Options
Why is modern architecture so ugly?
![[Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3c8ce02131f4935837aaa08f664464f0.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 0 Forum Member
✭
Anyone else a bit fed up with the substandard quality of modern buildings?
I thought that they may have learnt following the heinously ugly tower blocks of the 60's.
Yet in my local town and in London they seem intent on building endless buildings which are only marginally better than the ones that came before.
Discuss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I thought that they may have learnt following the heinously ugly tower blocks of the 60's.
Yet in my local town and in London they seem intent on building endless buildings which are only marginally better than the ones that came before.
Discuss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0
Comments
Maybe it's not in your eyes, but I know that an awful lot of people think otherwise.
Care to get off your online high-horse and debate?
Not really. Giddy up.
Btw, I bet most people thought venerated classical architecture was shit when it was built.
And the views of the masses are of no interest to me. They're usually wrong.
Lol, giddy up. Quite the king of one-liners aren't you.
Anyway no, I don't think so. I know that certain buildings were criticsed, but as far as I know there was never a wholesale feeling that architecture was 'shit', such as many people feel now.
Some hotels look a bit too 'trendy' for me and will look naff very soon.
The problem I have with 'modern' architecture is that it seems to be a tiny proportion of new buildings that are actually any good, or will age well.
And inevitably those tend to be the really expensive, high-profile ones - the Shard, skyscrapers in the City etc. The average 'modern' building or house is rubbish.
Thanks
Jolly good. They're still retarded. And btw, your theory is not true anyway. Just because you, your mates, the Telegraph and the Mail think anything built after 1387 is cack, that doesn't mean you can roll it out to the rest of us.
Plenty of modern buildings are loved.
Now the Shard, that is a dull piece of work.
http://gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/buildings/_more2005/_more08/building-site-under-construction-urban-landscape-Vauxhall-London-England-opposite-MI6-headquarters-6-DHD.jpg
What about that one?
The ugly cheap ones tend to get removed over time, people will look back on modern architecture as better than we think now.
Frankly, most is dire and without personality. I hate excessive glass too.
Now that does look pretty hideous. I mean, who builds stuff like that. Being a bus shelter, it should have better seats and proper sides on it!
However, it's purpose is not to look fantastic.
Some modern architecture is fabulous, some not so much. I'm sure there are people that love what I hate. It all evens out.
I concur.
I would think that the look of a hospital is important in that it helps to create a pleasant ambience.
Wouldn't be very nice going to an ugly or badly designed hospital.
I'm not sure it is because some of it is good and interesting. The worst is over because the hideous concrete brutalism period lasted between the 1950s-1970s.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=concrete+brutalism&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=LPNhUa_ONMzEPMaFgMgK&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=600 (now they really are ugly buildings)
You know that a residential or office building has gone very wrong if it looks like a nuclear power station or cement factory.
Javelin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lol. Jumping to conclusions are we?
Your point is taken however. Of course plenty of people love modern architecture - I like a lot of the buildings too, but like I say, they tend only to be the high profile ones that cost a bomb. Whereas a standard brick terrace house in London could last over 300 years and still look decent.
I think a number of polls have suggested that a majority of Brits prefer older architecture. I can't be arsed to find them - there are def out there though...
Agreed. My point is that architects refuse to build anything that looks remotely 'traditional'. There is a massive bias against such styles of architecture - they don't teach it in architecture schools. Three of my good school friends did architecture, and they came out despising older buildings. They said that if you tried to submit plans for an older building, then that would guarantee failing at every point. A better balance in building styles is needed - at the moment all we get is glass and steel blocks.
I agree.
It's not that we are taught to despise traditional buildings, we are taught to push the envelope and not pastiche old buildings. We no longer build things in traditional ways, we use the buildings differently, and it would be daft to go backwards. The focus of the future is renewables and probably a more flexible and technological family home. At the moment that all looks ugly.
What you are taught in university is nothing like reality, thankfully. They all have a boner for Le Corbusier.
Fair enough. But surely if one were to apply modern practices to older styles it would surely be easy to 'adapt' them to the modern world. My point is that no thought has gone into this whatsoever.
On a side note, what do you think of the buildings in this thread? http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1022349&page=64
Would you agree that some of them are certainly not 'kitsch' or 'pastiche'?