Why do the majority of the public prefer 'old' architecture?
Scroll to see replies
It's easy to forget that the "old" architecture we admire today was almost always hated or laughed at by the public at the time. And architects and designers themselves have historically disliked the movement or styles which preceded them, often going out to design the complete opposite.
Also, the reason we tend to love old buildings is simply because they are old. Everyone wants to live in an authentic Georgian or Victorian house, but if you were to build one today, with the same features, materials and arrangement of spaces, people would be far less inclined to admire it.
Also, the reason we tend to love old buildings is simply because they are old. Everyone wants to live in an authentic Georgian or Victorian house, but if you were to build one today, with the same features, materials and arrangement of spaces, people would be far less inclined to admire it.
Original post by firesale1
LOL
Give me time, and I shall rip your argument to sheds in due course.
Give me time, and I shall rip your argument to sheds in due course.
In accepting the premise of your question, I will attempt some answers - a lot of the points have been covered already
a) Inexperience. People 'know what they like and they like what they know'. In the same way people buy Bovis / Redrow noddy houses because they are familiar, they think that 'modern' architecture is intimidating and different and odd. I would urge you to watch the three part series of Alain de Botton called "The Perfect Home". It is based on his book "The Architecture of Happiness" and it took a number of families who were set on buying their next noddy house around decent 'modern' houses - as in, properly archtiecturally designed stuff. Before visiting, they all pretty much recoiled at it, said 'urgghhh' - generally expressed the opinion you are putting forward. De Botton took them to visit a few of the schemes in the flesh - work by S333, MVRDV in Holland. Their initial disgust and distrust of 'modern' architecture soon changed. They were impressed by the volumes, how the rooms were arranged, how cheap the buildings were to run, how much light they had, how warm they were, how easy to keep clean. What I'm saying is a huge amount of phobia is borne out of the unknown;
b) Only the good survives. There is a lot of bad contemporary architecture around. Same as it ever was. The reason people like the 'old' stuff is that, as many have pointed out, only the 'good' old stuff has survived - the huge swathes of bad 'old' stuff has been destroyed. Remember - that was 'modern' architecture at the time it was constructed and people hated most of that then, in all likelihood. Throughout history, only a very small proportion of buildings or typologies will be viewed as successful and retained - the vast majority of our built world is demolished within 50 years and replaced with something new(er);
c) Romanticism. A large number of people who like developments like Poundbury think that it somehow harks back to 'the good old days' - you know, the days when a bit of casual racism and sexism didn't raise an eyebrow down the pub. So a lot of the love for that 'faux' vernacular / historical style of building is borne out of Britain's inherent conservatism (with a small 'c'). We are a nation of imperialists, we like our buildings to keep us in our place. Contrast with the Netherlands or Switzerland - more democratic. They - rightly - view architecture as an ongoing link between history and the future. It is a continuous, ongoing process - they don't think good design stopped somewhere around 1850 and build in the way they did then in those countries. And they have fantastic architecture - far better on average than modern buildings in the UK. So perhaps the conservatism of the UK dilutes the quality of new buildings here, as planners are always trying to appease Middle England and therefore watering down what may have started as a good design? I have seen it many times in my dealings with Councils. You just end up with a horlicks if you're not very careful / assertive / bold;
d) Ignorance. The majority of people have no concept of economics and don't understand the complexities of building regulations, how much materials cost. How do you construct in a 'traditional' way and still ensure you pass Building Control?
I could go on. But there are a few to start you off with.
(edited 12 years ago)
firesale1, you're making it painfully obvious that you lack any understanding about architecture or the built environment. You also lack any understanding about wider societal/economic/cultural contexts upon which architecture establishes itself. I would even go as far to say that you lack the ability to form a coherent argument. The arrogance you display that you'll 'rip us to shreds' is just embarrassing. I suggest you stop 'thinking it through with more time' and stop writing any more asinine posts because you'll only dig yourself deeper.
Basically I would argue that people generally tend to prefer 'old' architecture for the following reasons.
1) Most of the people who are on the building regulations panels are olderly and don't like change so its hard to get planning permission. You will rarely see a young architect being given a chance to design a modern building, most architect get a real taste of there profession will in to there later years.
2) Many of the older buildings exist already so the new building has to 'fit' in its surroundings or is deemed unexceptable, therefore less creativity more following the leader takes place.
etc.............
Architecture is like food or art everyone has a different taste, those who have the power to control the taste, control the taste LOL ;*
By the way I like both old and new.
1) Most of the people who are on the building regulations panels are olderly and don't like change so its hard to get planning permission. You will rarely see a young architect being given a chance to design a modern building, most architect get a real taste of there profession will in to there later years.
2) Many of the older buildings exist already so the new building has to 'fit' in its surroundings or is deemed unexceptable, therefore less creativity more following the leader takes place.
etc.............
Architecture is like food or art everyone has a different taste, those who have the power to control the taste, control the taste LOL ;*
By the way I like both old and new.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by TheMeters
Plenty of victorian buildings were bulldozed in the 20th century that we'd now not even think about knocking down. Plenty of georgian buildings were flattened by the victorians and plenty of medieval ones by the former. People will keep going at post war architecture as well until it becomes rare enough or old enough to start capturing the publics imagination. It's arguably just starting to, with more and more 60s brutalist stuff being listed.
This.
When something is new it's nothing special. 500 years ago every building in East London looked like an Oxbridge college. But at the time they weren't seen as anything special so gotten rid of.
I am gonna get death threats from Londoners on here but I actually like Euston station. It has a nice sleek airport terminal look and it is very functional. That arch was just monstrous. I don see what all the fuss was all about. It was big and blocky and not very elegant. It wasnt even original, just one of many Classical architecture rip-offs. Now that it is gone I can lie to my friends that this motif
represents UCL :P
(edited 12 years ago)
There are many beautiful modern structures, take a look at anything designed by Norman Foster for example such as the McLaren Technology Centre, surely that is indeed a beauty.
As for new vs old, sometimes we tend to forget a lot of the old stuff we see today are the best of what was available in the era they were built, most likely they were extremely expensive and not surprising many of them are either manor/stately homes or public buildings which were constructed in an era where Britain was arguably a very wealthy country.
Post-war buildings, many of them were brutalist and urghhh I can't stand the sight of many of them as concrete and exposed steel don't really age well in northern European climates, didn't help that most of these buildings were also in use in an era where coal soot was highly prevalent. The 40s,50s,60s,70s and 80s were largely defining years of industrialised building systems, it was also an era which saw massive increase in labour cost and mushrooming of regulations with regard to worksites. Also buildings had to come up in speed never seen before to address a severe shortage of homes.
Personally am not really a fan of old buildings as too many of them have too many internal columns and built using corridors rather than open-plan systems. Too many of them have dark-spots which are always damp and stuffy. As a property developer, I often come across plenty of old buildings that in reality the only thing worth keeping about them is the external shell and sometimes even that too it is only the front-facade that is worth keeping as the rest are more often than not just not fit for any modern purposes.
As for new vs old, sometimes we tend to forget a lot of the old stuff we see today are the best of what was available in the era they were built, most likely they were extremely expensive and not surprising many of them are either manor/stately homes or public buildings which were constructed in an era where Britain was arguably a very wealthy country.
Post-war buildings, many of them were brutalist and urghhh I can't stand the sight of many of them as concrete and exposed steel don't really age well in northern European climates, didn't help that most of these buildings were also in use in an era where coal soot was highly prevalent. The 40s,50s,60s,70s and 80s were largely defining years of industrialised building systems, it was also an era which saw massive increase in labour cost and mushrooming of regulations with regard to worksites. Also buildings had to come up in speed never seen before to address a severe shortage of homes.
Personally am not really a fan of old buildings as too many of them have too many internal columns and built using corridors rather than open-plan systems. Too many of them have dark-spots which are always damp and stuffy. As a property developer, I often come across plenty of old buildings that in reality the only thing worth keeping about them is the external shell and sometimes even that too it is only the front-facade that is worth keeping as the rest are more often than not just not fit for any modern purposes.
There are plenty of modern buildings that people are amazed by when they go inside. There are plenty of old buildings that are horrible. So many of these have been knocked down and we are left with the amazing ones.
Plus, at the time, these old buildings were hated too. When the Royal Liver Building was built everyone hated it! Now it is a key building in Liverpool!
Plus, at the time, these old buildings were hated too. When the Royal Liver Building was built everyone hated it! Now it is a key building in Liverpool!
Original post by Herr
There are many beautiful modern structures, take a look at anything designed by Norman Foster for example such as the McLaren Technology Centre, surely that is indeed a beauty.
As for new vs old, sometimes we tend to forget a lot of the old stuff we see today are the best of what was available in the era they were built, most likely they were extremely expensive and not surprising many of them are either manor/stately homes or public buildings which were constructed in an era where Britain was arguably a very wealthy country.
Post-war buildings, many of them were brutalist and urghhh I can't stand the sight of many of them as concrete and exposed steel don't really age well in northern European climates, didn't help that most of these buildings were also in use in an era where coal soot was highly prevalent. The 40s,50s,60s,70s and 80s were largely defining years of industrialised building systems, it was also an era which saw massive increase in labour cost and mushrooming of regulations with regard to worksites. Also buildings had to come up in speed never seen before to address a severe shortage of homes.
Personally am not really a fan of old buildings as too many of them have too many internal columns and built using corridors rather than open-plan systems. Too many of them have dark-spots which are always damp and stuffy. As a property developer, I often come across plenty of old buildings that in reality the only thing worth keeping about them is the external shell and sometimes even that too it is only the front-facade that is worth keeping as the rest are more often than not just not fit for any modern purposes.
As for new vs old, sometimes we tend to forget a lot of the old stuff we see today are the best of what was available in the era they were built, most likely they were extremely expensive and not surprising many of them are either manor/stately homes or public buildings which were constructed in an era where Britain was arguably a very wealthy country.
Post-war buildings, many of them were brutalist and urghhh I can't stand the sight of many of them as concrete and exposed steel don't really age well in northern European climates, didn't help that most of these buildings were also in use in an era where coal soot was highly prevalent. The 40s,50s,60s,70s and 80s were largely defining years of industrialised building systems, it was also an era which saw massive increase in labour cost and mushrooming of regulations with regard to worksites. Also buildings had to come up in speed never seen before to address a severe shortage of homes.
Personally am not really a fan of old buildings as too many of them have too many internal columns and built using corridors rather than open-plan systems. Too many of them have dark-spots which are always damp and stuffy. As a property developer, I often come across plenty of old buildings that in reality the only thing worth keeping about them is the external shell and sometimes even that too it is only the front-facade that is worth keeping as the rest are more often than not just not fit for any modern purposes.
I love Norman Foster's buildings
I am definately a fan of modern ArchitectureOriginal post by Ex Death
firesale1, you're making it painfully obvious that you lack any understanding about architecture or the built environment. You also lack any understanding about wider societal/economic/cultural contexts upon which architecture establishes itself. I would even go as far to say that you lack the ability to form a coherent argument. The arrogance you display that you'll 'rip us to shreds' is just embarrassing. I suggest you stop 'thinking it through with more time' and stop writing any more asinine posts because you'll only dig yourself deeper.
Apologies, this is rather late.
LOL - I don't think i've ever witnessed such an arrogant response in my life. Are you an architect? If you are, then I would suggest that you represent exactly what is wrong with architecture, and the wider architectural profession today. I have stated repeatedly I don't know about architecture in this thread; to be honest I couldn't give a ****e about art, fashion, or architecture in the slightest. My point is, as a member of the wider public, I have a stake in your crappy profession. I have to witness your horrific constructions on a daily basis. Thus it follows if I or any other concerned member of the public think buildings are hideously ugly then we clearly have a right to say so. Incidentally, most of the public does think modern buildings are horrendously ugly (sorry). When it boils down to it, we don't really give a **** about the 'societal/economic/cultural contexts upon which architecture establishes itself' (really had to LOL at that one). The fact that (I presume) you've spent x amount of years in university studying architecture, no doubt knocking one off in the library or the 'studio' to that Le Corbusier geezer, really does not invalidate such views... you sir, are an absolute mug.
jr hartley however, I commend you for your reasoned response
a) Inexperience. People 'know what they like and they like what they know'. In the same way people buy Bovis / Redrow noddy houses because they are familiar, they think that 'modern' architecture is intimidating and different and odd. I would urge you to watch the three part series of Alain de Botton called "The Perfect Home". It is based on his book "The Architecture of Happiness" and it took a number of families who were set on buying their next noddy house around decent 'modern' houses - as in, properly archtiecturally designed stuff. Before visiting, they all pretty much recoiled at it, said 'urgghhh' - generally expressed the opinion you are putting forward. De Botton took them to visit a few of the schemes in the flesh - work by S333, MVRDV in Holland. Their initial disgust and distrust of 'modern' architecture soon changed. They were impressed by the volumes, how the rooms were arranged, how cheap the buildings were to run, how much light they had, how warm they were, how easy to keep clean. What I'm saying is a huge amount of phobia is borne out of the unknown; I shall watch it
b) Only the good survives. There is a lot of bad contemporary architecture around. Same as it ever was. The reason people like the 'old' stuff is that, as many have pointed out, only the 'good' old stuff has survived - the huge swathes of bad 'old' stuff has been destroyed. Remember - that was 'modern' architecture at the time it was constructed and people hated most of that then, in all likelihood. Throughout history, only a very small proportion of buildings or typologies will be viewed as successful and retained - the vast majority of our built world is demolished within 50 years and replaced with something new(er); very true, fair enough. however, I just have to ask you - does this not worry you? I certainly would not want to be living, in 50 years, in a city that is entirely 'modern' (whatever that means). I lived in singapore for a bit, and among my peers we were almost universally agreed that it really does lack a certain 'something'. It is almost a bit soulless. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what I meant, but surely you must appreciate that...
c) Romanticism. A large number of people who like developments like Poundbury think that it somehow harks back to 'the good old days' - you know, the days when a bit of casual racism and sexism didn't raise an eyebrow down the pub. So a lot of the love for that 'faux' vernacular / historical style of building is borne out of Britain's inherent conservatism (with a small 'c'). We are a nation of imperialists, we like our buildings to keep us in our place. Contrast with the Netherlands or Switzerland - more democratic. They - rightly - view architecture as an ongoing link between history and the future. It is a continuous, ongoing process - they don't think good design stopped somewhere around 1850 and build in the way they did then in those countries. And they have fantastic architecture - far better on average than modern buildings in the UK. So perhaps the conservatism of the UK dilutes the quality of new buildings here, as planners are always trying to appease Middle England and therefore watering down what may have started as a good design? I have seen it many times in my dealings with Councils. You just end up with a horlicks if you're not very careful / assertive / bold; have to agree with you here. coming from a legal background, I find the planning laws very strange. I would agree with you that the councils like to go for a 'happy medium' perhaps that ends up appeasing no-one. In that respect I actually would like to see planning loosened - which following the recent reforms, as I understand them, will achieve. However I have to say i've been to Switzerland and the cities there are absolutely beautiful... because they have almost untouched old architecture in almost all of them! I can't actually recall seeing any modern buildings in any of the city centres I went to0 (zurich, lucerne, basel) where is this architecture you speak of!?
d) Ignorance. The majority of people have no concept of economics and don't understand the complexities of building regulations, how much materials cost. How do you construct in a 'traditional' way and still ensure you pass Building Control? this is one axiom of the 'modern vs 'old' debate I would like to see substantiated. I refuse to believe that many modern buildings are actually that much more expensive comparatively than 'old'. How can a block of bricks, i.e. a traditional redbrick London 'mansion block' cost more than a modern block of flats? How can the big headline projects, i.e. any skyscraper really cost less than some of the old 'grand' buildings in London. If you suggest this is down to a) materials b) craftsman this surely is incidental to the changing tastes and thus demands in architecture, which have reduced the supply of any classical architects (due to the brainwashing in architectural schools) and craftsmen etc. Likewise, the associated lack of demand for the materials i.e. stones have driven up the costs. You mention basic principles of economics and clearly applying simplest concept in that field, supply and demand, must factor into the presumed 'expense' of building in any 'old style'. If you could provide some documentary evidence of, for example, the cost of constructing the old Baltic Exchange vs. the Gherkin, that would go some way to clarify this!!
I could go on. But there are a few to start you off with.
b) Only the good survives. There is a lot of bad contemporary architecture around. Same as it ever was. The reason people like the 'old' stuff is that, as many have pointed out, only the 'good' old stuff has survived - the huge swathes of bad 'old' stuff has been destroyed. Remember - that was 'modern' architecture at the time it was constructed and people hated most of that then, in all likelihood. Throughout history, only a very small proportion of buildings or typologies will be viewed as successful and retained - the vast majority of our built world is demolished within 50 years and replaced with something new(er); very true, fair enough. however, I just have to ask you - does this not worry you? I certainly would not want to be living, in 50 years, in a city that is entirely 'modern' (whatever that means). I lived in singapore for a bit, and among my peers we were almost universally agreed that it really does lack a certain 'something'. It is almost a bit soulless. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what I meant, but surely you must appreciate that...
c) Romanticism. A large number of people who like developments like Poundbury think that it somehow harks back to 'the good old days' - you know, the days when a bit of casual racism and sexism didn't raise an eyebrow down the pub. So a lot of the love for that 'faux' vernacular / historical style of building is borne out of Britain's inherent conservatism (with a small 'c'). We are a nation of imperialists, we like our buildings to keep us in our place. Contrast with the Netherlands or Switzerland - more democratic. They - rightly - view architecture as an ongoing link between history and the future. It is a continuous, ongoing process - they don't think good design stopped somewhere around 1850 and build in the way they did then in those countries. And they have fantastic architecture - far better on average than modern buildings in the UK. So perhaps the conservatism of the UK dilutes the quality of new buildings here, as planners are always trying to appease Middle England and therefore watering down what may have started as a good design? I have seen it many times in my dealings with Councils. You just end up with a horlicks if you're not very careful / assertive / bold; have to agree with you here. coming from a legal background, I find the planning laws very strange. I would agree with you that the councils like to go for a 'happy medium' perhaps that ends up appeasing no-one. In that respect I actually would like to see planning loosened - which following the recent reforms, as I understand them, will achieve. However I have to say i've been to Switzerland and the cities there are absolutely beautiful... because they have almost untouched old architecture in almost all of them! I can't actually recall seeing any modern buildings in any of the city centres I went to0 (zurich, lucerne, basel) where is this architecture you speak of!?
d) Ignorance. The majority of people have no concept of economics and don't understand the complexities of building regulations, how much materials cost. How do you construct in a 'traditional' way and still ensure you pass Building Control? this is one axiom of the 'modern vs 'old' debate I would like to see substantiated. I refuse to believe that many modern buildings are actually that much more expensive comparatively than 'old'. How can a block of bricks, i.e. a traditional redbrick London 'mansion block' cost more than a modern block of flats? How can the big headline projects, i.e. any skyscraper really cost less than some of the old 'grand' buildings in London. If you suggest this is down to a) materials b) craftsman this surely is incidental to the changing tastes and thus demands in architecture, which have reduced the supply of any classical architects (due to the brainwashing in architectural schools) and craftsmen etc. Likewise, the associated lack of demand for the materials i.e. stones have driven up the costs. You mention basic principles of economics and clearly applying simplest concept in that field, supply and demand, must factor into the presumed 'expense' of building in any 'old style'. If you could provide some documentary evidence of, for example, the cost of constructing the old Baltic Exchange vs. the Gherkin, that would go some way to clarify this!!
I could go on. But there are a few to start you off with.
RE:
c) Swiss cities abound with modern architecture. Basel is the home to Herzog & de Meuron who have numerous buildings in the city. Just outside you've got the Vitra factory / museum. The centre of Basel has lots of Mario Botta, Diener & Diener, Miller Maranta. http://mimoa.eu/browse/projects/Switzerland/Basel This is equally true for all Swiss cities.
d) You seem to not be acknowledging that the main cost of building isn't the blocks, its the labour. The way we build today is in components, with a large amount of off-site construction. Time on site = very expensive. Time building in a factory by robot = cheap. Craftsmen are very expensive relative to the past as there just aren't stone masons, cabinet makers as there are a far wider range of careers for people to go into. To build in stone is hugely expensive because we have depleted a lot of the stone reserves local in the UK, it is hugely energy intense, very heavy to get in place and fix (every stone needs to be shaped). Above all, the point I'm making about Building Control / Regs is the most important. Building in stone is very thick, consumes valuable floor area and most of all, affords poor insulation against current regulations. We build out of lightweight layers today as it requires less material and achieves higher building performance.
I'm sorry but I just don't have time to explain why we construct with lightweight, mass-produced standardised factory components as against heavy, bespoke, hand-worked materials any more. There are plenty of books and internet articles on the topic which can explain this to you if you are still not convinced.
c) Swiss cities abound with modern architecture. Basel is the home to Herzog & de Meuron who have numerous buildings in the city. Just outside you've got the Vitra factory / museum. The centre of Basel has lots of Mario Botta, Diener & Diener, Miller Maranta. http://mimoa.eu/browse/projects/Switzerland/Basel This is equally true for all Swiss cities.
d) You seem to not be acknowledging that the main cost of building isn't the blocks, its the labour. The way we build today is in components, with a large amount of off-site construction. Time on site = very expensive. Time building in a factory by robot = cheap. Craftsmen are very expensive relative to the past as there just aren't stone masons, cabinet makers as there are a far wider range of careers for people to go into. To build in stone is hugely expensive because we have depleted a lot of the stone reserves local in the UK, it is hugely energy intense, very heavy to get in place and fix (every stone needs to be shaped). Above all, the point I'm making about Building Control / Regs is the most important. Building in stone is very thick, consumes valuable floor area and most of all, affords poor insulation against current regulations. We build out of lightweight layers today as it requires less material and achieves higher building performance.
I'm sorry but I just don't have time to explain why we construct with lightweight, mass-produced standardised factory components as against heavy, bespoke, hand-worked materials any more. There are plenty of books and internet articles on the topic which can explain this to you if you are still not convinced.
Original post by firesale1
Apologies, this is rather late.
LOL - I don't think i've ever witnessed such an arrogant response in my life. Are you an architect? If you are, then I would suggest that you represent exactly what is wrong with architecture, and the wider architectural profession today. I have stated repeatedly I don't know about architecture in this thread; to be honest I couldn't give a ****e about art, fashion, or architecture in the slightest. My point is, as a member of the wider public, I have a stake in your crappy profession. I have to witness your horrific constructions on a daily basis. Thus it follows if I or any other concerned member of the public think buildings are hideously ugly then we clearly have a right to say so. Incidentally, most of the public does think modern buildings are horrendously ugly (sorry). When it boils down to it, we don't really give a **** about the 'societal/economic/cultural contexts upon which architecture establishes itself' (really had to LOL at that one). The fact that (I presume) you've spent x amount of years in university studying architecture, no doubt knocking one off in the library or the 'studio' to that Le Corbusier geezer, really does not invalidate such views... you sir, are an absolute mug.
LOL - I don't think i've ever witnessed such an arrogant response in my life. Are you an architect? If you are, then I would suggest that you represent exactly what is wrong with architecture, and the wider architectural profession today. I have stated repeatedly I don't know about architecture in this thread; to be honest I couldn't give a ****e about art, fashion, or architecture in the slightest. My point is, as a member of the wider public, I have a stake in your crappy profession. I have to witness your horrific constructions on a daily basis. Thus it follows if I or any other concerned member of the public think buildings are hideously ugly then we clearly have a right to say so. Incidentally, most of the public does think modern buildings are horrendously ugly (sorry). When it boils down to it, we don't really give a **** about the 'societal/economic/cultural contexts upon which architecture establishes itself' (really had to LOL at that one). The fact that (I presume) you've spent x amount of years in university studying architecture, no doubt knocking one off in the library or the 'studio' to that Le Corbusier geezer, really does not invalidate such views... you sir, are an absolute mug.
Actually, no, I am not an architect. You acknowledge you don't know anything about architecture but then you wish for architecture students to listen to your opinion and act upon what YOU think is good architecture. Not only that, you've fallaciously assumed that the public share your opinion. You really are an idiot. Aside from the fact that the profession doesn't care about your opinion, we have already explained in this thread why your preference in architecture is completely infeasible. Even non-architects have the basic common knowledge to realise that some sort of elaborate neo-classical style of architecture is completely unattainable in the real world. Maybe once you've grown up a bit you'll understand what money and economics is.
Also, I just read that you come from a legal background. Please for the sake of humanity to do not become a lawyer. Not only do you lack common sense, your reasoning abilities are that of a petulant child.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Chucklefiend
And if most people prefer older styles of architecture why don't we return to designing buildings like we used to?
I personally prefer older styles of architecture myself, especially Gothic/ Neo Gothic. Modern buildings (for the most part) just don't seem to have the elegance, intricacy and craftsmanship that older buildings have. They also don't seem to have the same capacity to last. For example, many buildings that were built in the 60s, 70s and 80s are being demolished after standing for only a fraction of the time Gothic, Tudor and Victorian buildings have stood. Whether this is because we decided they were hideous and needed to be pulled down or simply because they were poorly built/designed in the first place I don't know; probably a bit of both imo.
Anyway, so what are your thoughts?
I personally prefer older styles of architecture myself, especially Gothic/ Neo Gothic. Modern buildings (for the most part) just don't seem to have the elegance, intricacy and craftsmanship that older buildings have. They also don't seem to have the same capacity to last. For example, many buildings that were built in the 60s, 70s and 80s are being demolished after standing for only a fraction of the time Gothic, Tudor and Victorian buildings have stood. Whether this is because we decided they were hideous and needed to be pulled down or simply because they were poorly built/designed in the first place I don't know; probably a bit of both imo.
Anyway, so what are your thoughts?
Not everyone prefers old architecture. Most people prefer it to normal modern buildings, but when it comes to epic modern architecture (stuff like the LSE library
) then there are loads who prefer that over older stuff.Original post by Ex Death
Actually, no, I am not an architect. You acknowledge you don't know anything about architecture but then you wish for architecture students to listen to your opinion and act upon what YOU think is good architecture. Not only that, you've fallaciously assumed that the public share your opinion. You really are an idiot. Aside from the fact that the profession doesn't care about your opinion, we have already explained in this thread why your preference in architecture is completely infeasible. Even non-architects have the basic common knowledge to realise that some sort of elaborate neo-classical style of architecture is completely unattainable in the real world. Maybe once you've grown up a bit you'll understand what money and economics is.
Also, I just read that you come from a legal background. Please for the sake of humanity to do not become a lawyer. Not only do you lack common sense, your reasoning abilities are that of a petulant child.
Also, I just read that you come from a legal background. Please for the sake of humanity to do not become a lawyer. Not only do you lack common sense, your reasoning abilities are that of a petulant child.
LOL. Jeez, seems like I really ruffled your feathers there. I'm shocked at how fast you responded, you clearly spend too much time on this site - and as I mentioned earlier, probably bashing off over modern architecture. All the more sad considering you are, as you say, 'not an architect'.
As ever, I shall endeavor to respond to your ridiculous post in good time. Until then, XXXXXX
Original post by firesale1
LOL. Jeez, seems like I really ruffled your feathers there. I'm shocked at how fast you responded, you clearly spend too much time on this site - and as I mentioned earlier, probably bashing off over modern architecture. All the more sad considering you are, as you say, 'not an architect'.
As ever, I shall endeavor to respond to your ridiculous post in good time. Until then, XXXXXX
As ever, I shall endeavor to respond to your ridiculous post in good time. Until then, XXXXXX
Pretty sure I ruffled your feathers. You're the one getting all defensive when we called you out in your first nonsensical rant in this thread. You've yet to make a valid point, let alone a semi coherent argument thus far.
I check this forum most days as a small break, as do most people who use TSR. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this or what relevance this has. Maybe you're trying to detract from your relentless stupidity by highlighting how 'cool' you are?
You may as well save your 'really well thought-out response' that you keep telling us you'll provide as I'll only expose your stupidity further.
I also like how you've managed to come to the conclusion that I 'support' modern architecture.
Original post by Ex Death
Pretty sure I ruffled your feathers. You're the one getting all defensive when we called you out in your first nonsensical rant in this thread. You've yet to make a valid point, let alone a semi coherent argument thus far.
I check this forum most days as a small break, as do most people who use TSR. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this or what relevance this has. Maybe you're trying to detract from your relentless stupidity by highlighting how 'cool' you are?
You may as well save your 'really well thought-out response' that you keep telling us you'll provide as I'll only expose your stupidity further.
I also like how you've managed to come to the conclusion that I 'support' modern architecture.
I check this forum most days as a small break, as do most people who use TSR. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this or what relevance this has. Maybe you're trying to detract from your relentless stupidity by highlighting how 'cool' you are?
You may as well save your 'really well thought-out response' that you keep telling us you'll provide as I'll only expose your stupidity further.
I also like how you've managed to come to the conclusion that I 'support' modern architecture.
Yeah SURE 'you check this when you have a break' - I'll take that as a tacit admission that you're on here 24/7... LOSER!!!!!!!!
As of yet, you really haven't 'exposed my stupidity' in the slightest. Rather, you've just confirmed you're an arrogant twit. All your posts could be described as aggressive and a boorish attempt at highlighting my supposed 'stupidity'. Honestly, what sort of weirdo are you?
Also can you stop picking out these 'assumptions' that i've made. I guess your slyly trying to support your assertion that I can't formulate a basic argument, or that my reasoning is defective (i.e. that it amounts to that of a 'petulant child' - btw, 10/10 for that one, you really must be a weirdo to come out with stuff like that!!).
I say this because you've made countless such 'fallacious assumptions' in your many retarded posts. One of them is in your last post i.e. how I highlighted how cool I was when I suggested that you were a sad freak for spending so much time on this website. Off the top of my head, I think you've done that quite a few times in our little 'exchanges'. However, I'm not going to stoop to your levels of nerdness and backtrack over them in our internet confrontation. I imagine that you already have.... (gimp)
You remind me of many friends that I have that like to use big words, loves academic jargon, and all in all present themselves as little clever clogs. Invariably they are all actually really quite dumb (no offense to my chums). You fall squarely into this category - that of an internet keyboard warrior, who spends hours thrashing out pointless debates online, tirelessly trying to prove how 'clever' you are to an imaginary audience.
My friend, I would conclude by saying that you're clearly overconfident in your intelligence and academic abilities, and this has resulted in overbearing arrogance and a deluded sense of superiority. You remind me of Hitler. I would recommend that you seek mental help as soon as possible.
P.S. I have to admit, I did stoop to your level of nerdness. I checked out some of your other posts.
Your posts on the superiority of men over females were particularly alarming... especially as they don't appear to have been made in jest. I was joking about seeking mental help, but I'm not now. You really need help mate!Original post by firesale1
Yeah SURE 'you check this when you have a break' - I'll take that as a tacit admission that you're on here 24/7... LOSER!!!!!!!!
As of yet, you really haven't 'exposed my stupidity' in the slightest. Rather, you've just confirmed you're an arrogant twit. All your posts could be described as aggressive and a boorish attempt at highlighting my supposed 'stupidity'. Honestly, what sort of weirdo are you?
Also can you stop picking out these 'assumptions' that i've made. I guess your slyly trying to support your assertion that I can't formulate a basic argument, or that my reasoning is defective (i.e. that it amounts to that of a 'petulant child' - btw, 10/10 for that one, you really must be a weirdo to come out with stuff like that!!).
As of yet, you really haven't 'exposed my stupidity' in the slightest. Rather, you've just confirmed you're an arrogant twit. All your posts could be described as aggressive and a boorish attempt at highlighting my supposed 'stupidity'. Honestly, what sort of weirdo are you?
Also can you stop picking out these 'assumptions' that i've made. I guess your slyly trying to support your assertion that I can't formulate a basic argument, or that my reasoning is defective (i.e. that it amounts to that of a 'petulant child' - btw, 10/10 for that one, you really must be a weirdo to come out with stuff like that!!).
I'm a weirdo because I'm explaining to you why you're such an idiot? It is this sort of logic which is why I'm calling you an idiot in the first place and highlights very eloquently why I feel, for the sake of humanity, you should steer well clear of the legal profession (and any profession, for that matter).
I say this because you've made countless such 'fallacious assumptions' in your many retarded posts. One of them is in your last post i.e. how I highlighted how cool I was when I suggested that you were a sad freak for spending so much time on this website. Off the top of my head, I think you've done that quite a few times in our little 'exchanges'. However, I'm not going to stoop to your levels of nerdness and backtrack over them in our internet confrontation. I imagine that you already have.... (gimp)
I have not made any fallacious assumptions. In the example you are referring to, if you re-read it, you will find I specifically stated the word 'maybe' at the beginning of the sentence and also a '?' at the end of it. This isn't an assumption - it's a question. This is something a five year old understands. It is your failed reading comprehension which is at fault here and, yet again, exposes your sheer idiocy in all its pervasiveness.
You remind me of many friends that I have that like to use big words, loves academic jargon, and all in all present themselves as little clever clogs. Invariably they are all actually really quite dumb (no offense to my chums). You fall squarely into this category - that of an internet keyboard warrior, who spends hours thrashing out pointless debates online, tirelessly trying to prove how 'clever' you are to an imaginary audience.
My friend, I would conclude by saying that you're clearly overconfident in your intelligence and academic abilities, and this has resulted in overbearing arrogance and a deluded sense of superiority. You remind me of Hitler. I would recommend that you seek mental help as soon as possible.
My friend, I would conclude by saying that you're clearly overconfident in your intelligence and academic abilities, and this has resulted in overbearing arrogance and a deluded sense of superiority. You remind me of Hitler. I would recommend that you seek mental help as soon as possible.
Actually, I do not regard myself as being particularly intelligent at all. The fact that you do, however, suggests more about your own (lack of) intelligence than my own. I do not think I am superior to anyone. All I do is call people out when they say something stupid, as you have done. You are, in fact, the arrogant one as you refuse to admit that you said something stupid earlier in the thread. You haven't addressed any of the legitimate points I have made about your initial post and instead see fit to call me a 'weirdo'. Not only does this speak volumes of your mental capacity but also your maturity.
P.S. I have to admit, I did stoop to your level of nerdness. I checked out some of your other posts. Your posts on the superiority of men over females were particularly alarming... especially as they don't appear to have been made in jest. I was joking about seeking mental help, but I'm not now. You really need help mate!
Your posts on the superiority of men over females were particularly alarming... especially as they don't appear to have been made in jest. I was joking about seeking mental help, but I'm not now. You really need help mate!So not only are you a complete moron, you're also a massive hypocrite. I'm not sure how you can possibly be any more of a 'weirdo' than stalking another person's post history.
Original post by Ex Death
I'm a weirdo because I'm explaining to you why you're such an idiot? It is this sort of logic which is why I'm calling you an idiot in the first place and highlights very eloquently why I feel, for the sake of humanity, you should steer well clear of the legal profession (and any profession, for that matter). more boring analysis
I have not made any fallacious assumptions. In the example you are referring to, if you re-read it, you will find I specifically stated the word 'maybe' at the beginning of the sentence and also a '?' at the end of it. This isn't an assumption - it's a question. This is something a five year old understands. It is your failed reading comprehension which is at fault here and, yet again, exposes your sheer idiocy in all its pervasiveness. (good one, how long did you spent consulting google to come up with that?
LOL I DON'T CARE
Actually, I do not regard myself as being particularly intelligent at all. The fact that you do, however, suggests more about your own (lack of) intelligence than my own. I do not think I am superior to anyone. All I do is call people out when they say something stupid, as you have done. You are, in fact, the arrogant one as you refuse to admit that you said something stupid earlier in the thread. You haven't addressed any of the legitimate points I have made about your initial post and instead see fit to call me a 'weirdo'. Not only does this speak volumes of your mental capacity but also your maturity. again, good one. i don't read the bodies of your paragraphs because they are really very boring. I notice you put effort into the last sentences though, they are quite amusing.
So not only are you a complete moron, you're also a massive hypocrite. I'm not sure how you can possibly be any more of a 'weirdo' than stalking another person's post history.
I have not made any fallacious assumptions. In the example you are referring to, if you re-read it, you will find I specifically stated the word 'maybe' at the beginning of the sentence and also a '?' at the end of it. This isn't an assumption - it's a question. This is something a five year old understands. It is your failed reading comprehension which is at fault here and, yet again, exposes your sheer idiocy in all its pervasiveness. (good one, how long did you spent consulting google to come up with that?
LOL I DON'T CARE
Actually, I do not regard myself as being particularly intelligent at all. The fact that you do, however, suggests more about your own (lack of) intelligence than my own. I do not think I am superior to anyone. All I do is call people out when they say something stupid, as you have done. You are, in fact, the arrogant one as you refuse to admit that you said something stupid earlier in the thread. You haven't addressed any of the legitimate points I have made about your initial post and instead see fit to call me a 'weirdo'. Not only does this speak volumes of your mental capacity but also your maturity. again, good one. i don't read the bodies of your paragraphs because they are really very boring. I notice you put effort into the last sentences though, they are quite amusing.
So not only are you a complete moron, you're also a massive hypocrite. I'm not sure how you can possibly be any more of a 'weirdo' than stalking another person's post history.
You say that what I'm saying is 'boring' and that you 'don't care' and yet here you are still making a fool of yourself. If you actually stood by your words, you would admit what you said was stupid and just leave. I like how you think that I consult google to come up with, what to you seem like, 'big words'. This says more about your lack of intelligence than my own.
Since you insist on derailing further, the premise of that topic was that men are superior in certain uncontrolled, predisposed aspects, not to be confused with unequal rights or similar. But good job jumping to conclusions and misconstruing facts based on your selective interpretation. You'd make a good Daily Mail columnist.
Original post by firesale1
lol are you serious. Can I please ask you to re-read that post in question. I know you take your online rep quite serious so I won't embarrass you by reciting it here. Once you've done that, please can you let me know if a) you were joking b) you still believe that. If the answers to both of those questions is no, then I hate to say it, but you should probably hand yourself in to the nearest mental health clinic
Since you insist on derailing further, the premise of that topic was that men are superior in certain uncontrolled, predisposed aspects, not to be confused with unequal rights or similar. But good job jumping to conclusions and misconstruing facts based on your selective interpretation. You'd make a good Daily Mail columnist.
The vast majority of women are vain, self-absorbed, hypocritical morons.
I think this speaks for itself. Selective interpretation? LOLLLLLLL
3) Finally, you've created a dichotomy of rationality verses emotionalism that doesn't really exist. Everyone has emotional needs and impulses. They have a great impact on our actions all the time. Being able to recognise emotions - in both others and yourself - is an important part of social relations and personal well-being. A lot of the mental illness so prevailent and crippling in today's society stems from emotional ignorance and repression. People at work who lack emotional intelligence are less likely to get on well with colleagues and be successful team workers. Nor would a world drained of emotionalism be a remotely appealing one. Without compassion there would be no welfare state, no businesses with pro bono schemes, no care or consideration for vulnerable people. These are issues that effect women as well as men and many of these supposedly 'feminine', 'weak', emotional ways of thinking are actually universal and essential for society. When men make appeals to emotion (like the Labour cabinet that created the NHS) they can still be seen as rational because they're men, but when a woman does it she's just being hysterical and weak apparently. Once more cultural double-standards, not fixed, biological gender differences, have the most powerful explanatory force.
This dichotomy may not exist in tangible terms but it certainly bares great importance for the sake of this discourse. The fundamental question to your argument is "why is emotionalism a bad thing?" Yes, you can present forth the argument that everyone likes the funny guy or the patriotic dictator or the compassionate monk so that it may be regarded as a strength. It can equally be regarded as a weakness, however, as I illustrated in my hypothetical example earlier. However, overall, seeing as it impairs the ability to form rational and objective thought this outweighs any credibility it may have had as this is far more important.
jeez, i've read a lot of waffle in my time, but this takes the biscuit, truly hilarious. How dull.. I see you've tried to dress your (alarming) stance towards women with psychobabble and drab academic buzzwords (i.e. 'objective' and 'rational' - CLASSIC pretentious online intellectual jargon)....
Oi, why you dissing the Daily Mail? Jumping to conclusions yet again I see... anyway, i'd be happy to be a Daily Mail journalist. From what I can see, you'd be ideal as an editor of a Nazi propaganda newspaper. Or even as a Nazi academic.... pretty sure your elaborate theories on male superiority would have gone down a treat. weirrrrrrrrrrrrrdoooooooooooo
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- IB options for architecture
- Do I need maths for architecture?
- HL choices
- What a levels should I study for Architecture?
- I can't pick between Sheffield or Liverpool?
- Bristol or Newcastle - which city?
- Chemical engineering: what Cambridge college?
- Architecture - A level Maths?
- Do I need maths or physics for architecture in the future (uni)?
- Is maths needed for architecture?
- Cambridge Architecture A levels
- I don't know what A- levels to drop/switch
- Architecture degree
- NEED Help deciding my a levels
- interested in architecture
- Should I change my A-levels for architecture?
- physics and maths in archiecture
- Stuck between firming Loughborough and Bath for architecture
- Architecture degree
- sixth form options
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
I can't pick between Sheffield or Liverpool?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Cardiff vs Oxford Brookes for architecture?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Dmu vs welsh school of architecture vs university of WolverhamptonLast reply 3 weeks ago
Architecture at Edinburgh, Sheffield, Manchester or Nottingham?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Can I get into Architecture with these A levels?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is the Architecture in Glasgow school good?Last reply 1 month ago
Has someone done Architecture at uni without maths or physicsTrending
Last reply 1 week ago
I can't pick between Sheffield or Liverpool?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Cardiff vs Oxford Brookes for architecture?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Dmu vs welsh school of architecture vs university of WolverhamptonLast reply 3 weeks ago
Architecture at Edinburgh, Sheffield, Manchester or Nottingham?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Can I get into Architecture with these A levels?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is the Architecture in Glasgow school good?Last reply 1 month ago
Has someone done Architecture at uni without maths or physics
