I'm not going to criticise these alien-looking vanity projects today.
Rather, before we get to the real problem, I'm going to (sort of) briefly defend them.
However irredeemable their divergence from the architectural principles of Vitruvius (and every design principle of Antiquity & the Middle Ages...), and however far from the charm, usability, & longevity of vernacular architecture...
they aren't the real problem.
Because, at least, they're saying something.
Even if you don't like what they stand for, there is an aspirational quality about these buildings.
There is a concerted effort - even an abstract, anti-human one - to *create* something which is in some (convoluted) way, meaningful.
The same could be said of Brutalism.
Whatever you think of its style or what it represents politically/artistically/culturally, you can't deny that it does have both of those things:
A style, and a message.
The real problem isn't the prize-winning, headline-grabbing, discussion-provoking, abstract, theoretical-architecture edifices.
Rather, it's the plain details of ordinary buildings, the ones that don't win prizes or generate discussion.
There is a negligence toward beauty.
Here are some examples:
1. Ceiling Tiles
They're EVERYWHERE. And they are ugly, easily broken, unnatural, peculiar, claustrophobic.
But they ARE functional: cheap & allow access to electrics.
This will become a theme...
2. Whitewashed Walls & Grey Carpets
Why does every office look like this?
Grey carpets & whitewashed walls. No colour. No design. No attempt to make it a pleasant environment.
Minimalism? Cost-efficiency?
3. Purely Functional Design
This bus shelter gets the job done, sure. You can wait inside to get away from the rain or wind.
But that's all. No flair. Nothing inviting.
No attempt to create even the slightest bit of beauty in the ordinary.
4. Apathetic Choices
Compare these two university lecture halls. Which one would you rather study in?
There is on obvious reason why they look so different.
Only that the second, newer one, required no effort to design & build. A (cheap) tick-box exercise.
5. Painfully Bright Lighting
In the words of Junichiro Tanizaki:
"The progressive Westerner is determined always to better his lot... his quest for a brighter light never ceases, he spares no pains to eradicate even the minutest shadow."
And this is a problem because it is incredibly hard to fight against.
There is no identifiable cultural movement behind it, no specific architect or school of thought.
It's a deep-set, general, social problem.
Who decided that street-lights should no longer look like this?
But should instead look like this?
Nobody *decided*.
It happened because of a drift towards utility & cost being prioritised over beauty, longevity, or character.
Even bins have been affected!
See, this isn't about those large-scale, multi-million dollar projects.
(Though there ARE issues with them, that's not the crux of it.)
The every day things are what is most concerning.
There is no "vision" or "statement" to take issue with.
It is a silent, creeping creed of apathy.
Worse, it is a silent creed of ugliness.
For example, compare these light-switches.
There is only one Kunsthaus Graz, and a few thousand similar buildings.
But there are hundreds of millions of polystyrene ceiling tiles, grey carpets, whitewashed walls, functional streetlamps, painfully bright LED lights, poorly proportioned windows, and tarmacked streets.
How do we change this?
Anyway, I'm going to listen to Edvard Grieg's Piano Concert in A Minor and sulk...
I'm really enjoying the discussion this thread has provoked - will endeavour to respond to you all!
Meanwhile, if you liked this thread then you may like my free weekly newsletter, Areopagus.
Seven short lessons every Friday (including architecture!)
It sounds like a boring topic, but concrete is one of the most revolutionary inventions in history.
For example, concrete now weighs more than everything else humans have ever made combined.
So here's the story of how it has changed the world, for better and for worse...
What is concrete?
Put simply, it's cement (the magic ingredient) mixed with aggregates, like gravel and sand, plus water — the cement acts as a binder which reacts and sticks the aggregate together.
Your pour it into a mould and what was a liquid soon becomes hard as rock.
And it has been around for thousands of years.
The Egyptians, Mycenaeans, and Nabataeans all used some form of concrete.
But it was the Romans who were the first real masters of concrete — the things they built with it, like the Aqua Alexandrina, are astonishing even now.
You can learn a lot about history just by looking at the words we use.
Like algorithm, which is descended from the name of a 9th century Persian polymath called al-Khwarizmi.
So, from romantic to cynical, here are the strange stories behind 12 incredibly normal words...
1. Left Wing and Right Wing
In the French Assembly, after the revolution of 1789, supporters of the monarchy (i.e. conservatives) sat to the right of President and supporters of the new regime (i.e. progressives) sat to his left.
A literal meaning that became ideological.
2. Romance/Romantic
During the Middle Ages Latin was the language of the church, but not of regular people.
In France they spoke Old French, which originated in Latin but had changed a lot.
So it was called a "Romance" language because it wad descended from the Romans.
When it was finished 334 years ago they called it the Eighth Wonder of the World.
See, people usually associate Baroque Architecture with Europe, but some of the best Baroque is in Latin America...
Baroque is one of the most distinctive styles of architecture — you know it when you see it.
Extravagant, opulent, maximalist, and full of movement.
It is defined by curved rather than straight lines, lavish decorations, and large, open spaces.
If one motif sums up the Baroque it is probably the "Solomonic Column", a type of twisted column that became popular during the rise of Baroque Architecture.
They were used by Gianlorenzo Bernini for his colossal bronze baldachin at St Peter's Basilica, Rome: