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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | ej6fb8v | ej9nq9d | 1,553,321,266 | 1,553,438,541 | 1 | 2 | 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. | 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 | 117,275 | 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 | ej6gcp7 | 1,553,438,541 | 1,553,322,715 | 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... | 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. | 1 | 115,826 | 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. | eiykb51 | ejiumqo | 1,553,092,491 | 1,553,720,045 | 1 | 2 | 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. | Even if they are dismissed, I think you should be brave and design what you think the site needs even if its classical. | 0 | 627,554 | 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 | ejiumqo | 1,553,207,502 | 1,553,720,045 | 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. | Even if they are dismissed, I think you should be brave and design what you think the site needs even if its classical. | 0 | 512,543 | 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. | ej3pdmd | ejiumqo | 1,553,239,646 | 1,553,720,045 | 1 | 2 | The moderator u/Fergi likes pinning this polemic. | Even if they are dismissed, I think you should be brave and design what you think the site needs even if its classical. | 0 | 480,399 | 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. | ej6fb8v | ejiumqo | 1,553,321,266 | 1,553,720,045 | 1 | 2 | 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. | Even if they are dismissed, I think you should be brave and design what you think the site needs even if its classical. | 0 | 398,779 | 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 | ej6gcp7 | 1,553,720,045 | 1,553,322,715 | 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. | 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. | 1 | 397,330 | 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 | ejf9nek | 1,553,720,045 | 1,553,614,776 | 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. | I think that its really a question of honesty. So you have to ask, for the architects today that embrace classicism today, why are they doing that? (I'm going to have to make a few assumptions here that what you're calling classicism you mean neo-classicism, so contemporary(ish) buildings with classical(greek & roman) languages of columns, friezes, pilasters, etc . . .) So first of all, why classicism? Why not neo-gothic, or romanesque, or Moorish, or the architecture of medieval Japan? And that's a genuine question, not rhetorical. I find all of the discussions here that focus on a snobbery from modernists very frustrating, partially because its not what the discussion should be on, but more importantly because the people making the pro classicist arguement are themselves being extremely selective about the language of architecture that they have chosen to champion. It's undeniably Euro-centric and very far right conservative in terms of aesthetics. I firmly believe in anyone's right to practice whatever type of language they feel they want to. However, all architectures are an artistic endeavour, each building is responding to a problem that has been presented to the architect. In terms of how this building looks and is built, I firmly(and your tutors as well I would think) believe that we should draw our aesthetics from the current cultural paradigm. What is it that we as a people value and appreciate today, for me it is carefully considered, dynamic spaces, thoughtful light and materials . . etc Classicism as a field of study has an extremely important place in the modern culture, you only have to look to people like Markli, Marie Jose Van Hee, Siza to see that their work would be nothing without years of intense study of classical works. The colonnades are still there, but they are not sculptural objects like they were in Greece, laden with significant cultural meanings of the time. They are spatial tools, there is no need to add fluting anymore because our priorities have changed. The acanthus leaves of a Corinthian capital mean no more to a wall street banker than to a farmer in Switzerland, but I would say that in our current visual culture both people would would appreciate the beautiful light and surface modulations of a room made by Alvaro Siza. Classicism isn't dead obviously, its just not who we are any more, we've moved forward. All of the factors(time, money, taste, material, environment, context . . .) that affect a buildings language have moved forward as well. ​ | 1 | 105,269 | 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 | ejir150 | 1,553,720,045 | 1,553,717,836 | 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. | At this point, classical architecture is scenography more than anything else. There’s no need for classical ornaments, and whenever someone designs a house with these features it ends up looking cheap, unnecessary and drug lord like. Why would you want arches, columns or a georgian design now? | 1 | 2,209 | 2 | ||
pobang | architecture_train | 0.92 | why don't I see more floor-to-ceiling windows in timberframe construction as far as I understand one of the benefits of timber frame vs stick construction is fewer structural load bearing points. I'm hoping to design a Timber frame home with south facing floor to ceiling windows that wrap around the east and west corners, for a solar passive design. yet most Timberframe homes I see built (at least from photos online) have smaller windows. | hcvba5j | hcv9t4x | 1,631,653,502 | 1,631,652,903 | 6 | 2 | The asset of lighting and direct gains is also a liability of heat loss at night. It’s a balancing act. However, this cool new researcher used water bags inside of a window to utilize the R value of water while maintaining the light, so you can have your cake and eat it to. | Do timber frame walls typically transfer lateral loads or do they still need plywood for this? I’ve seen steel moment frames used in this manner but not wood | 1 | 599 | 3 | ||
pobang | architecture_train | 0.92 | why don't I see more floor-to-ceiling windows in timberframe construction as far as I understand one of the benefits of timber frame vs stick construction is fewer structural load bearing points. I'm hoping to design a Timber frame home with south facing floor to ceiling windows that wrap around the east and west corners, for a solar passive design. yet most Timberframe homes I see built (at least from photos online) have smaller windows. | hcvniqj | hcv9t4x | 1,631,658,793 | 1,631,652,903 | 3 | 2 | Not sure which buildings you're looking at, but most modern mass timber buildings I can think of have a significant amount of window wall or curtain wall. See the Soto in San Antonio or Bullitt Center in Seattle. | Do timber frame walls typically transfer lateral loads or do they still need plywood for this? I’ve seen steel moment frames used in this manner but not wood | 1 | 5,890 | 1.5 | ||
pobang | architecture_train | 0.92 | why don't I see more floor-to-ceiling windows in timberframe construction as far as I understand one of the benefits of timber frame vs stick construction is fewer structural load bearing points. I'm hoping to design a Timber frame home with south facing floor to ceiling windows that wrap around the east and west corners, for a solar passive design. yet most Timberframe homes I see built (at least from photos online) have smaller windows. | hcvmgae | hcvniqj | 1,631,658,307 | 1,631,658,793 | 2 | 3 | There are some nice Walter Segal houses that did this, some in London and a stunning one in Wales a colleague Brian Richardson lived in. I visited it once but could not find any images online, but I did find this https://www.themodernhouse.com/past-sales/segal-close/ As to cost and heat loss, best way is to put a greenhouse against the south wall - i.e. single glazed and unheated space = low cost, but extends living space in spring and autumn. Behind this a more normal insulated wall with smaller windows. | Not sure which buildings you're looking at, but most modern mass timber buildings I can think of have a significant amount of window wall or curtain wall. See the Soto in San Antonio or Bullitt Center in Seattle. | 0 | 486 | 1.5 | ||
pobang | architecture_train | 0.92 | why don't I see more floor-to-ceiling windows in timberframe construction as far as I understand one of the benefits of timber frame vs stick construction is fewer structural load bearing points. I'm hoping to design a Timber frame home with south facing floor to ceiling windows that wrap around the east and west corners, for a solar passive design. yet most Timberframe homes I see built (at least from photos online) have smaller windows. | hcwp9yl | hcyi5ke | 1,631,676,506 | 1,631,718,397 | 0 | 1 | Glass does not act as good bracing, and you will typically need a fair bit of timber framing to transfer the load to your footings. If you want to build a passively cooled and heated house, that contains a volume of glazing, the better options are concrete, as that will last longer, is actually more sustainable than timber (interesting story as to why) has a vastly higher thermal mass and can be formed to any shape you wish. | Coat and energy efficiency. Without proper passive design, or high efficiency windows which are can get expensive, lots of glass can greatly increase the heating & cooling loads of a building. | 0 | 41,891 | 1,000 | ||
onoah4 | architecture_train | 1 | [ASK] How can a house be designed to passively stay cool in hot and humid areas? I've read plenty about how traditional structures in the Middle East use a number of passive techniques to stay cool, e.g. windcatchers, thick walls, evaporative cooling from fountains or pitchers of water, etc. But almost all of these require low humidity to work effectively. So how did people traditionally keep their houses cool in hot areas with high humidity? Are there any modern passive solutions? | h5tqp69 | h5tirfo | 1,626,745,731 | 1,626,741,784 | 4 | 2 | Most passive strategies deal with heat as you pointed out. Humidity is a bit trickier to deal with "passively." The best tool is ventilation / air circulation. Low openings on the windward side of a house coupled with higher ones on the leeward side is the traditional method for this. Figure out what the predominant winds are in your microclimate using a wind rose from a local weather station and design around those. | screens/veils, stack effect, porous surfaces, deep overhangs, double envelopes, verandahs... together with a fan, this will cool the interior sufficiently most of the time | 1 | 3,947 | 2 | ||
onoah4 | architecture_train | 1 | [ASK] How can a house be designed to passively stay cool in hot and humid areas? I've read plenty about how traditional structures in the Middle East use a number of passive techniques to stay cool, e.g. windcatchers, thick walls, evaporative cooling from fountains or pitchers of water, etc. But almost all of these require low humidity to work effectively. So how did people traditionally keep their houses cool in hot areas with high humidity? Are there any modern passive solutions? | h5tirfo | h5w43oz | 1,626,741,784 | 1,626,798,573 | 2 | 3 | screens/veils, stack effect, porous surfaces, deep overhangs, double envelopes, verandahs... together with a fan, this will cool the interior sufficiently most of the time | so Charleston South Carolina is actually a fascinating study - the blocks and streets are set up in the same direction as the prevailing winds, allowing evening breezes off the ocean to penetrate deep into the city. you also see a lot of porches with deep overhangs and therefore, shade. another is ceiling height and transom windows for cross ventilation across the entire floorplate of the building. they even developed their own residential building type to deal with their specific climate challenges - the Charleston Single House. | 0 | 56,789 | 1.5 | ||
onoah4 | architecture_train | 1 | [ASK] How can a house be designed to passively stay cool in hot and humid areas? I've read plenty about how traditional structures in the Middle East use a number of passive techniques to stay cool, e.g. windcatchers, thick walls, evaporative cooling from fountains or pitchers of water, etc. But almost all of these require low humidity to work effectively. So how did people traditionally keep their houses cool in hot areas with high humidity? Are there any modern passive solutions? | h5uc9ls | h5w43oz | 1,626,757,986 | 1,626,798,573 | 1 | 3 | Key elements for passive cooling include. Thermal mass to absorb heat. Unbaked Adobe style bricks. High ceilings to promote internal circulation. Deep openings to reduce sunlight. Reflective external surfaces. | so Charleston South Carolina is actually a fascinating study - the blocks and streets are set up in the same direction as the prevailing winds, allowing evening breezes off the ocean to penetrate deep into the city. you also see a lot of porches with deep overhangs and therefore, shade. another is ceiling height and transom windows for cross ventilation across the entire floorplate of the building. they even developed their own residential building type to deal with their specific climate challenges - the Charleston Single House. | 0 | 40,587 | 3 | ||
95xu3s | architecture_train | 0.88 | Ask] Scandinavian Pitched Roof Construction Would anyone from the r/architecture community be able to identify a name for this typical peaked roofline seen in Scandinavian style homes and cottage?. I have previously looked for a book that has details on the construction of this style of roof but I did not find anything substantial. It eludes me how these rooflines remain stable, and I assume the entire structure is insulated but if someone could point me in the direction of a typical details in this style, I would be ecstatic. Some project info, I am currently designing a proposal for an small scale installation and would potentially propose a similar construction technique if it would be remain applicable. Any guidance or info is appreciated! [Exterior Roofline Interior Roofline | e3w82bx | e3x5x85 | 1,533,831,691 | 1,533,860,470 | 2 | 3 | Going from the pictures I would guess it has been made using SIP's (structurally insulated panels) | Is this the type of thing you are wondering about? https://cdn.blessthisstuff.com/imagens/stuff/mono-cabin-2.jpg If so each stud is actually a double stud with a sort of custom metal angled pate bolted between them with one leg of the angle being between the double studs and the other between the double rafters. Sometimes the metal piece has sort of fins that the studs and rafters butt into as well forming a sort of open bracket. If that doesn't make sense let me know and ill draw you something SketchUp. | 0 | 28,779 | 1.5 | ||
95xu3s | architecture_train | 0.88 | Ask] Scandinavian Pitched Roof Construction Would anyone from the r/architecture community be able to identify a name for this typical peaked roofline seen in Scandinavian style homes and cottage?. I have previously looked for a book that has details on the construction of this style of roof but I did not find anything substantial. It eludes me how these rooflines remain stable, and I assume the entire structure is insulated but if someone could point me in the direction of a typical details in this style, I would be ecstatic. Some project info, I am currently designing a proposal for an small scale installation and would potentially propose a similar construction technique if it would be remain applicable. Any guidance or info is appreciated! [Exterior Roofline Interior Roofline | e3x5x85 | e3wweht | 1,533,860,470 | 1,533,851,666 | 3 | 2 | Is this the type of thing you are wondering about? https://cdn.blessthisstuff.com/imagens/stuff/mono-cabin-2.jpg If so each stud is actually a double stud with a sort of custom metal angled pate bolted between them with one leg of the angle being between the double studs and the other between the double rafters. Sometimes the metal piece has sort of fins that the studs and rafters butt into as well forming a sort of open bracket. If that doesn't make sense let me know and ill draw you something SketchUp. | That is likely CLT timber panel so basically super sized plywood, incredibly strong and bolted together usually The insulation will be fixed externally and likely to be a rigid foam Edit. Looking more closely it may be a more traditional build but as long as the walls are well tied to the floors the spreading load of the roof will be easily dealt with, or perhaps the roof spans long ways on purlins. | 1 | 8,804 | 1.5 | ||
83l48g | architecture_train | 0.86 | [Ask] Why do you rarely see floor to ceiling windows in residential housing? My first guess would be due to the high cost. However, floor to ceiling windows in commercial buildings are common. Surely they are just as concerned with the cost of their building. Assuming the window isn't custom made, are there any manufactures who sell floor to ceiling windows for residential homes? | dvipjac | dvioexe | 1,520,754,633 | 1,520,752,230 | 19 | 11 | Safety, privacy, architctural expression, natural light control, placement of furniture and of course cost. I have seen full glass in many new apartment buildings in New York but until and unless my house is on a very high up floor, I wouldn't like to have full floor to ceiling glass in private areas of the house, living room could be an exception. Again depends a lot on the context of the house. | Off the top of my head, you need to temper the glass which is expensive. Also, you typically want the window to operate in residential design, and commercial windows tend to be fixed. | 1 | 2,403 | 1.727273 | ||
83l48g | architecture_train | 0.86 | [Ask] Why do you rarely see floor to ceiling windows in residential housing? My first guess would be due to the high cost. However, floor to ceiling windows in commercial buildings are common. Surely they are just as concerned with the cost of their building. Assuming the window isn't custom made, are there any manufactures who sell floor to ceiling windows for residential homes? | dvj743z | dvjrlqm | 1,520,787,031 | 1,520,809,722 | 2 | 3 | the energy codes limit the percent of glazing allowed per area. if you exceed this number, you need additional energy credits which could entail a lower U value for the windows or extra insulation somewhere. even with well-insulated glass you're still losing lots of heat if the windows are full height (relative to a fully insulated wall) | >commercial buildings ... Surely they are just as concerned with the cost of their building Among the other considerations mentioned here, Commercial buildings tend to have a deeper plan (windows further away from the center of the floor plate) so they need more light and so require higher windows. >Assuming the window isn't custom made The floor to ceiling windows for your house will probably need to be custom made as your floor to ceiling height will probably not be a standard dimension (This is not a problem for the window manufacturers). >are there any manufactures who sell floor to ceiling windows for residential homes? Yes. Where are you (which country)? | 0 | 22,691 | 1.5 | ||
cshob9 | architecture_train | 0.88 | ASK] What skillset is required to design such buildings? I'm a freshly graduated architect. Nowadays there are so many buildings which look like [this. What type of professional skillset does one require here to design and make construction drawings for buildings with such forms? Some post graduate course? Proficiency in some particulate software? Thanks | exeynre | exevjkl | 1,566,228,540 | 1,566,226,387 | 3 | 2 | Isnt it sad that you can pay large sums of money for a degree and not know the answer to this question. That should not be how this works. | these designs take time, it's not like you have the right idea at the first time! You develope this idea! Maybe from parcel .. there are lots of lots of things to consider before you start the concept. And of course it takes experience alot of it. | 1 | 2,153 | 1.5 | ||
cshob9 | architecture_train | 0.88 | ASK] What skillset is required to design such buildings? I'm a freshly graduated architect. Nowadays there are so many buildings which look like [this. What type of professional skillset does one require here to design and make construction drawings for buildings with such forms? Some post graduate course? Proficiency in some particulate software? Thanks | exeynre | exexspy | 1,566,228,540 | 1,566,227,934 | 3 | 1 | Isnt it sad that you can pay large sums of money for a degree and not know the answer to this question. That should not be how this works. | Let me know if I've misunderstood your question, but I'll give you a rundown of common programs that are used to help shape those kinds of designs. BIM - Building Information Modeling. They're a hybrid of 3D modeling and construction databasing, usually with built-in parametric capabilities. Some of the biggest players in this field are Revit, Archicad, and Vectorworks. 3D drafting is the easiest way to organize and keep track of complex building designs. Then there's programs dedicated purely to modeling with none of the construction data. Rhino and Grasshopper use parametric algorithms to generate forms. And then there's 3DS Max or Solidworks for manual geometric modeling. And of course Sketchup which is free and very limited, but a good introduction if you're new to computer modeling. | 1 | 606 | 3 | ||
cshob9 | architecture_train | 0.88 | ASK] What skillset is required to design such buildings? I'm a freshly graduated architect. Nowadays there are so many buildings which look like [this. What type of professional skillset does one require here to design and make construction drawings for buildings with such forms? Some post graduate course? Proficiency in some particulate software? Thanks | exexspy | exf0dm3 | 1,566,227,934 | 1,566,229,732 | 1 | 2 | Let me know if I've misunderstood your question, but I'll give you a rundown of common programs that are used to help shape those kinds of designs. BIM - Building Information Modeling. They're a hybrid of 3D modeling and construction databasing, usually with built-in parametric capabilities. Some of the biggest players in this field are Revit, Archicad, and Vectorworks. 3D drafting is the easiest way to organize and keep track of complex building designs. Then there's programs dedicated purely to modeling with none of the construction data. Rhino and Grasshopper use parametric algorithms to generate forms. And then there's 3DS Max or Solidworks for manual geometric modeling. And of course Sketchup which is free and very limited, but a good introduction if you're new to computer modeling. | You need experience designing and building high-rise residential towers for developers. From experience I can tell you that this is a bad design because none of the units are repeatable. It will be a nightmare to coordinate the vertical structure and MEP shafts. The genius behind BIG's towers is that the floor plates are mostly repeating while the skin or balconies twist or step. | 0 | 1,798 | 2 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g824cz9 | g825707 | 1,602,115,780 | 1,602,116,260 | 10 | 17 | They’re pretty heavy | Short answer is its just an added expense but trust me, they'll be everywhere in NYC very soon. The code is, and I'm paraphrasing - any time you replace a roof or build a new building (generally an Alt-1 or NB filing), and, if the roof is not occupiable - you either need solar panels or a green roof. | 0 | 480 | 1.7 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g825707 | g82160q | 1,602,116,260 | 1,602,113,947 | 17 | -1 | Short answer is its just an added expense but trust me, they'll be everywhere in NYC very soon. The code is, and I'm paraphrasing - any time you replace a roof or build a new building (generally an Alt-1 or NB filing), and, if the roof is not occupiable - you either need solar panels or a green roof. | I think it’s the fauna they don’t wanna attract with the flora maybe? And most people that actually own the building don’t want some sort of project or community project at that to maintain | 1 | 2,313 | -17 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g824cz9 | g82160q | 1,602,115,780 | 1,602,113,947 | 10 | -1 | They’re pretty heavy | I think it’s the fauna they don’t wanna attract with the flora maybe? And most people that actually own the building don’t want some sort of project or community project at that to maintain | 1 | 1,833 | -10 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g826924 | g82lkmi | 1,602,116,854 | 1,602,124,866 | 6 | 7 | Beautiful idea in theory but nothing is that simple in real life. A rooftop garden has a weight, that weight has an impact on the structure. Structural studies and work cost money. Adapting a roof for such program, then building the garden also costs money. To keep the garden beautiful? Money + Logistics. First: who’s paying for all that. Second, every little building you see on google maps is different: size, structure, program, date of construction, owner, neighborhood, city etc. Different sets of laws can apply for buildings in different areas. Same for different cities, states or countries. It is impossible to make such a generalization because grouping « flat roof buildings » in a category doesn’t take in consideration all these other factors. It is more complicated than stupid actually. | You would think it would be more common since it is one of Le Corbusier's 5 pillars of modern architecture (the roof garden), but alas, it is not. I think its a great idea, since it not only increases the useable space in cities, but it also decreases the amount of bare concrete in cities, leading to a lesser concrete jungle heating effect in the warmer months. Plus, plants are cool! | 0 | 8,012 | 1.166667 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g82i6vo | g82lkmi | 1,602,123,165 | 1,602,124,866 | 5 | 7 | Starting in 2017, San Francisco requires rooftop solar or gardens for all buildings less than 10 stories tall: https://sfgov.org/sfplanningarchive/san-francisco-better-roofs | You would think it would be more common since it is one of Le Corbusier's 5 pillars of modern architecture (the roof garden), but alas, it is not. I think its a great idea, since it not only increases the useable space in cities, but it also decreases the amount of bare concrete in cities, leading to a lesser concrete jungle heating effect in the warmer months. Plus, plants are cool! | 0 | 1,701 | 1.4 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g82f13s | g82lkmi | 1,602,121,588 | 1,602,124,866 | 1 | 7 | You’re more likely to see rooftop decks than gardens. To have a green roof means needing to support a good amount of weight for the soil and any water it retains. Older buildings typically weren’t built to sustain such weight and it’s not worthwhile to retrofit. | You would think it would be more common since it is one of Le Corbusier's 5 pillars of modern architecture (the roof garden), but alas, it is not. I think its a great idea, since it not only increases the useable space in cities, but it also decreases the amount of bare concrete in cities, leading to a lesser concrete jungle heating effect in the warmer months. Plus, plants are cool! | 0 | 3,278 | 7 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g82160q | g82lkmi | 1,602,113,947 | 1,602,124,866 | -1 | 7 | I think it’s the fauna they don’t wanna attract with the flora maybe? And most people that actually own the building don’t want some sort of project or community project at that to maintain | You would think it would be more common since it is one of Le Corbusier's 5 pillars of modern architecture (the roof garden), but alas, it is not. I think its a great idea, since it not only increases the useable space in cities, but it also decreases the amount of bare concrete in cities, leading to a lesser concrete jungle heating effect in the warmer months. Plus, plants are cool! | 0 | 10,919 | -7 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g82160q | g826924 | 1,602,113,947 | 1,602,116,854 | -1 | 6 | I think it’s the fauna they don’t wanna attract with the flora maybe? And most people that actually own the building don’t want some sort of project or community project at that to maintain | Beautiful idea in theory but nothing is that simple in real life. A rooftop garden has a weight, that weight has an impact on the structure. Structural studies and work cost money. Adapting a roof for such program, then building the garden also costs money. To keep the garden beautiful? Money + Logistics. First: who’s paying for all that. Second, every little building you see on google maps is different: size, structure, program, date of construction, owner, neighborhood, city etc. Different sets of laws can apply for buildings in different areas. Same for different cities, states or countries. It is impossible to make such a generalization because grouping « flat roof buildings » in a category doesn’t take in consideration all these other factors. It is more complicated than stupid actually. | 0 | 2,907 | -6 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g82i6vo | g82f13s | 1,602,123,165 | 1,602,121,588 | 5 | 1 | Starting in 2017, San Francisco requires rooftop solar or gardens for all buildings less than 10 stories tall: https://sfgov.org/sfplanningarchive/san-francisco-better-roofs | You’re more likely to see rooftop decks than gardens. To have a green roof means needing to support a good amount of weight for the soil and any water it retains. Older buildings typically weren’t built to sustain such weight and it’s not worthwhile to retrofit. | 1 | 1,577 | 5 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g82i6vo | g82160q | 1,602,123,165 | 1,602,113,947 | 5 | -1 | Starting in 2017, San Francisco requires rooftop solar or gardens for all buildings less than 10 stories tall: https://sfgov.org/sfplanningarchive/san-francisco-better-roofs | I think it’s the fauna they don’t wanna attract with the flora maybe? And most people that actually own the building don’t want some sort of project or community project at that to maintain | 1 | 9,218 | -5 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g82nzxa | g82f13s | 1,602,126,278 | 1,602,121,588 | 4 | 1 | 1. Added weight of soil. 2. How many buildings do you know that have open roof tops, bit of a hazard so they'd need safety fences and walls. 3. Wind speeds as you get higher up get super fast and be somewhat uncomfortable. Super tall ones can't do this kind of stuff. 4. lots of buildings want to have stuff on top of the roof like AC units, lightning rods, towers etc. IT's not just empty real estate they got stuff there. | You’re more likely to see rooftop decks than gardens. To have a green roof means needing to support a good amount of weight for the soil and any water it retains. Older buildings typically weren’t built to sustain such weight and it’s not worthwhile to retrofit. | 1 | 4,690 | 4 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g82nzxa | g82160q | 1,602,126,278 | 1,602,113,947 | 4 | -1 | 1. Added weight of soil. 2. How many buildings do you know that have open roof tops, bit of a hazard so they'd need safety fences and walls. 3. Wind speeds as you get higher up get super fast and be somewhat uncomfortable. Super tall ones can't do this kind of stuff. 4. lots of buildings want to have stuff on top of the roof like AC units, lightning rods, towers etc. IT's not just empty real estate they got stuff there. | I think it’s the fauna they don’t wanna attract with the flora maybe? And most people that actually own the building don’t want some sort of project or community project at that to maintain | 1 | 12,331 | -4 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g82f13s | g82160q | 1,602,121,588 | 1,602,113,947 | 1 | -1 | You’re more likely to see rooftop decks than gardens. To have a green roof means needing to support a good amount of weight for the soil and any water it retains. Older buildings typically weren’t built to sustain such weight and it’s not worthwhile to retrofit. | I think it’s the fauna they don’t wanna attract with the flora maybe? And most people that actually own the building don’t want some sort of project or community project at that to maintain | 1 | 7,641 | -1 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g82160q | g830hvq | 1,602,113,947 | 1,602,135,138 | -1 | 1 | I think it’s the fauna they don’t wanna attract with the flora maybe? And most people that actually own the building don’t want some sort of project or community project at that to maintain | Maintenance = $$$ Return on investment of a green roof is not good, it also sucks up more money as the building ages. Unless a city/county makes rules such as: green roof = higher FAR or something, it probably won't happen for most buildings. | 0 | 21,191 | -1 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g83rnvt | g82160q | 1,602,162,134 | 1,602,113,947 | 1 | -1 | I costs more and to access it you have to extend the staircase and you need proper railings. For a normal flat roof a ladder to access it for maintainance is enough. | I think it’s the fauna they don’t wanna attract with the flora maybe? And most people that actually own the building don’t want some sort of project or community project at that to maintain | 1 | 48,187 | -1 | ||
j71xy4 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Why arent roof top gardens more popular? I was on google maps looking at the roofs of buildings in NYC and san Francisco and i could hardly find any roof top gardens. Most of the buildings in these citys have flat roofs, so why dont they have a backyard/garden style roof? then i thought, well of New york has a lot of snow, so maybe its not worth it. But then san francisco doesn't have them either, so its not a weather issue. it seems odd that these places would not utilize prime real estate on there roof to expand there living area. the Facebook building in menlo park, there roof is one massive park.. it seems stupid/odd that urban areas havent adopted roof top gardens as a standard. | g83sczl | g82160q | 1,602,162,593 | 1,602,113,947 | 1 | -1 | Maintenance. It rocks up prices even more, which is unaffordable for most in todays city markets. | I think it’s the fauna they don’t wanna attract with the flora maybe? And most people that actually own the building don’t want some sort of project or community project at that to maintain | 1 | 48,646 | -1 | ||
bqisuj | architecture_train | 0.86 | [Ask] Why aren't we seeing more rooftop gardens? Hello! Hope this was the right place to ask. Apologies for the very broad question, but I thought it may be good ground for discussion. Seeing as global warming and the issues with increasing urban density (e.g. pollution) are both large issues right now. Making cities greener is one of the commonly suggested ways to help improve the situation. By rooftop gardens I mostly mean ones with actual trees or bushes. E.g. buildings like these: http://architek.com/products/vertical-gardens Is it because it's hard to make buildings with a robust enough roof/structure to support a garden? Is it a cost thing? Is there not enough interest from city planners/large actors? "Land" rights for existing buildings? | eo4qwqp | eo4qn3j | 1,558,283,218 | 1,558,283,067 | 9 | 5 | Cost and Maintanance It's fairly easy to build a green roof with only grass. This is only slightly more expensive and needs only about 30cm of soil. If you want anything more than grass, like bushes, you need at least a meter or so of soil (besides needing drainage and roots barrier,...) . This is heavy and makes the roof much more expensive. Then there is maintainance. You need someone to mow the grass and keep the bushes in shape, water everything (or you have that automated which is an additional cost...). The only way to get more green roofs is to force it by law, which some cities/countries are already doing. | It is nearly 100% about cost. The typical roof is one of the cheaper parts of a building. To make it an occupied space that also supports heavy soil and vegetation is expensive. | 1 | 151 | 1.8 | ||
bqisuj | architecture_train | 0.86 | [Ask] Why aren't we seeing more rooftop gardens? Hello! Hope this was the right place to ask. Apologies for the very broad question, but I thought it may be good ground for discussion. Seeing as global warming and the issues with increasing urban density (e.g. pollution) are both large issues right now. Making cities greener is one of the commonly suggested ways to help improve the situation. By rooftop gardens I mostly mean ones with actual trees or bushes. E.g. buildings like these: http://architek.com/products/vertical-gardens Is it because it's hard to make buildings with a robust enough roof/structure to support a garden? Is it a cost thing? Is there not enough interest from city planners/large actors? "Land" rights for existing buildings? | eo881hz | eoahabt | 1,558,359,931 | 1,558,417,906 | 1 | 2 | Not only is it expensive, there is little return on your investment on top of it. You build a building, you rent it out, you make money. Your rooftop garden is not going to allow you to drastically increase pricing to justify its existence. MAYBE in Manhattan you could charge for an entry fee but outside of major cities..... no ones coming to pay money to hang out on your roof. | Cost and maintenance. The structure to support a green roof is considerably more than a normal roof. The lightest sedum roof I know of is around 50kg/m2, and it'll be pretty brown at the end of the summer. If you want a "normal" sedum roof, then you're looking at closer to 150-200kg/m2, and that is without vegetation. Then you have the watertightness issues of a permanently wet element sitting on the roof. | 0 | 57,975 | 2 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5kvsm | hi5efx0 | 1,635,277,321 | 1,635,274,828 | 58 | 50 | I think there might be a problem with his insights. He is comparing classical architecture (probably the best examples of it, or the ones that stood test of time, etc) to the borderline average contemporary architecture, completely ignoring the existence of any really great contemporary architecture. Also, he completely forgets, that an architect in this case is a super small cog within the system. Contractors, clients, city laws, etc could be equally blamed. Historically, great buildings took decades to build. Now it is expected to open within a year, while the architect is the one that is forced to cut corners the most. There is nothing wrong with the architecture. Something wrong is with the people. | Wait wait… everyone is complaining about the architect but no-one is complaining about the client or contractors or the whole process. Theres a reason why the industry is now called AEC cause its architecture, engineering and construction. Building has become so complex that there’s consultants of consultants. Beside if everyone is building left right and centre templates are gonna be used and reused. Heck even programming is made with bunch of frameworks and boilerplate. Now peps are complaining the internet is a mess | 1 | 2,493 | 1.16 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4ah1o | hi5kvsm | 1,635,258,946 | 1,635,277,321 | 36 | 58 | Housing is generally looked at as a commodity now, and is therefore (for the most part) no longer built for human comfort. Instead it's built as an investment, and is only really concerned with what will generate the most profit for it's investors. I would argue that is what's really wrong with our architecture. | I think there might be a problem with his insights. He is comparing classical architecture (probably the best examples of it, or the ones that stood test of time, etc) to the borderline average contemporary architecture, completely ignoring the existence of any really great contemporary architecture. Also, he completely forgets, that an architect in this case is a super small cog within the system. Contractors, clients, city laws, etc could be equally blamed. Historically, great buildings took decades to build. Now it is expected to open within a year, while the architect is the one that is forced to cut corners the most. There is nothing wrong with the architecture. Something wrong is with the people. | 0 | 18,375 | 1.611111 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi52iwh | hi5kvsm | 1,635,270,134 | 1,635,277,321 | 17 | 58 | The problem with modern architecture is that Capital is put ahead of the user. It's all about maximizing benefit with no thought put on the experience. However, Mr. Kirk, like all other pasty so-called traditionalist righters, is a servant of said Capital and all his thought is just a series of intellectual fig-leafs designed to enable, justify and maintain the same traditional hierarchies and social systems that enable this system he claims to decry. It is a classical far-righter technique: They want to criticize a status-quo, but since being a rightwinger is all about maintaining the status quo, they are incapable of posing an honest criticism of it (because doing so reeks of Marxism), so they go on and on with this sort of well-meaning but empty platitudes about an (((elite))) of (((cosmopolitan intellectuals))) rather than honestly looking at all sides of the issue. Hence Mr. Kirk is a hypocrite that enables the very same thing he claims to decry and as such his thought can be safely ignored as the worthless, meaningless pap it is. Same as with other pasty white anglosaxons who only see architecture as a means to enable their own social, economic and political supremacy, such as Scruton. Their claims to care about beauty are empty: these are people for whom the torture and murder of the victims of, say, Pinochet are a beautiful thing and as such they have no standing to start lecturing the rest of us about beauty or virtue. | I think there might be a problem with his insights. He is comparing classical architecture (probably the best examples of it, or the ones that stood test of time, etc) to the borderline average contemporary architecture, completely ignoring the existence of any really great contemporary architecture. Also, he completely forgets, that an architect in this case is a super small cog within the system. Contractors, clients, city laws, etc could be equally blamed. Historically, great buildings took decades to build. Now it is expected to open within a year, while the architect is the one that is forced to cut corners the most. There is nothing wrong with the architecture. Something wrong is with the people. | 0 | 7,187 | 3.411765 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4fqzn | hi5kvsm | 1,635,261,111 | 1,635,277,321 | 17 | 58 | Yeah that’s about as moldy as thinking can get. Reject modernity, embrace tradition! Lol | I think there might be a problem with his insights. He is comparing classical architecture (probably the best examples of it, or the ones that stood test of time, etc) to the borderline average contemporary architecture, completely ignoring the existence of any really great contemporary architecture. Also, he completely forgets, that an architect in this case is a super small cog within the system. Contractors, clients, city laws, etc could be equally blamed. Historically, great buildings took decades to build. Now it is expected to open within a year, while the architect is the one that is forced to cut corners the most. There is nothing wrong with the architecture. Something wrong is with the people. | 0 | 16,210 | 3.411765 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5i8qk | hi5kvsm | 1,635,276,309 | 1,635,277,321 | 14 | 58 | Architecture is the delivery of commercial investment instruments to turn money into more money. This is how it is. A few architects get away with existing outside of this system and create nice buildings that have real social and humane benefits beyond or instead of commercial profit, but most of us can only practice our art within the system. It's a huge change required in the system to take it back to something to the benefit of society. But we can say the same thing about pharmaceuticals, healthcare, the justice system. Not gonna happen is it. | I think there might be a problem with his insights. He is comparing classical architecture (probably the best examples of it, or the ones that stood test of time, etc) to the borderline average contemporary architecture, completely ignoring the existence of any really great contemporary architecture. Also, he completely forgets, that an architect in this case is a super small cog within the system. Contractors, clients, city laws, etc could be equally blamed. Historically, great buildings took decades to build. Now it is expected to open within a year, while the architect is the one that is forced to cut corners the most. There is nothing wrong with the architecture. Something wrong is with the people. | 0 | 1,012 | 4.142857 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi470mj | hi5kvsm | 1,635,257,477 | 1,635,277,321 | 11 | 58 | Copy/Paste 5-over-1 builds, with typical multi-material geometric cladding is what's wrong with Architecture. Too many constructions are dictated by the client's poor taste, and/or Architects being "efficient" (because why complicate everything when typical details are already drawn and stored on the server). | I think there might be a problem with his insights. He is comparing classical architecture (probably the best examples of it, or the ones that stood test of time, etc) to the borderline average contemporary architecture, completely ignoring the existence of any really great contemporary architecture. Also, he completely forgets, that an architect in this case is a super small cog within the system. Contractors, clients, city laws, etc could be equally blamed. Historically, great buildings took decades to build. Now it is expected to open within a year, while the architect is the one that is forced to cut corners the most. There is nothing wrong with the architecture. Something wrong is with the people. | 0 | 19,844 | 5.272727 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5kvsm | hi4egd6 | 1,635,277,321 | 1,635,260,576 | 58 | 4 | I think there might be a problem with his insights. He is comparing classical architecture (probably the best examples of it, or the ones that stood test of time, etc) to the borderline average contemporary architecture, completely ignoring the existence of any really great contemporary architecture. Also, he completely forgets, that an architect in this case is a super small cog within the system. Contractors, clients, city laws, etc could be equally blamed. Historically, great buildings took decades to build. Now it is expected to open within a year, while the architect is the one that is forced to cut corners the most. There is nothing wrong with the architecture. Something wrong is with the people. | Honestly the issue is we no longer construct buildings to last decades. The current thought trend is that this will be torn down or redeveloped in a decade so its disposable architecture. | 1 | 16,745 | 14.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4wk6d | hi5kvsm | 1,635,267,791 | 1,635,277,321 | 3 | 58 | Everything seems copy paste, many buildings seem to have no character. | I think there might be a problem with his insights. He is comparing classical architecture (probably the best examples of it, or the ones that stood test of time, etc) to the borderline average contemporary architecture, completely ignoring the existence of any really great contemporary architecture. Also, he completely forgets, that an architect in this case is a super small cog within the system. Contractors, clients, city laws, etc could be equally blamed. Historically, great buildings took decades to build. Now it is expected to open within a year, while the architect is the one that is forced to cut corners the most. There is nothing wrong with the architecture. Something wrong is with the people. | 0 | 9,530 | 19.333333 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5kvsm | hi50v0h | 1,635,277,321 | 1,635,269,481 | 58 | 3 | I think there might be a problem with his insights. He is comparing classical architecture (probably the best examples of it, or the ones that stood test of time, etc) to the borderline average contemporary architecture, completely ignoring the existence of any really great contemporary architecture. Also, he completely forgets, that an architect in this case is a super small cog within the system. Contractors, clients, city laws, etc could be equally blamed. Historically, great buildings took decades to build. Now it is expected to open within a year, while the architect is the one that is forced to cut corners the most. There is nothing wrong with the architecture. Something wrong is with the people. | There's an old saying that you need rules in order to be truly creative, I think the reason modern architecture leaves such a bland taste in our mouths is because it's not defined by anything and therefore has no vessel to shape. | 1 | 7,840 | 19.333333 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5kvsm | hi4yupk | 1,635,277,321 | 1,635,268,699 | 58 | 2 | I think there might be a problem with his insights. He is comparing classical architecture (probably the best examples of it, or the ones that stood test of time, etc) to the borderline average contemporary architecture, completely ignoring the existence of any really great contemporary architecture. Also, he completely forgets, that an architect in this case is a super small cog within the system. Contractors, clients, city laws, etc could be equally blamed. Historically, great buildings took decades to build. Now it is expected to open within a year, while the architect is the one that is forced to cut corners the most. There is nothing wrong with the architecture. Something wrong is with the people. | Read The Geography of Nowhere. It's brilliant, funny and unfortunately accurate. | 1 | 8,622 | 29 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5kvsm | hi586vv | 1,635,277,321 | 1,635,272,376 | 58 | 2 | I think there might be a problem with his insights. He is comparing classical architecture (probably the best examples of it, or the ones that stood test of time, etc) to the borderline average contemporary architecture, completely ignoring the existence of any really great contemporary architecture. Also, he completely forgets, that an architect in this case is a super small cog within the system. Contractors, clients, city laws, etc could be equally blamed. Historically, great buildings took decades to build. Now it is expected to open within a year, while the architect is the one that is forced to cut corners the most. There is nothing wrong with the architecture. Something wrong is with the people. | £££££ | 1 | 4,945 | 29 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5kvsm | hi4dibl | 1,635,277,321 | 1,635,260,188 | 58 | 2 | I think there might be a problem with his insights. He is comparing classical architecture (probably the best examples of it, or the ones that stood test of time, etc) to the borderline average contemporary architecture, completely ignoring the existence of any really great contemporary architecture. Also, he completely forgets, that an architect in this case is a super small cog within the system. Contractors, clients, city laws, etc could be equally blamed. Historically, great buildings took decades to build. Now it is expected to open within a year, while the architect is the one that is forced to cut corners the most. There is nothing wrong with the architecture. Something wrong is with the people. | Eh well the art in architecture is no longer there. It's more just money based, so we just make buildings to maximize profits. Thats ok for a few projects but it's like 90% of the market now. So boring. | 1 | 17,133 | 29 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4ah1o | hi5efx0 | 1,635,258,946 | 1,635,274,828 | 36 | 50 | Housing is generally looked at as a commodity now, and is therefore (for the most part) no longer built for human comfort. Instead it's built as an investment, and is only really concerned with what will generate the most profit for it's investors. I would argue that is what's really wrong with our architecture. | Wait wait… everyone is complaining about the architect but no-one is complaining about the client or contractors or the whole process. Theres a reason why the industry is now called AEC cause its architecture, engineering and construction. Building has become so complex that there’s consultants of consultants. Beside if everyone is building left right and centre templates are gonna be used and reused. Heck even programming is made with bunch of frameworks and boilerplate. Now peps are complaining the internet is a mess | 0 | 15,882 | 1.388889 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5efx0 | hi52iwh | 1,635,274,828 | 1,635,270,134 | 50 | 17 | Wait wait… everyone is complaining about the architect but no-one is complaining about the client or contractors or the whole process. Theres a reason why the industry is now called AEC cause its architecture, engineering and construction. Building has become so complex that there’s consultants of consultants. Beside if everyone is building left right and centre templates are gonna be used and reused. Heck even programming is made with bunch of frameworks and boilerplate. Now peps are complaining the internet is a mess | The problem with modern architecture is that Capital is put ahead of the user. It's all about maximizing benefit with no thought put on the experience. However, Mr. Kirk, like all other pasty so-called traditionalist righters, is a servant of said Capital and all his thought is just a series of intellectual fig-leafs designed to enable, justify and maintain the same traditional hierarchies and social systems that enable this system he claims to decry. It is a classical far-righter technique: They want to criticize a status-quo, but since being a rightwinger is all about maintaining the status quo, they are incapable of posing an honest criticism of it (because doing so reeks of Marxism), so they go on and on with this sort of well-meaning but empty platitudes about an (((elite))) of (((cosmopolitan intellectuals))) rather than honestly looking at all sides of the issue. Hence Mr. Kirk is a hypocrite that enables the very same thing he claims to decry and as such his thought can be safely ignored as the worthless, meaningless pap it is. Same as with other pasty white anglosaxons who only see architecture as a means to enable their own social, economic and political supremacy, such as Scruton. Their claims to care about beauty are empty: these are people for whom the torture and murder of the victims of, say, Pinochet are a beautiful thing and as such they have no standing to start lecturing the rest of us about beauty or virtue. | 1 | 4,694 | 2.941176 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4fqzn | hi5efx0 | 1,635,261,111 | 1,635,274,828 | 17 | 50 | Yeah that’s about as moldy as thinking can get. Reject modernity, embrace tradition! Lol | Wait wait… everyone is complaining about the architect but no-one is complaining about the client or contractors or the whole process. Theres a reason why the industry is now called AEC cause its architecture, engineering and construction. Building has become so complex that there’s consultants of consultants. Beside if everyone is building left right and centre templates are gonna be used and reused. Heck even programming is made with bunch of frameworks and boilerplate. Now peps are complaining the internet is a mess | 0 | 13,717 | 2.941176 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5efx0 | hi470mj | 1,635,274,828 | 1,635,257,477 | 50 | 11 | Wait wait… everyone is complaining about the architect but no-one is complaining about the client or contractors or the whole process. Theres a reason why the industry is now called AEC cause its architecture, engineering and construction. Building has become so complex that there’s consultants of consultants. Beside if everyone is building left right and centre templates are gonna be used and reused. Heck even programming is made with bunch of frameworks and boilerplate. Now peps are complaining the internet is a mess | Copy/Paste 5-over-1 builds, with typical multi-material geometric cladding is what's wrong with Architecture. Too many constructions are dictated by the client's poor taste, and/or Architects being "efficient" (because why complicate everything when typical details are already drawn and stored on the server). | 1 | 17,351 | 4.545455 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5efx0 | hi4egd6 | 1,635,274,828 | 1,635,260,576 | 50 | 4 | Wait wait… everyone is complaining about the architect but no-one is complaining about the client or contractors or the whole process. Theres a reason why the industry is now called AEC cause its architecture, engineering and construction. Building has become so complex that there’s consultants of consultants. Beside if everyone is building left right and centre templates are gonna be used and reused. Heck even programming is made with bunch of frameworks and boilerplate. Now peps are complaining the internet is a mess | Honestly the issue is we no longer construct buildings to last decades. The current thought trend is that this will be torn down or redeveloped in a decade so its disposable architecture. | 1 | 14,252 | 12.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5efx0 | hi4wk6d | 1,635,274,828 | 1,635,267,791 | 50 | 3 | Wait wait… everyone is complaining about the architect but no-one is complaining about the client or contractors or the whole process. Theres a reason why the industry is now called AEC cause its architecture, engineering and construction. Building has become so complex that there’s consultants of consultants. Beside if everyone is building left right and centre templates are gonna be used and reused. Heck even programming is made with bunch of frameworks and boilerplate. Now peps are complaining the internet is a mess | Everything seems copy paste, many buildings seem to have no character. | 1 | 7,037 | 16.666667 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi50v0h | hi5efx0 | 1,635,269,481 | 1,635,274,828 | 3 | 50 | There's an old saying that you need rules in order to be truly creative, I think the reason modern architecture leaves such a bland taste in our mouths is because it's not defined by anything and therefore has no vessel to shape. | Wait wait… everyone is complaining about the architect but no-one is complaining about the client or contractors or the whole process. Theres a reason why the industry is now called AEC cause its architecture, engineering and construction. Building has become so complex that there’s consultants of consultants. Beside if everyone is building left right and centre templates are gonna be used and reused. Heck even programming is made with bunch of frameworks and boilerplate. Now peps are complaining the internet is a mess | 0 | 5,347 | 16.666667 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4yupk | hi5efx0 | 1,635,268,699 | 1,635,274,828 | 2 | 50 | Read The Geography of Nowhere. It's brilliant, funny and unfortunately accurate. | Wait wait… everyone is complaining about the architect but no-one is complaining about the client or contractors or the whole process. Theres a reason why the industry is now called AEC cause its architecture, engineering and construction. Building has become so complex that there’s consultants of consultants. Beside if everyone is building left right and centre templates are gonna be used and reused. Heck even programming is made with bunch of frameworks and boilerplate. Now peps are complaining the internet is a mess | 0 | 6,129 | 25 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi586vv | hi5efx0 | 1,635,272,376 | 1,635,274,828 | 2 | 50 | £££££ | Wait wait… everyone is complaining about the architect but no-one is complaining about the client or contractors or the whole process. Theres a reason why the industry is now called AEC cause its architecture, engineering and construction. Building has become so complex that there’s consultants of consultants. Beside if everyone is building left right and centre templates are gonna be used and reused. Heck even programming is made with bunch of frameworks and boilerplate. Now peps are complaining the internet is a mess | 0 | 2,452 | 25 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4dibl | hi5efx0 | 1,635,260,188 | 1,635,274,828 | 2 | 50 | Eh well the art in architecture is no longer there. It's more just money based, so we just make buildings to maximize profits. Thats ok for a few projects but it's like 90% of the market now. So boring. | Wait wait… everyone is complaining about the architect but no-one is complaining about the client or contractors or the whole process. Theres a reason why the industry is now called AEC cause its architecture, engineering and construction. Building has become so complex that there’s consultants of consultants. Beside if everyone is building left right and centre templates are gonna be used and reused. Heck even programming is made with bunch of frameworks and boilerplate. Now peps are complaining the internet is a mess | 0 | 14,640 | 25 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4ah1o | hi470mj | 1,635,258,946 | 1,635,257,477 | 36 | 11 | Housing is generally looked at as a commodity now, and is therefore (for the most part) no longer built for human comfort. Instead it's built as an investment, and is only really concerned with what will generate the most profit for it's investors. I would argue that is what's really wrong with our architecture. | Copy/Paste 5-over-1 builds, with typical multi-material geometric cladding is what's wrong with Architecture. Too many constructions are dictated by the client's poor taste, and/or Architects being "efficient" (because why complicate everything when typical details are already drawn and stored on the server). | 1 | 1,469 | 3.272727 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi52iwh | hi470mj | 1,635,270,134 | 1,635,257,477 | 17 | 11 | The problem with modern architecture is that Capital is put ahead of the user. It's all about maximizing benefit with no thought put on the experience. However, Mr. Kirk, like all other pasty so-called traditionalist righters, is a servant of said Capital and all his thought is just a series of intellectual fig-leafs designed to enable, justify and maintain the same traditional hierarchies and social systems that enable this system he claims to decry. It is a classical far-righter technique: They want to criticize a status-quo, but since being a rightwinger is all about maintaining the status quo, they are incapable of posing an honest criticism of it (because doing so reeks of Marxism), so they go on and on with this sort of well-meaning but empty platitudes about an (((elite))) of (((cosmopolitan intellectuals))) rather than honestly looking at all sides of the issue. Hence Mr. Kirk is a hypocrite that enables the very same thing he claims to decry and as such his thought can be safely ignored as the worthless, meaningless pap it is. Same as with other pasty white anglosaxons who only see architecture as a means to enable their own social, economic and political supremacy, such as Scruton. Their claims to care about beauty are empty: these are people for whom the torture and murder of the victims of, say, Pinochet are a beautiful thing and as such they have no standing to start lecturing the rest of us about beauty or virtue. | Copy/Paste 5-over-1 builds, with typical multi-material geometric cladding is what's wrong with Architecture. Too many constructions are dictated by the client's poor taste, and/or Architects being "efficient" (because why complicate everything when typical details are already drawn and stored on the server). | 1 | 12,657 | 1.545455 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi52iwh | hi4egd6 | 1,635,270,134 | 1,635,260,576 | 17 | 4 | The problem with modern architecture is that Capital is put ahead of the user. It's all about maximizing benefit with no thought put on the experience. However, Mr. Kirk, like all other pasty so-called traditionalist righters, is a servant of said Capital and all his thought is just a series of intellectual fig-leafs designed to enable, justify and maintain the same traditional hierarchies and social systems that enable this system he claims to decry. It is a classical far-righter technique: They want to criticize a status-quo, but since being a rightwinger is all about maintaining the status quo, they are incapable of posing an honest criticism of it (because doing so reeks of Marxism), so they go on and on with this sort of well-meaning but empty platitudes about an (((elite))) of (((cosmopolitan intellectuals))) rather than honestly looking at all sides of the issue. Hence Mr. Kirk is a hypocrite that enables the very same thing he claims to decry and as such his thought can be safely ignored as the worthless, meaningless pap it is. Same as with other pasty white anglosaxons who only see architecture as a means to enable their own social, economic and political supremacy, such as Scruton. Their claims to care about beauty are empty: these are people for whom the torture and murder of the victims of, say, Pinochet are a beautiful thing and as such they have no standing to start lecturing the rest of us about beauty or virtue. | Honestly the issue is we no longer construct buildings to last decades. The current thought trend is that this will be torn down or redeveloped in a decade so its disposable architecture. | 1 | 9,558 | 4.25 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4wk6d | hi52iwh | 1,635,267,791 | 1,635,270,134 | 3 | 17 | Everything seems copy paste, many buildings seem to have no character. | The problem with modern architecture is that Capital is put ahead of the user. It's all about maximizing benefit with no thought put on the experience. However, Mr. Kirk, like all other pasty so-called traditionalist righters, is a servant of said Capital and all his thought is just a series of intellectual fig-leafs designed to enable, justify and maintain the same traditional hierarchies and social systems that enable this system he claims to decry. It is a classical far-righter technique: They want to criticize a status-quo, but since being a rightwinger is all about maintaining the status quo, they are incapable of posing an honest criticism of it (because doing so reeks of Marxism), so they go on and on with this sort of well-meaning but empty platitudes about an (((elite))) of (((cosmopolitan intellectuals))) rather than honestly looking at all sides of the issue. Hence Mr. Kirk is a hypocrite that enables the very same thing he claims to decry and as such his thought can be safely ignored as the worthless, meaningless pap it is. Same as with other pasty white anglosaxons who only see architecture as a means to enable their own social, economic and political supremacy, such as Scruton. Their claims to care about beauty are empty: these are people for whom the torture and murder of the victims of, say, Pinochet are a beautiful thing and as such they have no standing to start lecturing the rest of us about beauty or virtue. | 0 | 2,343 | 5.666667 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi52iwh | hi50v0h | 1,635,270,134 | 1,635,269,481 | 17 | 3 | The problem with modern architecture is that Capital is put ahead of the user. It's all about maximizing benefit with no thought put on the experience. However, Mr. Kirk, like all other pasty so-called traditionalist righters, is a servant of said Capital and all his thought is just a series of intellectual fig-leafs designed to enable, justify and maintain the same traditional hierarchies and social systems that enable this system he claims to decry. It is a classical far-righter technique: They want to criticize a status-quo, but since being a rightwinger is all about maintaining the status quo, they are incapable of posing an honest criticism of it (because doing so reeks of Marxism), so they go on and on with this sort of well-meaning but empty platitudes about an (((elite))) of (((cosmopolitan intellectuals))) rather than honestly looking at all sides of the issue. Hence Mr. Kirk is a hypocrite that enables the very same thing he claims to decry and as such his thought can be safely ignored as the worthless, meaningless pap it is. Same as with other pasty white anglosaxons who only see architecture as a means to enable their own social, economic and political supremacy, such as Scruton. Their claims to care about beauty are empty: these are people for whom the torture and murder of the victims of, say, Pinochet are a beautiful thing and as such they have no standing to start lecturing the rest of us about beauty or virtue. | There's an old saying that you need rules in order to be truly creative, I think the reason modern architecture leaves such a bland taste in our mouths is because it's not defined by anything and therefore has no vessel to shape. | 1 | 653 | 5.666667 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi52iwh | hi4yupk | 1,635,270,134 | 1,635,268,699 | 17 | 2 | The problem with modern architecture is that Capital is put ahead of the user. It's all about maximizing benefit with no thought put on the experience. However, Mr. Kirk, like all other pasty so-called traditionalist righters, is a servant of said Capital and all his thought is just a series of intellectual fig-leafs designed to enable, justify and maintain the same traditional hierarchies and social systems that enable this system he claims to decry. It is a classical far-righter technique: They want to criticize a status-quo, but since being a rightwinger is all about maintaining the status quo, they are incapable of posing an honest criticism of it (because doing so reeks of Marxism), so they go on and on with this sort of well-meaning but empty platitudes about an (((elite))) of (((cosmopolitan intellectuals))) rather than honestly looking at all sides of the issue. Hence Mr. Kirk is a hypocrite that enables the very same thing he claims to decry and as such his thought can be safely ignored as the worthless, meaningless pap it is. Same as with other pasty white anglosaxons who only see architecture as a means to enable their own social, economic and political supremacy, such as Scruton. Their claims to care about beauty are empty: these are people for whom the torture and murder of the victims of, say, Pinochet are a beautiful thing and as such they have no standing to start lecturing the rest of us about beauty or virtue. | Read The Geography of Nowhere. It's brilliant, funny and unfortunately accurate. | 1 | 1,435 | 8.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi52iwh | hi4dibl | 1,635,270,134 | 1,635,260,188 | 17 | 2 | The problem with modern architecture is that Capital is put ahead of the user. It's all about maximizing benefit with no thought put on the experience. However, Mr. Kirk, like all other pasty so-called traditionalist righters, is a servant of said Capital and all his thought is just a series of intellectual fig-leafs designed to enable, justify and maintain the same traditional hierarchies and social systems that enable this system he claims to decry. It is a classical far-righter technique: They want to criticize a status-quo, but since being a rightwinger is all about maintaining the status quo, they are incapable of posing an honest criticism of it (because doing so reeks of Marxism), so they go on and on with this sort of well-meaning but empty platitudes about an (((elite))) of (((cosmopolitan intellectuals))) rather than honestly looking at all sides of the issue. Hence Mr. Kirk is a hypocrite that enables the very same thing he claims to decry and as such his thought can be safely ignored as the worthless, meaningless pap it is. Same as with other pasty white anglosaxons who only see architecture as a means to enable their own social, economic and political supremacy, such as Scruton. Their claims to care about beauty are empty: these are people for whom the torture and murder of the victims of, say, Pinochet are a beautiful thing and as such they have no standing to start lecturing the rest of us about beauty or virtue. | Eh well the art in architecture is no longer there. It's more just money based, so we just make buildings to maximize profits. Thats ok for a few projects but it's like 90% of the market now. So boring. | 1 | 9,946 | 8.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi470mj | hi4fqzn | 1,635,257,477 | 1,635,261,111 | 11 | 17 | Copy/Paste 5-over-1 builds, with typical multi-material geometric cladding is what's wrong with Architecture. Too many constructions are dictated by the client's poor taste, and/or Architects being "efficient" (because why complicate everything when typical details are already drawn and stored on the server). | Yeah that’s about as moldy as thinking can get. Reject modernity, embrace tradition! Lol | 0 | 3,634 | 1.545455 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4egd6 | hi4fqzn | 1,635,260,576 | 1,635,261,111 | 4 | 17 | Honestly the issue is we no longer construct buildings to last decades. The current thought trend is that this will be torn down or redeveloped in a decade so its disposable architecture. | Yeah that’s about as moldy as thinking can get. Reject modernity, embrace tradition! Lol | 0 | 535 | 4.25 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4fqzn | hi4dibl | 1,635,261,111 | 1,635,260,188 | 17 | 2 | Yeah that’s about as moldy as thinking can get. Reject modernity, embrace tradition! Lol | Eh well the art in architecture is no longer there. It's more just money based, so we just make buildings to maximize profits. Thats ok for a few projects but it's like 90% of the market now. So boring. | 1 | 923 | 8.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi470mj | hi5i8qk | 1,635,257,477 | 1,635,276,309 | 11 | 14 | Copy/Paste 5-over-1 builds, with typical multi-material geometric cladding is what's wrong with Architecture. Too many constructions are dictated by the client's poor taste, and/or Architects being "efficient" (because why complicate everything when typical details are already drawn and stored on the server). | Architecture is the delivery of commercial investment instruments to turn money into more money. This is how it is. A few architects get away with existing outside of this system and create nice buildings that have real social and humane benefits beyond or instead of commercial profit, but most of us can only practice our art within the system. It's a huge change required in the system to take it back to something to the benefit of society. But we can say the same thing about pharmaceuticals, healthcare, the justice system. Not gonna happen is it. | 0 | 18,832 | 1.272727 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5i8qk | hi4egd6 | 1,635,276,309 | 1,635,260,576 | 14 | 4 | Architecture is the delivery of commercial investment instruments to turn money into more money. This is how it is. A few architects get away with existing outside of this system and create nice buildings that have real social and humane benefits beyond or instead of commercial profit, but most of us can only practice our art within the system. It's a huge change required in the system to take it back to something to the benefit of society. But we can say the same thing about pharmaceuticals, healthcare, the justice system. Not gonna happen is it. | Honestly the issue is we no longer construct buildings to last decades. The current thought trend is that this will be torn down or redeveloped in a decade so its disposable architecture. | 1 | 15,733 | 3.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5i8qk | hi4wk6d | 1,635,276,309 | 1,635,267,791 | 14 | 3 | Architecture is the delivery of commercial investment instruments to turn money into more money. This is how it is. A few architects get away with existing outside of this system and create nice buildings that have real social and humane benefits beyond or instead of commercial profit, but most of us can only practice our art within the system. It's a huge change required in the system to take it back to something to the benefit of society. But we can say the same thing about pharmaceuticals, healthcare, the justice system. Not gonna happen is it. | Everything seems copy paste, many buildings seem to have no character. | 1 | 8,518 | 4.666667 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5i8qk | hi50v0h | 1,635,276,309 | 1,635,269,481 | 14 | 3 | Architecture is the delivery of commercial investment instruments to turn money into more money. This is how it is. A few architects get away with existing outside of this system and create nice buildings that have real social and humane benefits beyond or instead of commercial profit, but most of us can only practice our art within the system. It's a huge change required in the system to take it back to something to the benefit of society. But we can say the same thing about pharmaceuticals, healthcare, the justice system. Not gonna happen is it. | There's an old saying that you need rules in order to be truly creative, I think the reason modern architecture leaves such a bland taste in our mouths is because it's not defined by anything and therefore has no vessel to shape. | 1 | 6,828 | 4.666667 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4yupk | hi5i8qk | 1,635,268,699 | 1,635,276,309 | 2 | 14 | Read The Geography of Nowhere. It's brilliant, funny and unfortunately accurate. | Architecture is the delivery of commercial investment instruments to turn money into more money. This is how it is. A few architects get away with existing outside of this system and create nice buildings that have real social and humane benefits beyond or instead of commercial profit, but most of us can only practice our art within the system. It's a huge change required in the system to take it back to something to the benefit of society. But we can say the same thing about pharmaceuticals, healthcare, the justice system. Not gonna happen is it. | 0 | 7,610 | 7 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5i8qk | hi586vv | 1,635,276,309 | 1,635,272,376 | 14 | 2 | Architecture is the delivery of commercial investment instruments to turn money into more money. This is how it is. A few architects get away with existing outside of this system and create nice buildings that have real social and humane benefits beyond or instead of commercial profit, but most of us can only practice our art within the system. It's a huge change required in the system to take it back to something to the benefit of society. But we can say the same thing about pharmaceuticals, healthcare, the justice system. Not gonna happen is it. | £££££ | 1 | 3,933 | 7 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5i8qk | hi4dibl | 1,635,276,309 | 1,635,260,188 | 14 | 2 | Architecture is the delivery of commercial investment instruments to turn money into more money. This is how it is. A few architects get away with existing outside of this system and create nice buildings that have real social and humane benefits beyond or instead of commercial profit, but most of us can only practice our art within the system. It's a huge change required in the system to take it back to something to the benefit of society. But we can say the same thing about pharmaceuticals, healthcare, the justice system. Not gonna happen is it. | Eh well the art in architecture is no longer there. It's more just money based, so we just make buildings to maximize profits. Thats ok for a few projects but it's like 90% of the market now. So boring. | 1 | 16,121 | 7 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5y8of | hi4egd6 | 1,635,282,459 | 1,635,260,576 | 11 | 4 | Boring conservative propaganda - the architectural equivalent of populism. This critique to modern architecture could have made sense in the 1960/70's, and in fact it remained the same since then. Hundertwasser, leon krier, Aldo rossi and ,any others made their fortune with the same argument. Bla bla bla. There are plenty of contemporary architecture that are very exciting, while any neo-whatever makes me only yawn. | Honestly the issue is we no longer construct buildings to last decades. The current thought trend is that this will be torn down or redeveloped in a decade so its disposable architecture. | 1 | 21,883 | 2.75 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4wk6d | hi5y8of | 1,635,267,791 | 1,635,282,459 | 3 | 11 | Everything seems copy paste, many buildings seem to have no character. | Boring conservative propaganda - the architectural equivalent of populism. This critique to modern architecture could have made sense in the 1960/70's, and in fact it remained the same since then. Hundertwasser, leon krier, Aldo rossi and ,any others made their fortune with the same argument. Bla bla bla. There are plenty of contemporary architecture that are very exciting, while any neo-whatever makes me only yawn. | 0 | 14,668 | 3.666667 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5y8of | hi50v0h | 1,635,282,459 | 1,635,269,481 | 11 | 3 | Boring conservative propaganda - the architectural equivalent of populism. This critique to modern architecture could have made sense in the 1960/70's, and in fact it remained the same since then. Hundertwasser, leon krier, Aldo rossi and ,any others made their fortune with the same argument. Bla bla bla. There are plenty of contemporary architecture that are very exciting, while any neo-whatever makes me only yawn. | There's an old saying that you need rules in order to be truly creative, I think the reason modern architecture leaves such a bland taste in our mouths is because it's not defined by anything and therefore has no vessel to shape. | 1 | 12,978 | 3.666667 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5y8of | hi4yupk | 1,635,282,459 | 1,635,268,699 | 11 | 2 | Boring conservative propaganda - the architectural equivalent of populism. This critique to modern architecture could have made sense in the 1960/70's, and in fact it remained the same since then. Hundertwasser, leon krier, Aldo rossi and ,any others made their fortune with the same argument. Bla bla bla. There are plenty of contemporary architecture that are very exciting, while any neo-whatever makes me only yawn. | Read The Geography of Nowhere. It's brilliant, funny and unfortunately accurate. | 1 | 13,760 | 5.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi5y8of | hi586vv | 1,635,282,459 | 1,635,272,376 | 11 | 2 | Boring conservative propaganda - the architectural equivalent of populism. This critique to modern architecture could have made sense in the 1960/70's, and in fact it remained the same since then. Hundertwasser, leon krier, Aldo rossi and ,any others made their fortune with the same argument. Bla bla bla. There are plenty of contemporary architecture that are very exciting, while any neo-whatever makes me only yawn. | £££££ | 1 | 10,083 | 5.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4dibl | hi5y8of | 1,635,260,188 | 1,635,282,459 | 2 | 11 | Eh well the art in architecture is no longer there. It's more just money based, so we just make buildings to maximize profits. Thats ok for a few projects but it's like 90% of the market now. So boring. | Boring conservative propaganda - the architectural equivalent of populism. This critique to modern architecture could have made sense in the 1960/70's, and in fact it remained the same since then. Hundertwasser, leon krier, Aldo rossi and ,any others made their fortune with the same argument. Bla bla bla. There are plenty of contemporary architecture that are very exciting, while any neo-whatever makes me only yawn. | 0 | 22,271 | 5.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi7nazk | hi4egd6 | 1,635,311,162 | 1,635,260,576 | 11 | 4 | "Contemporary architecture bores us" Which architecture? Common residential and commercial property? Sure, but buildings for the masses have always been pretty barebones and utilitarian. Civic architecture? There are plenty of contemporary civic buildings that are fantastical. We've got museums that open like a bird's wings, sculpture gardens that weave through cities on abandoned rail lines, and concert halls that form undulating landscapes. Not every building is amazing. Not every building in other centuries was either. However, we have many, many examples of compelling buildings today. "promotes servility" The world is more free today than it has ever been, historically. The classical architecture of Rome and our own capital were built using slave labor. There is no data to back up an idea that modern (or contemporary) architecture promotes servility, but a lot of data showing that it's either not true, or that it's just really ineffective. "Flattens local variety" I agree that the international style did in fact diminish local culture, however, the impact is extremely questionable. This is for two reasons. First, until about 100 years ago people (other than the ruling class) rarely travelled far enough to see more than maybe two "styles" of buildings. It's only now that there is a larger middle class with the means to travel and the media to convey other cultures that it could even possibly matter that my buildings look different than someone living 1000 miles away. If it didn't really matter for people for several millennia, it's probably not that essential that we experience different styles: our experience of style is already orders of magnitude greater than the average person in any other time period. Second, most buildings throughout history were extremely simple and not something that would be replicated at larger scales. If you compare a farmers hut across most cultures, the biggest variations are going to be climate based, but otherwise pretty limited. Also, while vernacular architecture may have sustainable advantages, there's no specific reason to think it's inherently better than the international style. That's an argument you would have to make and support. "Imposes a style on us that we hate" I get that there are people that dislike modern, or contemporary architecture, but it's not everyone, and clearly, someone prefers it over other styles because it get's built in a capitalist economy where nobody is forced to use a specific style. "Impose" implies that there is some authority that is forcing a style upon us, when, in reality, the market determines what gets built and people have the power to buy architecture of any style they can afford. If anything is 'imposing' modern architecture on us, it's the fact that it's significantly cheaper to build effectively, due to the complexity of modern buildings and the high cost of labor. The cheap slave or lower class labor that made old styles possible is far less available today, as our standards for how people should be treated has evolved. Essentially, this style that "promotes servility" is actually caused by a lack of it. "build to the human scale" Contemporary building codes and accessibility rules have led to buildings that truly are designed around the human scale and how people can actually use them. Building and zoning codes have also developed over the last century specifically to address the issues of overcrowding and poor urban design. Have we reached perfection? Not at all, but our cities are significantly more citizen friendly today than 100 years ago, and I would argue more friendly than historically. As with anything, there are good and bad examples, and we really should push for mid-rise mixed use cities far more often, but modern urban planning is at least a profession where such things are analyzed, as opposed to any other time in history where urban planning was haphazard at best; militant at worst. "Nurture roots" Cities change; it is inevitable. You can manage that change, but it's nonsense to believe you can stop it. This is also a weighted discussion: The argument against change has most often been used by wealthy homeowners trying to keep out developments that allow access to less wealthy individuals. It's an argument for driving up the value of existing housing at the expense of natural market forces allowing more people to live in high demand areas. Now, should we maintain our historic buildings and push for adaptive reuse of existing building stock where possible? Certainly, and we do both of those things and even have government programs to support them. There are also plenty of areas in cities and out of cities where maintaining existing buildings is pointless, because the buildings were terribly constructed, terribly maintained, or both. These areas need change and have been demanding it. What that change looks like is a constantly evolving conversation. "Common good over commerce" As stated, there are plenty of incentives to maintaining and repurposing existing buildings, both from the government and from buyers. However, old buildings are not up to today's standards: They often lack important life safety features, they lack accessibility, they lack the building systems that give us comfortable environments, they lack the insulation that makes those systems possible without expending a ton of energy, they lack light and ventilation access that we now know to be very important, and they often contain numerous hazardous materials in everything from the paint to the pipes to the sealant. On top of this, a lot of older buildings are barely standing anymore. They were built solid, but nothing lasts forever without significant upkeep, and most buildings just weren't worth putting long-lasting details into. The historic buildings you see around you or in the media have often been carefully and expensively rebuilt. We can't possibly do that for every random house or commercial building and not every building is historically valuable. We even have government agencies to determine which buildings are of significance, using fairly objective metrics. It's also important to question who prefers the preserved older neighborhoods. Is it the wealthier landowners in hot neighborhoods, or the people hoping to move to an area? Is neighborhood character more important than optimizing land use and creating opportunities for a range of wealth brackets to live in an area? "abstraction" This whole line of thought ignores reality. The leaders of the modernist movement were specifically designing machines for living, taking humanity into account in a way that was not being done post industrialization and pre-modernism. It was one of the first generations of architects and designers to look at how people actually live, how the body moves and interacts with its environment, and how our environment impacts us. The entire study of ergonomics and environmental psychology is tightly related to the architects and philosophers of the modernist movement. As for customs and preferences, this is also non-sense. Architecture has not shaped customs; changes in customs and culture have changed our architecture. One of the great examples is the open plan. 200 years ago, homes were largely built with each room opening into each other room. This fit the mindset of the time that the family shared space and privacy wasn't a priority. This pulled a 180 when our culture changed to highly value privacy and rooms were separated by corridors. More recently, culture has changed again and we're at a point where we have moments of privacy and moments of community in our homes. Architecture didn't shape these beliefs; they were shaped by cultural norms shifting over time. Architects and the developers they work for create spaces that people will be able to efficiently use. If cultural norms change, architecture follows suit, juggling occupant priorities. To think that contemporary developments would be driven by fads rather than the cold calculus of what sells for the highest profit is completely counter to the essay's earlier arguments that contemporary architecture is too focused on commercial interest. Pick one: either architects are forcing their will upon the masses or the market is driving design. You can't base an argument on both being true. "Bottom line" Contemporary architecture is safer, healthier, more sustainable, more accessible, larger and more comfortable than at any other time in history. Our urban design is more carefully considered and regulated than at any time in history. Developers are working to house more people in higher standards of living today than what has existed in the past. People do deserve better, and our codes and standards have pushed for that better world, while developers have also pushed to increase the number of people that get those things, all while wealthy landowners have fought tooth and nail to prevent others from getting access to those same benefits of modernity by pushing back on change and new development. | Honestly the issue is we no longer construct buildings to last decades. The current thought trend is that this will be torn down or redeveloped in a decade so its disposable architecture. | 1 | 50,586 | 2.75 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi7nazk | hi5yac6 | 1,635,311,162 | 1,635,282,477 | 11 | 4 | "Contemporary architecture bores us" Which architecture? Common residential and commercial property? Sure, but buildings for the masses have always been pretty barebones and utilitarian. Civic architecture? There are plenty of contemporary civic buildings that are fantastical. We've got museums that open like a bird's wings, sculpture gardens that weave through cities on abandoned rail lines, and concert halls that form undulating landscapes. Not every building is amazing. Not every building in other centuries was either. However, we have many, many examples of compelling buildings today. "promotes servility" The world is more free today than it has ever been, historically. The classical architecture of Rome and our own capital were built using slave labor. There is no data to back up an idea that modern (or contemporary) architecture promotes servility, but a lot of data showing that it's either not true, or that it's just really ineffective. "Flattens local variety" I agree that the international style did in fact diminish local culture, however, the impact is extremely questionable. This is for two reasons. First, until about 100 years ago people (other than the ruling class) rarely travelled far enough to see more than maybe two "styles" of buildings. It's only now that there is a larger middle class with the means to travel and the media to convey other cultures that it could even possibly matter that my buildings look different than someone living 1000 miles away. If it didn't really matter for people for several millennia, it's probably not that essential that we experience different styles: our experience of style is already orders of magnitude greater than the average person in any other time period. Second, most buildings throughout history were extremely simple and not something that would be replicated at larger scales. If you compare a farmers hut across most cultures, the biggest variations are going to be climate based, but otherwise pretty limited. Also, while vernacular architecture may have sustainable advantages, there's no specific reason to think it's inherently better than the international style. That's an argument you would have to make and support. "Imposes a style on us that we hate" I get that there are people that dislike modern, or contemporary architecture, but it's not everyone, and clearly, someone prefers it over other styles because it get's built in a capitalist economy where nobody is forced to use a specific style. "Impose" implies that there is some authority that is forcing a style upon us, when, in reality, the market determines what gets built and people have the power to buy architecture of any style they can afford. If anything is 'imposing' modern architecture on us, it's the fact that it's significantly cheaper to build effectively, due to the complexity of modern buildings and the high cost of labor. The cheap slave or lower class labor that made old styles possible is far less available today, as our standards for how people should be treated has evolved. Essentially, this style that "promotes servility" is actually caused by a lack of it. "build to the human scale" Contemporary building codes and accessibility rules have led to buildings that truly are designed around the human scale and how people can actually use them. Building and zoning codes have also developed over the last century specifically to address the issues of overcrowding and poor urban design. Have we reached perfection? Not at all, but our cities are significantly more citizen friendly today than 100 years ago, and I would argue more friendly than historically. As with anything, there are good and bad examples, and we really should push for mid-rise mixed use cities far more often, but modern urban planning is at least a profession where such things are analyzed, as opposed to any other time in history where urban planning was haphazard at best; militant at worst. "Nurture roots" Cities change; it is inevitable. You can manage that change, but it's nonsense to believe you can stop it. This is also a weighted discussion: The argument against change has most often been used by wealthy homeowners trying to keep out developments that allow access to less wealthy individuals. It's an argument for driving up the value of existing housing at the expense of natural market forces allowing more people to live in high demand areas. Now, should we maintain our historic buildings and push for adaptive reuse of existing building stock where possible? Certainly, and we do both of those things and even have government programs to support them. There are also plenty of areas in cities and out of cities where maintaining existing buildings is pointless, because the buildings were terribly constructed, terribly maintained, or both. These areas need change and have been demanding it. What that change looks like is a constantly evolving conversation. "Common good over commerce" As stated, there are plenty of incentives to maintaining and repurposing existing buildings, both from the government and from buyers. However, old buildings are not up to today's standards: They often lack important life safety features, they lack accessibility, they lack the building systems that give us comfortable environments, they lack the insulation that makes those systems possible without expending a ton of energy, they lack light and ventilation access that we now know to be very important, and they often contain numerous hazardous materials in everything from the paint to the pipes to the sealant. On top of this, a lot of older buildings are barely standing anymore. They were built solid, but nothing lasts forever without significant upkeep, and most buildings just weren't worth putting long-lasting details into. The historic buildings you see around you or in the media have often been carefully and expensively rebuilt. We can't possibly do that for every random house or commercial building and not every building is historically valuable. We even have government agencies to determine which buildings are of significance, using fairly objective metrics. It's also important to question who prefers the preserved older neighborhoods. Is it the wealthier landowners in hot neighborhoods, or the people hoping to move to an area? Is neighborhood character more important than optimizing land use and creating opportunities for a range of wealth brackets to live in an area? "abstraction" This whole line of thought ignores reality. The leaders of the modernist movement were specifically designing machines for living, taking humanity into account in a way that was not being done post industrialization and pre-modernism. It was one of the first generations of architects and designers to look at how people actually live, how the body moves and interacts with its environment, and how our environment impacts us. The entire study of ergonomics and environmental psychology is tightly related to the architects and philosophers of the modernist movement. As for customs and preferences, this is also non-sense. Architecture has not shaped customs; changes in customs and culture have changed our architecture. One of the great examples is the open plan. 200 years ago, homes were largely built with each room opening into each other room. This fit the mindset of the time that the family shared space and privacy wasn't a priority. This pulled a 180 when our culture changed to highly value privacy and rooms were separated by corridors. More recently, culture has changed again and we're at a point where we have moments of privacy and moments of community in our homes. Architecture didn't shape these beliefs; they were shaped by cultural norms shifting over time. Architects and the developers they work for create spaces that people will be able to efficiently use. If cultural norms change, architecture follows suit, juggling occupant priorities. To think that contemporary developments would be driven by fads rather than the cold calculus of what sells for the highest profit is completely counter to the essay's earlier arguments that contemporary architecture is too focused on commercial interest. Pick one: either architects are forcing their will upon the masses or the market is driving design. You can't base an argument on both being true. "Bottom line" Contemporary architecture is safer, healthier, more sustainable, more accessible, larger and more comfortable than at any other time in history. Our urban design is more carefully considered and regulated than at any time in history. Developers are working to house more people in higher standards of living today than what has existed in the past. People do deserve better, and our codes and standards have pushed for that better world, while developers have also pushed to increase the number of people that get those things, all while wealthy landowners have fought tooth and nail to prevent others from getting access to those same benefits of modernity by pushing back on change and new development. | Lots of should and not enough how. | 1 | 28,685 | 2.75 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4wk6d | hi7nazk | 1,635,267,791 | 1,635,311,162 | 3 | 11 | Everything seems copy paste, many buildings seem to have no character. | "Contemporary architecture bores us" Which architecture? Common residential and commercial property? Sure, but buildings for the masses have always been pretty barebones and utilitarian. Civic architecture? There are plenty of contemporary civic buildings that are fantastical. We've got museums that open like a bird's wings, sculpture gardens that weave through cities on abandoned rail lines, and concert halls that form undulating landscapes. Not every building is amazing. Not every building in other centuries was either. However, we have many, many examples of compelling buildings today. "promotes servility" The world is more free today than it has ever been, historically. The classical architecture of Rome and our own capital were built using slave labor. There is no data to back up an idea that modern (or contemporary) architecture promotes servility, but a lot of data showing that it's either not true, or that it's just really ineffective. "Flattens local variety" I agree that the international style did in fact diminish local culture, however, the impact is extremely questionable. This is for two reasons. First, until about 100 years ago people (other than the ruling class) rarely travelled far enough to see more than maybe two "styles" of buildings. It's only now that there is a larger middle class with the means to travel and the media to convey other cultures that it could even possibly matter that my buildings look different than someone living 1000 miles away. If it didn't really matter for people for several millennia, it's probably not that essential that we experience different styles: our experience of style is already orders of magnitude greater than the average person in any other time period. Second, most buildings throughout history were extremely simple and not something that would be replicated at larger scales. If you compare a farmers hut across most cultures, the biggest variations are going to be climate based, but otherwise pretty limited. Also, while vernacular architecture may have sustainable advantages, there's no specific reason to think it's inherently better than the international style. That's an argument you would have to make and support. "Imposes a style on us that we hate" I get that there are people that dislike modern, or contemporary architecture, but it's not everyone, and clearly, someone prefers it over other styles because it get's built in a capitalist economy where nobody is forced to use a specific style. "Impose" implies that there is some authority that is forcing a style upon us, when, in reality, the market determines what gets built and people have the power to buy architecture of any style they can afford. If anything is 'imposing' modern architecture on us, it's the fact that it's significantly cheaper to build effectively, due to the complexity of modern buildings and the high cost of labor. The cheap slave or lower class labor that made old styles possible is far less available today, as our standards for how people should be treated has evolved. Essentially, this style that "promotes servility" is actually caused by a lack of it. "build to the human scale" Contemporary building codes and accessibility rules have led to buildings that truly are designed around the human scale and how people can actually use them. Building and zoning codes have also developed over the last century specifically to address the issues of overcrowding and poor urban design. Have we reached perfection? Not at all, but our cities are significantly more citizen friendly today than 100 years ago, and I would argue more friendly than historically. As with anything, there are good and bad examples, and we really should push for mid-rise mixed use cities far more often, but modern urban planning is at least a profession where such things are analyzed, as opposed to any other time in history where urban planning was haphazard at best; militant at worst. "Nurture roots" Cities change; it is inevitable. You can manage that change, but it's nonsense to believe you can stop it. This is also a weighted discussion: The argument against change has most often been used by wealthy homeowners trying to keep out developments that allow access to less wealthy individuals. It's an argument for driving up the value of existing housing at the expense of natural market forces allowing more people to live in high demand areas. Now, should we maintain our historic buildings and push for adaptive reuse of existing building stock where possible? Certainly, and we do both of those things and even have government programs to support them. There are also plenty of areas in cities and out of cities where maintaining existing buildings is pointless, because the buildings were terribly constructed, terribly maintained, or both. These areas need change and have been demanding it. What that change looks like is a constantly evolving conversation. "Common good over commerce" As stated, there are plenty of incentives to maintaining and repurposing existing buildings, both from the government and from buyers. However, old buildings are not up to today's standards: They often lack important life safety features, they lack accessibility, they lack the building systems that give us comfortable environments, they lack the insulation that makes those systems possible without expending a ton of energy, they lack light and ventilation access that we now know to be very important, and they often contain numerous hazardous materials in everything from the paint to the pipes to the sealant. On top of this, a lot of older buildings are barely standing anymore. They were built solid, but nothing lasts forever without significant upkeep, and most buildings just weren't worth putting long-lasting details into. The historic buildings you see around you or in the media have often been carefully and expensively rebuilt. We can't possibly do that for every random house or commercial building and not every building is historically valuable. We even have government agencies to determine which buildings are of significance, using fairly objective metrics. It's also important to question who prefers the preserved older neighborhoods. Is it the wealthier landowners in hot neighborhoods, or the people hoping to move to an area? Is neighborhood character more important than optimizing land use and creating opportunities for a range of wealth brackets to live in an area? "abstraction" This whole line of thought ignores reality. The leaders of the modernist movement were specifically designing machines for living, taking humanity into account in a way that was not being done post industrialization and pre-modernism. It was one of the first generations of architects and designers to look at how people actually live, how the body moves and interacts with its environment, and how our environment impacts us. The entire study of ergonomics and environmental psychology is tightly related to the architects and philosophers of the modernist movement. As for customs and preferences, this is also non-sense. Architecture has not shaped customs; changes in customs and culture have changed our architecture. One of the great examples is the open plan. 200 years ago, homes were largely built with each room opening into each other room. This fit the mindset of the time that the family shared space and privacy wasn't a priority. This pulled a 180 when our culture changed to highly value privacy and rooms were separated by corridors. More recently, culture has changed again and we're at a point where we have moments of privacy and moments of community in our homes. Architecture didn't shape these beliefs; they were shaped by cultural norms shifting over time. Architects and the developers they work for create spaces that people will be able to efficiently use. If cultural norms change, architecture follows suit, juggling occupant priorities. To think that contemporary developments would be driven by fads rather than the cold calculus of what sells for the highest profit is completely counter to the essay's earlier arguments that contemporary architecture is too focused on commercial interest. Pick one: either architects are forcing their will upon the masses or the market is driving design. You can't base an argument on both being true. "Bottom line" Contemporary architecture is safer, healthier, more sustainable, more accessible, larger and more comfortable than at any other time in history. Our urban design is more carefully considered and regulated than at any time in history. Developers are working to house more people in higher standards of living today than what has existed in the past. People do deserve better, and our codes and standards have pushed for that better world, while developers have also pushed to increase the number of people that get those things, all while wealthy landowners have fought tooth and nail to prevent others from getting access to those same benefits of modernity by pushing back on change and new development. | 0 | 43,371 | 3.666667 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi50v0h | hi7nazk | 1,635,269,481 | 1,635,311,162 | 3 | 11 | There's an old saying that you need rules in order to be truly creative, I think the reason modern architecture leaves such a bland taste in our mouths is because it's not defined by anything and therefore has no vessel to shape. | "Contemporary architecture bores us" Which architecture? Common residential and commercial property? Sure, but buildings for the masses have always been pretty barebones and utilitarian. Civic architecture? There are plenty of contemporary civic buildings that are fantastical. We've got museums that open like a bird's wings, sculpture gardens that weave through cities on abandoned rail lines, and concert halls that form undulating landscapes. Not every building is amazing. Not every building in other centuries was either. However, we have many, many examples of compelling buildings today. "promotes servility" The world is more free today than it has ever been, historically. The classical architecture of Rome and our own capital were built using slave labor. There is no data to back up an idea that modern (or contemporary) architecture promotes servility, but a lot of data showing that it's either not true, or that it's just really ineffective. "Flattens local variety" I agree that the international style did in fact diminish local culture, however, the impact is extremely questionable. This is for two reasons. First, until about 100 years ago people (other than the ruling class) rarely travelled far enough to see more than maybe two "styles" of buildings. It's only now that there is a larger middle class with the means to travel and the media to convey other cultures that it could even possibly matter that my buildings look different than someone living 1000 miles away. If it didn't really matter for people for several millennia, it's probably not that essential that we experience different styles: our experience of style is already orders of magnitude greater than the average person in any other time period. Second, most buildings throughout history were extremely simple and not something that would be replicated at larger scales. If you compare a farmers hut across most cultures, the biggest variations are going to be climate based, but otherwise pretty limited. Also, while vernacular architecture may have sustainable advantages, there's no specific reason to think it's inherently better than the international style. That's an argument you would have to make and support. "Imposes a style on us that we hate" I get that there are people that dislike modern, or contemporary architecture, but it's not everyone, and clearly, someone prefers it over other styles because it get's built in a capitalist economy where nobody is forced to use a specific style. "Impose" implies that there is some authority that is forcing a style upon us, when, in reality, the market determines what gets built and people have the power to buy architecture of any style they can afford. If anything is 'imposing' modern architecture on us, it's the fact that it's significantly cheaper to build effectively, due to the complexity of modern buildings and the high cost of labor. The cheap slave or lower class labor that made old styles possible is far less available today, as our standards for how people should be treated has evolved. Essentially, this style that "promotes servility" is actually caused by a lack of it. "build to the human scale" Contemporary building codes and accessibility rules have led to buildings that truly are designed around the human scale and how people can actually use them. Building and zoning codes have also developed over the last century specifically to address the issues of overcrowding and poor urban design. Have we reached perfection? Not at all, but our cities are significantly more citizen friendly today than 100 years ago, and I would argue more friendly than historically. As with anything, there are good and bad examples, and we really should push for mid-rise mixed use cities far more often, but modern urban planning is at least a profession where such things are analyzed, as opposed to any other time in history where urban planning was haphazard at best; militant at worst. "Nurture roots" Cities change; it is inevitable. You can manage that change, but it's nonsense to believe you can stop it. This is also a weighted discussion: The argument against change has most often been used by wealthy homeowners trying to keep out developments that allow access to less wealthy individuals. It's an argument for driving up the value of existing housing at the expense of natural market forces allowing more people to live in high demand areas. Now, should we maintain our historic buildings and push for adaptive reuse of existing building stock where possible? Certainly, and we do both of those things and even have government programs to support them. There are also plenty of areas in cities and out of cities where maintaining existing buildings is pointless, because the buildings were terribly constructed, terribly maintained, or both. These areas need change and have been demanding it. What that change looks like is a constantly evolving conversation. "Common good over commerce" As stated, there are plenty of incentives to maintaining and repurposing existing buildings, both from the government and from buyers. However, old buildings are not up to today's standards: They often lack important life safety features, they lack accessibility, they lack the building systems that give us comfortable environments, they lack the insulation that makes those systems possible without expending a ton of energy, they lack light and ventilation access that we now know to be very important, and they often contain numerous hazardous materials in everything from the paint to the pipes to the sealant. On top of this, a lot of older buildings are barely standing anymore. They were built solid, but nothing lasts forever without significant upkeep, and most buildings just weren't worth putting long-lasting details into. The historic buildings you see around you or in the media have often been carefully and expensively rebuilt. We can't possibly do that for every random house or commercial building and not every building is historically valuable. We even have government agencies to determine which buildings are of significance, using fairly objective metrics. It's also important to question who prefers the preserved older neighborhoods. Is it the wealthier landowners in hot neighborhoods, or the people hoping to move to an area? Is neighborhood character more important than optimizing land use and creating opportunities for a range of wealth brackets to live in an area? "abstraction" This whole line of thought ignores reality. The leaders of the modernist movement were specifically designing machines for living, taking humanity into account in a way that was not being done post industrialization and pre-modernism. It was one of the first generations of architects and designers to look at how people actually live, how the body moves and interacts with its environment, and how our environment impacts us. The entire study of ergonomics and environmental psychology is tightly related to the architects and philosophers of the modernist movement. As for customs and preferences, this is also non-sense. Architecture has not shaped customs; changes in customs and culture have changed our architecture. One of the great examples is the open plan. 200 years ago, homes were largely built with each room opening into each other room. This fit the mindset of the time that the family shared space and privacy wasn't a priority. This pulled a 180 when our culture changed to highly value privacy and rooms were separated by corridors. More recently, culture has changed again and we're at a point where we have moments of privacy and moments of community in our homes. Architecture didn't shape these beliefs; they were shaped by cultural norms shifting over time. Architects and the developers they work for create spaces that people will be able to efficiently use. If cultural norms change, architecture follows suit, juggling occupant priorities. To think that contemporary developments would be driven by fads rather than the cold calculus of what sells for the highest profit is completely counter to the essay's earlier arguments that contemporary architecture is too focused on commercial interest. Pick one: either architects are forcing their will upon the masses or the market is driving design. You can't base an argument on both being true. "Bottom line" Contemporary architecture is safer, healthier, more sustainable, more accessible, larger and more comfortable than at any other time in history. Our urban design is more carefully considered and regulated than at any time in history. Developers are working to house more people in higher standards of living today than what has existed in the past. People do deserve better, and our codes and standards have pushed for that better world, while developers have also pushed to increase the number of people that get those things, all while wealthy landowners have fought tooth and nail to prevent others from getting access to those same benefits of modernity by pushing back on change and new development. | 0 | 41,681 | 3.666667 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi7nazk | hi4yupk | 1,635,311,162 | 1,635,268,699 | 11 | 2 | "Contemporary architecture bores us" Which architecture? Common residential and commercial property? Sure, but buildings for the masses have always been pretty barebones and utilitarian. Civic architecture? There are plenty of contemporary civic buildings that are fantastical. We've got museums that open like a bird's wings, sculpture gardens that weave through cities on abandoned rail lines, and concert halls that form undulating landscapes. Not every building is amazing. Not every building in other centuries was either. However, we have many, many examples of compelling buildings today. "promotes servility" The world is more free today than it has ever been, historically. The classical architecture of Rome and our own capital were built using slave labor. There is no data to back up an idea that modern (or contemporary) architecture promotes servility, but a lot of data showing that it's either not true, or that it's just really ineffective. "Flattens local variety" I agree that the international style did in fact diminish local culture, however, the impact is extremely questionable. This is for two reasons. First, until about 100 years ago people (other than the ruling class) rarely travelled far enough to see more than maybe two "styles" of buildings. It's only now that there is a larger middle class with the means to travel and the media to convey other cultures that it could even possibly matter that my buildings look different than someone living 1000 miles away. If it didn't really matter for people for several millennia, it's probably not that essential that we experience different styles: our experience of style is already orders of magnitude greater than the average person in any other time period. Second, most buildings throughout history were extremely simple and not something that would be replicated at larger scales. If you compare a farmers hut across most cultures, the biggest variations are going to be climate based, but otherwise pretty limited. Also, while vernacular architecture may have sustainable advantages, there's no specific reason to think it's inherently better than the international style. That's an argument you would have to make and support. "Imposes a style on us that we hate" I get that there are people that dislike modern, or contemporary architecture, but it's not everyone, and clearly, someone prefers it over other styles because it get's built in a capitalist economy where nobody is forced to use a specific style. "Impose" implies that there is some authority that is forcing a style upon us, when, in reality, the market determines what gets built and people have the power to buy architecture of any style they can afford. If anything is 'imposing' modern architecture on us, it's the fact that it's significantly cheaper to build effectively, due to the complexity of modern buildings and the high cost of labor. The cheap slave or lower class labor that made old styles possible is far less available today, as our standards for how people should be treated has evolved. Essentially, this style that "promotes servility" is actually caused by a lack of it. "build to the human scale" Contemporary building codes and accessibility rules have led to buildings that truly are designed around the human scale and how people can actually use them. Building and zoning codes have also developed over the last century specifically to address the issues of overcrowding and poor urban design. Have we reached perfection? Not at all, but our cities are significantly more citizen friendly today than 100 years ago, and I would argue more friendly than historically. As with anything, there are good and bad examples, and we really should push for mid-rise mixed use cities far more often, but modern urban planning is at least a profession where such things are analyzed, as opposed to any other time in history where urban planning was haphazard at best; militant at worst. "Nurture roots" Cities change; it is inevitable. You can manage that change, but it's nonsense to believe you can stop it. This is also a weighted discussion: The argument against change has most often been used by wealthy homeowners trying to keep out developments that allow access to less wealthy individuals. It's an argument for driving up the value of existing housing at the expense of natural market forces allowing more people to live in high demand areas. Now, should we maintain our historic buildings and push for adaptive reuse of existing building stock where possible? Certainly, and we do both of those things and even have government programs to support them. There are also plenty of areas in cities and out of cities where maintaining existing buildings is pointless, because the buildings were terribly constructed, terribly maintained, or both. These areas need change and have been demanding it. What that change looks like is a constantly evolving conversation. "Common good over commerce" As stated, there are plenty of incentives to maintaining and repurposing existing buildings, both from the government and from buyers. However, old buildings are not up to today's standards: They often lack important life safety features, they lack accessibility, they lack the building systems that give us comfortable environments, they lack the insulation that makes those systems possible without expending a ton of energy, they lack light and ventilation access that we now know to be very important, and they often contain numerous hazardous materials in everything from the paint to the pipes to the sealant. On top of this, a lot of older buildings are barely standing anymore. They were built solid, but nothing lasts forever without significant upkeep, and most buildings just weren't worth putting long-lasting details into. The historic buildings you see around you or in the media have often been carefully and expensively rebuilt. We can't possibly do that for every random house or commercial building and not every building is historically valuable. We even have government agencies to determine which buildings are of significance, using fairly objective metrics. It's also important to question who prefers the preserved older neighborhoods. Is it the wealthier landowners in hot neighborhoods, or the people hoping to move to an area? Is neighborhood character more important than optimizing land use and creating opportunities for a range of wealth brackets to live in an area? "abstraction" This whole line of thought ignores reality. The leaders of the modernist movement were specifically designing machines for living, taking humanity into account in a way that was not being done post industrialization and pre-modernism. It was one of the first generations of architects and designers to look at how people actually live, how the body moves and interacts with its environment, and how our environment impacts us. The entire study of ergonomics and environmental psychology is tightly related to the architects and philosophers of the modernist movement. As for customs and preferences, this is also non-sense. Architecture has not shaped customs; changes in customs and culture have changed our architecture. One of the great examples is the open plan. 200 years ago, homes were largely built with each room opening into each other room. This fit the mindset of the time that the family shared space and privacy wasn't a priority. This pulled a 180 when our culture changed to highly value privacy and rooms were separated by corridors. More recently, culture has changed again and we're at a point where we have moments of privacy and moments of community in our homes. Architecture didn't shape these beliefs; they were shaped by cultural norms shifting over time. Architects and the developers they work for create spaces that people will be able to efficiently use. If cultural norms change, architecture follows suit, juggling occupant priorities. To think that contemporary developments would be driven by fads rather than the cold calculus of what sells for the highest profit is completely counter to the essay's earlier arguments that contemporary architecture is too focused on commercial interest. Pick one: either architects are forcing their will upon the masses or the market is driving design. You can't base an argument on both being true. "Bottom line" Contemporary architecture is safer, healthier, more sustainable, more accessible, larger and more comfortable than at any other time in history. Our urban design is more carefully considered and regulated than at any time in history. Developers are working to house more people in higher standards of living today than what has existed in the past. People do deserve better, and our codes and standards have pushed for that better world, while developers have also pushed to increase the number of people that get those things, all while wealthy landowners have fought tooth and nail to prevent others from getting access to those same benefits of modernity by pushing back on change and new development. | Read The Geography of Nowhere. It's brilliant, funny and unfortunately accurate. | 1 | 42,463 | 5.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi7nazk | hi586vv | 1,635,311,162 | 1,635,272,376 | 11 | 2 | "Contemporary architecture bores us" Which architecture? Common residential and commercial property? Sure, but buildings for the masses have always been pretty barebones and utilitarian. Civic architecture? There are plenty of contemporary civic buildings that are fantastical. We've got museums that open like a bird's wings, sculpture gardens that weave through cities on abandoned rail lines, and concert halls that form undulating landscapes. Not every building is amazing. Not every building in other centuries was either. However, we have many, many examples of compelling buildings today. "promotes servility" The world is more free today than it has ever been, historically. The classical architecture of Rome and our own capital were built using slave labor. There is no data to back up an idea that modern (or contemporary) architecture promotes servility, but a lot of data showing that it's either not true, or that it's just really ineffective. "Flattens local variety" I agree that the international style did in fact diminish local culture, however, the impact is extremely questionable. This is for two reasons. First, until about 100 years ago people (other than the ruling class) rarely travelled far enough to see more than maybe two "styles" of buildings. It's only now that there is a larger middle class with the means to travel and the media to convey other cultures that it could even possibly matter that my buildings look different than someone living 1000 miles away. If it didn't really matter for people for several millennia, it's probably not that essential that we experience different styles: our experience of style is already orders of magnitude greater than the average person in any other time period. Second, most buildings throughout history were extremely simple and not something that would be replicated at larger scales. If you compare a farmers hut across most cultures, the biggest variations are going to be climate based, but otherwise pretty limited. Also, while vernacular architecture may have sustainable advantages, there's no specific reason to think it's inherently better than the international style. That's an argument you would have to make and support. "Imposes a style on us that we hate" I get that there are people that dislike modern, or contemporary architecture, but it's not everyone, and clearly, someone prefers it over other styles because it get's built in a capitalist economy where nobody is forced to use a specific style. "Impose" implies that there is some authority that is forcing a style upon us, when, in reality, the market determines what gets built and people have the power to buy architecture of any style they can afford. If anything is 'imposing' modern architecture on us, it's the fact that it's significantly cheaper to build effectively, due to the complexity of modern buildings and the high cost of labor. The cheap slave or lower class labor that made old styles possible is far less available today, as our standards for how people should be treated has evolved. Essentially, this style that "promotes servility" is actually caused by a lack of it. "build to the human scale" Contemporary building codes and accessibility rules have led to buildings that truly are designed around the human scale and how people can actually use them. Building and zoning codes have also developed over the last century specifically to address the issues of overcrowding and poor urban design. Have we reached perfection? Not at all, but our cities are significantly more citizen friendly today than 100 years ago, and I would argue more friendly than historically. As with anything, there are good and bad examples, and we really should push for mid-rise mixed use cities far more often, but modern urban planning is at least a profession where such things are analyzed, as opposed to any other time in history where urban planning was haphazard at best; militant at worst. "Nurture roots" Cities change; it is inevitable. You can manage that change, but it's nonsense to believe you can stop it. This is also a weighted discussion: The argument against change has most often been used by wealthy homeowners trying to keep out developments that allow access to less wealthy individuals. It's an argument for driving up the value of existing housing at the expense of natural market forces allowing more people to live in high demand areas. Now, should we maintain our historic buildings and push for adaptive reuse of existing building stock where possible? Certainly, and we do both of those things and even have government programs to support them. There are also plenty of areas in cities and out of cities where maintaining existing buildings is pointless, because the buildings were terribly constructed, terribly maintained, or both. These areas need change and have been demanding it. What that change looks like is a constantly evolving conversation. "Common good over commerce" As stated, there are plenty of incentives to maintaining and repurposing existing buildings, both from the government and from buyers. However, old buildings are not up to today's standards: They often lack important life safety features, they lack accessibility, they lack the building systems that give us comfortable environments, they lack the insulation that makes those systems possible without expending a ton of energy, they lack light and ventilation access that we now know to be very important, and they often contain numerous hazardous materials in everything from the paint to the pipes to the sealant. On top of this, a lot of older buildings are barely standing anymore. They were built solid, but nothing lasts forever without significant upkeep, and most buildings just weren't worth putting long-lasting details into. The historic buildings you see around you or in the media have often been carefully and expensively rebuilt. We can't possibly do that for every random house or commercial building and not every building is historically valuable. We even have government agencies to determine which buildings are of significance, using fairly objective metrics. It's also important to question who prefers the preserved older neighborhoods. Is it the wealthier landowners in hot neighborhoods, or the people hoping to move to an area? Is neighborhood character more important than optimizing land use and creating opportunities for a range of wealth brackets to live in an area? "abstraction" This whole line of thought ignores reality. The leaders of the modernist movement were specifically designing machines for living, taking humanity into account in a way that was not being done post industrialization and pre-modernism. It was one of the first generations of architects and designers to look at how people actually live, how the body moves and interacts with its environment, and how our environment impacts us. The entire study of ergonomics and environmental psychology is tightly related to the architects and philosophers of the modernist movement. As for customs and preferences, this is also non-sense. Architecture has not shaped customs; changes in customs and culture have changed our architecture. One of the great examples is the open plan. 200 years ago, homes were largely built with each room opening into each other room. This fit the mindset of the time that the family shared space and privacy wasn't a priority. This pulled a 180 when our culture changed to highly value privacy and rooms were separated by corridors. More recently, culture has changed again and we're at a point where we have moments of privacy and moments of community in our homes. Architecture didn't shape these beliefs; they were shaped by cultural norms shifting over time. Architects and the developers they work for create spaces that people will be able to efficiently use. If cultural norms change, architecture follows suit, juggling occupant priorities. To think that contemporary developments would be driven by fads rather than the cold calculus of what sells for the highest profit is completely counter to the essay's earlier arguments that contemporary architecture is too focused on commercial interest. Pick one: either architects are forcing their will upon the masses or the market is driving design. You can't base an argument on both being true. "Bottom line" Contemporary architecture is safer, healthier, more sustainable, more accessible, larger and more comfortable than at any other time in history. Our urban design is more carefully considered and regulated than at any time in history. Developers are working to house more people in higher standards of living today than what has existed in the past. People do deserve better, and our codes and standards have pushed for that better world, while developers have also pushed to increase the number of people that get those things, all while wealthy landowners have fought tooth and nail to prevent others from getting access to those same benefits of modernity by pushing back on change and new development. | £££££ | 1 | 38,786 | 5.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi7nazk | hi62j8u | 1,635,311,162 | 1,635,284,210 | 11 | 2 | "Contemporary architecture bores us" Which architecture? Common residential and commercial property? Sure, but buildings for the masses have always been pretty barebones and utilitarian. Civic architecture? There are plenty of contemporary civic buildings that are fantastical. We've got museums that open like a bird's wings, sculpture gardens that weave through cities on abandoned rail lines, and concert halls that form undulating landscapes. Not every building is amazing. Not every building in other centuries was either. However, we have many, many examples of compelling buildings today. "promotes servility" The world is more free today than it has ever been, historically. The classical architecture of Rome and our own capital were built using slave labor. There is no data to back up an idea that modern (or contemporary) architecture promotes servility, but a lot of data showing that it's either not true, or that it's just really ineffective. "Flattens local variety" I agree that the international style did in fact diminish local culture, however, the impact is extremely questionable. This is for two reasons. First, until about 100 years ago people (other than the ruling class) rarely travelled far enough to see more than maybe two "styles" of buildings. It's only now that there is a larger middle class with the means to travel and the media to convey other cultures that it could even possibly matter that my buildings look different than someone living 1000 miles away. If it didn't really matter for people for several millennia, it's probably not that essential that we experience different styles: our experience of style is already orders of magnitude greater than the average person in any other time period. Second, most buildings throughout history were extremely simple and not something that would be replicated at larger scales. If you compare a farmers hut across most cultures, the biggest variations are going to be climate based, but otherwise pretty limited. Also, while vernacular architecture may have sustainable advantages, there's no specific reason to think it's inherently better than the international style. That's an argument you would have to make and support. "Imposes a style on us that we hate" I get that there are people that dislike modern, or contemporary architecture, but it's not everyone, and clearly, someone prefers it over other styles because it get's built in a capitalist economy where nobody is forced to use a specific style. "Impose" implies that there is some authority that is forcing a style upon us, when, in reality, the market determines what gets built and people have the power to buy architecture of any style they can afford. If anything is 'imposing' modern architecture on us, it's the fact that it's significantly cheaper to build effectively, due to the complexity of modern buildings and the high cost of labor. The cheap slave or lower class labor that made old styles possible is far less available today, as our standards for how people should be treated has evolved. Essentially, this style that "promotes servility" is actually caused by a lack of it. "build to the human scale" Contemporary building codes and accessibility rules have led to buildings that truly are designed around the human scale and how people can actually use them. Building and zoning codes have also developed over the last century specifically to address the issues of overcrowding and poor urban design. Have we reached perfection? Not at all, but our cities are significantly more citizen friendly today than 100 years ago, and I would argue more friendly than historically. As with anything, there are good and bad examples, and we really should push for mid-rise mixed use cities far more often, but modern urban planning is at least a profession where such things are analyzed, as opposed to any other time in history where urban planning was haphazard at best; militant at worst. "Nurture roots" Cities change; it is inevitable. You can manage that change, but it's nonsense to believe you can stop it. This is also a weighted discussion: The argument against change has most often been used by wealthy homeowners trying to keep out developments that allow access to less wealthy individuals. It's an argument for driving up the value of existing housing at the expense of natural market forces allowing more people to live in high demand areas. Now, should we maintain our historic buildings and push for adaptive reuse of existing building stock where possible? Certainly, and we do both of those things and even have government programs to support them. There are also plenty of areas in cities and out of cities where maintaining existing buildings is pointless, because the buildings were terribly constructed, terribly maintained, or both. These areas need change and have been demanding it. What that change looks like is a constantly evolving conversation. "Common good over commerce" As stated, there are plenty of incentives to maintaining and repurposing existing buildings, both from the government and from buyers. However, old buildings are not up to today's standards: They often lack important life safety features, they lack accessibility, they lack the building systems that give us comfortable environments, they lack the insulation that makes those systems possible without expending a ton of energy, they lack light and ventilation access that we now know to be very important, and they often contain numerous hazardous materials in everything from the paint to the pipes to the sealant. On top of this, a lot of older buildings are barely standing anymore. They were built solid, but nothing lasts forever without significant upkeep, and most buildings just weren't worth putting long-lasting details into. The historic buildings you see around you or in the media have often been carefully and expensively rebuilt. We can't possibly do that for every random house or commercial building and not every building is historically valuable. We even have government agencies to determine which buildings are of significance, using fairly objective metrics. It's also important to question who prefers the preserved older neighborhoods. Is it the wealthier landowners in hot neighborhoods, or the people hoping to move to an area? Is neighborhood character more important than optimizing land use and creating opportunities for a range of wealth brackets to live in an area? "abstraction" This whole line of thought ignores reality. The leaders of the modernist movement were specifically designing machines for living, taking humanity into account in a way that was not being done post industrialization and pre-modernism. It was one of the first generations of architects and designers to look at how people actually live, how the body moves and interacts with its environment, and how our environment impacts us. The entire study of ergonomics and environmental psychology is tightly related to the architects and philosophers of the modernist movement. As for customs and preferences, this is also non-sense. Architecture has not shaped customs; changes in customs and culture have changed our architecture. One of the great examples is the open plan. 200 years ago, homes were largely built with each room opening into each other room. This fit the mindset of the time that the family shared space and privacy wasn't a priority. This pulled a 180 when our culture changed to highly value privacy and rooms were separated by corridors. More recently, culture has changed again and we're at a point where we have moments of privacy and moments of community in our homes. Architecture didn't shape these beliefs; they were shaped by cultural norms shifting over time. Architects and the developers they work for create spaces that people will be able to efficiently use. If cultural norms change, architecture follows suit, juggling occupant priorities. To think that contemporary developments would be driven by fads rather than the cold calculus of what sells for the highest profit is completely counter to the essay's earlier arguments that contemporary architecture is too focused on commercial interest. Pick one: either architects are forcing their will upon the masses or the market is driving design. You can't base an argument on both being true. "Bottom line" Contemporary architecture is safer, healthier, more sustainable, more accessible, larger and more comfortable than at any other time in history. Our urban design is more carefully considered and regulated than at any time in history. Developers are working to house more people in higher standards of living today than what has existed in the past. People do deserve better, and our codes and standards have pushed for that better world, while developers have also pushed to increase the number of people that get those things, all while wealthy landowners have fought tooth and nail to prevent others from getting access to those same benefits of modernity by pushing back on change and new development. | I haven't read the guy, so idk if it's you who make him sound so dull (and kind of a clascist dumbass) but... "Drink water if your thirsty" is the new revolutionary advice offered by this guy There's nothing fascinating about any of the points he's making. | 1 | 26,952 | 5.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi6fky9 | hi7nazk | 1,635,289,901 | 1,635,311,162 | 2 | 11 | What's wrong with modern architecture? How about: * Competitive bids that force firms into a "race to the bottom" for how fast/cheap they can execute a design * Codes, zoning, and design review boards that are so prescriptive, there's not much room for creativity * Everyone's low bids mean that they spend all of construction fighting each other for add services/change orders, and covering their butts from potential future litigation, instead of cooperating * Late-Stage Capitalism | "Contemporary architecture bores us" Which architecture? Common residential and commercial property? Sure, but buildings for the masses have always been pretty barebones and utilitarian. Civic architecture? There are plenty of contemporary civic buildings that are fantastical. We've got museums that open like a bird's wings, sculpture gardens that weave through cities on abandoned rail lines, and concert halls that form undulating landscapes. Not every building is amazing. Not every building in other centuries was either. However, we have many, many examples of compelling buildings today. "promotes servility" The world is more free today than it has ever been, historically. The classical architecture of Rome and our own capital were built using slave labor. There is no data to back up an idea that modern (or contemporary) architecture promotes servility, but a lot of data showing that it's either not true, or that it's just really ineffective. "Flattens local variety" I agree that the international style did in fact diminish local culture, however, the impact is extremely questionable. This is for two reasons. First, until about 100 years ago people (other than the ruling class) rarely travelled far enough to see more than maybe two "styles" of buildings. It's only now that there is a larger middle class with the means to travel and the media to convey other cultures that it could even possibly matter that my buildings look different than someone living 1000 miles away. If it didn't really matter for people for several millennia, it's probably not that essential that we experience different styles: our experience of style is already orders of magnitude greater than the average person in any other time period. Second, most buildings throughout history were extremely simple and not something that would be replicated at larger scales. If you compare a farmers hut across most cultures, the biggest variations are going to be climate based, but otherwise pretty limited. Also, while vernacular architecture may have sustainable advantages, there's no specific reason to think it's inherently better than the international style. That's an argument you would have to make and support. "Imposes a style on us that we hate" I get that there are people that dislike modern, or contemporary architecture, but it's not everyone, and clearly, someone prefers it over other styles because it get's built in a capitalist economy where nobody is forced to use a specific style. "Impose" implies that there is some authority that is forcing a style upon us, when, in reality, the market determines what gets built and people have the power to buy architecture of any style they can afford. If anything is 'imposing' modern architecture on us, it's the fact that it's significantly cheaper to build effectively, due to the complexity of modern buildings and the high cost of labor. The cheap slave or lower class labor that made old styles possible is far less available today, as our standards for how people should be treated has evolved. Essentially, this style that "promotes servility" is actually caused by a lack of it. "build to the human scale" Contemporary building codes and accessibility rules have led to buildings that truly are designed around the human scale and how people can actually use them. Building and zoning codes have also developed over the last century specifically to address the issues of overcrowding and poor urban design. Have we reached perfection? Not at all, but our cities are significantly more citizen friendly today than 100 years ago, and I would argue more friendly than historically. As with anything, there are good and bad examples, and we really should push for mid-rise mixed use cities far more often, but modern urban planning is at least a profession where such things are analyzed, as opposed to any other time in history where urban planning was haphazard at best; militant at worst. "Nurture roots" Cities change; it is inevitable. You can manage that change, but it's nonsense to believe you can stop it. This is also a weighted discussion: The argument against change has most often been used by wealthy homeowners trying to keep out developments that allow access to less wealthy individuals. It's an argument for driving up the value of existing housing at the expense of natural market forces allowing more people to live in high demand areas. Now, should we maintain our historic buildings and push for adaptive reuse of existing building stock where possible? Certainly, and we do both of those things and even have government programs to support them. There are also plenty of areas in cities and out of cities where maintaining existing buildings is pointless, because the buildings were terribly constructed, terribly maintained, or both. These areas need change and have been demanding it. What that change looks like is a constantly evolving conversation. "Common good over commerce" As stated, there are plenty of incentives to maintaining and repurposing existing buildings, both from the government and from buyers. However, old buildings are not up to today's standards: They often lack important life safety features, they lack accessibility, they lack the building systems that give us comfortable environments, they lack the insulation that makes those systems possible without expending a ton of energy, they lack light and ventilation access that we now know to be very important, and they often contain numerous hazardous materials in everything from the paint to the pipes to the sealant. On top of this, a lot of older buildings are barely standing anymore. They were built solid, but nothing lasts forever without significant upkeep, and most buildings just weren't worth putting long-lasting details into. The historic buildings you see around you or in the media have often been carefully and expensively rebuilt. We can't possibly do that for every random house or commercial building and not every building is historically valuable. We even have government agencies to determine which buildings are of significance, using fairly objective metrics. It's also important to question who prefers the preserved older neighborhoods. Is it the wealthier landowners in hot neighborhoods, or the people hoping to move to an area? Is neighborhood character more important than optimizing land use and creating opportunities for a range of wealth brackets to live in an area? "abstraction" This whole line of thought ignores reality. The leaders of the modernist movement were specifically designing machines for living, taking humanity into account in a way that was not being done post industrialization and pre-modernism. It was one of the first generations of architects and designers to look at how people actually live, how the body moves and interacts with its environment, and how our environment impacts us. The entire study of ergonomics and environmental psychology is tightly related to the architects and philosophers of the modernist movement. As for customs and preferences, this is also non-sense. Architecture has not shaped customs; changes in customs and culture have changed our architecture. One of the great examples is the open plan. 200 years ago, homes were largely built with each room opening into each other room. This fit the mindset of the time that the family shared space and privacy wasn't a priority. This pulled a 180 when our culture changed to highly value privacy and rooms were separated by corridors. More recently, culture has changed again and we're at a point where we have moments of privacy and moments of community in our homes. Architecture didn't shape these beliefs; they were shaped by cultural norms shifting over time. Architects and the developers they work for create spaces that people will be able to efficiently use. If cultural norms change, architecture follows suit, juggling occupant priorities. To think that contemporary developments would be driven by fads rather than the cold calculus of what sells for the highest profit is completely counter to the essay's earlier arguments that contemporary architecture is too focused on commercial interest. Pick one: either architects are forcing their will upon the masses or the market is driving design. You can't base an argument on both being true. "Bottom line" Contemporary architecture is safer, healthier, more sustainable, more accessible, larger and more comfortable than at any other time in history. Our urban design is more carefully considered and regulated than at any time in history. Developers are working to house more people in higher standards of living today than what has existed in the past. People do deserve better, and our codes and standards have pushed for that better world, while developers have also pushed to increase the number of people that get those things, all while wealthy landowners have fought tooth and nail to prevent others from getting access to those same benefits of modernity by pushing back on change and new development. | 0 | 21,261 | 5.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4dibl | hi7nazk | 1,635,260,188 | 1,635,311,162 | 2 | 11 | Eh well the art in architecture is no longer there. It's more just money based, so we just make buildings to maximize profits. Thats ok for a few projects but it's like 90% of the market now. So boring. | "Contemporary architecture bores us" Which architecture? Common residential and commercial property? Sure, but buildings for the masses have always been pretty barebones and utilitarian. Civic architecture? There are plenty of contemporary civic buildings that are fantastical. We've got museums that open like a bird's wings, sculpture gardens that weave through cities on abandoned rail lines, and concert halls that form undulating landscapes. Not every building is amazing. Not every building in other centuries was either. However, we have many, many examples of compelling buildings today. "promotes servility" The world is more free today than it has ever been, historically. The classical architecture of Rome and our own capital were built using slave labor. There is no data to back up an idea that modern (or contemporary) architecture promotes servility, but a lot of data showing that it's either not true, or that it's just really ineffective. "Flattens local variety" I agree that the international style did in fact diminish local culture, however, the impact is extremely questionable. This is for two reasons. First, until about 100 years ago people (other than the ruling class) rarely travelled far enough to see more than maybe two "styles" of buildings. It's only now that there is a larger middle class with the means to travel and the media to convey other cultures that it could even possibly matter that my buildings look different than someone living 1000 miles away. If it didn't really matter for people for several millennia, it's probably not that essential that we experience different styles: our experience of style is already orders of magnitude greater than the average person in any other time period. Second, most buildings throughout history were extremely simple and not something that would be replicated at larger scales. If you compare a farmers hut across most cultures, the biggest variations are going to be climate based, but otherwise pretty limited. Also, while vernacular architecture may have sustainable advantages, there's no specific reason to think it's inherently better than the international style. That's an argument you would have to make and support. "Imposes a style on us that we hate" I get that there are people that dislike modern, or contemporary architecture, but it's not everyone, and clearly, someone prefers it over other styles because it get's built in a capitalist economy where nobody is forced to use a specific style. "Impose" implies that there is some authority that is forcing a style upon us, when, in reality, the market determines what gets built and people have the power to buy architecture of any style they can afford. If anything is 'imposing' modern architecture on us, it's the fact that it's significantly cheaper to build effectively, due to the complexity of modern buildings and the high cost of labor. The cheap slave or lower class labor that made old styles possible is far less available today, as our standards for how people should be treated has evolved. Essentially, this style that "promotes servility" is actually caused by a lack of it. "build to the human scale" Contemporary building codes and accessibility rules have led to buildings that truly are designed around the human scale and how people can actually use them. Building and zoning codes have also developed over the last century specifically to address the issues of overcrowding and poor urban design. Have we reached perfection? Not at all, but our cities are significantly more citizen friendly today than 100 years ago, and I would argue more friendly than historically. As with anything, there are good and bad examples, and we really should push for mid-rise mixed use cities far more often, but modern urban planning is at least a profession where such things are analyzed, as opposed to any other time in history where urban planning was haphazard at best; militant at worst. "Nurture roots" Cities change; it is inevitable. You can manage that change, but it's nonsense to believe you can stop it. This is also a weighted discussion: The argument against change has most often been used by wealthy homeowners trying to keep out developments that allow access to less wealthy individuals. It's an argument for driving up the value of existing housing at the expense of natural market forces allowing more people to live in high demand areas. Now, should we maintain our historic buildings and push for adaptive reuse of existing building stock where possible? Certainly, and we do both of those things and even have government programs to support them. There are also plenty of areas in cities and out of cities where maintaining existing buildings is pointless, because the buildings were terribly constructed, terribly maintained, or both. These areas need change and have been demanding it. What that change looks like is a constantly evolving conversation. "Common good over commerce" As stated, there are plenty of incentives to maintaining and repurposing existing buildings, both from the government and from buyers. However, old buildings are not up to today's standards: They often lack important life safety features, they lack accessibility, they lack the building systems that give us comfortable environments, they lack the insulation that makes those systems possible without expending a ton of energy, they lack light and ventilation access that we now know to be very important, and they often contain numerous hazardous materials in everything from the paint to the pipes to the sealant. On top of this, a lot of older buildings are barely standing anymore. They were built solid, but nothing lasts forever without significant upkeep, and most buildings just weren't worth putting long-lasting details into. The historic buildings you see around you or in the media have often been carefully and expensively rebuilt. We can't possibly do that for every random house or commercial building and not every building is historically valuable. We even have government agencies to determine which buildings are of significance, using fairly objective metrics. It's also important to question who prefers the preserved older neighborhoods. Is it the wealthier landowners in hot neighborhoods, or the people hoping to move to an area? Is neighborhood character more important than optimizing land use and creating opportunities for a range of wealth brackets to live in an area? "abstraction" This whole line of thought ignores reality. The leaders of the modernist movement were specifically designing machines for living, taking humanity into account in a way that was not being done post industrialization and pre-modernism. It was one of the first generations of architects and designers to look at how people actually live, how the body moves and interacts with its environment, and how our environment impacts us. The entire study of ergonomics and environmental psychology is tightly related to the architects and philosophers of the modernist movement. As for customs and preferences, this is also non-sense. Architecture has not shaped customs; changes in customs and culture have changed our architecture. One of the great examples is the open plan. 200 years ago, homes were largely built with each room opening into each other room. This fit the mindset of the time that the family shared space and privacy wasn't a priority. This pulled a 180 when our culture changed to highly value privacy and rooms were separated by corridors. More recently, culture has changed again and we're at a point where we have moments of privacy and moments of community in our homes. Architecture didn't shape these beliefs; they were shaped by cultural norms shifting over time. Architects and the developers they work for create spaces that people will be able to efficiently use. If cultural norms change, architecture follows suit, juggling occupant priorities. To think that contemporary developments would be driven by fads rather than the cold calculus of what sells for the highest profit is completely counter to the essay's earlier arguments that contemporary architecture is too focused on commercial interest. Pick one: either architects are forcing their will upon the masses or the market is driving design. You can't base an argument on both being true. "Bottom line" Contemporary architecture is safer, healthier, more sustainable, more accessible, larger and more comfortable than at any other time in history. Our urban design is more carefully considered and regulated than at any time in history. Developers are working to house more people in higher standards of living today than what has existed in the past. People do deserve better, and our codes and standards have pushed for that better world, while developers have also pushed to increase the number of people that get those things, all while wealthy landowners have fought tooth and nail to prevent others from getting access to those same benefits of modernity by pushing back on change and new development. | 0 | 50,974 | 5.5 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi7nbkp | hi4egd6 | 1,635,311,172 | 1,635,260,576 | 7 | 4 | Lastly, I want to push back on this common idea from conservative architectural criticism that commercial interests are ruining architecture. Commercial interests have defined architecture for as long as buildings have existed. The Greek agora was a commercial center, the Roman Forum was a commercial center, the Medici's built a ton of architecture off of and to convey their extreme wealth, all religious architecture was built to represent an idea that could generate further tithings (this may feel contentious and dismissive, but is inherently true, as without tithings a religion wouldn't be able to build, so 'good' religious architecture is that which generates revenue to build more 'good' architecture), the hellhole of pre-war industrialization was driven by commercial interests, etc. We have lived in a world with at least some capitalist basis for several thousand years now, and that means that architecture has been inherently capital driven. To say that only now has capitalism started ruining architecture is to ignore recent and distant history. As discussed above, it isn't capitalism that's too blame for the evolution of architecture: it's the shift away from dirt cheap, expendable labor that defined the highly crafted detailing of historic buildings, and the increased complexity of building systems as we demand more and more services and comfort from our buildings. The exterior face of a building used to be the major cost driver and labor was cheap so adding detail added relatively little to that cost. Now, costs are driven by the MEP systems within a building and high labor costs mean facades can quickly double in cost if more manpower is required. The outcome is residential buildings where each occupant controls their own temperature and humidity but the exterior is a 'boring' safe, warranty-able system involving as few contractors as possible. | Honestly the issue is we no longer construct buildings to last decades. The current thought trend is that this will be torn down or redeveloped in a decade so its disposable architecture. | 1 | 50,596 | 1.75 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi7nbkp | hi5yac6 | 1,635,311,172 | 1,635,282,477 | 7 | 4 | Lastly, I want to push back on this common idea from conservative architectural criticism that commercial interests are ruining architecture. Commercial interests have defined architecture for as long as buildings have existed. The Greek agora was a commercial center, the Roman Forum was a commercial center, the Medici's built a ton of architecture off of and to convey their extreme wealth, all religious architecture was built to represent an idea that could generate further tithings (this may feel contentious and dismissive, but is inherently true, as without tithings a religion wouldn't be able to build, so 'good' religious architecture is that which generates revenue to build more 'good' architecture), the hellhole of pre-war industrialization was driven by commercial interests, etc. We have lived in a world with at least some capitalist basis for several thousand years now, and that means that architecture has been inherently capital driven. To say that only now has capitalism started ruining architecture is to ignore recent and distant history. As discussed above, it isn't capitalism that's too blame for the evolution of architecture: it's the shift away from dirt cheap, expendable labor that defined the highly crafted detailing of historic buildings, and the increased complexity of building systems as we demand more and more services and comfort from our buildings. The exterior face of a building used to be the major cost driver and labor was cheap so adding detail added relatively little to that cost. Now, costs are driven by the MEP systems within a building and high labor costs mean facades can quickly double in cost if more manpower is required. The outcome is residential buildings where each occupant controls their own temperature and humidity but the exterior is a 'boring' safe, warranty-able system involving as few contractors as possible. | Lots of should and not enough how. | 1 | 28,695 | 1.75 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi4wk6d | hi7nbkp | 1,635,267,791 | 1,635,311,172 | 3 | 7 | Everything seems copy paste, many buildings seem to have no character. | Lastly, I want to push back on this common idea from conservative architectural criticism that commercial interests are ruining architecture. Commercial interests have defined architecture for as long as buildings have existed. The Greek agora was a commercial center, the Roman Forum was a commercial center, the Medici's built a ton of architecture off of and to convey their extreme wealth, all religious architecture was built to represent an idea that could generate further tithings (this may feel contentious and dismissive, but is inherently true, as without tithings a religion wouldn't be able to build, so 'good' religious architecture is that which generates revenue to build more 'good' architecture), the hellhole of pre-war industrialization was driven by commercial interests, etc. We have lived in a world with at least some capitalist basis for several thousand years now, and that means that architecture has been inherently capital driven. To say that only now has capitalism started ruining architecture is to ignore recent and distant history. As discussed above, it isn't capitalism that's too blame for the evolution of architecture: it's the shift away from dirt cheap, expendable labor that defined the highly crafted detailing of historic buildings, and the increased complexity of building systems as we demand more and more services and comfort from our buildings. The exterior face of a building used to be the major cost driver and labor was cheap so adding detail added relatively little to that cost. Now, costs are driven by the MEP systems within a building and high labor costs mean facades can quickly double in cost if more manpower is required. The outcome is residential buildings where each occupant controls their own temperature and humidity but the exterior is a 'boring' safe, warranty-able system involving as few contractors as possible. | 0 | 43,381 | 2.333333 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi7nbkp | hi50v0h | 1,635,311,172 | 1,635,269,481 | 7 | 3 | Lastly, I want to push back on this common idea from conservative architectural criticism that commercial interests are ruining architecture. Commercial interests have defined architecture for as long as buildings have existed. The Greek agora was a commercial center, the Roman Forum was a commercial center, the Medici's built a ton of architecture off of and to convey their extreme wealth, all religious architecture was built to represent an idea that could generate further tithings (this may feel contentious and dismissive, but is inherently true, as without tithings a religion wouldn't be able to build, so 'good' religious architecture is that which generates revenue to build more 'good' architecture), the hellhole of pre-war industrialization was driven by commercial interests, etc. We have lived in a world with at least some capitalist basis for several thousand years now, and that means that architecture has been inherently capital driven. To say that only now has capitalism started ruining architecture is to ignore recent and distant history. As discussed above, it isn't capitalism that's too blame for the evolution of architecture: it's the shift away from dirt cheap, expendable labor that defined the highly crafted detailing of historic buildings, and the increased complexity of building systems as we demand more and more services and comfort from our buildings. The exterior face of a building used to be the major cost driver and labor was cheap so adding detail added relatively little to that cost. Now, costs are driven by the MEP systems within a building and high labor costs mean facades can quickly double in cost if more manpower is required. The outcome is residential buildings where each occupant controls their own temperature and humidity but the exterior is a 'boring' safe, warranty-able system involving as few contractors as possible. | There's an old saying that you need rules in order to be truly creative, I think the reason modern architecture leaves such a bland taste in our mouths is because it's not defined by anything and therefore has no vessel to shape. | 1 | 41,691 | 2.333333 | ||
qg6i7q | architecture_train | 0.76 | What is wrong with our architecture? [removed] | hi7nbkp | hi4yupk | 1,635,311,172 | 1,635,268,699 | 7 | 2 | Lastly, I want to push back on this common idea from conservative architectural criticism that commercial interests are ruining architecture. Commercial interests have defined architecture for as long as buildings have existed. The Greek agora was a commercial center, the Roman Forum was a commercial center, the Medici's built a ton of architecture off of and to convey their extreme wealth, all religious architecture was built to represent an idea that could generate further tithings (this may feel contentious and dismissive, but is inherently true, as without tithings a religion wouldn't be able to build, so 'good' religious architecture is that which generates revenue to build more 'good' architecture), the hellhole of pre-war industrialization was driven by commercial interests, etc. We have lived in a world with at least some capitalist basis for several thousand years now, and that means that architecture has been inherently capital driven. To say that only now has capitalism started ruining architecture is to ignore recent and distant history. As discussed above, it isn't capitalism that's too blame for the evolution of architecture: it's the shift away from dirt cheap, expendable labor that defined the highly crafted detailing of historic buildings, and the increased complexity of building systems as we demand more and more services and comfort from our buildings. The exterior face of a building used to be the major cost driver and labor was cheap so adding detail added relatively little to that cost. Now, costs are driven by the MEP systems within a building and high labor costs mean facades can quickly double in cost if more manpower is required. The outcome is residential buildings where each occupant controls their own temperature and humidity but the exterior is a 'boring' safe, warranty-able system involving as few contractors as possible. | Read The Geography of Nowhere. It's brilliant, funny and unfortunately accurate. | 1 | 42,473 | 3.5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.