What the fuck was Le Corbusier's problem?

commie blocks and brutalism arent necicaraly awful, Ive seen some planed soviet neighbor hood drawings and photograps which were nice

there was a lot of park space and greenery between apartment blocks, planed grocery and shoping centers, sports centers, etc all in a tight walk-able range

cuts down on the need for cars

Brutalism looks pretty cool if you integrate vegetation into it, it looks like ancient jungle ruins

And the pyramids too

paris still work very well compared to your average commieblocks

>architectural system forcing everyone to drive a car and not walk

always a mistake from the very start. Just look at Brasilia.

Well right around the time Le Corbusier started expressing these ideas, the world of architecture was exploiting the idea of cities and humanity as an ecology.

He connects earlier architectural and urban projects that engaged emerging computing and communications technologies to core concepts of the more recent, and so-called, ubiquitous computing.

Effectively these 'commieblocks' were cities within cities. They exploited a new type of urban space which was what he aspired to do.

If you're interested, have a look at the BBC 3-part series “All watched over by machines of loving grace”

Much of these design decisions came at the light of 'computational' thinking, and in my opinion I think they're amazing!

There is some function to this building, right? It can't just be lolsorandom. Right?

His personal projects are a whole other matter :^)

Historic buildings and classical architecture serve their purpose just fine. In addition Paris managest to be one of the most beautiful and most dense cities in the world, with a higher density than any modern city. It actually had a better public transit system in the 1900s than it does now.

Further, old architecture is much more adaptable and durable than the crumbling concrete monstrosities of the 1960-1970s. The corbusier towers would have been destroyed due to asbestos use, or turned into crumbling hunks after 50 years because of the maintenance nightmare they would have been. Meanwhile the rest of Paris, built in stone and bricks, still stands strong, and even decaying palaces like the Rothschild palace in the Bois de Boulogne will be easily revamped where a concrete building would have already been rendered unsalvageable.

Some people did, and most quickly changed their mind.

Most people hated the tour montparnasse and the commieblocks when they were built, most still hate them today.

if his goal was to learn things he cold have used his resources more effectively

He hated human kind and want them to live in a concrete hell.

You might feel different about cities if you lived before indoor plumbing and antibiotics.

I interpret modernism in archictecture as a part of 20th century's wish to peave the old world behind and start building a new modern world with modern ideas where everyone's happyness and wealth would be redistributed fairly among the citizens. The beauty of old buildings reflected the inhabitants' wealth while new architecture would't hint to social indifferences. It would aslo be low cost and effective to make it cheaper so more people could afford living in those building. It sounds nice in theory but i find it really fucked up that architecture dating back to the 17th century is destructed and replaced with cheap concrete buildings that only makes me think of a depressed society ripped of creativity and uniqueness.

= cultural marxism

Thats not what modernism is, what youre mentioning is the fault of investors.

Simpler = cheaper = more profit

>with a higher density than any modern city
wrong...paris isnt even in the top twenty when it comes to population density city wise

im also gonna call bullshit on the idea that old arcitecture is easier to maintain....it can be quite expensive to maintain and can also be put in anoyingly fetishized positions were 'historic' neighborhoods must be maintained in particular ways which make houses expensive to fix and heat....this can detur some people from living in them which leads to dilapidated chucnks of neighborhoods that just sit cause people dont want the upkeep of an antiqe house

while i agree that old commie blocks have not allways been cared for well and were products of their time....i think in principal there is good thought behind them

Depends on how well the commie blocks are built. If they're not a significant improvement, why build them?

For an extreme example, Italy apparently has to let their shit crumble and people die before updating to modern buildings with sway joints & what not.

I think tall enough apartment buildings are needed more but don't think full on commie blocks are the way to go either

commie blocks arent just about housing, they are a form of urban planning, an organisational approach. The style which you assosciate with them is largely obsolete

Well it sure beats most of the largest modern cities.

Buildings built in France before 1948 have better energy ratings than those built after. They store heat better in winter and keep the inside cooler in summer than most concrete buildings. Most of the heat dispersion is caused by old windows and improper windowframe insulation, which is part of the improvements that can be made, but most old buildings (bar shanky industrial era worker housing of course, and then again it depends) are better insulated than most postwar constructions (while being way more aestheticaly pleasing).

Of course the maintenance of old housing can be expensive but it is all a question of what the maintenance consists of. In Paris for example, most of the cost goes to cleaning the stones once a year and maybe checking the pipes from time to time, a cost shared by all co-owners. An entire city house or a castle are going to be extremely expensive to maintain, sure, but that is due to the sheer volume of the buildings. Would it be really less expensive for modern buildings given a couple of decades?

And finally, notwithstanding the costs, the intrinsic value of old housing lies in their style and historical value, how they fit in the ensemble composing the city, and how pleasing they are to the eye. They are what makes the charm and uniqueness of old cities, and that is worth a lot. It is not as if old cities are still pre haussmanian unliveable shitholes, actually they are much more liveable (in my opinion) than any postwar city built following modernist urban design.

Because they look nice you fucking savage

It has high density for a first world city, of course it's beaten by third world shitholes where several families share small houses and people live in precarious slums.

At least Paris architecture didnt end up as JUST as London

*tips fedora*

>there's nothing intrinsically wrong in playing with the lives of millions of people as part of some sick experiment

that wooden thing better be a swimming pool

Thanks user. As a Frenchman I can't understand why he's so popular either. His buildings are goddamn eyesore and now that they're historical landmarks we can't even take them down even if they wanted to.

>modernism
>not a filthy fucking disease

pick one homie

how much of that can be blamed on luftwaffles bombing of London?

I appreciate history but this uncompromising idea that old styles are always better than new can get annoying.

Do you think the styles we consider old now were always seen positively? They were new at one point.

I don't know, but even without the bombings it may have ended up the same. In Paris, which wasn't bombed, many old, perfectly structuraly safe buildings in very wealthy neighbourhoods were destroyed in the 1960s and the 1970s to build huge appartment blocks. Some were hotel particuliers, other were palaces, and a few were perfectly fine buildings but some realestate owners had them destroyed to build something "modern" with a couple more floors and large car parks underground for example.

Some of those crimes will go forever unpunished, for example the Palais Rose (Pink palace), considered to be the most beautiful hotel particulier in the entire city, and probably the entire country, was destroyed to build pic related.

Many such destructions were committed in the UK, as shown in videos and webms which were posted in an old architecture thread on Veeky Forums or /pol/

Commies and people that like commie blocks don't have souls

I agree with your last part. The commie blocks in the ussr were supposed to be temporary

All of it. Over 60% of the houses in the area were destroyed

>how much of that can be blamed on luftwaffles bombing of London?

Almost none of it.

The vast majority of that modernist construction happened long after WWII and London wasn't particularly hit hard in the war, as the Germans had shitty bombers.

Take a look at Dresden. It's really not that hard to rebuild historical architecture.

And were seen positively as they often integrated within the urban landscape. Haussmanian beaux arts buildings don't clash with 17th century or older monuments in the city, the roofs were designed following the traditionnal parisian roof shapes, using the same materials as the monuments and older buildings, etc.
Even when art nouveau and art déco appeared in the capital, the styles were adapted to respect the existing architectures, which you can easily see around the Champs de Mars for example. In France, modern architecture is actually called "Rupture" architecture because architects want it to clash with the surroundings, to break the historical continuity.

>I really did know a man who got killed over a teapot

It was what all the cool kids were doing until the American suburb won out.

Go back to fallout

>French didn't follow up his ideas
>Latin Americans did

It's always the same shit. France invents retarded ideals, like republicanism, secularism and modernist architecture, then they don't apply it, or if they do, apply long after they first created it and moderated by indigenous resistance. Meanwhile, in peripheric countries influenced by France, those ideas are applied wholeheartedly and their destructive results are felt harder.

Where is this? It looks like a modern era Machu Picchu

Kek

looks like Brasilia.

It's famous for being this "utopian" planned city that is a fucking horrible nightmare to live in.

Same with Canberra in Australia.