Was Modern Architecture A Mistake?

Check out Rocket Money for free: rocketmoney.com/adamsomething #rocketmoney #personalfinance

The problem with all of these modern buildings is that they are not trains.

Building a car-free neighborhood in PHOENIX is one hell of a flex.

You know what else is missing on buildings these days? Gargoyles.

Architecture student here. Trust me, very few people study architecture to build giant monoliths or soulless white facades nowadays. Essays like this one always make it sound like its the architect that develops the entire project and gets the final say in the design. This is only partially true in the most high profile projects with world famous architects. Most ugly soulless buildings are not that way because architecture school has failed us. They are that way because, like many other things in this world, they are the end product of a system that cares only about the bare minimum and an industry with such an insane number of rules that govern how you can build, that "traditional" building styles are simply impossible today. Weirdly enough there are plenty of great looking modern buildings today and not just those that stay close to neoclassical stylings. Usually those are projects by developers whose clients will pay for that. Many other projects are under such financial and technical pressure that any design over the bare minimum of facade proportions is out of the question. You had a great point about that but for some reason you used it to segue to a sponsor read. So in conclusion, of course there are flashy architecture experiments that are polarising in their appearance and trends that aged very poorly (although those are often trends the whole of society subscribes to), but the absolute majority of bland buildings is not the result of some architect believing its their magnum opus. ARCHITECTS ARE PROVIDERS OF A SERVICE TO DEVELOPERS. Thats why I cant stand these "architecture rebellion" people. Go and rebel against those who actually decide what kind of building they want to pay for. By believing an architect as a great auteur realising an uncompromised vision, youre the ones subscribing to a view of the profession thats outdated by several decades.

Turns out Dubai was a joke

Would look much better if there was a road added in the middle, maybe with 12 lanes or so.

As an Architecture student, one common misconception is that nowadays, Architects no longer have control over their designs like they did. The clients have 100% say and power over the whole design, requirements etc. So as much as many of us would like to design more human sized nice cozy neighbourhoods, it is just impossible.

The Culdesac Tempe shown in 9:30 shows that the problem is not necessarily the facade/lack of ornament. It is a more fundamental structural problem in urban planning.

As an architect, I just want to mention something that I feel was missing from this video. Architects can only advocate for positive design so much. At the end of the day, it's the clients and the capital holders who decide what they want their buildings to be and to look like. And the "modernist" style has been co-opted by developers in order to justify the lack of human scale detail and ornamentation. You mention how architects want to design these crazy buildings to get ahead but often the owners, through their RFPs, dictate what that building is going to be before any architect designs anything. Anyway I could rant about this but just thought I'd throw a little bit of my 2cents in there. Most of us really try to advocate for these kinds of things, and sometimes its like screaming into the void. Great video!!!

What I dislike the most with these modern building is that any trace of dirt or use on the building instantly makes it look even worse.

I'm not particularly fond of modern architecture, but I've noticed that many YouTube videos discussing the subject tend to exaggerate its flaws by cherry-picking the worst examples to support their arguments. The problem isn't modern architecture, it is bad architecture! There are beautiful examples of modern architecture. And what leads to bad architecture? There are various factors at play, but I think the most significant contributor is the market-driven development approach, which often prioritizes short-term profit over long-term sustainability, aesthetic quality and overall good architecture. From my personal experience, the most talented architects eventually get frustrated with the quality they are led to create and leave the field.

The Palace of the Republic was actually a nice sleek design and was genuinely a super fuctional and actual public bulding for ordinary people: It featured the following Wikipedia: two large auditoria, art galleries, a theatre, a cinema, 13 restaurants, five beer halls, a bowling alley, billiards rooms, a rooftop ice skating rink, a private gym with spa, a casino, a medical station, a post office, a police station with an underground cellblock, an indoor basketball court, an indoor swimming pool, private barbershops and salons, public and private restrooms and a discothèque. In the early 1980s, one of the restaurants was replaced by a video game arcade for children of Volkskammer members and staff." The palace these days does far less, with a museum, two restaurants, theatre and cinema and auditorium. It's pretty, but artificial. Its exclusive. How can you credit it for human scale design when it's vastly scaled down the public spaces available for people. You're also placing your own emotions onto it, saying it was towering and monolithic, when it's a largely horizontal building with heavy use of glass, compared to the very tall grey palace. Also personal preference I prefer the modernist palace, I don't think it's a particular exceptional bit of baroque architecture and pales compared to what was done in that era in Southern Europe.

As an EE student, modern buildings look like they are oversized electronics parts, and a city built for automobiles looks like a circuit board

modernism doesn't have to be ugly (like mid-century modern architecture), the problem is that most buildings built now have monochromatic colors, copy-paste shapes, dull materials, unnecessary minimalism and an overall "corporate" feel

My main issue with this video is what he himself says. It's poorly researched. Like he's not wrong about a lot of contemporary buildings lacking human scale and having unpleasant materiality, but the issue here is not "Big Architect" deciding that's what is beautiful now. Also, Adam never defined what he meant by modern architecture. Anything since the modernist movement? The beef he has with architects who design buildings for the sculptural value of abstract art is with modernists. That was the attitude of the early 20th century, and it isn't prevalent now. The examples of buildings he shows from the actual current era have a different problem entirely; they aren't built for an abstract art reason; they are built by corporate developers trying to make the most profit from minimal investment. There is rarely an architecture bureau involved; it's a very technical project that was never even meant to be beautiful or thoughtful for human users. So the problem is capitalism; if architects had any sway in what we were building, we would have much more human-centric design; it's literally what they teach in universities. Also, the question of "going back" is always silly. The classicist and baroque buildings had decorative facades, sure, but they were specifically meant for wealthy people and cost tons of money. Poor people lived in the tiniest of horrible little rooms in cities. The facades are fun, I agree, but we have to make affordable housing that isn't a war crime. Plus, there was a whole reactionary movement to modernist architecture where people tried to copy old designs, classicism, baroque, etc., and what we got from it was uncanny valley McMansions. My final verdict is yes, capitalist, non-human architecture sucks ass, and we should stop private developers from doing it. We should always keep moving forward, not back. source: A friend with a masters degree in Architecture and Urban design

I just want to share some thoughts as an architect: 1st: You have to separate urban planing from architecture. You rightly mentioned that the residential buildings from the 50s and 60s were needed very quickly and cheap, that's why they don't look too appealing. But also the neighborhoods they were build in were build with a new, different mindset. The car made distances shorter, split up functions like working/shopping/living and ignored the human scale. If you hate ugly cities, thank the car industry. But I’m sure you won’t disagree on that one. 2nd: Don't get confused with architectural styles. Post-modernism is NOT the same as modernism. Post-modernists, at least here in germany, already recognized in the early 80s that modern city planing is destroying the european city. They went back to the block edge development, to the commercially used ground floor zone, car-free areas and subtle ornaments. A great example is the altona fish market in Hamburg, where I think only 3 buildings are pre-war, the rest is not older than 40 years. 3rd: You don’t know how the business works. No architect ever decides whether a skyscraper or a mixed-use residential area should be built on a piece of building land. Architects are not the ones with money. Developers are. They decide what building is build where. And they decide how much money they want to spend on it. And they decide if the just want to make profit with the building or if they want to show it off in their portfolio. Architects only decide, of course in addition to the entire internal structure of a building, which is always ignored in such discussions about good architecture, what the building will look like. 4th: Why we need more architecture education: You are talking about the story that the Berlin City Palace was "rebuilt”. That is wrong. A new, modern building was built on the site of the former palace, which has NOTHING to do with the old palace in its internal structure. It is not a Palace. It is a museum, which has completely different requirements for a building. Only part of the old facade has been reconstructed. It is a Disneyland for uneducated big-city tourists. The ironic thing about the story is that actually not even 100m from the "new castle" part of the original castle still stands in the facade of the old GDR State Council building. And that the fake, reconstructed facade is getting more attention than the authentic, original one says a lot about societies lack of appreciation for the value of architecture. 5th: I understand that in many countries there is a large discrepancy between what is designed (and shown in renderings) and what is technically (not only from an engineers perspective, but also from a craftsmans) possible to build. I would also like to defend the profession of architectural photography. The “ugly examples” are often snapshots taken with a cell phone on gray, rainy days. People also look ugly if you don't photograph them from their best side. It's easy to underestimate how small factors can make a building look ugly or beautiful in a photo. Most buildings don't even look half as bad in reality. 6th: I also don't understand how you could choose the Stockholm City Hall as an example of beautiful architecture. The tower is far too clunky, the facade is unattractively structured, the turrets at the corners are too delicate for the large structure, which is not compressed vertically by any avant-corps. If you're trying to bring the beauty of architecture to an objective level, you also have to be familiar with proportions, architectural elements and design decisions. Otherwise you will only be laughed at by professionals.

Architecture student here, after working in the industry for a while, I've found that the majority of architects and architecture firms nowadays are mostly limited by the cost of construction and how much a client is willing to pay, because it's far cheaper to make an uninteresting cube than it is to make something beautiful. In my opinion, modern architecture can look as beautiful as traditional architecture, but clients are more interested in the return on investment on a building than the design of it. This is why in my country most local architects work more like underpaid pencil pushers who certify documents than actual designers while foreign architects are brought in for more "artsy" designs, foreign architects who are unwilling to take into account the local traditional architecture style in favour of their own (mostly modern Western) style. I feel like this is the main reason why a lot of architecture in the world nowadays ends up feeling incredibly boring and ugly. (Apologies for bad English I am not a native speaker)

Every good builder in Minecraft: "never make big flat wall, add some texture, depth, windows, patterns". Architects: "you know what? Perfectly flat wall of glass and steel is what this city needs."

I actually liked the Berlin Palace of the Republic. It was a beautiful building that needed an update with more modern materials, as well as the sorrounding area. Those buildings are perfect for large venues and can be versatile for a variety of usages. The new building is limited to a single use, usually office spaces.