Why do the majority of the public prefer 'old' architecture?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by firesale1
I think this speaks for itself. Selective interpretation? LOLLLLLLL
I think this speaks for itself. Selective interpretation? LOLLLLLLL
I've had to look up that quote. You've completely ignored the context of the thread ie. what it was about and hence the reply made - admittedly I was trolling at the time. For what it's worth, I actually believe the exact same can be said of most men as well (minus the vain bit). The fact is, most people in the world are morons. To a large extent it isn't their fault though. People are indoctrinated by ridiculous ideologies perpetuated by society and the mainstream media to actively encourage people to remain stupid. The entire schooling system encourages people to absorb and regurgitate information rather than learning how to learn or to challenge information. Take yourself, for example. I think you are a massive idiot. Do I hate you for it? Absolutely not. Do I believe I am superior to you? Absolutely not, we have exactly the same rights.
Tbh, I'm not sure why I'm still replying seriously to you as you'll simply spout some stupid diatribe.
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)....
Again, common, everyday words seem like 'intellectual buzzwords' to you...
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
It does not surprise me that you would defend the Daily Mail, you're certainly stupid enough to write for it.
Big responses - can't be arsed to read them all so apologies if there are any repeated arguments.
An underlying problem with 'ugly' buildings in UK cities springing up is simply that the procurement system here often alienates designers/ architects from the actual designs. This country is run off profit, capitalism, and hard core developers who don't give a s*** about People, Cities or Places. That ugly barrel off Old Street roundabout, developed by some fat cat offshore - his brief? 'build me as many apartments as possible and sell them to ignorant millionaires.
This isn't as bad on the continent - OP look at CPH and Amsterdam for examples of 'modern' (terrible word to use but it seems like that's the one you prefer) cities adapting the new and old. Also check out their societal and cultural habits/ political economics vs the UK's.
Society is changing. The public blame architects.
I think the problem runs a lot deeper than that.
An underlying problem with 'ugly' buildings in UK cities springing up is simply that the procurement system here often alienates designers/ architects from the actual designs. This country is run off profit, capitalism, and hard core developers who don't give a s*** about People, Cities or Places. That ugly barrel off Old Street roundabout, developed by some fat cat offshore - his brief? 'build me as many apartments as possible and sell them to ignorant millionaires.
This isn't as bad on the continent - OP look at CPH and Amsterdam for examples of 'modern' (terrible word to use but it seems like that's the one you prefer) cities adapting the new and old. Also check out their societal and cultural habits/ political economics vs the UK's.
Society is changing. The public blame architects.
I think the problem runs a lot deeper than that.
I would say one major problem with architecture is that the whole thing is horribly undemocratic. As far as I am aware the only 'democratic' input in planning is that of lay councilors... need I say more.
An earlier poster makes a really good point. Buildings are constructed, largely, in the public domain. Particularly in cities, thousands if not millions of people pass by, see, or live near buildings constructed by architects. Clearly they should have an input into what gets constructed, particularly if it's a public building. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any accountability at all - people have just had to put up with rubbish for years.
Given that politicians, journalists, and especially bankers have come under intense scrutiny in recent years i'm quite surprised so little focus has fallen on architects.. especially considering the largely mediocre tosh that gets put up these days. When you bear in mind that hundreds of millions of sovereign wealth funds are often behind headline projects, it is even more surprising.
From a lay perspective the whole architectural profression seems overly cosy.. Foster and other 'starchitects' jetting round the world to dubious countries, dodgy clients.. the ironic thing is that architects seem to bang on about democracy quite often (Chelsea Barracks affair), but their profession appears almost exempt from accountability.
i've even heard some architects suggest that 'good design is more important than democracy'. well, if that were the case that id like someone to explain the past 60 or so years then..
An earlier poster makes a really good point. Buildings are constructed, largely, in the public domain. Particularly in cities, thousands if not millions of people pass by, see, or live near buildings constructed by architects. Clearly they should have an input into what gets constructed, particularly if it's a public building. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any accountability at all - people have just had to put up with rubbish for years.
Given that politicians, journalists, and especially bankers have come under intense scrutiny in recent years i'm quite surprised so little focus has fallen on architects.. especially considering the largely mediocre tosh that gets put up these days. When you bear in mind that hundreds of millions of sovereign wealth funds are often behind headline projects, it is even more surprising.
From a lay perspective the whole architectural profression seems overly cosy.. Foster and other 'starchitects' jetting round the world to dubious countries, dodgy clients.. the ironic thing is that architects seem to bang on about democracy quite often (Chelsea Barracks affair), but their profession appears almost exempt from accountability.
i've even heard some architects suggest that 'good design is more important than democracy'. well, if that were the case that id like someone to explain the past 60 or so years then..
Original post by 1broader
I would say one major problem with architecture is that the whole thing is horribly undemocratic. As far as I am aware the only 'democratic' input in planning is that of lay councilors... need I say more.
An earlier poster makes a really good point. Buildings are constructed, largely, in the public domain. Particularly in cities, thousands if not millions of people pass by, see, or live near buildings constructed by architects. Clearly they should have an input into what gets constructed, particularly if it's a public building. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any accountability at all - people have just had to put up with rubbish for years.
Given that politicians, journalists, and especially bankers have come under intense scrutiny in recent years i'm quite surprised so little focus has fallen on architects.. especially considering the largely mediocre tosh that gets put up these days. When you bear in mind that hundreds of millions of sovereign wealth funds are often behind headline projects, it is even more surprising.
From a lay perspective the whole architectural profression seems overly cosy.. Foster and other 'starchitects' jetting round the world to dubious countries, dodgy clients.. the ironic thing is that architects seem to bang on about democracy quite often (Chelsea Barracks affair), but their profession appears almost exempt from accountability.
i've even heard some architects suggest that 'good design is more important than democracy'. well, if that were the case that id like someone to explain the past 60 or so years then..
An earlier poster makes a really good point. Buildings are constructed, largely, in the public domain. Particularly in cities, thousands if not millions of people pass by, see, or live near buildings constructed by architects. Clearly they should have an input into what gets constructed, particularly if it's a public building. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any accountability at all - people have just had to put up with rubbish for years.
Given that politicians, journalists, and especially bankers have come under intense scrutiny in recent years i'm quite surprised so little focus has fallen on architects.. especially considering the largely mediocre tosh that gets put up these days. When you bear in mind that hundreds of millions of sovereign wealth funds are often behind headline projects, it is even more surprising.
From a lay perspective the whole architectural profression seems overly cosy.. Foster and other 'starchitects' jetting round the world to dubious countries, dodgy clients.. the ironic thing is that architects seem to bang on about democracy quite often (Chelsea Barracks affair), but their profession appears almost exempt from accountability.
i've even heard some architects suggest that 'good design is more important than democracy'. well, if that were the case that id like someone to explain the past 60 or so years then..
Not sure I agree with this. If you're advocating democratic decision making input from the public when it comes to public buildings, who exactly are you going to target? People living within 5 miles of the building site? As nice as this sounds it would be way too expensive and would never happen. Also, the concept of public democracy is far more wider-reaching than just public buildings. It would be nice if corporate advertisers consulted with the public before plastering all their sh*tty adverts all over the public domain. But again this would never happen because corporations do not give a monkey's about making the public happy. Architecture practices are businesses too, remember.
Some architecture practices already engage in participatory practice which basically means that they consult with the predetermined end users before making final design decisions. This is usually for more ad hoc buildings like community centres, for example, where the users are known.
Whilst I agree that traditional 'old' architecture is great, modern contemporary architecture is easily on par! Some people claimed it's soulless - that's only the case when talking about glass-and-steel scyscrapers etc. There is a whole lot of modern architecutre including loads of wood and those houses can be incredibly homey, yet modern.
Then there are many buildings one could never build the traditional way, even if we wanted to. Just think about airports!
Modern architecture is just so diverse, exciting, distinctive, fractured ... never lump all of it together!
Then there are many buildings one could never build the traditional way, even if we wanted to. Just think about airports!
Modern architecture is just so diverse, exciting, distinctive, fractured ... never lump all of it together!
I like both modern and older architecture in general, though Gothic and Victorian are by far and away my favourites. Indeed the only styles I dislike, or to be more truthful, despise, are brutalist and plate-glass. They're vile, disgusting blights which destroy any character in a community. Whoever advocated those styles should send their brain in for a refund.
Original post by Quiller
A tudor airport would be amazing though.
Well, that goes without saying
Just made a thread in the travel forum about the most beautiful airports:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2018763
Original post by Ex Death
Not sure I agree with this. If you're advocating democratic decision making input from the public when it comes to public buildings, who exactly are you going to target? People living within 5 miles of the building site? As nice as this sounds it would be way too expensive and would never happen. Also, the concept of public democracy is far more wider-reaching than just public buildings. It would be nice if corporate advertisers consulted with the public before plastering all their sh*tty adverts all over the public domain. But again this would never happen because corporations do not give a monkey's about making the public happy. Architecture practices are businesses too, remember.
Some architecture practices already engage in participatory practice which basically means that they consult with the predetermined end users before making final design decisions. This is usually for more ad hoc buildings like community centres, for example, where the users are known.
Some architecture practices already engage in participatory practice which basically means that they consult with the predetermined end users before making final design decisions. This is usually for more ad hoc buildings like community centres, for example, where the users are known.
Sure, I agree with you. Like I said, I'm not getting into the particulars - your point about how one would structure any sort of democratic input is a good one.
You mention a 5 mile radius - what is objectionable about that!? Sounds like it would be pretty simple to administer.. as far as I know, the fact that I live within a certain distance of my town centre has meant that the borough council has consulted us on their planned redevelopment. The problem is whatever opposition we might have means nothing... everyone knows these 'consultation meetings' and 'updates' are merely paying lip service to 'community engagement'. They are going to go ahead with the redevelopment - despite it looking horrendous, and in the face of huge opposition .
Anyway, here are some examples of new buildings build in older styles - would you (honestly) be able to tell the difference - or would you care?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Sir Fox
Whilst I agree that traditional 'old' architecture is great, modern contemporary architecture is easily on par! Some people claimed it's soulless - that's only the case when talking about glass-and-steel scyscrapers etc. There is a whole lot of modern architecutre including loads of wood and those houses can be incredibly homey, yet modern.
Then there are many buildings one could never build the traditional way, even if we wanted to. Just think about airports!
Modern architecture is just so diverse, exciting, distinctive, fractured ... never lump all of it together!
Then there are many buildings one could never build the traditional way, even if we wanted to. Just think about airports!
Modern architecture is just so diverse, exciting, distinctive, fractured ... never lump all of it together!
really????!
if we can build these buildings today
im sure we could manage an airport
Original post by 1broader
really????!
if we can build these buildings today
im sure we could manage an airport
if we can build these buildings today
im sure we could manage an airport
Good point
Well, the actual terminal building could be built this way but think about the maintenance hangars. And even when it comes to the normal terminal you have to consider all the technology: ventilation, heating and cooling, security, you need enough sunlight ... And then an even bigger problem: the budget
Original post by 1broader
It's not supposed to be. It was mentioned anecdotally as an example.
Sounds like it would be pretty simple to administer.. as far as I know, the fact that I live within a certain distance of my town centre has meant that the borough council has consulted us on their planned redevelopment.
I'm sure it would be simple to administer. But ask yourself who paid for your council's consultation exercise? Private architecture practices (which comprise something like 95% of practices in the UK) do not have the benefit of taxpayer funding.
The problem is whatever opposition we might have means nothing... everyone knows these 'consultation meetings' and 'updates' are merely paying lip service to 'community engagement'. They are going to go ahead with the redevelopment - despite it looking horrendous, and in the face of huge opposition .
Yes, ultimately these consultation exercises are pointless because these institutions don't care about making people happy. However, there is a small minority of architecture practices who do genuinely care. That is, if they aren't preoccupied with staying afloat economically.
Anyway, here are some examples of new buildings build in older styles - would you (honestly) be able to tell the difference - or would you care?
Yeah I can tell the difference. As for whether they look better than typical 'modern' buildings, it is an entirely subjective opinion and one which I don't really agree with.
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?
- Do I need maths or physics for architecture in the future (uni)?
- Architecture - A level Maths?
- 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
