/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17154203]

Books about the virtues of traditionalism and classicism?

[Anonymous No.17154223]

>>17154203
Scotland shouldn't have a parliament building

[Anonymous No.17154252]

>>17154203
That's the whole point,dude, to not have to put up with a building for hundreds of years, i.e. hundreds of years of upkeep, ie easily replaceable.

[Anonymous No.17154270]

used to hate the new scottish parliament but i can't lie its grown on me
the surrounding complex is quite nice

[Anonymous No.17154275]

>>17154252
>ie easily replaceable.
As you'll find is your entire history, culture, and population.

[Anonymous No.17154364]

>>17154203
nigga you're 16

[Anonymous No.17154377]

>>17154203
sorry chump, broken window pays the glassman and all that, gotta keep that arrow green going up and up

[Anonymous No.17154392]

>>17154252
The cost of building new modern shitstains again and again is higher than upkeep on old buildings

[Anonymous No.17154407]

>>17154203
tradfag zoomers are cancer

[Anonymous No.17154411]

>>17154392
Actually, construction is a boon for the economy

[Anonymous No.17154416]

>>17154411
So is upkeep
And you can use the remaining money for something actually useful

[Anonymous No.17154421]

>>17154416
You know nothing about the building industry that's clear. Not a serious discussion.

[Anonymous No.17154424]

The point isn't to go back to the "old times" and imitate Roman and Greek architecture by building colonnades and peristyles. You have to recognise that society has changed and we will never go back, the best you can do is mimic how it was before, Ie. LARP.
Nowadays people's values have changed. We are no longer religious. We no longer practice the same customs. We in fact abhor the morality and customs of the ancient and medieval times.
The real challenge is to understand and accept this new ethos, and to build something beautiful based on it, to create a new, modern style, not merely to imitate our ancestors from whom we are permanently cut off.

[Anonymous No.17154433]

>>17154424
You do know that brutalism and its retarded children are the only architectural style people actually hate living
For the most part, people can't afford to care what their homes and their neighbourhoods actually look like
With the exception of brutalism
People do like larpy classical buildings
Just because pretentious assholes in academia don't, doesn't mean that the rest of the populous doesn't
Why do you hate the working class so much?

[Anonymous No.17154434]

Antifragile

[Anonymous No.17154449]

>>17154433
The world has changed since those times, their customs don't mean anything to us anymore, and we have to move towards a new style. What is the point of building LARPy classical architecture if our society has changed drastically?

[Anonymous No.17154463]

>>17154424
Certain forms are inherently more pleasing to humans than others. On a deep-culture, or even biological, level. They make people happier. There's plenty of respectable neoclassical architecture that isn't just Roman LARPing.

[Anonymous No.17154464]

>>17154449
Not him, but the prime point of architecture is to look beautiful, nobody cares about your mental gymnastics. I don't think that we should start building neo-classical buildings again but if a new trend of neo-classicalism would start I wouldn't complain. I am more in favour of the development of a new style that is more than just some academici smelling their own farts. I can see that giant glass monstrocities could have looked cool in the 90's but they have been doing the same shit for 30 years now.

[Anonymous No.17154465]

>>17154252
>make it dogshit so you don't have to maintain it
Peak troglodyte. Why even have the building at all you regressive jew.

[Anonymous No.17154468]

>>17154275
Uh oh, we have a rightoid.
CRINGE

[Anonymous No.17154472]

>>17154464
OK? I don't disagree with you, I'm arguing against that anon who said we shouldn't have any development in architectural style and should merely copy the Ancient Greeks and Romans.
It's funny you say "they have been doing the same shit for 30 years now" when you're advocating classical architecture, which they've been doing for considerably longer.

[Anonymous No.17154492]

>>17154424
Thoughts on Art Deco?

[Anonymous No.17154494]

I think the distinction between classical, modern and postmodern architecture comes down more to the relation of form and function. Classical architecture wears its functionality on its sleeve and embellishments and ornaments accentuate its structural logic. Meanwhile, much of modern architecture is brutalistically functional and not fit for humans to live meaningful lives in, and much of postmodern architecture is schizophrenic, that is, it tries to attain some aesthetic ideal that's independent of the underlying structure.

[Anonymous No.17154508]

>>17154411
>let's just dig holes just to dig holes, then fill them back in
>no that's too obvious
>let's just build buildings only to tear them down and rebuild them unnecessarily
Orwell unironically should have gone with planned obsolescence rather than war as the resource-waster in 1984

[Anonymous No.17154514]

>>17154421
explain it to us, then, you fucking mong.

[Anonymous No.17154516]

>>17154494
You can build a beautiful, ornamented building without copying the Greeks and Romans. I don't like Brutalism or functionalism but I understand that we need to move on from classical architecture.

[Anonymous No.17154518]

>>17154203
>Futuristic:
>rootless globalized style
but the future-proof one is literally a greek temple.

[Anonymous No.17154521]

>>17154421
I know that if you haven't created any value, the world isn't better off. Tearing down a building just to build a new one is not a net positive on the world -- in fact, you just wasted a ton of resources to do something unnecessary. Compare, if you spent a fraction of the money repairing the existing building (which would be of equal resulting value to a new building), you would have money left over to spend on things that actually create value.

[Anonymous No.17154524]

>>17154518
It's western not global you fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.17154525]

>>17154518
>pillars
>triangular roof
>it must be a greek temple!

[Anonymous No.17154535]

>>17154464
>prime point of architecture is to look beautif
no. it's to be useful. beauty comes second.
if you want pure beauty, go make a sculpture, not a building.
it may sound like I'm being pedantic, but I'm not, it's a very important distinction.

[Anonymous No.17154537]

>>17154516
that's what I'm saying. todays buildings don't have any use for stone arches or timber-frame style support structures.

[Anonymous No.17154541]

>>17154472
No progression in architecture is indeed dumb, I'm not defending the Anon for that. But the fact that you say that we must keep architecture willingly ugly (lets face it; nobody likes minimalism) because "we don't share the same values as people in the past," is just as stupid. Personally neo-classicalism isn't my favorite style (in my opinion it's the historical equivilant of internationalism), but at least it looks kind of good. I had many friends who where architects or who took architecture in university and their justification of minimalism and internationalism is because it stands for "progress." In the the 21st century sticking to the same shit for 30 years isn't really progressive don't you think? It's like using a 30 year old phone because of "progress." Reality is that architectual circles are just some old men jacking each other of and confirming eachother, if you make any critisism as an "outsider" they'll dismiss you because "you aren't an architect so you don't know." Thats like saying only writers can critisize a book, only directors can critisize a movie and only artists can critisize art. Architecture is the most important form of art, it's their fucking duty to make it look good.

[Anonymous No.17154549]

>>17154537
I don't agree with Ayn Rand on much, but she got that much right

[Anonymous No.17154550]

>>17154449
They don't mean anything to you nigger
The average person still goes "what a pretty building" when they see the new old parliament
And "eugh what is this hideous pile of concrete commit" when they see the new one
Again people absolutely despise living in these so called modern buildings
Until you find a "new" style that doesn't make the average person want to gouge their eyes out, please stop polluting cities with your iron excrements

[Anonymous No.17154562]

>>17154524
uhm, ok, so the futuristic one was designed by the chinese, I see. it's 100% NOT WESTERN. wester culture stopped when I started disliking it, now its not wester anymore, it's g l o b a l i s t i c. oh, I see, I see.

[Anonymous No.17154566]

>>17154535
>it's to be useful
Beauty is useful you subhuman nigger
Your buildings cause DEPRESSION
They're not just useless, they are harmful

[Anonymous No.17154567]

>>17154525
literally yes

[Anonymous No.17154570]

>>17154566
reading comprehension nigger

[Anonymous No.17154571]

>>17154424
Don't underestimate LARPing. Everything started out as a LARP.

[Anonymous No.17154573]

>>17154541
>progress

P[lenty of styles like Art Deco and Raygun Gothic evoke 'progress' without reminding people of authoritarian neoliberal dystopia, what an absurd argument.

[Anonymous No.17154576]

>>17154570
Comprehend my anus as you tongue it

[Anonymous No.17154579]

>>17154576
go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.17154580]

>>17154535
But why not make it beautiful if you can? How is the facade of the left pic more useful than the right?

[Anonymous No.17154582]

>>17154535
Why bother wearing nice clothes? Why bother eating tasty food? Why bother doing something you enjoy? The destinction between humans and animals is that we need more then just our basic needs.

[Anonymous No.17154585]

>>17154562
and don't take me wrong, the modern Scottish Parlament Building is very ugly indeed, but that's beside the point.

[Anonymous No.17154590]

>>17154567
>literally

[Anonymous No.17154591]

>>17154521
New s in the first world are incomparably more energy efficient and made as much as possible from earth friendly recyclec materials, often they're also literally greener with roof top gardens and what not. Plus they're easily to tear done, which is always a good cyclical stimulus for the economy. Apart from their monumental aspects (good for tourism) those old castles and neoclassical temples horribly drafty and in general money pits maintenance wise. That's why Westminster is literally danger of collapse or basically spontaneously combusting even as we speak.

[Anonymous No.17154592]

>>17154573
That is unironically the response I got every time.

[Anonymous No.17154594]

>>17154590
you're subhuman filth

[Anonymous No.17154597]

>>17154521
New buildings in the first world are incomparably more energy efficient and made as much as possible from earth friendly recycled materials, often they're also literally greener with roof top gardens and what not. Plus they're easier to tear done, which is always a good cyclical stimulus for the economy. Apart from their monumental aspects (good for tourism) those old castles and neoclassical temples are horribly drafty and in general money pits maintenance wise. That's why Westminster is literally in danger of collapse or basically spontaneously combusting even as we speak.

[Anonymous No.17154604]

>>17154597
Yeah, we can see all that earth friendly concrete and those wonderful gardens on the new building

[Anonymous No.17154608]

>>17154424
>owadays people's values have changed. We are no longer religious. We no longer practice the same customs. We in fact abhor the morality and customs of the ancient and medieval times.
Imagine believing this

[Anonymous No.17154612]

>>17154594
okay faggot, please educate me on whether the Scottish supreme court building is in the Ionic or the Corinthian order

[Anonymous No.17154616]

>>17154591
Where do you get your "knowledge" about this from? I worked in a construction/renovation company for 8 years and buildings entirely made out of concrete needed way more maintenance compared to a neo-classical building (but this can depend greatly, but generally speaking modern ones needed way more maitenance).

[Anonymous No.17154617]

>>17154612
after you educate me on the size of your soijac folder

[Anonymous No.17154625]

>>17154604
Yep, I see it too

[Anonymous No.17154624]

>>17154617
as you easily could have deduced from my last post, i've run out of funny haha soijaks

[Anonymous No.17154628]

>>17154566
>"beauty comes second"
>it should be ugly
my god, anon

>>17154580
>How is the facade of the left pic more useful than the right?
>the facade
I'm not defending the building on the right, I also find it ugly. But I strongly disagree that modern = ugly, and if you are going to criticize architecture, at least understand it first.

[Anonymous No.17154640]

>>17154624
great, that's all I take issue with. I don't know much about architecture and I'm not going to do a quick google search just so I can pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous No.17154643]

There are things deeply embedded in the human psyche always at work that we don't know about
Even if on a theoretical level you can make an argument for new styles better representing our new culture, in practice these new styles will always feel depressing and antinatural even to people who have no understanding whatsoever of architecture, much like a green field, trees and sunshine will always cause the opposite feelings no matter how much things change.
In fact, new styles are not so much a reflection of our times but a reflection of modern intellectual circuits, and these are all rotten to the core sterile antihuman hedonistic utopias of social engineering.
The normal human just knows something is wrong with these buildings as much as he knows something is wrong with society.

[Anonymous No.17154647]

>>17154597
>more energy efficient
not enough so to offset the cost of tearing down and rebuilding all the time
>made with recycled materials
which is still worse than not using any materials at all
>easier to tear down
not an advantage
>good cyclical stimulus for the economy
Cyclical stimulus is just wasted resources, how are you unable to see that? Stimulus makes sense in recessions to kickstart the economy, but constant "stimulus" from constructing unnecessary buildings is just paying the construction industry to dig holes and fill them back in. It's a government handout, charity, except it wastes people's time and resources when they could be doing other things.

[Anonymous No.17154651]

>>17154597
Nope

[Anonymous No.17154656]

>>17154625
>12 sq meters of grass on the roof
wow, that sure IS eco friendly. If I'd had and idea the extent they'd gone

[Anonymous No.17154657]

>>17154625
>that abomination in the left under corner

the only thing appealing is the green area in front and the treeline with comfy buildings higher up. everything in between is weird, ill-fitting, and uninteresting

[Anonymous No.17154664]

>>17154625
If you removed the "grass" and the building
It would in fact be very beautiful
But as it stands, the parliament is kind of in the way

[Anonymous No.17154679]

>>17154625
>masterpieces-of-architecture-the-scottish-parlement.jpg
Why are the people that defend this style always smug assholes? Fuck you and fuck your building.

[Anonymous No.17154681]

>>17154628
No amount of semantic hocus pocus will stop modern architecture from being disgusting
Maybe something new will come out that looks nice
But the styles that pretentious modern architectosophists want to push are not that and you know it very well
What happened to Art Deco anyways, why was it sacrificed for modern abortionism

[Anonymous No.17154685]

>>17154651
What people fail to understand is that those buildings are long passed their expiration date, and are inherently unsafe

http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20200312-why-is-the-palace-of-westminster-falling-apart

[Anonymous No.17154692]

There's so many impressive examples of modernism and brutalism that it's really hard to grasp how these shapeless things came to be viewed as an achievement of architecture

[Anonymous No.17154695]

>>17154685
My local church was build in the 10th century and got renovated like 150 years ago for the last time and its completely fine. Cherrypicking isnt an argument Anon.

[Anonymous No.17154701]

>>17154692
That looks like a microbe that carries a deadly disease.

[Anonymous No.17154704]

>>17154692
looks like shit

[Anonymous No.17154714]

>>17154695
It's an architectural reality for most buildings of the modern age, certainly baroque and after

[Anonymous No.17154716]

>>17154516
>You can build a beautiful, ornamented building without copying the Greeks and Romans
post examples

[Anonymous No.17154719]

>>17154714
That they are falling apart???

[Anonymous No.17154720]

>>17154701
It's supposed to be a "friendly alien". How it fits into the old center of Graz is probably a secret only the architects know.

[Anonymous No.17154726]

>>17154692
This can't be anything other than a monument to modern intellectual hatred of everything that's beautiful and good and survived the test of time

[Anonymous No.17154729]

>>17154720
Did they really make a building to look like an alien? Jesus Christ, architects are fucking manchildren.

[Anonymous No.17154735]

>>17154719
Yep, they are

[Anonymous No.17154742]

>>17154597
I love the disregard Anons show when you're right. They've clearly never worked on or inherited an old building. They're absolute money pits in maintenance and upkeep, awful insulation and built to standards which wouldn't pass muster these days. Not even mentioning retrofitting buildings with modern amenities like fire safety, electricity and telecommunications. A lot of the time you just end up with ugly conduits running along the already uncomfortably narrow hallways.
I still prefer the outside look of the right and a lot of old buildings have some beautiful carvings and ceiling work but there's nothing inherently stopping modern buildings from having those some aesthetics. I've seen some nicely done modern houses (including all the modern materials and insulation considerations) which had that same aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.17154744]

>>17154720
>friendly
just your friendly neighborhood eldritch monstrosity

[Anonymous No.17154750]

>>17154735
Thats bullshit, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You are either baiting or incredibly stupid, enjoy your last (You).

[Anonymous No.17154756]

>>17154742
most of the anons itt who criticize modern architecture for being butt-ugly aren't even tradfags though. yes, it's a valid argument - against building roman-style architecture in current year.

[Anonymous No.17154765]

>>17154252
>Actually constantly demolishing and replacing buildings is cheaper than building one to last

This is the kind of person that buys a new toothbrush everyday and throws his old one out.

[Anonymous No.17154770]

>>17154742
Yep, they'd rather keep regurgitating their own shit than accept a truth that didn't dawn on them themselves

[Anonymous No.17154772]

>>17154742
New buildings have better standards because they are new, not because they are glass and concrete monstrosities.
Why are the amenities an argument in favor of these ugly styles?

[Anonymous No.17154774]

>>17154275
based

[Anonymous No.17154781]

>>17154377
>>17154411
I thought lit was supposed to be a high IQ board. Let's stick to literature and have mods delete this thread because clearly some can't into babies first econ lesson.

>When I break things wealth and value is increased somehow
>broken window fallacy, literally the very first lesson in econ

[Anonymous No.17154811]

relevant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKKe0Pcwn2Q

[Anonymous No.17154822]

>>17154411
>>17154252
Keynesian economists are such brainlets

[Anonymous No.17154827]

>>17154772
I'm not arguing for those styles, reread that thread chain. This Anon is talking about buildings being easily rebuilt/renovated and other Anons (maybe you?) are saying it's not worth it and old buildings are fine etc etc. Like I said, you can build new buildings in any style you want, there's just a confirmation bias when people see those post-modern and brutalist behemoths.

It made more sense to build something that will last 300 years when you think that people will be living more-or-less the same as you in 300 years. Now we have issues with houses built 100 years ago which have to have conduits laid all over the place to fit in fibre optics and fire safety systems and it makes the whole thing look like shit (and expensive) for the people who actually own it. It only looks nice to the person walking past on the street.

These days changes have only sped up. It makes more sense to build something that can be relatively easily renovated after 50-100 years if not outright replaced. Fuck I saw someone install fibre to all the rooms in their house a couple decades ago. They thought they were future-proofing but then wifi came out and their fibre lays dormant (it's not like domestic internet would even take advantage of it yet). -Side note- their house was also one of those boring looking glass and concrete boxes.

tl;dr Yes, glass and concrete ugly. No, (most) modern buildings shouldn't be built to last hundreds of years because it would be very short-sighted.

[Anonymous No.17154828]

>>17154811
are you going to link prageru next? it's just low-effort propaganda which a self-respecting person wouldn't consume regardless of their beliefs.

read a book

[Anonymous No.17154832]

I'd rather live in a completely brutalist city than in one created by most of these postmodern architects. At least the raw concrete doesn't pretend to be playful while tossing out any conventional beauty standards.

[Anonymous No.17154845]

>>17154828
>Aha! You thought you had an argument but since I've dismissed it before it could even be stated I've actually won!
>Try harder next time, I only consume content that tells me I'm a genius and all my beliefs are correct

[Anonymous No.17154848]

>>17154392
prove it

[Anonymous No.17154852]

>>17154845
>>I only consume content that tells me I'm a genius and all my beliefs are correct
Anon why are you quoting yourself?

[Anonymous No.17154853]

>>17154832
see, with something like this you could do a lot with a few structural indicators, color accents, by adding some space for the occupants to project their own interests into an outwardly visible space, etc.
also adding some central section to break up the visual monotony. all that seems pretty elementary from a design standpoint.

[Anonymous No.17154862]

>>17154424
>Nowadays people's values have changed. We are no longer religious. We no longer practice the same customs. We in fact abhor the morality and customs of the ancient and medieval times.
For now. Doesn't mean it will last. Atheistic societies cannot last. We will adopt religion again sometime in the future. It won't be a repeat of what we had before but it will be a new version.

>The real challenge is to understand and accept this new ethos
Nah, it must be destroyed. It's no good for us and is quickly eroding societal frameworks.

[Anonymous No.17154875]

>>17154827
This is a good post but you did misinterpret the meaning of "future-proof". It is a fact that people find these concrete hell-builds depressing, as stated many times by you and others. We can measure. Neoclassical is something that does not do that, neither do many other older architectural styles. The future-proofness of these neoclassical buildings is not that they are built up to modern day insulation and maintenance standards but that they are not a stain on the local aesthetic landscape, they will always look good.

I will never concede that will all our modern technology we cannot find a way of building beautiful things that elevate rather than consume product gayneoliberalism modernity or w/e buzzwords we want to use to describe 'it'. We should future-proof our buildings by making them pretty and I believe that this is extremely valuable. In fact, personally I thing it's more valuable than the cost of renovations.

[Anonymous No.17154876]

>>17154535
Well usefulness most certainly isn't something modern architecture seems to care about.

[Anonymous No.17154882]

>>17154852
I didn't I quoted your post about PragerU stuff, insinuating it was your thought-process

[Anonymous No.17154886]

>>17154832
I feel you my dude, these monoliths evoke primeval things to me, as if they were part of some archeofuturistic temples.

[Anonymous No.17154910]

>>17154882
I would have told you the same if you had linked some midwit breadtube influencer. now read a book or shove off to /pol/ "kudasai"

[Anonymous No.17154933]

>>17154910
I wasn't the anon who linked it, goblin. You can posture all you want but you and everyone else knows that the height of midwittery is pretending to know things you don't and refusing to engage with ideas with some holier than thou attitude. You are not as smart as you think you are and that will not change if you go out of your way to shit on ideas you don't actually engage with. Could've just not responded to his post, instead you wanted to show all of 4chan that you're actually so far above 20min youtube videos and you're not like the other anons.

[Anonymous No.17154939]

>>17154828
>read a book
Nice argument there retard

[Anonymous No.17154943]

>>17154832
>>17154886
Brutalism is trash. Give me minimalism any day.

[Anonymous No.17154944]

>>17154875
It seems what you're saying is that the exterior aesthetics is the future-proofing.
That I can understand, I do like nicer facades, but I have to disagree that you say they will always look good. There are plenty of people in the past and now who dislike that style. I know it's popular among the demographic here (myself included) but that doesn't include everybody. Personally the parliament house there in the OP looks too grey and stony for me, nothing ruinous it just needs some planters out front or something. But that could be because I live in Australia and am so used to seeing green around every building and sight. It's odd (and honestly quite disconcerting --makes travelling through certain parts of foreign cities uncomfortable) for me to look at something and have no plants in my field of view. Pic related is representative of what places look like around where I live in Sydney.

[Anonymous No.17154947]

For me? It's organic architecture.

[Anonymous No.17154950]

>>17154562
It literally was lmao

[Anonymous No.17154957]

>>17154947
I like the stone facades but what about the rest is organic

[Anonymous No.17154971]

>If there are pillars it's Rome/Greek larp
It really is baffling how anons still keep up with this nonsense

[Anonymous No.17154979]

>>17154947
Not a fan of the American looking white squares, should really be wood or something. Otherwise yes, buildings that blend into the landscape are great.

[Anonymous No.17154985]

>>17154933
Take another look at the OP. see how it says "books about the virtues of traditionalism"? Notice how that has nothing to do with what's going on in the thread the only author mentioned is Ayn Rand? I should think that /pol/fags of all people would understand other boards not reacting well to cultural subversion.
>y-you think you're better than us?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.17154995]

>>17154944
>It seems what you're saying is that the exterior aesthetics is the future-proofing.
Exactly this.

There's definitely an argument to be made for subjectivity wrt architecture and aesthetic design, though I would be satisfied with simply no longer building ugly buildings. Let all the different and subjective beautiful styles exist or fight out after. I love castles, some neoclassical and stuff like the organic architecture the other anon posted among others. I could live in any of those happily.

[Anonymous No.17155009]

>>17154203
>repurposed ancient Greek architecture indistinguishable fro government buildings in any other country
>”wow based Scottish culture”
>novel architecture produced by a Scottish designer specifically for Scotland
>”cringe globohomo, everything looks the same”
bluepilled as fuck

[Anonymous No.17155018]

>>17154995
>I could live in any of those happily
I could happily live across from one but I would hate to live in a castle unless it was a new build with a modern interior and castle facade.
Organic architecture absolutely yes. I used to live in a touristy eco-y mountain town and there were pretty strict limits on the architecture allowed so all buildings were painted to blend into the area (brown wood or dark brick with either tile or green corrugated iron roofing). Looked really nice, sadly it seems like they've renegged on those requirements and there's been more contemporary places with whitewashed walls built over the years.

[Anonymous No.17155030]

>>17154985
>Take another look at the OP. see how it says "books about the virtues of traditionalism"?
Lol I literally missed this. My bad on this one anon. My opinion is that mods should probably close this thread since it has literally nothing to do with literature and is way off-topic but it's somewhat entertaining so I don't mind reading litziens opinions on various bs either way.

Posting a video (which you don't even have to watch and if it were not for you would have garnered 0 replies) that is about the topic being discussed in a thread is not "cultural subversion" you paranoid freak.
I'm not asking you if you're better than us, I'm telling you you aren't. Keep pretending you are some enlightened anon form your neet dungeon while not engaging with on topic ideas, responding to them anyways like cheap bait, then crying about it.

[Anonymous No.17155042]

>>17155030
Yikes!

[Anonymous No.17155044]

>>17155018
This is a problem for me because I know someone who lives in Switzerland and they are like aesthetic totalitarians, everything is tightly controlled. Meanwhile having totally disjointed architecture can really take away from a beautiful place if you'd let any idiot make a McMansion by an organic style house

[Anonymous No.17155045]

>>17155009
That was exactly my reaction: not mention the utter blindness to the fact that the material sciences are constantly advancing: top quality first world materials today are able to reduce the need for interior heating dramatically, in some cases to almost zero if you live in a temperate Atlantic climate, and I'm referring to winter.

[Anonymous No.17155049]

>>17155042
It's over, I've won

[Anonymous No.17155080]

Global Kowloon is where is at

[Anonymous No.17155084]

>>17155049
why are you replying to yourself?

[Anonymous No.17155086]

>>17155080
The Bee movie 2: Human Hive Boogaloo

[Anonymous No.17155103]

Mazes are the future

[Anonymous No.17155104]

>>17155086
That would be based

[Anonymous No.17155107]

>>17155030
when was the last time you saw a PJW video linked as a serious resource anywhere that isn't /pol/? telling board tourists to fuck off is the most natural thing in the world.

[Anonymous No.17155114]

>>17155080
>novel architecture produced by Chinese designer specifically for China
SO HECKING BEAUTIFUL

[Anonymous No.17155131]

>>17154468
Uh oh

[Anonymous No.17155132]

>>17154463
>"Certain forms are inherently more pleasing to humans than others."
>Posts massive concrete dong

[Anonymous No.17155141]

>>17155009
Hmmm, yes
Just like my greek temples

[Anonymous No.17155147]

>>17154608
Show our society to someone in the 50s and they will be horrified. In facf, I wonder how much more horrible society will look 50 years from now.

[Anonymous No.17155174]

>>17155107
It's not a PJW video. This just proves how little effort you've put into this. You are replying to me and didn't even bother to check your criticism before you made it. The OP just posted video link and "relevant". The video linked to a video about neurological reasons to like ugly architecture. Was it political? The video is but the guy wasn't aggressively posting or anything, just "relevant". Literally anyone could just continued scrolling and instead it's taken up much of this thread. Instead here you are continuing this chain, which you could've ignored, only to criticize about a video you didn't actually double check. I get that tourists should fuck off and people trolling the thread should leave but the anon made like the most inoffensive post possible and here you are tacking on to it and talking to me instead of attacking the basedjack posts or the guy who posted a pol comic in response.

[Anonymous No.17155265]

>>17154411
>It's good for the government to literally waste taxpayer money in order to further enrich some corporations
Do americans really?

[Anonymous No.17155294]

Read Pope’s The Battle of the Books

[Anonymous No.17155299]

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-contemporary-architecture

[Anonymous No.17155377]

>>17154979
looks like a zoo building, fugly like you

[Anonymous No.17156189]

>>17154692
It looks out of place.

[Anonymous No.17156216]

>>17155147
And this is relevant how?

[Anonymous No.17156234]

>>17154411
the money spent on unnecessary spending would still be pumped back in the economy if spent anywhere else, even if it was given back to the tax payer

[Anonymous No.17156276]

>>17154203
Read anything by Lewis Mumford for an actual informed criticism of unrestricted progress.

[Anonymous No.17156280]

>>17154252
Not really. There's actually laws to protect these kind of structures and you can't even modernize them in all cases because such improvements would go against "original vision" of the architect or whatever. So not only do you get a turd, but you're forced to preserve a turd as your cultural heritage. It's really a lose-lose situation for everyone.

[Anonymous No.17156303]

>>17155114
Uh i don't think Kowloon was designed at all lol

[Anonymous No.17156487]

>>17156276
Any particular suggestions?

[Anonymous No.17156690]

It seems like architecture, art, etc. are too caught up in self-reference nowadays.

[Anonymous No.17156784]

>>17154203
McMansions are the true enemy

[Anonymous No.17156830]

>>17155114
>designed
you fucking imbecile, that is the beauty of it.

[Anonymous No.17156842]

>>17154944
>looks too grey
as a slav i have a well-developed immunity to gray so op's pic looks awesome
pic rel: what i'd call too gray

[Anonymous No.17156858]

>>17156842
The new STALKER game is looking sick

[Anonymous No.17156863]

>>17154944
>so used to seeing green around every building and sight
also we have green everywhere here too, here's a random street in my city from google maps

[Anonymous No.17156891]

>>17154943
holy fuck, i can see everything
...speaking of fucking, where do they do uhhh you know

[Anonymous No.17156921]

>>17156784
Americans are merely caucasian niggers.

[Anonymous No.17157166]

>>17154943
>that dog
YOU
JUST
KNOW

[Saint Seiso !Mahdi26/jg No.17157219]

>>17154692
I can hear the Futurama theme song when I look at this.

Who /cottagecore/ here?

[Anonymous No.17157376]

>>17154203
Is there any way to out yourself as a pseud faster than making limp, ignorant complaints about modern architecture?
If you want your local gov to make a classical all stone parliament building that satisfies modern building codes go for it, but the cost will be much higher that 414 million pounds lmao. Or do you have a secret army of enslaved master stonemasons who can do all that work for you for free?

[Anonymous No.17157383]

>>17154203
Test

[Anonymous No.17157389]

>>17157376
t. bashes kinkade for being kitsch

[Anonymous No.17157436]

>>17157389
Kinkade is kitsch but I respect that he built a small empire by selling shitty paintings to tasteless suburbanites in the midwest.
I do not see what this has to do with pseuds whining how they don't understand something they've put in no effort to understand, though. Unless you are just also a pseud that is now going to defend Kinkade.

[Anonymous No.17157460]

>>17156487
I would say the best place the start is The Myth of the Machine. The first volume (Technics and Human Development) is mostly an explanation of our development to this point. You could skip right to the second volume (The Pentagon Of Power) if you just want to hear his propositions on biotechnics and how we can reverse our trajectory.

[Anonymous No.17157721]

>>17154411
For the love of all that's unholy please never express an opinion ever again.

[Anonymous No.17157771]

>>17154203
>futuristic vs. future-proof
This is actually a good way to put it. Buildings designed to look "contemporary" typically look outdated within a few decades (like how the modernist halls and dorms that pollute university campuses can be easily pegged as quintessentially "60s"), but buildings that are either historical or imitate the historical end up appearing timeless.

[Anonymous No.17157778]

>>17154203
Christopher Alexander

[Anonymous No.17157808]

>>17154275
>>17154252
oof

[Anonymous No.17157851]

>>17154597
>Me: mom, is demolishing and rebuilding a building ever carbon negative compared to renovation?
>Mom, MArch from Berkeley, thesis on carbon in building industry: nope

[Anonymous No.17157881]

>>17157721
What an alt-right loser, haha haha.

[Anonymous No.17157886]

peak comfy

[Anonymous No.17157925]

>>17157721
Are u the guy that faps to hanging suicides, that's u right?

[Anonymous No.17157957]

>>17157925
yes

[Anonymous No.17157997]

>>17154597
>just pour cement, particleboard, and fiberglass insulation into landfills forever, it's carbon neutral
If you were dead, the world would subtly improve.

[Anonymous No.17159238]

OKAY /lit, want to learn something new?
Individuals both involved in profession of architecture, and from the larger general public, talk about architecture in such diametric ways because the narrative was made to fit into that way in 1928 - it was a conspiracy between Swiss citizens, the historian Sigfried Gideon, and architect Charles-Édouard Jeanneret, better known as Le Corbusier.
These two men affected the larger course of architectural (not construction, or building) discourse, pedagogy, and practice in the same way Marx did a whole lot of shit to wider PESC discourse.
They did so, by character-assassinating the one man who stood the best chance of tempering their revolutionary ideals - one Hugo Häring, a German architect who recognized that Gideon and Corbusier were caught up in the fervor of Communism and were believing that architecture, too, should have a revolution along unsubstantiated and untested ideals.
Although he was the man who helped organize the first Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne, and was the founder and secretary of the organization for German architects (der Ring), Corbusier and Gideon slowly convinced everyone that he was a dumb old guy who couldn't get with the times - he was slow, and boring, and senile, and so he was ejected from the CIAM, and henceforth disrespected or dismissed by most.
THE ONLY architects who remained his friends, respected him, and who also champion a way of architecture which has already surpassed this retarded diametric way of architecture, are Alvar Aalto, and Hans Scharoun.
Everyone else is literally brainwashed or pseudo, and can't think for themselves.
The architectural thinking of Häring, Aalto, and Scharoun, is rooted in the human conception of architecture - that a building should support the desired living/usage style(s) of the users, that human aesthetic qualities are components of this objective that must be factored in to design, that abstract ideals rooted in baseless political or social theories have no place, etc. etc. etc.
These three men, and a few other individuals from the 20th century (none high-profile today) are the "Other Tradition of Modern Architecture" - the more dialectic, as opposed to rhetorical, sophist-like path we have been traveling since the end of the 19th Century.

[Saint Seiso !Mahdi26/jg No.17159279]

>>17159238
You seem to know your shit. What can you tell us about the Bauhaus movement?

[Anonymous No.17159379]

>>17154252
Yeah right why don't we get rid of the via Appia and build a new highway on it

[Anonymous No.17159402]

>>17159238
>The architectural thinking of Häring, Aalto, and Scharoun, is rooted in the human conception of architecture - that a building should support the desired living/usage style(s) of the users, that human aesthetic qualities are components of this objective that must be factored in to design, that abstract ideals rooted in baseless political or social theories have no place, etc. etc. etc.
Prioritizing function is what is taught in literally every architecture school these days you dumb retard, just because you read the wikipedia article on architecture, don't like LeCorbusier, and can use buzzwords doesn't mean you have secret knowledge.

[Anonymous No.17159454]

>>17159379
Yeah sounds good to me

[Anonymous No.17159456]

>>17154203

I've noticed that newer building do not insulate sounds very well. If I'm having a personal discussion with somebody over Skype, then I want that discussion to be murated. I do not want to feel as though I'm speaking to a crowd of strangers anytime I have to talk about anything in my apt

[Anonymous No.17159489]

>>17154692
In my opinion, what people miss about modern architecture is the time frame of experimentation. Consider how many iterations something like coffee makers have gone through. We've made probably hundreds of millions, maybe billions of them. Most of those have been in the modern era, with all kinds of new materials, and figuring out how those materials work best, what shapes to put them in, how to optimize comfort, what should be excised from the design entirely, takes a lot of mistakes to figure out.
When it comes to architecture, for most of human history we've been working with exactly the same materials. Wood, stone, clay, in various forms. We spent thousands of years figuring out how to build using traditional styles that suited the climate and culture.
Then, suddenly, history started moving really fast. We have an unbelievable number of building materials to work with. The purpose of individual buildings is no longer quite as rigid for a period of decades or centuries at a time. How we use specific rooms within something like a house doesn't even stay the same for a full century; consider the death of the parlor.
So now we're trying to figure out how to use all of these new materials, but we aren't working with a set of traditional rules to learn from because culture, technology, and ideals have all shifted. A hurricane has torn down Chesterton's Fence, and we're trying to hyper-jolt the rebuilding process.
And then on top of that, you have to think about how much more expensive experimenting in architecture is than a coffee pot. When we build a hideous blob of a building, we're testing our new abilities to their limits and learning a lot, but it's an expensive lesson that has to stick with us for a long time. But if we don't make those mistakes how do we learn that it's a genuinely bad idea? Without being willing to set aside a huge plot of land for architects and engineers to build an ass-crazy suburb, we're stuck just putting our malformed failures in the middle of our cities.

[Anonymous No.17159508]

>>17159279
Even before the CIAM, Gropius was caught up in the fervor of modern industrialization, but at the same time, saw the impending doom of handworkers / craftsmen, which was so integral to the culture of several parts of Germany.
The Bauhaus school was an attempt to merge the coming mass-industrialization of products and services with more individualized and "humane" ideals from the crafts industry of times before.
From a PESC perspective, Gropius also sought to unify all the disparate crafts together in political harmony - building/construction, textiles, ceramics/masonry, furniture, fixtures, etc., in mass-manufacturing, so that they might better stand a chance against faceless and inhumane mega-industry who only cares about the bottom line.
That is why the school in Dessau had its integrated courses, wings, accommodations, etc.
Gropius had several well-known or respected figures from several disparate industries/crafts come in to teach and guide, some of whom would go on to helm the school for a time.
He, along with Mies and a few other acquaintances, would flee to the United States or other countries before the war.
Ultimately, what was produced from the Bauhaus took "mass-production materials" to be stainless steel, took "ease of production" to mean simple geometric forms which were not at all pleasant to use (see: kettles, chairs, lamps), took beauty to be simple, "universal" forms (see the art of the proletariat, El Lizzitsky and co., constructivism) that all could "easily understand), etc. etc. etc.
It was another symptom of revolutionary fervor - it failed at its goals, even before it started.

[Anonymous No.17159542]

>>17159402
>>17159402
What you and architectural academia understand to be the word "function", is more how Mies and functionalists understand the word.
It is rooted in either a) an unsubstantiated ideal of function as a merger of industrial capacity with human occupation (see things like the Crown Hall) or b) people who think expressing arbitrary elements in the exterior design is inherently good or c) architecture firms who say things like "we design with humans in mind" on their firm website frontpage, but who really just say that because it sounds good or c) function as "ooo, wood, and good day lighting, and beautiful views", while not being able to fully bring that principle to absolute fruition through design dialectics (Aalto, Häring).
People talk about function without even really knowing what it really means, or how far it can really go - my post even says that architecture schools are and have been pozzed, and I will say that they have been pozzed since the establishment of the École des Beaux-Arts, further pozzed by the supremacy of the ETH Zürich over European architectural pedagogy and discourse, and absolutely pozzed by more useless schools like Psi-Arc, Berkeley, and Cornell (although, because of faculty networking [oh, who knows who? I do!], many more schools in the US are becoming pozzed)
Only a few schools in the UK and the Berlage within the TU Delft are safe.

I will ALSO say, that the information concerning CIAM and the expulsion of Hugo Haring, cannot be found in full detail on either the German or English-language Wikipedia page.
A few monographs, some of which hard to obtain and very expensive, by Colin St John Wilson and Peter Blundell Jones, are the primary English-language texts.
You can also read Häring's "Wege zur Form" in German if you like.

[Anonymous No.17159545]

>>17154424

Well yeah, but ugly is ugly and beauty is beauty. Ugliness reminds us of dysfunction and decay, of differentiation and chaos. Leftoids are a death cult so it's not surprising they prefer architecture like in the OP

[Anonymous No.17159586]

>>17157376
>>17157436

Modern architecture is just political propaganda you stupid faggot. An art solely concerned with form (beauty, anatomy) will converge upon common principles naturally because beauty and the mathematical physics involved are universal

[Anonymous No.17159592]

>>17159489
Most modern buildings don't suck because of architecture, they suck because developers usually don't want to splash out on a centerpiece building. Which makes sense because money is the core consideration behind any development. Your pretentious meandering betrays that you know barely anything about practicing architecture, besides what you would learn in the first year of architecture school (from which you were most likely cut because you sound like a pompous dumbass that doesn't realize your work was shit and you annoyed the piss out of your professors).

[Anonymous No.17159640]

>>17154943

Overly fenestrated, and the interior honestly doesn't look very nice unless you're obsessed with that style of wood because that's all you have to look at everyday

[Anonymous No.17159649]

>>17159592
I think it should have been fairly obvious I wasn't talking about day to day strip malls, but the kinds of bizarre post-modern buildings that this thread is making fun of. I'm interested more in defending the failed centerpieces than talking about your local steakhouse.

[Anonymous No.17159671]

>>17159649
Not the other guy, but, I think your point still stands with regards to strip malls and steakhouses.
I'd be more interested to see how someone can make something great, with a tight budget.
A local steakhouse also applys.

[Anonymous No.17159680]

RETVRN

[Anonymous No.17159699]

>>17154463
14 wall. i worked in this building; my floor had an open floor plan... it was so great

[Anonymous No.17159712]

>>17154252
I've seen the kind of "replaceable" buildings you talk about and they are the one who are in constant need of maintenance. And guess what they are actually not more replaceable. They are shit all around.

[Anonymous No.17159740]

>>17159649
Most of the post modern buildings this thread is making fun of also get hamstrung by budgets lol

[Anonymous No.17159742]

>>17159671
Those generally do have a set of rules by this point, though. You just need an insulated space with the most possible floor space and the highest level of adaptability to account for constant business turnover. In other words, a big boring box. It's hard to optimize past that until we get to the point that it's more economically useful to tear down old buildings every time a new tenant shows up so we can start designing to fit form to function again. In a lot of ways we're going the complete opposite direction right now, focusing on how to make livable/retailable space out of the absolutely least optimal structures: old banks and warehouses.

[Anonymous No.17159766]

>>17159680
To monke?

[Anonymous No.17159772]

>>17159742
Well, that's true. The user isn't liable to stay for long in today's age.

[Anonymous No.17159907]

>>17159649
>>17159740
This. What you're writing is exactly the dumb shit I'd say freshman year of college to get women to fuck me lol. If you had anything intelligent to say about architecture you'd make comments with more substance than just nonsense pseudocriticisms that presume modern architecture to be bad without actually detailing how or why. It also betrays a deep lack of understanding that you contine to lump all modern architecture into some nonsense post-war umbrella. There are massively different styles and schools of thought, with substansive differences.
But you don't know any of this because you're a pseud that can only throw out buzzwords that sound impressive to ignorant people. Which I guess explains why you're on /lit/

[Anonymous No.17159951]

>>17159907
Feel free to engage with what I'm saying directly, then. Which part of "experimentation takes a lot of iterations, we're still early in the testing phase" do you disagree with?

[Anonymous No.17159969]

[Anonymous No.17160010]

>>17159951
Don't engage with him, because he is pretending to be a negative/deconstructive force, while still offering unsubstantiated positive statements.
You, too, are operating on hunches, but you're engaging in rhetoric, while he is a sophist.

[Anonymous No.17160126]

>>17154203
G.K Chesterton's Orthodoxy

[Anonymous No.17160148]

>>17159951
I'm not engaging with that because theres nothing to engage with. That is an obvious observation that anybody could make. But merely observing that we have new tools we are still figuring out does not constitute meaningful or substansive criticism, even if you attach "and therefor modern architecture is bad" to the end. You are saying a lot of words that sound meaningful to people who have not actually bothered to learn about architecture before, but in reality are just a series of meaningless buzzwords. You know, like a pseud.

[Anonymous No.17160172]

>>17154692
out of all in this threat, I actually think this one is pretty cool

[Anonymous No.17160208]

>>17160148
I have not said and do not believe that modern architecture is bad, for the record.

[Anonymous No.17160271]

>>17160208


>>17160208
Not the guy you're responding to but that only makes your posts even closer to non-observations lol

[Anonymous No.17160298]

>>17160126
I have heard good things about Orthodoxy, but nothing concrete so far. Is it worth starting Chesterton there?

[Anonymous No.17160389]

>>17160271
I don't see how that can be, since nothing in my posts has ever been about judging the current state of architecture. All I've done is try to add context as to why some buildings are such absurd monstrosities. If my points are so obvious as to be unworth mentioning, I would hope that the non-pseud anons might give more insightful responses other than "it's a political conspiracy to destroy culture and civilization"

[Anonymous No.17160398]

>>17154943
>workplace is in a business park in the middle of suburbs
>it's a pretty expensive suburb and most of the new houses go for that too big windows vibe
>going for my lunchtime walk and I can see right through people's houses into their back gardens
Deeply unsettling.

>>17159680
My granddad built a yurt/teepee type structure on his land and it was unironically comfy as fuck.

[Anonymous No.17160505]

What do you guys think of Wrath of Gnon?

[Anonymous No.17160549]

>>17160505
I don't take him seriously but what a comfy account to browse through, all the nice photographs of architecture, the little passages, etc.

[Anonymous No.17160569]

>>17159969
I dont even care if it's deliberate or it isnt—It really feels like an insult.

[Anonymous No.17160616]

>>17160148
You are far more of a pompous asshole full of empty words than the person you are accusing
You feel there's something wrong with his opinion, but you fail at coming up with arguments to counter

[Anonymous No.17160624]

>>17154781
>broken window fallacy, literally the very first lesson in econ
that's the point you autist

[Anonymous No.17160755]

>>17154203
I'm reading this right now after an Anon suggested it yesterday, it's quite good

[Anonymous No.17160983]

>>17154832
One thing to be said for brutalism is that the materials aren't fragile or bound to fall to pieces if neglected for a decade or so, though results will vary depending mostly on the roof: Even most of malls with impressively solid reinforced concrete floors and support pillars have such rubbish tar-covered corrugated sheet metal roof structures, and drywall partitions, that the interiors of them practically return to nature after 20 years of disuse. It's also well suited to places with hideously cold climates combined with flat terrain that looks especially grim all winter, where it's comfy to be deep inside a huge opaque building where you can't even sense what season or time of day it is.

[Anonymous No.17161047]

>>17154625
>>17154604
>earth friendly concrete
lol you know nothing about concrete.

[Anonymous No.17161313]

>>17154625
this style of architecture should be named "guilt free nukes"

[Anonymous No.17161469]

>>17154203
I actually like the symbolism of the Scottish Parliament. It's a shitty stopgap only meant to be a placeholder for a truly independent seat of government. It's ugly as sin, but so is devolution.

[Anonymous No.17161514]

>>17154203
At first I thought Taleb was on some weird tirade about a pet hate but the more I think about it, the more right he sounds. How does he do it?

[Anonymous No.17161868]

>>17154407
retarded unsubstantiated boogeyman.

[Anonymous No.17161875]

>>17154424
Incoherent Nietzschean gibberish.

[Anonymous No.17162175]

>>17154424
Based. This is what true Traditionalism is, according to Ernst Junger. What 4channelers call Trad, is really regressivism

[Anonymous No.17162809]

>>17154203
Both look like shit.

[Anonymous No.17163130]

>>17154407
t. bugman

[Anonymous No.17163224]

>>17154679
Scottish people are generally very smug for some unknown reason, i imagine the people defending it can only be Scottish.

[Anonymous No.17163234]

>>17154943
looks like some shitty minecraft house

[Anonymous No.17163248]

>>17154943
Brutalism is the great normie filter. They don't understand the term (brut as in concrete), they don't understand the artistic or architectural intent, and they 'oppose brutalism' by promoting structures that are entirely soulless and devoid of artistic validity - exactly what they accuse Brutalism of.

[Anonymous No.17163274]

Where's my neoclassical architecture that isn't raw "white = austere" LARP and has garish colors and facade work?

[Anonymous No.17163285]

>>17163248
Brutalism is the great pseud-honeypot, every time you see someone explaining why they like Brutalism they preface it by explaining that liking Brutalism makes you better than plebs

[Anonymous No.17163292]

>>17154685
>architecture industry takes a deliberate stance against long-standing architecture for several decades
>HMMMMM WHY IS THE LONG-STANDING ARCHITECTURE WE DON'T WANT TO MAINTAIN STARTING TO FALL INTO DISREPAIR?
Shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.17163298]

>>17163285
Understanding architecture does make you better than someone who does not understand it, in a conversation about architecture. This is self-evident.
I don't know shit about Flemish Mannerism, but I'm not going off about how its garbage and offensive.

[Anonymous No.17163387]

>>17154449
>society has degenerated so architecture has to as well

[Wojak Poster No.17164071]

>>17154424
This, there is no point in trying to LARP as MUH ANCESTORS
Create a new, better culture, you unimaginative /pol/fags

>>17161875
>t. Got filtered hard

[Wojak Poster No.17164150]

>>17159969
Please tell me this isnt real

[Anonymous No.17164164]

>>17154203
The ideal would be to take the classic principles and apply them to modern forms.

[Anonymous No.17164169]

Thoughts on Poundbury?

Personally I find it cringeworthy and undesirable. It is the architectural equivalent of a forced meme, conceived and promoted by a man who literally talks to plants.

The ideal architectural design should use locally produced material, rather than whatever is cheapest and easily mass-produced. Forcing architects to work under strict restrictions encourages creativity and distinctiveness, rather than allowing the freedom to simply copy and paste a building from one town to another.

[Anonymous No.17164172]

>>17164165
was already said multiple times itt
you niggers just can't be bothered to so much as skim through the discussion because you're desperate to say something yourself and feel important

[Anonymous No.17164183]

>>17154463
Pic unrelated I assume because it looks like shit

[Anonymous No.17164193]

>>17154886
I can hear the Halo theme all the way over the internet anon

[Anonymous No.17164217]

>>17154947
For me, Its millions of dollars of upkeep and repairs per year.

[Anonymous No.17164323]

>>17154203
>>17154424

[Anonymous No.17164433]

>>17155265
>Producing jobs and infrastructure that support the economy is bad
Do europeans really?

[Anonymous No.17164438]

>>17156784
That actually look nice, schizo

[Anonymous No.17164464]

>>17155147
our society isn't that different from the 50s, you're overexaggerating

[Anonymous No.17164482]

>>17164464
it's just a standard ready-made /pol/ talking point. don't interact with the npc.

[Anonymous No.17164527]

>>17154275
so what?
culture changes no matter what
if you get your value from the history of your people youre more often than not a dimwit with no acomplishments that just clings to something bigger than himself

[Anonymous No.17164529]

>>17164323
I don't think anything can be built off this world that I will ever be able to see as beautiful. I don't think we can make evil beautiful.

[Anonymous No.17164546]

>>17164527
you can't divorce personal identity from the cultural frame it emerges from. to be a person is always to relate yourself to a tradition.
you're right insofar as tradfags are just larpers with no understanding of the past they want to return to though.

[Anonymous No.17164995]

>>17159402
You clearly dont go to architecture school

[Anonymous No.17165049]

>>17159542
In whitch way are all of these schools ,,pozzed,,?

[Anonymous No.17165589]

>>17154223
Based. Absolutist Kingdom of Free Alba when?

[Anonymous No.17166029]

>>17163224
Most people I know loathe the building

[Anonymous No.17166274]

>>17165589
>mfw I complete the project of Calgacus

[Anonymous No.17166356]

>>17164169
Poundbury is a noble attempt but fundamentally fails because it is what once was and not what is now. Adhering to tradition should mean adhering to what always is valid, and even though a village like Poundbury effortlessly puts bad buildings made by good architects to shame using good buildings made by mediocre and bad architects, it just falls short of achieving the ideal; good buildings by good architects.

[Anonymous No.17166390]

The MET is easily my favorite piece of Modernist Architecture

[Anonymous No.17166810]

>>17159969
Anglos not even once

[Anonymous No.17166888]

>>17154203
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Poetry_(Dryden)

[Anonymous No.17166994]

>>17160983
Concrete is simply pathetic in terms of longevity compared to good stone

[Anonymous No.17167081]

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/london-brutalist-architecture
>Let's go guys! I fucking love concrete! The future lies in patchy grey and smells like piss! We're so progressive and avant-garde

[Anonymous No.17167114]

>>17154203
Traditionalism is incompatible with classicism. Classicism is a defense of civilization. Traditionalism is a repudiation of it.

[Anonymous No.17167402]

Architecture follows the cycle of life.
It starts Dionysian, organic, like Gothic architecture, flamboyant, then it culminates with Baroque, it parodies itself with Rococo, then it becomes Apollinian, structured, rigid with Neoclassical, then it ends with Brutalism.
Like a corpse slowly rigidifying itself, from life to death.

You have kind of a rebirth with Art Nouveau, Dionysian, organic and beautiful; First world war happens killing European vitality and right after you have the more rigid Art Deco and the very rigid Bauhaus; sign of dying vitality.

[Anonymous No.17167417]

>>17167402
Who gave Oswald Spengler a computer?

[Anonymous No.17167596]

>>17154692
Implicit in the idea of these architectural slug blobs is a desire to try to awaken dulled senses. To shake things up. Traditionalism is by necessity, a repetition. If they built just another one of those red roofed buildings there rather than a slug, nobody would have snapped that picture of it.
There's a jadedness about traditionalism and an urge to try something new and attention grabbing, to explore the space of possibilities.
The irony is that a lot of these contemporary designs end up looking similarly generic and converge on a blobbiness of deconstructed geometrical absolutes.

There is a timeless beauty to the austere designs of classical architecture, but there is also something to be said about experimentation. Sagrada Familia is in my opinion how it should be done. It puts a creative spin on a traditional cathedral, retaining an identity while showcasing the architect's unique vision.

[Anonymous No.17167706]

When does the American arcitectural revival begin?

[Anonymous No.17167861]

>>17154597
>Plus they're easier to tear done, which is always a good cyclical stimulus for the economy
Broken window fallacy.

>Westminster is literally in danger of collapse
I'm going to assume you're using that word correctly.
They should really fix those collapsing buildings in Westminster.

[Anonymous No.17167867]

>>17154203
>culture
>dude just make everything look like ancient greece lmao

[Anonymous No.17167907]

>>17167706
When America will die. Around 2042, according to my shot in the dark.
>>17167867
This but unironically.

[Anonymous No.17167935]

>>17160755
can you elaborate on it? The topic might interest me

[Anonymous No.17167942]

>>17154203
I prefer futuristic style, even in your example.

[Anonymous No.17167951]

>>17154252
>That's the whole point,dude, to not have to put up with a building for hundreds of years, i.e. hundreds of years of upkeep, ie easily replaceable.

[Anonymous No.17167996]

>>17154886
Looks like a tribes map

[Anonymous No.17168008]

>>17164071
>no point in larping as the people of the past who appreciated beauty and form and order, these are old fashioned ideals
>you must embrace the ugly just like you must embrace broken windows, degeneracy, surveilance and censorship

[Anonymous No.17168054]

>>17168008
who are you quoting?