Why did liberals ruin our cities with Modern architecture...

>That isn't "old" architecture, it's purposefully archaising Neo-Gothic rubbish from the late 19th Century.
Fuck off it's way better than brutalist concrete boxes

We have the best materials ever yet will build the ugliest buildings that are just different shaped boxes with no details or ornaments

you're acting like most people don't already agree that brutalism was a mistake

True, but we're not moving back to buildings with lots of symbolism and ornaments either, now we just build using glass and steel which people will probably hate in an few decades anyways

There are two main reasons.

The first is pretty simple and straightforward - concrete boxes are cheap and fast to build.

The second is more insidious, and is the reason why even now that we aren't making concrete boxes very often any more, we have moved on to similarly uniform glass towers and "modern" architecture that looks like an abstract art piece.
Architecture is an important part of a nation's identity.
There was a point where you could look at building and tell which people built it, or which people's architecture it was influenced by.
Architecture used to be far more distinct and unique.
If you look at a modern building, you can't tell whether it's from London or from Abu Dhabi, from Beijing or Nairobi.
It's done to erase part of a nation's identity, so that nations themselves can eventually be abolished.

>It's done to erase part of a nation's identity, so that nations themselves can eventually be abolished.
A liberals wet dream

>Old good
>Concrete bad

Attached: 1549209186299.gif (452x371, 59K)

>so that nations themselves can eventually be abolished.
It's definitely something to aspire to

Attached: 863555878.jpg (386x600, 50K)

Well yeah no one wants to live in concrete neighborhoods not even the architects they always become poorfag parts of town and get a high crime rate

Who's going to be making all those arches and stonery, there's no skilled masons around anymore
Who's going to pay all those masons for all those arches? There's no project time or budget to do that anymore

It's just simple, architects CAN design gothic buildings. It's just that no one can realistically build them

Attached: 1551830440173.jpg (865x865, 76K)

Yes, we are definitely on the path to fucking Star Trek.

In my mind it's the concrete box of its time.

Most of the detail is cheaply made in factories not handcrafted by masons, you can also shape concrete to look like stone cheaply anyways so the cost isnt that much higher

well Mad Max is also without nation states

Most of the "old" buildings that get shown off in threads like this are "neo-gothic," which was the aping of Gothic style with modern engineering.
There's nothing inspired about them, you can find the same soulless copies of real architectural marvels that took decades to build everywhere from Finland to New Zealand.

>society where water and oil are incredibly scarce
vs
>utopian space-faring society with replicators that can assemble meals, raw materials, etc in a few seconds
these things are what brought upon their governments, not the other way around. also this is fiction cherry-picked from different franchises.

It's a joke, it's a meme lad

Melbourne Australia is a shithole in terms of architecture. While walking through the streets, I spotted an antique probably late 1800's building, a more mid 2000's style concrete box, and a weird-arse piece of modern shit; These were all side by side.

Nothing shits me more than a street of wildly inconsistent style.

sure but one is literally a concrete box and the other one isn't

I visited Melbourne for the first time this year and you're a philistine. The archetecture's wonderful, easily the best major city in Australia. It's like walking through a museum.
Shame about the crowds though.
Also I only saw one crowd protesting an inconsequential issue, I expected more.
And China Town kind of smells, but that's the Chink's fault not yours.

don't move the goalposts. images like that only serve to jerk off people who already support their ideology.

>images like that only serve to jerk off people who already support their ideology.
wow. I'm spending too much time on the internet.

Yes, but they are 'impossibles' that can be possible due to modern technology.
So it's not really designed to look good aestetically but engineeringly (or whatever the word is ).

partially this, if you faggots don't think there's an effort to make most people conform at be controlled you arent paying attention enough or arent exposed to the braindead thinking most normies have

Indeed Modern architecture has a strong resemblance to facist architecture theyre both soul crushing and imposing

I long agreed with the popular opinion that brutalism is awful but I think I'm acquiring a taste for it. It's just so "well, fuck you, here it is, the building you asked for," you know? It is very manly design.

Yeah, the architecture would be nice if they could make it consistent.

>It is very manly design.
So you think having no symbolism and not showing off your cultural heritage and instead being a international zombie is manly?

Bad goy, international architecture good, traditional architecture bad

Attached: DNtZW5KW0AAz2uH.jpg_largeb.jpg (1474x1827, 503K)

As a fan of baroque and such styles I must admit that there are some more modernist types that look quite good too. For example the Prarie Houses of Frank Lloyd Wright or his most famous i think Waterfall House.
Modern architecture still can look good, but most of the shit you will learn on architecture unis is now "dynamic" or "concrete architecture" and thats why it looks so bad.

That's one loaded question, my dude.

Architecturally would be the proper word, but your argument is shit. Buildings are not only for utilitarian purposes, but they also show off skill and beauty of an artisan. We need more aesthetics in our society.

Your argument is even more shit. It assumes that somehow as a society we agreed that the new design is shit and just go with it because it's cheaper or whatever. I for one, like the new design of buildings and, can appreciate it while also being amazed at the design of the older stuff. I also don't give a shit about some retarded "cultural heritage" or "globalism" because I'm not a little bitch. Why is it a bad thing that we are doing things differently now than a few hundred years ago? For me, it should be something celebrated.

>fascist architecture is soul crushing
Not quite. Brutalism is the term that you are looking for, and that style of architecture is uniquely communistic. Fascist architecture inspires awe.

Attached: DyuTj5B.jpg (1048x1200, 188K)

>Provides a picture with the main focus on a group of people
>Talks about Fascist architecture
Jow Forums will never stop amazing me with their mental deficiency.

are you autistic by any chance? Or just plain retarded?

The new styles of architecture ARE cheap and it IS ugly. In fact, if you knew anything about construction (which I'm sure you don't), you'd know that modern architecture is designed to be easily torn down and replaced instead of designed to last. Subsequently, no one puts any effort into the buildings they make because they use cheap as fuck materials and shit labor to build cheap homes and such quickly.

Attached: 100102_Paris_Notre Dame Cathedral (Cathedrale de Notre Dame de Paris)_d479-510.jpg (742x525, 65K)

>Why did liberals ruin our cities with Modern architecture?
Because faggots blew them up during wars or they stopped being maintained. Old buildings also waste a lot of space and in cities with an increasing population that can cost millions

They look horrible before, not everyone thinks like you retarded "old is good new is bad" crybaby

>not knowing what the cathedral of light was
Go be a brainlet somewhere else.

Attached: 290px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1982-1130-502,_N?rnberg,_Reichsparteitag,_Lichtdom.jpg (289x204, 16K)

I don't get how it's liberals when the major problem with liberals is that they want to save every building as a historical landmark and forces people to go homeless.
Conservatives like to tear shit down and build more efficient buildings so business can thrive.

>inspire awe
I'm laughing right now

>this inspire awe

Gothic architecture looks really cool but tastes in design change over time it's just a fact of life. This new style shit looks way better to my zoomer eyes than cottages

This is r9k, my dude. Most people here don't actually know shit about politics and are just reactionary "anti-SJW" fags. Everything is the "libtards" fault according to them.

It was liberals, gays, non-whites, and women that did this.

Indeed, it was supposed to. I imagine you don't feel awed by much, you brainless goyim consumer.

youtu.be/gxvFc3kN_6w

You're the one enlightened in your room wanking alone ;)

>Is amazed by building that was supposed to enforce fear and respect in people so they could be more easily controlled by the Nazi party
>Tells other people how they are being controlled by "da jewz".

>if it doesn't make you feel like I say you are this and that
definitely retarded

>implying the definition of awe isn't fear and reverence
It's ok if English is your second language, consumers.
Actually, I masturbate in my living room on my lakefront home. Thanks for acknowledging that I'm enlightened though, I appreciate the recognition.

Attached: 1549256902504-pol.jpg (550x412, 73K)

Where the fuck did I say awe isn't fear and reverence?

Something that is soul crushing and imposing doesn't inspire awe, it only intimidates, which is why I disagreed with this assessment: Brutalism, as previously mentioned, is intentionally meant to be bleak, lifeless, and uniform. Contrast this with Speer's work, which was meant to inspire and motivate the German people, which is something brutalism has never made an effort to do.

> they looked horrible before
What causes a person to think like this? Do they just have bad tastes or is it some sort of sinister underlying psychology?

>maaaah libuuuls

Either contrarianisnm or an aversion to complexity, I suppose. Alternatively, a lot of people have been conditioned to hate this sort of architecture because it's now only associated with the rich and influential, as those sort of types are the only ones who maintain or produce the old style of architecture. No accounting for taste, I suppose.

I think they are just contrarian. Nobody in their right mind could say that they looked worse before. If they do genuinely believe this, they have incredibly low sensitivity for aestheticism and find the newer architecture better simply because they can understand it better.

most of this shit sprung up in the 60s and 70s, only a couple of decades after the most devastating conflict in human history, caused in large part by nationalistic autism, so even if I don't agree with the decision, i can see where the motivation came from

I unironically endorse the need to start building modern structures in a Greco-Roman style.

That probably looks like shit when it isn't filled with people

>most of this shit sprung up in the 60s and 70s, only a couple of decades after the most devastating conflict in human history, caused in large part by nationalistic autism, so even if I don't agree with the decision, i can see where the motivation came from
I agree, but why not use international symbolism instead of a bleak and shitty house that everyone is going to hate

Its not just the architecture but the entire design of cities has changed to a heavily regulated and almost "factory floor division" of zones. Obviously we couldnt stick to the more organic way of town planning in the modern age and the boomers from after the war thought they were making it highly efficient and easy to manage and control. Now you have dead streets no one walks on, suburbs that nearly all produce tax deficits from extremely high maintenance, heavy traffic from division of commercial and residential zones causing everyone to funnel into "commuter tunnels" to these commercial zones. not only that but in many places you literally cant do anything without a car since your residential area is too far to walk to the commercial one. Luckily in older places like europe the older way is still fully used (in certain places) or mixed with a more modern format. New public spaces like squares dont exist, shops and restaurants are pushed into shopping malls. More and more town planners are realizing though that either they or the boomers before them were retarded and now include more pedestrian focused spaces rather than automobile focused.

Attached: urban-sprawl.jpg (793x631, 184K)

I don't think its so much that modern architecture is bad as much as it is badly sectioned. Zones should be made for skyscrapers such that sprawl can be curtailed and green space increased without interfering with historical architecture. Modern construction design and architecture has virtually nothing to do with liberalism by the way - if anything more a modernist principal of rejuvenation a la mass production w/ simultaneous modernization, of course that doesn't save countless examples (see Peterlee town centre, Manchester's 'Hulme', Sheffield's 'Park Hill' etc.) from being poorly designed and executed, never-mind devoid of aesthetic. Also;

"They said that the old architecture with a lot of symbolism and meaning was racist" Who said this? Are there any examples?

Attached: 1551343863327.png (1120x608, 1.1M)

After WW2 the idea was to build cheap and build fast. That's all there is to it.
I live near Exeter and there was a lot of this, though a lot of renovation is being done these days. Much brighter

However... I miss the 90s

on what part of the spectrum are you? Just asking

They are simply not practical and too big for modern cities, but hey let's build a church who will take forever to build 'cause of useless complexities and take the space (and resources) of 3 buildings

Do you live in a castle?

>Obviously we couldnt stick to the more organic way of town planning in the modern age
organic city planning died in antique, fucking metopotamians planned their cities
after the roman empire fell it came back to around 1200 a.d and from that time every new city was pretty much planned from start to end, there was no organic cities just popping out of nowhere

and to the fucking retards with their "woke" theories about liberals wanting to eradicate nations with modernist architecture: you are fucking stupid
modernism was established in the first place to better the conditions of living that were complete shit before
ofc none of you would hear about Athens Charter because you only watch some faggots on yt that know nothing about architecture and you think that you understand everything now
designing anything now without the context of place/nation/culture is impossible because you will be rejected in the first stage of any contest, the only problem with this is that no ordinary person that doesnt sit in this shit all the time will ever notice the details and context that a designer had in mind, because the abstract "motion and dynamism" is now promoted
so yeah ofc it all looks almost the same but if you were to look a bit closer into details and technology, materials you would know that shit built in japan is nothing like in china or god forbid in europe
you are all just too uninformed to notice it and that not a problem at all, someone that doesnt give a shit about cars wont notice many different details about them

>cheap
>imblying

Attached: IMG_20190306_003338_318.jpg (1200x1033, 264K)

Wait those ugly ass modern buildings really cost that much jesus christ they look like a 5yr drew them

All cities have been planned since basically a city was a thing, organic is a term used for cities with less restrictions and allowed more freedom to develop how they wanted not a city that did whatever with no rules governing them that sprouted from the ground

this is an imageboard you retard.
use an image.

Modern planning is horrible and the neighborhoods feel super empty compared to old style planning

Attached: aerial-view-estate-of-buildings-made-stock-photo__iblblo03091012.jpg (450x319, 54K)

Building those older styled building is cheaper than people think. They last longer and are more energy efficient in terms of cooling and heating

It's just not the same. What makes a lot of Greek and Roman architecture so special is that it was a truly communal project like the Parthenon or a testament to an individual's wealth and power like the works of the Roman Emperors.
Having faceless companies erect modern concrete mockeries with powertools and laser measurements detracts from what makes them valuable, the time and worthy labour that went into them.
Building in ancient styles without using ancient techniques is soulless.

modernism and minimalism are nothing but excuses for lack of creativity. Liberals, modernists and (((them))) do not possess any ability to create something beautiful and cultural so they must corrupt, destroy and simplify to compete

Attached: 1551893177653.jpg (430x600, 108K)

Interesting, this makes me hate Modern architecture even more due to it often times being more expensive

>do not possess any ability to create something beautiful and cultural so they must corrupt, destroy and simplify to compete
Just like the Nazis. Hitler and his goons are just another symptom of the disease of modernism.

>socialist society
>futuristic spaceship
>there are lowbrows out there that actually believe this

Attached: 59c1f74897a91.jpg (1003x1310, 187K)

you can know you are getting rused when you ask why would anyone intentionally make a worse looking building that costs more

The only time these modern buildings can actually beat old ones is when they are super cheaply built, which then crumble in 30 years or need constant maintenance and refurbishment every 10 ,basically plattenbau housing.

>Nazis don't create. They're just like the communists
sterilize yourself

Attached: Germania.jpg (1775x1197, 301K)

Because old architecture is basically the patriarchy's idea of what cities should look like and some people don't approve of that

It's also a waste of public resources of maintenance and repair when something looks overly elaborate instead of just functional

Because modern architecture is people jerking off.
>Look at how unstable I can make it look and it still stands up!
Like children stacking rocks.

they built some killer gay nightclubs

Attached: gaydolf.png (1352x1071, 745K)

i think one of the benefits of internationalism is that it allows people to peer into other cultures much more easily than ever before.

i think this post-modern architecture is garbage. i am more into the idea of a general human architecture. it is not architecture that is without symbols and beauty. but it is architecture that is made to please human eye. it should have many different shapes and ornaments that imitate nature's shape.

this general human architecture should be made in co-operation with neurologists, psychologists and historians.

That's just copy paste which is one of the reasons I hate modern neighborhoods everything looks the same

Recycled neo-classical garbage made with concrete. There's nothing creative about this.

more like
>extreme scarcity society
vs
>post scarcity society (for the most part anyway)
and we all know which one socialism creates in the end

Attached: starving-venezuelans-butcher-pet-dogs-for-meat-photos-promo-image.jpg (1200x797, 199K)

Who are you quoting matey?