I really like your channel and I love the way you try to spread traditional architecture on social media to society. I just wanted to let you know from where I’m from in England they’ve just approved 6000 homes built in the traditional architecture and the building a brand-new village, you should check it out. It would be great for your content. Fareham Borough Council has approved plans for the construction of the new Welborne Village Centre in Hampshire.
Tokyo neighbourhoods might be a better model than NYC imho. In either case, I'd prefer not to need to dodge cars. Have the parking at the perimeter of the neighbourhood and have pedestrian only within the neighbourhood (≈3km²). I think also having an underground road for business deliveries or at least a trash suction pipe like Disney has would be good so no need for vehicles at all. Thank you for the video. 🫡
With population collapse around the world. I doubt there are enough people to maintain this expensive infrastructure. Many beautiful villages in the mountains of Italy and Spain are empty and neglected.
What people (and architects) seem to forget, is that the original skyscrapers in New York were completely different than the glass and concrete boxes they associate with all of them today. These buildings still had decorative elements and a very clear entrance. It is so ironic that people (and architects) are led to believe that building with roots in the past is pastiche and attempting to copy the past, but building the exact same glass and concrete monstrosities everywhere is somehow progressive.
This belief is the intentional product of the Athen's charter by Le Corbusier, where he dictated (because he formulated is as a commandment) that references to the past shall be "not tolerated". This rather authoritarian approach has become hegemonic in the architectural profession. Which however runs into the contradiction which you rightly mention, i.e. that copying anything before 1930s = pastiche. Copying post-1930s modernism = "modern" and "inspired". It is about time to tear down the invisible wall that modernist ideology has created and allow design to be free of invisible prisons.
Could we stop tearing down the beauty already there? That would be a great start. It's happening far too much in my favorite city, Belfast, and it's heartbreaking.
I know that Ireland has a terrible problem with dereliction, it's indeed very sad... and it's enabled by politicians. Is it the same in Northern Ireland?
@@the_aesthetic_city I would say yes and no. What I do find very jarring (having moved here from the US almost a decade ago) is that in the city centre there can be a gorgeous old building and right next to it an utter monstronsity of "modern" architecture. And it seems to alternate a lot in some spots modern, traditional, modern, traditional. And it just detracts SO much from how beautiful the city centre could be as there are many older buildings still there that are stunning that could be enhanced with having more stunning buildings next to them.
In my city there is a giant exceptional medieval castle, surrounded by a parking lot... The city council decided to destroy it and replace it with a park, to pave the street nearby and add cycling lanes by 2025. It made me wonder how many more place were illogically designed like this in my city. It gives me such joy when I see cities planting trees everywhere, it changes the whole feeling of a street ! I also love cities that have big, gigantic trees in narrow streets, it's so magical ✨
@@fireflythinking1290 I have been so Impressed with city planning in france: Nantes is a truly wonderful city, and while it's small in population, it has amenities I'd say better than here in Prague. Lyon also impressed me. Although, as my friend said, "France is the height of civilization," and 1 Cafe Gaurmond is enough to convince anyone :)
@@JonZiegler6 Nantes is bigger than Angers and has a more industrial feel to it in some spots, so I like Angers better ^^. I hate sky-scrappers, I think there are totally unreasonable ahah, so I'm glad France doesn't have a lot of those. I've been to Lyon too and found it beautiful 😍. Also any big city separated by a river with bridges everywhere is nice. I really like the concept of walkable cities, it's so important to improve the quality of life and I think France does that well. I feel lucky to be french when I talk with my American friends here, who all want to stay in Europe 🤭.
Another benefit of mixed-use areas is that steady activity levels around the clock mean there are always "eyes on the street", to pull from Jane Jacobs. This greatly improves the safety of the environment, as well as providing more opportunities for casual, spontaneous interactions.
A transformation in architectural education is essential. Architects aren't being taught to design beautifully, not only that, they are being brainwashed into criticising those who aspire to build new traditional architecture.
I'm excited that more experienced people are talking about this! I've been thinking about this for a while. I'm going into.college now, but if I ever do architecture it won't simply be from a degree because from what it seems like right now it's all corrupt. So I'm going into civil engineering and then maybe I can learn architecture myself
@@engineeredarmy1152 Seriously? That's your point? Then I guess you don't see the bigger picture. I don't remember which city exactly, but they have tramway networks, with double decker trams; they got nice streets. I don't think the point was "big skyscraper bad"; they do have a place, especially in places where space is precious (e.g. cities in the middle of a valley, or surrounded by nature you don't wish to destroy). Tall buildings are inevitable especially when density is the point of a city; that's why it's absurd when countries like Egypt or Dubai seek to build absurdly tall skyscrapers when they're already in the middle of a desert - exactly the place where space is the opposite of scarce.
@@Emppu_T. Uh, no. Dafuq you talking about? Hong Kong is still there. It's only recently that it's getting ugly ever since they try to be like America, building a bunch of multi lane highways; putting their train stations in middles of nowhere, just so they can have more generic condos.
One thing about removing cars from cities and creating spaces where people want to stay and spend money: - There must be more than Hookah-shops and betting/gaming places - The surrounding must be kept clean and safe.
Here in São Paulo the city center was converted in a pedestrian zone in the 80's and the result was and is a dead and unsafe zone. All the businnes flee and the residencial area became empty and impoverished. So the recipe need some adaptations.
@@marciomartin7296seems like an important lesson that a city centre exists in a context. I suppose that the centre of a population dense medieval city can have its socioeconomic potential liberated by the removal of cars, while in a modern sprawling low density city that is car-dependent, simply pedestrianising the centre without doing something about the surrounding context will starve it.
I have seen those hideous towers at 2:34 from my window every day for years, yet I still marvel at the fact that some architect really thought it was a good idea to build two gigantic termite nests in the middle of a city inhabited by humans.
And why not mention the investors who want to have as much return and always blame the architect as if that is some autonomous artist ? A bit like blamimg the nursery for growing the trees that create the leafs in autumn. Architecture is designing what the client wants to built.
Modernist architecture should already be considered old architecture. We've had the same modernist architecture for about 60 years now. For example Art Nouveau and Art Deco developed around the same time Modernist architecture has so they technically could be considered new modern architecture the same way modernist architecture is considered new. Art Nouveau and Art Deco are a great example of modern architecture using modern materials that looks good. Its very possible. And we live in the best times to do this. We are more advanced than ever and can build buildings twice as fast as we did in the past. There even are robots that can build detailed ornaments very efficiently. Going back in time to copy architecture isnt the best option but it surely is a great start. We first need to get used to classical architecture again and then continue from then on designing new architecture styles using modern materials and building techniques. This literally is how its been done all throughout history. They looked back at the previous architecture styles and improved them with new designs. But the main framework was the same which is what matters. The main design rule should be to use Classical proportions. From there on you can invent millions of new architecture styles. Maybe ive written too much but i hope people will get the point and will try to be more open minded about this topic.
@@RROO-qy8je I think you are right and make a strong argument. But I dont think we have to completely reject contemporary architecture. I think a lot of contemporary architecture is very beautiful and invokes emotional experience in a way is that traditional architecture does not, that is if its not just a glass box or some pretentious building ofcourse. So I see s role of both mordern architecture in our future as well as the traditional (beyond copying the past).
@@RROO-qy8jeThe reason I think we should not just build copies of traditional architecture is while it is absolutely beautiful it does not reflect the modern world. But that doesnt mean we should not get inspiration from it. Have you seen some of the brick contemporary apartments that are build in Iran? I wonder what you think about it. Ive seen many positive reactions to those buildings but they are absolutely modern but also use traditional materials like bricks.
@@african8855 we can do whatever we one nowadays. If you like post modern there are MVRDV, Foster , if you like classic then there are guy like Sebastian Treese. But one thing for sure when it comes to to skycraper classic style won't work.
A prime example of this in my native land is comparing Austin, Texas, to San Antonio. Just 50 miles apart, these two cities are like night and day. Austin, especially in the past 10 years, has grown dull and soulless, throwing up tons of minimalist skyscrapers that it doesn't really need, with hip, trendy, generic businesses and bland apartment blocks making it feel like a game of Cities: Skylines. San Antonio has been able to hold onto its soul and identity by encouraging reuse of many older downtown buildings that preserve its historic architecture, and by redeveloping its riverside areas, not just along the famous Riverwalk tourist center, but along the whole length of its urban rivers to create attractive walkable areas that stretch deep into the quieter residential areas.
I think the word that explains it best is "home". You need to feel that buildings and details of the city are made for you, that they are friendly and someone really designed them for you to see and enjoy. Open spaces mean it was made for crowds, not for you as a person. Actually business center can be minimalistic. Minimalism has its aestetics that goes from Wall street minimalism, clean costumes and effective work without distraction. But it is not right to put minimalism everywhere.
the principle of order in diversity, symmetry, green spaces and high density is the key to ensure a beautiful city, also the urban layout is a plus. Dutch cities look so beautiful just for practising those principles
Yes and... no. I delight in the many wonderful Dutch city centres that exude ambiance. The Dutch, however, destroyed so many old buildings in the last 40 years (particularly in the '60s and '70s). We see now that buildings erected in the last 30 years are going the way of the wrecking ball. I would prefer to see new development that is not just steel and glass-- inside city centres and outside of city centres.
Here in New Zealand, our cities are run by NIMBYs who become councillors. Especially in Wellington. Any thoughts on medium density housing and pedestrian development is constantly shot down. Suburbs are the ultimate pinnacle of NZ urban design and the CAR is definitely KING.
There are some great community activism groups (mostly in the bigger cities), like Greater Auckland that promote good urban design and public transport.
2:14 perpetual shadows are pretty desirable for tropical/equatorial cities like Metro Manila for example (you have no idea how hot the sun gets here, even in the cooler seasons). For areas without tall buildings, let alone a dense number of them, this is where trees come in handy.
Agree - it depends on the climate! In hot climates, you’ll see narrow streets with lots of shadow, like Italian / Moroccan towns. Thanks for the comment!
Many homes here in the Philippines follow the American Sprawl since the 90s, with gated communties that are guarded and are only for housing, with no room for businesses or offices. Because of this, people had to commute via car, and most homes are empty by midday. This is one of the reasons why there is a higher level of crime in subdivisions rather than the houses outside it. It is because there are less people in subdivisions to keep an eye on the surroundings. One perk of mixed use is that there are more people around. And if you made friends in that mixed used neighbourhood, the less thieves or criminals enter houses and cause nuisance!
Another great thing about mixed use is that it gives opportunity for small businesses. The rent for these spaces in my building for the commercial spaces is low enough that 1 year of rent is about 6 months of average salary. Knowing you can try a new business without a high capital expenditure is huge. It also means a greater diversity of businesses and not just chain stores
In Alexandria’s Old Town in Virginia, they pedestrianized an area of King Street close to the waterfront, and it’s actually a pretty nice place to be, perhaps even more nicer than it would have been when it had cars running through it. The combination of nice historic architecture with pedestrian spaces is a thing that is pretty rare for most American cities. I would like to see the same in nearby places such as Annapolis and Baltimore’s Fells Point neighborhood in Maryland, where there’s lots of nice historic architecture, but little to no pedestrianized streets.
Having grown up not too far from Old Town, it is always viewed as a tourist destination by locals and living there is only for wealthier residents. It does not have to be that way but it is too rare not to be at this point.
I think what they did in Rosslyn is a much better example of cresting an area that people can live, work and have fun in one space. Also, I don't think you need to pedestrianize Fells Point, I mean, it's quite walkable, better would be proper public transport (trams). The great thing about trams is basically by default, you remove cars either by eliminating parking, making those streets less desirable for cars, or making streets 1 way or prohibited for cars. There are 0 pedestrian streets in my neighborhood of Vinohrady, and it excels in all the points mentioned in this video...
If "Aesthetic City" could be accomplished it would be a life well spent and a blessing to all humanity for hundreds of years to come. Those that have ruined many our beautiful cities must be stoped and rejected. That goes for tearing down old monuments as well. This is a great Channel with a great cause.
Under #6 I would add whimsy. Turning a corner and coming across a mural, painted transformer box, or painted piano can be an unexpected delight that creates a draw to go wander around an area.
I'm really into urbanism and all of your videos make me feel like in the future I could implement a lot of your points in my community. This one is simply perfect. Greetings from Guatemala.
You didn't mention low visual pollution. here in Brazil, There's Aerial cables everywhere, when you look up, you see nothing but electric wires and utility poles. it's extremely ugly and the visual pollution is terrible as well.
This video is such a great condensed version of all the things that excite me about urbanism. And you touched on it briefly at 10:15, but it'd be great to see more examples of 'beautiful, classic architecture' outside of Europe. Love the channel!
Ce serait génial s'il était possible de monter des projets en crowdfunding pour construire des petites villes complètes ! Il faudrait commencer par trouver des élus locaux interressés par de tels projets qui peuvent initier une modification conséquente des règlements locaux d'urbanisme
What an absolutely brilliant video! It delights my heart and my soul. Just imagine the reduction in stress when our built environment is pleasing and agreeable (I loathe glass boxes).
How about a video on "modern" buildings that are beautiful. Architects that are not reviving the past but are using nice details, materials, good proportions and ornamentation.
Garden beds, wooded areas in cities, public parks, preserving of natural water ways, spacious sidewalks and bike lanes are all good starters to work with. I hate seeing everything so cemented up into dull, ugly places where nobody wants to be.
@@user-zj9tl5tr2o I would add: not just "classic" beauty, but also organic, "weird" and "crazy" styles. Friedensreich Hundertwasser from Austria comes to my mind, although it doesn't need to be an exact copy. Further focus should be on preserving existing, still good, but ugly buildings, removing their flaws. Like all the mass housing in former communist countries, as far as it's still good.
@@BBirke1337well, hundertwasser is a one off experiment, I don't think it's an example of anything. As far as the commie blocks (paneloks here), the new facades they get are a massive improvement, but it doesn't change the poor quality of life inside. This channel rightfully blames Bauhaus for creating modern archetecture, but actual Bauhaus buildings are usually quite excellent. I love how they create space and light. From these incredible concepts came taking away the soul and maximize rental profits at a minimal of constructing costs. That's why modern archetecture is so bad...
Fantastic video, I agree on basically every idea you pointed out because for me it's just so logical. But I know there a lot of people who don't even think about how their cities are planned and constructed and they don't think how they should demand these changes from their local goverments/municipalities. I really think this video is super educational and informative (alongside all your other stuff) and should be played in elementary schools at least throughout Europe and USA 👌
Its always so great to see you videos. It gives me hope for the future and especially for myself, because I want to study architecture in the future (probably 2 years from now). So thank you very much :)
Thank you so much for creating these videos. If I have a big excess money and power and company to make another new city, I would go back and learn a lot from your videos. Thank you so much!
While I agree with you on density that doesnt mean we cant build skyscrapers at all. I personally love some good monumental skycraper now and then, even some modern ones.
IMO, the buildings size or look isn't the main issue. Even an "ugly" or tall building can be nice place to live if other aspects are in places which are: 1. Landscaping - The surroundings of buildings should be something that you enjoy, not detest (e.g. concrete jungle) and building too dense cause all to become dark alleys without any life other than rats and pigeons. Most people like if there are parks or other form of greenery or water elements which also attracts other form of life (birds, squirrels, etc.) 2. Accessibility - Nobody wants to commute for hours in one direction to get to desired destination (e.g. work, entertainment, school, shopping, etc.) and therefore public transportation should be top notch (bikes and scooters aren't the solution). 3. Walkability - Which goes hand-in-hand with point 2. If you have remote living area with nothing other than housing, then it creates a need to go somewhere else to do anything and at that point, you could live just as well at countryside instead. Which means that there should be decent amount of necessities around the living area at walking distance (e.g. schools, bakeries, supermarkets, cafes, restaurants etc.). So you don't need necessarily beautiful architecture (which would cost a fortune to build anyway and therefore increase housing costs even more) in case you have other aspects in place to make surroundings enjoyable.
The topic of this video reminds me of the channel Not Just Bikes. It does seem to be that beautiful towns and cities are places designed for people. People enjoys beautiful stuff so places for them to enjoy are made beautiful too. And when those place for people to injoy includes the streets and outdoors, then they are made to be beautiful too. A place designed for people are beautiful places. That leads to what I believe is the biggest reason why cities are ugly, and specifically lacks personality and the human quality, is because they are designed for cars. Parking lots are the quintessential example and probably the most inhuman location ever. It is so unwelcoming and devoid of life. Practically a desert of bland concrete. Why? Because they are for cars. Cars don't care about beauty. Cars have no life. Places designed for cars don't need to be beautiful. A city for cars is a city without life and beauty.
It's a shame that most rural and suburban Americans are against everything in this video. They have an open disdain for cities and want to keep their isolated car-centric existence.
True, but I also believe that a lot of traditional design principles would benefit many small towns as well. In much of rural and small town America, there seems to be a big focus towards things such as strip malls, power centers, large parking lots, and certain buildings that are built much larger than they normally should be, such as schools, warehouses, and storage facilities, and I believe that these trends should change, as these things are causing much more destruction to rural and small town America than any city is supposedly doing.
And what is wrong with that? Some people dont want to be around a lot of people. You say they have an open disdain for cities but then show that you sorta have a disdain for their way of life.
@@pin65371 I have been to planning board meetings. It is ALWAYS the old suburbanites with too much time on their hands blocking any sort of change that could help anyone that doesn't already live exactly like them. This is just backlash for their own disdain and they are not underdogs at all in this fight so it's well-deserved.
In Israel we're finally moving in the right direction, at least from the urbanism standpoint. The whole country is in a massive construction boom and until the last few years most of it has been pure crap. However, recently there's been a massive shift towards urban, pedestrian friendly environments with a ton of green space and cycling infrastructure, and a lot of policy directed at reducing car usage. The massive investments in public transit are also starting to bear fruit with new/upgraded transit lines opening all the time and a ton of new lines under construction. In terms of aesthetics/beauty we've definitely made progress but it has been measured in significantly less unpleasant modern buildings rather than brand new classical ones (although we're seeing tons of beautiful renovations in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem!). It's definitely a step in the right direction but I wish more emphasis will be placed on classical architecture in the future Generally I'm super happy that we're finally going in the right direction and it looks like it will only keep accelerating 😍
Foliage! My favorite places in my city almost invariably feature old trees with thick trunks and lush green canopy of green leaves. Thin solitary trees that barely drop a shade, scattered one or two per street is not enough. They look more depressing than anything.
A superb video that made me question deeper a huge source of dissatisfaction in my life which is the city I live in, unfortunately. Good luck on your journey to enlightening more and more people about these fundamental aspects of a life worth living.
It is weird that in California the place where is a lot talking about global warming , ecology etc hate trees a lot especially owners of apartments! They constantly uproot trees and remove shade when it is hot here
Transport and crime are a huge problem when planning nice cities. Many of us can perfectly survive without a car if the inner city and inter-city network is well developed, reliable, safe, and pleasant, but that can change pretty fast! Also, when you change your job, suddenly your new work site might be awkward to reach by public transport (or car). This is a particular problem of networks that look more like dendromers... (everything connects in the center and you have to go to the center to get from north to west instead of being able to take the direct route). City parks are really nice unless you have some drunks or rebellious kids making a ruckus in the night and may have god mercy with you if you politely tell them to turn the volume down... Similarly, the old Japanese design where you had a shopping street and a private street (with enclosed gardens in between) may be a really nice place to live in, but such backstreets are prime places for crime... Also, I don't know why, but rivers attract crime, and street beef, like puddles, attracts mosquitos... My old place had no place more dangerous than the bridge across the river and the north side of the river. Most people would stay the F away at night of it unless they're looking to buy stuff you shouldn't buy... As much as I love blocks with inner yards with gardens and public spaces, I have plenty of bad experiences with them. For one: public means that no one feels responsible and people don't clean up their mess and others then feel like it's socially acceptable to toss their waste out of the windows! Another related problem is tribalism. I suffered greatly from it when I was a little kid and wanted to go to the bigger and nicer playground one block over... I had a cobblestone thrown at my head leaving a notch in my skull and the parents supported their kids... Lastly, I really love streets with shops at the base and residential space above, but that brings two problems: 1) good luck getting some sleep if you're living above a bar. 2) What if all the small shops close for good and now, you live in an empty street? (I know many such places). A part of the problem was rising rents and the other internet shopping... Yes, this sounds very negative, but that doesn't change the fact that I love these features if the environment is friendly, but as said, this can change very fast and even the nicest places can end up with blood splatters on the floor...
Absolutely, safety and a good, dense public transport network are two other essential parts of a city that is livable. I tried to limit the scope of this video somewhat, but indeed - if a city is not safe or clean, plants or nice furniture aren't going to help...
@@the_aesthetic_city Thanks. I guess that transport is the easier part of the equation to solve, compared to ensuring a feeling of security and friendliness (cameras, guards, concrete blocks, checkpoints etc. don't really help in that regard...). I guess that this could be very well a topic on its own... Related to it is the question of how to keep small businesses relevant and prevent developments as with the French Banlieus...
This is a problem of the human heart and atheism. People who are for the most part believers in God and morality do not act this way. Families are intact, no broken homes but homes with both father and mother, they teach and watch over their kids ( minimal wild rebellious kids) etc There is a huge human cost in crime and misery when a majority feel they can live just fine without God and his rules for life.
@@Julia29853 Sorry, but despite it being a deterrant, I've seen horrible things done for faith. My mother was beaten and punished in other ways by her mother because my mom reported a crime! She got basically punished for ruining the perfect image!
In Ontario Canada, the Toronto area is a great example of how unnecessary residential towers are. The skyline is mostly low at 2 storeys with random punctuation of 30 storey towers. Instead of shooting for a prevailing height of 3-7 storeys as this video suggests. The all glass residential towers will have bad future consequences. We recently experienced a huge 100 year rainfall that cut power to the towers. Without elevator people couldn’t go up or down.
What are your thoughts on each megablock (a city block that is 3-4× the size, not the offbrand lego 😋) being a mixed zoned open air mall that opens to the inside, with elevated pedestrian walkways and bridges over other and the ground pedestrian walkways? The same decor would be used to ensure the outside faces arent just concrete block.
Would you consider making a video about what principles a classical apartment is built on. Say, what are the five details you look for in the lay-out of a good designed apartment? The same thing in the lay-out of the residential area. What are the five things/principles that should be considered when building a residential area. I am looking for ideas I can have when trying to assess an apartment or a residential area.
And especially interesting would be what the difference is between a classical designed apartment and a modern designed apartment- is there resl design difference or just a small differences between the fashion of adornment
I love traditional European architecture, and like you said I think that places should use local architecture styles to give a sense of home to its residents. But here in the US, we have very little to no unique architectural style, so how would we densify architecturally without engineering firms deciding to go with badic modernist blocky 5 over 1 apartmemts? I would love if we could just borrow styles from Netherlands, France, etc but there doesnt seem to be much of a push for it here
To help Americans feeling less remorseful on that topic we have to remind ourselves that the European style itself could be traced back straight to Egypt. Early New York gothic/eclectic skyscrapers the likes of those from Louis Sullivan or the Chrysler building were off a good start when it comes to tall metropolitan areas. Louis Sullivan actually designed his very own style of ornamentation that could not be found back in Europe; it is just a shame that one of his famous student threw a tantrum. Now on the more common 5 stories tall buildings, they still hold some potential as we have entered into the composite facades era, it would just require to remove those ugly panels and replace them with any carved style we'd want. Also, there is an American company called Monumental Labs currently using automation to drastically lower the cost of sculpted stone.
Did you ever considered looking at modern Chinese cities? They often have good mixture of modern and classical architecture that tends to feel very good!
Recently been to Riga and that city is a great example of both great and terrible urban planning. The Old Town and the surrounding Center district with its Art Nouveau buildings are a great example of what good city planning looks like. You just can't help but want to take a stroll and look at all the beauty around you, and maybe step into a local cafe while you're at it. Hell, even a lot of the Soviet Era blocks have charm and character and a lot of them are actually decently planned with mixed zoning and good public transit access. But there is also a lot of bad, souless, terribly designed dead spaces of city blocks where it honestly feels like limbo most of the day bc there's nobody around but a couple passing cars...
Would love to visit Riga- the Baltics have some beautiful cities. But yes, even the most modernist developments can sometimes do a lot of things right and truly feel nice - especially when they are very green and not too spacious, more ‘cosy’ (hard, but it does exist). If all factors are right but the architecture, there’s still a chance it works. But it gets so much better with nice architecture
0:55 Actually thats very true. Sure Skyscrapers can house more people but a ton of space is wasted since you cant have Skyscrapers too close to each other because sunlight wont reach the lower windows. Cities should have buildings that are tall enough to house as many people but short enough to let sunlight reach the ground floor windows.
I think what makes a city beautiful is the identity and uniqueness of the arquitecture of each region and country. If I am in Amsterdam I expect to see Dutch arquitecture, the same if I am in Paris, London, Tokyo, Dubai, New York, Etc. The problem with modern cities is that they often loose their identity of that place, making it look boring and the same everywhere else. PS: And of course the stupid idea of tearing down old and historic buildings to build new concrete boxes with no soul.
Jokes about Golden Statues aside, point 6 is a very interesting one that I don't think you've talked much about yet. Views down a street to a building at the end always make for great photos, which encourage tourism. One of the most famous photos of Amsterdam is the view down a canal to the big bell tower. I wonder how many people have booked a trip to Amsterdam based off of that photo? And then once you're there, people seek out those places. It's just quite an attractive thing.
Yes. This is perfect. May these principles be put in a book and become a classic for university study. But actually, I don't think Architecture should be at university, nor engineering, nor commerce, science and art. All these career paths are industry, not academic subjects. Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for these subjects. Industry should pay for them.
Cayala is a good reference, a place that is orderly, clean, easy to navigate, safe and with beautiful architecture in the middle of the chaotic city of Guatemala. I really like that place.
Love your videos! i have one question: are you getting some videos from stock footage sites or filming everything yourself? and if so which stock footage site are you using? :)
Don't forget that this has to happen in a specific order. You need to have mixed zoning so that the office is within walking distance before you can start getting rid of cars and you need to have protected greenspace and establish a right to sunlight before increasing density
Not to mention there is room in the Modernist form for beautiful designs, Gaudi's famous Sagrada Familia Cathedral for example. Or if on a lower budget there are Albania's Colour Blocks, I remember Michael Palin meeting the planner behind them, since on the one hand they wanted the old "Commie Blocks" renovated as they were not only a depressing eye-sore on the city but also a reminder of Enver Hoxha and his regime, but also they hadn't got the budget to rebuild the neighbourhoods and this one planner was in the meeting and looked through his daughter's colouring book and it came to him, we can't rebuild them but we can paint them. So they bought paint and painted the buildings in unique colours so as to increase the vibrancy, street life and sense of community which had somewhat broken down in the areas, and it worked, as people felt more connection with their home now it had a bright colour.
Someone can get an impression from this video, that beautiful cities are only in the West. The video is good and important but could benefit from showing other traditional styles i.e. like in Kyoto, the Middle East, Ottoman architecture etc
This is an easy criticism. People can only provide opinions based on their experience. If he had integrated architecture from other parts of the world, you would have said it is cultural appropriation, exoticism or colonial mindset… A more positive step from you would be to create a video on how architecture could be improved where you live in the world.
Omg stop saying this kinda thing, the reason creators don’t talk about those countries anymore is because whenever they did you would get all these people claiming it was inaccurate, or outdated information, or that in reality things were slightly different and therefore the video was bad. So they stopped.
Try Australian cities, there are highly livable, beautiful yet functional - Australia gets it right - each city becomes a resort to live in for its occupants
One aspect I feel was overlooked in this video, is the scale of buildings. Many urban areas we love to walk in are often to a large part defined by modestly sized building plots. This results in a large variety of buildings. For instance, in many areas of Tokyo the average plot is only about 5 meters wide. That means for every 5 meters I walk I'm up close with two new buildings, and they are all different. Even though these buildings are usually quite functionalistic and rarely could be said to be beautiful by themselves, they are of "human scale" and creates a space that feels interesting, inviting, liveable and dare I say beautiful as a whole. It's the opppsite of those soulless areas with large buildings that all more or less look the same.
1. Gentle Density = medium density, no skyscrapers, enough view of the sky from almost any street. 2. Attractive Public Spaces = streets connecting one space to another is more user friendly and pedestrian friendly. 3. Green & water = due to innate biophilia of humans, greenery and water makes public spaces more attractive and user friendly and more alive literally. 4. Pedestrian and cycling friendly = give more priority to pedestrians and cyclists over cars when designing streets and public spaces since this slows down people to sit and enjoy the spaces and makes businesses like cafes 'safe havens' for visitors. 5. Mixed use development = change the zoning to allow shops and businesses and residential areas coexist which makes it easy to live and walk to where you can get food, products, and services, aka., user friendly zones. 6. Urban Form = design cities with interesting views and architecture so that people want to discover the city. 7. Pleasant architecture = avoid bland and boring "modern" glass, metal, or concrete boxes and make buildings that people can relate to such as using classical and vernacular elements.
