Your cunt

>Your cunt
>Do you prefer modern or traditional architecture?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0iriNIKeBLY
theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/apr/23/prince-charles-richard-rogers-riba
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Traditional hands down

Brutalist or gtfo

Brutalised your mom last night with my donger

>modern architecture
>shiny glass and fancy sculptures
I like pre ww2 architecture.
American cities were looking modern and beautiful, but then you changed your cities into fields of glass scyscrapers with highways between them.

I like the kind of modern architecture that respects traditional styles and strives to incorporate elements from those creating a familiar and harmonious blend of aesthetic and functional.

...

Traditional, but it's modern here ;_;

Apologize right now

*apologizes*
Heh-hheh

>mom

Kill yourself

I prefer beautiful and inviting architecture. Ugly buildings literally have a negative effect on physical health.

RealiSed this after the fact desu

Shameful

>going full cantilever

modern is boring. it's all gimicky shit that will look lame in 10 years and need to be torn down. it's also identity-less.

Pic related is how most modern architecture looks in the UK.
In fact, I'd say this is a bit above what most modern architecture looks like.

It is quite dull, quite cheap, low density; too many floors (I think anything over 6 is too much). Altogether quite bland.
At best modern architecture is sleek and sexy, but mostly it is total meh and it is often quite bad.

It's basically chosen by corporations. You have the progressive academics who design it and hype it up and pretend it has ethical and intellectual qualities to it, but modern architecture is just designed for corporations to get rich off.

here's an example for what I was speaking about

>it's also identity-less.
One of the most immediatly apparent consequences of capitalism is the capitalist non-place, the opposite of distinct local cultural identities.

Same.

I like seeing things which feel like a direct continuation in the development of our traditional architecture.

I have seen modern apartments/houses built in traditional areas which follow the forms and styles of the traditional setting, but complete it with a sleekness which makes them look, in my opinion, even better than the actual old buildings.

Stuff like that excites me: we can do new stuff which is distinctly new, yet still has an old feel about it, and looks beautiful. It also upsets me, because few architects bother with that. Most of them just build some square block

Yuck.

shit taste

Both, though I'd prefer to preserve tradition. Just look at how much you can ruin architecture just by removing the characteristic details.

Poland
I appreciate all architecture

i prefer a mixture of the two

Traditional

Reminds me of the church I went to as a kid, always thought it was incredibly ugly

that's because it IS ugly desu

anyways, can we agree that nothing beats gothic churches, right?

Poundbury is basically Prince Charles' toy town, built to be devoid of Modernist styles of architecture.

It will start getting close to 100% complete in the next 5 years, so I am eager to see whether Prince Charles has it in him to start a new traditional town somewhere else in the country.
Poundbury was only built because of Prince Charles, and there is enormous resistance to it amongst architects.

Once the main square is complete, I believe it will be one of the most beautiful towns in England, with one of the most impressive town squares despite being a small town of less than 10,000 people.
The first hurdle is having the population at large agree. Will they like it as much as I?
The second hurdle is transforming that public support into action. Poundbury's potential popularity will fall on the deaf ears of the architectural RIBA establishment unless Prince Charles &co really push the agenda to build more of these towns.

According to Roger Scruton, a development like Poundbury doesn't see enormous profits, unlike the featureless skyscrapers and such that get built in London or Birmingham or Manchester, which is another hurdle to them.

So my hope is that we see another big Prince Charles-inspired new town project in the next few years. They're not the most exciting projects, in a way, being only small towns, but they're interesting from an architectural perspective.

Gas all modernist architects desu. Egomanical circlejerkers.

that sounds cool af

Yes.
Here is what the town square will look like once completed.

It is rare to have such a dignified town square in England.

>parking on the town square
Haram as fuck.

it's a pretty terrible

it feels like a videogame level. like someone who doesn't quite understand how towns work was tasked to make something that looks and feels like a town

>it's a pretty terrible place
correction

Actually it looks so much like any other mediocre town that I'm wondering why they even bothered building it.

If anything the old look but brand new finish of everything makes it look like a film set.

exactly

because it looks a million times better than any other town/area built post-1945?

An harmonious mix of both is the best

It's actually my utopia that we demolish every single ugly building in Yurop and rebuild them in either classical style or pic-related style

Would anyone really prefer the modern one?

I don't agree.

Here is a typical dwelling in a typical town nearby.

The building isn't as pretty in my opinion, the roads and the sidewalks aren't as nice, and there is seemingly nothing else around other than other houses.

I am not sure what you mean by how a town should work.
The common conception of a town now is a small centre with a chippy, maybe a small high-street, and all the residential areas located quite far away so you need a car to get to the town. It's not favourable to me.

As far as looking like a videogame level, or like a film set, I can only see that as a good thing.
Hogwarts and other fantasies are crafted with beautiful aesthetic in mind.

One theme Ive noticed amongst critics of traditional architecture styles is that they think that in order to look authentic, you basically have to look ugly, and anything else is like a film set. It's just a pseudointellectual criticism routed in the idea that making an attempt to look good is bad.

Here's what my city's main post office used to look like.

Whoops, forgot pic.

I agree.

Here is my own town centre.

I mean, this is literally Telford Town Centre. That is the centre of my town. It's a big mall which is basically only accessible by car.

That is a modern town right there.

The difference between that and Poundbury are immediately obvious to me, but apparently not to other people in this thread.

Now it looks like this lmfao

I'm not aware of Germany having such issues with suburbanized towns. All the towns around here have the same old center as in the past, and when people move to a city the living space gets attached right to the city, not to some completely new soulless remote satellite towns.

>I am not sure what you mean by how a town should work.

It's the little things

The location of the main square doesn't make sense. There aren't any shops where you would expect there to be shops.

It falls flat on the same idea that most big modernist projects fall flat on - that one man can make just as good a design as thousands of people working together over time

Towns are the result of thousands upon thousands of small interactions over hundreds of years. From the location of the streets to the functions in the buildings. It's really hard to emulate and if you try, it's really easy to just end up with something that looks fake

But I'm not really against Poundbury, the architecture is neat, it'll probably be a decent place to live, and there's nothing wrong with trying something different.

What are places you just have taken photographs of, because you visit it often

Maybe you should not have started two world wars if you wanted to keep your nice looking buildings.

Modern definitely. Traditional architecture is impractical in the 21st century.

ancient architecture
if a building doesn't have at least 4000 years old it's shit tier

why is good architecture impractical?

Does this count?

I can appreciate both but the two shouldn't be built together or combined.

More costly to build and more difficult to replace because autists would protest it being torn down due to >muh heritage.

>>The location of the main square doesn't make sense

According to the establishment, the main square and shops should be only accessible by car, see >It falls flat on the same idea that most big modernist projects fall flat on - that one man can make just as good a design as thousands of people working together over time

Well that is the idea. And it isn't rocket science. And that isn't the modernist approach, either. The modernist approach seeks to compartmentalise, the traditional approach in Poundbury seeks to imitate the historic development of towns and cities.

And as I said before, looking fake is basically a compliment now.
Someone could recreate Venice 100% perfectly, and all you would say is that it looks fake.

Criticising Poundbury is like criticising a hair in your soup whilst the waiter is taking a shit on your side-dish.

>makes fun of a yank
>says mom
hehe

More like the market has been jewed out of good looking architecture in modern times and has been reduced to accepting the most basic, utilitarian buildings as normal. The corner block in your picture is fucking soulless and does nothing better than a more decorated block apart from being cheaper, but somehow people could afford more decorated buildings in the past.

Seems like every city wants modern.

nice meme

"soulless" is a buzzword

All of those buildings are still there

Modern done right can be beautiful

but now they're surrounded by disgusting 70s-80s block towers.

chicago would be the New Rome if the majority of skscrapers looked like those gothic revival type buildings.

Why'd they tear it down

You can still get the same view as this picture today from the Trump tower

Well in my opinion this public square will shit on any German town with just a population of 5,000, so you can suck my dick.
A tiny English town will have a nicer central square than any German town, and all you cucks can say s "i-it's not authentic!"

attractive buildings fell out of popularity in america. they tore down nearly ever old building and replaced them with highways and block towers.

The town probably didn't take care of it to renovate it was too costly

*modernize it

It's solid, but you could've just moved to one of the many already existing old towns.

that was only the pretext. they had been trying to tear it down and replace it with a block tower for decades prior. it was entirely a battle of aesethtnics.

Few of them are well preserved.
In Germany you can move to any randomly chosen town and it'll probably be quite nice. It isn't so in England.

doubtful the city just went with the cheapest solution

That looks like a highway toilet

well, you're wrong. the dilemmas of that building and its destruction are well documented and still discussed today in this city as an example.

>it was too costly
Codeword for "we're too cheap to maintain our own public property properly" because muh low taxes muh stealin gubmint free market will fix it.

My town hall from the 16th century.

Then the people of Omaha have bad taste

At most it just has to make sense.

Imagine placing the Harrods department store in a field in Sussex. It would still be a nice building, but the placement would be insane. There would be no customers.

You can't just ignore the underlying economic realities that shape cities. There's a reason why old towns are laid out the way they are. Poundbury doesn't take that into account.

Pretty much

Traditional outside, modern inside.

Seriously, traditional floor planning sucks balls.

I pass through this street every morning on my way to work

Why is there enormous resistance amongst architects?

It's been a hype here for years, to build houses/housing projects in traditional architecture. Either as in the classic Dutch canal house/row house style of the 1600s, or the more stately town houses of the late 19th/early 20th century. The latter could be considered as modern architecture, but it still incorporates a lot of classical elements.

Pic related is built recently. I'll try to find some more examples.

>front side of the first building
>EU monies

>left side of the first building
>Hungary monies

Traditional Austro-Hungarian buildings look amazing.

commieblocks from the 60s look god awful and hellish

modern commieblocks look slightly better but still nothing compared to the old buildings

>oundbury doesn't take that into account.

Yes it does.

Couldnt agree more with you, user

the EU has nothing to do with refurbishing common apartments, the costs are paid by the residential community of the building, while sometimes the local government throws in like 10 per cent of the money to help things get started. I guess they must've ran out of money or something had come up for the contractor, but I'm sure they'll finish the renovation this year
it was a funny comparison tho

>Why is there enormous resistance amongst architects?

Because they don't like good things.

Princes Charles' beef with architects is legendary.

youtube.com/watch?v=0iriNIKeBLY

He once gave a speech to RIBA (who unironically gave pic related the Sterling Prize for Architectural Excellence) basically telling them that they were wrecking the country.

>Prince Charles and the main body of the British architectural profession fell out in spectacular style. The Prince chose the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the RIBA, an event held at Hampton Court Palace, to scourge modern British architecture. In a memorable phrase, he likened a scheme by Ahrends Burton and Koralek to extend the National Gallery on Trafalgar Square as "a carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend".

theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/apr/23/prince-charles-richard-rogers-riba

I wish Art Deco and (retro)futurism never died

same here

The importance of detached residential architecture is underrated, too. Who the fuck designs this crap, ruins an entire street and still finds sleep at night?

comfy

Over the years I've come to appreciate many architectural styles, even non-practical ones, but this building is ugly as fuck. Exceptionally ugly.

Steel and glass is often boring and ugly.

Tbh it doesn't matter if it's modernist or Gothic. If it's authentic, it's authentic. If it matches well with other buildings, it matches well with other buildings. If it's a brutalist piece of shit that wouldn't survive a nuclear blast anyway then it's a brutalist piece of shit that wouldn't survive a nuclear blast anyway.

Though one things for certain. If it's made in Russia it probably looks shit.

each of them has it's good points depending on the type building/zone
although some modern architecture is just plain shit
if cancer took the form of a building it would probably look like this
agree

Traditional, but it's too expensive today.

Traditional.
Modern looks lifeless

>tfw all of new york used to look like this
>tfw now it's just a random patchwork of shit you can find everywhere else

well this guy in Hungary built his own castle in the matter of 50 years, using only his two hands and the money he earned as a housepainter
it's my dream to have enough money that I can hire a good architect to design me a nice big family house in the Art Nouveau style and then have it built

Came here to say this.

Good lad.