Why Architecture Today Lacks Character 

Also not many are craftsman today and also a lot of people choose the cheap modern design rather than a great quality but expensive design.

also the rich nowadays are incredibly selfish. Before they'd build beautiful buildings in town centres like libraries and hospitals, sanatoriums and schools, and they'd make them as beautiful as possible so to have a legacy in their own town which they were so proud of. This doesn't happen anymore, they all bugger off to Sodom and Gomorrah , sorry I mean 'Dubai' where they build meaningless enormous phalluses which are only for the rich whilst literal slaves are building them. Also national identity is an evil notion now, it's wrong to have pride in your country and its architecture

@@Drobium77 you're on to something here. However, as government has played a larger and larger role in the country every income level has increasingly absolved themselves of ownership of their personal contribution to society. There are exceptions, for example a public pool project I was working on for a small town had a $1m contribution from a local rich guy, but he was a right winger and passed away shortly after.

I think it's an important aspect of why architecture is the way it is today. But it's only an aspect, and not even the (main) reason. Rich catalogues of standardized designs and/or pre-made elements) have existed in civilizations for hundreds if not thousands of years. If the esthetic paradigm were different, and with today's technological possibilities, creating interesting, individual and beautiful buildings would be a cinch. But for the most part, they're just not being made. It's a lot deeper than just labor costs.

And commercial uniform building codes almost the same nationwide

Have you never read Adolf Loos?! Ornamentation existed because it served a purpose. Modernists then denied that purpose because it became fashionable to anthropologically denigrate ornamentation as an appendage of 'primitivism'. Nobody challenged that. People like Frank Frank Lloyd Wright abstracing ornamentation did so through recourse to those cultures European sensibilities admired or accepted: Japanese, Mayan and Inca, despite animism underpinning the decorative traditions persisting in all folk and tribal cultures worldwide.

@@andersonarmstrong2650 Adolf Loos does not deserve the attention he is given. He was just a cynic with a loud opinion. The Modernist style he advocated is retrospectively problematic and, is the most widely disliked form of architecture and for good reason. Buildings with ornament have far more character than buildings without. Christopher Alexander, for example, has the most comprehensive account of how they add character, and why in fact, they should be considered essential to buildings.

@@The99Nabz "the modernist style he advocated was retrospectively problematic.." What on earth do you mean? Take me through the problems?

@@andersonarmstrong2650 1. As a result of Modernism's push for flat surfaces and big shapes, Le Corbusier's Cite de Refuge, for example, couldn't protect the building from the sun. There was no solar shading and the building was unbearable to exist in. He had to be taught the more 'primitive' technique of the 'brise-soleil' by the Brazilians because he thought he could do away with whatever he wanted for the sake of his aesthetic. 2. Coving and Wainscotting protected walls from cracking, etc. Modernism has no sense of foresight and long term thinking, hence many early examples didn't last. 3. The style was environmentally unsustainsable: Many of its examples are made up of uninsulated, thin concrete walls with massive single glazed windows. How were they kept liveable? Cheap fossil fuels powering numerous heaters and air conditioning units. Ironically, 'primitive' Architecture was effortlessly sustainable. 4. Etc. 5. Most importantly and most overlooked, as you just did: it is the most widely disliked form of architecture (hence the video this comment section belongs to). Why? Because it was designed not for people, but for machines, as per its mantra. As it turns out, most people prefer buildings that appeal to their humanity. Those people have to live in the buildings. Therefore, architects should design buildings for people. Constrastingly, and on the topic of ornament, among the many ways that it appeals to our humanity, one is that it creates information at the human-scale. It is architecture of the near-view. Our view.

@@The99Nabz None of this is Loos! This is Corb! Corb was a narcissist. His ideas were nonsense.

keen, i went to uni for arch but spent my life making music software. music no longer has character but neither do people. the word right there i prefer - referentialism. and i enjoy talking about, areferentialism. "where roads are made, i lose my way" - tagore

I wouldn't argue that alone is the problem, although an certain "elite-professionalism" leads to this issue. It is rather the thought of function over design. Which is good, as things should be usable and not only nice to look at or they would be art. Art has it's place, but we can't just have art and nothing else. But now we have strayed to far away and see things too much in regards of function. Everything which used to be designed to be beautiful as soon as people could afford it got plain. Clothes - plain T-Shirts, Hoodies and if you're lucky maybe even the brand is printed upon it. People go shopping in their tracksuit and, some people say, the Americans have gone so far as to go shopping in their pyjamas. Rather disgraceful really. Cars - most Aerodynamic wins and cars look all the same. With exception of SUVs and Pick-Ups. But they aren't pleasant objects to look at and the latter is rather Agricultural and the former represents stereotypical masculinity. They look like power and the cars "faces" are designed very agressive looking. Add to this the look an wrong understandment of freedom and you are finished. But to some people this has an appeal but i doubt they will speak of beauty first when asked for the reasons of their decision to buy this vehicles. Furniture: Soulles high-gloss plastic crap. Honestly, it looks straight out of hells design apartment to make people depressive and feel alieneated with the cheapest materials possible. You can go on and on. The newest trend is to not advocate to have an free and "full" life but rather an long one (Covid isn't meant by this, to be clear. It is an exceptionell situation.). Same thing. Function, to be alive, is set above the other, not easily measurable part: happiness, feeling something and fulfillment (in lack of better, more precise words that will exist in english but which i do not know.)

This hurts so bad. Because so true. God damn school lol. Its funny I realize best ideas when on breaks from school

The obvious retort is that a poorly composed piece of music can't kill me, but a poorly designed building can.

Simplistic nonsense! The REAL reason Architecture lacks essential qualities defined as 'character' is many architects are unable to draw the spaces they conceive in three dimensions. Even with current visualisation software, the architect must place themselves inside spaces, not as the endpoint of a process, ie rendering; but as the design process. This requires exhaustive hand sketching describing the progression through spaces at eye level. Models only do this if they're large, but even then the architect only uses the model as a clue giving device to place the eye inside created spaces. The eye must then evaluate the visual dynamics of detailing, spatial dynamics, movement and spaces experienced by building user. 2D drawings are mere abstracted representations of 3D realities. Unless this process is rigorously embraced, the building appearance as designed, will be hit and miss.

+1

In the past people build houses with more character much more. Its not entirely about money.

I wouldn’t be nearly so displeased if cheap new housing was being pumped out at a sufficient rate. Homelessness, after all, is uglier than most any architecture. Right now corporations seem more focused on buying up what property is available and lobbying for restrictive zoning laws to drive up the price of existing property

But weren’t the early skyscrapers in the 1890s to the 1940s pretty good looking? I’m sure that they considered expenses as well. So maybe ease of building isn’t the case with today’s architecture.

Some of the old water and sewage pumping stations in my area had a neo-gothic(I think) look to them. I suppose they were seen as a thing of pride once which was probably why they made the effort to make them so ornate instead of plain square buildings. You can also find examples at the Henry Ford museum of machinery with ornate castings for parts. I think it's probably correct that such extra details lost out to reasons of economy. Or people just got tired of all the spikey twirly bits poking out.

Totally agree! Architectural gimmickery to cover for a complete lack of any design process; or lack of faith in any design process whatsoever. Taking any architectural publication it is easy to strip away the additions designed to 'add character', to what was potentially an interesting design solution. Mies addressed this thoroughly when he said: "We refuse to recognise problems of form, only problems of building. Form is not the aim of our work, but only the result.." In previous ages there were fewer means leading to greater consensus. The basic, industrial buildings from the past are deemed most adaptable and amenable now. Modernism has brought with it an embarrassment of riches disguising a poverty of means.

I strongly agree especially at the cost of local, or worse, native/indigenous culture and identity. I'M not American but in a developing country, this is an abhorrent problem here.

Brutalism absolutely does have some character to it.

Word.

Modern architecture describes or is born from Modern Culture. That’s it, it’s like movies, nowadays they’re just corporate propaganda, nowadays they resemble more to a McDonalds than to a good local Sicilian restaurant. Well, the same happens with architecture and everything that is affected by our culture

Do you work on gta6? I know you do

Im the same with fallout 4 lol. I hate to just make 4 walls and a roof without giving thought to form, function or comfortability. I find videos like this give my creative mind something to chew on while i ponder architectural design in the post nuclear wasteland.

@@johntaylor9776 True it makes thing believable on a subconscious level. Players can feel that. For a post apocalyptic wasteland you must also admire a nice stain, paint splatter or the beauty of cracking concrete haha

@@frankfris3513 for me its form and function redefined. I like to imagine a world where people are forced to look at reconstruction of society as just that, a reconstruction. They have existing layouts of ancient architecture, but its more natural in my mind of how i imagine theyd perceive it. Alot of modernism and brutalism with the forced 2x4 or 4x4 layouts. Houses built through and around preexisting rubbled structures. Dirt and grime piled in corners to allude to a life butrowed out into the wasteland. For me dystopia meets heterotopia in forced functional environment.

Man... I'd love to see what buildings you can make with the building materials provided on conan exiles 👌🍻

Thanks for sharing!

check out the work of Walter Netsch and his field theory

My first grounding in spatial design was from the polygonal paper my father brought back from his ICS welding correspondence course. I couldn't get enough of those equilateral triangles that immediately suggested three dimensional representation. Later I got into organic chemistry because of my fascination with bond angles. I never studied hard but passed exams because I could visualise the way atoms connected. When I left school my first job was as a Lab Analyst. However, Architecture was what I wanted to do so I left and studied. Throughout my degree and Masters, lecturers never were able to put their finger on what gave a design force, presence and expressive clarity. No disrespect to this narrator, but spatial visualisation is a poorly understood discipline. Your embrace of this through chemistry at molecular level is to be applauded.

the hexagon is a strong figure.. and also found in nature, bees use it... the strongest materials have their atoms aligned in a hexagonal prism if i'm not mistaken, like titanium.. the atoms inside a diamond probably has the same shape too.. applying heat and pressure to carbon aligns the atoms in a hexagonal pattern which is why carbon fiber and carbon ceramic are strong

@@andersonarmstrong2650 I'm not any of you guys but because of this, I really strongly believe there should be a big collaboration between different fields of study to create something and solve an issue one field is having a problem but is something that another answers with a different perspective. This is exciting and hope that we see hexagons and triangles in architecture soon.

Mood

Im in the first year of architecture school and I already see this kind of thing, totally agree with you

If the hatred for modern architecture is so universal, then I wouldn't exactly call it subjective.

Postmodern Architecture is the worst type of this referential design, it is full of elements that were used in earlier works, but with none of the material and detail qualities that made those elements pleasant to look at, and often without the function that brought those elements into existence, at times even deliberately showing that the elements don"t work as they are used. It is as if the style had been entirely created by grumpy teenagers: "you wanted columns and a gable, here you bloody have them, but the columns are crappy steel tubes, and the gable doesn"t even have a roof on it, have i proven my point enough that those things don't make the building any better?"

I 100% agree!

Because nature is shitty? Sometimes visually appealing for various reasons...but its designs are pure shit.

@@DoremiFasolatido1979 Your point being?, People have died because of bad layout, Destruction has ensued because people slap on the same design on hill and shore, resources are wasted because of bad sun exposure, so tell me, why?, Why shouldn't we make cities that fit the place they're in?

@@vicenteisaaclopezvaldez2450 because some natural environments are unsuitable for building unless terraformed or using unique architecture.

@@DoremiFasolatido1979 nature is only "shitty" is you fail to see its beauty and intricacies.

@@DoremiFasolatido1979 you’re a democrat aren’t you

As a(n apparently fellow) car enthusiast, I can say that the answer is "yes and no". On one hand, it's no fun to have a daily driver that constantly worries you about whether you'll get to work. Beyond that, though, car are another area where it's well past time to admit that "wrong" from a systems/control perspective is very often "right" from a human perspective, and vice versa. A perfect example of this is the 1.4, 1.6, and 2.0 liter turbo inline fours that are slowly taking over every market segment. Those exact displacements pervade because at some point someone figured out they were the best for emissions-efficiency, even figured out the exact best bore and stroke for emissions. I've got one of these engines in my car and I can't deny it's a marvel - any 1600cc engine that can spin the front tires without clutch dumping, and still get over 30 MPG with me driving it, is. With modern turbocharging technology, there isn't even any lag - just stand on the gas and feel the power. But it just feels wrong somehow. Normally, I like cars with loud exhausts, but I feel like these modern eco-turbo I4s should be kept as quiet as possible, because they go from boring to annoying as soon you cut the muffler off. A turbo you can barely hear, responding like a supercharger, is missing what made turbos exciting in the first place. Front ends become lager and more bulbous in the name of pedestrian safety, crossovers and hatchbacks replace coupes and sedans for maximum space efficiency, and the remaining notchbacks adopt the profile of a Prius to optimize aerodynamics; the simple visual appeal that came so easily to older cars disappears in the process. The car hobby itself exists because of an older world where, if you picked the right time and place, you'd find traffic laws enforced laxly if there was anyone around to enforce them at all - not the current world where California seizes cars for street racing and Japan considers street drifters to be on the same level of criminality as Yakuza mobsters. All head, no heart, is how you get the world we have today, and it sucks. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to get anyone to fight back, because nearly everyone has Sacred Cow'd some part of Beige World.

Isn't that what John Ruskin was writing about back in the day? I learned a lot from watching this video. I thought John Ruskin and the honesty of materials and craftsmanship found in stone masonry buildings would have been some good information too.

"Material matters, and I am not sure that it is merely a matter of traditionalism and conservatism that we perceive some materials as more valuable than others" Looking at interior design in the past centuries there is something to be noted - synthetic materials go in and out of style; natural materials don't. As much as we find new ways to build and new materials to build with, there is (and probably will be) a need for what is "natural", what is "familiar", "expected". And by this I mean a need for nature. Nature surrounds us, we are part of it. Monumental buildings made of stone remind us of mountains. Wood furniture and furnishings in homes remind us of forests. Organic, irregular shapes, filled with details are everywhere, from clouds, to sea waves, to the branches of a tree. So, rather than a consequence of traditionalism or conservatism, the general approval of the visibility of natural materials in architecture, as far as I see, is a consequence of being human - of being an animal that lives on earth.

Le Corbusier had some brilliant designs. Issue is, when you try to make a knock-off of his work, as so many did, it gets super disgusting.

You are absolutely right! Analysing Corb, his work is classical 'good in theory, shit in practice'. His sketches are single-point perspective in the main, taking a planning focal point but not examining the experience of movement through his spaces. Gothic architecture such as Köln Cathedral are breathtaking because the architecture arose from a known, workable formula aiming at experiential revelation through built form. The detailing and improvisations around this formula, added life to what was always intended to convey a sense of what was intangible..the realm of the soul and its elevation before the Divine. W.R Lethaby (Architecture Mysticism & Myth), and Ruskin, Seven Lamps, Stones of Venice etc, address this representation of the inanimate absolute through design allegory. Corbusier short-circuited this representational transformation into modernism by trying to have it both ways: Being European, his fixation with technology led him into an empirical dead-end only partially redeemed through his art work. His architectural work only navigated this divide late in his career.

@@tylerkochman1007 Honestly, I find his work quite ugly. Its horrendous and uncomfortable.

*chuckles* “Ninetiesties”

I never got the hype around Le Corbusier. Mies van der Rohe I at least see why he’s symptomatic of the development at the time, but Le Corbusier?? I just don’t get it

U said everything

And that's why historical buildings, even in the early to mid 20th century,are so fascinating especially vernacular buildings like homes or businesses back then. You feel their purpose and looks so lived in.

I live in an early 15th century half-timbered cottage in the English countryside (Suffolk), and absolutely agree with you!

That or because they are the result of generations upon generations of iterative improvements and repairs, making the ugly or dysfunctional disappear over time. Today entire blocks are built at one fell swoop by people who won't live in them, and we expect most of the buildings to rot, decay and be demolished in less than a century.

How many stone masons do you know? How many neighborhood developers plan to construct their new neighborhoods using stone masonry? I just think that a new neighborhood built with stone masonry would have a character score of one billion.

The documentary 'LA Plays Itself' is essential viewing in this regard.

A house that essentially copied FLW’s Wingspread was shown in an anime, a recent-ish Gundam show to be specific. Additionally, there was a house said to be “Frank Lloyd Wright” inspired in JoJo’s Bizarre Adventures.

@@vidcas1711 don't forget Fallingwater in Psycho pass

HOUSES IN MOVIES (here are my nominations) 1) Elrod House by John Lautner (Diamonds are forever -Sean Connery aka James Bond) 2) house in the movie 'UPGRADE' (2018 cyberpunk action film,) 3) house in the movie 'PARASITE' (2019 comedy thriller film, the house is quite famous it is replicated in games like roblox and minecraft) 4) Ben Rose House from the 80's movie 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off'

I feel the same with the way Victorian houses are used in horror and Brutalist buildings in dystopian fiction. Recently there was a reverse of it (?) where a Brutalist like place is used in a supernatural fiction while a Victorian building was used for a mystery film and sometimes sci-fi. And their design still made sense.

Well, kiddo, hope ya achieve your dream, if it's not already been suggested try Minecraft, it may satiate your desire to build.

And as a student *it is not too late to switch the profession* for something more rewarding and lucrative. Go to tech! If you like design go to UX/UI If you like systems and wouldn't mind rich life go to full stack development. Architecture is forsaken discipline. Too much work for too little money.

@@McRyach I do mind rich life 😌

I quit architecture school after my first year. Most architects I found nauseating. I grew to believe that architecture should be built from a foundation of building craftsmanship upwards. Design is extremely important, but its character is informed by craftsmanship. This level of character is absent in architecture education. Same problem is in our society at large: B. S. artists are rewarded while craftsmen toil. Stone masonry guilds built most of the places everybody understands to have character.

@@steveyv963 agree, to build a 'spirit of place', architect needs to take local attributes which one of them is local craftsmanship. I'm privileged to live in tropical archipelago with lots of craftsmanship and lots of them are beneficial design tools such as ornamental sun shading, porous wall for thermal comfort, and intricate wood interlocks. Looking inside of architecture honestly is boring, but being architect looking outside is interesting!

@@matthewbarry376 I went by the definiton of 'intangibles is an abstract quality' or 'an asset that is not corporeal', hence I conclude the concept of character itself isn't corporeal. But, I could be wrong. Like other intangible things, character is affected by its physical attributes, such as material, location, history, and many else. So, I agree that humans do identify characters in buildings. In Kevin Lynch's "Image of The CIty", he identify the element of a city that construct such collective images in its people.

Wrong

Thanks! I hope to learn how to de-densify things overall a bit. Love the overall tone and pace of your videos.

Yeah was just throw in gags, stupid outtakes or funny movie overlays to give the audience some breathing space.

Like "Im fascinated by this idea that buildings have stories."? xD

"Face" can have the meaning of face in French and "façade" derives from it. In French you can say "sauver la face" which literary means to "save face", and "pile ou face" to say "heads or tails"

Perhaps, and yet again, best to leave the French out of it! Their contradictory impulses are never helpful 🙂 (Smiley Façade)

As a borderline Gen Xer/Millenial, I'm glad you like it!!

@@stewarthicks I wish we had youtube back in 2003, your video would've made my professors obsolete.

Make something cool

I love them too!

You have turned me onto a new architect, thank you.

This right here is the comment I was searching for. Very well said. Really wanted to know the name of the architect and drawing thank you

1. Use natural materials. 2. Dont hide scars of the buildinh 3. Be proportional, symetric. 4. Add esthetic default like a rock a bit biased, or wall-plants growing on the wall...

Written language encounters its limits when defining things which a culture does its best to deny, hence the euphemism you mention gains a negative connotation, because the word character is being used to allude to something a culture has either lost sight of, or has denied due to conscious shifts, ie from mystery school to empirically based 'science'. An Egyptian architect would not understand the word 'character' as it is used now, but he or she would identify circumstances where it was present as arising from appeasement of a deity or an stellar alignment necessitating an otherwise inexplicable axial or oriented shift's transformational effect 'lending character' to an architectural form.

haha!

Glad you like it and that the algorithm is working!!

I hope so too!

Yeah I'm jeleous. Wish I could do it.

Thank you so much for reaching out! I love cars. I read and watch absolutely everything car related. Of course including jalopnik. I'd love to do more content related to architecture and cars. I did one very early on, but its a little superficial. I think it was my third video and I was experimenting with format/delivery, etc....

@@stewarthicks If you ever have story pitches, or potential ideas for the Jalopnik channel, we have worked with creators in a freelance capacity in the past on both articles and videos! Feel free to hit up tips@jalopnik.com if you want anytime. Otherwise I like the channel, so I'll keep an eye out for your stuff.

It's a classic!