What do you think about government subsidizing architecture to bring back beauty?

What do you think about government subsidizing architecture to bring back beauty?

Beautiful architecture 95% of the time doesnt get built due to the costs being too high for the client to afford or make desired profits on.

Attached: mbnkjnl.jpg (464x575, 49K)

This is what all architecture will look like in 2050, and it's beautiful!

Attached: PoMo.jpg (3000x2058, 472K)

it's toronto beautiful, only a nuke can save it now

It looks like a nice building that grew an alien tumor.

Bring back brutalist architecture

>What do you think about government subsidizing architecture to bring back beauty?
Because they think Post modernist shit is beautiful so You'll end up with houses like PoMo above or pic related.

Attached: Huddinge_sjukhus_ingÄng.jpg (2104x1334, 532K)

Gothic architecture is really the best imo. Hellenic being a close 2nd.

Attached: gothic-cathedrals-06.jpg (640x427, 104K)

How about art deco and art nouveau?

beauty isn't efficient. who gives a fuck what it looks like, just use the building

>HURRRRRE GUVERMUNT WILL SAVE USS

Fuck off commie. If we needed old fashioned architrcture there would be enough free market demand for it to make it happen.

>goverment
>u mean my taxes

no, i don't think it's a good idea. put my taxes in CSIRO or cure cancer.

>tfw modern brutalism is my favorite

Brutalist never went away, because thats what buildings do, they stay standing.
It looks like shit.
Far too many places look like It's boring, soulless and corporate

As menioned, what's in your picture is pretty brutalist. That's what this kind of program is trying to avoid

>What do you think about government subsidizing
Aussie shitposting has really gone downhill.

Oh, and sage for slide threads.

They're both really nice though art nouveau interiors can be a bit surreal for my taste at times. I think for a home though, I'd like the interior to be in somewhat of the Hemingway style. Fine woodwork is more comfy to me.

Fuck that mod that moved the last thread.

do you have bare concrete floors and walls in your house too? Is your garden an ash wasteland?
heck those might be true but then i'd feel sorry for you.

We are not robots, life is about more than just efficiency.

Also, architecture has provable effects on human psychology, and thus indirect effects on crime rates, work efficiency, and general morale of populace. Its an area thats often overlooked because it involves longterm planning which corporations suck at

>It's boring, soulless and corporate
That is what we get when politicians fiddle with artsy design. Here is the latest art installment in Malmoe, ie exactly what you get if Swedish politicians spend more money on art.
Because of that I say no, although I like your idea on a conceptual level.

Attached: W8mgOLXZwHyvlrzF8KzO4ogK9SY.jpg (599x337, 39K)

Government should have an aesthetics minister and department which went around the country marking ugly things for demolition and fining people who build visually offensive rubbish.

Literally everything in this post is wrong at every layer of analysis and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Would be a good thing, the externalities of architecture are enormous. Every building that you can see from the street is essentially a museum of culture, and public/commercial buildings especially should be required by law to follow certain standards.
don't listen to this uncultured hick

Great architecture!

It says to me "GET FUCKED" in a very beautiful post-modern cryptic touch

Fucker.

Cant let it look like pol has productive discussions.

This is the problem. People outside the industry are too unaware of the ramifications of architecture to have productive discussions to solve problems.