Get an exclusive @Surfshark deal! Enter promo code AESTHETIC for an extra 3 months free at surfshark.deals/aesthetic

The most understandable way of explaining modernism as a philosophy is "buildings are meant to exist as objects" instead of "buildings are meant to create places"

My modernist architecture school shoves the idea of “the concept” on us from day one. Every single building and project must have some hyper innovative, unique and interesting “concept” that can describe the project in a sentence or two. The problem is that the concept tends to be some completely whacky formal move that makes the entire project a gimmick. Something that stands out like a sore thumb. “The roof is lifted 20 feet with a glass core inside”, “a huge staircase spirals around the building”, “one half of the building is glass and the other half is concrete”, and so on. The problem with this concept idea is that the university has yet to justify its necessity in our projects, at least over other forms of design. I very quickly realized what type of scam this concept idea is, when I would observe old traditional buildings and wonder to myself… “what exactly was the ‘concept’ of a Victorian era house?” Or “how did architects arrive to the concept of a Japanese pagoda?” And then I realized that they didn’t. There was no concept. Building was based on function and the vernacular. The concept idea is truly a poison to architectural academia

Be original was the worst advice I was berated with at university. Stressed myself out and convinced myself I wasn't a designer more times than I know.

I am inheriting a property over 100 years old in southern Brazil, built by Italian immigrants. A mansion with a stone basement in a colonial style. I hope to be able to find an architect who will help me renovate the space and perhaps do something similar to what was done in Guatemala.

Originality is good but not when its used separately from beauty. Beauty is not just a specific style of architecture. There are only some ground rules to beauty such as symmetry or the golden ratio. With those you can invent infinte types of original architecture that is also beautiful. But modern architecture only focuses on the originality aspect and not on using the ground rules of beauty together with originality.

Totally agree, I am so glad someone is finally covering this! I can't stand all the ugly buildings you see everywhere and the ironic part is the more they try to be different, the more things stay the same. Almost every major city's skyline outside Europe, especially in East Asia and North America, look so similar that i can't tell almost any of them apart. It all leads to an ugly homogenised horrible world where nothing beautiful or actually original remains

I love how architects say that traditional buildings are too expensive nowadays yet splurge money on things like this: 6:15

An example of an original and creatively designed building that served its purpose well and didn't ruin the harmony of its location is the Big Duck on Long Island. A building shaped like a 6.1-meter-tall duck! The Big Duck isn't new at all, it was built in 1931 by farmer Martin Maurer in Riverhead. Long Island once had a big duck farming industry, specifically farming Pekin ducks which are also known as Long Island ducks. Mauer was selling ducks and duck eggs and so to stand out among the different farmers, he built a duck-shaped building to house his store! In 1937, Martin moved the building four miles southeast to Flanders, where it occupied a prominent location near the duck barns and marshes of Maurer's then new duck ranch. During the 1970s, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation began imposing restrictions due to the runoff from the farms which, on an island, can obviously lead to very bad things. The Big Duck closed as a duck egg store in 1984. In 1988, Suffolk County Department of Parks and Recreation acquired it and moved it closer to Hampton Bays but moved it back to its Flanders location in 2007. Suffolk County continues to own it, maintains its interior and pays for staffing while Southampton Town maintains the exterior. The original 27-acre duck farm was purchased by the town in 2006. Today the Big Duck houses a gift shop selling memorabilia.

Great video as usual! I like the end note. It's important that more people demand a more "down to earth" construction (figurativly and literally), instead of absurd mega projects. I'd love to see a video about traditional materials and cradle2cradle materials in general. "We should see buildings as material storage" is also a great concept that deserves a video

Excellent video! Something that could also be considered is that modern architects focus on "originality" because they are simply incapable of producing anything beautiful and grand. To me it seems much easier to create something unique than to create something beautiful.

Couldn't agree more with the point of distinguishing originality in architecture with necessity in architecture for public health. We live in a society where so kuch focus has been to allow artistic-genius freedom to architects with little reflection for the impact on public life. There is a huge need for reform in how oroginality of concept and design is encouraged, but instead to look towards byildinng standards as mentioned in this video. Always love your videos 💚💚

Two of my favorite original modern buildings with a stunning design that fit so nice are right next to each other: The Bird's Nest Stadium (Beijing National Stadium) and the Water Cube. The Bird's Nest Stadium was a joint venture among architects Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron of Herzog & de Meuron, project architect Stefan Marbach and CADG, which was led by chief architect Li Xinggang. It's a combination of the crackle glazed pottery that is local to Beijing, and the heavily veined Chinese scholar stones. This inspiration shows just how passionate the Chinese are with their history and culture. And while not being a bird's nest, Li Xinggang said it's still a compliment as eating bird's nest is something for special occasions. For the Water Cube, Chinese partners felt a square was more symbolic to Chinese culture and its relationship to the Bird's Nest stadium while the Sydney-based PTW Architects came up with the idea of covering the cube' with bubbles, symbolizing water. Contextually, the Cube symbolizes Earth, while the circle (represented by the elliptic stadium) represents heaven, a common motif in ancient Chinese art. Using the Weaire-Phelan geometry, the Water Cube's exterior cladding is made of 4,000 ETFE bubbles. The ETFE cladding, supplied and installed by the firm Vector Foiltec, allows more light and heat penetration than traditional glass, resulting in a 30% decrease in energy costs. The venue was also designed to capture and recycle 80% of the water falling on the roof or lost from the pools.

Buildings that are liked by people are preserved and find new uses. Unwanted ones get abandoned. Form that only ever follows function leads to obsolescence quicker than if buildings were designed with intention of delivering desirable environment.

Often times, originality is just rebelliousness disguised as a virtue.

There's a highrise tower thats now one of the tallest buildings in my town and my jaw dropped the first time I saw it in the horizon when it was built, had to check if it was real with how weird and asymmetrical it was

I think the future of building is 1) traditional 2) sustainable in every sense of the word 3) integrating with nature 4) designed maximize enjoyment from a pedestrian perspective 5) and ideally monomental. I'm picturing a building you would stare at like a piece of art from the outside. That integrates into the landscape like overgrown megalithic architecture. Ornate decorations inside, but also like a public park with artworks. One that is as interesting (or more) to explore as the old town of an ancient city or Hogwarts, with a real feeling of community inside. Energy passive or even positive. With lots of verticality, lots of stairs and catwalks, intricate private spaces. But all architecturally coordinated, like you're exploring one of the iconic old greek island villages. If I had all the time and budget in the world and no limitations, that's what I would build. 😂

Love your videos as a subscriber because they are considerate and don't dehumanize those you're criticizing, showing your views are not some reactionnary dogmatism but a well-thought inclusive philosophy. Would really love one on when modern architecture or building materials DO work and especially why, since you mention it sometimes but I'd really like you going deeper into it.

great video. I share your perspective, which is why I've been studying more about classical architecture and trying to get more hands on in construction.

I like design and I noticed this problem in all fields of creative work, so I came up with the following saying that portrays the problem in my opinion - "Change for the sake of contribution. Contribution for the sake of accreditation. Accreditation for the sake of credit." I think that there are so many designers, architects and artist, and all of them want to create something, so they could, well... so they could live, so they could make money, so they could prosper and become someone, and as you have underlined, to be noticed - to be original. But the truth in design is that you can't have many differences of form that are harmonious - that work, are safe and are aesthetically pleasing, you can only make a wheel one or two ways, everything else would be a downgrade and for the sake of only being different. I think in some ways we have reached the zenith of some forms. This is the reason the iPhone barely changes anymore, and every smartphone looks almost the same. But this is all speaking purely of design and engineering, and I think that art and architecture is the answer to that problem - don't destroy something that works, but express yourself where you can do it safe, without hurting people and beauty.

Brilliant analysis. Excellent channel!

There is a desperate need for certain people to be, or at least believe they are, our intellectual masters. They need to intellectual signal their superiority to the rest of us and to claim allegiance to their like-minded group. Contemporary art and architecture quickly and easily act as devices to divide people. The democratic value we hold dear in politics does not exist in our current art world. Consciously or unconsciously, the rich and a self-proclaimed intellectual class want to create class divisions so they can feel superior. And an easy way to signal their status is to be allies with contemporary art, even though the work itself doesn't perform any of the functions that art has performed for thousands of years. This is why the technique of inversion is used so often by contemporary artists and architects. It's the fastest way to appear modern and allows the artist and architect to claim they have done something original. Artists who have no talent can become great artists if they support this new intellectual class-making idea. This is happening in literature as well with poetry and novels. The public can't stand them, but the contemporary books win all kinds of awards. A new class is developing that include people who are rich and poor, sharing their hatred of traditional and popular art. Maybe they could be called the Signallers or Fake Intellectual Class or... ???. To use the term art or artist in regards to this type of thinking is wrong. It's a new ideology. Someone came up with the term, Luxury Ideology. I think that is apropos.

The problem is not only in the architecture, but in the art in general. It's just more obvious with architecture because, as you said, ot's a public art. Originality shouldn't be the number 1 goal of art, it must follow Beaty and Harmony. But actually I have no idea how to fix this... I'm.. pretty pessimistic about it actually.

I am a Architect Urban Designer and always believe in doing something which no one has done before and that keeps me going. Creativity has no limits. We must know what is in the box to come out with out of box creation. Having said this I fully agree to the fact that we must keep the context in mind which is for the larger good and in the best interest of humanity and world at large.

I agree with you most artists and architects nowadays always think about originality and generate things that are completely different from the surroundings without thinking that their work destroyed the harmony of the environment they lived in. They were just so fixated with their own pride to stand out without thinking that their work coz more harm than good. I just hate that type of mindset coz just by learning from the best people around you instead of being proud of them coz they attained some heights most people just criticized them for lack of originality even tho their own ideas of originality is base of the works that is already generated by the other people.

This is the second video of yours I watch and I just wanted to say that not only is your content incredibly intelligent and logical, it is refreshing and very entertaining. Subscribed! 🔔

examples for harmonious buildings after 1800: Jugendstil / art nouveau, Antonio Gaudi, and some buildings of Friedensreich Hundertwasser - these buildings are like living beings, organic, beautiful, creative; they make peple who use them happy.

Originality has no value to me, when beauty is being ignored. I believe the thought process of a modern architect is mainly ego driven.

As a layman I think my biggest problem with post-modern architecture is how mathematical it is. We have advanced so much in technology and science that building are built to mathematical models rather than aesthetic desires and craftsmanship. A modern skyscraper can basically be built with any number of interchangeable workers with minimal artistic skills. Whereas an older structure, say a medieval cathedral had a mathematical and engineering underpinning but was built by actual artisans, stonemasons, carpenters, and painters. There’s a soul in the ornamentation. In the artistry of a carpenter building an ornate pulpit. A carved stone gargoyle. All that is missing from modern architecture because all the elements that go into it are mass produced and just assembled by line workers.

The separation from the modern design and it’s day to day impact is key. Going to work or live in a dark depressing square building especially on a dark grey day is oppressive to the spirit.

Outstanding observations! Please keep up the good work.

I think it's fascinating how you talk about the separation of art from craftsmanship. In a way, I've always felt that craftsman/artisans have sort of gotten the short end of the stick, and it's a shame.

I've had an idea to create revised futurism. Futurism if we continued with traditional craftsmanship instead of the foghorn looking modernist futurism

Another great video, I agree with every word, thank you! I also want to add that when people say that all newer buildings built in older/classic styles are 'kitsch', they are forgetting that by that metric, such styles as classicism (roman architecture revival) is also kitsch. Baroque architecture also incorporates a lot of roman elements. So what, are they kitsch? Also, why only a cubical form ISN'T kitsch? How come minimalism is never kitschy? Everyone knows it is. In fact, almost all of it today is kitsch. Perhaps, in fact, modern architects are afraid to build in classic style because cubical buildings would look kitschier in comparison.

You call it ORIGINALITY, I call it EGO

Great Video! I have an idea similar as the Guatemalan City is Las Catalinas in Costa Rica it’s very new and they made an Italian themed city with ancient architecture and not modern! 🇨🇷🤩

Great video ♥ Really hope some politicians from Norway are watching this 🙏

I like how fast_forward is code used in stellaris in order to advance game quickly, and it is used as well to portray passage of time in english in general. And yes and yes, balance is necessary, going extreme in one direction at anything is always bad, *always* , there is no exception. Extremums are *BAD*

I love experimental concept-art and architecture. I love looking at them, and they're great for exploring new ideas - what works and what doesn't. But it shouldn't conflict with the existing structures surrounding it. That's why they're, for the most part, better off staying on a piece of paper. For example: I dig brutalism hard, and I'd love to work and commute in such structures, but I wouldn't want to love in such structures for the very same reasons I want to work in them.

Your videos are so important, keep making them! About 11:25, I must confess I have a bone to pick with Calatrava. He must be one of the most delirious architects ever. He brings the disregard of context and sustainability to the next level. In Venice, the wettest city on earth, he designed an entire bridge of glass, steps included. The result: old people falling left and right breaking bones because of the slippery steps. The city had to apply some sticky anti-slip strips, de facto rejecting his concept of "cleanness and transparency". Not to mention the style of it, a real eye sore. In Rome he designed a delirious double-sail structure (which in all fairness I don't consider ugly) that is, 20 years later, still incomplete and in decay due to its financial unsustainability. Between 2021 and 2023, 3 millions had to be allocated just for ordinary and extraordinary maintenance to make the construction site safe. The economical, social and environmental damage these failed buildings and infrastructures cause is often irreparable..

woooo! Another video! It's always a joy to watch your ideas, they're always so full of fascinating ideas

When I studied architecture, I had a professor who followed the philosophy of camuflage. The better camouflaged our work was, the best would be for the urban environment and by default, to our building and we need more of it. Is not so much a bulding being modern or contemporary but about architecture being dynamic, adaptable, local and reactive to the urban context and more studios should look for that. For the video creator, you can look for RCR arquitectes. They do a stunning job making their buildings merge with the landscape or the city and have a great understanding of building longevity by embracing them to mature and last.

The old buildings in Vienna are fantastic! More of that, please!

Absolutely amazing!! Thank you for such an amazing video!

Bro, I've been really enjoying your videos. Before your channel, I had never seen anyone else talking about the topic.

This is currently my most exciting channel to watch. You point out and put words to such problems that i wasn't able to articulate before.

0:11 The one on the top right actually kind of look good, has a "aurora borealis" or seawave feel to it.

No. Originality for the sake of originality is not the goal, especially among top tier firms. Most contemporary (Modern is in incorrect term) Architecture is driven from function outwards. Good Architects are factoring in the surroundings, light, views, movement, acoustic, materials, motifs, historical context etc but are not married to classical or normative solutions. If you google docs about the Pompidou in Paris by Renzo Piano / Richard Rogers or Seattle Public Library by OMA / REX you’ll find, at first glance, odd looking Architecture whose forms are driven by the interior function and whose exterior makes new and unexpected relationships with surrounding. Similar with Bilbao. Often misunderstood at first but communities fall in love when they experience and live with. The grand vision is not always immediately understandable.

It's interesting in my home near Salt Lake City in Utah we actually can't have buildings with too many funky or flairy bits because of earthquakes. The architects are sometimes like "but we can build them in California and Tokyo they get earthquakes" and it's like well there are different kinds of earthquakes, and ours here are the worst kind you can get (for a building). So we have modern buildings, but they can't make them too nonsquare because of that, otherwise, they are a literal pain to build. In case you were curious the three type of earthquakes (at least from engineering standpoint) are side-to-side, up-and-down, and twist (Those aren't the official names but refer to the three directions the building can move). California for example is a slip fault so it's earthquakes move side-to-side, so their buildings have to stand really good sideways forces. Where I live though it's all three combined into one, which can make constructing a building quite difficult. I love the old styles of architecture, and it would be great to see some more of them here, but at the same time too, having all the facades fall of the building as everyone is trying to escape the earthquakes is not an acceptable risk. Certainly does make you think though what type of architecture or design would work here, given our earthquake limitations.

Thanks for there videos, they are really in tune with what I think

Your videos are amazing. Should be shown in design schools. Any channels or videos anyone could recommend about architecture in Thaialand? I live there and would like to learn more.

I might not say that "weirdness" and "originality-prostitution" are so much the problem in modern architecture. I don't mind a bit of weird. I would say that the biggest problem with modern architecture is that it tends to be so cold, frigid, mechanical, industrial, and sterile. I suppose maximization of profitability has played a role in architecture becoming so sterile and cold. Can't love Adolf Loos enough for his "Ornament and Crime". I briefly was an architecture student at university and I remember the priority given on "concept"--it seemed almost too left-hemisphere and analytical, not sensual, touchy-feely, and warm enough. Also, the occasional exceptionally weird modernist building does not so much seem to be the big problem. The greater problem are the gazillions upon gazillions of hectares of highly cold and sterile modernist (post-modernist or whatever) architecture that now covers the urbanscape, I think. Yuch!

Oh, so true! In my early Architectural learning I tried my hand at a circular plan. It didn't take me long to realise that almost all of the furniture's rectangular and the most efficient shape for habitasble building is also rectangular. (Tried sleeping in a circular bed? Very efficient!) London has so many modern buildings that are inefficient. And UGLY. Shame.

Originallity is often, to make thyself a name, to be known, to get the ego bigger. For the normal people wgo have to live with - its a penalty.

I'm not an architect - and not even close - but I have a weird feeling when a KZfaqr tries to school architects with basic notions that they have probably leaned on their 1st year. We have failed projects not because architects don't know basic things about their profession, like what's their purpose and how to do things. Their craft is very complex to know it all and a million other things we can't imagine. We have failed projects because sometimes people make mistakes lol, either at the design stage or at the stage of approval. But you can't make the whole video on this sensation, I agree.

I actually like the building at 6:14 I like how colorful it is. When I like more colorfull and whimsical architecture that is way I Like styles like rococo or the styles of secession in late 19th and early 20th century (pre WW1) for example art Nuevo and the buildings of Antonio Gaudy.

That's one good thing about America. Our cities were always ugly and boring so there was never anything to ruin in the first place. Now we have office buildings where there used to be warehouses. No big loss.

Incredible coincidence how I was looking through this channel yesterday and then out of nowhere a new upload the next day

So well thought out and written! Subscribed! 👍

I found it impossible to be “original” in architecture school so I went into restoration work instead.

I think this video kinda puts a lot of quite different architectural history on one heap, but I'd say this is especially true for the really recent architecture, say past 2010. (St)architects competing in architectural contexts and presenting to shareholders try to stand out, make impressive-looking renders with impossible looking buildings and accompany it with some vague inspirational quotes how they revolutionize the idea of a building. Then the engineer has to figure out how to build all the crazy cantilevers and heights, and the state has to pay the inevitable cost overruns. When the building finally stands, it looks nothing like promised, sticks out like a sore thumb in its context and soon suffers from all kind of practical issues, as the design elements that were done away with to be 'revolutionary' turned out to have some kind of function after all. Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel and inevitably we end up with all kind of forms of wheels but round ones. The 'function over form' that architects have always cried to condemn all traditional kinds of building styles sounds extremely hollow and hypocritical in this regard. Not mentioning building beautiful.

practicality for the people inside should be the primary goal . looking cool is nice but not if it makes the windows leak

The idea of "Originality" in 21st Century architecture is nothing but a farce, a cruel joke. When every new skyscraper is just the same boring sheets of glass and stainless steel, every new public space the same bizarre jumble of impractical open spaces, concrete and aluminum everywhere, geometric shapes that would make a toddler yawn, and weird meaningless cutouts that make you question if the architect has ever seen a building, calling these things "Original" in any sense becomes an insult to the term. Worst of all is how the prevalence of such architectural styles has robbed cities of their unique identity, with the skyline of Austin now looking no different from Seattle of Stockholm. Everywhere just looks like the same game of Cities: Skylines. And that's not even getting into how such modern designs give engineers nightmares, with no consideration given to basic physics like load paths and structural integrity. Some designs can be downright dangerous with their reliance on single means of egress; think about how your fancy rooftop restaurant halfway up the tower will get everyone in the top floors killed when they can't escape a fire. And it would be nothing short of a miracle for many of these buildings to last even the entirety of my lifetime before developing severe structural issues. To still say nothing of how such bland and oppressing aesthetics contribute to societal depression; it's a proven psychological fact that pretty things inherently make people happy, and I would struggle to believe anyone could find beauty in much of modernist architecture. It may be a personal extreme, but had I a time machine I would go back to the founding of the Bauhaus and burn it to the ground.

As a lover of classical architecture, I love these videos and I wish there were more of them. However, I also understand the time it takes to make an excellent video, so you're doing great!

I think you are overly critical towards modern styles because when they are executed right they look very pleaseing, at least for me, and i do think that you showed some examples of this style being executed right. I do agree however, that originality does more harm than good because it prevents these buildings from working together with the environment to paint a better greater picture and instead do everything to stand out at the cost of ruining the whole. Insted of being a new part of the pit the choose to be sweet cream on top of a steak

Thanks for making this video. It's good to know I'm not the only one who has a distaste for modern architects.

Ive been waiting for the next video from this channel for a while 😝

Has anyone here ever seen the Cleveland Clinic building in Las Vegas? The epitome hideous architecture in the name of creativity. I think I’d rather stay sick than be treated there lol.

good thing to see this channel posting again

Contemporary architecture does value innovation however the idea has never been to make each building completely unique. As with contemporary music that samples other music mainly within 50 years of its creation- so architecture does the same. The argument of the video is not necessarily a bad debate, it's just framed without any rigour.

Good discourse exist when you speak with authority. To speak with authority you need to frame your counter-argument correctly so that you can accurately deconstruct it in your argument. Modernism (from the generalised archi-school framing of modernism) started as a need for adequate housing for people who were dying in slums in post-first-world-war Europe. The expression of the architecture itself was taken from the industrial building techniques already exhibited on large-scale factories etc. It also arose as a distaste of the ideals that lead to the war, general people associated architecture based on desire instead of need as criminal. Want: lavish architecture beautifully expressed; Need: adequate hygiene, air, light and solar control. Modernist architecture is all about needs OVER wants. Le Corbusier, the sort of leader of the movement, wrote a piece called 'Architecture or Revolution', he thought people might revolt if they did not change architecture. It worked quite well until the mental health aspect started to manifest itself. Its safe to say that mental-health has only really come into focus during COVID for much of society, so obviously they didn't account for it back then. But the movement was also marred by the socio-economic problems that accompany architecture that is trying to solve that specific problem. Thereafter Post-Modernism tried to rectify some of the problems seen in modernism without losing the ground it had gained (there are many very good things that have come out of modernism). However the post-modernists tried to symbolised the irony of trying to return architecturally while society had irreparably changed. Some used historical references with a twist which became more and more Mannerist (yes the movement on the tail end of the renaissance), meaning that they became too exaggerated toward it's demise. Architects have since been searching out a style that synthesises all the lessons learn till now. Some have become too experimental without really revealing anything of use, others have sought to learn from natural geometric laws which can now be leveraged through computer programs. I think there is merit in that last endeavour because don't forget that traditional architecture, no matter how old, is contrived however no-one can argue with nature. (But I digress). Whatever the architect's stance is, in most cases the ultimate aim is to make spaces that general people will enjoy and derive meaning from (not simply ego, which is a ridiculous argument). What form it should take is an exceptionally difficult question to answer because most vernacular architectures expresses an architectural imperative: available technology. However we no longer have that limitation. The position of this video actually is: Since we no longer have the needs that the modernists were addressing, should architecture not return to pre-modernist expression? The best way to do this would be to have an open, honest, respectful series of debates with knowledgeable people on either side of the debate with case-studies that vary in scale and typology.

A lot of these modern "architects" are going for shock value, prestige, fame and notoriety. Everybody wants to be the next Andy Warhol of Architects, and frankly, it makes me mad. It's SO selfish and condescending. If you want to be COMPLETELY original, put your shit in an art gallery. Don't subjugate the masses to your atrocities. And in America, a relatively new country to most in the world, we are the worst of the worst. You have to go SEEKING any original, old-school beautiful architecture. Whereas in many other parts of the world, they keep and maintain their beautiful buildings. There's a reason people love going to Greece, Rome, Japan, and many other places. We're captivated by BEAUTY, not these weirdly, oddly shaped dung balls. I will say, the last truly original and beautiful structure of modern design is the Las Vegas Sphere. THAT is truly impressive and beautiful. It's one of the rare modern architectures that works, but there is soemthing special about buildings that don't need all the flash and technology FOR it to work. Something that requires real craftsmanship, chisel and stoning, plastering and stone/brick work. I travel to see such works of beauty because it's so inspirational, and don't even get me started on how inviting these buildings are, then you step inside and you're greated to great feats of artwork colored on the walls, statutes, paintings, and just aesthetically pleasing works of art. There is far too much emphasise on function over beauty, and beauty is important to our well-being. We all love to see it, admire it, be in awe of it, and experience it. But these buildings are actively saying "F U" to our natural human sensibilities, and mocking us for it by forcing us to endure looking at these ugly "works of art" for years upon years until their eventual demise, because another thing of note...these modern structures don't last long. They're easy to tear down and are never missed. There's a reason why we hesitate to tear down historical buildings. Hell, even the colloseum had an uproard over someone mildly defacing the structure and was swiftly punished for it. But if a modern sturcture were in it's place, we would think nothing of it. Lastly, a beautiful city/town is always a pleasure to be in and visit. Everything just feels like you're in harmony and...welll..beauty. You look forward to the trip. Most large cities lack that charm, grace and sense of style our ancestors had before us. They're not training the younger generation to value the old and build on what already works. They're training them to dismantle what works, what makes humans happy, and turn it upside down. I just don't get it.

This bothers me every day in NYC.

Another great video from you. You do important work here sir!

Your videos take forever but always worth the wait.

Id argue that Mondernism and wacky deaigns have a place AS THE EXCEPTION. Now i believe some Modernist creations like for example fredrich hundertwassers Creations hit the sweet spot of blending in enough but still standing out

I'm from Brazil, and I really love your videos \o/

Totally agrea. Imo, art should always have a foundation in craftsmanship. Also, when creating objects of daily use, eg. buildings, one should always take into account context and the impact on your clientele. If one isn't sure about the latter, do your market research! We don't need baroque scrolls everywhere, but sustainability, durability good microclimate and appealing, harmonious proportions will always be preferred!

Je hebt een heel cartesiaanse geest. Zelfs over het leven in de samenleving. Merci beaucoup.

Please see Archigram 1960-1974, by Peter Cook, Warren Chalk, Dennis Crompton, David Greene, Ron Herron und Michael Webb…

I saw my home city (Auckland)in New Zealand ruined in the way you describe between 1960 and the present day. They started to demolish the old office buildings and shops in the old centre of the city in the 1970s and there was nothing a young man like me could do in those days about it. The Town Planning Department at the University was wedded to the idea that renewal in a modern style was the only way. Now it is a city that has here and there some old buildings that sit uncomfortably amongst towering glossy skyscrapers similar to anywhere else in the world. It is very BORING! I left there in the 1980s and moved to Melbourne and later to London. But I do not like how the same mistakes have been made in the City of London and the old St Pauls Cathedral is lost amongst the sort of buildings you describe .

Great video! As an architecture school drop out your totally right about how confusing requiring originality for students who are just learning is.

If we speak something off buildings, Apple has mastered the craft of not creating but perfecting ideas. Say when most android phone manufacturers race each other towards making fancy new ideas, Apple just waited a few years to release a more refined version of such innovation on their iphones. Sure, they may retain almost the same designs by every iphone generation, but they did tiny tweaks on the outside and constantly updating the SoCs. Speaking of SoCs, M series chips may be the final step of making them an exclusive brand, but the idea of ARM processors on desktop/laptop chips themselves aren't new. Before Apple, ARM laptops are still largely limited with software related problems. Very little Windows programs support ARM natively, so emulation is very required, leading to various performance issues. Apple on the other hand has the whole move organized, from operating system to the programs themselves, which is why they're much more fluent. Simply, they have more power on making developers convert to arm because they have a closed sourced system. Not really idolizing Apple here. They suck on the prizes, and also the M series move could be partially due to that ram and storage is unupgradeable, so they can monopolize in ram upgrade prizes. Guess its all about the benefit towards them.

Those special designed buildings look good and I wish Switzerland had more of them. Yet here we’re stuck with either plain white boring boxes.

Esse canal é muito bom, continuem assim.

I don't see much to complain about with the Heydar Aliyev Centre in Bacu designed by Zaha Hadid Architects. And that includes the inside as well as the outside.

Mooi! Mag ik vragen waar zit de wijk die wij op 8:14 zien?

I think the fundamental issue is people thinking originality is good. It isn’t good or bad, it’s neutral. If it leads to good results, good. If it leads to bad results, bad. Originality or uniqueness is not a virtue in and of itself.

These buildings a super funny in my opinion. The worst thing about these places is the lack of greenery. Everything looks bad if its only concrete and glass.

I found it funny when you mentioned that we have a 3000 years of building history and then Haussmann's Parisian style building popped up which is a lot younger than that :)

thank you!

Your videos are good news in these troubled times...

Sometimes I’m not against modernist architecture but its too common now it’s a joke and when it’s poorly executed it’s a permanent eyesore, and I can think of so many examples of modernism done poorly vs done well, especially in smaller cities/towns when you get less desirable architects armed with millions of pounds .

I like a lot of new buildings. There has to be a way to integrate new forms with existing traditional neighborhoods.

As an architecture enthusiast and soon to attend college to study architecture, i find it increasingly sad that many nee buildings in my area looks cheap and the same. Dont get me wrong, other buildings looks amazing especially the colourful buildings. It'd be nice, since I've been wondering how people built such magnificent buildings, whether it be a cathedral or buildings around the city about how were they built. The ornamentation, the material they used, the stones, etc. Thanks and props to you for another great video!❤🎉

Modern architects create volumes according to the multiplied demand for square meters, and in most cases, awkward-looking facade designs try to hide the areas required by the investor. In this regard, unfortunately, the relevance of using some methods of constructing a facade is lost. An eye-friendly environment begins with the volume of proposed urban development, which I would invite those who agree with the video to discuss.

The strange part is that especially in Amsterdam, while they attempt 'original buildings' in the 'Zuid As' all originality is sucked out of the city due to gentrification.

Maybe there is a need for classical architecture faculties, just like classical music conservatories.

Again a super relevant video!

As a society we lost the plot when we separated originality from beauty. We had an architecture student next door for a while and I asked him about how much instruction he was getting in aesthetics. He said zero. They are actually discouraged from designing classic, monumental architecture in favour of simple glass boxes. Build a box then move on to the next one.