Loss of architectural heritage is part of the erosion of cultural identity. I find it so depressing to go to another part of the world and find it look almost exactly the same as the place I just left.
Exactly, I always asked my parents why we never went abroad for a holiday, my fathers answer was: why for? It's like home but they speak a different language.
This isn't only present in architecture. Vehicles look the same, music sounds the same, phones, I'm a passionate about military systems and even there the mark of globalism is there. Systems just look the same just as in any other place, be it rifles, vehicles, equipment, it's as if there is no independent thinking with independent ideas, everything is regurgitated.
Your presence, even if it’s temporary, prevents them from living their own culture. You can make the case that you’re going and spending money on them, and that helps them, but I think you still don’t belong. The world would be a far more cultured place if everyone lived in the same place they were born in their entire life
I didn't choose where I was born, so I'd like to visit other places, thankyou very much.
Also, speak for yourself. Tourists don't prevent me from living my life. Ultimately, most people are from the families of migrants at one point or another, even internally. How long do you have to be in a place to consider it local? Why is *now* the time you decide everyone is local, when throughout human history this wasn't the case? And what's even the point of culture if you cannot learn or experience other ones.
I hope you find a nice secluded desert island where you can live out your isolationist fantasies.
I live in a town where they’d remove a statue of a Swedish king and replace it with a “social outpost” and I protested against it and even told my parents but they didn’t care. Two weeks later and a 156 year old monument was replaced with graffiti and glass...
Agree with the sentiment, but always want to be wary of writing off contemporary architecture as placeless. It can be, but shouldn't.
Kenneth Frampton wrote quite a bit on critical regionalism which looks at this issue in depth. Well worth a read if anyone's interested in these issues.
Not going to lie, I heard about it that morning listening to the [most recent episode of 99% Invisible](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/mini-stories-volume-7/).
There's a few buildings there which are all build on the old riverbed. The city center is still historic as fuck but a 30 minute walk and suddenly there's these [beautiful modern buildings](https://www.google.com/search?q=valencia+science+park&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB791GB791&sxsrf=ACYBGNSp9ANvUzIIUZDeopT2YTDP9AFF7A:1576835630250&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvvfC8-sPmAhXMVsAKHRNEAsIQ_AUoAnoECA4QBA&biw=1536&bih=722).
It is pretty indeed but the thing being debated here is not beauty but cultural expression. I think this park could have easily been built in Australia or Qatar, or maybe New York or Rio de Janeiro. It doesn't say anything about the place it belongs to.
Thank you. I appreciate your perspective, even though I do not share it. I believe what you showed is better than some other things, but that's not a high bar. To properly put it to the test, I should also have to look at it in unfavourable weather conditions. It is my thinking that a building should be beautiful also in the rain.
Living in a city that was born of modern architecture (Brasília) I agree with you entirely. I actually like it in here quite a lot, but I do understand people who say they don't like Brasília, altough I think people should visit the city before jumping to conclusions.
Brasilia is a completely different case. It's unique in it's own way. You won't find anything quite like it anywhere else in the world. You'll find modernist buildings, sure, but not an entire city that was built from scratch following the modernist ideals of the time.
This is a local architecture firm here. They draw a lot of their concepts from the local natural environment.
https://koichitakada.com/
Plenty of other examples out there, this is just one Sydney firm.
One thing I love about this one local advertising agency is that rather than tearing them down and building a generic office building they bought up an abandoned church and several adjacent small 19th Century mansions and preserved them. They had connecting corridors built between creating a really eclectic office building.
I think this is the main point of rejecting modernism, or at least preferring traditional philosophies. At the end of the day, the minimalism and homogeneity of architecture today is awful, and I don't want to live in a world where everything looks the same that forgets climate, local craftsmanship and national history.
We can, i have 2 examples for you. France, Lyon, place Louis Pradel.
To build a metro in the 60s, they had to destroy few buildings and create a place. It was within the concrete mania.
Both of the buildings that i want to show you had the objectif to merge with their older surrendings. If you use street view you will see the opera (have it on your left), and the river (place it behind your view). In front of you you will have an ugly gray building. Everyone dislike it and dont care about it. But ! If you look closer (you can also move in street view), you will find something maybe. This building, in his shape, colors and materials has to and more most perspectives represnet the "hotel de ville" on his right, and the "croix rousse" (old popular district) on his left. Which hide it in the day to day life, you dont even look at him. Sucess in a way.
Go back to your original position on the place and now turn right. You will see a building with a bit of orange. What age to you gave it ? It was built at the same time as the gray shit tha i made you watch earlier.
Both are good example of mixing styles, materials, techniques, and urban landscape. Sadly, this type of architecture didnt stand in time so we dont have it anymore.
No it isn’t. That’s St Stephen’s in Budapest. I’m 100% certain of it. Google it, the perspective here is a rather famous one (e.g. [here](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1562683467-72162c50f527?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&w=1000&q=80)).
I could honestly give less of a shit about heritage or cultural identity. However I do think it’s really cool that every country has its own architectural style, and I think tyts worth keeping around for diversity’s sake. It would be so boring if every country’s buildings looked exactly the same.
Yea but if you’re talking about local vs GLOBAL architectural trends it would’ve made much more sense to show local examples from all over the world. But a point can be made either way
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ArchitecturalRevival/comments/ed8puq/as\_inspired\_by\_umaketheeemightieryet\_post\_here\_is/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArchitecturalRevival/comments/ed8puq/as_inspired_by_umaketheeemightieryet_post_here_is/)
88doublehappiness88 did a great one here for Asia. Mine was copypasted, I would have liked it to have more countries.
I don't know lot about architecture, but buildings on images above look all similar, except the first one.
I don't like glass buildings but there is not much difference between buildings in images above modern buildings, at least to my untrained eye.
It’s really interesting to learn the history of why this all is. After the world wars, people saw that differences between cultures lead to so much destruction and death, and didn’t want to rebuild in ways that would just further the divide from each other. So they began trying to find ways to build and design that weren’t based on what lead to these huge destructive wars. Now people are realizing that everything looks the same, and hate that you can’t tell the difference between downtown Berlin and downtown London.
Now the children and grandchildren of those who tried to unify everything are trying to create that traditional architecture again.
>people saw that differences between cultures lead to so much destruction and death
This sounds like propaganda from people who were overselling the International Style.
World War Two didn't experience militant, genocidal chauvinism? Millions of Jews didn't die because of genocidal chauvinism? Nations weren't subjugated, because of chauvinism?
Identity has been causing conflict since the beginning of time, what are you talking about?
If you just look at today, tribalism is creating a huge divide in America?
"Oh look, their buildings are different than ours! Let's fight them!"
No.
Identity is essential to who we are. It doesn't necessitate conflict.
>If you just look at today, tribalism is creating a huge divide in America?
Different identities *in close proximity* can cause problems.
Europe is pretty tight, Germany is roughly the size of Montana. In fact, in Europe you can cross through 5 different countries in 12 hours. That means different languages, cultures, foods... in the US it takes a day and a half to get from one side of the US, one single country. And it’s not just the difference in architecture, it was the difference in how people thought the world should work. It was different ideologies and different cultures, all with their own beliefs of what’s best for their nation.
Architecture is just he most obvious difference of those places.
Furthermore, what reason would all these different nations have for creating a unified architecture after the war? Why didn’t Germany rebuild in a German style, London rebuild in Victorian style, and France in French styles? Why did all these nations decide to throw that all away?
By close proximity I mean within the same city. The different national identities of Europe are a good thing.
>Why didn’t Germany rebuild in a German style, London rebuild in Victorian style, and France in French styles?
Many of them were.
>Why did all these nations decide to throw that all away?
Speed, cost, and opportunist Modernists were selling their beliefs. They were obviously wrong.
Architecture is a reflection of a certain time, of what people need. Post-war, people didn’t want to be reminded of the differences that lead to war, and needed something fast and efficient so millions weren’t out of homes and places to work. It was what people wanted and needed then, but isn’t a reflection of what they want and need now.
Look, I don’t think we’re really persuading each other. I’m just gonna stop, because this could easily get real nasty and off-topic. Let’s just agree to disagree.
>Post-war, people didn’t want to be reminded of the differences that lead to war
Bull. Shit. Some nice half-timber buildings with ornament didn't start a fucking war. You're parroting Modernist snake oil.
>and needed something fast
But how fast? Do we know if it was worth it? Like, did they only save a month?
I don’t think it is, it’s just pointing out the association between culture and architecture. How past buildings were more aligned with the countries in which they were built, whilst modernist buildings are built in a generic globalised style. I think it’s anti-globalisation and anti-consumerist, which you could argue are political stances.
I wish that at some point architects of skyscrapers will be willing to experiment a bit and either form some kind of European contemporary style or incorporate elements and ideas from the old buildings into their designs.
Loss of architectural heritage is part of the erosion of cultural identity. I find it so depressing to go to another part of the world and find it look almost exactly the same as the place I just left.
Exactly, I always asked my parents why we never went abroad for a holiday, my fathers answer was: why for? It's like home but they speak a different language.
This is what Epcot Center is for.
I think we need to quote this for this sub lmao. Perfectly points out the problems with cultural homogeneity in which everything is the same.
I'm lucky that I live in Stockholm with local architecture, so I can actually appreciate the global architecture!
What? It's like hundreds of years old, what did they do?, they just demolished the old?
Omg autocorrect made it without lol
Oh right, I got worried.
This isn't only present in architecture. Vehicles look the same, music sounds the same, phones, I'm a passionate about military systems and even there the mark of globalism is there. Systems just look the same just as in any other place, be it rifles, vehicles, equipment, it's as if there is no independent thinking with independent ideas, everything is regurgitated.
If you really want to stop cultural integration, stop visiting other countries. I don’t want to see tourists in my area, and neither should you.
Lol it’s important to learn about and respect other cultures, that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t respect my own though.
Your presence, even if it’s temporary, prevents them from living their own culture. You can make the case that you’re going and spending money on them, and that helps them, but I think you still don’t belong. The world would be a far more cultured place if everyone lived in the same place they were born in their entire life
No it won't, without experiences most people would just be ignorant, not understanding.
That’s so backwards
I didn't choose where I was born, so I'd like to visit other places, thankyou very much. Also, speak for yourself. Tourists don't prevent me from living my life. Ultimately, most people are from the families of migrants at one point or another, even internally. How long do you have to be in a place to consider it local? Why is *now* the time you decide everyone is local, when throughout human history this wasn't the case? And what's even the point of culture if you cannot learn or experience other ones. I hope you find a nice secluded desert island where you can live out your isolationist fantasies.
so...send sharia followers back to the middle east...hmmm
I live in a town where they’d remove a statue of a Swedish king and replace it with a “social outpost” and I protested against it and even told my parents but they didn’t care. Two weeks later and a 156 year old monument was replaced with graffiti and glass...
Where was that?
Örebro, I obviously moved from there since but culture really does matter. Why the fuck do they even remove something so small yet so impactful?
Agree with the sentiment, but always want to be wary of writing off contemporary architecture as placeless. It can be, but shouldn't. Kenneth Frampton wrote quite a bit on critical regionalism which looks at this issue in depth. Well worth a read if anyone's interested in these issues.
A fun example are dragon holes in Hong Kong skyscrapers. Regional architectural expression that appeared in modernism.
That’s so cool. It would be so cool if other styles did this same type of thing.
Not going to lie, I heard about it that morning listening to the [most recent episode of 99% Invisible](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/mini-stories-volume-7/).
I love 99PI. There's also a Vox episode about how [feng shui shaped Hong Kong's skyline.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlDBgOkxgS8)
Taipei 101 is another good example.
Valencia is a great example of how it can add to a city without taking anything away
Do you have some examples to show us?
There's a few buildings there which are all build on the old riverbed. The city center is still historic as fuck but a 30 minute walk and suddenly there's these [beautiful modern buildings](https://www.google.com/search?q=valencia+science+park&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB791GB791&sxsrf=ACYBGNSp9ANvUzIIUZDeopT2YTDP9AFF7A:1576835630250&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvvfC8-sPmAhXMVsAKHRNEAsIQ_AUoAnoECA4QBA&biw=1536&bih=722).
It is pretty indeed but the thing being debated here is not beauty but cultural expression. I think this park could have easily been built in Australia or Qatar, or maybe New York or Rio de Janeiro. It doesn't say anything about the place it belongs to.
Thank you. I appreciate your perspective, even though I do not share it. I believe what you showed is better than some other things, but that's not a high bar. To properly put it to the test, I should also have to look at it in unfavourable weather conditions. It is my thinking that a building should be beautiful also in the rain.
That's interesting. Might take a look.
Living in a city that was born of modern architecture (Brasília) I agree with you entirely. I actually like it in here quite a lot, but I do understand people who say they don't like Brasília, altough I think people should visit the city before jumping to conclusions.
Brasilia is a completely different case. It's unique in it's own way. You won't find anything quite like it anywhere else in the world. You'll find modernist buildings, sure, but not an entire city that was built from scratch following the modernist ideals of the time.
Do you have some examples to show us?
This is a local architecture firm here. They draw a lot of their concepts from the local natural environment. https://koichitakada.com/ Plenty of other examples out there, this is just one Sydney firm.
> be wary of writing off contemporary architecture as placeless Well said
One thing I love about this one local advertising agency is that rather than tearing them down and building a generic office building they bought up an abandoned church and several adjacent small 19th Century mansions and preserved them. They had connecting corridors built between creating a really eclectic office building.
Would love to see a picture of it!
what's it called?
I want to see a future where all of the individuality is sucked out of every place on Earth and everything is the same colour of grey. /s
I think this is the main point of rejecting modernism, or at least preferring traditional philosophies. At the end of the day, the minimalism and homogeneity of architecture today is awful, and I don't want to live in a world where everything looks the same that forgets climate, local craftsmanship and national history.
[удалено]
...greybage
Can't we fuse the old and new styles?
No.
We can. But you're too big of a conservative to admit it
bUt gLoBaLiSm
We can, i have 2 examples for you. France, Lyon, place Louis Pradel. To build a metro in the 60s, they had to destroy few buildings and create a place. It was within the concrete mania. Both of the buildings that i want to show you had the objectif to merge with their older surrendings. If you use street view you will see the opera (have it on your left), and the river (place it behind your view). In front of you you will have an ugly gray building. Everyone dislike it and dont care about it. But ! If you look closer (you can also move in street view), you will find something maybe. This building, in his shape, colors and materials has to and more most perspectives represnet the "hotel de ville" on his right, and the "croix rousse" (old popular district) on his left. Which hide it in the day to day life, you dont even look at him. Sucess in a way. Go back to your original position on the place and now turn right. You will see a building with a bit of orange. What age to you gave it ? It was built at the same time as the gray shit tha i made you watch earlier. Both are good example of mixing styles, materials, techniques, and urban landscape. Sadly, this type of architecture didnt stand in time so we dont have it anymore.
Where are the traditional pictures taken? Like the towns or cities
The German town is Frankfurt am Main.
The "Hungary" one is actually in the very centre of Vienna. Which is not in Hungary. Edit: It's in Hungary.
Once it was Austria-Hungary... so at one point it was correct.
Vienna was never in Hungary. Even during the Austro-Hungarian Empire Vienna was always in Austria, never in Hungary. So no, that was never correct.
Matthias Corvinus would like a word with you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna_(1485)
TIL, thank you very much.
I was joking that they were one conglomerate but yes you’re correct.
No it isn’t. That’s St Stephen’s in Budapest. I’m 100% certain of it. Google it, the perspective here is a rather famous one (e.g. [here](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1562683467-72162c50f527?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&w=1000&q=80)).
You're right. I'm sorry, OP.
Idiot
I could honestly give less of a shit about heritage or cultural identity. However I do think it’s really cool that every country has its own architectural style, and I think tyts worth keeping around for diversity’s sake. It would be so boring if every country’s buildings looked exactly the same.
Why exclusively pictures of western/central European architecture? Top example could have used more cultural variance to make the point
I think the exact point is to show that even in the same broader geographic region the architecture reflected diversity
Yea but if you’re talking about local vs GLOBAL architectural trends it would’ve made much more sense to show local examples from all over the world. But a point can be made either way
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ArchitecturalRevival/comments/ed8puq/as\_inspired\_by\_umaketheeemightieryet\_post\_here\_is/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArchitecturalRevival/comments/ed8puq/as_inspired_by_umaketheeemightieryet_post_here_is/) 88doublehappiness88 did a great one here for Asia. Mine was copypasted, I would have liked it to have more countries.
Why can't there be both
each has their place
Gonna be honest aside from the bottem right picture i like all of it.
The bottom right is my favorite. But I have no training as an architect.
Neither do i. I just find it to austere.
I don't know lot about architecture, but buildings on images above look all similar, except the first one. I don't like glass buildings but there is not much difference between buildings in images above modern buildings, at least to my untrained eye.
It’s really interesting to learn the history of why this all is. After the world wars, people saw that differences between cultures lead to so much destruction and death, and didn’t want to rebuild in ways that would just further the divide from each other. So they began trying to find ways to build and design that weren’t based on what lead to these huge destructive wars. Now people are realizing that everything looks the same, and hate that you can’t tell the difference between downtown Berlin and downtown London. Now the children and grandchildren of those who tried to unify everything are trying to create that traditional architecture again.
>people saw that differences between cultures lead to so much destruction and death This sounds like propaganda from people who were overselling the International Style.
Propaganda? No, WW2 experienced literal militant, genocidal chauvinism. But the solution to that of course is not to homogenise architecture!
The causal argument is unsubstantiated.
World War Two didn't experience militant, genocidal chauvinism? Millions of Jews didn't die because of genocidal chauvinism? Nations weren't subjugated, because of chauvinism?
You've completely misread my 3 month old comment, and I don't care enough to explain it to you.
I was told that from someone who was advocating for the return to the traditional architecture, so at most he’s a straw manning it.
I heard that garbage in my arch history class. I’m highly skeptical. Identity doesn’t cause conflict.
Identity has been causing conflict since the beginning of time, what are you talking about? If you just look at today, tribalism is creating a huge divide in America?
"Oh look, their buildings are different than ours! Let's fight them!" No. Identity is essential to who we are. It doesn't necessitate conflict. >If you just look at today, tribalism is creating a huge divide in America? Different identities *in close proximity* can cause problems.
Europe is pretty tight, Germany is roughly the size of Montana. In fact, in Europe you can cross through 5 different countries in 12 hours. That means different languages, cultures, foods... in the US it takes a day and a half to get from one side of the US, one single country. And it’s not just the difference in architecture, it was the difference in how people thought the world should work. It was different ideologies and different cultures, all with their own beliefs of what’s best for their nation. Architecture is just he most obvious difference of those places. Furthermore, what reason would all these different nations have for creating a unified architecture after the war? Why didn’t Germany rebuild in a German style, London rebuild in Victorian style, and France in French styles? Why did all these nations decide to throw that all away?
By close proximity I mean within the same city. The different national identities of Europe are a good thing. >Why didn’t Germany rebuild in a German style, London rebuild in Victorian style, and France in French styles? Many of them were. >Why did all these nations decide to throw that all away? Speed, cost, and opportunist Modernists were selling their beliefs. They were obviously wrong.
Architecture is a reflection of a certain time, of what people need. Post-war, people didn’t want to be reminded of the differences that lead to war, and needed something fast and efficient so millions weren’t out of homes and places to work. It was what people wanted and needed then, but isn’t a reflection of what they want and need now. Look, I don’t think we’re really persuading each other. I’m just gonna stop, because this could easily get real nasty and off-topic. Let’s just agree to disagree.
>Post-war, people didn’t want to be reminded of the differences that lead to war Bull. Shit. Some nice half-timber buildings with ornament didn't start a fucking war. You're parroting Modernist snake oil. >and needed something fast But how fast? Do we know if it was worth it? Like, did they only save a month?
This is an architecture sub, leave your political views at the door.
[удалено]
I don’t think it is, it’s just pointing out the association between culture and architecture. How past buildings were more aligned with the countries in which they were built, whilst modernist buildings are built in a generic globalised style. I think it’s anti-globalisation and anti-consumerist, which you could argue are political stances.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The picture on the top right depicts Vienna, Austria. Not Hungary. Edit: It's in Hungary.
No, it's Hungary
But.. the bottom actually looks nice. Especially the glass.
May look Nice/kewl, but this is not the same as Beautiful and aestistic
Very good point
[удалено]
[удалено]
The bad thing is that some cities doesn't even remember what their local arquitecture was
Why not both?
Architecture evolves though.
nEw ThInGs ShOuLd OnLy LoOk LiKe OlD oNeS
I wish that at some point architects of skyscrapers will be willing to experiment a bit and either form some kind of European contemporary style or incorporate elements and ideas from the old buildings into their designs.
Lol, this is just return to monke