|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why are modern buildings so terrible?
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
Recently, we had heavy rains. As a result of this, many buildings in the area flooded. Many others, of course, did not. As a general (although not invariable) rule, the uglier a building was, the more likely it was to flood. The ugly buildings that flooded were — without, I think, a single exception — all built in the last fifty years. As far as I know, no building built before the Second World war flooded. My little brick house, which is by no means an extravagant dwelling and is not even in good repair, suffered no water damage at all, and neither did any of the Mediaeval or Victorian parish churches in the area.
For thousands of years, the human race built buildings characterized by either a noble simplicity — for there is no crude peasant's dwelling anywhere in the pre-industrial world that lacks this quality — or else surpassing the Solomaic in splendour. We seem unable to do the same. Most modern buildings are hideous. Yes, I too can think of exceptions, but these represent but a tiny fraction of buildings built every year. At one point, it was fashionable to sneer at 'Communist architecture', and it is undeniable that the buildings built in the former Soviet Bloc are, almost without exception, dire. Yet 'Capitalist architecture' can be just as bad, if not worse, as anyone who has ever been to a 'strip mall' in the United States can attest, and even these soul-destroying places do not quite manage to match the horrors that line most motorways in the United Kingdom.
'Form follows function' was supposedly the mantra of the successive movements of modern architecture — the Bauhaus, the International Style, Brutalism — and yet, despite matchless advances in engineering and the applied sciences, it seems that many modern buildings are in many ways less functional than things built by the Victorians.
Why should this be? Perhaps more importantly, why do we tolerate it?
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
A lot of recent building has occurred on flood plains, due to a lack of other available building land. That goes some way to explain the flooding.
As for why modern buildings tend to be uglier, there is an extent to which that is a matter of taste - red brick mills were considered ugly at the time of construction but many consider them more attractive now. Plenty of people consider bog-standard Victorian gothic churches to be unattractive. The other point to consider is that labour now costs a lot more than it did 100 years ago, so extravagant stonework in much more expensive, and there are fewer people willing to pay for it. The increased cost of labour is a good thing, by the way.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurence
Shipmate
# 9135
|
Posted
Because time is a great healer. Human taste, combined with the innate adolescent reaction against the generation before, has filtered out many of the most aesthetically awful buildings by knocking them down; and most of the badly built ones have just fallen down anyway.
Furthermore, the passage of time has an analgesic effect on the observer, as well as the buildings themselves. We are much more likely to see a building that was shocking a hundred years ago as charmingly eccentric, or stimulatingly mould-breaking, as it is not directly criticising our own values.
It's true that Modernism as a discipline is almost uniquely vulnerable to bad workmanship and cheap construction, with its emphasis on truth in unadorned plainness. (I leave aside postmodernism in architecture). Indeed, I think the most successful modernist buildings are those built of the finest materials- the sheer beauty of well-proportioned stone and glass shows that the twentieth century was not just an aberration. But in two hundred years time, practically every building that does not deserve to survive will be dust. Isn't that a cheerful thought for next time you sit in a dank municipal bus station?
Posts: 648 | From: Lincolnshire | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Who says modern buildings are terrible? Some may well be, but beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.
Some modern churches are spectacularly beautiful - go and Google the Hallgrimskirkja in Reykjavik.
It is true, I agree, that some modern buildings appear to be more flimsy than one would like, but one has only to read any issue of Church Building to find that, in many cases, the quality of materials and workmanship in new build churches is as high as ever.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post, but I've just thought of a town near here which, in the last few years, has completely transformed much of its centre with a new County Court complex, a new and colourful Hotel, a modern shopping mall (which has added at least one new and IMHO picturesque street of small shops), an impressive block of riverside apartments, and a new County Library of the most elegant simplicity. The brutalist multi-storey car park of the late 60s was demolished as part of this transformation, BTW.....
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Simples, the architectural community was swept away by the limitless possibilities of pre-stressed concrete.
Previous facing materials had to be laid individually by hand, like brick, wood or stone. This kept a personal scale in large buildings. Pre-stressed and poured concrete lets you get away from that. Architects went overboard.
The Centre Block of the Parliament of Canada is one of the last large Neo-Gothic projects I can think of, completed 1927. It's the stonework and detail that turn it from ordinary to sublime.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Last large neogothic? Is Liverpool cathedral even finished yet?
Other than that, what Laurence said. There was a lot of rubbish built in the past, but tautologously what survived was either sound to begin with or has been either modernised or restored.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Who says modern buildings are terrible? Some may well be, but beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.
Some modern churches are spectacularly beautiful - go and Google the Hallgrimskirkja in Reykjavik.
It is true, I agree, that some modern buildings appear to be more flimsy than one would like, but one has only to read any issue of Church Building to find that, in many cases, the quality of materials and workmanship in new build churches is as high as ever.
Ian J.
I think that ecclesiastical architecture suffers from a particular problem: namely that many architects seem never to have been to a church during a service, and do bizarre things that are not conducive to their liturgical use (putting loads and loads of stuff behind the altar seems to be a popular one, as if no one ever told them that the altar needs to go in the eastern end of the church). I've seen some pretty horrible examples, the worst of which was not only an aesthetic monstrosity but also a complete acoustic dead space. It's a worrying sign when the acoustic aren't good enough for the unamplified voice of the priest to be heard at the back of the nave, but in this case even the choir needed to be amplified! I was going to say that one never finds this problem in a Mediaeval church, or in ones designed by Butterfield or Gilbert Scott, which is true, but then I remembered that both St Paul's London and St Peter's, Rome have horrible acoustics. So it can't be entirely a recent problem, although it may be related to the architect considering himself to be an 'Artist' with an uppercase 'A', rather than a skilled craftsman.
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Sorry to double-post, but I've just thought of a town near here which, in the last few years, has completely transformed much of its centre with a new County Court complex, a new and colourful Hotel, a modern shopping mall (which has added at least one new and IMHO picturesque street of small shops), an impressive block of riverside apartments, and a new County Library of the most elegant simplicity. The brutalist multi-storey car park of the late 60s was demolished as part of this transformation, BTW.....
I'm sure you're right, and I for one think that the new(ish) city centre in Manchester is quite nice, but both examples are of new buildings replacing unloved buildings that were only slightly older (a replacement that was, in Manchester's case, spurred on by a PIRA bombing).
I do wonder if most of the problem isn't just absurdly misplaced priorities. In particular the worship of the automobile has destroyed many fine city centres and impeded intelligent urban growth. In North America, in particular, it is not unusual to see new buildings — built of the shoddiest materials possible and with no discernible eye for style of craftsmanship —surrounded by a veritable ocean of asphalt. And for what end? So that people may more conveniently drive to do their shopping. It is a cannibalizing itself to feed its favourite addiction.
Andrew Cusack, a very intelligent and interesting young RC journalist and blogger,
here puts forward an sketch of how the truly execrable 'campus' of modern American parish church might be transformed into a liveable community. The architecture he proposes is in an American vernacular style, and not at all grandiose, but it is a vast aesthetic improvement (and, unless the church is located in the dry Southwest, the slopped roofs would probably be a practical improvement as well). Furthermore, when one recognizes the wider social implications, it's quite clearly an ethical improvement as well.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
True, much modern architecture is far from pleasing to the eye, even if there are honourable exceptions. However, in this particular instance a lot of the problem arose not from the inability of modern architects to design buildings that are rainproof, but, more prosaicly, from water coming in from the streets, due to the inadequacy in extremis of the Victorian drainage system. But to be fair to the people that built that, so much of the ground is now covered in concrete that rain cannot just sink into the soil in the way that they would have expected when they designed the system.
[ 01. September 2012, 17:20: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Last large neogothic? Is Liverpool cathedral even finished yet?
Other than that, what Laurence said. There was a lot of rubbish built in the past, but tautologously what survived was either sound to begin with or has been either modernised or restored.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Centre Block was started in 1919 and completed in 1927. Liverpool Cathedral was designed in 1910 and completed in 1978, according to Wiki.
Try finding a Neo-Gothic monumental building whose architect was commissioned after 1930. The lest starts to get really, really short. Centre Block has the style it does because it was built to replace the old Centre Block which burned in 1916. It had to fit with the Library of Parliament and the East and West Blocks. Otherwise I'm not sure that Neo-Gothic would have been chosen.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Last large neogothic? Is Liverpool cathedral even finished yet?
Yes. But not until about ten years after its 1960s neighbour the Metropolitan.
A couple of recent and relevant books on this subject are by Owen Hatherley: Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain, and A New Kind of Bleak. He is scathing about much of the meretricious flashy rubbish built during the Blair era, but finds some gems amongst the generally rather miserable collection of buildings dating from post-war and later.
Some of the Festival of Britain era (1950s) housing projects and shopping malls have not dated well, but the best of them display a lightness of touch and a vernacular friendliness. The post-war stripped-down neo-neo-classical office blocks in most of our city centres are dreary; their 1960s and 70s successors often formulaic and cheap. Since the Thatcher era public housing has been virtually non-existent, and speculative housing developments have relied on populist gimmicks (like false timbering) to distract from their poor quality and minuscule proportions. Out of town retail parks with their industrial sheds instead of architecture have sucked the life (and hence the impetus to build) from town centres.
But noticeable, even in publicly funded projects, in the last decade or so is a new respect for materials, and the return of brick, high quality stonework, and other details which show up the tawdriness of much 1980s work. Examples are the new stations on London Underground's Jubilee Line; or the extension of the Leeds and Liverpool canal in front of the 'Three Graces' at Liverpool's Pierhead.
Some of the best modern buildings went up in the 1930s. Charles Holden's underground stations for example, and many blocks of flats in London and elsewhere. Unfortunately that genuinely modern style, which still looks modern 80 years later, was eclipsed by WW2 and, perhaps even more, by British (and particularly English) timidity and fear of the new. Especially if it was 'foreign' or 'from the continent', as many of the pioneering architects were.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The other thing that occurs to me is whether, in a society where most people drive everywhere and rarely walk, architects have become more focussed on interiors. The parish I grew up in built a new church building, and while the exterior was pretty non-descript, the interior, and the stained glass, were both modern and beautiful.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The other thing that occurs to me is whether, in a society where most people drive everywhere and rarely walk,
Or so architects seem to think. In reality, that is an extremely dangerous opinion. Firstly, I don't think it's true for most of the UK (and even if it is, it shouldn't be); secondly, it's demonstrably divisive and elitist, tailoring our communal spaces toward an affluent minority (car owners) at the expense not only of those who walk, bicycle or take public transportation, but also of any sense of community. Streets fit for people, not cars, should be the rallying cry of a new generation of urban development.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Modern building indeed are, as a rule, crappy. It doesn't take much rain for retail premises to leak today and probably churches too.
Was it Magdalene College, Oxford whose oak roofs began to fail at some stage in modern times? Then it was noticed that the park was full of oak trees, which take 500 years to grow to maturity, planted by the builders because they knew the roofs would need replacing by then!
Bearing in mine the post above about people today being used to car travel, I so often find folk whining about the cold in medieval or Victorian buildings. Then you see how flimsy are their clothes! These are normally elderly people, having become over-dependant on centrally heated homes and cars, who probably dressed properly years ago.
Buildings are crappy now and people nevertheless have grown to need them!
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I will fly a kite.
Architecture has become an academic discipline. Architects are university trained. They read professional journals. The buildings they design therefore express the ideologies that rise and fall in their subject. Great architects try to make a name for themselves to further their academic careers, and do so by pushing ideas further than anyone else, or by astounding innovation.
Previously, architecture was a part of the building trade, with the consequent knowledge of, and feel for, both users and material, and this is what gave older buildings the qualities we admire.
(But I don't think this kite flies. I think that great architects always were egotists, and that the rest have usually spent their careers frustrated that everything that is really good about their designs gets cut out in the name of economy.)
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
By "modern" do you mean brutalist? Or The famous mid-20th century architects? In the 80s I thought International was the most godawful idea ever to emerge from a blueprint. But as I get older, hmmm even Le Corbusier is beginning to grow on me. (Can't believe I just said that!)
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trickydicky
Shipmate
# 16550
|
Posted
Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral (RC)(AKA Paddy's Wigwam/the Mersey Funnel) has rotting concrete and appalling acoustics. Liverpool Anglican Cathedral is a 'proper' cathedral. Gothic, stone, it will last for centuries.
But give me the 1960's Cathedral any day. If we are building to the glory of God, then surely we should use the best of what we can offer now? Why praise God with the words or styles or architecture of says gone by?
I have been in both cathedrals. The C of E one is huge. But the RC one moved my children to prayer. The sun was shining through the lantern, the building was bathed in colour - it was fantastic. We came to the Lady Chapel and they (good Methodists)instinctively wanted to light a candle.
Some of the issues with modern materials is that the architects simply did not understand them, or else their limitations became clear after a few years.
But the church of which I am a minister is 20 years old and a wonderful example of modern Christian architecture. It's not falling down, and shows no sign of doing so. Modern architecture can do the job. As others have pointed out, the rubbish from the past is gone. Our rubbish is still here.
Posts: 57 | From: Greater Manchester | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Perhaps the difference is the fact that you are observing only a fraction of older buildings whereas you are observing a large swath of the local modern buildings. Perhaps there is always a mix of ugly and beautiful, well-built and crappy. But the ugly and crappy ones will soon be replaced-- so that there are no remaining examples of the old, ugly/crappy bldgs for you to compare w/ modern contemporary bldgs. Whereas older buildings that are beautiful will be preserved and repaired when they fall into decay, and ones that are well-built will last-- therefore they are around 100s of years later for you to compare with contemporary bldgs that may be bulldozed in a few years.
[ 01. September 2012, 19:06: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
(tangentally and no doubt dead-horse-ily, I think the same point might be made re: traditional hymns v. contemporary praise music.)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
Because time is a great healer. Human taste, combined with the innate adolescent reaction against the generation before, has filtered out many of the most aesthetically awful buildings by knocking them down; and most of the badly built ones have just fallen down anyway.
Furthermore, the passage of time has an analgesic effect on the observer, as well as the buildings themselves. We are much more likely to see a building that was shocking a hundred years ago as charmingly eccentric, or stimulatingly mould-breaking, as it is not directly criticising our own values.
Spot on - got it in one!
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The other thing that occurs to me is whether, in a society where most people drive everywhere and rarely walk,
Or so architects seem to think. In reality, that is an extremely dangerous opinion. Firstly, I don't think it's true for most of the UK (and even if it is, it shouldn't be); secondly, it's demonstrably divisive and elitist, tailoring our communal spaces toward an affluent minority (car owners) at the expense not only of those who walk, bicycle or take public transportation, but also of any sense of community. Streets fit for people, not cars, should be the rallying cry of a new generation of urban development.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) It gives me great, and genuine, pleasure, to agree with (S)pike couchant for probably the first time! (Except that in Britain we say public transport not transportation. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Laurence and cliffdweller definitely have a huge part of the puzzle. To reiterate, we don't see the buildings that were poorly built (and so didn't survive); and we don't see the buildings people didn't find attractive, and so either destroyed or didn't maintain.
Also, I think someone hinted at the fact that new architecture often is rather shocking, but over time, it grows on you. Apparently this has happened recently with the Centre Pompidou, which I've never seen - and also with that glass pyramid at the Loeuvre. [eta: So buildings that look "ugly" today might actually become more aesthetically pleasing to our older selves or the next generation or two.]
And someone else pointed out that labor costs are higher, especially for anything artisanal.
But another factor no one seems to have mentioned yet (or I missed it) is simple consumer capitalism. We don't build buildings anymore with the intention that they should last. Particularly buildings with a built-in corporate identity, although those tend to be smaller-scale buildings anyway. (Think grocery store and restaurant chains, e.g.) Even if the building doesn't have a particular corporate identity in its style or structure, I think in most places (the downtowns of some major cities being the exceptions) there's an expectation that things will be modified, or bulldozed and rebuilt, within a lifetime. The culture generally doesn't expect products to last like they used to, and I think at least some buildings have found their way into this category. Houses in particular - we've been able to observe over the last century that consumers have wanted bigger, newer houses with all the latest amenities; why build a house to last when chances are it'll be outdated and undesirable pretty soon? (Although now that we know the economy doesn't grow endlessly, and each generation no longer has more wealth than their parents, maybe that will change.)
It's been said that buildings used to outlive people, and now people outlive buildings. I think that's increasingly true, for all this mix of reasons.
[ 01. September 2012, 19:51: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
...(Except that in Britain we say public transport not transportation. )
Transportation generally meaning something of particular relevance to our antipodean friends.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
we've been able to observe over the last century that consumers have wanted bigger, newer houses with all the latest amenities;
It might be what they want, but in Britain at least houses have been getting smaller. The average house in the UK is smaller than the average in the Netherlands, which has a much higher density of population. And we refuse to live in flats, which encourages the proliferation of sprawling, and public-transport-unfriendly, peripheral estates.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The other thing that occurs to me is whether, in a society where most people drive everywhere and rarely walk,
Or so architects seem to think. In reality, that is an extremely dangerous opinion. Firstly, I don't think it's true for most of the UK (and even if it is, it shouldn't be); secondly, it's demonstrably divisive and elitist, tailoring our communal spaces toward an affluent minority (car owners) at the expense not only of those who walk, bicycle or take public transportation, but also of any sense of community. Streets fit for people, not cars, should be the rallying cry of a new generation of urban development.
ahem - in my neck of the rural woods, a car is not a luxury - the public transportation infrastructure is poor to non-existent so don't tell me what should or shouldn't be or what is elitist please!
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The other thing that occurs to me is whether, in a society where most people drive everywhere and rarely walk,
Or so architects seem to think. In reality, that is an extremely dangerous opinion. Firstly, I don't think it's true for most of the UK (and even if it is, it shouldn't be); secondly, it's demonstrably divisive and elitist, tailoring our communal spaces toward an affluent minority (car owners) at the expense not only of those who walk, bicycle or take public transportation, but also of any sense of community. Streets fit for people, not cars, should be the rallying cry of a new generation of urban development.
ahem - in my neck of the rural woods, a car is not a luxury - the public transportation infrastructure is poor to non-existent so don't tell me what should or shouldn't be or what is elitist please!
Fine, but the UK is 80% urban and most people who live in cities don't drive on a regular basis. So the idea that 'most' people drive and rarely walk is, frankly, utter tosh. Furthermore, many (if not actually most) of the poorest in society do not have access to a car and cannot afford regular cab rides. So building an urban environment that privileges car ownership is élitist in the extreme. It's also a stupid idea for at least three other reasons that come immediately to mind: it's bad for the environment, it's bad for public health (forget the lack of exercise caused by driving rather than walking or bicycling, the fumes are enough to cause respiratory problems in a large chunk of the population), and it destroys both countryside and cityscape. I'm sure there are other reasons. Motor vehicles have their place, but that place is emphatically not at the centre of our society.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Houses in particular - we've been able to observe over the last century that consumers have wanted bigger, newer houses with all the latest amenities; why build a house to last when chances are it'll be outdated and undesirable pretty soon?
This is one of the few real differences between the way Brits behave and Americans do. Over here people pay slightly more for an older house than a newer one of the same general size and design.
Also houses have been getting smaller, not larger. Of course almost everyone would like a larger house but they can't afford it.
But in Britain - things are almost certainly different in some other places - decisions on what new houses to build are not really made by the people who will live in them, and certainly not by planners, but by the property developers and landowners. And they - and many of the eventual residents as well - care more about ever-increasing capital values, rents, and quick sales.
*Very* few people buy a plot of land and then pay someone to build a new house on it. I'd guess that that's true anbout the USA as well, though it might be more common there. More usually new houses come about because a landowner wants to make some money and gets planning permission or zoning permission or whatever its called where the land is (easier in some places than others) then sells or leases the land to a developer for a lump sum and the developer builds the houses and then sells or leases them to another company or to landlords as soon as possible in order to get their costs back and then they sell or sublet the houses or flats. They have two main interests, a quick return on investment, and long-term capital gains. So the houses they build are very likely not to be the ones the eventual inhabitants would have chosen if they had the choice. Because they don't have any power to determine what gets built.
Also developers and agents tend to play safe and produce cookie-cutter small two-story two or sometimes three-bedroom houses in little closes or cul-de-sacs, with small rooms, tiny kitchens, dog-toilet front gardens with little driveways leading to small garages, and little square back gardens, windows and doors facing away from the street, often even with a brick wall cutting off the view of the street, wherever they are allowed to.
The top of the market isn't like that of course (money talks) but mid-market houses have been clones for decades. I think there was some improvement in the 1990s and 2000s, but they are mostly still like that. There are no bottom-of-the-market new houses. Private companies haven't really built new for low-rent markets since the first world war (if ever), and government-subsidised housing more or less vanished in the 1980s.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
As someone who can't drive and cycles everywhere, the vast majority of people do seem to have cars, and seem utterly perplexed that someone might not have one. In respect of the church to which I referred earlier, I think my family were alone in regularly arriving on foot, and the church itself was located next to a major road, and wasn't somewhere passers by would regularly walk.
I'd certainly agree that a car based society is far from ideal, but I do think that the widespread use of cars is a factor in architecture.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pulsator Organorum Ineptus
Shipmate
# 2515
|
Posted
I don't think car owners can be described as a minority. Around here, even people on very modest wages find it necessary to own a car in order to get to work. I am not saying that's a Good Thing.
Posts: 695 | From: Bronteland | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The other thing that occurs to me is whether, in a society where most people drive everywhere and rarely walk,
Or so architects seem to think. In reality, that is an extremely dangerous opinion. Firstly, I don't think it's true for most of the UK (and even if it is, it shouldn't be); secondly, it's demonstrably divisive and elitist, tailoring our communal spaces toward an affluent minority (car owners) at the expense not only of those who walk, bicycle or take public transportation, but also of any sense of community. Streets fit for people, not cars, should be the rallying cry of a new generation of urban development.
ahem - in my neck of the rural woods, a car is not a luxury - the public transportation infrastructure is poor to non-existent so don't tell me what should or shouldn't be or what is elitist please!
Fine, but the UK is 80% urban and most people who live in cities don't drive on a regular basis. So the idea that 'most' people drive and rarely walk is, frankly, utter tosh. Furthermore, many (if not actually most) of the poorest in society do not have access to a car and cannot afford regular cab rides. So building an urban environment that privileges car ownership is élitist in the extreme. It's also a stupid idea for at least three other reasons that come immediately to mind: it's bad for the environment, it's bad for public health (forget the lack of exercise caused by driving rather than walking or bicycling, the fumes are enough to cause respiratory problems in a large chunk of the population), and it destroys both countryside and cityscape. I'm sure there are other reasons. Motor vehicles have their place, but that place is emphatically not at the centre of our society.
so ppl in rural, impoverished environments don't count, huh?
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
I don't think car owners can be described as a minority. Around here, even people on very modest wages find it necessary to own a car in order to get to work. I am not saying that's a Good Thing.
There was a recent survey rating 26 UK cities by their pedestrian-friendliness (and lack of reliance on cars.) Unsurprisingly London came top and Milton Keynes either bottom or very near it.
Only a very few cities approach London in the availability and efficiency of public transport. (Brighton is one of the best, hence ken's experience might be untypical) In most other places the car is king, unfortunately.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
In the United States, attitudes toward old houses vary. I'm told in Texas most people think of living in an older house the way they think of wearing previously owned underwear.
A lot of the ugly can be attributed to the ease of use of new tools like computerized drafting software. It's so easy to knock something together from templates without any regard to the human scale and use of the building. This is also true of the many prefabricated modular components used in modern building. If they are slapped together by someone without actual experience building then it can become really weird. Also the standard designs don't take into account local condiations like living on a flood plain.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
I don't think car owners can be described as a minority.
Its touch and go. There are more or less 31 million cars registered in the UK and about 62 million people. So it might or might not be a minority. (The figures can be found in many hard-to-follow formats on government statistics websites)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There are more or less 31 million cars registered in the UK and about 62 million people.
But if we exclude those too young to drive, which seems reasonable in the current discussion, that would imply more than half as many cars as people. One could then also make a correction for companies owning fleets of cars rather than individual ownership, but I would expect there are less of those than there are children below driving age.
As someone who lives in a 100-year-old farmhouse, we are actually excited about the idea of moving to somewhere more modern. If it is in a more urban area, likely we will no longer require 3 cars for two drivers as well.
I've had the occasion to observe the roofs of many commercial buildings here in the States, and even in the Pacific Northwest (which doesn't have a reputation for being particularly dry) they are all flat, surrounded by a parapet perhaps 0.5 to 1m high, with openings to let the water drain out in one or more spots. I suspect this is due to cost of construction compared to a building with a sloping roof, particularly for large buildings (50 to 100m on a side).
A few handfuls of leaves in the wrong spot can plug up the drain and cause the roof to hold water, which them seeps through the roof coating and eventually leaks inside.
Of course, I've also been on the roof of a few old buildings trying to patch them in a rainstorm, which gets a bit tricky as they are often at a 45 degree angle.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
A few comments on this one. First, older buildings don't flood or leak? Oh Please. Oh Frikkin' Please. Go find me a Frank Lloyd Wright building that doesn't leak, and you'll also find its authenticity cast into doubt. The old, historic inns and buildings in New Mexico become bucketfests every monsoon season. And, for every old, historic church, how many dollars/pounds/euros are required to keep the roof from leaking and the building from collapsing in on itself? After all, those massive engineering works in the crypt of Yorkminster didn't pay for themselves, did they? Yes, modern building techniques have allowed us to put buildings where they quite frankly don't belong (what, you mean shifting soil and flood plains are bad to build in for a reason?), but, judging from the tales of history, the number of buildings that have perished in flood, earthquake, or, most foreign to us, fire, is beyond counting. Come to think of it, when was the last time we had an urban fire on the scale of London or Chicago? I'd wager good money that it predates the use of modern architecture and materials.
Second, there's somewhere all the bad architecture and buildings of the past went: the dump. Nobody bothered to preserve the shantytowns and ugly churches of yore because, well, nobody liked them and nobody complained when they got knocked down for something else. Much as I wish a few Baroque and Rococo churches also got the same treatment (or, more properly, never happened—there's a reason you never see photos of the rest of Ravenna's San Vitale), I'm pretty sure that, when tastes changed, a few of them got changed with extreme predjudice too.
Third, tastes change. "Gothic" was originally an insult, as was "baroque." While I have more love for the former than the latter (it can be done well—Palladio certainly did—it often isn't . . . and it leads to Rococo), I would be pilloried as a Philistine if I seriously advocated for the demolition of, say, Chartres Cathedral . . . which has been done, by the way.
Fourth, the last hundred years or so did see an unfortunate trend towards design around the car. Because of this, if you live in, say, Oklahoma, you have to have a car, no matter who you are. I realize you can get around large parts of the world without one, but between the Appalachians and the Sierra Nevada? Good Luck. Happily, there's some lobby to try and counteract this trend, but, at least here in the States, there just isn't the political will to actually do it—advocate too forcibly for smart growth initiatives, mixed use development, and greater density, and you're a socialist who's trying to take away our cars, houses, and independence.
Yes, there were quite a few sins committed against architecture in the last century. Yes, I realize I may be the only fan of brutalism left in the world. However, this does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that past ages weren't just as bad as ours in many respects.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think I should mention that there is one bit of 60s concrete architecture I do have a soft spot for, and that's my old college building at Lancaster University. It was meant to call to mind a mediaeval castle, but the constraints of needing windows somewhat spoiled the effect. It is also built on four sides of a magnificent oak tree that predates the university by several centuries.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
But if we exclude those too young to drive, which seems reasonable in the current discussion...
Not to me it doesn't. They are people too. And they have more freedom to move around in a city with public transport, and where things are close to each other, than they do where there is no public transport or in a low-density suburb. Children and teenagers are less free no than they were forty years ago. And we were less free then than our parent's age group were.
Same goes for older or disabled people, for those too poor to have a car, and for the non-driver in a one-car family. The move from public transport to cars made wives more dependent on husbands just for getting around.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
You can ask the question of modern music for that matter and the answer is the same: time has not weeded the wheat from the chaff. We read that Charles Wesley composed c 6,000 hymns yet only about 200 are used nowadays, many of those only rarely and he was one of the better hymn writers! How many of Graham Kendrick's songs will survive 100 years let alone 200?
If an old building of little note needs repair it is more likely to be replaced by a new building which, perforce, has not yet got to the stage that it needs replacing. I expect financial pressure plays a part too: how long are modern buildings expected to last?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
But if we exclude those too young to drive, which seems reasonable in the current discussion...
Not to me it doesn't. They are people too. And they have more freedom to move around in a city with public transport, and where things are close to each other, than they do where there is no public transport or in a low-density suburb. Children and teenagers are less free no than they were forty years ago.
Not just teenagers. It's my observation (well, my parents' really) that the age at which people start to learn to drive is getting higher and higher. Mostly because the cost of insurance is prohibitive if you're less than 25.
ETA: plus the under-25's are one of the two age cohorts that's been most deeply shafted by the financial crisis, hence they have less money anyway.
[ 02. September 2012, 15:30: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Not just teenagers. It's my observation (well, my parents' really) that the age at which people start to learn to drive is getting higher and higher. Mostly because the cost of insurance is prohibitive if you're less than 25.
That's definitely my experience. It may be different out of town, but here in London, the majority of people I teach are in their mid-twenties at least. Some are considerably older.
Spike
DSA Approved Driving Instructor
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Last large neogothic? Is Liverpool cathedral even finished yet?
Other than that, what Laurence said. There was a lot of rubbish built in the past, but tautologously what survived was either sound to begin with or has been either modernised or restored.
Many Victorian architects and patrons saw themselves as great restorers - even modernisers in a back to the future sort of way - of rather sound buildings, with disasterous results.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Small scale architecture these days is built as cheaply as possible. Few people, in the US anyway, pay much mind to the floor joists when there is a sparkling new dishwasher to look at.
Large scale architecture is also generally geared to be economical. When money is no object, then a whole different set of problems set in. Only very prestigious firms get those jobs, and they only catch committee eyes by being very eye catching. Buildings that blend harmoniously into their surroundings don't get noticed.
Just look at Boston City Hall, which is hated by everyone that isn't an architect. They tore down a whole neighborhood to put it up. What was once gritty Scollay Square is now a barren, brick platform intended to provide views of the wonders of reinforced concrete architecture. The new name "Government Center," sounds exactly as soulless as the place is. Trees would block the view, so the place is unbearably hot during the summer, and the cold winds make it intolerable during the winter too. But there it is, one can hardly not notice it, so three cheers for the firm that built it?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
I'm not an architect, and I like it. It looks like it could be the smallest local branch office of the Tyrell Corporation.
(Alternately, it has been widely referred to as "the box that Faneuil Hall came in.")
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
A few things:
- What is termed 'modern' architecture is hugely variable. In the domestic market most new housing is replicating older styles.
- For housing there has been a big change even in the last 30 years. There is far much more awareness of flooding problems caused by the removal of open space so most developments will have significant infrastructure to reduce the amount of water run off etc. You can no longer just build on a flood plain as is the common perception. Energy efficiency has come on massively. A new house is generally far cheaper to heat than one built 30 years ago.
- What is acceptable in an old house isn't in a new one. Older properties often have creaking floors, badly fitting doors, cracking walls etc but this is accepted. In a new house people would be worried that there was something wrong.
- Most modern houses are too small, and that includes flats as well. It does seem like developers have a tick list of attributes they want in a place and then just do that as cheaply as possible. It used to be that there was a maximum density of housing on a development but I believe that there is now a minimum density. (Actually, just checked, and it looks like that was got rid of, see here )
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
S
Just look at Boston City Hall, which is hated by everyone that isn't an architect.
From the picture, I'm not so keen. I like some brutalist architecture (National Theatre and Hayward Gallery, London, anyone? Dunelm House in Durham?) when it is organic, fits the landscape, and is an exciting building to explore inside. Brutalism married to classical symmetry, as this one, is far too reminiscent of the overbearing and browbeating-into-submission terrors perpetrated by Mussolini in Italy and other dictators elsewhere (Ceaucescu's Romania comes to mind, though I've never actually been there.)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
Because time is a great healer. Human taste, combined with the innate adolescent reaction against the generation before, has filtered out many of the most aesthetically awful buildings by knocking them down; and most of the badly built ones have just fallen down anyway.
This is a clever but dubious theory as surely if it was correct we would expect those cities where nearly all the original buildings have survived to be full of period monstrosities, but is Bruges full of ugly mediaeval excrescences? or Florence full of renaissance carbuncles?
The problems with many modern buildings are fourfold
- materials, these are often alien to the townscape with an overemphasis on glass and concrete
- positioning, many modern buildings have no respect for street-lines and are often positioned awkwardly with respect to their neighbours.
- scale, related to positioning they are often too big for their sites due to the fact that in many cases it is the commercial imperative and not the aesthetic which is the overriding factor in their design
- the loss of the craft in designing and building, whenever there is sculpture it is stuck onto the building and not part of the structure the rest has been made by machines. This is related to the fact that buildings, particularly commercial buildings, are not intended to last and so investment in the "art" of the building is seen as superfluous or at best a bolt-on.
I could add the megolamania of many architects in trying to make their buildings shout as loud as possible so that the modern townscape becomes an ugly scrimmage and the refusal by the mainstream to accept any lessons from the past. It seems to be universal problem.
[ 03. September 2012, 10:00: Message edited by: aumbry ]
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I agree with all those diagnoses. The problem comes when you have the wrong sort of reaction by timid planners and uninspired architects: the sort of Prince Charles/Disneyland approach of pastiches of past styles. You can respect locality, scale etc without banal copying ... which itself is a fraud: the office buildings by such as Quinlan Terry look like renaissance palaces from the outside (well, from a distance on a foggy day), but they are equipped with air-con, open-plan office floors, lifts and the rest.
While the plastic cladding look is often overdone (and done badly), modern materials are as authentic to today as brick and stone. As for the use of local materials, this has never been an over-riding criterion: many of the medieval cathedrals are built with stone brought great distances (even Stonehenge...!); and the Victorians really got going when the railways made Welsh slate, midlands brick etc, easily available in any part of the country. Respect for the locality is good, though, and while 'significant' buildings have always reflected wider concerns, the majority of a townscape needs to have a distinctive local character if it is not to be bland. Just as the proliferation of national and multi-national chain stores have destroyed the character of our high streets, the insensitive rash of clone architecture needs to be resisted. But both have the same root: the pursuit of profit.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I agree with all those diagnoses. The problem comes when you have the wrong sort of reaction by timid planners and uninspired architects: the sort of Prince Charles/Disneyland approach of pastiches of past styles. You can respect locality, scale etc without banal copying ... which itself is a fraud: the office buildings by such as Quinlan Terry look like renaissance palaces from the outside (well, from a distance on a foggy day), but they are equipped with air-con, open-plan office floors, lifts and the rest.
While the plastic cladding look is often overdone (and done badly), modern materials are as authentic to today as brick and stone. As for the use of local materials, this has never been an over-riding criterion: many of the medieval cathedrals are built with stone brought great distances (even Stonehenge...!); and the Victorians really got going when the railways made Welsh slate, midlands brick etc, easily available in any part of the country. Respect for the locality is good, though, and while 'significant' buildings have always reflected wider concerns, the majority of a townscape needs to have a distinctive local character if it is not to be bland. Just as the proliferation of national and multi-national chain stores have destroyed the character of our high streets, the insensitive rash of clone architecture needs to be resisted. But both have the same root: the pursuit of profit.
It is not simply the pursuit of profit but the idea that beauty is not necessary for profit. Many of those fine Edwardian bank buildings which are now becoming bars and hotels were built to a high aesthetic standard because the banks thought that projecting an impression of permanence was essential to their customers confidence and profitable trade.
Sadly many public buildings which are not predicated on profit have all the failings of the ugly shopping malls. If anything some public buildings such as DHSS/DSS/DWP offices are the ugliest of the lot.
[ 03. September 2012, 10:52: Message edited by: aumbry ]
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
Because time is a great healer. Human taste, combined with the innate adolescent reaction against the generation before, has filtered out many of the most aesthetically awful buildings by knocking them down; and most of the badly built ones have just fallen down anyway.
This is a clever but dubious theory as surely if it was correct we would expect those cities where nearly all the original buildings have survived to be full of period monstrosities, but is Bruges full of ugly mediaeval excrescences? or Florence full of renaissance carbuncles?
The fine old buildings have survived in Bruges and Florence because they were and remain fine and well-built. A lot of prosperity, aesthetics and effort went into building both cities. The proportion of ugly monstrosities in such cities was low in the first place, so the proportion that have demanded replacement has been low too.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
