Series of photo's of architectural highlights, art and cities.
Since 1960, when I got my first camera, a Kodak Brownie Starlet, I made photos more and more. My second camera in 1963 was a Petri Blue Magic Scope. The next one was a 6 x 6 cm Yashica Mat (1970-1976). Then I purchased a Nikon Nikkormat FT2. with 3 lenses: Nikkor 85 mm - 1:1.8, Micro Nikkor 55 mm - 1:3.5, Nikkor 24 mm - 1:2.8 which accompanied me for 28 years, until the digital age, when a Nikon D 70 appeared in 2004, this time with a zoom lens (AF-S Nikkor 18-70 mm - 1:3.5/4.5). This camera was replaced by a Nikon D 90 in 2009 with 12,3 megapixels and options and the lenses: AF-S Nikkor 18-105 mm - 1:3.5/5.6, AF Nikkor 70-300 mm - 1:4/5.6 and for architecture: a Tokina SD 12-24 mm - 1:4 . In 2011 the camera body changed to a Nikon D7000, more megapixels (16,2), better focusing and faster. In 2013 the camera body changed again to a Nikon D7100 and more megapixels (24,1). In 2015 a Nikon D7200 replaced the previous one.
See more on: www.google.com/imgres?q=R%C3%B6merstadt%20Frankfurt&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Frhein-main.eurokunst.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F03%2F1-treuner-roemerstadt.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Frhein-main.eurokunst.com%2Fsonder-ausstellung-neuer-mensch-neue-wohnung-die-bauten-des-neuen-frankfurt-1925-1933-im-deutschen-architekturmuseum-zu-100-jahren-bauhaus%2F&docid=PQtLQFgY0_78rM&tbnid=PQZS15ic_joIdM&vet=12ahUKEwid0JfA8vmFAxXw8QIHHW55BZA4FBAzegQIZRAA..i&w=450&h=358&hcb=2&ved=2ahUKEwid0JfA8vmFAxXw8QIHHW55BZA4FBAzegQIZRAA
You should visit Tallinn again, many things have changed. There's way more nicely renovated buildings, promenades along the sea and new modern architecture now. Check out again Roterman quarter, Kalamaja district and Telliskivi , Port Noblessner, the Port of Tallinn area, the Memorial of the Victims of Communism, Patarei Coastal Fort/prison is getting renovated and they started with the construction of the Rail Baltic Ülemiste (Zaha Hadid) terminal etc.
When the bishop saw what St Peter's Church was turning into he refused to fund anymore money for it. Le Corbusier, who would brag about how he studied to make his buildings right for his clients, is not a religious man and it shows. The building was supposed to be for the Church but it was designed to celebrate Le Corbu"s genius for raw concrete and general ugliness. Can you tell that this is supposed to be Catholic Church? I can't. There is nothing inside or out that inspires or instructs or that makes a worshipper comfortable in a Holy place (except for the tiny, pathetic, stick cross placed inconspicuously on the top). There are stars cut into a wall but this is a vague, generic mystical thing, not a symbol of anything specifically Christian. To my knowledge no Mass has ever been celebrated here. This lack of concern for his clients has always been a hallmark for this arrogant man. The local people scorn the wonky pile of concrete and call it "the coal bucket", but snobs who claim the emperor really has clothes agree that it is a triumph. The triumph of gullibility.
Le Corbusier was not a religious man and had little use for the Catholic Church and it shows. There is little evidence that this building was meant for Catholic worship. There is some sort of unclear mystical mystery about the place and that was probably the best that Le Corbusier could scrape up. The look is ugly and there is a kind of generic spirituality that Le Corbusier figured would do. The building is indeed unique as far as churches go and making something unique is what modern architects strive for. This is not what church-goers look for. There are hardly any familiar things to remind a worshipper that he is in a church. One old religious statue that looks out of place, bizarre stained glass windows, weird looking hands on the glass door, no kneelers, a cross with the top cut off, an altar that looks more like an ironing board, an altar rail that looks more like a stolen train rail, a sort of tower with only part of a cross cut into it, and a strange ceiling that seems to float above the worshippers really don't make this space seem sacred, just otherworldly. Le Corbu bragged a lot about studying the needs of his clients. He never cared about his clients. He cared that his buildings would be sculptures meant to glorify his genius. If he really cared about these clients, he would have built them a real church. Le Corbusier was a humbug and here I am being kind.
It is called Brutalism, because of the rough exposed concrete (in French béton brut). Look at the video's of my playlist "Le Corbusier" and my video "Sier van Rhijn architect". You will like it !
Hey I got a random question. I am an architecture student and I'm working on this building as a project. Do you by chance have plans with dimensions of this building?
You can find the information you want here: www.archdaily.com/328057/ad-classics-maison-du-bresil-le-corbusier www.tumblr.com/plansofarchitecture/146288757825/le-corbusier-maison-du-br%C3%A9sil-1957-1959-paris yao-wu-dglx.squarespace.com/maison-du-brsil/4btwt62qi916qsuaehqja58xwnk7jt facebook.com/maisondubr/
Only thing what I dont like about it is fact that you can literaly walk in from the street uninvited and end up directly in front Master beedrooms windows/doors
What in ones mind gave the "ok" on this! It's a disaster! Those people in that building had to endure month if not years of noise and when it was done... bye bye awesome view. It does not belong. Yuck.
