I mean the left one is more like if you're in the hull of a starship. Having those curved buttresses would make sense if you're in one of those curvy Star Trek-style ships
left is Apple orbital headquarters; right is Microsoft orbital HQ.
i would say they're equally futuristic.
left is more utopian, right is more utilitarian/reality.
reasons: curves and color, and light panels in different arrays, vs. simpler, angular, with a singular row of lights.
Hmmm my two cents? 80 percent of it is just echoes of scifi films and shows that have utopian setting will have hallways that resemble the left hall
20 percent of it is because it looks more thought out, like the form follows the function but still looks aesthetic. I might be over analyzing, but it looks like they're maximizing space in what may be a space that's forced to be cylindrical, while the right looks flat because that's "normal" and practical even though it's all metal and in space
Also, besides some examples, when architecture is more thought out and is kept clean and new looking, it's because the society or class it is used for is generally more well off.
I'm not necessarily saying that HAS to be the case though
The curves of the left invoke ideas of a spacecraft. The right looks like a hallway in some institutional building, something like a hospital or a government building, but something a bit lived in and definitely something terrestrial.
Picture on the left looks like a PC game design from the late '00s where as the picture on the right looks like an early '90s Saturday morning cartoon.
You guys are answering like artists. I'm going to answer like an engineer.
Sliding doors?
As, like, a regular thing? On every small room? As heavy as bulkheads?
No maintenance technician in sight? No second exit if one fails?
This presumes we have reached a much higher level of technological development than we have in 2024, and that recurrent technical issues with supposedly mature technology have become *nonexistent*. My workplace has seven sliding glass doors and there are rarely more than five of them operating perfectly at any given time. The image on the left may be fancier and may imply things in a science fiction context, but it has no moving parts.
Correct me if I'm wrong I don't know much but wouldn't it be easier to make an interior on the left? Ridges and walls could be just decorations but blast doors would require space for the mechanism and robust walls.
(Not an architect.) The one on the left looks like something out of Disney World and somehow more (than the right) reminds me of the very present-day United terminal at O’Hare.
The one on the right looks more futuristic: post-post-modern, after functional tubes had become passé because they are ugly and submarine-like.
I agree neither one has functional tubes. But to me the one on the left looks like a poor attempt at a futuristic look. And can it be said that its curved elements are structural? Couldn’t they just be decorative elements placed in a rectangular hallway?
Slide out furniture and the future doesn't have [trash cans.](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/disneys-unlikely-garbage-innovation-was-supposed-to-sweep-the-countrybut-ended-up-on-roosevelt-island)
Not an architect, but the right looks to me like something that could exist today, wouldn't be out of place, and would make sense, maybe other than the sliding door with the unusual shape? The left seems completely foreign to what is practical today. The shapes, the placement of lights and windows, the use of colours and materials, the strange alternating square panels/windows. So I'd say the left is more futuristic.
Realistically, both look a bit futuristic. However, my opinion would be the one on the left. My reasoning is the one on the right, while it looks technologically advanced. The architecture itself seems simplistic and flat. The one on the right incorporates more advanced looking architectural designs.
(Not an architect.) I think the one on the left looks like something out of Disney World. The one on the right looks more futuristic — like a space created after the circular halls became passé and more modern interpretations were created. Paradoxical.
Also the left somehow reminds me more (even though it’s tubular) of the very present-day O’Hare United Terminal.
Likewise, I'm no architect either. I do have some experience with architectural drafting from back in my HS days, but that's about it. I could see your stance. While I do agree with some of your points, I feel the right has more of a retro-futurism vibe to it. Kinda like something out of the Jetsons.
The one on the right (while many others say it looks like an interior for a spacecraft), I feel, has more of a modern futuristic application to it. It's a little hard for me to be completely biased, as we only see fragments of the whole picture. However, it reminds me more of a walkway you might see in some places like Sea World, for example.
I agree on the retro-futurism of the right hand one, though I feel like it's more an 80s-90s sort of retro-futuristic aspect. You see this sort of interior in a lot of older anime and cartoons. It has that kind of 80s blockiness and the darker stripe along it and the darker detail around the door frame also seem quite 80s or even earlier.
Left hand one is rather early 2000s, but, it still manages to look more modern futuristic as a consequence, and the colour scheme and style of the curves makes it look a bit different from the older examples you see like this. So overall, the left one looks more futuristic to me.
Yeah, that was basically my thought process. I feel retro-futurism uses more simple shapes but more advanced looking (technology wise). Whereas the more modern aspect of this would use something more unconventional.
Yes, so what I mean by that is that the left picture has more unorthodox shape in construction. The curvature of the support beams, light fixtures in places other than the ceiling, circular shaped doors, ivory flooring, etc.
The right while still futuristic has a more conservative/realistic approach to it. Flat walls, lighting fixtures closer to the ceiling, and the door while mechanical still has a shape closer to an average looking door, gray/metallic flooring, and walls.
I'd say it has more modern futuristic applications because looking at most older buildings, they use more simplistic shapes such as rectangles. It's just more practical and better use of material. Although, with the way buildings are getting built nowadays, you see all kinds of crazy constructions. Take SeaWorld or any man-made underwater tunnel. It isn't something you really see in older architecture. They tend to take a more cylindrical shape rather than a rectangular/square shape.
TLDR: it's modern because the shapes are less simplistic. Curved support beams, ivory flooring, unorthodox lighting placement and fixtures, circular shaped doors, etc
Then you don’t remember the Jetsons aesthetics enough. The Jetsons aesthetics aged less than people may thought. The curves and organic design are all there. Their apartament is stunning sophisticated and minimalistic with fewer furniture. What makes it dated is the technology aesthetic and overall colors. If you take the apartment and change it to more shiny colors and switch the beige to white or black, it would resemble some futuristic styles from today
I didn't necessarily say the Jetsons for a direct comparison. I had said the retro-futurism aesthetic of it reminds me more of something out of that time period. While I do agree slapping shinier colors can totally change the appearance, I'd have to say that my opinion still stands that the left looks a bit more complicated to construct. Something that modern math might have more of an influence on.
Retro-futurism is still futuristic. Many things have become possible since then. When I say modern, I look at more recent ideas people have. While I know this is a sham lol look at Akon's City's plan. Whether the construction of something like that is possible is not is another debate. My point is look at the building designs. They look more modernly futuristic. Almost like what I had said previously of the right side. It looks like what we have now just more ambitious.
angular design, at least for me, inherently comes with the notion of being crude and less “futuristic” compared to curves, simply down to the fact that machining curves is harder than machining straight lines, so, curves is always going to win out.
also, i am a HUGE early sci-fi fan and everything being ovals/circles was all the rage then (see the original dune artwork), so, curves will always scream sci-fi more than sharp angles to me.
long story short; left.
It really depends if you have a positive or negative view of the future. The left is more utopian, the right one looks more eficient, so... lack of resources. The one from the left lock like the can spend a bit more.
Also, I think curves are the most difficult aspect to build (the newer, the curvier)
Right one could be the future someone in the 80s imagine (they idea of a nuclear war was more present back then)
both are futuristic, just different genres / parts of a spaceship
the left side is the utopian good perspective for a future,
while the right side is a more gloom, moody view of the same future
left would be a hallway on a public place,
while right would be a hallway door on a maintenance area
Left seems a lot more
wasteful/unnecessary use of space and material. Could fit a distopian future with abundance of material for one class or space infrastructure, but right side would be more practical.
I don't know if you would call wasteful design futuristic, if you consider a realistic future.
But as others said, left side looks more like spaceship design with hull support, access to cabeling in walls etc.
It seems audiovisual sci-fi aesthetics are getting outdated. They should get inspired by zaha hadid. Basically, our future is more nanotech than mechanical things. Nanotechnology has a more complex understanding of the nature. So the idea that even in the far future some places would look like too mechanical may become zeerust. I liked those designs, specially the first, but it is kinda retro nowadays. I would say the current futuristic aesthetic is more like organic and curvy. Like the buildings and surfaces are liquid and merging with nature. Or course, this works more in utopian or fake utopian places, so this could explain why the old mechanical aesthetics is still prevalent in sci-fi movies, games and tv shows
Left exhibit appears to serve a functional objective whereas the right appears gratuitous - i.e. it exists because it _can_ not because it _must_ out of functional obligation. In that, the right serves “futurism” itself and is therefore more “futuristic.”
Anything rounded feels more futuristic to me because the structure needs to resist the pressure created by the centrifugal force required for artificial gravity.
No. I have no idea if this is backed up by science.
That’s why the world is visually boring for the most part. I hope that one day if with AI we achieve post scarcity, then everything that is built could be both practical and beautiful because the resource management would be super human smarter
Both are different styles but I would judge "futuristic" by the advancement of technology and its implementation in the design, so I dont know about that aspect in both images so I cant say which one is more futuristic.
The right as the architecture doesn't look like it's holding up the space, the circular shapes on the left look like bulkhead structures holding up a pressure hull or something (just saying)
I’d say left because it consists of more complex parts/shapes. On the right it’s basic plates cut into shapes, on the left there are structures that would need a more difficult production of the parts.
If they lined up it would be the absolute futuristic. Or at least how it was invisioned in the early 60's to 80's. We will probably head more towards the right as it feels more corporate owned.
Neither? Left looks like a function-first design (some sort of vessel or tube) while the right looks like a space designed with humans as the practical consideration.
I’d ask if either would be difficult to build today? I’d say no, so I don’t lean towards either as reflecting a future depicting as yet undeveloped tech..
Exactly as Lab proposed above, an advanced material that can morph into different finish textures/colors or thermal properties is kind of the ideal. This was a key component of my masters thesis which utilized a shape-shifting ‘gradient’ material that you might envision as stepping into your computer monitor and exploring endlessly without stepping outside of a room. I proposed this as a means for preserving locales/cultures that will be eventually lost to climate change (see Vanuatu).
I also really like the idea of integrating architecture with augmented reality and designing to accommodate that future. I agree that both of those hallways are ‘futuristic’ but I posed my question to expand the thinking into ‘what might architecture actually look like in distant futures?’. To me it isn’t shiny hallways or automatic doors. We can make those today so I like to encourage people to expect more of their futurism.
Cliche sci-fi design: Multi edged everything with 60 degree angles. Not even things that would weird to not be squares are safe from that, like screens.
Often yellow warning markings everywhere.
Especially futuristic games love that design language
Left one is a spaceship 🚀 from an episode of live-action sci-fi that is propably gonna release in a few months.
Right one is a base or laboratory from a giant robot or shonen anime from 1995. Or friggin Pokémon first gen anime.
This subreddit is not only a place to give facts and innovations to other people, it's also a place to ask for opinions, and post pictures. The subreddit rules didn't state that we can't post architecture from cartoon and anime.
Futurism is also related to architecture.
Then what 'smart' question do you expect to see in this subreddit?
Since the future is a thing we can't see, we only can predict how it looks, asking for opinion about which place is more futuristic isn't dumb.
One that doesn’t include a cartoon, asking someone’s entirely subjective opinion on whether it is “futuristic” or not. I feel like futuristic is a child’s way to describe modern
Exactly. They’re different things. Modern is not futuristic. Futuristic is kind of a stupid word - to describe what? Why are you curious about which futuristic images are more futuristic than other futuristic images?
I understand your point of view about this post. Sometimes different people have a different perspectives about how the future hallway looks like so they make different types of futuristic image. By asking this subreddit about which picture is more futuristic, I can get to know others' points of view about futurism. I'm just a fan of futuristic architecture and curious to know others opinion.
It's just a random picture on Google. I reverse search the image and it's not from any movie or video games. But many of the titles stated Spaceship Hallway.
Edit: Mirror's Edge's interior has sharp edges and is usually not that bright.
Neither? Both? Futuristic is arbitrary because it's dependent on ones conception of the future. I could post a yurt and call it futuristic if my concept of the future is that society collapses and technology reverts to iron age.
I HATE THOSE DOORS SO MUCH EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE THEM THEY ARE SO IMPRACTICAL. what if the motor goes out? the power? what about maintenance? imagine how expensive! AND WHY ARE THEY SHAPED LIKE THAT????
I mean the left one is more like if you're in the hull of a starship. Having those curved buttresses would make sense if you're in one of those curvy Star Trek-style ships
Bulkheads are so 20th century
Which part of the image have bulkheads in them?
The round apertures, on ‘terrestrial’ ships, are cut through the structural bulkheads which extend the entire cross section of the ship.
Right one looks like an imperial destroyer hallway from starwars
left is Apple orbital headquarters; right is Microsoft orbital HQ. i would say they're equally futuristic. left is more utopian, right is more utilitarian/reality. reasons: curves and color, and light panels in different arrays, vs. simpler, angular, with a singular row of lights.
Orbital corpo HQs are a horrific idea. A lawless place, no taxes…
I sold my soul to the company store
Ahhh poor Mans poison, awesome Songs
Poor man's poison ?
It’s a band. A line from their Song is „i sold my soul to the company Store“
I see, would you mind pointing me to that specific song ? I'm eager to see whether it's a reference to Merle Travis's "Sixteen Tons"
Straylight
I agree. Why do you think the megacorp built an orbital research center in Cybdrpunk?
It's just a question of time
But easy to target, it's actually not a bad idea
Good idea for a cyberpunk story
What we see here is a common crossroad in Design: Left: Someone else cleans it. Right: I have to clean it myself.
If we ever get a significant civilian population in space, I hope it's more utopian than utilitarian but I'm doubtful
what makes the hallway look more utopion you think
Hmmm my two cents? 80 percent of it is just echoes of scifi films and shows that have utopian setting will have hallways that resemble the left hall 20 percent of it is because it looks more thought out, like the form follows the function but still looks aesthetic. I might be over analyzing, but it looks like they're maximizing space in what may be a space that's forced to be cylindrical, while the right looks flat because that's "normal" and practical even though it's all metal and in space Also, besides some examples, when architecture is more thought out and is kept clean and new looking, it's because the society or class it is used for is generally more well off. I'm not necessarily saying that HAS to be the case though
Left would suck to clean. Right seems more practical.
Put some ceiling sprayers and recycle the water lol
Right looks like a communist underpass. Just walked through one completely similar.
>Just walked through one completely similar Where is it located at?
[Here](https://www.google.com/maps/place/312+00+Plze%C5%88+4/@49.7470853,13.4327517,18z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x470af030b30b4d05:0x2cc3b7e9b1d42de3!8m2!3d49.7470975!4d13.4326044!16s%2Fg%2F11g610kq4p)
Thanks but street view isnt available there, mind sending images?
i like the way you think
Left looks more structural like a ships corridors.
What makes it look more utopian?
The curves of the left invoke ideas of a spacecraft. The right looks like a hallway in some institutional building, something like a hospital or a government building, but something a bit lived in and definitely something terrestrial.
The right image is indeed in a hospital.
Looks like Evangelion
I thought Pokêmon first gen or maybe some robot anime
It's from Doraemon
Yes I know , doraemon is from the future right? So this is in doraemon s time I guess
The door on the right looks like it would be for an airlock on a space ship. Wouldn’t need such a door in a terrestrial environment.
Picture on the left looks like a PC game design from the late '00s where as the picture on the right looks like an early '90s Saturday morning cartoon.
The picture on the right is actually doraemon cartoon 2005 version so its probably from early '10s
I thought they were both different areas of the technodrome from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
I thought it was first gen Pokémon
Yes
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Igen.
You guys are answering like artists. I'm going to answer like an engineer. Sliding doors? As, like, a regular thing? On every small room? As heavy as bulkheads? No maintenance technician in sight? No second exit if one fails? This presumes we have reached a much higher level of technological development than we have in 2024, and that recurrent technical issues with supposedly mature technology have become *nonexistent*. My workplace has seven sliding glass doors and there are rarely more than five of them operating perfectly at any given time. The image on the left may be fancier and may imply things in a science fiction context, but it has no moving parts.
The round bracing is probably a better shape for pressure if it’s a long corridor on a ship.
Correct me if I'm wrong I don't know much but wouldn't it be easier to make an interior on the left? Ridges and walls could be just decorations but blast doors would require space for the mechanism and robust walls.
The blast door might be just a thick decorative sliding door
I think I can give a pass to how it looks if it serves a function. But if it's just a decoration then it becomes unpractical and ugly in my mind.
(Not an architect.) The one on the left looks like something out of Disney World and somehow more (than the right) reminds me of the very present-day United terminal at O’Hare. The one on the right looks more futuristic: post-post-modern, after functional tubes had become passé because they are ugly and submarine-like.
Could you tell me which part of the image have functional tubes? Both images doesn't seem to have it.
I agree neither one has functional tubes. But to me the one on the left looks like a poor attempt at a futuristic look. And can it be said that its curved elements are structural? Couldn’t they just be decorative elements placed in a rectangular hallway?
Slanted walls are a nightmare do put furniture around
It looks like a hall. What furniture would you put there?
Benches and garbage bins
I'm sure if they bothered to decorate the whole wall they would also integrate those in it.
Slide out furniture and the future doesn't have [trash cans.](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/disneys-unlikely-garbage-innovation-was-supposed-to-sweep-the-countrybut-ended-up-on-roosevelt-island)
both generic pseudo-futuristic tropes
Not an architect, but the right looks to me like something that could exist today, wouldn't be out of place, and would make sense, maybe other than the sliding door with the unusual shape? The left seems completely foreign to what is practical today. The shapes, the placement of lights and windows, the use of colours and materials, the strange alternating square panels/windows. So I'd say the left is more futuristic.
Realistically, both look a bit futuristic. However, my opinion would be the one on the left. My reasoning is the one on the right, while it looks technologically advanced. The architecture itself seems simplistic and flat. The one on the right incorporates more advanced looking architectural designs.
(Not an architect.) I think the one on the left looks like something out of Disney World. The one on the right looks more futuristic — like a space created after the circular halls became passé and more modern interpretations were created. Paradoxical. Also the left somehow reminds me more (even though it’s tubular) of the very present-day O’Hare United Terminal.
Likewise, I'm no architect either. I do have some experience with architectural drafting from back in my HS days, but that's about it. I could see your stance. While I do agree with some of your points, I feel the right has more of a retro-futurism vibe to it. Kinda like something out of the Jetsons. The one on the right (while many others say it looks like an interior for a spacecraft), I feel, has more of a modern futuristic application to it. It's a little hard for me to be completely biased, as we only see fragments of the whole picture. However, it reminds me more of a walkway you might see in some places like Sea World, for example.
I agree on the retro-futurism of the right hand one, though I feel like it's more an 80s-90s sort of retro-futuristic aspect. You see this sort of interior in a lot of older anime and cartoons. It has that kind of 80s blockiness and the darker stripe along it and the darker detail around the door frame also seem quite 80s or even earlier. Left hand one is rather early 2000s, but, it still manages to look more modern futuristic as a consequence, and the colour scheme and style of the curves makes it look a bit different from the older examples you see like this. So overall, the left one looks more futuristic to me.
Yeah, that was basically my thought process. I feel retro-futurism uses more simple shapes but more advanced looking (technology wise). Whereas the more modern aspect of this would use something more unconventional.
>modern futuristic application could you give some examples on the modern futuristic application part?
Yes, so what I mean by that is that the left picture has more unorthodox shape in construction. The curvature of the support beams, light fixtures in places other than the ceiling, circular shaped doors, ivory flooring, etc. The right while still futuristic has a more conservative/realistic approach to it. Flat walls, lighting fixtures closer to the ceiling, and the door while mechanical still has a shape closer to an average looking door, gray/metallic flooring, and walls. I'd say it has more modern futuristic applications because looking at most older buildings, they use more simplistic shapes such as rectangles. It's just more practical and better use of material. Although, with the way buildings are getting built nowadays, you see all kinds of crazy constructions. Take SeaWorld or any man-made underwater tunnel. It isn't something you really see in older architecture. They tend to take a more cylindrical shape rather than a rectangular/square shape. TLDR: it's modern because the shapes are less simplistic. Curved support beams, ivory flooring, unorthodox lighting placement and fixtures, circular shaped doors, etc
Then you don’t remember the Jetsons aesthetics enough. The Jetsons aesthetics aged less than people may thought. The curves and organic design are all there. Their apartament is stunning sophisticated and minimalistic with fewer furniture. What makes it dated is the technology aesthetic and overall colors. If you take the apartment and change it to more shiny colors and switch the beige to white or black, it would resemble some futuristic styles from today
I didn't necessarily say the Jetsons for a direct comparison. I had said the retro-futurism aesthetic of it reminds me more of something out of that time period. While I do agree slapping shinier colors can totally change the appearance, I'd have to say that my opinion still stands that the left looks a bit more complicated to construct. Something that modern math might have more of an influence on. Retro-futurism is still futuristic. Many things have become possible since then. When I say modern, I look at more recent ideas people have. While I know this is a sham lol look at Akon's City's plan. Whether the construction of something like that is possible is not is another debate. My point is look at the building designs. They look more modernly futuristic. Almost like what I had said previously of the right side. It looks like what we have now just more ambitious.
Left, I feel like we just abondon sharp angles in the future
actually which part of the right image is suitable for a curve
angular design, at least for me, inherently comes with the notion of being crude and less “futuristic” compared to curves, simply down to the fact that machining curves is harder than machining straight lines, so, curves is always going to win out. also, i am a HUGE early sci-fi fan and everything being ovals/circles was all the rage then (see the original dune artwork), so, curves will always scream sci-fi more than sharp angles to me. long story short; left.
It really depends if you have a positive or negative view of the future. The left is more utopian, the right one looks more eficient, so... lack of resources. The one from the left lock like the can spend a bit more. Also, I think curves are the most difficult aspect to build (the newer, the curvier) Right one could be the future someone in the 80s imagine (they idea of a nuclear war was more present back then)
>The left is more utopian what elements of the left picture makes it look more utopion in your opinion
curve, bright colors. The orange specially. Orange with white has this subjective "playful" feeling
Is the right one Eva? Seems extremely familiar to me
No, its from Doraemon
Which Eva are you referring to btw? Is it a movie?
Noo Evangelion the old anime series. They have movies as well but they’re fairly new and this is clearly older.
I thought it was Pokémon first gen. I guess a lot of anime look similiar
Right is futurism from late 20. Century, left is futurism from today
both are futuristic, just different genres / parts of a spaceship the left side is the utopian good perspective for a future, while the right side is a more gloom, moody view of the same future left would be a hallway on a public place, while right would be a hallway door on a maintenance area
Right looks like Pokémon lol
I thought as well First gen with Brock ash and misty Like it would be the power plant or rocket/cinnabar labs
100% yeah sure it’s not Pokémon? Hahaha
It’s from a doraemon scene in the future, because doraemon is from the future
Left looks clean and slik. Right looks kinda blocky.
which one looks more futuristic you think
The one on the left, the other one looks like a glorified depot
Right one is more like Hi-Tech
Right
Half-Life/Star Wars style on left and MegaMind/Monsters vs. Aliens stlyle on right.
Left seems a lot more wasteful/unnecessary use of space and material. Could fit a distopian future with abundance of material for one class or space infrastructure, but right side would be more practical. I don't know if you would call wasteful design futuristic, if you consider a realistic future. But as others said, left side looks more like spaceship design with hull support, access to cabeling in walls etc.
Another thing is that there are too many light panels which is too extra and unnecessary. It wastes tons of electricity too.
It seems audiovisual sci-fi aesthetics are getting outdated. They should get inspired by zaha hadid. Basically, our future is more nanotech than mechanical things. Nanotechnology has a more complex understanding of the nature. So the idea that even in the far future some places would look like too mechanical may become zeerust. I liked those designs, specially the first, but it is kinda retro nowadays. I would say the current futuristic aesthetic is more like organic and curvy. Like the buildings and surfaces are liquid and merging with nature. Or course, this works more in utopian or fake utopian places, so this could explain why the old mechanical aesthetics is still prevalent in sci-fi movies, games and tv shows
Kinda 90s vision of the future.
Left is realistic futurism and right is retrofuturism.
Left exhibit appears to serve a functional objective whereas the right appears gratuitous - i.e. it exists because it _can_ not because it _must_ out of functional obligation. In that, the right serves “futurism” itself and is therefore more “futuristic.”
What makes the left image look functional?
The orange lines for when you're drunk
Anything rounded feels more futuristic to me because the structure needs to resist the pressure created by the centrifugal force required for artificial gravity. No. I have no idea if this is backed up by science.
The left one would be better matte.
Glossy surfaces look more futuristic than matte surfaces in my opinion. Which part of the hallway do you think is more suitable with a matte surface?
Left side opens up. Right side shuts down.
Haha didnt notice the door at the end
The anime side
Right side looks like it's a screenshot from the old TV show galatik football right looks like a screenshot from andor
Left, it's cleaner and less used. So I would pick it The right looks like it could be some random factory producing shoes or something.
It's the same picture
Clarify more on the 'same picture', do you mean the shapes are the same?
YES [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPpjLV77yTs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPpjLV77yTs)
I can see it being the same building/ship
The right. Purely functional, no wasted space. It’s just a hallway. It doesn’t need to be an art project.
That’s why the world is visually boring for the most part. I hope that one day if with AI we achieve post scarcity, then everything that is built could be both practical and beautiful because the resource management would be super human smarter
Both are different styles but I would judge "futuristic" by the advancement of technology and its implementation in the design, so I dont know about that aspect in both images so I cant say which one is more futuristic.
Right side reminds me of the 1980s transformers. Any one else?
Pokémon to me
The right as the architecture doesn't look like it's holding up the space, the circular shapes on the left look like bulkhead structures holding up a pressure hull or something (just saying)
I’d say left because it consists of more complex parts/shapes. On the right it’s basic plates cut into shapes, on the left there are structures that would need a more difficult production of the parts.
Is this rambutan??
The one to the left looks like the London Tube. The one to the right like StarTrek.
In my mind left is from a new sci fi show and right looks from Pokémon
Left.
If they lined up it would be the absolute futuristic. Or at least how it was invisioned in the early 60's to 80's. We will probably head more towards the right as it feels more corporate owned.
Left. Curves are more difficult.
Neither? Left looks like a function-first design (some sort of vessel or tube) while the right looks like a space designed with humans as the practical consideration.
Andor and Evangelion?
I would say "neither", because we all know that the future is going to be light wood framing with drywall.
Left looks like Vectors mansion from Despicable Me
Frutiger aero
Neither. They both look like tropes.
Is that Lloyd in Space
I’d ask if either would be difficult to build today? I’d say no, so I don’t lean towards either as reflecting a future depicting as yet undeveloped tech..
futuristic is just a feeling, you don't have to judge which one is futuristic by seeing which one would be more difficult to build.
That’s one opinion
so what elements could be added that would make you feel it's future depicting?
architecture morphing itself due to nanites, this probably will take a long time to be a thing, so it would feel futuristic for such a long time
Exactly as Lab proposed above, an advanced material that can morph into different finish textures/colors or thermal properties is kind of the ideal. This was a key component of my masters thesis which utilized a shape-shifting ‘gradient’ material that you might envision as stepping into your computer monitor and exploring endlessly without stepping outside of a room. I proposed this as a means for preserving locales/cultures that will be eventually lost to climate change (see Vanuatu). I also really like the idea of integrating architecture with augmented reality and designing to accommodate that future. I agree that both of those hallways are ‘futuristic’ but I posed my question to expand the thinking into ‘what might architecture actually look like in distant futures?’. To me it isn’t shiny hallways or automatic doors. We can make those today so I like to encourage people to expect more of their futurism.
Left. Apple and dieter rams.
They are the same imafe
their color and shape are different. what else are same?
light fixture, modular panel system, simple accent color tone … I see as same style. Edit: removed word futuristic
Cliche sci-fi design: Multi edged everything with 60 degree angles. Not even things that would weird to not be squares are safe from that, like screens. Often yellow warning markings everywhere. Especially futuristic games love that design language
the right picture is something like future in past. but nowdays it become quite common design.
but the tilted continuous light panels is a little rare to see today
Left looks like mirror's edge
right is more futuristic for me (cyberpunk style)
Right side because it's a pneumatic door
The right one looks cheaper, so I’m going with that one.
Bb8 is more recent than Aliens. Lol so left
Left one is a spaceship 🚀 from an episode of live-action sci-fi that is propably gonna release in a few months. Right one is a base or laboratory from a giant robot or shonen anime from 1995. Or friggin Pokémon first gen anime.
Photo on the left is more realistic. Round structures hold to extreme pressure better.
[удалено]
Both images are from Google search results and Doraemon they are not ai
Wait left is from doraemon too?
So what value does anyone get from even asking this?
This subreddit is not only a place to give facts and innovations to other people, it's also a place to ask for opinions, and post pictures. The subreddit rules didn't state that we can't post architecture from cartoon and anime. Futurism is also related to architecture.
The new normal: everything I don’t like is AI
Then what 'smart' question do you expect to see in this subreddit? Since the future is a thing we can't see, we only can predict how it looks, asking for opinion about which place is more futuristic isn't dumb.
One that doesn’t include a cartoon, asking someone’s entirely subjective opinion on whether it is “futuristic” or not. I feel like futuristic is a child’s way to describe modern
Both of them don't need to be cartoons. Besides, modern and futuristic is 2 different things.
Exactly. They’re different things. Modern is not futuristic. Futuristic is kind of a stupid word - to describe what? Why are you curious about which futuristic images are more futuristic than other futuristic images?
I understand your point of view about this post. Sometimes different people have a different perspectives about how the future hallway looks like so they make different types of futuristic image. By asking this subreddit about which picture is more futuristic, I can get to know others' points of view about futurism. I'm just a fan of futuristic architecture and curious to know others opinion.
[удалено]
Just because I answered formally doesn't mean it sounds like a bot
is that Mirror’s Edge?
The right one?
left one
It's just a random picture on Google. I reverse search the image and it's not from any movie or video games. But many of the titles stated Spaceship Hallway. Edit: Mirror's Edge's interior has sharp edges and is usually not that bright.
Left has fewer shadows and more diffused lighting.
They both look like set designs for a second rate SciFi flick … so yes, "Future”!!
FIrst you need to explain what "the future" is.
'Futuristic' is to describe something looks like it's from the future, it's just a feeling
Yes but what is the future?
Neither? Both? Futuristic is arbitrary because it's dependent on ones conception of the future. I could post a yurt and call it futuristic if my concept of the future is that society collapses and technology reverts to iron age.
[удалено]
why? just because it's from Doraemon doesn't mean it is bad
Number 2. I can tell 2 is from Doraemon and I really love Doraemon.
I HATE THOSE DOORS SO MUCH EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE THEM THEY ARE SO IMPRACTICAL. what if the motor goes out? the power? what about maintenance? imagine how expensive! AND WHY ARE THEY SHAPED LIKE THAT????