|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why are modern buildings so terrible?
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
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.
This is not the case - the replacement of buildings or not is to do with prosperity. Bruges harbour silted up and the town never had the wealth again to rebuild as fashions changed. Florence like most Tuscan cities slumbered after its heyday. Cities that are rich regularly rebuild themsleves and it has nothing to do with the beauty or lack of it of the previous built environment. New York was once full of Georgian Streets where now there are office skyscrapers, the original buildings were not knocked down because they were ugly but because there was wealth needing to create something bigger and different.
In the twentieth century the replacement in London of the Georgian Euston Station by Colonel Seifert's Euston Station with the loss of the Euston Arch was entirely due to the money being there and the commercial pressure to build something new. The replacement is universally seen to be a backward step on terms of taste and design. Thousands of fine Victorian buildings were destroyed in the post war period simply because they were covered with soot and were therefore unappreciated and if the money had not been available to replace them then they would still be here today.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
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.
Agreed. But they are the products of a profit-obsessed, utilitarian, cost-cutting mentality which infects the whole state. In fact, the 'big gesture' architecture (eg the Shard), whatever you think about its aesthetics, is specifically designed to impress just as much as Victorian banks. You can't expect a government concerned with the bottom line (or, like Thatcher, 'see the cost of everything and the value of nothing') to lavish money on 'useless' design. And that has been the approach of all governments since at least the 1970s.
It wasn't just Victorian bankers that had a concern for impressive architecture. The town halls, schools, public libraries, post offices that were built at least up to (and many after) the First World War were of equal or better quality. Now they have largely been demolished or turned into shopping malls. Go to any continental town or city and the Post Office will be one of the most prominent and impressive buildings. Look for one in Britain and you're more likely to find it tucked into a corner of Tesco or W H Smith.
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
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.
Agreed. But they are the products of a profit-obsessed, utilitarian, cost-cutting mentality which infects the whole state. In fact, the 'big gesture' architecture (eg the Shard), whatever you think about its aesthetics, is specifically designed to impress just as much as Victorian banks. You can't expect a government concerned with the bottom line (or, like Thatcher, 'see the cost of everything and the value of nothing') to lavish money on 'useless' design. And that has been the approach of all governments since at least the 1970s.
It wasn't just Victorian bankers that had a concern for impressive architecture. The town halls, schools, public libraries, post offices that were built at least up to (and many after) the First World War were of equal or better quality. Now they have largely been demolished or turned into shopping malls. Go to any continental town or city and the Post Office will be one of the most prominent and impressive buildings. Look for one in Britain and you're more likely to find it tucked into a corner of Tesco or W H Smith.
Except that The British Library was built during the Thatcher period at enormous cost and that is pretty awful too. British Library
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Except that The British Library was built during the Thatcher period at enormous cost and that is pretty awful too. British Library
Matter of taste. I happen to like it! Solid, traditional without being pastiche, attention to detail. But YMMV.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Where does the idea come from that past ages built purely for the glory of God or aesthetic, and didn't build to impress? That it is only these debased and paltry times that are tarnished with sordid financial motives or the desire to draw attention to themselves?
Why do we think Louis XIV built Versailles? Why do we think the London & Birmingham Railway built the much lamented Euston Arch? Does anyone apart from the late Augustus Pugin fondly imagine that the self-made wool merchants who paid for the big churches of Gloucesterhire and East Anglia were concerned solely with things of the Spirit and the safeguarding of their immortal souls?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I think it probably is the case that previous generations had little idea of maintaining historical structures. At one point it was decided that Saint Peter's Basilica should be demolished and the present structure built on top of it. Imagine that happening to today!
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
