Join the Discord if you wanna talk to some truly bizarre people 😜 discord.gg/4DWvahY94U

My architecture history teacher said the best definition he heard of posmodernism is: to take something that fell into disuse and resignify it. It's a movement that didn't only affect architecture, but all arts. For instance, there's a music channel called postmodern jukebox that plays contemporary songs but with earlier 20th century music styles, like swing. I think the definition hits on the mark.

I get some of the criticisms the postmodernism has of modernism, like the idea that form can't follow function when function changes over time in sometimes unpredictable ways. But I don't think that modernism implies rigidity necessarily, as the function could be an inclusive, multipurpose space. Where I think postmodernism goes off the rails is when it becomes reactionary, or even spiteful, of modernism and does the opposite of everything modernist. When you're just doing the opposite of someone who comes before you, you're still bound by that which you hate/disagree with, just in a different way. I can get behind some of the designs that take modernist foundations and add new twists, such as better integration with the surrounding community, but if you're just going to tack on a curvy facade separate from the superstructure or choose a color because one guy didn't like to use a color, be a sculptor or painter instead. Ok, that was a bit reductionist, but you get it. I think I will always be a modernist at heart. I don't care about historical reference, strict mathematical proportion (or the opposite), the current conversation and counterconversation among architects, just what we can learn from those things to make a more usable and accessible environment.

There are many bizarre buildings close to me (I live in Rotterdam). The cube houses, the Boijmans Depot, central station, the "Markthal" (Market hall). And there are several others. Some of these are weird but functional, the cube houses are cute but really unpractical.

My perspective on architecture is based on respecting local traditions and forms of building, and being able to improve them by identifying its biggest strengths and exponentiate them to make them more functional and efficient. Not exact replicas, but not erasing everything and starting from scratch. One could think that this definition fits perfectly with how Postmodern Architecture has been defined, and on the surface it seems to be that way. But when I see what´s usually the final result of the so called Postmodern thought... I just don´t think it is what I am looking for. Instead of taking the best parts of modern and classic forms or architecture, they seem to take the worse, and use them to create something either tasteless and boring or just a big "Look at me!" sign that breaks all harmony and balance with its surroundings. In my head, architecture should be as flexible as possible and adapt to different circumstances. Some buildings can be grandiose and monumental but others need to be more discreet and personal... And all of them need to represent the people who inhabit them. That´s why architects like Luis Barragán and Ricardo Legorreta may be my favorite ones from my country, because they were able to understand the essence of Mexican architecture and translate it into the modern in a very elegant, sophisticated and rational way.

You used a lot of Dutch examples! A lot of them clustered in Rotterdam, a city mostly rebuilt in the 50s to 70s after being bombed during WWII. Then had a bunch of new development from the 90s onward. The latter stuff often a response to the earlier rebuilding: instead of being done cheap and quick it was allowed to be luxurious again. Early plans for the Central Station would have been to make it look like 4 champagne glasses, for example (they eventually landed on a up-side down aluminum food-tray). So you see two responses at the same time: government and project developers wanting more luxurious buildings as a response to the "Architecture Done Cheap" and artists responding to the "boring, grey slabs of stone" with more color, glass and funny shapes. There's a lot of fun to be had for students of architecture and city planning during a visit to Rotterdam.

Modern and post-modern architecture are blatant proofs that thinking too much is, sometimes, a problem. Anyway, great video!

I've always liked postmodern styles, and growing up in the '80s and '90s I could see why. People just plain got bored with the minimalist modern forms of the '50s and especially '60s, so it was only a matter of time before "extraneous" decoration made a comeback. But I also agree that pretty much _any_ style can be executed well or badly -- and that personal tastes can vary a lot in where the line is for various factors. I've also read (digests of) some of Robert Venturi's and Denise Scott Brown's ideas, about architectural elements often being symbols of other things* -- which is partly why they never really went away in private homes or on retail commercial strips, even at the height of the modernist era. As a note, I like that expression of "revolution" in the sense of "coming back around" -- and add that you're farther down the road once the wheel has revolved, so you're not in the same place as when that bit was on top before. And speaking of coming back around... Modernist styles have been around long enough to see revivals and reinterpretations of their own -- with some postmodern sensibilities incorporated in. Like the Art Deco revival of the '80s, and how it brought glass block into style again through the early '90s. Or how elements of the '50s version of streamlined modern started coming back around in the '90s and '00s, but with more natural wood. Or how some fast food restaurants of the 2010s and '20s -- especially McDonald's and Taco Bell -- mixed in elements of midcentury modern for a more "high style" look to compete with fast-casual restaurants. As for Frank Gehry... I always have liked his work, especially his abstract sculptural metal buildings like the Guggenheim Bilbao in Spain or the Weisman Art Museum here in Minneapolis. But I'm also glad it's not _everywhere._ 🙂 * like how suburban houses had coach lights and columns to evoke prosperity and tradition, or fences and grassy front lawns to evoke larger country estates

First video of yours I've seen in 6+ months! Great to see another.

Your videos are consistently excellent, and this one is no exception. I still intensely dislike Postmodernist architecture, but at least I now understand the principles behind it.

Hi I'm an American now living in Tbilisi Georgia. This city has a fascinating architectural heritage. And it is being decimated by contemporary buildings. I like in a section called Vake. If I look outside one window I am living next to a large brown office building tipped over at an angle. The outside windows all follow that design, but of course no one inside could possible work at such an angle. Across the street are double corkscrews, twisted rising up 40 or 50 floors, called the Axis Towers. Then down the street is a rather ominous massive, almost Brutalist, Hilton Garden Inn, which seems to be neither a garden nor anything as cozy and an 'inn'. I live in a Stalinist era type of building from 1956, about 7 stories tall and set up as a series of connected buildings surrounding a courtyard. It's certainly not a masterpiece. And it's from an era where overbuilding was the order of the day. ( I do really appreciate the soundproof walls!) Further up the street are several late-Soviet apartment structures which are much too big and have a more totalitarian coldness to them. On the outskirts of the city are very 20+ story tall dark bleak kruschevkas, highly, and by Western standards illegally, modified by their residents, looking strangely patchwork now. And then there are new buildings going up everywhere with nominally Postmodern features, but really just workaday products of bad design and hasty contractors with cheap materials. And this sort of thing is mushrooming everywhere now. And here's the point, I think contemporary construction is literally destroying humanity. Even the kruschevkas seem human by contrast to the blight of soulless buildings being foisted upon us. Starting with folks like Adolf Loos, and moving through what really seems like an elite cult of Modernists and then Postmodernists, it seems that my 1956 tank of Soviet Era building is far more human.. nay even the kruschevkas are far more human, than 85 percent of new buildings since the post-war period. (Not to forget that the materials used in contemporary culture are literally destroying the planet.) To me it seems that nothing in our insane society will change until the architects can build livable conditions again. We have to abandon Postmodern irony, which is just as destructive to human flourishing as Modernism. And one way you can tell the Postmodern is the comic version of Modernism, is that both of them eschew all serious textures but the smooth. I gave a lecture several years back on the loss of natural texture in our flat environments, and moreover I also see the loss of traditional ornamentation, which was a feature of all traditional cultures up through Art Deco, and it's juvenile delinquent child Googie, and then slipped into a coma after the late-Sixties with the phantasmagoria of psychedelic art, which sadly was never incorporated into architecture. So texture, ornamentation, and a human scale have to be rediscovered. I have made a very small step towards rethinking the texture problem by repainting a room in my flat with a highly unorthodox manner. (I made a video of it that you can watch.) Anyway thanks for your discussion. I am coming at these issues through another door. But I appreciate your videos and have subscribed.

Great video! I studied architecture for years and I learned a lot from this. When I was in school in the ‘90s it was just: “Postmodernism is facile and Deconstructivism is profound”. This is the first time I’ve seen anyone draw a through-line from the late work of Le Corbusier to the present. Well done!

I like those branches of postmodernism that arent the bizarre messy eclectic collages, typical for 90s. For example many Rossis buildings, some of the latter more regionally oriented postmodernist buildings and so on.

1:38 tbh those apartments there on the right looked sick as hell - I'd definitely live there

Great to see you back! These videos are fantastic.

There's a Frank Geary building in Las Vegas that i finds absolutely fascinating. It's dedicated to mental health professionals, and the shape of the entrance/exit facades reflect this. You enter through his typical crumpled paper awning and exit from a bunch of stacked blocks. Essentially, you go from disorder to order, much like the patients' minds (hopefully). When i was in architecture school, i thought this was the best designed building in the valley, and there's a lot to choose from. Runner ups are the UNLV library and Clark County administrative complex, though the resorts have their own fascinating architectural design of course. I redesigned the El Cortez's entrance and parking/pedestrian access to the Welcome Sign, plus helped move the origin Little Chapel of the West, so I've got a reason to like those

Glad to see you're still making videos! And on such a great topic no less.

fantastic direction you are heading! this is your best video yet!

There's various postmodern buildings near me, but the two I think of most are the Ex-Cárcel Cultural Park and the National Congress of Chile, both in Valparaíso, Chile The first one is widely loved, made mostly out of rough concrete in a former jail playing off the old jail building and the brick containment walls that line the site, and the second one is universally held up as ugly and an eye-sore, being a sort of pink arc de triumph rising high above the rest of the city totally more interested in how it looks than how it feels In the end I feel that's what differentiates good architecture from bad architecture, if it looks good but doesn't feel good or will never really feel good, and the opposite is just as true

Your architectural videos are very educational and interesting.

Great video - excellent primer - I learned a bunch.

Surprised to see the Stata Center in the context of serious architecture that fits purpose and community; as just one example, it took decades to fix some of the basic failures (especially around Boston, the primary task of a building is to keep the weather on the *outside* not the inside...)

The Stata Center is probably the most famous post modern building near me and it definitely sticks out when compared to other buildings in the area. Its looks really catch the eye and that's not a bad thing either. A building is supposed to stay in it's spot for a while so it might as well be interesting to look at. Great video!

What fun to see the U of D's Trabant Center included! I did a mild double take my first time there... I love learning about its context. I live near the University. I attended Hunter College in NYC in the 1980's. But I grew up in Delaware and am happily ensconced here again. Love your content!

The most significant post-modern building in my region is Helmut Jahn’s Thomson Center in Chicago. It’s been the subject of both love and hate commentary since it was built. In recent years, cash-strapped Illinois state government whose Chicago offices were housed there, explored a number of alternatives to “unload” it and move to other, more conventional (cheaper) quarters. Much popular opinion favored tearing it down and it looked like that would likely be its fate. Fortunately, Google, looking for office space in the city, saw in the building the value of a building with a strong architectural character and reputation as the kind of place they wanted for their office needs. Their purchase of the building will ensure this iconic structure will continue to stand and draw visitors to its amazing spaces. As a fan of the building, I’m very pleased.

This is great. Such a concise explanation of a complex topic.

Your videos are criminally underrated, please keep up the good work, I've only just found your channel and i love it

This is my favorite style of building. I grew up among google LA, in Downey, and our local neighborhood McD’s was the original at Florence and Lakewood.

I'm a first year architecture student and i'm in love with your videos!

Hey, thanks for making another video! I like your content.

Same with everything, there are good and bad examples, in my opinion. I do like it when it is done with humour or a wink and a nod. Near where I once lived, on the cnr of Boundary & Vulture Streets in West End, Brisbane there is a post-modern building done with cartoonish ionic columns. It's an area that is eclectic mixture of styles and the columns give a nod to the large Greek community in the area. In furniture I'd define Memphis and Droog as post-modern with their humorous design, again my opinion. Keep up the interesting orations.

Great video. As an arch student, I’m glad I stumbled on your channel

Fascinating and brilliantly detailed, thank you for sharing. I live near Tate Britain and have always found the 1980's extension both fascinating and hideous by the same degree. I like the rule breaking and excitement but on the flip side many rules are then crammed into an overly complex building which doesn't't function well. A good half of the building is not used by or open to the public, it's entrance is now permanently locked, the pond has been filled in etc so in terms of function it's largely failed plus it doesn't feel any less ugly as the years roll on, just tired and jaded.

Great to see you back! 1) Ah, PoMo. Just like modernism it was responding to, it can be done well, and it can be done poorly. (Which is true of about everything, I guess :P) 2) That does seem to be the cycle amongst all the arts (and societies), doesn't it? Things get codified, "rules" are created, the rules get overhyped, and then there's a reaction/pushback to them. 3) I have diverse tastes and I enjoy diversity in architecture. Not always when they're mashed together in one building, though... 4) I had NO idea that the TD buildings were once lit up with Less Is More on them! That's neat! :) Thank you for the video!

Great video, love the content!

Loving your videos, and this has been a great explanation of something that had been confusing me for some time. Although I spend time in art-space (photography, 3d, etc) I'm effectively more a lay person - just a person that lives and walks around cities, sees these things, and they have to be a part of my environment. And as such a person I gotta say.. both modernism and post-modernism designs (more often then not) drive me nuts. The modernist ones because they just crush my soul almost as bad as subarbian layouts, making me feel like just another number being used and consumed by cities. The post-modernist ones because they feel like artistic m**********n by artists who were given a ton of money. (Wasn't trying to be gross, its just a call-out back to Stranger in a Strange Land and its take on writers that write for themselves and then wonder why no one wants to read their stuff). It isn't that they are 'weird', some weird can be super-cool. It is that they don't take into account the space and people around them. I mean they might 'add their interprestation of whatever' but they don't try to work within their ecosystems, to enhance the existing life and spirit that has developed and is developing in a city, to reflect the inhabitants. They just plop themselves in the middle of a space and demand attention. They're that one neighbor's house with trash piles on the front lawn, blazing music at 4AM, painted like a giant flamingo, with Christmas decorations out in July. Yea, its their 'aesthetic', and its their right to do that, and I'm not gonna burn down their house or anything.. but it also kinda hints at a lack of respect or care for any of their neighbors. Which, also their right, but then they can't expect those who have to live next to it to praise them for that or show them a respect they are not willing to give in turn. Be artistic... but fit into the space. Push it forward, but organically, from where it is.

Some postmodern buildings are pretty interesting to look at, but they look like they are horrendously difficult to build. I'd be interested in what people from the construction trade think of them.

Thank you, that was a very informative piece. There seems to have been a time around the 1980s-2000s when architecture was allowed to be fun - colours and joky references all over the place. So much of what we see now is flat-fronted and done on the cheap. During the video I made a note to the effect that "Modernism: form follows function; Post-Modernism: form really follows function" - i.e. allows for the messiness of human scale. I'm reminded of Stewart Brand's book "How buildings learn: what happens to them after they are built." Pleased to see that you covered exactly this point - of buildings needing to be flexible and PM allowing for this - at 8:09.

This is such an excellent video!

When I was younger, I loved Postmodern architecture. My first experience with it was in Montpellier, with Antigone. It was strange and humorous and daring. What originally drew me to architecture (in general) was that it was an art that (by necessity) is confined by functionality (in a way that painting and music, for example, aren’t). Over time, however, I came to see how much of the work of modern and postmodern starchirects as completely out of balance with functionality. This is where such buildings fail for me: they are expressions of an artist’s unmitigated genius without regard to how humans interact with the structure. They are inhumane building which disdain us. The “best” buildings are usually the least interesting ones, architecturally. There are group of buildings here in Montreal which started as factories, and were adapted as warehouses, then artist studios, then apartments. They can be retrofit to whatever is needed at the time. Are they “beautiful”? Not so much. Do they allow us to live our lives in a way which is human? Yes. We have other buildings here in Montreal which are architectural gems, yet at best don’t care about how people interact with them (Habitat ‘67) and others which fully prevent us from moving forward on our human adventure (Olympic Stadium).

You asked if your viewers knew of any buildings that they felt fell into the postmodern category. Watching this video, it's apparent that you live in the same city as do I; Toronto. So I would just be listing the same structures as you showed on this one. In any case, there are a few I didn't see that are worth mentioning. First in mind is what I call the "high flying crossword puzzle" on McCaul St. You know what I'm talking about! Designed by Will Allsop, it's a crossword puzzle page held high in the sky by brightly coloured, VERY long crayons. My reaction is always a chuckle. It's right 'round the corner from the Art Gallery of Ontario, sporting an amazing addition by starchitect, Frank Gehry, which some have described as the ribs of a huge whale. And don't forget the spiral staircases inside and out. As beautifully minimalist as Mies van der Rohe's TD Centre is (and it is stunning), you'll never see crowds of people in its plaza, snapping photos of that paeon to "less is more". But I can honestly say that almost every time I jump off the Queen car at the McCaul loop, there is someone snapping away when they see that Allsop recreation of a fever dream. For myself, I thrill at ANYTHING that isn't another f**king glass box!

Your channel is awesome 🌟

Postmodernism is interesting as a concept, but from people who aren't conversant in the architectural language the reaction to those buildings tend to be baffled incredulity rather than anything else. I think that sometimes architects forget that other people have no idea what they're referencing, or what symbolic meaning various things in a building are supposed to have. Which, of course, was the same in older styles: a lot of people wouldn't know, for example, what a Greek nymph was. But in that case you still had a pretty girl with a bucket of water, which is still easily identifiable for any human being happening to pass by!

Thank you for this video. It made me want to learn more about architecture.

There is a bus station in Hanley (Stoke on trent) that I would describe as post modern. It has a weird slanted roof and looks like one of those neckpillows you get at the airport

Wow your videos are amazing!

The end graphic of Gehry’s Disney Hall reminded me of his “binocular bldg” in Venice CA. The facade is all that matters. From there enters into a literal wind-tunnel lobby, which then opens into an utterly unremarkable “open plan” office space.

thanks for creating this video. At first, I do think post modernism is bizzare. However, I have a totally different perspectivee after watching this video. I think it‘s all the depends on the architrect’s idea. It’s interesting and inspiring to see how the architect wanted to present his/her piece and how he/she utilized different elements from the past to recreate. Love you video , please post more!

I grew up with (and in) the Denver Art Museum, the only major American work by Gio Ponti. ...which i think counts. What a space for art! I don't love all postmodernism, or all modern architecture, but this building made me think, even as a kid.

Post modernism is varied and complex (sometimes just complicated for complicated sake’s to seem complex, much like many variants of modernism) so it’s hard to label everything under one name. The most important thing to come out of it was pluralism and killing off the modernist idea of a universal meta narrative. The biggest problem with PoMo was it’s comercial and ironic (borderline nihilistic at times) side, which with the economic system of the times produced in mass a lot of crap. The best things were the reaction to the modernists lack of care for the urban environment, communities and context. With it we saw the rebirth of a lot of vernacular architecture, better critical regionalism further detached from international models and the revival and acceptance of actual non-ironic classical/traditional architecture. If it wasn’t for PoMo we wouldn’t have great architects like Robert Stern.

Great video!

One bizarre but very clever building was actually the Villa le Lac near Vevey, designed by good'ol Corbusier. From the outside, this house just looks like a box with shiny foiling. But on the inside, you could see different layers of influence and choices made by Le Corbusier. In retrospect, his greatest talent to cleverly combine broad influences into a clever mix !

Great content as usual.

As a structural engineer my grandfather would this this about his projects, "Projects are like children. Some are very talkative, some are very smart, some are very playful." I have a bit of a bias, but I'd say the Lipstick building has always been one in my mind, and the O-14 Tower is really cool.

Great video, thanks

Well researched, written, and produced.

Really great video, lots of good information and images to help explain. Articulate and well-written as well. However; I found it difficult to keep up. I have a background in architecture (I got my architecture degree at Cal as postmodernism was getting rolling in '82) and I still had trouble keeping up. There were several times images were shown to illustrate a point, but they went by too fast to get a good look at to make the connection to what was said. Also quotes were shown several times on screen, but not read. I tried to read them while you talked, and couldn't do both and didn't have time to read the whole quote. So, I will again reiterate that the content was great and well thought out. But I would suggest slowing things down to. let people absorb the ideas. Assume your audience knows nothing about architecture (It kind of seems that you assume they do). Great start (I see this was a year ago), so I'll look at other videos also (I have subscribed).

Thank you so much for your outstanding videos

I think a big problem is that we never got to a universal definition of 'modern' architecture and in the desperate lunge for everything to be postmodern a lot of the basic underpinnings of social planning went awry.

It began in the late 70s and petered out in the 90s, and we can associate it with a certain formal language, despite the eclecticism. Perhaps one could say that, whereas Modernism suffered degradation at the hands of commerce, Post-Modernism, itself a hybrid, in the ensemble was a bit of the good, the bad and the ugly; at its best, a playful deconstruction, reworking of neo-classical forms that I absolutely adore. It seems that subsequent generations have once again become quite doctrinaire in their rejection of any form of historicism -- here in Berlin, there was a long battle between advocates of "reconstruction" and those who would only accept "contemporary" work, whatever that meant. In this particular case, "classical" Post-Modernism would have been a happy compromise. I've never understood why there is always supposed to be just one, "right" way of doing things.

there are two kinds of "style" involved here. the first is the kind that draws your attention; you want to experience it. like good music or eye-pleasing structure. the second "style" is the kind that SCREAMS at you or physically offends your senses, like shattering glass or huge piles of crushed tin cans in the bright noonday sun. i'll leave it to you to decide what appeals to most folks.

There is an even earlier example of what could be defined as post-modern designed and built at the end of the fifteenth century near where I live in England. I can recommend anyone who is an architect or interested in architecture to have a look. It is Triangular Lodge in Rushton, Northamptonshire.

That reminds me of how Alexandre Cabanel was part of the Paris Salon which is a rigid academic group of people who define what and how certain art should be. However, not all his art pieces fit this standard quite the irony when many of his works were the pinnacle of what the Paris Salon strives for. It's like he was part of modernism but ironically made postmodernism by accident.

This is so very interesting. Thank 😊 you

Very well articulated.

PostModern started as Mannerism, and - same as back then- evolved into Baroque :-) Style needed for VIP buildings.

09:53 Does anyone know where I can find this graph?

Love love love love this video. Damn good topic! btw did I mention I love this video?

Wow, very interesting video with some cool examples! Shout out to the Seattle Art Museum! It's cool to know that it's postmodern.

It reminds me of the idea of a movement against something instead of being for something. because creativity has effectively been abandoned because there is presumably nothing objective to strive towards. There is only us and our permutations. Less is only more when it points towards the spiritual with the detraction of the physical.

Honestly, I love any form of art that adopts absurdity and ridiculousness. Dada always drew me in when I was studying art. My partner, some friends and I went to Mass MoCA while I was visiting the US recently and it's just so much fun to absorb yourself in the ridiculous. What I see is an artist having fun, not trying to follow a strict school of thought, practice and ideals :>

Robert Venturi's buildings seem so understated compared with recent postmodernism. I think Frank Gehry changed things a lot, along with advances in technology. I was surprised that Gehry barely figures in this video.

Thanks!

I like some postmodern buildings and think others are a bit too much. One issue is: does the building “work”? In Toronto, the addition to the AGO definitely works and is wonderful. The addition to the ROM definitely does NOT work and makes the space inside terrible. There is already talk of tearing it down.

There are both good and bad... and ordinary, in all styles. When postmodernism hit the main stage it was more or less the same time punk hit music. I met Sotsass at the early 80d Memphis exhibition at the V&A in London and he seemed intrigued when I made a parallel wit the Sex Pistols with whom I had worked.

Dear Betty: heartfelt Thanks! Your labels for each image of the presented building : PRICELESS. ... if only it caught on .. sigh!

Thank you for this video

Firstly, thank you for this interesting video. My reaction to this topic is: what happened to beauty? Esthetics? Can't we talk about the artistic aspect of architecture? Am I just a simpleton for wanting to be surrounded by beautiful and esthetically pleasing buildings? Yes these are subjective concepts, but most of the public HATES and is alienated by much (but, no, not by all I will admit) of modern and post-modern architecture. Architecture is primarily public art and should therefore be designed primarily to serve our collective sensibilities, not those of the (egotistical?) architect.

I have one more question: why does such a large portion of the examples come from The Netherlands? You showed Groninger Museum, Bonnefantenmuseum, Hotel Inntel and the Mauritsweg in Rotterdam with a view on the Centraal Station. That's four shots in the first 100 seconds - about half of the shots I counted! Edit: also found the Markthal in Rotterdam behind "Legacy".

The (relatively) new senior center in my town looks like a collection of hen houses and utility sheds pushed together higglety-pigglety. Sometimes the postmodernist philosophy works and sometimes it looks like a disaster aftermath.

Nice view of the Gooderham Building and environs at 0:09:00 - maybe complexity works better aesthetically when it occurs organically at the scale of a neighborhood. I like Post-Modernism, but I think it was trying too hard sometimes

25 seconds in and I see a building from my university! LOL As for the topic - I appreciate the idea behind post-modernism as a big middle finger to the absurdly boring "modern" structures from the 50's onward. The designs are often playful, clever, inspiring, and fun to look at. Some look like a drunk piled some Legos together, to the extent that no one in the room shouted "The emperor has no clothes" when the design was presented to the board for approval. Personally, I'm a fan of classical architectural forms in general, and "adaptive reuse" of historical structures whenever possible (instead of tearing them down). But I like when a post modern design can take cues from the local landscape in order to build something pleasing to the residents as well as clever and fun.

I thoroughly enjoyed this video! I wish you included some images of Zaha Hadid's early work though

Why can't we just build everything in the Art Deco style and call it done? It looked so cool and not like someone balled up a piece of tin foil and told the construction crew "Build that!"

I really enjoyed the rational layout of your program. This is just MHO, but there is nothing more mentally fun than a well done post-modern building, and nothing more appalling than a post-modern building that skimped on quality materials or level of finish. The last time architecture had a sense of fun was the Deco period, and there is a lot of similarities between the two.

Most impressive, thank you.

It seems to me the number one goal is novelty. The number to goal is the focus on the uniqueness of the designers. But in the end rather than admiring the product my first thought is “when will this be torn down.”

I can tell you right off I don't know all that much about architecture, but I know what I like and am fascinated by it. As a rule (of living) I like complexity as a method for d3ßliving as life itself is complex, but that's just being realistic or honest, which I prefer. So does that mean I have a preference for the post-modern? The examples you provided seemed to represent what's creative and more imaginative which seemed to discount function or at least placate it which in the end, is more complex

Pluralism is the term I remember from college, over Postmodernism. The idea that everything old is new again, and the sometimes wonky mixing of styles in new and clever ways.

I wonder what the acoustic environment of that chapel in Robchamp is like. Is it pleasant to make music in, like churches and chapels have traditionally been?

Postmodernism is a prime example of what happens when you completely ignore any real functionality and practical use of a buiulding in favour of form. They are just giant, tacky, sculptures made without care about how they are going to be used or maintained and are peak of architectural hubris.

Everything, built by people, has to be beautiful, as much as possible. Even if you are building a factory, you must do your best. But, we are not talking about factory, we are discussing buildings, which are in the middile of city and being seen by millions of people. Especially, they form the taste of children and teens. And believe it or not, beauty has a rational, scientific base. It can vary slightly from person to person, but in general, all uf us consider a flower beautiful, and a dead rat ugly.

There’s a book I would like to read but I can never find it at an affordable price. It’s called “ugly as sin“ and it studies beautiful churches that were revamped into horrible ugly places. There’s one such place at a Catholic college near me where they got the whole inside And replaced it with the most uninspiring furnishings, including removing the front doors and replacing it with slab doors.

I think one of the big differences with postmodern architecture is the introduction of whimsy over function.

Wow my mind is forever blown!

I actually really like most of the examples in this video, but the one notable one near me in Sydney that I dislike is the UTS Business School, a Frank Gehry production, which probably explains why it feels like a bit of a low-budget MIT Stata Center (which I've had the chance to wander around and mostly like).

How did the OACD in Toronto by Will Alsop not make an appearance here lol.

11:28 small mistake. that's the Caixa forum from madrid

My phone autocorrected postmodern to post-mortem and I think it fits, especially since that means modern would be mortem. Modernism was truly the death of beauty.

Next video on tectonics, minimalism and perhaps more recent architecture?