I know most of Veeky Forums isn't too fond of modernist architecture, but I think mid-century modernism can be quite comfy.
The early stuff (1945-1970) looks much less cold and sterile than the stuff I often see posted in modernist hate threads.
I also think that the U.S.A. did it much better than Europe.
Why this board is not to fond on modernist architecture?
Because they want to display signaling mechanisms that they have refined taste, but they're all autistic or teenagers, so they signal badly by using outdated signals.
Because most of the time it's hideous as fuck. There's some good modernist buildings here and there, but when the European nations start tearing down historic buildings or 'renovating' them for the sake of modernization, then there is a problem.
Looks like a fucking toolshed.
This.
Or... Or maybe modernist architecture is really displeasing to their taste and you're not actually morally superior to them.
It's one or the other.
Vernacular modernist homes like the split-level in your pic are wonderful. There are quite a few good examples in my negihborhood
Autistic teenager here, he is morally superior.
A comfy toolshed.
t. Swede
Like ass.
Were you born with shit taste, or did you need to refine it?
>you have a shit taste if you don't like shitty plank toolsheds that look like the smallest gush of wind could obliterate them
It looks shitty, stupid, cheap and American, deal w/it.
>you have a shit taste if you don't like shitty plank toolsheds that look like the smallest gush of wind could obliterate them>you have a shit taste if you don't like shitty plank toolsheds that look like the smallest gush of wind could obliterate them
You may have shit taste, but at least you ain't dumb.
I see it as Veeky Forumstorians attempting to put themselves in the same position as the people back in the 1950s who actually witnessed the massive cultural shift of the time, and then realizing that they would have hated every last second of it given that they already hate the "iGeneration" of the present on an astronomical level, with the changes made during the Baby Boom being hundreds of times more prevalent and in-your-face.
You realize that houses like that are unsellable once their age shows right? They just look like cheap shitholes. Sure it looked good in 1960, but now its garbage
>refurbishment isn't a thing that exists
It's really too bad you can't repaint it or anything.
>having to replace the siding and repainting each wooden surface even 7-10 years
nice "architecture" you got there
I very seriously doubt they require that much work.
I've grown up near these things and they look fine.
You have to forgive me, i grew up around late 70s cookie cutter houses so i have an innate hate for american home design
I actually think that this style of housing became hideous sometime around 1968-1970.
I don't know what it is, but the older ones look better designed than the later/current ones.
No I'm not, I'm just better at signaling.
A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines.
Early in life I had to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility. I chose honest arrogance and have seen no occasion to change.
I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.
The only thing modern architecture has done correctly is underground houses.
Except for the fact that the root systems and insects will eventually cause complete structural failure.
t.Not a design engineer
>Edmund Burke's concept of the sublime was developed in A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1756).[2] Burke was the first philosopher to argue that the sublime and the beautiful are mutually exclusive. The dichotomy is not as simple as Dennis' opposition, but antithetical to the same degree as light and darkness. Beauty may be accentuated by light, but either intense light or darkness (the absence of light) is sublime to the degree that it can obliterate the sight of an object. The imagination is moved to awe and instilled with a degree of horror by what is "dark, uncertain, and confused."[5] While the relationship of the sublime and the beautiful is one of mutual exclusivity, either one can produce pleasure. The sublime may inspire horror, but one receives pleasure in knowing that the perception is a fiction.[6]
Falling Water Damage.
Glass boxes and spires look cold, sterile and oppressive.
If you want to know everything wrong with modernist architecture, just look at the Tour Montparnasse.
I don't have a big issue with modernist architecture, but look at the size of those fucking windows. I mean, why? Why would you do that? Like...just make the fucking windows bigger. What the fuck???