Brutalist modernity- a study of old and new buildings

[Angst]

Walk through sections of a German city

I've spent a lot of time in Berlin, and Germany in general. Danes tend to do that as they're a neighbouring countries and have plenty of stuff to experience. Personally my family has visited several parts of Germany before we started going to Italy every summer - and even then we used to stay in different parts of the country on the way there. (We drove.) I'd like to ask if the 'ugly' buildings you're talking about were east or west of the iron curtain.

Also, again, people completely ignore that tastes simply differ from before.

Oh wow! You mean buildings before are different than buildings now?!?! What a revelation!

No seriously are you actually going to say anything interesting or is this just a picture spam.

^^ This ^^

(Although with slightly fewer declarations of uninterestingness)

Being hyp.

Is this post serious? Do you understand that pre-WW2 architects were just as 'hyp' as those today?

There's nothing more honest or authentic about the past. People should stop romanticizing it and consider its works greater than today. It only appears better because people remember the good things.

 

[AdamCrock]

When I look upon the modern architecture I can only think about one thing : "OMG that costs a lot" , than I think about all the people starving in the world , then I think about churches .... cathedrals - I hate them .... People are starving in the world and we care about old cathedrals ....

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I'd like to ask if the 'ugly' buildings you're talking about were east or west of the iron curtain.

I am not specifically referring to what happened in the GDR. I specifically talked about rebuilding efforts after the war. That hardly was exclusive to the GDR. And I don't think there is anything controversial about how the need for post-WWII rebuilding messed up German cities, on both sides of the curtain. The most beautiful towns are usually those that weren't carpet-bombed. And those known for their ugliness are usually ones carpet-bombed.

Is this post serious? Do you understand that pre-WW2 architects were just as 'hyp' as those today?

o_O I didn't claim that hypness as such was something new.

People should stop romanticizing it and consider its works greater than today. It only appears better because people remember the good things.

One hardly needs to remember when the streets are full of it. o_O

 

[Angst]

I am not specifically referring to what happened in the GDR. I specifically talked about rebuilding efforts after the war. That hardly was exclusive to the GDR.

o_O I didn't claim that hypness as such was something new.

Yet you only blame modern architects for being cultural-capital-sellouts. Again, if that post was serious.

One hardly needs to remember when the streets are full of it. o_O

They aren't. They demolished all the ugly of the old bull in order to build the new buildings you currently despise and blame modern architecture for.

Also, you still suppose some universal aesthetics that people don't necessarily share.

EDIT: Of course most of the structures that are kept intact are often simply leftovers from vile and vicious regimes. "What a beautiful time it used to be when happy people lived here and unhappy people starved and shat on the streets!"

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yet you only blame modern architects for being cultural-capital-sellouts. Again, if that post was serious.

Forma asked what else would make architectures design what they design other than what was liked by most people or some such. I answered: Being hyp. Saying, what gives an architect prestige, makes him or her hyp is not necessarily what reflects popular taste. That is all.
I personally however am not really concerned with the big modern architecture projects. I am concerned with modern general city landscapes.

They aren't. They demolished all the ugly of the old bull in order to build the new buildings you currently despise and blame modern architecture for.

I don't know what you are talking about.
I am talking about so-called "Gründerzeit"-architecture. Gründerzeit meaning founding period, a term which refers to a specific historic period of Germany but beyond that to a specific kind of architecture which before WWII used to dominate German cities. Though it already before WWII fell out of fashion and flat boring buildings were increasingly build.

Spoiler :

They got bulled by bombs and were replaced by "modern" bland buildings. So WWII sort of paved the way for it.

Also, you still suppose some universal aesthetics that people don't necessarily share.

I don't. I am confident to say that historic/Gründerzeit city landscapes are preferred by the vast majority of people in Germany.
There is in so far a "capitalistic sell-out" going on as since the end of the era of those buildings modern efficient architecture came to dominate city landscapes. To their detriment. Don't get me wrong. I am not hostile to modern glass-monsters and what have you. I am not hostile to new creative ways etcetera. I am hostile to those bland buildings which leave any character to be desired and what they do to a city.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The Manhattan skyline is far from bland.

It is quite easy to create ugly monolithic buildings. It is just the opposite to create buildings that complement their surroundings in an environment which contains both old and new buildings.

 

[JohannaK]

I'm not sure that would even actually stand.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is an amazing building. There is a tuned mass damper in the top to counteract swaying from the wind.

To help stabilize the building, a tuned mass damper was placed in the mechanical space at its top. This substantial piece of stabilizing equipment weighs 400 tons (350 metric tons). The damper is designed to counteract swaying motions due to the effect of wind on the building and reduces the building's movement due to wind by as much as 50%.[9] Citigroup Center was not the first skyscraper in the United States to feature a tuned mass damper. That distinction belongs to the John Hancock Tower in Boston, MA.

 

[JohannaK]

Woah, impressive!

 

[timtofly]

It does seem to tempt an airplane pilot to.....

 

[AdamCrock]

It does seem to tempt an airplane pilot to.....

No chance for a level bomber , America got's too many of patriot missiles I'm affraid "Norad" is seekig out any threats even as we speak and it is a true wonder how those planes would get past the defenses and hit WTC and Pentagon - I suspect a foul play

 

[Angst]

Forma asked what else would make architectures design what they design other than what was liked by most people or some such. I answered: Being hyp. Saying, what gives an architect prestige, makes him or her hyp is not necessarily what reflects popular taste. That is all.

You think that was different way back?

I personally however am not really concerned with the big modern architecture projects. I am concerned with modern general city landscapes.

I don't know what you are talking about.
I am talking about so-called "Gründerzeit"-architecture. Gründerzeit meaning founding period, a term which refers to a specific historic period of Germany but beyond that to a specific kind of architecture which before WWII used to dominate German cities. Though it already before WWII fell out of fashion and flat boring buildings were increasingly build.

Spoiler :

They got bulled by bombs and were replaced by "modern" bland buildings. So WWII sort of paved the way for it.

I don't. I am confident to say that historic/Gründerzeit city landscapes are preferred by the vast majority of people in Germany.
There is in so far a "capitalistic sell-out" going on as since the end of the era of those buildings modern efficient architecture came to dominate city landscapes. To their detriment. Don't get me wrong. I am not hostile to modern glass-monsters and what have you. I am not hostile to new creative ways etcetera. I am hostile to those bland buildings which leave any character to be desired and what they do to a city.

Surely.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't. I am confident to say that historic/Gründerzeit city landscapes are preferred by the vast majority of people in Germany.
There is in so far a "capitalistic sell-out" going on as since the end of the era of those buildings modern efficient architecture came to dominate city landscapes. To their detriment. Don't get me wrong. I am not hostile to modern glass-monsters and what have you. I am not hostile to new creative ways etcetera. I am hostile to those bland buildings which leave any character to be desired and what they do to a city.

Most old buildings are extremely bland. It's just a blandness achieved through brickwork and ornamental masonry rather than through concrete and steel. Look at the Massachusetts State House that Antilogic posted on the last page- picturesque, sure, but as characterful as a Big Mac, and to the casual observer as memorable.

 

[Quackers]

Trellick Towers is very highly thought of among architects, and is widely regarded as one of the finest examples of British post-war social housing. You can even get it on a tea-towel.

Providing you're not being sarcastic I've lost a lot of faith in so called "architects". Although, I concede i purely base my opinion on my own aesthetic tastes, rather than the "social, environmental, cultural" stuff which seems to be considered just as important as the appearance of the bulding. I don't understand how and why people think some of these buildings look nice. Especially that awful looking building in Pristina. It actually wants to make me gag. It looks like mould is growing on top.

On the whole I think some of Sill's points about how the flattened German cities are considered ugly in contrast to the unblemished cities holds true in the UK too. Post-war planners seemed to have aethetics at the back of their mind when designing whole new areas. If i remember correctly the enormous tower blocks for British social housing has been considered a mistake now. I've read testimony from people who went from living in terrace housing to a flat and how their quality of life fell because of it.

 

[Perfection]

fun video: http://blog.ted.com/2007/04/20/james_howard_ku_1/

 

[bhsup]

Trellick Towers is very highly thought of among architects

There should be a law about architects not getting to decide what is appealing. I just looked that up on wiki and it is one big huge ugly monstrosity.

Spoiler :

 

[JohannaK]

I don't see what's so ugly. It's not the most beautiful thing, but it has a certain appeal, a certain uniqueness to it.

 

[Angst]

I like it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

fun video: http://blog.ted.com/2007/04/20/james_howard_ku_1/

Indeed. It is the supreme lack of good architecture and proper city planning that we find ourselves living in this ugly and dismal landscape. It isn't so much that proper architects aren't extensively trained in order to do this. It is more that they are not given the opportunity by those who are clueless.

There should be a law about architects not getting to decide what is appealing. I just looked that up on wiki and it is one big huge ugly monstrosity.

I find it ironic that a building which is listed as a prime example of "particularly important buildings of more than special interest" by the UK continues to be vilified by some in this thread.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Humans are evolving to become biorobots. Eye-candy architecture is an obstruction. Must be abolished. Just as any other form of right-brain activity.