Why does modern architecture suck?

a lot of this cool architechture seems to be computer rendered.

i mean, doom had some sweet architechture, right

yeah i was going to say the same thing, if we're talking modern architecture, level design should definitely be included. Mass Effect had some gorgeous architecture, as do the Gears of War games.

nothin beats rectangular prisms

  essines said:

a lot of this cool architechture seems to be computer rendered.

 

i mean, doom had some sweet architechture, right

Doom 1? Hell yes. The space base levels, the hell levels... all superb.

Doom 2's level design was... nonsensical. The way levels for many platform and arcade games are just kind of random and nonsensical, you know? Only a few levels actually looked like anything "likely" you'd find on Earth where it was supposed to take place.

Doom 3? I dunno, turn on the damn lights and I might have an opinion!

  my usernames always really suck said:

  essines said:

a lot of this cool architechture seems to be computer rendered.

 

i mean, doom had some sweet architechture, right

 

Doom 1? Hell yes. The space base levels, the hell levels... all superb.

 

Doom 2's level design was... nonsensical. The way levels for many platform and arcade games are just kind of random and nonsensical, you know? Only a few levels actually looked like anything "likely" you'd find on Earth where it was supposed to take place.

 

Doom 3? I dunno, turn on the damn lights and I might have an opinion!

sorry, i meant doom 1, i just assumed if you didn't have the 2 or 3 after the 'doom' it'd be doom 1.

but i agree with you.

keep in mind the cities influence on projects

lol you're so full of shit

Some medieval churches and cathedrals took hundreds of years to complete. Im actually a little bit in agreement with the original poster. I bet European cities were stunningly beautiful prior to the world wars. Even though I do appreciate modern architecture. It doesn't age well and just isn't the same

in purely utilitarian architechture aestethics is last in the priority list.

I really like old ugly brick buildings

  alpaca said:

keep in mind the cities influence on projects

this

  marf said:

Some medieval churches and cathedrals took hundreds of years to complete. Im actually a little bit in agreement with the original poster. I bet European cities were stunningly beautiful prior to the world wars. Even though I do appreciate modern architecture. It doesn't age well and just isn't the same

i also agree somewhat with the op, But I think a ton of it is due to moronic city planning. Certainly is the case in San Francisco. They always seem to choose the ugliest designs out of any given set of options. The new yerba buena center for the arts "aircraft carrier" in golden gate park being one example.

One factor it seems a lot of architects ignore is context/setting. I never get tired of this view:

Surely Frank Lloyd Wright is worthy of mention and honor in this thread. I don't think I need to introduce anyone to him. Also, check out Freidensreich Hundertwasser. He's got a very interesting aesthetic and attitude towards architecture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundertwasser

--------

Also, I found this really interesting link searching for examples of his work: http://greenroofs.wordpress.com/category/around-the-world/

My father is an architect so a lot of our vacations were somewhat dedicated to see architecture. I had the pleasure to visit some Frank Lloyd Wright buildings while visiting the US (fallingwater, kentucky knob and guggenheim ofc). I really love modern architecture. They can create amazing spaces with current tech.

But well, it's sad how much money goes into really crappy buildings. Like this retarded building here in Antwerp:

i have to ask, is Dubai basically a giant country for a load of experimental architects to dump their blueprint equivalent of vapourware on? because it's very hard for me to believe like even 10% of these insane diagrams and bendy buildings and shit will actually get built

  jubes said:

lol you're so full of shit

PS, I hate Johann Hari, but here's a decent article about Dubai and why the stupid architecture is really just the beginnning: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...ai-1664368.html

Stuckist LOL

  Ego said:

But well, it's sad how much money goes into really crappy buildings. Like this retarded building here in Antwerp:

 

so true. edinburgh's new parliament building costing more than £431 million!!! looks like a mall crossed with a prison...

I thought the new Edinburgh parliament building looked alright on the inside. The MP's offices have some really nice window-benches which I liked the look of.

aye there's definately some nice atmospheric spaces inside with a nice use of natural light and shape.

the outside is a fuckin mess though.

edit: nice

  my usernames always really suck said:

  Root5 said:

Of course, the modern architects who make those skyscrapers will insist that they do like their work, and think that it is beautiful.

 

They can think what they want, but the moment they think of comparing their works as being equal in detail and aesthetic to churches/castles from medieval Europe and temples/fortresses from feudal Asia, they're fooling themselves.

 

Modern architecture for the most part looks and feels dominating, bureaucratic, and impersonal. The only place it really 'fits' the mood of the society it sits in is maybe in North Korea.

I'm really wondering why you think this matters at all. Suppose most people prefer the modern architecture (from my experience this is largely true in Germany and largely not true in Canada.) You would argue that the people are 'fooling themselves'. But why does that actually matter. If they are convinced that they enjoy it, then what business is it of yours telling them they're wrong.

I for one love to see bare concrete, and metal frames, and pipes and wiring. I don't need fancy architecture is immaculate facades, covering up the support structure and inner workings. Why would it matter if I'm just fooling myself. What does that even mean?

as long as i can remember, i've always been down with modern architecture... i've liked sleek designs and lobsided buildings and out of the ordinary demensions (this reason alone is why i find the homerun walls in ball parks intriguing... ei minute maid park in houston, citi field in ny, fenway park in boston, etc.) since always. not only in architecture, but in art & music aswell. the same thing aplies for my taste in art. i like lots of space when i create or observe a piece.

those cathedrals are nice and all, but there's too much detail for my taste... that's just my opinion!

  keltoi said:

this is truly hideous. Like the "handgun" designs around the windows - keepin' in real.

  Quote

Why does modern architecture suck?

no soul