Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please scroll back and look at the before and after picture of the Boston area . . . in the "before" photo, you see an interesting cityscape with buildings that have architectural interest and beauty. In the "after" photo you see the area has been demolished and rebuilt and that the configuration of the buildings, and hence the city "experience" is much different.
Are you familiar with the book "A Pattern Language?" It addresses functional components of cities . . .
I would imagine in the case of Boston above (the before and after pics) that city planners would have had to have worked with architects to create the initial vision and city configuration, and then again, to have demolished it and recreated it in a completely different aesthetic and configuration.
What am I missing?
It was not random, therefore there had to have been a plan and some kind of collaboration.
I'm not familiar with that book.
As for the before and after pics of Boston, I can't say with any authority. But my guess is that the before was, indeed, unplanned and organic. The after (again, still just guessing, someone please correct me if I'm wrong) was planned only in the sense that city planners/leaders decided that the area was old, seedy, and they wanted something new, like a city hall. Based on the Wiki article: Boston City Hall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it seems that there was a competition to select the design of the building and surrounding plaza. So, the essential design was done without any collaboration with a city planner.
I just looked up "the politics of architecture" on a search engine, and the results are very interesting. Are the politics of architecture standard fare in architecture school?
We rarely, if ever, discussed this kind of thing, in or out of class. But architecture schools, and their curricula, seem to vary widely.
We rarely, if ever, discussed this kind of thing, in or out of class. But architecture schools, and their curricula, seem to vary widely.
How do YOU feel about ugly architecture and design flaws (like horrible corporate "landscaping in the front of buildings . . .does that bother you?) Or poor building design aesthetic or paint colors . . . any of that bug you?
How do YOU feel about ugly architecture and design flaws (like horrible corporate "landscaping in the front of buildings . . .does that bother you?) Or poor building design aesthetic or paint colors . . . any of that bug you?
It bugs me more than most people, I suppose, but not nearly as much as it seems to bug you! Instead of focusing on what I don't like, I focus on what I do like; I try to avoid sprawl and big box stores as much as possible, and stay in environments I enjoy. Also, as others have said, a lot of what people consider ugly is subjective, too.
It bugs me more than most people, I suppose, but not nearly as much as it seems to bug you! Instead of focusing on what I don't like, I focus on what I do like; I try to avoid sprawl and big box stores as much as possible, and stay in environments I enjoy. Also, as others have said, a lot of what people consider ugly is subjective, too.
It bothers me for political and personal reasons. I believe our lives are influenced by everything in our environments - stuff that we take in consciously and unconsciously. Because we are programmed, a lot of architecture is perceived unconsciously - it's just the "way we think the world looks."
But it's really not - It has been CONSTRUCTED FOR PARTICULAR REASONS . . .and it has an impact on us.
I personally am very affected by my environment. Beauty and function are extremely important to me - I get depressed when I see uninspiring buildings . . . I wonder why they couldn't at least throw some nice paint on something that is otherwise just boring and depressing.
When you see beautiful architecture - like some villages in Europe - I haven't even been, but have seen pictures and have dreamed what life might be like in such places - you feel happy and inspired and there is a sense of community.
Of course beauty, per se, is subjective, however, just like the beautiful face - which studies show is not culturally specific, but has more to do with symmetry, we can agree that some churches and some buildings are just awe-inspiring . . .and conversely, some, if not many, are butt-ugly.
And if we live in a butt-ugly world, then our lives can FEEL butt-ugly. Some people might even be depressed by ugliness that they perceive subconsciously, and not even know why they feel bad.
It makes me angry because it is a choice that someone is making (in terms of the design) . . . and the choice is often "I don't care" I want to make money.
Well, I DO care . . .and I WANT beauty. There must be others like me . . .if you took all of the people who live in charming villages around the world and put them in strip mall environments, I don't think they'd be too happy.
TBH I actually like the brutal "modern" office buildings of the 50s-80s. I don't think they are unimaginative just because they are plain, unadorned, uniform, and impractical. At the time these ideas were new, as they were reacting against the lavishly adorned architecture of all history up until then. Now we are used to modern architecture so it doesn't seem as revolutionary to us as it did then. It seems boring at best, menacing and contemptuous toward humanity at worst. But there has been a reaction against this style for years now -- private businesses are neglecting them, preferring either historic skyscrapers or brand new skyscrapers. Plain modernist towers from the 50s-80s are out of favor in the private sector and have been for quite a while.
I believe these plain, behemoth, menacing structures -- which I find to be very beautiful in their own special way -- will only persist in the public sector. And in 50 years, what is left of them will be considered historic structures.
TBH I actually like the brutal "modern" office buildings of the 50s-80s. I don't think they are unimaginative just because they are plain, unadorned, uniform, and impractical. At the time these ideas were new, as they were reacting against the lavishly adorned architecture of all history up until then. Now we are used to modern architecture so it doesn't seem as revolutionary to us as it did then. It seems boring at best, menacing and contemptuous toward humanity at worst. But there has been a reaction against this style for years now -- private businesses are neglecting them, preferring either historic skyscrapers or brand new skyscrapers. Plain modernist towers from the 50s-80s are out of favor in the private sector and have been for quite a while.
I believe these plain, behemoth, menacing structures -- which I find to be very beautiful in their own special way -- will only persist in the public sector. And in 50 years, what is left of them will be considered historic structures.
Likewise. Don't people get tired of regurgitating the same Greco-Roman architecture? You can only have so many spins on Baroque/Roccoco/Neoclassical architecture. A lot of Brutalist architecture I don't particularly care for. Much of it is plain ugly, but all of it has presence in the way a dressed up Roccoco never could. The juxtaposition of Brutalism and greenery is inspiring. Not that the regimented Beaux-Arts rehashes of Greco-Roman aren't impressive, but a little bit of diversity is nice imo.
It's very masculine, yang, phallic . . . I guess that is why it appeals to some people.
I prefer the more feminine Baroque/Roccoco curves, detail, beauty, and mystery.
It is indeed a matter of preference -- what irks me is when people ignore that this style is indeed an important part of our history. The town I grew up in, Albany, NY, is home to this modernist behemoth:
It gets a lot of criticism, some of it deserved. It's a style that was already dated before construction was even finished. It's functionally impractical and removed from the rest of the city. It came at great cost and did not fulfill its own goal of providing all the office space the state government would need in the city. All these criticisms are valid. But the criticism I find absurd is when people lament the loss of the architecture in the hundreds of homes that were bulldozed so it could be constructed. Albany has plenty of truly beautiful row houses from the 19th and even 18th centuries. Even today there is a plethora to be found there. What it has that no other sleepy minor upstate city can boast is its very own Brasilia-on-the-Hudson. These buildings were designed to praise the sheer power of government and I think modern architecture was better suited to that purpose than any other form of architecture. So in fifty years we will look at these structures and remember the Cold War era when a big powerful state was something architects wanted to praise with their work. If that is not historical architecture, I don't know what is.
It may be "historical," but it is cold and alienating.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Instead of focusing on what I don't like, I focus on what I do like; I try to avoid sprawl and big box stores as much as possible, and stay in environments I enjoy. Also, as others have said, a lot of what people consider ugly is subjective, too.
