[jrhartley]

(Original post by firesale1)
For god's sake just build some nice buildings - the public can't deal with 1 out of every 100 buildings being good, with the other 99 being average to absolutely awful

Your post read like an uneducated rant, but to be fair I'll give you the opportunity to define 'nice'.

[Ex Death]

(Original post by firesale1)
I'm not in an architect: but I can tell you, I am really fed up with modern architecture. I know that 99% of my friends, the other 1% being an architect, completely agree with me. if you guys are architecture students, please listen. The public are fed up with your elaborate artistic justifications for a pile of steel and glass. The amount of crap buildings thrown up in London these days is atrocious. I do like the stuff in the City which makes an effort. But everywhere else in London it's just the most boring ugly crap.. let me give you some examples. The glass and plastic looking steel construction near Holborn, with the overhead bring under the road.... disgrace. Central St Giles, supposedly an example of 'innovative new architecture' and evidence that modern architecture isn't crap after all. Errrrrrr... come on. At most, it deserves five out of ten.

I'm not willing to entertain some dull argument that architects generally give when these basic truths are raised. Typically they involve the word 'pastiche' a lot and some other drivel recited from architecture school..... it is scary how indoctrinated you guys get there. For god's sake just build some nice buildings - the public can't deal with 1 out of every 100 buildings being good, with the other 99 being average to absolutely awful

This shrewd rant on modern architecture holds no intellectual weight and lacks common sense. Are you aware that to produce 'old' architecture in the modern day would be infinitely more expensive to build than standard 'modern' buildings and is therefore completely commercially unviable? The reason 'old' architecture got away with excessive ornamentation and fancy facades was because pretentiousness was far more prevalent than it is today thanks in large part to the societal conditioning of nobility and religion. Also your sweeping assumption that we become indoctrinated with 'modern architecture' in architecture school is pretty laughable.

[Chucklefiend]

(Original post by Infallible)
I prefer contemporary buildings.

That just looks like a massive stapler to me.

[TheMeters]

(Original post by Infallible)
I prefer contemporary buildings.

I love modern architecture, but that is fugly.

[htwzzz]

having a fixed taste of a building isn't good for architecture student, i.e. creator of this thread

[PaperArchitect]

My school (DIT Bolton st, Dublin) was given a great lecture recently from a member of staff. He discussed his methods towards creating certain feelings in a building. By looking at older buildings he would identify certain principles (such as a feeling of weight) and transpose them to his own work. I admire this method because as I said in a previous post; an understanding of aesthetics in modern architecture is very disregarded. While buildings must fulfill requirements and be sustainable, that does not mean we should forget the very thing that made buildings architecture in the first place.

[noneofthemknew]

(Original post by firesale1)
I'm not in an architect: but I can tell you, I am really fed up with modern architecture. I know that 99% of my friends, the other 1% being an architect, completely agree with me. if you guys are architecture students, please listen. The public are fed up with your elaborate artistic justifications for a pile of steel and glass. The amount of crap buildings thrown up in London these days is atrocious. I do like the stuff in the City which makes an effort. But everywhere else in London it's just the most boring ugly crap.. let me give you some examples. The glass and plastic looking steel construction near Holborn, with the overhead bring under the road.... disgrace. Central St Giles, supposedly an example of 'innovative new architecture' and evidence that modern architecture isn't crap after all. Errrrrrr... come on. At most, it deserves five out of ten.

I'm not willing to entertain some dull argument that architects generally give when these basic truths are raised. Typically they involve the word 'pastiche' a lot and some other drivel recited from architecture school..... it is scary how indoctrinated you guys get there. For god's sake just build some nice buildings - the public can't deal with 1 out of every 100 buildings being good, with the other 99 being average to absolutely awful

The old 'old vs. modern architecture' debate and the judging of building by what its facade looks like is so facile. As several posters have pointed out already it would be completely uneconomical to build an authentic Classical building in this day an age (not to mention the wreakage hauling stone en mass out of the ground would do to the environment), no client would ever pay for it.

To design building in an old style for the sake of it is to ignore a whole range of issues that are pertinent to the conception and construction of architecture. For example, this scheme by Quinlan Terry might look like your idea of a "nice" building on the outside, but at the end of the day the interior is still a dreary air conditioned office block that is just as dull and banal to its occupents as any 60's concrete slab in a modern city centre. Sure, making things look good is part of architecture, but it's only that, part of it.

Finally you're probably falling into the myth that architects are these free artistic spirits who can design whatever they want and just plonk it in our cities. They're not, the client has the final say on what gets built, after all, they're paying for it.

Don't get me wrong, I love Classical, Victorian, Gothic architecture, I just understand why it is completely impractical and intellectually dishonest to slavishly copy it today.

[PaperArchitect]

I don't think the OP was alluding that we should faithfully copy old styles or even look similar, but that they should just look nice. Trying to make a building beautiful is difficult and sometimes I wonder is architecture school the problem. The tutors obsess over function and beautiful drawings but the image of the building is rarely brought up.

[firesale1]

(Original post by noneofthemknew)
The old 'old vs. modern architecture' debate and the judging of building by what its facade looks like is so facile. As several posters have pointed out already it would be completely uneconomical to build an authentic Classical building in this day an age (not to mention the wreakage hauling stone en mass out of the ground would do to the environment), no client would ever pay for it.

To design building in an old style for the sake of it is to ignore a whole range of issues that are pertinent to the conception and construction of architecture. For example, this scheme by Quinlan Terry might look like your idea of a "nice" building on the outside, but at the end of the day the interior is still a dreary air conditioned office block that is just as dull and banal to its occupents as any 60's concrete slab in a modern city centre. Sure, making things look good is part of architecture, but it's only that, part of it.

Finally you're probably falling into the myth that architects are these free artistic spirits who can design whatever they want and just plonk it in our cities. They're not, the client has the final say on what gets built, after all, they're paying for it.

Don't get me wrong, I love Classical, Victorian, Gothic architecture, I just understand why it is completely impractical and intellectually dishonest to slavishly copy it today.

Thank you for giving me a reasoned response.

To the guy above; you remind me of a typical flippant architecture student reciting what he's been told in a lecture. I'm going to write a response cutting your argument into pieces in due course but I can't be bothered right now. Just wait.

For now can I just pose a question to all the architects on here. If, hypothetically, a poll was put to the public and 90% of the respondents indicated that they thought modern architecture was ugly, what would your response be.

[Quiller]

(Original post by firesale1)
For now can I just pose a question to all the architects on here. If, hypothetically, a poll was put to the public and 90% of the respondents indicated that they thought modern architecture was ugly, what would your response be.

Please define modern architecture first.

[firesale1]

(Original post by PaperArchitect)
I don't think the OP was alluding that we should faithfully copy old styles or even look similar, but that they should just look nice. Trying to make a building beautiful is difficult and sometimes I wonder is architecture school the problem. The tutors obsess over function and beautiful drawings but the image of the building is rarely brought up.

Yes, this is just the real big problem. I really, really, really struggle to find ANY buildings built since the war that just simply look 'nice'. Literally, none actually come to mind, considering I live in London that really must be saying something about architecture today.

And just on the point about the clients and the process - the thing is, how can this be a justification for architects to built a) crap ugly buildings and b) completely preclude even the POSSIBILITY of building in a traditional style? Does it not worry you that you guys are at the whiphand of the big property development firms? Surely you guys should be clamouring for more freedom of design and expression?

And I really struggle with the blanket suggestion that the cost of 'stone' and 'ripping it out of the earth' environmental concerns puts using such materials out of the question. Firstly, if that were the case then how the hell were stone buildings constructed all around the world for hundreds of years prior to the war. People say 'oh that was the days of Empire there was lots of money' well I would point out that if you have a reasonable knowledge of how the British Empire worked then you would know that there is just as much money washing around the real estate funds in the City these days. Furthermore countries across Europe, and notably Argentina which didn't have substantial 'empires' threw up countless cities in stone (i.e. Buenos Aires) without overzealous architects nagging about the cost. And if you think ripping out stone out of the ground is environmentally unfriendly then you are really missing the boat.. i.e. If you reckon making steel from iron is 'environmentally friendly' then... lol. This is leaving out obvious questions about the longevity of 'modern' buildings.

And have you not ever considered the reason that building in such a way is so prohibitively expensive, is the major discrimination against traditional styles? i.e. there's no longer any demand for stone, and the tradesman who could build like that, hence driving up the cost. And how can you say to build like that would not be 'functional' - such buildings NEVER GET BUILT ANYMORE so who knows, if the opportunity was given, what could be achieved re. functionality.

Also, since when has building 'cheap' buildings been a good thing!? And for all the idealogical arguments about classical architecture representing the 'elitism' and 'social injustice' prior to the war (heard this many times) if anything modern architecture represents the worst of capitalism (rampant speculation) and in the case of commercial buildings, often just 'a banker's wet dream' (kudos to the guy who came up with this)

[firesale1]

(Original post by Quiller)
Please define modern architecture first.

No, answer the question. You know i'm not an architect, stop pre-empting my question with your smart alec response.

[Quiller]

(Original post by firesale1)
No, answer the question. You know i'm not an architect, stop pre-empting my question with your smart alec response.

hmm, reading the post above, you write as though you don't know much about this...

I thought asking you to define modern architecture was a reasonable question. The term 'modern architecture' is laughably broad. Architecture since when exactly? You do know there have been several movements since modernism don't you?

And I wasn't trying to set you up for a fall, I was trying to get you to feed something more rigourous into your question so this might turn into a fruitful discussion... but it seems as though you can't.

[firesale1]

(Original post by Quiller)
hmm, reading the post above, you write as though you don't know much about this...

I thought asking you to define modern architecture was a reasonable question. The term 'modern architecture' is laughably broad. Architecture since when exactly? You do know there have been several movements since modernism don't you?

And I wasn't trying to set you up for a fall, I was trying to get you to feed something more rigourous into your question so this might turn into a fruitful discussion... but it seems as though you can't.

ell, believe me I am no stranger to 'fruitful discussions'. The question I asked was quite simple and it was intended to be so. Do you think a question like that was meant to spur on a debate about one of the merits of your heralded 'modern movements'? No. Am I an architect, do I give a crap about about the finer details of the latest trends in architecture? No. Am I a member of the public, who when walking the streets of London have to endure post-war godawfully ugly buildings on a daily basis? YES

So, back to the original question, which was quite simple. Or shall I rephrase it?

Why are the majority of buildings constructed since the war so damn ugly?

Here's another one:

Why do architects think they are immune to the majority public opinion, (clearly this point is debatable, but see title of the thread) that modern architecture is pretty crap?

And yes, for your information, I am more aware than you might think of these 'movements' that you speak of, particularly for someone who isn't an architect. But there really isn't any need for me to discuss that because a) you clearly know more than I do, as an architect and b) that would be missing the point - the point being ordinary geezers like me have to experience the buildings made by architects on a daily basis. I therefore have every right to scrutinize, criticise, or even applaud the architectural profession. To dismiss me as a mere layperson, who is 'uneducated' or 'that doesn't know much' (as you all have done here) simply reinforces the impression of architects as a smug and arrogant bunch. So none of that please; simply answer the question.

[jrhartley]

(Original post by firesale1)
Yes, this is just the real big problem. I really, really, really struggle to find ANY buildings built since the war that just simply look 'nice'. Li

You really are making yourself look a bit daft by your continued use of the word 'nice' in defining a building. You need to use more precise, adult terms if you expect people to enter into a reasoned discussion with you. What is it that you find 'nice' about historic buildings? Their ornamentation? their scale? Their materials?

You can't expect people to engage with you if they don't really know what you're talking about. What's you find 'nice' isn't what someone else will find 'nice'.

I always remember when I was about 10 at school our English teacher prohibited us from using adjective 'nice' precisely because it was so arbitrary and weak.

[jrhartley]

(Original post by firesale1)
Why do architects think they are immune to the majority public opinion, (clearly this point is debatable, but see title of the thread) that modern architecture is pretty crap?

I think you're also making some broadbrush statements here:

a) You seem to assume your voice is one shared by the majority of people on this matter;
b) You seem to be implying that all architects don't have any view to history or take any account of it;
c) Again, you haven't defined modern;

What do you think of, say, Tony Fretton's architecture? What about Chipperfield? Because you could argue that in many ways their work increasingly often references classical principles or proportion and harmony?

Or is it all the tracery and ornamentation that you like? What do you think of Poundbury?

You do appreciate that the scale and amount of work involved in these buildings was only possible when those who commissioned the work had the benefits of slave labour? Do you have any thoughts regarding the connotations of much of classical architecture (i.e. oppression, nobility and serfs / fiefdoms)?

[jrhartley]

(Original post by firesale1)
And I really struggle with the blanket suggestion that the cost of 'stone' and 'ripping it out of the earth' environmental concerns puts using such materials out of the question. Firstly, if that were the case then how the hell were stone buildings constructed all around the world for hundreds of years prior to the war. People say 'oh that was the days of Empire there was lots of money' well I would point out that if you have a reasonable knowledge of how the British Empire worked then you would know that there is just as much money washing around the real estate funds in the City these days. Furthermore countries across Europe, and notably Argentina which didn't have substantial 'empires' threw up countless cities in stone (i.e. Buenos Aires) without overzealous architects nagging about the cost.

You have, in this one paragraph, demonstrated clearly to me that you not only know nothing about architecture, but also nothing about world social history. I suggest you study how precisely these great monuments were commissioned and how many people died building them before you carry on down this route, as you really are digging yourself into a hole.

You do understand that you can't build high-rise buildings out of load-bearing stone don't you, hence the prevalent use of steel?

There are quite a lot more of us in the world today, and despite all the problems, the distribution of wealth is an awful lot better than it was even 100 years ago, let alone 300 years ago. We need to construct in a non-feudal, cost-effective manner. Building in stone and ornamenting it, is simply not a viable option when Redrow Bovis and the other volume-house builders are struggling to produce even the simplest 'noddy box' home for under £70K.

[Quiller]

(Original post by firesale1)
ell, believe me I am no stranger to 'fruitful discussions'. The question I asked was quite simple and it was intended to be so. Do you think a question like that was meant to spur on a debate about one of the merits of your heralded 'modern movements'? No. Am I an architect, do I give a crap about about the finer details of the latest trends in architecture? No. Am I a member of the public, who when walking the streets of London have to endure post-war godawfully ugly buildings on a daily basis? YES

Then to answer your original question, my response would be 'ok' - but that doesn't really get us anywhere does it? You don't give a crap about the finer details of the latest trends in architecture? You clearly do, why on earth would you enter a discussion on the topic of architecture if you had no interest it's progression and if you knew anything about architecture post 1900 then you'd realise what a nonsensical question you've asked.

(Original post by firesale1)
So, back to the original question, which was quite simple. Or shall I rephrase it?

Why are the majority of buildings constructed since the war so damn ugly?

The question may as well be, 'Why do I think the majority of buildings constructed since the war are so damn ugly?' It's completely subjective. I won't deny that many buildings in our cities aren't what I would consider to be 'good architecture' but then again I can actually back up my opinions. You need to tell us what is it exactly you don't like about modern buildings, is it their scale? Proportions? Lack of maintenance? Form? Structure? Layout? Materiality? Tectonics? etc .. Are you even aware of the procurement processes that buildings have to go through, do you even know how design teams are structured and projects completed? Do you know that the architect may not directly be employed by the client?

(Original post by firesale1)
Here's another one:

Why do architects think they are immune to the majority public opinion, (clearly this point is debatable, but see title of the thread) that modern architecture is pretty crap?

On the contrary it doesn't matter what architects think they're immune to, because nothing is immune to public opinion. In any case the core assumption of the question doesn't hold water - you haven't provided any evidence beyond anecdote. Where are the statistics? You haven't provided your definition of modern, if I was a member of the public and you were asking me this question I'd ask what you mean by 'crap', do they function well? Are they aesthetically flawed? What is modern, Goldfinger, Luder, Spence? Venturi, Graves? Hadid, Prix, Eisenman? or even Adam, Krier? Is this just you and a few mates making assumptions? Well me and my mates think 'modern' architecture is a good thing.

(Original post by firesale1)
And yes, for your information, I am more aware than you might think of these 'movements' that you speak of, particularly for someone who isn't an architect. But there really isn't any need for me to discuss that because a) you clearly know more than I do, as an architect and b) that would be missing the point - the point being ordinary geezers like me have to experience the buildings made by architects on a daily basis. I therefore have every right to scrutinize, criticise, or even applaud the architectural profession. To dismiss me as a mere layperson, who is 'uneducated' or 'that doesn't know much' (as you all have done here) simply reinforces the impression of architects as a smug and arrogant bunch. So none of that please; simply answer the question.

Sure 'scrutinise' away, but being in a position to criticise involves more than just pointing a finger at a building and saying 'that's not nice'. If you want anybody to take you seriously you need to think about introducing a bit of intellectual rigor into your arguments and perhaps picking up a few books to educate yourself about architecture and a little bit about how the world works, because you have made some ridiculous assertions in the last few posts which jrhartley has called you out on.

I'm afraid the only person coming across as smug and arrogant here is you, it's pretty clear you're hung up on how little you know about this and you're using the 'bad argument - shout louder' method to try and lend a bit of substance to your responses (it isn't working). I'm actually always keen to chat with people about architecture, but you need to hop off your soap box now because you sound as though someone someone has given you 'A Vision of Britain' for Christmas and you jumped straight online to chastise us.

[firesale1]

(Original post by jrhartley)
You really are making yourself look a bit daft by your continued use of the word 'nice' in defining a building. You need to use more precise, adult terms if you expect people to enter into a reasoned discussion with you. What is it that you find 'nice' about historic buildings? Their ornamentation? their scale? Their materials?

You can't expect people to engage with you if they don't really know what you're talking about. What's you find 'nice' isn't what someone else will find 'nice'.

I always remember when I was about 10 at school our English teacher prohibited us from using adjective 'nice' precisely because it was so arbitrary and weak.

LOL

You some sort of weirdo (no offence)? 'when I was 10 my English teacher banned nice because it was arbitrary and weak'


Give me time, and I shall rip your argument to sheds in due course.

[jrhartley]

(Original post by firesale1)
LOL

You some sort of weirdo (no offence)? 'when I was 10 my English teacher banned nice because it was arbitrary and weak'


Give me time, and I shall rip your argument to sheds in due course.

If being a weirdo is remembering important elements from lessons, then I guess I must be.

I look forward to reading more of your diatribles once you have had time to better formulate your argument.