Bad Architecture is Aesthetic Terrorism

I would honestly say that the 1950s-1960s was the year that architecture died. For thousands of years, we were spoiled with beautiful architecture that defined the culture of every village, city, and country that gave it charm and uniqueness. Then in the 20th century, brutalist concrete tower blocks scarred beautiful city skylines and suburbs.

Modern artists, and modern architects are aesthetic terrorists.



Architects have such an important job in city planning. Good or bad architecture can lift up or tear down the human spirit, the quality of life, and the surrounding environment in our towns we inhabit.


Bland, boring, ugly, and even tasteless architecture without any attention paid to keeping aesthetically reasonable is horribly unsustainable on the environment as well. Think about it for a minute. Older buildings tend to wear and tear over the years. If younger generations see an unpleasing building show signs of decay, where is the incentive to maintain it and keep it standing? More environmental resources go into demolishing and old building and replacing it with a new, than it takes to maintain the structural integrity and usability of a beautifully designed structure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GapUEKYLE1o

 

The one most important thing about Europe is our traditional, or cultural architecture and I'm really happy we keep it. In certain cities you can't just go throw up a modern building in the big city. It's got to be made like it was hundreds of years ago. I like that. It's a bit like my town, the outer suburbs have modern houses but anything central where the people come has very strict conditions in terms of presentation.

 

I agree. I hate modern architecture for the most part. So much attention was paid to small details in older architecture.

 

Larger (and fast growing) population equals practical and big buildings. A development that fits the last century.

 

Not Guilty,!!!!!

 

And 20 seconds in he uses a quote from Frank Lloyd Wright who was a modernist architect... Care to explain?

 

I dont think any you guys really kniw anything about architecture. There is a difference between modern architecture and contemporary architecture. Modern architecture ended about 40 or 50 years ago. I happen to like some brutalist architecture. Its absolutely beautiful. Louis Kahn's work specifically the capital of bangladesh, Marcel Breuer's work, and Le Corbusier. You guys really dont know what youre talking about. Does anyone keep up on architecture on a daily basis on a website like say archdaily?

 

I think people don't realize that modernism was a movement in art and architecture that began over a century ago and ended decades ago. They don't understand that current and modern are not interchangeable words

 

^^^ That was kind of my point

 

I dont claim to know much about architecture

But I know what I like and I know what I find awe inspiring, and generally anything built post WWII doesnt particularly inspire me

And I looked up brutalist architecture and it is ugly

 

You're just making excuses.

The fast growing population, is largely due to the agricultural and industrial revolution. Innovations in farming and factories producing food and human necessities caused the slowly growing human population to grow exponentially.

That said, a beautifully intricate, neoclassical style building would be much faster and easier to construct today than it would have been centuries ago. Due to innovations of construction and engineering technology.

 

No, I'm stating the reason. They were not build to be aestethically pleasing. They were build to house many people against affordable costs.

 

Are you an architect?
While I'm not an architect, I am an Industrial Designer. Which is basically architecture for consumer goods. So I do have a design background. And without good design and adding the artistic element to your work, it's just bland engineering without taste or creativity.


Why do you like brutalist architecture?




This is a photo of the old post office of my parent's town.



In the 1960s, it was replaced with this abomination:



Once the need for office space in the post office was no longer necessary, they downsized and moved into a small one-story building. And leveled this old building since nobody wanted to buy it, because it was too damn ugly.


Boston MA is another example with their city hall.

From this:



To this:





Now I'm not saying that all buildings must have a classical look to them. Sometimes modern buildings with glass can look aesthetically enjoyable to the eye. But when you deliberately deplete a man-made community of its beauty, you evoke negative emotions, hostility, and totalitarianism.

 

Wright was one of the better modern architects of the modernist era. I like some, but not all of his buildings. However I agree with his quote at the 20 second mark.


This link is a good documentary (59 min long if you have time) about why beauty is important.

https://vimeo.com/128428182

 

Yes, so much this. It isn't a coincidence that brutalist architecture was very common in the USSR or that when it pops up in the US it is always a government building. This style of architecture has always felt very oppressive to me.

I do like the way glass high rises look when built around older architecture, I think it creates a very nice , aesthetically pleasing contrast. My city has made this contrast work very well.

 

I like brutalist architecture. Both visually and conceptually.

 

It's true, they were not meant to be nice looking for the inhabitants or visitors. It's also inhumane to deliberately put the working class inside of bleak, ugly tower blocks, that were designed to be an eyesore for the people who have to look at them. These architects designed these towerblocks to create a mass production mindset. They're common in former Soviet controlled countries, and in working class areas in major cities.

Sure blandness is cheaper to build in the short run. But spending extra time and energy on aesthetic beauty encourages maintenance and preservation. Ugliness encourages demolition and reconstruction after the building ages. Blandness is more expensive in the long run.

I too have noticed that government buildings are more apt to adopt the brutalist approach as well. Most likely for the same reasons you mentioned.


Clashing post-modernism with classical architecture can work if you do it right. Otherwise it looks like a cancerous growth that is consuming us all. See below:




Also, to those of you who like brutalism, can you explain why or provide good examples of what you particularly like? I'm open to have my mind changed.

 

I already did provide examples and no one looked at them.

 

I forgot about this thread.

I remembered this thread after seeing this meme

My mistake, I took a look at your capitol building of Bangladesh and it looks like a prison to me.

I'm honestly surprised the European members of this thread don't have a greater appreciation for their architectural heritage. Where I live, the oldest towns were incorporated between 100-140 years ago. Meaning we don't have much architectural heritage around here at all. Those buildings are were small, and many were demolished in the mid 20th century. I'm actually jealous of Europeans who are blessed with hundreds and sometimes thousands of years of architectural legacy and tradition. I'm even jealous of East Coast cities who have more classical and traditional architecture.

 

That looks like a glass tower block that has toppled over onto a church. It must be the worst piece of architecture (if you can call it architecture) that I have ever seen.