it's not architecture, it has no esthetic value, it is simply constructionI see it most obviously on college campuses.
Some time between the early 1930s and the late 1940s, Americans went from building strong, beautiful buildings of stone and slate on the exterior, with wood finishings and interiors, to ugly cement / steel boxes with nondescript and ugly interiors.
It is like a switch was flipped. No doubt the ideology and morality of the country began to flip at that time as well.
it's not architecture, it has no esthetic value, it is simply constructionThat said, I will still put in a plug for my favorite movie discovery of recent years: Columbus (Kogonada, 2017). The film is not "about" architecture, exactly, but it uses the modernist architecture of Columbus, Indiana to great effect. An architectural exploration becomes an important narrative prop in an unlikely emergent friendship (John Cho and Haley Lu Richardson, both excellent), and modernism becomes a metaphor. It is very well done. The film itself is an exploration of family, loss, loneliness, relationships and moving on. It is contemplative; there are no zombies, aliens, explosions, terrorists, sex scenes or car chases, and nobody dies. It is brilliantly acted and beautifully shot. It starts very quietly and builds; give it 15 minutes for the story to come to you, and you will be hooked.
The Columbus architecture story is worth knowing. J. Irwin Miller was for many years president and then chairman of Cummins, a big company that stayed home in Columbus, Indiana. Somewhere along the line, Miller got interested in modernist architecture. Under his guidance, the Cummins Foundation offered to pay the architectural fees for any Columbus institution willing to invest in a prestige building designed by an architect drawn from an approved list. As a result, Columbus has an astonishing collection of buildings designed by the top modernist architects of the mid-20th century. I had the opportunity to drive through Columbus earlier this year. The modernist buildings there are moderately scaled, in a way that is appropriate for a smaller, low-density midwestern city. At this scale, good landscaping makes a big difference and they blend very nicely with their more traditionist neighbors. (The biggest and ugliest modernist building, not surprisingly, is a school, which the film mocks as "brutal.") Anyone who wants to hate on modernist architecture should visit Columbus and see what can be achieved if done right. At larger scales, however, massive concrete, steel and glass buildings that can't be balanced by landscaping turn me off.
Paul Joseph Watson
Why Modern Architecture SUCKS
1,285,686 views•Jun 30, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GapUEKYLE1o
and
Latest Atrocities in Modern Architecture
760,925 views•Apr 24, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lB5QbMxvac
he also referenced this one
James Kunstler: How bad architecture wrecked cities
430,000 views•May 16, 2007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ
and recommended this one
Roger Scruton: “Why Beauty Matters?” https://vimeo.com/128428182
Antifa/Globalist/Statist Architects tearing down YOUR cities and replacing them with hives and monoliths, comrade.
Can't cope.
Badumbump !
A “Traditional” and “modern” split is too broad for me to agree without qualification, but certainly there are specific cases that are easy. A sane defendant would no doubt feel much more comfortable entering a courthouse of the neoclassical style than one of brutalism. One offers the promise of a fair shake. The other says, “Abandon all hope, citizen.”
Modern architecture is designed to be soul sucking and depress you into submission.
Absolutely!!!!!!
Nearly everything old are better or at least look better, like buildings, homes etc. Take motorcycles for instance. The older bikes and their simplistic engines are a thing of beauty. Same with many cars.
There is a beautiful U.S. Post Office in downtown Berkeley, CA. It is in Second Renaissance Revival style and is on the National Register of Historic Places. Its inspiration was from Brunelleschi’s “Hospital of the Innocents” in Florence, Italy. It has a mural depicting California culture and history in its lobby. Astonishing to report, the BLM/Antifa have not defaced this lovely mural in this federal building.
The powers that be would rather have ugly and intimidating buildings like the USSR, to remind you who’s boss.
Beautiful and inspiring buildings are a threat if they make people happy and aspirational.
If politics are downstream from politics, Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again is great and welcome news.
I give historical tours of DC to high-level public and private sector visitors from Europe. I propose to them that the buildings reflect the people, and they are amazed at how the periodization in architecture directly speaks for the attitudes of the political culture.
They’re usually disappointed by the Reagan Building, which has significant classical elements, as that would mark a return to classical culture, but when they see the HUD and Energy buildings, they get it.
Classic architecture speaks of endurance, stability, and permanence.
‘Corporate’ designs look well in business parks, before the storm.
Jack Kemp had one of the best lines about the “Brutalist” architecture of the HUD building.
“10 floors of basement.”
I have done building engineering report surveys of many of the federal building in downtown DC. Not only are the Brutalist buildings of the 60s and 70s butt ugly, there are also maintenance and energy nightmares. They have little or no insulation and are extremely drafty.