post_id
stringlengths 5
7
| domain
stringclasses 69
values | upvote_ratio
float64 0.5
1
| history
stringlengths 11
39.7k
| c_root_id_A
stringlengths 7
7
| c_root_id_B
stringlengths 7
7
| created_at_utc_A
int64 1.27B
1.68B
| created_at_utc_B
int64 1.27B
1.68B
| score_A
int64 -644
43.5k
| score_B
int64 -2,846
43.5k
| human_ref_A
stringlengths 0
18k
| human_ref_B
stringlengths 0
13.6k
| labels
int64 0
1
| seconds_difference
float64 0
346M
| score_ratio
float64 -2,292
2.5M
| metadata_A
stringclasses 1
value | metadata_B
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ln69jv | architecture_train | 0.8 | Why are houses so cheap and is there a better way? Here in Texas we’ve been experiencing Arctic temperatures. The buildings here aren’t really built to withstand that so pipes have been bursting all over the place. I unfortunately experienced this myself. The pipes to an upstairs bathroom were in an attic space with no access and no insulation. I had to cut a hole in the ceiling to get up there, and once I saw how it was set up it was obvious why they burst. There was literally no insulation, just 3 feet of air, then the roof, then outside air. The experience got me thinking of something I wonder about from time to time: why are most houses so...cheap and poorly designed? I understand that money plays the biggest factor here. People are trying to make (or save) money and so either shortcuts are taken or compromises are made, and houses are typically produced with cost being a major factor. Assuming money wasn’t an issue at all, how different would houses be? Would they be designed in a similar matter just with better materials? Or would the design be totally different, with easy access to all systems? I apologize if this is all a bit juvenile. Architecture and design isn’t my field at all. Is there a school of thought or design style that considers these things? Or are there aspects to this I’m not considering? | gnz2ph3 | go0ctkl | 1,613,710,246 | 1,613,745,499 | 1 | 2 | Wondering the same. I live in a condo building in Austin, TX that is about 10 years old. bought it because it appeared to be weir built (2x6 framing, real oak floors, and PEX plumbing ). During our storms this week, the brand new building next door, had 6 units with burst pipes (all copper). Design and materials appear to be a huge contributing factor to the misery that we're seeing right now in Texas. | As a 3x home owner, I would never purchase new construction. It's pre-war only for me. New homes are a catastrophe waiting to happen. They all leak. It's like you all forgot what homes are suppose to do. | 0 | 35,253 | 2 | ||
ln69jv | architecture_train | 0.8 | Why are houses so cheap and is there a better way? Here in Texas we’ve been experiencing Arctic temperatures. The buildings here aren’t really built to withstand that so pipes have been bursting all over the place. I unfortunately experienced this myself. The pipes to an upstairs bathroom were in an attic space with no access and no insulation. I had to cut a hole in the ceiling to get up there, and once I saw how it was set up it was obvious why they burst. There was literally no insulation, just 3 feet of air, then the roof, then outside air. The experience got me thinking of something I wonder about from time to time: why are most houses so...cheap and poorly designed? I understand that money plays the biggest factor here. People are trying to make (or save) money and so either shortcuts are taken or compromises are made, and houses are typically produced with cost being a major factor. Assuming money wasn’t an issue at all, how different would houses be? Would they be designed in a similar matter just with better materials? Or would the design be totally different, with easy access to all systems? I apologize if this is all a bit juvenile. Architecture and design isn’t my field at all. Is there a school of thought or design style that considers these things? Or are there aspects to this I’m not considering? | go00ujv | go0ctkl | 1,613,738,440 | 1,613,745,499 | 1 | 2 | The passive house movement addresses some of this for energy efficiency and site planning. Google PHIUS or passive huas. Net zero, living building challenge and BREEAM also are resources. Even LEED (with all its historical problems) is something to look at. | As a 3x home owner, I would never purchase new construction. It's pre-war only for me. New homes are a catastrophe waiting to happen. They all leak. It's like you all forgot what homes are suppose to do. | 0 | 7,059 | 2 | ||
ln69jv | architecture_train | 0.8 | Why are houses so cheap and is there a better way? Here in Texas we’ve been experiencing Arctic temperatures. The buildings here aren’t really built to withstand that so pipes have been bursting all over the place. I unfortunately experienced this myself. The pipes to an upstairs bathroom were in an attic space with no access and no insulation. I had to cut a hole in the ceiling to get up there, and once I saw how it was set up it was obvious why they burst. There was literally no insulation, just 3 feet of air, then the roof, then outside air. The experience got me thinking of something I wonder about from time to time: why are most houses so...cheap and poorly designed? I understand that money plays the biggest factor here. People are trying to make (or save) money and so either shortcuts are taken or compromises are made, and houses are typically produced with cost being a major factor. Assuming money wasn’t an issue at all, how different would houses be? Would they be designed in a similar matter just with better materials? Or would the design be totally different, with easy access to all systems? I apologize if this is all a bit juvenile. Architecture and design isn’t my field at all. Is there a school of thought or design style that considers these things? Or are there aspects to this I’m not considering? | go02g48 | go0ctkl | 1,613,739,572 | 1,613,745,499 | 1 | 2 | Here's what I don't get - we could build much better and more houses if we just made them smaller. But every new construction project has to take up 100%+ of the allowable FAR. Why do we need such big houses? Why do we need a bathroom for every bedroom? Why does a family of four need six bedrooms all with walk-in closets? Why do we have living rooms, family rooms, and basement family rooms? Why do we have dining rooms and eat in kitchens and breakfast nooks? We build the least affordable style of housing on the planet in this country and the NHBA whines about "why houses are so expensive to build" and tries to gut the energy code. We only think about two things - resale value and initial cost to build, no one thinks about actually living in the house. Sorry, rant over, nothing to see here. | As a 3x home owner, I would never purchase new construction. It's pre-war only for me. New homes are a catastrophe waiting to happen. They all leak. It's like you all forgot what homes are suppose to do. | 0 | 5,927 | 2 | ||
cpiyxr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Why have fake shutters become ubiquitous on American homes? [ask] In 90% of cases it's comical. A window 6 feet wide with a pair of plastic 1 foot wide shutters bolted on either side of it. In many instances they are even fastened upside down - if they were to be actually used, they would angle water into the window rather than away from it. I can't for the life of me figure out why America has become so obsessed with it, but everywhere I go I see it and once you fixate on it, you can't unsee it...EVERYWHERE!!! | ewq7phv | ewq8id1 | 1,565,658,885 | 1,565,659,444 | 2 | 4 | They are usually too small for the window (width wise) and are missing from a lot of windows close together. To add to the insult, the deception isn't even well executed. I lived in a house with actual working shutters and they were awesome during the spring. I am looking forward to putting them on my cabin to help protect the windows when the building is unused. | I don't think it's only America though. Every country has their weird architectural quirks, like for mine, (a South East Asian country) flat roofs and full glass facades, which ignores the insane sun and rain here. To me it's a misconception of design as defined by purely styles rather than a solution or approach to living. So if a style has these list of characteristics, these things should be present, whether or not it is applicable with modern day solutions and practicalities, IMO an unfortunate misinformation and marketing of design in general, which however is easier to market as a whole in these forms, simply because it prescribes an image people are familiar with, like Italian style, Scandinavian style etc. Probably the same in this case with fake shutters. | 0 | 559 | 2 | ||
cpiyxr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Why have fake shutters become ubiquitous on American homes? [ask] In 90% of cases it's comical. A window 6 feet wide with a pair of plastic 1 foot wide shutters bolted on either side of it. In many instances they are even fastened upside down - if they were to be actually used, they would angle water into the window rather than away from it. I can't for the life of me figure out why America has become so obsessed with it, but everywhere I go I see it and once you fixate on it, you can't unsee it...EVERYWHERE!!! | ewrgbl1 | ewq7phv | 1,565,704,733 | 1,565,658,885 | 3 | 2 | Most modern shutters are skeumorphs: derivative objects that retain nonfunctional ornamental attributes from structures that were inherent to the original (due, e.g., to functional requirements or differences in manufacturing). Which is to say, people like way shutters looked, so they kept putting them on houses after they were functionally obsolete. | They are usually too small for the window (width wise) and are missing from a lot of windows close together. To add to the insult, the deception isn't even well executed. I lived in a house with actual working shutters and they were awesome during the spring. I am looking forward to putting them on my cabin to help protect the windows when the building is unused. | 1 | 45,848 | 1.5 | ||
cpiyxr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Why have fake shutters become ubiquitous on American homes? [ask] In 90% of cases it's comical. A window 6 feet wide with a pair of plastic 1 foot wide shutters bolted on either side of it. In many instances they are even fastened upside down - if they were to be actually used, they would angle water into the window rather than away from it. I can't for the life of me figure out why America has become so obsessed with it, but everywhere I go I see it and once you fixate on it, you can't unsee it...EVERYWHERE!!! | ewqa7x6 | ewrgbl1 | 1,565,660,646 | 1,565,704,733 | 2 | 3 | I don’t know why these fake shutters are put on homes but I do recall an episode of This Old House or Ask This Old House correcting these improperly installed shutters by installing proper functional shutters on the house. | Most modern shutters are skeumorphs: derivative objects that retain nonfunctional ornamental attributes from structures that were inherent to the original (due, e.g., to functional requirements or differences in manufacturing). Which is to say, people like way shutters looked, so they kept putting them on houses after they were functionally obsolete. | 0 | 44,087 | 1.5 | ||
zzgrvx | architecture_train | 1 | Could the Biltmore Estate House be built today? Looking at the Biltmore Estate House, could it be built today? Could a modern day architect draw inspiration from European houses and design a one-of-a-kind 250-room house. Are there materials that are no longer available? Have certain artisanal skills been lost to history? | j2bn47z | j2bpfom | 1,672,450,215 | 1,672,451,253 | 3 | 9 | Can’t entirely answer that question but I do know there’s a mansion in Colorado that takes heavy inspiration from it. It’s a little clunky in execution imo though. | If you have enough money you can do it. | 0 | 1,038 | 3 | ||
zzgrvx | architecture_train | 1 | Could the Biltmore Estate House be built today? Looking at the Biltmore Estate House, could it be built today? Could a modern day architect draw inspiration from European houses and design a one-of-a-kind 250-room house. Are there materials that are no longer available? Have certain artisanal skills been lost to history? | j2bsg0v | j2bn47z | 1,672,452,592 | 1,672,450,215 | 7 | 3 | Estimated at 344m todays dollars it certainly could be although labor costs for a high level of craftsmanship and detailing would probably exceed this estimate. Mindless tract housing McMansion crews would probably not be a great fit. A specialized team to pull it off in one physical location would be nearly impossible as it sounds like it took 1000 people 7 years to complete. $344m / 175k square foot main house (although there are many other buildings) puts sq ft cost around $1965.00 per square foot. Definitely could be built. | Can’t entirely answer that question but I do know there’s a mansion in Colorado that takes heavy inspiration from it. It’s a little clunky in execution imo though. | 1 | 2,377 | 2.333333 | ||
zzgrvx | architecture_train | 1 | Could the Biltmore Estate House be built today? Looking at the Biltmore Estate House, could it be built today? Could a modern day architect draw inspiration from European houses and design a one-of-a-kind 250-room house. Are there materials that are no longer available? Have certain artisanal skills been lost to history? | j2cgbuk | j2bn47z | 1,672,464,421 | 1,672,450,215 | 7 | 3 | Finding the skills to do it is one issue but being allowed to do it is another: I know that when I visited Hearst Castle, I couldn’t help but notice the things that would not meet today’s accessibility codes even for private homes. | Can’t entirely answer that question but I do know there’s a mansion in Colorado that takes heavy inspiration from it. It’s a little clunky in execution imo though. | 1 | 14,206 | 2.333333 | ||
ucu4fi | architecture_train | 1 | Why were terrace houses built with large windows onto the balcony instead of doors? Was this by design? Were balconies added later? Were doors really that much more expensive? It honestly irks me not knowing... | i6dypow | i6cypts | 1,651,058,957 | 1,651,031,982 | 3 | 1 | I’ve noticed that in inner suburbs of Melbourne before. And I recalled seeing some occupants had steps or furniture in front of one of the windows that allowed you to climb out. I guess it’s like seat belts. If it was ok at the time we can’t force you to upgrade. | Not sure if I understand what you meant but I imagine they want the look of it but the layout doesn't allow a doorway (double heights for instance), or privacy, or the look of a flat roof only, maybe the code doesn't allow for a balcony. Sorry, not sure what you meant, lol. Any photos? | 1 | 26,975 | 3 | ||
ucu4fi | architecture_train | 1 | Why were terrace houses built with large windows onto the balcony instead of doors? Was this by design? Were balconies added later? Were doors really that much more expensive? It honestly irks me not knowing... | i6d79s4 | i6dypow | 1,651,037,187 | 1,651,058,957 | 1 | 3 | Depends on the country | I’ve noticed that in inner suburbs of Melbourne before. And I recalled seeing some occupants had steps or furniture in front of one of the windows that allowed you to climb out. I guess it’s like seat belts. If it was ok at the time we can’t force you to upgrade. | 0 | 21,770 | 3 | ||
ucu4fi | architecture_train | 1 | Why were terrace houses built with large windows onto the balcony instead of doors? Was this by design? Were balconies added later? Were doors really that much more expensive? It honestly irks me not knowing... | i6dm5cp | i6dypow | 1,651,048,994 | 1,651,058,957 | 1 | 3 | Can you post an example? | I’ve noticed that in inner suburbs of Melbourne before. And I recalled seeing some occupants had steps or furniture in front of one of the windows that allowed you to climb out. I guess it’s like seat belts. If it was ok at the time we can’t force you to upgrade. | 0 | 9,963 | 3 | ||
lhvhdq | architecture_train | 0.82 | How many architects does it take to change a lightbulb? A: Three. One to specify it, and two to go to Italy to collect it. | gmztfqf | gmzm1ri | 1,613,083,822 | 1,613,080,409 | 20 | 3 | One to place it in the Revit model, a BIM manager to remove it because it was downloaded from Revit City, and another to draw it with model lines so it shows up on every plan, but on the floor. | One to read the plans to figure out were it is,one to deconstruct the house around it and one to file a claim to the municipality for a permission to put a new one. | 1 | 3,413 | 6.666667 | ||
lhvhdq | architecture_train | 0.82 | How many architects does it take to change a lightbulb? A: Three. One to specify it, and two to go to Italy to collect it. | gmzvpv2 | gn2a1f4 | 1,613,084,897 | 1,613,141,476 | 2 | 3 | I mean this could go a million more ways lmao and why Italy...and 2 need to go. anyway. back to work idk what im doing here. | My favorite architecture (structure) joke, told to me by a mentor: A steel beam walks into a bar. Bartender asks, “what’ll ya have?!” Steel beam replies: “Well, give me a moment!” | 0 | 56,579 | 1.5 | ||
eziuwn | architecture_train | 0.67 | [Ask] What's the point of working so hard to save Frank Lloyd Wright homes? Wouldn't it make more sense to just save the plans and build new versions of the originals? I can agree with saving FLR's work. But his work was the design, not the building. I've read about massive efforts to save these examples. But he designed them. He didn't build them. They are just saving the work of those builders. Why not just build new ones using new methods instead of saving the old ones that are falling apart? Whay am I missing? | fgnyq0i | fgojdtc | 1,580,955,840 | 1,580,972,172 | 5 | 6 | He is one of the top 3 architects from the U.S., visible examples of his work are worth saving. | I think he would disagree that his work was just the design and not the physical building. From what I understand he was often heavily involved in the construction process, it's not like he handed off a set of drawings and never thought about it again; the end goal was a building, not a piece of paper. | 0 | 16,332 | 1.2 | ||
eziuwn | architecture_train | 0.67 | [Ask] What's the point of working so hard to save Frank Lloyd Wright homes? Wouldn't it make more sense to just save the plans and build new versions of the originals? I can agree with saving FLR's work. But his work was the design, not the building. I've read about massive efforts to save these examples. But he designed them. He didn't build them. They are just saving the work of those builders. Why not just build new ones using new methods instead of saving the old ones that are falling apart? Whay am I missing? | fgo4vb3 | fgojdtc | 1,580,959,831 | 1,580,972,172 | 3 | 6 | When you own one, do whatever you want with it. | I think he would disagree that his work was just the design and not the physical building. From what I understand he was often heavily involved in the construction process, it's not like he handed off a set of drawings and never thought about it again; the end goal was a building, not a piece of paper. | 0 | 12,341 | 2 | ||
eziuwn | architecture_train | 0.67 | [Ask] What's the point of working so hard to save Frank Lloyd Wright homes? Wouldn't it make more sense to just save the plans and build new versions of the originals? I can agree with saving FLR's work. But his work was the design, not the building. I've read about massive efforts to save these examples. But he designed them. He didn't build them. They are just saving the work of those builders. Why not just build new ones using new methods instead of saving the old ones that are falling apart? Whay am I missing? | fgo7dba | fgnyq0i | 1,580,961,594 | 1,580,955,840 | 7 | 5 | Umm.. I guess this logic could also be dangerously applied to any work of any architect. For example, Milan's cathedral falling a part and takes way too much to repair? Let's just build a new one with other long lasting materials. Insane as hell. Eiffel tower getting rusty? Well, just change it to a different kind of metal. It's just wouldn't be the same Eiffel tower but an imitation of it. And I'm not being manipulative with my examples, someday in the future FLW's work will have a bigger weight in history, it's ours to take care and pass on to the future generations when all they will see and know is high ass glass towers. | He is one of the top 3 architects from the U.S., visible examples of his work are worth saving. | 1 | 5,754 | 1.4 | ||
eziuwn | architecture_train | 0.67 | [Ask] What's the point of working so hard to save Frank Lloyd Wright homes? Wouldn't it make more sense to just save the plans and build new versions of the originals? I can agree with saving FLR's work. But his work was the design, not the building. I've read about massive efforts to save these examples. But he designed them. He didn't build them. They are just saving the work of those builders. Why not just build new ones using new methods instead of saving the old ones that are falling apart? Whay am I missing? | fgo7dba | fgo4vb3 | 1,580,961,594 | 1,580,959,831 | 7 | 3 | Umm.. I guess this logic could also be dangerously applied to any work of any architect. For example, Milan's cathedral falling a part and takes way too much to repair? Let's just build a new one with other long lasting materials. Insane as hell. Eiffel tower getting rusty? Well, just change it to a different kind of metal. It's just wouldn't be the same Eiffel tower but an imitation of it. And I'm not being manipulative with my examples, someday in the future FLW's work will have a bigger weight in history, it's ours to take care and pass on to the future generations when all they will see and know is high ass glass towers. | When you own one, do whatever you want with it. | 1 | 1,763 | 2.333333 | ||
eziuwn | architecture_train | 0.67 | [Ask] What's the point of working so hard to save Frank Lloyd Wright homes? Wouldn't it make more sense to just save the plans and build new versions of the originals? I can agree with saving FLR's work. But his work was the design, not the building. I've read about massive efforts to save these examples. But he designed them. He didn't build them. They are just saving the work of those builders. Why not just build new ones using new methods instead of saving the old ones that are falling apart? Whay am I missing? | fgo4vb3 | fgq1nlg | 1,580,959,831 | 1,581,016,175 | 3 | 5 | When you own one, do whatever you want with it. | Buildings are designed for sites, typically. Especially his buildings. You can't take falling water and build it in the desert and have it result with the same effect because it was literally designed to be on that waterfall in pennsylvania. | 0 | 56,344 | 1.666667 | ||
dk9tiv | architecture_train | 1 | [Ask]If biomimicry became a building standard, which forms found in nature would most houses be built to mimic? | f4d05i8 | f4cqb3l | 1,571,536,255 | 1,571,532,509 | 6 | 3 | It may be helpful to back out here a bit: it is doubtful that it will be a 1:1 comparison like that. Architecture faced the same question at the beginning of Modernity, and many now-famous architects and thinkers pointed out that it was a process of \*becoming\* modern, rather than being or looking modern. The famous example is of the motor car, but also of airplanes: up to a certain point they were simply horseless carriages - copies of what we already knew how to do - before they became automobiles. You can see it in Le Corbusier's 'Towards an Architecture' spread with the Parthenon and the motor cars. Bringing it to your question about bio-mimicry, it is that we mimic what and how it \*does\* and not what it \*is\*, so the question of 'which forms' is really a question of 'which *functions* embodied in the forms'. Put simply, a solar panel is like a photosynthetic leaf, but it doesn't look like one. And, appeals to 'Natural' forms like smooth curves and fractals may be important from an aesthetic view, but really they're largely Romantic visions. Many things can look 'natural' without actually being properly natural, sustainable, or worthy of mimicry! | Sodium Chloride Crystals. | 1 | 3,746 | 2 | ||
qrl5j2 | architecture_train | 0.85 | Office design: why large, spacious and open, and not small, safe, and comfortable? Disclaimer: non-architect here, probably a basic question, not sure whether it's the right subreddit. I just listened to a very interesting podcast episode about the interior design of casinos (here it is, highly recommended), where apparently one key design principle is to make the room as comfortable and safe for the customer as possible. This means rather low ceilings, sound and visual design to minimize distractions, no right corners anywhere, sheltering from outside view, and generally doing everything to make the customer feel like he/she's in a safe, cozy cocoon, sheltered from the outside. This got me thinking: why are offices typically not designed in the same way? They generally seem to be the exact opposite, i.e., usually large spaces with very high ceilings, no cozy corners to be found anywhere, lots of (see-through) glass, everything being very cold and uncomfortable. Wouldn't it be desirable to have people feel safe and comfortable at work? I'm not talking about random, poorly designed office blocks but rather about large, consciously designed buildings for large companies, universities, etc. It feels like offices are not designed for the people inside them, but rather to serve as big and expensive status symbols for the institution that owns them. Is this a known discussion in the field? Are there prominent counterexamples? Are there studies comparing the productivity of workers in offices that are designed differently? For some random examples of what I'm talking about, see, e.g., these offices nominated for some award. I'm not sure I've been in many places that are *less* comfortable than those. | hk80pv6 | hk84qz6 | 1,636,650,272 | 1,636,651,874 | 1 | 2 | There was a move towards open offices decades back. Seems to be a backlash against it these days for multiple reasons and you'll likely see things bouncing back in the opposite direction over the coming years. It seems the great democratizer is also the great echo chamber. | My totally unprofessional thoughts (not that anyone is interested but I need typing practice): Gambling is chosen and private, work is required and collaborative. When a person is gambling, they want to stay focused, so they are happy to be deprived of annoying distractions. If you can keep distractions away from that guy half-conscious playing blackjack with his thoughts on nothing but the cards, you make a lot of money. A worker has different motivations and different desired behaviors. What is comforting to the gambler is claustrophobic to the worker. A worker is distracted not by outside stimulus, but by the fact that he would rather be somewhere, anywhere, else. Giving a worker a chance to rest is therefore important. Let the worker look away from his work, focus his eyes on something far away for a moment, and then he can force himself back to the task at hand. The worker also shouldn’t be hald-conscious. To be productive he needs to be awake, aware, and sometimes working with neighbors. | 0 | 1,602 | 2 | ||
qrl5j2 | architecture_train | 0.85 | Office design: why large, spacious and open, and not small, safe, and comfortable? Disclaimer: non-architect here, probably a basic question, not sure whether it's the right subreddit. I just listened to a very interesting podcast episode about the interior design of casinos (here it is, highly recommended), where apparently one key design principle is to make the room as comfortable and safe for the customer as possible. This means rather low ceilings, sound and visual design to minimize distractions, no right corners anywhere, sheltering from outside view, and generally doing everything to make the customer feel like he/she's in a safe, cozy cocoon, sheltered from the outside. This got me thinking: why are offices typically not designed in the same way? They generally seem to be the exact opposite, i.e., usually large spaces with very high ceilings, no cozy corners to be found anywhere, lots of (see-through) glass, everything being very cold and uncomfortable. Wouldn't it be desirable to have people feel safe and comfortable at work? I'm not talking about random, poorly designed office blocks but rather about large, consciously designed buildings for large companies, universities, etc. It feels like offices are not designed for the people inside them, but rather to serve as big and expensive status symbols for the institution that owns them. Is this a known discussion in the field? Are there prominent counterexamples? Are there studies comparing the productivity of workers in offices that are designed differently? For some random examples of what I'm talking about, see, e.g., these offices nominated for some award. I'm not sure I've been in many places that are *less* comfortable than those. | hk80pv6 | hk8d9gp | 1,636,650,272 | 1,636,655,211 | 1 | 2 | There was a move towards open offices decades back. Seems to be a backlash against it these days for multiple reasons and you'll likely see things bouncing back in the opposite direction over the coming years. It seems the great democratizer is also the great echo chamber. | Look at Frank Lloyd Wright's Johnson Wax Building, many cozy spaces including a hearth (fireplace) to gather around. When asked about it, Wright said: "People didn't want to go home." All about light and quality of human experience. This is what is possible. Unfortunately, some rather lazy or unimaginative or spread-too-thin designers are still designing giant greenhouses like it is still 1854 and Joseph Paxton just introduced this kind of architecture. These same designers tend to blame everyone but themselves for the lack of meaningful moments in their designs. It's a shame. The architecture profession can do better. | 0 | 4,939 | 2 | ||
qrl5j2 | architecture_train | 0.85 | Office design: why large, spacious and open, and not small, safe, and comfortable? Disclaimer: non-architect here, probably a basic question, not sure whether it's the right subreddit. I just listened to a very interesting podcast episode about the interior design of casinos (here it is, highly recommended), where apparently one key design principle is to make the room as comfortable and safe for the customer as possible. This means rather low ceilings, sound and visual design to minimize distractions, no right corners anywhere, sheltering from outside view, and generally doing everything to make the customer feel like he/she's in a safe, cozy cocoon, sheltered from the outside. This got me thinking: why are offices typically not designed in the same way? They generally seem to be the exact opposite, i.e., usually large spaces with very high ceilings, no cozy corners to be found anywhere, lots of (see-through) glass, everything being very cold and uncomfortable. Wouldn't it be desirable to have people feel safe and comfortable at work? I'm not talking about random, poorly designed office blocks but rather about large, consciously designed buildings for large companies, universities, etc. It feels like offices are not designed for the people inside them, but rather to serve as big and expensive status symbols for the institution that owns them. Is this a known discussion in the field? Are there prominent counterexamples? Are there studies comparing the productivity of workers in offices that are designed differently? For some random examples of what I'm talking about, see, e.g., these offices nominated for some award. I'm not sure I've been in many places that are *less* comfortable than those. | hk80pv6 | hk8nt1s | 1,636,650,272 | 1,636,659,476 | 1 | 2 | There was a move towards open offices decades back. Seems to be a backlash against it these days for multiple reasons and you'll likely see things bouncing back in the opposite direction over the coming years. It seems the great democratizer is also the great echo chamber. | Since when do casinos have low ceilings, a lack of sound and distractions, and a warm cozy feeling?!! Casinos are huge open areas with extremely high ceilings, they are very bright and loud with plenty of distractions, and they keep the AC on high to keep people awake and alert so they don't want to go to bed. | 0 | 9,204 | 2 | ||
qrl5j2 | architecture_train | 0.85 | Office design: why large, spacious and open, and not small, safe, and comfortable? Disclaimer: non-architect here, probably a basic question, not sure whether it's the right subreddit. I just listened to a very interesting podcast episode about the interior design of casinos (here it is, highly recommended), where apparently one key design principle is to make the room as comfortable and safe for the customer as possible. This means rather low ceilings, sound and visual design to minimize distractions, no right corners anywhere, sheltering from outside view, and generally doing everything to make the customer feel like he/she's in a safe, cozy cocoon, sheltered from the outside. This got me thinking: why are offices typically not designed in the same way? They generally seem to be the exact opposite, i.e., usually large spaces with very high ceilings, no cozy corners to be found anywhere, lots of (see-through) glass, everything being very cold and uncomfortable. Wouldn't it be desirable to have people feel safe and comfortable at work? I'm not talking about random, poorly designed office blocks but rather about large, consciously designed buildings for large companies, universities, etc. It feels like offices are not designed for the people inside them, but rather to serve as big and expensive status symbols for the institution that owns them. Is this a known discussion in the field? Are there prominent counterexamples? Are there studies comparing the productivity of workers in offices that are designed differently? For some random examples of what I'm talking about, see, e.g., these offices nominated for some award. I'm not sure I've been in many places that are *less* comfortable than those. | hk8mt5r | hk8nt1s | 1,636,659,064 | 1,636,659,476 | 1 | 2 | The thinking behind office design has changed drastically over the past 30 years or so. There was the concept of the cubicles in the middle, with managers on the periphery of the building getting window offices. The biggest wigs getting the corner offices. However it became apparent that the managers and higher ups were the ones with the best offices/views but they were spending the least time at their actual desks doing work as they were traveling for business, in conference rooms, out for meetings, etc. leaving the people who are sitting there for 8 hours without great sunlight or views. This took a mental toll on people. So the concept of the open floor plan came about. A concept that was widely used in design studios became utilized in general corporate office settings. Everyone getting light and views and maybe even some fresh air. There was a new problem though. Now people had lost their sense of personal space. There was this looming anxiety of everyone looking over your shoulder because the walls of the cubicles were down and some people didn’t even have a cubby or a place to hang their coat. This evolved into the semi-open work spaces that we see in a lot of office design today. Having half height cubicles, usually arranged in clusters around common areas, that still afford views and promote collaborative interaction is a common approach. | Since when do casinos have low ceilings, a lack of sound and distractions, and a warm cozy feeling?!! Casinos are huge open areas with extremely high ceilings, they are very bright and loud with plenty of distractions, and they keep the AC on high to keep people awake and alert so they don't want to go to bed. | 0 | 412 | 2 | ||
ykmzdp | architecture_train | 0.87 | Am I going to be miserable? Every where I hear “architecture is overworked and underpaid…worklife balance is impossible…you’ll probably lose your job every 10 years…it’s super competitive” I’m a 4th year arch student and have interned before. I feel like I do have a genuine passion for architecture, but I need to know if architecture is a horrible career path? or is it worth pursuing? (And btw I don’t believe in “dream jobs” I know at the end of the day work will be work and overall not that fun) Any advice from practicing professionals would be great, thanks. | iuu2s5z | iuukhym | 1,667,436,123 | 1,667,443,862 | 7 | 18 | First step is to work in a firm and get a feel for the day to day. There are many roles and aspects to the job. Try to find somewhere that will rotate you through different aspects of the process (will need this for licensure hours regardless). Go find that internship and see how you like it. | A lot will depend on where you work and what you're doing. Some sectors get hit harder than others during recessions so losing your job is not a guarantee. But it's definitely possible. I imagine a lot of people sink a lot of time into their work but I am not one of them. I will work a little extra around deadlines but if 40+ hour weeks were expected of me on the regular I would have a conversation with my manager and maybe leave the firm. Yes, you could make more money had you gone into construction management, tech, or a ton of other professions. But you'll be above the poverty line so that's nice. I think if you truly enjoy it then try to keep that spark alive. I think the craftsman's mindset is what gets me through. Don't dwell on the greener grass or what could've been. It can drive you insane and it's wasted energy. (but don't be close minded when an open door presents itself). Personally, if I could go back in time I would choose something different. I've even tried leaving to pursue a different career but I learned I don't have the fire in me to make that transition. But I'm back in architecture and I'm content even considering its less than ideal characteristics. | 0 | 7,739 | 2.571429 | ||
ykmzdp | architecture_train | 0.87 | Am I going to be miserable? Every where I hear “architecture is overworked and underpaid…worklife balance is impossible…you’ll probably lose your job every 10 years…it’s super competitive” I’m a 4th year arch student and have interned before. I feel like I do have a genuine passion for architecture, but I need to know if architecture is a horrible career path? or is it worth pursuing? (And btw I don’t believe in “dream jobs” I know at the end of the day work will be work and overall not that fun) Any advice from practicing professionals would be great, thanks. | iuvlgom | iuu2s5z | 1,667,471,487 | 1,667,436,123 | 8 | 7 | 4th year, have interned and feel you have a passion for architecture. At this stage, I think you have more than enough of a taste to keep going with it, finish uni, work up to registration, then see if you still like it. Don't worry about the pay. It's actually fine, we just expect the same as what our doctor/ banker/ tech friends say they earn. No one ever tells you this, but you can actually make really good money in architecture, but you are unlikely to if you don't also have a business mindset. If you end up as a director of a mid-large architecture firm, you won't be moaning about the pay and there are a number of well-renumerated steps before this point. If you do end up registered and find you don't like your career path, architects have a lot of transferable skills which can be applied to other areas. Loads of former architects move to project management, project director, development manager type roles for a pay bump. Skills are also transferable outside the construction industry. | First step is to work in a firm and get a feel for the day to day. There are many roles and aspects to the job. Try to find somewhere that will rotate you through different aspects of the process (will need this for licensure hours regardless). Go find that internship and see how you like it. | 1 | 35,364 | 1.142857 | ||
ykmzdp | architecture_train | 0.87 | Am I going to be miserable? Every where I hear “architecture is overworked and underpaid…worklife balance is impossible…you’ll probably lose your job every 10 years…it’s super competitive” I’m a 4th year arch student and have interned before. I feel like I do have a genuine passion for architecture, but I need to know if architecture is a horrible career path? or is it worth pursuing? (And btw I don’t believe in “dream jobs” I know at the end of the day work will be work and overall not that fun) Any advice from practicing professionals would be great, thanks. | iuvwvy2 | iuvpgby | 1,667,478,689 | 1,667,474,339 | 3 | 1 | I’ve been qualified for 14 years now. I’ve worked on projects all over the world, lived in London and Hong Kong. For sure there have been tough times comparing salary with friends in finance but I love my career. Started my own firm now and I’m three years in. Took a big pay cut to get it going and it’s just about starting to grow into something more financially stable. You won’t be miserable if you are genuinely interested and willing to put the time and effort in. Just don’t get disheartened comparing other industries | Very horrible. Go away | 1 | 4,350 | 3 | ||
ykmzdp | architecture_train | 0.87 | Am I going to be miserable? Every where I hear “architecture is overworked and underpaid…worklife balance is impossible…you’ll probably lose your job every 10 years…it’s super competitive” I’m a 4th year arch student and have interned before. I feel like I do have a genuine passion for architecture, but I need to know if architecture is a horrible career path? or is it worth pursuing? (And btw I don’t believe in “dream jobs” I know at the end of the day work will be work and overall not that fun) Any advice from practicing professionals would be great, thanks. | iuvwvy2 | iuvrht7 | 1,667,478,689 | 1,667,475,641 | 3 | 1 | I’ve been qualified for 14 years now. I’ve worked on projects all over the world, lived in London and Hong Kong. For sure there have been tough times comparing salary with friends in finance but I love my career. Started my own firm now and I’m three years in. Took a big pay cut to get it going and it’s just about starting to grow into something more financially stable. You won’t be miserable if you are genuinely interested and willing to put the time and effort in. Just don’t get disheartened comparing other industries | Is building design less stress? | 1 | 3,048 | 3 | ||
ykmzdp | architecture_train | 0.87 | Am I going to be miserable? Every where I hear “architecture is overworked and underpaid…worklife balance is impossible…you’ll probably lose your job every 10 years…it’s super competitive” I’m a 4th year arch student and have interned before. I feel like I do have a genuine passion for architecture, but I need to know if architecture is a horrible career path? or is it worth pursuing? (And btw I don’t believe in “dream jobs” I know at the end of the day work will be work and overall not that fun) Any advice from practicing professionals would be great, thanks. | iuvsjx4 | iuvwvy2 | 1,667,476,283 | 1,667,478,689 | 0 | 3 | Yes. I am a recent grad, worked a year in an architectural firm. Can confirm that work/pay is horrible. I was fortunate as I did a combined master in architecture and urban design. Just started working as an urban designer and everything is much better. | I’ve been qualified for 14 years now. I’ve worked on projects all over the world, lived in London and Hong Kong. For sure there have been tough times comparing salary with friends in finance but I love my career. Started my own firm now and I’m three years in. Took a big pay cut to get it going and it’s just about starting to grow into something more financially stable. You won’t be miserable if you are genuinely interested and willing to put the time and effort in. Just don’t get disheartened comparing other industries | 0 | 2,406 | 3,000 | ||
ykmzdp | architecture_train | 0.87 | Am I going to be miserable? Every where I hear “architecture is overworked and underpaid…worklife balance is impossible…you’ll probably lose your job every 10 years…it’s super competitive” I’m a 4th year arch student and have interned before. I feel like I do have a genuine passion for architecture, but I need to know if architecture is a horrible career path? or is it worth pursuing? (And btw I don’t believe in “dream jobs” I know at the end of the day work will be work and overall not that fun) Any advice from practicing professionals would be great, thanks. | iuw28hm | iuvpgby | 1,667,481,339 | 1,667,474,339 | 2 | 1 | I make decent pay (pretty standard middle class income where I am from) and have a dream job for me. In a competition team where it’s usually regular workdays but overtime close to competition deadlines. You can definitely have a regular life and not be miserable, depends on where you work. If you wanna make bank you need to either advance to the upper management at a larger firm or start your own/parter in. Know several people who had their firm bought up and they don’t need to work that much anymore but do so anyway. | Very horrible. Go away | 1 | 7,000 | 2 | ||
ykmzdp | architecture_train | 0.87 | Am I going to be miserable? Every where I hear “architecture is overworked and underpaid…worklife balance is impossible…you’ll probably lose your job every 10 years…it’s super competitive” I’m a 4th year arch student and have interned before. I feel like I do have a genuine passion for architecture, but I need to know if architecture is a horrible career path? or is it worth pursuing? (And btw I don’t believe in “dream jobs” I know at the end of the day work will be work and overall not that fun) Any advice from practicing professionals would be great, thanks. | iuvrht7 | iuw28hm | 1,667,475,641 | 1,667,481,339 | 1 | 2 | Is building design less stress? | I make decent pay (pretty standard middle class income where I am from) and have a dream job for me. In a competition team where it’s usually regular workdays but overtime close to competition deadlines. You can definitely have a regular life and not be miserable, depends on where you work. If you wanna make bank you need to either advance to the upper management at a larger firm or start your own/parter in. Know several people who had their firm bought up and they don’t need to work that much anymore but do so anyway. | 0 | 5,698 | 2 | ||
ykmzdp | architecture_train | 0.87 | Am I going to be miserable? Every where I hear “architecture is overworked and underpaid…worklife balance is impossible…you’ll probably lose your job every 10 years…it’s super competitive” I’m a 4th year arch student and have interned before. I feel like I do have a genuine passion for architecture, but I need to know if architecture is a horrible career path? or is it worth pursuing? (And btw I don’t believe in “dream jobs” I know at the end of the day work will be work and overall not that fun) Any advice from practicing professionals would be great, thanks. | iuw28hm | iuvsjx4 | 1,667,481,339 | 1,667,476,283 | 2 | 0 | I make decent pay (pretty standard middle class income where I am from) and have a dream job for me. In a competition team where it’s usually regular workdays but overtime close to competition deadlines. You can definitely have a regular life and not be miserable, depends on where you work. If you wanna make bank you need to either advance to the upper management at a larger firm or start your own/parter in. Know several people who had their firm bought up and they don’t need to work that much anymore but do so anyway. | Yes. I am a recent grad, worked a year in an architectural firm. Can confirm that work/pay is horrible. I was fortunate as I did a combined master in architecture and urban design. Just started working as an urban designer and everything is much better. | 1 | 5,056 | 2,000 | ||
ykmzdp | architecture_train | 0.87 | Am I going to be miserable? Every where I hear “architecture is overworked and underpaid…worklife balance is impossible…you’ll probably lose your job every 10 years…it’s super competitive” I’m a 4th year arch student and have interned before. I feel like I do have a genuine passion for architecture, but I need to know if architecture is a horrible career path? or is it worth pursuing? (And btw I don’t believe in “dream jobs” I know at the end of the day work will be work and overall not that fun) Any advice from practicing professionals would be great, thanks. | iuw41j2 | iuvpgby | 1,667,482,171 | 1,667,474,339 | 2 | 1 | Ive learned that it depends a lot on what your colleagues are like. I've gotten to know many architects who are very toxic people. Don't be afraid to hop jobs until you've found your office that grooves with you | Very horrible. Go away | 1 | 7,832 | 2 | ||
ykmzdp | architecture_train | 0.87 | Am I going to be miserable? Every where I hear “architecture is overworked and underpaid…worklife balance is impossible…you’ll probably lose your job every 10 years…it’s super competitive” I’m a 4th year arch student and have interned before. I feel like I do have a genuine passion for architecture, but I need to know if architecture is a horrible career path? or is it worth pursuing? (And btw I don’t believe in “dream jobs” I know at the end of the day work will be work and overall not that fun) Any advice from practicing professionals would be great, thanks. | iuw41j2 | iuvrht7 | 1,667,482,171 | 1,667,475,641 | 2 | 1 | Ive learned that it depends a lot on what your colleagues are like. I've gotten to know many architects who are very toxic people. Don't be afraid to hop jobs until you've found your office that grooves with you | Is building design less stress? | 1 | 6,530 | 2 | ||
ykmzdp | architecture_train | 0.87 | Am I going to be miserable? Every where I hear “architecture is overworked and underpaid…worklife balance is impossible…you’ll probably lose your job every 10 years…it’s super competitive” I’m a 4th year arch student and have interned before. I feel like I do have a genuine passion for architecture, but I need to know if architecture is a horrible career path? or is it worth pursuing? (And btw I don’t believe in “dream jobs” I know at the end of the day work will be work and overall not that fun) Any advice from practicing professionals would be great, thanks. | iuw41j2 | iuvsjx4 | 1,667,482,171 | 1,667,476,283 | 2 | 0 | Ive learned that it depends a lot on what your colleagues are like. I've gotten to know many architects who are very toxic people. Don't be afraid to hop jobs until you've found your office that grooves with you | Yes. I am a recent grad, worked a year in an architectural firm. Can confirm that work/pay is horrible. I was fortunate as I did a combined master in architecture and urban design. Just started working as an urban designer and everything is much better. | 1 | 5,888 | 2,000 | ||
ykmzdp | architecture_train | 0.87 | Am I going to be miserable? Every where I hear “architecture is overworked and underpaid…worklife balance is impossible…you’ll probably lose your job every 10 years…it’s super competitive” I’m a 4th year arch student and have interned before. I feel like I do have a genuine passion for architecture, but I need to know if architecture is a horrible career path? or is it worth pursuing? (And btw I don’t believe in “dream jobs” I know at the end of the day work will be work and overall not that fun) Any advice from practicing professionals would be great, thanks. | iuw6ewt | iuvsjx4 | 1,667,483,240 | 1,667,476,283 | 1 | 0 | It depends on where you work. And what compromises you will make. My girlfriend’s first job was with a firm that explicitly stated that the do not believe in a work/life balance. They paid well, but the firm was populated by awful, miserable people. Then she moved to a firm where everyone clocked off at 5 and never worked a single second of overtime. The pay was terrible but she and her coworkers were happy. I suppose the ideal sits somewhere in the middle of the two. I would also say it depends on how healthy the construction industry (and the broader economy) is in your area. In my country, for instance, the entry level pay is pretty bad but once you get licensed it goes up to a more reasonable level, and starting your own firm is a realistic option - but our economy is extremely volatile so things can change at the drop of a hat. In other countries the case may be different. | Yes. I am a recent grad, worked a year in an architectural firm. Can confirm that work/pay is horrible. I was fortunate as I did a combined master in architecture and urban design. Just started working as an urban designer and everything is much better. | 1 | 6,957 | 1,000 | ||
h8z5nr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Is the refusal to add the same level of detail as we did 100 years ago purely economic or is also the preference of the architects? Personally, I feel passionate about how a building should not only be judged and perceived from the perspective far away, but also from the perspective of the pedestrian walking right next to it. More specifically I am interested in what that means for how we build our cities. There is a reason why people like to walk in old urban streets. I think a large part of it has to do with the level of variety and detail in the buildings. Variety that comes from the rowhouses each being different in a block and the level of detail in the use of windows/doors, brick details and different ornaments. If you don't know what I'm talking about I would recommend looking up Jan Gehl, Jeff Speck, or Charles Montgomery. I often hear the argument that the reason this is not being done is to save money, but I refuse to believe that is the only reason. Is a high level of detail something the architecture field shy away from? Why? | futx491 | futx5xb | 1,592,165,177 | 1,592,165,203 | 1 | 12 | There is still a lot of details and decorative elements in todays architecture, it's just less obvious. Otherwise (if economics would be the only factor) we would all just have bland boxes. | Interesting that you mention *walking* down old urban streets. Details that are visible to pedestrians are less so to someone in a moving vehicle. The way cities are designed to prioritize car traffic would also affect the level of detail of its buildings. You need only look at the clutter of billboards and giant signs designed to capture the car dweller's gaze. If we (hopefully) start designing cities for people instead of cars, I suspect architectural styles would adapt to the gaze of the pedestrian eye that enjoys the details of the pre-automobile city. | 0 | 26 | 12 | ||
h8z5nr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Is the refusal to add the same level of detail as we did 100 years ago purely economic or is also the preference of the architects? Personally, I feel passionate about how a building should not only be judged and perceived from the perspective far away, but also from the perspective of the pedestrian walking right next to it. More specifically I am interested in what that means for how we build our cities. There is a reason why people like to walk in old urban streets. I think a large part of it has to do with the level of variety and detail in the buildings. Variety that comes from the rowhouses each being different in a block and the level of detail in the use of windows/doors, brick details and different ornaments. If you don't know what I'm talking about I would recommend looking up Jan Gehl, Jeff Speck, or Charles Montgomery. I often hear the argument that the reason this is not being done is to save money, but I refuse to believe that is the only reason. Is a high level of detail something the architecture field shy away from? Why? | futx491 | fuu5uwh | 1,592,165,177 | 1,592,169,979 | 1 | 10 | There is still a lot of details and decorative elements in todays architecture, it's just less obvious. Otherwise (if economics would be the only factor) we would all just have bland boxes. | I think one of the reasons may be the prevalence of the ideology of modernism on architecture education. Adolf Loos' Ornament and Crime, or Mies' "less is more" are on Architecture schools yet what influence our design language. As other have said I believe that industrialisation of construction had also something to do with this. | 0 | 4,802 | 10 | ||
h8z5nr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Is the refusal to add the same level of detail as we did 100 years ago purely economic or is also the preference of the architects? Personally, I feel passionate about how a building should not only be judged and perceived from the perspective far away, but also from the perspective of the pedestrian walking right next to it. More specifically I am interested in what that means for how we build our cities. There is a reason why people like to walk in old urban streets. I think a large part of it has to do with the level of variety and detail in the buildings. Variety that comes from the rowhouses each being different in a block and the level of detail in the use of windows/doors, brick details and different ornaments. If you don't know what I'm talking about I would recommend looking up Jan Gehl, Jeff Speck, or Charles Montgomery. I often hear the argument that the reason this is not being done is to save money, but I refuse to believe that is the only reason. Is a high level of detail something the architecture field shy away from? Why? | fuw6fiq | futx491 | 1,592,222,288 | 1,592,165,177 | 6 | 1 | Schools stopped teaching traditional architecture around WWII, which meant the type of urban patterns and ornament you are talking about was no longer part of the curriculum. Today, academia is still largely in that same ideological mindset when it comes to traditional work, and this has a hold on the profession as a whole. I’ve spent my professional career working on or designing new classical buildings in various styles. They are perfectly feasible with today’s economics and builders. There are other architects who do this as well, and you can find them through The Institute for Classical Architecture and Art](www.classicist.org), or the [International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture & Urbanism](www.intbau.org). Additionally, there are more and more craftsmen getting into the mix. The [American College of the Building Arts has programs that train artisans to be able to work in stone metals, wood, etc. Some of the established shops out there do work in preservation as well as new construction in various styles: Plaster: Hyde Park Foster Reeve Balmer Stone: Bybee Stone Traditional Cut Stone Quarra Stone Metals: Historical Arts and Castings Les Metalliers Champenois | There is still a lot of details and decorative elements in todays architecture, it's just less obvious. Otherwise (if economics would be the only factor) we would all just have bland boxes. | 1 | 57,111 | 6 | ||
h8z5nr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Is the refusal to add the same level of detail as we did 100 years ago purely economic or is also the preference of the architects? Personally, I feel passionate about how a building should not only be judged and perceived from the perspective far away, but also from the perspective of the pedestrian walking right next to it. More specifically I am interested in what that means for how we build our cities. There is a reason why people like to walk in old urban streets. I think a large part of it has to do with the level of variety and detail in the buildings. Variety that comes from the rowhouses each being different in a block and the level of detail in the use of windows/doors, brick details and different ornaments. If you don't know what I'm talking about I would recommend looking up Jan Gehl, Jeff Speck, or Charles Montgomery. I often hear the argument that the reason this is not being done is to save money, but I refuse to believe that is the only reason. Is a high level of detail something the architecture field shy away from? Why? | fuw6fiq | fuuopqv | 1,592,222,288 | 1,592,180,456 | 6 | 2 | Schools stopped teaching traditional architecture around WWII, which meant the type of urban patterns and ornament you are talking about was no longer part of the curriculum. Today, academia is still largely in that same ideological mindset when it comes to traditional work, and this has a hold on the profession as a whole. I’ve spent my professional career working on or designing new classical buildings in various styles. They are perfectly feasible with today’s economics and builders. There are other architects who do this as well, and you can find them through The Institute for Classical Architecture and Art](www.classicist.org), or the [International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture & Urbanism](www.intbau.org). Additionally, there are more and more craftsmen getting into the mix. The [American College of the Building Arts has programs that train artisans to be able to work in stone metals, wood, etc. Some of the established shops out there do work in preservation as well as new construction in various styles: Plaster: Hyde Park Foster Reeve Balmer Stone: Bybee Stone Traditional Cut Stone Quarra Stone Metals: Historical Arts and Castings Les Metalliers Champenois | Generally, the reason is always economic. Off-the-shelf products will always be cheaper. | 1 | 41,832 | 3 | ||
h8z5nr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Is the refusal to add the same level of detail as we did 100 years ago purely economic or is also the preference of the architects? Personally, I feel passionate about how a building should not only be judged and perceived from the perspective far away, but also from the perspective of the pedestrian walking right next to it. More specifically I am interested in what that means for how we build our cities. There is a reason why people like to walk in old urban streets. I think a large part of it has to do with the level of variety and detail in the buildings. Variety that comes from the rowhouses each being different in a block and the level of detail in the use of windows/doors, brick details and different ornaments. If you don't know what I'm talking about I would recommend looking up Jan Gehl, Jeff Speck, or Charles Montgomery. I often hear the argument that the reason this is not being done is to save money, but I refuse to believe that is the only reason. Is a high level of detail something the architecture field shy away from? Why? | fuw6fiq | fuvf1vk | 1,592,222,288 | 1,592,197,390 | 6 | 2 | Schools stopped teaching traditional architecture around WWII, which meant the type of urban patterns and ornament you are talking about was no longer part of the curriculum. Today, academia is still largely in that same ideological mindset when it comes to traditional work, and this has a hold on the profession as a whole. I’ve spent my professional career working on or designing new classical buildings in various styles. They are perfectly feasible with today’s economics and builders. There are other architects who do this as well, and you can find them through The Institute for Classical Architecture and Art](www.classicist.org), or the [International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture & Urbanism](www.intbau.org). Additionally, there are more and more craftsmen getting into the mix. The [American College of the Building Arts has programs that train artisans to be able to work in stone metals, wood, etc. Some of the established shops out there do work in preservation as well as new construction in various styles: Plaster: Hyde Park Foster Reeve Balmer Stone: Bybee Stone Traditional Cut Stone Quarra Stone Metals: Historical Arts and Castings Les Metalliers Champenois | Consider that ornamentation that is at the human, close up scale to have been replaced with use of material and meaningful ways in which materials come together. Cold concrete on your feet while you run your fingers over the layers of rammed earth walls on a building in hot arizona is a pretty meaningful sensation. | 1 | 24,898 | 3 | ||
h8z5nr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Is the refusal to add the same level of detail as we did 100 years ago purely economic or is also the preference of the architects? Personally, I feel passionate about how a building should not only be judged and perceived from the perspective far away, but also from the perspective of the pedestrian walking right next to it. More specifically I am interested in what that means for how we build our cities. There is a reason why people like to walk in old urban streets. I think a large part of it has to do with the level of variety and detail in the buildings. Variety that comes from the rowhouses each being different in a block and the level of detail in the use of windows/doors, brick details and different ornaments. If you don't know what I'm talking about I would recommend looking up Jan Gehl, Jeff Speck, or Charles Montgomery. I often hear the argument that the reason this is not being done is to save money, but I refuse to believe that is the only reason. Is a high level of detail something the architecture field shy away from? Why? | fuvwbqs | fuw6fiq | 1,592,212,756 | 1,592,222,288 | 2 | 6 | A lot of it is economic. Mass produced materials, and components are cheaper, as well as the labour that can install them. Not to mention how much more expensive craftsmen are... Along with the fact that our buildings aren't really made of the same materials anymore. AND of course the architects preference is economic... In an industry with such tight margins it sometimes doesn't make financial sense to spend time on stuff like that, which the client may not care about. which isn't to say that architects and traditional builders don't still do this. Ive walked through areas not designed for cars, and seen a lot of diversity in little houses, even ones built recently. Windows are usually open because people like to be next to the pedestrian street, sometimes with the front door open to let the air in. That's definitely not the case in busier, vehicular streets where people want to be away from strangers and noise... Why care about who's walking outside when all you wanna do is get inside? As for your point about it being a matter of variety, a lot of architects do good rhythmic work in the human scale. Hyla architects in Singapore is definitely one of them. But every culture is different, so for example you'll find that their boundary walls are heavily textured but essentially blank for privacy... The rhythm is there but it is constant. There really isn't one simple answer for architecture globally I suppose | Schools stopped teaching traditional architecture around WWII, which meant the type of urban patterns and ornament you are talking about was no longer part of the curriculum. Today, academia is still largely in that same ideological mindset when it comes to traditional work, and this has a hold on the profession as a whole. I’ve spent my professional career working on or designing new classical buildings in various styles. They are perfectly feasible with today’s economics and builders. There are other architects who do this as well, and you can find them through The Institute for Classical Architecture and Art](www.classicist.org), or the [International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture & Urbanism](www.intbau.org). Additionally, there are more and more craftsmen getting into the mix. The [American College of the Building Arts has programs that train artisans to be able to work in stone metals, wood, etc. Some of the established shops out there do work in preservation as well as new construction in various styles: Plaster: Hyde Park Foster Reeve Balmer Stone: Bybee Stone Traditional Cut Stone Quarra Stone Metals: Historical Arts and Castings Les Metalliers Champenois | 0 | 9,532 | 3 | ||
h8z5nr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Is the refusal to add the same level of detail as we did 100 years ago purely economic or is also the preference of the architects? Personally, I feel passionate about how a building should not only be judged and perceived from the perspective far away, but also from the perspective of the pedestrian walking right next to it. More specifically I am interested in what that means for how we build our cities. There is a reason why people like to walk in old urban streets. I think a large part of it has to do with the level of variety and detail in the buildings. Variety that comes from the rowhouses each being different in a block and the level of detail in the use of windows/doors, brick details and different ornaments. If you don't know what I'm talking about I would recommend looking up Jan Gehl, Jeff Speck, or Charles Montgomery. I often hear the argument that the reason this is not being done is to save money, but I refuse to believe that is the only reason. Is a high level of detail something the architecture field shy away from? Why? | fuw6fiq | fuv2g7j | 1,592,222,288 | 1,592,188,683 | 6 | 1 | Schools stopped teaching traditional architecture around WWII, which meant the type of urban patterns and ornament you are talking about was no longer part of the curriculum. Today, academia is still largely in that same ideological mindset when it comes to traditional work, and this has a hold on the profession as a whole. I’ve spent my professional career working on or designing new classical buildings in various styles. They are perfectly feasible with today’s economics and builders. There are other architects who do this as well, and you can find them through The Institute for Classical Architecture and Art](www.classicist.org), or the [International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture & Urbanism](www.intbau.org). Additionally, there are more and more craftsmen getting into the mix. The [American College of the Building Arts has programs that train artisans to be able to work in stone metals, wood, etc. Some of the established shops out there do work in preservation as well as new construction in various styles: Plaster: Hyde Park Foster Reeve Balmer Stone: Bybee Stone Traditional Cut Stone Quarra Stone Metals: Historical Arts and Castings Les Metalliers Champenois | I think with at least some of the new investor developments, it is more an economic consideration. There have been new apartment buildings nearly (and actually) beginning to collapse in Sydney because corners have simply been cut in every way possible. But that said minimalism is also a feature of the style, and I think it can claim to that if its done in a thoughtful way. | 1 | 33,605 | 6 | ||
h8z5nr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Is the refusal to add the same level of detail as we did 100 years ago purely economic or is also the preference of the architects? Personally, I feel passionate about how a building should not only be judged and perceived from the perspective far away, but also from the perspective of the pedestrian walking right next to it. More specifically I am interested in what that means for how we build our cities. There is a reason why people like to walk in old urban streets. I think a large part of it has to do with the level of variety and detail in the buildings. Variety that comes from the rowhouses each being different in a block and the level of detail in the use of windows/doors, brick details and different ornaments. If you don't know what I'm talking about I would recommend looking up Jan Gehl, Jeff Speck, or Charles Montgomery. I often hear the argument that the reason this is not being done is to save money, but I refuse to believe that is the only reason. Is a high level of detail something the architecture field shy away from? Why? | futx491 | fuuopqv | 1,592,165,177 | 1,592,180,456 | 1 | 2 | There is still a lot of details and decorative elements in todays architecture, it's just less obvious. Otherwise (if economics would be the only factor) we would all just have bland boxes. | Generally, the reason is always economic. Off-the-shelf products will always be cheaper. | 0 | 15,279 | 2 | ||
h8z5nr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Is the refusal to add the same level of detail as we did 100 years ago purely economic or is also the preference of the architects? Personally, I feel passionate about how a building should not only be judged and perceived from the perspective far away, but also from the perspective of the pedestrian walking right next to it. More specifically I am interested in what that means for how we build our cities. There is a reason why people like to walk in old urban streets. I think a large part of it has to do with the level of variety and detail in the buildings. Variety that comes from the rowhouses each being different in a block and the level of detail in the use of windows/doors, brick details and different ornaments. If you don't know what I'm talking about I would recommend looking up Jan Gehl, Jeff Speck, or Charles Montgomery. I often hear the argument that the reason this is not being done is to save money, but I refuse to believe that is the only reason. Is a high level of detail something the architecture field shy away from? Why? | fuvf1vk | futx491 | 1,592,197,390 | 1,592,165,177 | 2 | 1 | Consider that ornamentation that is at the human, close up scale to have been replaced with use of material and meaningful ways in which materials come together. Cold concrete on your feet while you run your fingers over the layers of rammed earth walls on a building in hot arizona is a pretty meaningful sensation. | There is still a lot of details and decorative elements in todays architecture, it's just less obvious. Otherwise (if economics would be the only factor) we would all just have bland boxes. | 1 | 32,213 | 2 | ||
h8z5nr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Is the refusal to add the same level of detail as we did 100 years ago purely economic or is also the preference of the architects? Personally, I feel passionate about how a building should not only be judged and perceived from the perspective far away, but also from the perspective of the pedestrian walking right next to it. More specifically I am interested in what that means for how we build our cities. There is a reason why people like to walk in old urban streets. I think a large part of it has to do with the level of variety and detail in the buildings. Variety that comes from the rowhouses each being different in a block and the level of detail in the use of windows/doors, brick details and different ornaments. If you don't know what I'm talking about I would recommend looking up Jan Gehl, Jeff Speck, or Charles Montgomery. I often hear the argument that the reason this is not being done is to save money, but I refuse to believe that is the only reason. Is a high level of detail something the architecture field shy away from? Why? | fuvwbqs | futx491 | 1,592,212,756 | 1,592,165,177 | 2 | 1 | A lot of it is economic. Mass produced materials, and components are cheaper, as well as the labour that can install them. Not to mention how much more expensive craftsmen are... Along with the fact that our buildings aren't really made of the same materials anymore. AND of course the architects preference is economic... In an industry with such tight margins it sometimes doesn't make financial sense to spend time on stuff like that, which the client may not care about. which isn't to say that architects and traditional builders don't still do this. Ive walked through areas not designed for cars, and seen a lot of diversity in little houses, even ones built recently. Windows are usually open because people like to be next to the pedestrian street, sometimes with the front door open to let the air in. That's definitely not the case in busier, vehicular streets where people want to be away from strangers and noise... Why care about who's walking outside when all you wanna do is get inside? As for your point about it being a matter of variety, a lot of architects do good rhythmic work in the human scale. Hyla architects in Singapore is definitely one of them. But every culture is different, so for example you'll find that their boundary walls are heavily textured but essentially blank for privacy... The rhythm is there but it is constant. There really isn't one simple answer for architecture globally I suppose | There is still a lot of details and decorative elements in todays architecture, it's just less obvious. Otherwise (if economics would be the only factor) we would all just have bland boxes. | 1 | 47,579 | 2 | ||
h8z5nr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Is the refusal to add the same level of detail as we did 100 years ago purely economic or is also the preference of the architects? Personally, I feel passionate about how a building should not only be judged and perceived from the perspective far away, but also from the perspective of the pedestrian walking right next to it. More specifically I am interested in what that means for how we build our cities. There is a reason why people like to walk in old urban streets. I think a large part of it has to do with the level of variety and detail in the buildings. Variety that comes from the rowhouses each being different in a block and the level of detail in the use of windows/doors, brick details and different ornaments. If you don't know what I'm talking about I would recommend looking up Jan Gehl, Jeff Speck, or Charles Montgomery. I often hear the argument that the reason this is not being done is to save money, but I refuse to believe that is the only reason. Is a high level of detail something the architecture field shy away from? Why? | fuv2g7j | fuvf1vk | 1,592,188,683 | 1,592,197,390 | 1 | 2 | I think with at least some of the new investor developments, it is more an economic consideration. There have been new apartment buildings nearly (and actually) beginning to collapse in Sydney because corners have simply been cut in every way possible. But that said minimalism is also a feature of the style, and I think it can claim to that if its done in a thoughtful way. | Consider that ornamentation that is at the human, close up scale to have been replaced with use of material and meaningful ways in which materials come together. Cold concrete on your feet while you run your fingers over the layers of rammed earth walls on a building in hot arizona is a pretty meaningful sensation. | 0 | 8,707 | 2 | ||
h8z5nr | architecture_train | 0.92 | Is the refusal to add the same level of detail as we did 100 years ago purely economic or is also the preference of the architects? Personally, I feel passionate about how a building should not only be judged and perceived from the perspective far away, but also from the perspective of the pedestrian walking right next to it. More specifically I am interested in what that means for how we build our cities. There is a reason why people like to walk in old urban streets. I think a large part of it has to do with the level of variety and detail in the buildings. Variety that comes from the rowhouses each being different in a block and the level of detail in the use of windows/doors, brick details and different ornaments. If you don't know what I'm talking about I would recommend looking up Jan Gehl, Jeff Speck, or Charles Montgomery. I often hear the argument that the reason this is not being done is to save money, but I refuse to believe that is the only reason. Is a high level of detail something the architecture field shy away from? Why? | fuvwbqs | fuv2g7j | 1,592,212,756 | 1,592,188,683 | 2 | 1 | A lot of it is economic. Mass produced materials, and components are cheaper, as well as the labour that can install them. Not to mention how much more expensive craftsmen are... Along with the fact that our buildings aren't really made of the same materials anymore. AND of course the architects preference is economic... In an industry with such tight margins it sometimes doesn't make financial sense to spend time on stuff like that, which the client may not care about. which isn't to say that architects and traditional builders don't still do this. Ive walked through areas not designed for cars, and seen a lot of diversity in little houses, even ones built recently. Windows are usually open because people like to be next to the pedestrian street, sometimes with the front door open to let the air in. That's definitely not the case in busier, vehicular streets where people want to be away from strangers and noise... Why care about who's walking outside when all you wanna do is get inside? As for your point about it being a matter of variety, a lot of architects do good rhythmic work in the human scale. Hyla architects in Singapore is definitely one of them. But every culture is different, so for example you'll find that their boundary walls are heavily textured but essentially blank for privacy... The rhythm is there but it is constant. There really isn't one simple answer for architecture globally I suppose | I think with at least some of the new investor developments, it is more an economic consideration. There have been new apartment buildings nearly (and actually) beginning to collapse in Sydney because corners have simply been cut in every way possible. But that said minimalism is also a feature of the style, and I think it can claim to that if its done in a thoughtful way. | 1 | 24,073 | 2 | ||
7wnema | architecture_train | 1 | ask] Why do buildings sometimes have angled concrete columns (picture of example included)? I've seen a lot of buildings lately with angled concrete columns like the columns on the ground floor of this building: [link. Why are columns sometimes angled like this? | du1w5uw | du1tilo | 1,518,298,728 | 1,518,295,637 | 3 | 1 | Not always, but in some cases lateral stability. | Along with looking cool, sometimes if you don’t want a column taking up space you can diagonally join it up with another vertical column. Consult your structural engineer before trying! | 1 | 3,091 | 3 | ||
7wnema | architecture_train | 1 | ask] Why do buildings sometimes have angled concrete columns (picture of example included)? I've seen a lot of buildings lately with angled concrete columns like the columns on the ground floor of this building: [link. Why are columns sometimes angled like this? | du1tilo | du47w8n | 1,518,295,637 | 1,518,416,661 | 1 | 2 | Along with looking cool, sometimes if you don’t want a column taking up space you can diagonally join it up with another vertical column. Consult your structural engineer before trying! | Coming Soon! | 0 | 121,024 | 2 | ||
pzbuwx | architecture_train | 0.78 | Decent case studies on psychological effects of a building design Can anyone suggest some detailed case studies done on building that explains which elements were used and why, why spaces were designed in a particular way, what steps were taken to effect human mood and behaviours in the building, etc, in psychological point of view? | hf0wite | hezxyww | 1,633,124,861 | 1,633,109,299 | 2 | 1 | Currently doing my senior thesis on this—or trying to, anyway. Also try search terms spatial syntax and spatial analysis. One “landmark” theory (or set of theories, rather) is in Bill Hillier and Julien Hanson’s book The Social Logic of Space. Also check out Kim Dovey’s book (I forgot the name of). | Something like this ? | 1 | 15,562 | 2 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yewh4 | i1ydlpj | 1,648,142,850 | 1,648,142,348 | 53 | 10 | I don't think there has ever been a period with a pervading sense of ideality around building, at least in the western world. Go back to the 19th century, there were debates about what historical style was the most appropriate to revive. Go back to the 18th century, and the debate was between mannerists and strict historicists (i.e., the prevailing discussions were centered around debating the "correct" way to use the examples of classical antiquity). Go to the early 20th century; there were different competing modes of neoclassicism and an emergent camp of modernists emerging from the European avant-garde all in tension with one another. Blocky bland buildings are a result of a drive towards efficiency and standardization; but cheap buildings have always existed, and some of them have become treasured for their historic value. For example, a lot of townhouse London neighborhoods were built cheaply and efficiently. Go to Bedford Square and you'll see the 18th-century equivalent of today's high-end developer housing; rows of identical buildings made with similar components made mostly out of what were then the most cheaply available materials. Since that time the world has only become more standardized and the pressure that capitalism exerts on the built environment has only become greater; so perhaps buildings today are blander than ever before. But history also has a survivor bias. Buildings that survive for longer periods of time tend to be better built or notable. I think many of the "bland" buildings that survive from history take on a certain charm because of their age and older construction. Today there are similarly many incredible and middle-quality projects being built that will probably stand for hundreds of years. Though just anecdotally/on a personal level, I will agree with you that the great mass of non-iconic buildings being built today do exude a kind of cheapness that ends up enveloping entire neighborhoods/cities. We also have to keep in mind that there is more construction happening right now than at any point in history, so any circumstances affecting building and design in the present day are going to feel all the more prevalent and inescapable. tl;dr 1. There's never been a time in history with "ideal" architecture 2. Standardization and globalization 3. Capitalism 4. History has a survivor bias 5. There's just more shit and at a faster pace being built in the present day than ever before | It boils down to money and priorities. Particularly when you talk about civic architecture. Designs are pushed to be as cost effective as possible, and the will to build grand/flashy/thoughtful/meaningful architecture is rarely present beyond the architect. A Pantheon or Notre Dame would never be built in the modern cityscape because of cost and the sense that any money could be better used elsewhere (even when in reality it doesn't), and the fact most people don't give a second thought to the built environment unless it specifically makes their life better or, more often, worse. | 1 | 502 | 5.3 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yewh4 | i1yavgx | 1,648,142,850 | 1,648,141,280 | 53 | 6 | I don't think there has ever been a period with a pervading sense of ideality around building, at least in the western world. Go back to the 19th century, there were debates about what historical style was the most appropriate to revive. Go back to the 18th century, and the debate was between mannerists and strict historicists (i.e., the prevailing discussions were centered around debating the "correct" way to use the examples of classical antiquity). Go to the early 20th century; there were different competing modes of neoclassicism and an emergent camp of modernists emerging from the European avant-garde all in tension with one another. Blocky bland buildings are a result of a drive towards efficiency and standardization; but cheap buildings have always existed, and some of them have become treasured for their historic value. For example, a lot of townhouse London neighborhoods were built cheaply and efficiently. Go to Bedford Square and you'll see the 18th-century equivalent of today's high-end developer housing; rows of identical buildings made with similar components made mostly out of what were then the most cheaply available materials. Since that time the world has only become more standardized and the pressure that capitalism exerts on the built environment has only become greater; so perhaps buildings today are blander than ever before. But history also has a survivor bias. Buildings that survive for longer periods of time tend to be better built or notable. I think many of the "bland" buildings that survive from history take on a certain charm because of their age and older construction. Today there are similarly many incredible and middle-quality projects being built that will probably stand for hundreds of years. Though just anecdotally/on a personal level, I will agree with you that the great mass of non-iconic buildings being built today do exude a kind of cheapness that ends up enveloping entire neighborhoods/cities. We also have to keep in mind that there is more construction happening right now than at any point in history, so any circumstances affecting building and design in the present day are going to feel all the more prevalent and inescapable. tl;dr 1. There's never been a time in history with "ideal" architecture 2. Standardization and globalization 3. Capitalism 4. History has a survivor bias 5. There's just more shit and at a faster pace being built in the present day than ever before | Money, mostly. If you go on sites like ArchDaily or even just on Instagram, you’ll see some gorgeous and very flashy contemporary architecture. But unfortunately not every city or developer has the vision (or the budget) to pay for highly polished architecture. | 1 | 1,570 | 8.833333 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yewh4 | i1yaq2e | 1,648,142,850 | 1,648,141,222 | 53 | 4 | I don't think there has ever been a period with a pervading sense of ideality around building, at least in the western world. Go back to the 19th century, there were debates about what historical style was the most appropriate to revive. Go back to the 18th century, and the debate was between mannerists and strict historicists (i.e., the prevailing discussions were centered around debating the "correct" way to use the examples of classical antiquity). Go to the early 20th century; there were different competing modes of neoclassicism and an emergent camp of modernists emerging from the European avant-garde all in tension with one another. Blocky bland buildings are a result of a drive towards efficiency and standardization; but cheap buildings have always existed, and some of them have become treasured for their historic value. For example, a lot of townhouse London neighborhoods were built cheaply and efficiently. Go to Bedford Square and you'll see the 18th-century equivalent of today's high-end developer housing; rows of identical buildings made with similar components made mostly out of what were then the most cheaply available materials. Since that time the world has only become more standardized and the pressure that capitalism exerts on the built environment has only become greater; so perhaps buildings today are blander than ever before. But history also has a survivor bias. Buildings that survive for longer periods of time tend to be better built or notable. I think many of the "bland" buildings that survive from history take on a certain charm because of their age and older construction. Today there are similarly many incredible and middle-quality projects being built that will probably stand for hundreds of years. Though just anecdotally/on a personal level, I will agree with you that the great mass of non-iconic buildings being built today do exude a kind of cheapness that ends up enveloping entire neighborhoods/cities. We also have to keep in mind that there is more construction happening right now than at any point in history, so any circumstances affecting building and design in the present day are going to feel all the more prevalent and inescapable. tl;dr 1. There's never been a time in history with "ideal" architecture 2. Standardization and globalization 3. Capitalism 4. History has a survivor bias 5. There's just more shit and at a faster pace being built in the present day than ever before | Architecture is subjective. It can also be a reflection on present times so there is naturally a large contrast between styles of different eras. | 1 | 1,628 | 13.25 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yavgx | i1ydlpj | 1,648,141,280 | 1,648,142,348 | 6 | 10 | Money, mostly. If you go on sites like ArchDaily or even just on Instagram, you’ll see some gorgeous and very flashy contemporary architecture. But unfortunately not every city or developer has the vision (or the budget) to pay for highly polished architecture. | It boils down to money and priorities. Particularly when you talk about civic architecture. Designs are pushed to be as cost effective as possible, and the will to build grand/flashy/thoughtful/meaningful architecture is rarely present beyond the architect. A Pantheon or Notre Dame would never be built in the modern cityscape because of cost and the sense that any money could be better used elsewhere (even when in reality it doesn't), and the fact most people don't give a second thought to the built environment unless it specifically makes their life better or, more often, worse. | 0 | 1,068 | 1.666667 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1ydlpj | i1yaq2e | 1,648,142,348 | 1,648,141,222 | 10 | 4 | It boils down to money and priorities. Particularly when you talk about civic architecture. Designs are pushed to be as cost effective as possible, and the will to build grand/flashy/thoughtful/meaningful architecture is rarely present beyond the architect. A Pantheon or Notre Dame would never be built in the modern cityscape because of cost and the sense that any money could be better used elsewhere (even when in reality it doesn't), and the fact most people don't give a second thought to the built environment unless it specifically makes their life better or, more often, worse. | Architecture is subjective. It can also be a reflection on present times so there is naturally a large contrast between styles of different eras. | 1 | 1,126 | 2.5 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1ygqry | i1yavgx | 1,648,143,560 | 1,648,141,280 | 10 | 6 | The main difference between today and much older architecture is the cost of hand labor. Many of the things that make that old architecture interesting like cut stone, millwork, or carvings cannot be machine made and projects cannot afford the hours it will take. This is why it will cost over 1 billion USD to repair the Cathedral of Norte Dame. Another aspect is that up to 50% of a modern building’s cost goes to things that are considered essential but do little to enhance the building’s appearance. Electrical power and lighting, mechanical heating/cooling/ventilation, fire detection/alarm/sprinklers, phone/data, etc. | Money, mostly. If you go on sites like ArchDaily or even just on Instagram, you’ll see some gorgeous and very flashy contemporary architecture. But unfortunately not every city or developer has the vision (or the budget) to pay for highly polished architecture. | 1 | 2,280 | 1.666667 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1ygqry | i1yaq2e | 1,648,143,560 | 1,648,141,222 | 10 | 4 | The main difference between today and much older architecture is the cost of hand labor. Many of the things that make that old architecture interesting like cut stone, millwork, or carvings cannot be machine made and projects cannot afford the hours it will take. This is why it will cost over 1 billion USD to repair the Cathedral of Norte Dame. Another aspect is that up to 50% of a modern building’s cost goes to things that are considered essential but do little to enhance the building’s appearance. Electrical power and lighting, mechanical heating/cooling/ventilation, fire detection/alarm/sprinklers, phone/data, etc. | Architecture is subjective. It can also be a reflection on present times so there is naturally a large contrast between styles of different eras. | 1 | 2,338 | 2.5 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yaq2e | i1yavgx | 1,648,141,222 | 1,648,141,280 | 4 | 6 | Architecture is subjective. It can also be a reflection on present times so there is naturally a large contrast between styles of different eras. | Money, mostly. If you go on sites like ArchDaily or even just on Instagram, you’ll see some gorgeous and very flashy contemporary architecture. But unfortunately not every city or developer has the vision (or the budget) to pay for highly polished architecture. | 0 | 58 | 1.5 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yubw8 | i1yk633 | 1,648,148,876 | 1,648,144,891 | 3 | 0 | Modern architecture is “bland” because the movement rejected ornamentation. I suspect what you are really asking about is contemporary architecture though, right? | Another one of these posts... I am yet to see anyone saying that Le Corbusier was the satan himself. | 1 | 3,985 | 3,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yubw8 | i1ykgzb | 1,648,148,876 | 1,648,145,010 | 3 | 1 | Modern architecture is “bland” because the movement rejected ornamentation. I suspect what you are really asking about is contemporary architecture though, right? | Cost 100% | 1 | 3,866 | 3 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yp54k | i1yubw8 | 1,648,146,851 | 1,648,148,876 | 0 | 3 | https://youtu.be/BIvpg-QKJ_o I recommend this documentary "the death of beauty" explains it well... | Modern architecture is “bland” because the movement rejected ornamentation. I suspect what you are really asking about is contemporary architecture though, right? | 0 | 2,025 | 3,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yk633 | i1z3cwv | 1,648,144,891 | 1,648,152,423 | 0 | 2 | Another one of these posts... I am yet to see anyone saying that Le Corbusier was the satan himself. | There are a lot of good and accurate comments here, but I would add that when it comes to residential building most people don't really want interesting architecture. They want a Barret home with some mock Tudor cladding. | 0 | 7,532 | 2,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1ykgzb | i1z3cwv | 1,648,145,010 | 1,648,152,423 | 1 | 2 | Cost 100% | There are a lot of good and accurate comments here, but I would add that when it comes to residential building most people don't really want interesting architecture. They want a Barret home with some mock Tudor cladding. | 0 | 7,413 | 2 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1z3cwv | i1yp54k | 1,648,152,423 | 1,648,146,851 | 2 | 0 | There are a lot of good and accurate comments here, but I would add that when it comes to residential building most people don't really want interesting architecture. They want a Barret home with some mock Tudor cladding. | https://youtu.be/BIvpg-QKJ_o I recommend this documentary "the death of beauty" explains it well... | 1 | 5,572 | 2,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1z68yl | i1yk633 | 1,648,153,556 | 1,648,144,891 | 2 | 0 | Do you mean Modern Architecture or contemporary architecture? They are different and not interchangeable. | Another one of these posts... I am yet to see anyone saying that Le Corbusier was the satan himself. | 1 | 8,665 | 2,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1ykgzb | i1z68yl | 1,648,145,010 | 1,648,153,556 | 1 | 2 | Cost 100% | Do you mean Modern Architecture or contemporary architecture? They are different and not interchangeable. | 0 | 8,546 | 2 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1z68yl | i1yp54k | 1,648,153,556 | 1,648,146,851 | 2 | 0 | Do you mean Modern Architecture or contemporary architecture? They are different and not interchangeable. | https://youtu.be/BIvpg-QKJ_o I recommend this documentary "the death of beauty" explains it well... | 1 | 6,705 | 2,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1z5s0f | i1z68yl | 1,648,153,368 | 1,648,153,556 | 1 | 2 | Maybe if architects got paid more they’d bother with coming up with super elaborate sculptural detailing like the old times. | Do you mean Modern Architecture or contemporary architecture? They are different and not interchangeable. | 0 | 188 | 2 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yk633 | i1zg0hc | 1,648,144,891 | 1,648,157,428 | 0 | 2 | Another one of these posts... I am yet to see anyone saying that Le Corbusier was the satan himself. | Modern architecture is almost completely guided by capitalism. The most units with the most marketable amenities at the lowest $/sf. Then throw some kind of “modern look” onto what is essentially a stucco cube so the lay person thinks it’s premium. That’s what I see popping up everywhere. Hundreds of years ago big buildings were funded by either the church or wealthy individuals. Their incentive was to make something that would leave a lasting legacy and since the labor was essentially slaves they didn’t need to worry about how much it cost so much. The result was cool shit that’s still standing centuries later. The peasants lived in shacks that are long gone so we don’t think much about them. | 0 | 12,537 | 2,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1zg0hc | i1ykgzb | 1,648,157,428 | 1,648,145,010 | 2 | 1 | Modern architecture is almost completely guided by capitalism. The most units with the most marketable amenities at the lowest $/sf. Then throw some kind of “modern look” onto what is essentially a stucco cube so the lay person thinks it’s premium. That’s what I see popping up everywhere. Hundreds of years ago big buildings were funded by either the church or wealthy individuals. Their incentive was to make something that would leave a lasting legacy and since the labor was essentially slaves they didn’t need to worry about how much it cost so much. The result was cool shit that’s still standing centuries later. The peasants lived in shacks that are long gone so we don’t think much about them. | Cost 100% | 1 | 12,418 | 2 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yp54k | i1zg0hc | 1,648,146,851 | 1,648,157,428 | 0 | 2 | https://youtu.be/BIvpg-QKJ_o I recommend this documentary "the death of beauty" explains it well... | Modern architecture is almost completely guided by capitalism. The most units with the most marketable amenities at the lowest $/sf. Then throw some kind of “modern look” onto what is essentially a stucco cube so the lay person thinks it’s premium. That’s what I see popping up everywhere. Hundreds of years ago big buildings were funded by either the church or wealthy individuals. Their incentive was to make something that would leave a lasting legacy and since the labor was essentially slaves they didn’t need to worry about how much it cost so much. The result was cool shit that’s still standing centuries later. The peasants lived in shacks that are long gone so we don’t think much about them. | 0 | 10,577 | 2,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1zg0hc | i1z5s0f | 1,648,157,428 | 1,648,153,368 | 2 | 1 | Modern architecture is almost completely guided by capitalism. The most units with the most marketable amenities at the lowest $/sf. Then throw some kind of “modern look” onto what is essentially a stucco cube so the lay person thinks it’s premium. That’s what I see popping up everywhere. Hundreds of years ago big buildings were funded by either the church or wealthy individuals. Their incentive was to make something that would leave a lasting legacy and since the labor was essentially slaves they didn’t need to worry about how much it cost so much. The result was cool shit that’s still standing centuries later. The peasants lived in shacks that are long gone so we don’t think much about them. | Maybe if architects got paid more they’d bother with coming up with super elaborate sculptural detailing like the old times. | 1 | 4,060 | 2 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1zbo9m | i1zg0hc | 1,648,155,700 | 1,648,157,428 | 1 | 2 | Well simply said: capitalism. And lo and behold as a good thing! While you think it‘s because people don‘t have money it‘s the opposite. Many more people have enough money to build than ever before. There is pretty much just as much money, but it‘s spread out more. So „everybody“ can build, but it has to be cheaper. There is no more lord that uses his subordinates to build him a manor while they live in a barn and so on. | Modern architecture is almost completely guided by capitalism. The most units with the most marketable amenities at the lowest $/sf. Then throw some kind of “modern look” onto what is essentially a stucco cube so the lay person thinks it’s premium. That’s what I see popping up everywhere. Hundreds of years ago big buildings were funded by either the church or wealthy individuals. Their incentive was to make something that would leave a lasting legacy and since the labor was essentially slaves they didn’t need to worry about how much it cost so much. The result was cool shit that’s still standing centuries later. The peasants lived in shacks that are long gone so we don’t think much about them. | 0 | 1,728 | 2 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1zg0hc | i1zfvod | 1,648,157,428 | 1,648,157,374 | 2 | 1 | Modern architecture is almost completely guided by capitalism. The most units with the most marketable amenities at the lowest $/sf. Then throw some kind of “modern look” onto what is essentially a stucco cube so the lay person thinks it’s premium. That’s what I see popping up everywhere. Hundreds of years ago big buildings were funded by either the church or wealthy individuals. Their incentive was to make something that would leave a lasting legacy and since the labor was essentially slaves they didn’t need to worry about how much it cost so much. The result was cool shit that’s still standing centuries later. The peasants lived in shacks that are long gone so we don’t think much about them. | lack of and appreciation of craftsmanship | 1 | 54 | 2 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1ykgzb | i1yk633 | 1,648,145,010 | 1,648,144,891 | 1 | 0 | Cost 100% | Another one of these posts... I am yet to see anyone saying that Le Corbusier was the satan himself. | 1 | 119 | 1,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yk633 | i1z5s0f | 1,648,144,891 | 1,648,153,368 | 0 | 1 | Another one of these posts... I am yet to see anyone saying that Le Corbusier was the satan himself. | Maybe if architects got paid more they’d bother with coming up with super elaborate sculptural detailing like the old times. | 0 | 8,477 | 1,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yk633 | i1zbo9m | 1,648,144,891 | 1,648,155,700 | 0 | 1 | Another one of these posts... I am yet to see anyone saying that Le Corbusier was the satan himself. | Well simply said: capitalism. And lo and behold as a good thing! While you think it‘s because people don‘t have money it‘s the opposite. Many more people have enough money to build than ever before. There is pretty much just as much money, but it‘s spread out more. So „everybody“ can build, but it has to be cheaper. There is no more lord that uses his subordinates to build him a manor while they live in a barn and so on. | 0 | 10,809 | 1,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1zfvod | i1yk633 | 1,648,157,374 | 1,648,144,891 | 1 | 0 | lack of and appreciation of craftsmanship | Another one of these posts... I am yet to see anyone saying that Le Corbusier was the satan himself. | 1 | 12,483 | 1,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1ziasf | i1yk633 | 1,648,158,353 | 1,648,144,891 | 1 | 0 | All places take time. | Another one of these posts... I am yet to see anyone saying that Le Corbusier was the satan himself. | 1 | 13,462 | 1,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yk633 | i285mup | 1,648,144,891 | 1,648,322,310 | 0 | 1 | Another one of these posts... I am yet to see anyone saying that Le Corbusier was the satan himself. | What we see of old buildings today is the best of the best. Don't fall prey to survivorship bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias Come back in 100 years and see how many of today's bland buildings are still standing. Ok, cheap modern buildings may be harder to tear down than mud huts so it may take more than 100 years but still, they will get replaced by better ones eventually. | 0 | 177,419 | 1,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1z5s0f | i1yp54k | 1,648,153,368 | 1,648,146,851 | 1 | 0 | Maybe if architects got paid more they’d bother with coming up with super elaborate sculptural detailing like the old times. | https://youtu.be/BIvpg-QKJ_o I recommend this documentary "the death of beauty" explains it well... | 1 | 6,517 | 1,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1zbo9m | i1yp54k | 1,648,155,700 | 1,648,146,851 | 1 | 0 | Well simply said: capitalism. And lo and behold as a good thing! While you think it‘s because people don‘t have money it‘s the opposite. Many more people have enough money to build than ever before. There is pretty much just as much money, but it‘s spread out more. So „everybody“ can build, but it has to be cheaper. There is no more lord that uses his subordinates to build him a manor while they live in a barn and so on. | https://youtu.be/BIvpg-QKJ_o I recommend this documentary "the death of beauty" explains it well... | 1 | 8,849 | 1,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1zfvod | i1yp54k | 1,648,157,374 | 1,648,146,851 | 1 | 0 | lack of and appreciation of craftsmanship | https://youtu.be/BIvpg-QKJ_o I recommend this documentary "the death of beauty" explains it well... | 1 | 10,523 | 1,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yp54k | i1ziasf | 1,648,146,851 | 1,648,158,353 | 0 | 1 | https://youtu.be/BIvpg-QKJ_o I recommend this documentary "the death of beauty" explains it well... | All places take time. | 0 | 11,502 | 1,000 | ||
tmn9r6 | architecture_train | 0.65 | Why is modern architecture so... bland? Whenever I go to the city and see medieval moor architecture or colonial-era french architecture and return to my hometown, a newly built city, I notice how everything kind of gets more blocky and bland. It makes it look worse in my opinion. I'm aware of the technology issue, that you can't make good looking buildings in as much time and cost, but wasn't that the case before too? Why is it such a problem nowadays only? | i1yp54k | i285mup | 1,648,146,851 | 1,648,322,310 | 0 | 1 | https://youtu.be/BIvpg-QKJ_o I recommend this documentary "the death of beauty" explains it well... | What we see of old buildings today is the best of the best. Don't fall prey to survivorship bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias Come back in 100 years and see how many of today's bland buildings are still standing. Ok, cheap modern buildings may be harder to tear down than mud huts so it may take more than 100 years but still, they will get replaced by better ones eventually. | 0 | 175,459 | 1,000 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | eindylx | einb2qt | 1,552,723,009 | 1,552,718,469 | 17 | 9 | Many people in the architectural community can be classified as chronological snobs. That just means that they stubbornly believe that everything new is better than what came before it. I find this viewpoint ridiculous because it fails to acknowledge that every single architectural style in history is simply a language. Regardless of how popular they are, different languages communicate using differents means, but there isn't necessarily one that is definitively better. These types of people fail to realize that their design preferences are based on temporary trends and not actually timeless architectural standards like they claim. Within a couple decades, their "masterpieces" will be outdated. | "Why is writing in latin dismissed in the literature community? Such a beautiful and elegant language that today's writers seem to dismiss for no reason. English is so uncouth and barbaric in comparison." It is traditionalists who want to think of styles, but classicism vs modernism are actually two entirely different languages serving radically different worlds and needs. Two entirely different ways of even thinking about space whose differences run much deeper than simply adornments. Feel free to love and practice classicism as much as you want, I love me some Schinkel as well, just do not fool yourself into thinking you will be serving anything other than your own aesthetical whims. And frankly, if I had wanted to only do that, I would have gotten into Fine Arts rather than architecture. You are simply letting your perfectly respectable aesthetical preferences ignore well over a century of research and theory, which last I checked was very bad academical practice. I would not trust any university whose selling point to alumni was: "We will ignore everything that has happened in the field since 1900 and force you to LARP as a dead culture whether you like it or not". University professors are supposed to illuminate the way forward, not to hide from you things you don't like. Also is it me or is it only americans in this subreddit who have this obsession with style? My professors browbeat me with the idea that only amateurs think about styles because fixating on them too hard leads to superficial, barely reflected-upon architecture, and that it is architectural language where the real differences lie. I guess it is harder to idealize classical and neoclassical when you have grown surrounded by examples of the real deal. | 1 | 4,540 | 1.888889 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | einpmfs | einb2qt | 1,552,741,250 | 1,552,718,469 | 10 | 9 | Here is an old post relevant to your question, and another asking essentially the same question. It’s also worth linking this article that discussions the nature of classical within traditional architecture. Doing a classical building today does not mean discarding the learned cumulative knowledge of the last 100 years - there is plenty of building science that is incorporated into today’s classical buildings, as well as construction means and methods developed by modernist architects. Making a modern building today does doesn’t need to be Modernist. No, classicism isn’t dead. There is a growing coterie of practitioners. Next week I’m going to the School of Architecture Career Fair at Notre Dame. The last several years, my experience has been there are roughly two firms recruiting for every graduating student. Such is the market demand for a dead thing... | "Why is writing in latin dismissed in the literature community? Such a beautiful and elegant language that today's writers seem to dismiss for no reason. English is so uncouth and barbaric in comparison." It is traditionalists who want to think of styles, but classicism vs modernism are actually two entirely different languages serving radically different worlds and needs. Two entirely different ways of even thinking about space whose differences run much deeper than simply adornments. Feel free to love and practice classicism as much as you want, I love me some Schinkel as well, just do not fool yourself into thinking you will be serving anything other than your own aesthetical whims. And frankly, if I had wanted to only do that, I would have gotten into Fine Arts rather than architecture. You are simply letting your perfectly respectable aesthetical preferences ignore well over a century of research and theory, which last I checked was very bad academical practice. I would not trust any university whose selling point to alumni was: "We will ignore everything that has happened in the field since 1900 and force you to LARP as a dead culture whether you like it or not". University professors are supposed to illuminate the way forward, not to hide from you things you don't like. Also is it me or is it only americans in this subreddit who have this obsession with style? My professors browbeat me with the idea that only amateurs think about styles because fixating on them too hard leads to superficial, barely reflected-upon architecture, and that it is architectural language where the real differences lie. I guess it is harder to idealize classical and neoclassical when you have grown surrounded by examples of the real deal. | 1 | 22,781 | 1.111111 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | einpmfs | eineyt0 | 1,552,741,250 | 1,552,724,793 | 10 | 3 | Here is an old post relevant to your question, and another asking essentially the same question. It’s also worth linking this article that discussions the nature of classical within traditional architecture. Doing a classical building today does not mean discarding the learned cumulative knowledge of the last 100 years - there is plenty of building science that is incorporated into today’s classical buildings, as well as construction means and methods developed by modernist architects. Making a modern building today does doesn’t need to be Modernist. No, classicism isn’t dead. There is a growing coterie of practitioners. Next week I’m going to the School of Architecture Career Fair at Notre Dame. The last several years, my experience has been there are roughly two firms recruiting for every graduating student. Such is the market demand for a dead thing... | Greek and Roman architecture are of course their own thing and of their own time. But they're also oversimplified (it's not just temples and baths), as during that time, just like every time since, there have been a wide range of buildings, associated with different uses and social groups and ideas about how things should be. Buildings all had all kinds of meanings to the people that built them that are not necessarily the same meanings they have today. Roman architecture then seamlessly evolved into late roman and early byzantine, and then early gothic. This all happened over the course of many years, and by the time we get to gothic architecture, Europe was a different place. Rather than Rome being the powerhouse of Europe, Rome had fallen and barbaric France and Germany had risen, home of the gothic landmarks. Then the renaissance happened and Italy got back into it, and they weren't going to copy their northern neighbors, they instead looked back to their own former glory days in antiquity. Suddenly, Greek and Roman culture was the peak of human civilization, and mankind needed to rewind 1,000+ years. First, the entire premise is flawed. Western culture and technology continued to develop throughout medieval times, and antiquity was just one time period of many. The "dark ages" narrative is false, and was created and adopted to serve certain groups' agendas. Second, their archeology was severely flawed. They had very little understanding of Roman society and cultural values (they were not particularly dignified), and very little understanding of Roman architecture (the buildings and statues were not pure ideal form, they were elaborately, colorfully, and festively painted and gilded). On top of that, the transmission of knowledge at the time wasn't very good, so most of the drawings and descriptions being passed around were incorrect, even for the day's knowledge (you've probably seen plenty of humorously incorrect drawings of foreign animals from then). Ultimately you have to ask yourself what pagan temples from thousands of years ago on a different continent have to do with modern banks created by Christians in America. Or alternatively you can ask yourself what medieval culture wars have to do with modern America. This goes for all kinds of architecture movements. The arts and crafts movement was a socialist christian labor movement created to oppose industrialization and celebrate the craft trades. And who built arts and crafts revival mansions? Capitalistic, secular, barons of industry who obsoleted craft, and hired private militias to shoot striking labor groups in the streets. Another useful way of looking at it is to look at the issue in terms of other areas of life. If you started wearing togas people would think you've lost your marbles. What other ancient cultural practices will you adopt? The more you think about it the less it makes sense. | 1 | 16,457 | 3.333333 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | ej6gty7 | einpq0p | 1,553,323,405 | 1,552,741,352 | 3 | 1 | Many professors say that copying is not bad because through copying you will understand the reasons for doing it. The initial process of learning is always copying superficially, like memorizing names and dates, and then after using the information, we begin to understand it. At that level, we are still copying principles, but that means the same thing as learning. Copying grammar means learning grammar. Copying the rules of nature means learning the rules of nature. I think we should be forgiving when students copy villa savoye or villa rotunda because that is how they learn the reasons for design. | Because it requires significantly more money and time, which the university is charging you for. Historic preservation and restoration is the niche that you want. | 1 | 582,053 | 3 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | ej6gty7 | eiykb51 | 1,553,323,405 | 1,553,092,491 | 3 | 1 | Many professors say that copying is not bad because through copying you will understand the reasons for doing it. The initial process of learning is always copying superficially, like memorizing names and dates, and then after using the information, we begin to understand it. At that level, we are still copying principles, but that means the same thing as learning. Copying grammar means learning grammar. Copying the rules of nature means learning the rules of nature. I think we should be forgiving when students copy villa savoye or villa rotunda because that is how they learn the reasons for design. | Nick Grimshaw architects are designing a stadium in Bath that is based on the Colusseum. What we are told in my university is that if you have precedents to explain your design better then they might not attack it as much. Although another thing a lecturer has said when learning about history is that most people built out of the popular new material of their time so building a massive stone like temple today could be seen as wasteful and it's easier and sometimes more attractive in a modern material. | 1 | 230,914 | 3 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | ej6gty7 | ej2qxb3 | 1,553,323,405 | 1,553,207,502 | 3 | 1 | Many professors say that copying is not bad because through copying you will understand the reasons for doing it. The initial process of learning is always copying superficially, like memorizing names and dates, and then after using the information, we begin to understand it. At that level, we are still copying principles, but that means the same thing as learning. Copying grammar means learning grammar. Copying the rules of nature means learning the rules of nature. I think we should be forgiving when students copy villa savoye or villa rotunda because that is how they learn the reasons for design. | I think that while it is important for students to learn classical techniques and styles, and many designers/educators today even apply those techniques and geometries to their work, the point of attending architecture school is not to learn to copy the techniques and results of the past but to learn to ultimately produce a new geometric/formal/programmatic/stylistic take on architecture altogether. Therefore, while learning the principles of classical architecture will certainly provide one with the techniques and knowledge to produce architecture, many educators do frown upon simply producing more classical architecture, or any existing style for that matter, because it fails to push the boundaries of what architecture is capable of. It would be a disservice to you as a designer if they were to let you go through your schooling only learning to copy others. | 1 | 115,903 | 3 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | ej3pdmd | ej6gty7 | 1,553,239,646 | 1,553,323,405 | 1 | 3 | The moderator u/Fergi likes pinning this polemic. | Many professors say that copying is not bad because through copying you will understand the reasons for doing it. The initial process of learning is always copying superficially, like memorizing names and dates, and then after using the information, we begin to understand it. At that level, we are still copying principles, but that means the same thing as learning. Copying grammar means learning grammar. Copying the rules of nature means learning the rules of nature. I think we should be forgiving when students copy villa savoye or villa rotunda because that is how they learn the reasons for design. | 0 | 83,759 | 3 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | ej6gty7 | ej6fb8v | 1,553,323,405 | 1,553,321,266 | 3 | 1 | Many professors say that copying is not bad because through copying you will understand the reasons for doing it. The initial process of learning is always copying superficially, like memorizing names and dates, and then after using the information, we begin to understand it. At that level, we are still copying principles, but that means the same thing as learning. Copying grammar means learning grammar. Copying the rules of nature means learning the rules of nature. I think we should be forgiving when students copy villa savoye or villa rotunda because that is how they learn the reasons for design. | Most of the actual design will be the same whether you render it as modern or traditional. If you want it to be traditional, do normal windows, doors, and a pitched roof, but leave it rendered white and it'll still look modern and avoid criticism. The actual distinction comes down to individual professors and whether they are good or bad. Bad traditionalism is just as bad as bad modernism, and good traditionalism is the same as good modernism. Some buildings like airports should have a more modern aesthetic and some buildings like apartments should look more traditional. Apartments can be modern in the sense of materials and technology, but they follow most of the same rules as architecture throughout history, so they appear traditional or vernacular. Informal settlements have modern materials and very crude ornament, but traditionalists like them because they follow the basic canon of architecture which means they are adapted and at the right human scale. | 1 | 2,139 | 3 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | ej6gcp7 | ej6gty7 | 1,553,322,715 | 1,553,323,405 | 1 | 3 | I think ideas generally are dismissed in architecture school because it's considered the ethos of "the crit", so everyone wants to criticize, even though it is not productive. The better professors and students usually know more and can see where the student is coming from. Instead of focusing on the million of things that are wrong, they see what is good in the design and what inspired the student to present it. They are able to develop the idea because they have more experience and know the principles of architecture. It encourages the student and provides them with relevant material. Sometimes the confusion is a breakdown in terminology. The discussion ends up being about how the bathroom shouldn't be in view of the dining room, but that's not the bathroom and I didn't mean "public" like that. Those are bad crits because they are a waste of time, but at least the professor is not hostile. The hostility comes from when the professor is trying to prove their own point. Students do this too, and I think it is a general human fault that when we are learning something, we want to defend our ideas because we are still working through them. We aren't open to hearing new ideas because we want to keep with our framework until we resolve it. It is helpful to us but not for others. | Many professors say that copying is not bad because through copying you will understand the reasons for doing it. The initial process of learning is always copying superficially, like memorizing names and dates, and then after using the information, we begin to understand it. At that level, we are still copying principles, but that means the same thing as learning. Copying grammar means learning grammar. Copying the rules of nature means learning the rules of nature. I think we should be forgiving when students copy villa savoye or villa rotunda because that is how they learn the reasons for design. | 0 | 690 | 3 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | ej9nq9d | einpq0p | 1,553,438,541 | 1,552,741,352 | 2 | 1 | classicism is by no means dead, and though I'm personally not the biggest fan, we still continue to build proper, well-observed classical buildings. It's pointed (gothic) architecture that is always dismissed... | Because it requires significantly more money and time, which the university is charging you for. Historic preservation and restoration is the niche that you want. | 1 | 697,189 | 2 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | ejiumqo | einpq0p | 1,553,720,045 | 1,552,741,352 | 2 | 1 | Even if they are dismissed, I think you should be brave and design what you think the site needs even if its classical. | Because it requires significantly more money and time, which the university is charging you for. Historic preservation and restoration is the niche that you want. | 1 | 978,693 | 2 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | ej9nq9d | eiykb51 | 1,553,438,541 | 1,553,092,491 | 2 | 1 | classicism is by no means dead, and though I'm personally not the biggest fan, we still continue to build proper, well-observed classical buildings. It's pointed (gothic) architecture that is always dismissed... | Nick Grimshaw architects are designing a stadium in Bath that is based on the Colusseum. What we are told in my university is that if you have precedents to explain your design better then they might not attack it as much. Although another thing a lecturer has said when learning about history is that most people built out of the popular new material of their time so building a massive stone like temple today could be seen as wasteful and it's easier and sometimes more attractive in a modern material. | 1 | 346,050 | 2 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | ej2qxb3 | ej9nq9d | 1,553,207,502 | 1,553,438,541 | 1 | 2 | I think that while it is important for students to learn classical techniques and styles, and many designers/educators today even apply those techniques and geometries to their work, the point of attending architecture school is not to learn to copy the techniques and results of the past but to learn to ultimately produce a new geometric/formal/programmatic/stylistic take on architecture altogether. Therefore, while learning the principles of classical architecture will certainly provide one with the techniques and knowledge to produce architecture, many educators do frown upon simply producing more classical architecture, or any existing style for that matter, because it fails to push the boundaries of what architecture is capable of. It would be a disservice to you as a designer if they were to let you go through your schooling only learning to copy others. | classicism is by no means dead, and though I'm personally not the biggest fan, we still continue to build proper, well-observed classical buildings. It's pointed (gothic) architecture that is always dismissed... | 0 | 231,039 | 2 | ||
b1orgc | architecture_train | 0.93 | [Ask] Why is classical architecture dismissed in the community? I'm an architecture student in an undergraduate program in the US. I'm in love with classical and historical architecture but I'm getting a lot of blowback from my professors who claim "classism is dead". This seems ridiculous to me, considering Notre Dame's entire program focuses on classical architecture. I understand that many new builds that emulate classical or historical architecture can look terrible if not done right, but there are plenty of firms that do it correctly with beautiful results. I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight to why this seems to be such a common opinion and how to circumvent the bias. | ej9nq9d | ej3pdmd | 1,553,438,541 | 1,553,239,646 | 2 | 1 | classicism is by no means dead, and though I'm personally not the biggest fan, we still continue to build proper, well-observed classical buildings. It's pointed (gothic) architecture that is always dismissed... | The moderator u/Fergi likes pinning this polemic. | 1 | 198,895 | 2 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.