This channel deals with topics concerning architecture and city design. The aim is to broadcast interesting and peculiar structures as well as to challenge current standards within the field. If you (like me) have a passion for the subject, consider checking out some of my videos!
Maybe I'm weird, but I actually quite like the design of most of the buildings you pointed out as ugly or hideous. I like IKEAs, that building in Oslo and I can't quite believe you called the Pompidou Centre "hideous". It's a design classic. I don't believe beauty is completely in the eye of the beholder, but there clearly is a certain amount of that. I kind of agree about your point near the end that there should be a generally harmonious "background" architecture, punctured by the occasional standout building. I think maybe we just differ on what is beautiful or ugly.
I would like to point out, ornamentation on buildings is good for peoples mental health, and that is a practical purpose. To make the best city, you need to make the best neighborhoods. Then put the neighborhoods next to each other. This should be easy enough, but reality says otherwise. Their is too much spiteful ego in the way.
Give it 100 years they will get it back as the bridge will be seen as a piece of the citie's heritage. Since it is an important artery and actually pleasant to look at.
I love modern architecture. My dream is so have a small concrete house and then have my beautifully artistic partner paint on the blank walls. He loves the color pink and I love the color yellow. That blank slate has so much potential.
I'd say the one crucial thing it lacks is a soul. Far too much belongs to the Blah House School. As to some of the organic structures. Most of which seem to be museums. I don't think they will age well.
It may be missing points (I wouldn't know) but you broke down Kant much better than I could trying to get through those readings in architecture school haha
I don't like the message here that grid cities aren't good we all should make every city in the world look like europe Not every place in the world has architecture to the extent Europe has
17:13 False--the exact opposite is true here. All else constant, that's not how housing supply and demand works. If you increase the supply of housing by manufacturing more residential units, that doesn't add more people who want housing. It creates housing units to satisfy the housing demand that's already there. If housing developers build homes in the hopes of bringing more people to live somewhere that has little to no housing demand, then that's nonsensical and is a very foolish waste of money with many millions of dollars on the line (and it may cost billions when we're talking about large development projects taken up by the government to erect entire cities or neighborhoods). You then followed that up by saying that cities should reduce demand by building more attractive neighborhoods. No, that would INCREASE housing demand, because more people would want to live there. It's essentially the same concept as "curb appeal" in that it increases property values by increasing the attractiveness to potential buyers, but on a much grander level. In terms of housing costs, at the very least, one must not manufacture housing shocks via socioeconomic policies. There's enough of an issue with housing costs due to the ebb and flow of the economy as a whole (i.e. the business cycle), as well as housing demand from those wanting to live in a certain place due to aesthetic, social, and other reasons of appeal (i.e. location, location, location). Some of those policies that cause massive housing shortages and increased housing costs are: - 1 mass immigration--just allowing anyone into your country will cause housing demand to skyrocket. Often times, immigrants will take over entire communities and not assimilate. There are other ramifications to consider, but for the point here, home prices will surge. - 2 focus away from the family--with no fault divorces, single parenthood, and emphasis away from keeping families together, housing demand surges. When married couples separate, they tend to live separately. Whether or not they have children, one of the parents almost always lives elsewhere, and it's usually by themselves at a new place.
It would be swell if you and @the_aesthetic_city were the leading voices in urbanism. NJB, City Beautiful, et cetera - all great, but incredibly modernist, pragmatic takes that think people want to live somewhere because it's "walkable," with no concern for that you are walking IN A PLACE, participating in and with an environment.
Both sides are working towards a similar goal, more livable cities, NJB and similar others are advocating for retrofitting the modern city for more utilitarian aspects of livability and sustainability, like how people move around, noise, and heat Island effects. It's hard to appreciate beautiful buildings when they're behind a 12 lane urban freeway.
Really cool, that you mentioned @theaestheticcity I love his channel and although you can argue it's a concervative view, I think in this particular case, a bit of more down to earth approach is definitely healthy. Love the video and welcome back :)
I'm afraid everything in this went *way* over my head and I had no idea what you were talking about, yet the beautiful buildings you pointed out (and the ugly ones) I agreed with. While the philosophers make no sense, it's weird how people seem to be able to just call out "beautiful" or "ugly" at a glance with a seemingly high degree of agreement. That is interesting to me, and I'd love to know why that happens. It's like it's an intuitive response.
You’re missing, or intentionally leaving out, the street quality of a building. Sure, a modern tall building is all too often meant to be seen in its entirety, hence the wasteful and anti sidewalk, pedestrian quality of urban plazas designed at the base of modern towers to cause them to stand apart. Many of the new buildings you show seem to be terrible at street level, IKEA most certainly (although newer urban IKEAs built into a downtown layout are quite positively urban). You need to show us how a building serves the sidewalk. Without this aspect the judgements and opinions you render are hollow
It's pretty simple to me to be honest, at least to start. A beautiful city is one with variety within a set of boundaries, and that emphasizes important buildings over the mundane. Lastly, local, more natural materials should be prioritized over materials such as concrete, metal and glass.
great video! I advise to look into the theory stated by Studio Muoto, and surrounding new french realism movement also based in the work of lacaton&vassal. in my eyes viewing anything as timeless is wrong and dates back to christian perception of the eternal world order started in paradise. If we look at a building what we have too see is the process of where it came from and context of what it is to become. therefore aesthetic must be searched in useability and flexability. buildings are the infrastructure of life that is everchanging. ofcourse flowers look nice and greek laws of beauty stand true. what counts tho is our set of values from which we percieve. creating an aesthetic that matches a funcional and authentic value system is the true quest. 16:05 :haha i know that the balcony building is more beautiful than the uneffective sulptures next to them, for arcitecture is not sulpture. 20:00 :you citizise those tarrassed living blocks on the overgrown hill, judging from an aerial view. i imagine those blocks have more potential of creating beautiful life than any of those monumental sulptures built on blood money. in context of the statement of the rational boarder of the public and the private in urbanism i advise to look into "The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture" by pier vittorio aureli, in which he constitutes the city as an archipelago of local value systems.
