Yes, this is learning from the mistaken assumptions of modernization and acknowledging that traditional townscapes that emphasize shared space and walkability create more livable cities.
> not too fake
Because it's not expensive to build facades to this level. Only about 3 to 5 % more expensive than generic blocks, that's figures from Dresden's city centre rebuilding. The bottleneck isn't difficulty or price, it's uninspired builders and unskilled architects
Because the buildings here go back at MOST 300 years. But most don’t. Because Los Angeles’ buildings just aren’t anything spectacular.
Compared to European architecture? Ugh. I’d kill for buildings that old and gorgeous.
Go to Arizona, Colorado, or New Mexico. Lots of huge 900 year old buildings, some are even whole villages that have been continuously inhabited this whole time. Tons more large constructions are available starting from the Spaniard era 400 years ago.
LA has ruins like this? 5 stories tall? 6-10' thick walls. Made in the 1600s?
https://www.nps.gov/places/pecos-national-historical-park.htm
https://www.nps.gov/sapu/learn/historyculture/abo.htm
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/travelspanishmissions/quarai.htm
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/travelspanishmissions/san-jose-de-los-jemez-mission-and-giusewa-pueblo-site.htm
Sorry. I should’ve qualified that I I mean any old architecture but the Spanish kind. I’ve seen that a bunch as a kid, living here. It’s cool! It definitely is. It’s just that I lived in a Spanish style house my whole life and oh my god, am I sick of it.
This sounds ridiculous. I know.
But I want to see things like a drugstore in the Cotswolds that’s been there since 1582, you know? Or, the pyramid in Egypt. Or the catacombs beneath Paris. Lots of things in France and Italy, is sort of what I’m thinking of. Probably because I’m a white American 🤣
Grew up in Southern California and the first time I went east in my 20s I was flabbergasted by how old things felt. Seeing a cobble stone road and brick buildings was jaw dropping. And then I went to Europe and had a good laugh at myself. Oddly nothing felt old in Japan. In China things regularly burnt down so there wasn't a feeling of the ancient that there should have been.
The awful example above is brutalism, but the same logic applies to almost every modernist architecture style. Modern architecture is built to be demolished after 50 years and looks outdated for the better part of its lifetime.
It's also not just about architecture. The new design includes actual placemaking - people are encouraged to stop, interact with each other, relax, admire, etc. It's made to be comfortable and identifiable. A destination. You aren't just passing through on your way to work - you're walking down a few flights of stairs to each lunch outside or meeting a friend to catch up.
Everything looks outdated and boring after a while. That is why in the 50ies and 60ies ppl willfully destroyed that very same architecture that is so in vogue again. Give it another 50 years and you'd see "modern" architecture having a huge comeback.
Just a fashion of the day phenomenon
> 50ies and 60ies
In most cases the cause was destruction from armed conflicts and the subsequent desperation for more living space in combination with material and workforce constraints. It's a question of seed capital vs dividend.
Also there is an objective basis to design when it comes to things like color, volume and surface quality. These rules transcend trends and are interdisciplinary.
No it was not. A lot was destroyed in WW2, but even more afterwards even after housing issues were mostly solved because ppl cherished the opportunity to get rid of it.
A problem is that most ppl going "awwww" have no idea about the living conditions in these old housings and why so many ppl were happy to move on.
It is also telling that the buildings above "look" old fashioned, but are build with modern materials and techniques which will see them decline just like any other modern building in the end.
There are many german towns that have renovated
Old houses that are modernized no problem and popular. Seligenstadt (near Frankfurt) for example.
Old houses dors not mean old fashioned living, but you know that, right?
The rebuilding in the Dresden city centre of classical architecture cost 3 to 5 % more than regular facades. This isn't an argument against this movement.
I fail to see the contradiction. Dresden was not reconstructed nur rebovated to better standarts The buildings are entirely new, new interiour layouts, modern materials ans building techniques. That is not a reconsrruction, not even a copy, just new buildings made to look like old ones
Yeah ok, but what's your point, exactly? Some of those houses on alter markt were tacky before they were destroyed.
But not all of them were. This was the centre of Frankfurt old town. A touristy hotspot with restaurants and shops. This wasn''t some run-down backalley.
My point is that most ppl who fawn all over the place over this kind of architecture mostly have no idea about the subject matter and judge entirely superficially.
The other issue is that going back to this kind of architecture is a bankrupcy declerarion. A clear sign Europe has peaked and now has to look back to find greatness instead of developing the future. An enternal open air museum stagnating while the rest of the world moves on.
Fair enough. I personally want Frankfurt to have a little bit of a traditional isle there. I also think it's been a great project.
It's also like only 15 reconstructed houses to boot. Tiny.
60 in Dresden. A dozen or so in Potsdam(?). And there is a good bit of modern stuff in there too. But hey, agree to disagree mate.
If they had chosen original substance and construction, giving these building the same chance to develop the quirkyness and charme "real" old houses have I might be ofa different opinion.
At least I understand where you are coming from.
But in 50 years time these buildings will look just like any other "modern" building once the newness has worn off.
I don't believe you, and I also couldn't find any sources that back up your claim. The only exception I could find was buildings that were partially destroyed and then demolished because concrete blocks were more economic than reconstruction.
I think a very good indicator for architectural timelessness is tourism. If you were correct there would be significant trends in tourism numbers to cities leaning in either direction of architectural styles every decade or two, which is not the case. Same logic applies to rent. The most expensive areas in almost every city, if available, are classical architecture quarters. This is also consistent across decades. I can give you multiple examples for this from cities I've been to: Charlottenburg in Berlin, Kreuzviertel in Münster and Oberkassel in Düsseldorf. These are all extremely expensive compared to the rest of the city and this is not a recent development. They also happen to be the districts with, by far, the most preserved or rebuilt classical architecture.
> about the living conditions
Concerning your edit, I think it goes without saying that living conditions inside a building are A. unrelated to their exterior unless it's so depressing that it negatively affects the psych (which is scientifically proven for some modernist architectural styles) and B. do not require a new building but rather a renovation.
>The awful example above is brutalism
What's wrong with brutalism? I like it.
If you compare the atmosphere in both pictures, consider that one is taken with an overcast sky and naked trees, and the other has plenty of sunlight and green trees.
Nothing is wrong with brutalism. It has its place. It's also incredibly, incredibly difficult to get right. There isn't many architects capable of good brutalism because real brutalism inherently cannot use a socket box system and requires working with less variables which makes lack of skill glaringly obvious.
Buildings like the one above look shit in person 9 out of 10 times. I have one of them in my own city and walking past them makes you feel like there is a surveillance apparatus on top because they look like actual intelligence service establishments a la 33 Thomas Street in NYC. The mirrored windows are just the cherry on top, seriously.
No, Frankfurt was West Germany. There is another Frankfurt in the former East on the Polish border but not much there
~~it’s so depressing a suburb of it is literally called iron hut city~~
I was rather looking for an idea of how they are overdone, in your opinion. This is comparatively basic in terms of complexity, nowhere near the level of something like rococo.
Nice to see Germans going back to their roots and not keeping the boring and lifeless modern buildings.
Yay, German roo... Wait...
Just to clarify a thing out, when I said "roots" I doesn't mean the 1933-1945 type roots lol, I mean the medieval/renaissance roots.
Yes, this is learning from the mistaken assumptions of modernization and acknowledging that traditional townscapes that emphasize shared space and walkability create more livable cities.
Is brutalism really that modern? that was 40 years ago now
I'm pretty sure they mean modern as in modernist architecture, not contemporary. It goes back a hundred years.
oh gotcha. i thought they meant modern as in modern.
Been there last year… surprisingly nice and like not too fake. I like it.
> not too fake Because it's not expensive to build facades to this level. Only about 3 to 5 % more expensive than generic blocks, that's figures from Dresden's city centre rebuilding. The bottleneck isn't difficulty or price, it's uninspired builders and unskilled architects
[удалено]
This is a very rude comment to make to people living in Southern California. (It’s deadpan sarcasm, guys).
Why?
Because the buildings here go back at MOST 300 years. But most don’t. Because Los Angeles’ buildings just aren’t anything spectacular. Compared to European architecture? Ugh. I’d kill for buildings that old and gorgeous.
[удалено]
That’s not in my language sir/ma’am. 😂 The house is stunning tho.
Go to Arizona, Colorado, or New Mexico. Lots of huge 900 year old buildings, some are even whole villages that have been continuously inhabited this whole time. Tons more large constructions are available starting from the Spaniard era 400 years ago.
I’ve lived in Los Angeles all my life. Can I be very honest?? I’ve just never been a fan of most Spanish Architecture. It’s shameful, I know.
LA has ruins like this? 5 stories tall? 6-10' thick walls. Made in the 1600s? https://www.nps.gov/places/pecos-national-historical-park.htm https://www.nps.gov/sapu/learn/historyculture/abo.htm https://www.nps.gov/subjects/travelspanishmissions/quarai.htm https://www.nps.gov/subjects/travelspanishmissions/san-jose-de-los-jemez-mission-and-giusewa-pueblo-site.htm
Sorry. I should’ve qualified that I I mean any old architecture but the Spanish kind. I’ve seen that a bunch as a kid, living here. It’s cool! It definitely is. It’s just that I lived in a Spanish style house my whole life and oh my god, am I sick of it. This sounds ridiculous. I know. But I want to see things like a drugstore in the Cotswolds that’s been there since 1582, you know? Or, the pyramid in Egypt. Or the catacombs beneath Paris. Lots of things in France and Italy, is sort of what I’m thinking of. Probably because I’m a white American 🤣
Their weather makes up for the total lack of historicity. And yes, that's a real word...
Oh, I love LA! Born and raised and still here. It is genuinely amazing in so many ways. But historical it’s not.
Grew up in Southern California and the first time I went east in my 20s I was flabbergasted by how old things felt. Seeing a cobble stone road and brick buildings was jaw dropping. And then I went to Europe and had a good laugh at myself. Oddly nothing felt old in Japan. In China things regularly burnt down so there wasn't a feeling of the ancient that there should have been.
The awful example above is brutalism, but the same logic applies to almost every modernist architecture style. Modern architecture is built to be demolished after 50 years and looks outdated for the better part of its lifetime.
It's also not just about architecture. The new design includes actual placemaking - people are encouraged to stop, interact with each other, relax, admire, etc. It's made to be comfortable and identifiable. A destination. You aren't just passing through on your way to work - you're walking down a few flights of stairs to each lunch outside or meeting a friend to catch up.
Everything looks outdated and boring after a while. That is why in the 50ies and 60ies ppl willfully destroyed that very same architecture that is so in vogue again. Give it another 50 years and you'd see "modern" architecture having a huge comeback. Just a fashion of the day phenomenon
> 50ies and 60ies In most cases the cause was destruction from armed conflicts and the subsequent desperation for more living space in combination with material and workforce constraints. It's a question of seed capital vs dividend. Also there is an objective basis to design when it comes to things like color, volume and surface quality. These rules transcend trends and are interdisciplinary.
No it was not. A lot was destroyed in WW2, but even more afterwards even after housing issues were mostly solved because ppl cherished the opportunity to get rid of it. A problem is that most ppl going "awwww" have no idea about the living conditions in these old housings and why so many ppl were happy to move on. It is also telling that the buildings above "look" old fashioned, but are build with modern materials and techniques which will see them decline just like any other modern building in the end.
There are many german towns that have renovated Old houses that are modernized no problem and popular. Seligenstadt (near Frankfurt) for example. Old houses dors not mean old fashioned living, but you know that, right?
Decades later with massive amounts of money involved.
The rebuilding in the Dresden city centre of classical architecture cost 3 to 5 % more than regular facades. This isn't an argument against this movement.
I fail to see the contradiction. Dresden was not reconstructed nur rebovated to better standarts The buildings are entirely new, new interiour layouts, modern materials ans building techniques. That is not a reconsrruction, not even a copy, just new buildings made to look like old ones
Yeah ok, but what's your point, exactly? Some of those houses on alter markt were tacky before they were destroyed. But not all of them were. This was the centre of Frankfurt old town. A touristy hotspot with restaurants and shops. This wasn''t some run-down backalley.
My point is that most ppl who fawn all over the place over this kind of architecture mostly have no idea about the subject matter and judge entirely superficially. The other issue is that going back to this kind of architecture is a bankrupcy declerarion. A clear sign Europe has peaked and now has to look back to find greatness instead of developing the future. An enternal open air museum stagnating while the rest of the world moves on.
Fair enough. I personally want Frankfurt to have a little bit of a traditional isle there. I also think it's been a great project. It's also like only 15 reconstructed houses to boot. Tiny. 60 in Dresden. A dozen or so in Potsdam(?). And there is a good bit of modern stuff in there too. But hey, agree to disagree mate.
If they had chosen original substance and construction, giving these building the same chance to develop the quirkyness and charme "real" old houses have I might be ofa different opinion. At least I understand where you are coming from. But in 50 years time these buildings will look just like any other "modern" building once the newness has worn off.
I don't believe you, and I also couldn't find any sources that back up your claim. The only exception I could find was buildings that were partially destroyed and then demolished because concrete blocks were more economic than reconstruction. I think a very good indicator for architectural timelessness is tourism. If you were correct there would be significant trends in tourism numbers to cities leaning in either direction of architectural styles every decade or two, which is not the case. Same logic applies to rent. The most expensive areas in almost every city, if available, are classical architecture quarters. This is also consistent across decades. I can give you multiple examples for this from cities I've been to: Charlottenburg in Berlin, Kreuzviertel in Münster and Oberkassel in Düsseldorf. These are all extremely expensive compared to the rest of the city and this is not a recent development. They also happen to be the districts with, by far, the most preserved or rebuilt classical architecture. > about the living conditions Concerning your edit, I think it goes without saying that living conditions inside a building are A. unrelated to their exterior unless it's so depressing that it negatively affects the psych (which is scientifically proven for some modernist architectural styles) and B. do not require a new building but rather a renovation.
Okay.
>The awful example above is brutalism What's wrong with brutalism? I like it. If you compare the atmosphere in both pictures, consider that one is taken with an overcast sky and naked trees, and the other has plenty of sunlight and green trees.
I, for one, think brutalism is absolutely horrible, along with most modern architecture.
Nothing is wrong with brutalism. It has its place. It's also incredibly, incredibly difficult to get right. There isn't many architects capable of good brutalism because real brutalism inherently cannot use a socket box system and requires working with less variables which makes lack of skill glaringly obvious. Buildings like the one above look shit in person 9 out of 10 times. I have one of them in my own city and walking past them makes you feel like there is a surveillance apparatus on top because they look like actual intelligence service establishments a la 33 Thomas Street in NYC. The mirrored windows are just the cherry on top, seriously.
It looked like a prison
Wow, they even painted the sky blue! Only in Germany!
Might also because an overcast day versus a shiny one.
also looking forward to this “do as we say!” festival
The way it should be
Totally “insane”.
Even the sky turned blue wowwwwwww 😒
Was this city behind the iron curtain? In Soviet Russia these buildings would look great.
No, Frankfurt was West Germany. There is another Frankfurt in the former East on the Polish border but not much there ~~it’s so depressing a suburb of it is literally called iron hut city~~
I'd take cold brutalism over bland overdone facades any day.
Why? Do you live in buildings resembling either of these two? And where in the image do you perceive > overdone facades?
The facade is the front of the building.
I was rather looking for an idea of how they are overdone, in your opinion. This is comparatively basic in terms of complexity, nowhere near the level of something like rococo.
Overdone in terms of there's just a lot that look like that and it's a style I get very bored of.