesthetic, but some others are pretty decent. You just haven't seen the right examples.
I mean, this is nice and has an interesting structure and all that, but it's too simple, and we have seen too much of the same.
And just what are those right examples?
>those outer parts
Looks unsafe as fuck
That's communism for you.
>ib4 that's not brutalism Yes it is. Brutalism comes from 'breton brute', which is raw concrete. Everything made primarily with raw concrete is brutalism.
Raw concrete always look better combined with wood and/or nature, be it green or white.
Simple, yes, but it's well designed and made with quality constructions.
Does not need painting, does not need facade renovation every few years... You just need to keep it clean.
All those are modern brutalism. Perhaps you were talking about classic brutalism? Of course there are good examples of that one too.
As you can see, it depends on wether the owner of the building keeps it clean and combines it with nature.
>Why have they failed? There are a lot of potential answers for that question, with varying degrees of /pol/ involved.
There's a great deal to be said of relativism and internationalism, but the simplest explanation is be that novelty for novelty's sake is not a desirable thing in and of itself. Prior to the mid 20th century, architectural styles built on their predecessors; architects were expected to reference the aesthetic traditions of their culture. Now, the architectural community sneers at anything but absolute modernity, resulting in shallow and soulless buildings that seem out of place wherever they are.
>cities and specially countries should find a way to make modern designs following their traditions and culture. couldn't agree more with this. One example I think does this well though is Taipei tower. It's pretty simple, and probably wasn't that much more difficult to construct than a typical modern skyscraper, but by just modifying it so slightly with the belt and layers, it hearkens to the traditional east asian architecture with the upward curved corners on rooftops or possibly of a modern super-pagoda. It's definitely modern, but if one were to see it, they'd have a good idea it came from east asia, and it's very recognizable too.
Do you know what the effect of this has been? Taipei tower has almost become a symbol of independent taiwan and it's critical to the image of the city. I wonder if we could do something like this in Europe or America? A cathedral-inspired tower?
I appreciate you posting examples of "good" brutalism, but these look little different from the brutalism I'm used to seeing. Raw concrete without any sort of facade or ornamentation just looks dirty and cheap, and the harsh angles are oppressive and lack any sense of meaning or purpose.
pretty nice desu, I feel like it could have been designed with a little bit more going on though, the bottom block would feel like any other dead building if not for the topping and even though it has cathedral-like facades ornamenting the roofs, the sides all look the same.
Not bad though, a step in a good direction.
The Woolworth is the fucking boss.
wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10316 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuileries_Palace#Rebuilding_the_Tuileries_Palace Damn this is pretty cool >started being built in the 1500's >palace of french kings, napoleon, and finished in 1860 by Napoleon III in the third french empire >important part of Paris which harmonizes two axes in the city and closes off the Louvre courtyard >finishes the perspective of the Champs-Élysées >commies in 1871 burned it down for being a symbol of royalty >There wasn't enough money to restore it at the time so it was just torn down >if every french person donated about €5 it would be rebuilt
>commies in 1871 burned it down probably needed space to built some commieblocks
Looks cooler bombed out desu
>never stayed in a place for more than 2 years through basically the entirety of my existence It was all generic houses or shitty apartment complexes.