Why Americans LOVE to Copy "Beautiful" European Architecture
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- Let's take a look at American federal architecture - the “good”, the “bad” and the “ugly”... and decide: What does it mean for architecture to be “beautiful” anyway? And at the end of the day - is decrying an official national architectural style based on European antiquity inspirational to democratic ideals or just plain plagarism?
00:00 Intro
02:41 Grecco-Roman-American-ish?
05:53 The Trouble with "Beauty"
11:59 Popular or Populist?
15:01 Is THIS Beautiful?
Episode No. 144
📷 Follow me on Instagram: / typeashton
🤳🏻 TikTok: / typeashton
🖥 Website: www.blackforestfamily.com
📧 E-mail: typeashton@gmail.com
S𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗠𝗘
👑 Patreon: / typeashton
As an Italian from Italy, I see your past federal offices as "very American" and very un-classical. They are precisely a nineteenth-century interpretation of what the Anglo-Saxon world held to be classicism based on what some (not all) earlier Italian architects (such as Palladio) had thought. So to say that they are Greco-Roman is a stretch.
It’s Easter Day everybody! Happy Easter!
What I don't like about these fancy modern buildings is that they are often less adaptable. Old workshops, mills and farm buildings and are often used as restaurants, bars and places for cultural events, and the architecture gives the place more history and character than a new building that just replaced what was there before. And when I look at these modern buildings, I'm pretty sure it will be difficult to use them for something else in the future.
Frank Lloyd Wright probably came closest to creating a unique American design language. Fallingwater feels unlike any other house.
I think the US does have a distinctive American architecture... it's called the Strip Mall'. It is distinctively American, you will find it in every city in the US, and only seldomly anywhere else in the world. Whenever I see that, anywhere, I think of the USA.
The strip mall is spreading here in Europe, as well, but unlike the US, they seem to be made in a more modernist style as opposed to the brick and mortar style that most US strip malls have, from what I’ve seen. There are some strip malls being built in smaller cities in here at the moment and newer neighborhoods.
@@crisproductions336 Never heard of any... do you have an example of a strip mall in EU?
@@fransezomer I’ll give you an example that I can recall in my country, it’s in a pretty small town, but it’s south of the famous Bran Castle in the direction towards Bran and Brasov, and it’s a very new place (built maybe last year or so), and it’s called the Cub Shopping Center, and it’s pretty much built like a strip mall. There are also several of these in any modern suburb of Bucharest that have been constructed, and if you go around Google Maps in places like Popesti-Leordeni, you *will* stumble upon them. They are pretty recent, but I have noticed them pop up, for sure.
When I try to think of typical USA architecture, early 20th century art deco skyscrapers such as the Chrysler building come to mind. Yes it's very ornamental but in quite an original and inventive way. It would be nice to see some of it in new buildings.
Actually, the "strip mall" is an export success. It goes hand in hand with city design that is abhorently hostile to humans and attractive to cars. Only in some countries there is quite an effective push back against it. In the Netherlands for example where very strict urban design planning is in place, pretty much everywhere.
I love the third courthouse building you have shown so much. The idea of having natural lighting is amazing, especially when it comes to the energy savings that will come from the design. And as you said, it’s a good statement on the justice system.
And I love that the house is built for the inside to be well thought out. So many of the standard office buildings might look interesting, but actualky working there is unbearable part if the year or needs a lot of AC.
@@ankem4329 Exactly. These kinds of buildings are quite frankly unsustainable and are not helpful in the fight against the impending climate crisis. We need to make sure that whatever we build is friendly to the environment and can get its energy from green sources or at least not waste as much polluting energy sources. And that building is a good example of being environmentally sustainable and genuinely interesting design wise.
@@crisproductions336a greenhouse in the high desert should save some energy in the summer.
Energy savings? If every court room is adjacent a giant window the sun will be heating every room all day, that place will need to crank the AC like no other.
Why focus on the lighting while ignoring the look of the building?
This was very interesting Ashley! In Canada, many of our buildings are based on “British “ architecture. For example - our Parliament buildings! But I love them!
Happy, happy Easter to you and your family! From 🇨🇦.
Funny enough - one of the arguments brought up for the Neo-Gothic style during the planning phase for the Parliament Building in London was that if they chose neo-classical it would look too "American" and the UK didn't want to have its government architecture associated with rebellious former colonies. History is all about context, which can sometimes be humorous.
@@TypeAshton , take a look at our Parliament Building in Ottawa ; you’ll see what I mean.
Sorry,you typed before I did. You’re great!
I think another reason that the early United States went with neo-classical architecture was to note its break from Britain and its neo-Gothic architecture. Much the same way Noah Webster's dictionary promoted an "American" version of English.
BTW, I absolutely LOVE the architecture in Ottawa. Seeing Confederation Hall on CSPAN is what inspired me to visit Ottawa for the first time. Now, if NCR and Parliament would just approve rehabing or replacing 24 Sussex, so the PM could stopping living in the Governor-General's guest house.
Some of these Canadian buildings seem to be more inspired by French chateux.
Classicism was also widespread in Europe at the time. The Brandenburg Gate in Berlin is just one example of this.
But I don't think there are many modern buildings in that style.
This architectural and cultural trend is called Neo-classicism. Even in Greece we have neo-classical buildings. It was a trend . I still prefer brutalist architecture
but its far older than the USA!
@@Arltratlo The Brandenburg Gate (1791) is younger than the USA (1776).
@@ArltratloNo, Neo-classicism isn't. Classic architecture was over 1500 years old, classicism was 17th century and neoclassicism started in the 19th century basically.
My favourite American building is the multi-denominational chapel of the American Cemetery near Cambridge, here in the UK. It is distinctively and recognisably a US building while answering to the dignity and seriousness of its purpose.
The simple fact is “classical” architecture is the finest and long lasting ever created by man. That’s why it has stood the test of time more than any other. The original planners/architects of Washington D.C. chose this style because rightly they wanted the city to be timeless so they chose a style that has been used throughout over 2k years of civilization. Brasilia on the other hand used architecture of a specific time, late 1950’s and the result can be seen for itself. While interesting to a point it now looks dated and poor quality.
You have to look after a building just like a car. The cathedral in Cologne has 100 stonemasons and other craftsmen who are permanently employed and constantly restore the buildings - called the Dombauhütte (since 1248) in Germany. My brother lives in a house built in 1770, but it has been maintained and restored several times.
Gday Ashton, Happy Easter to you and your family 🐣🐣
Another great video. The great part of travel is seeing the different architectural designs of other countries.
When you leave a relatively young country like Australia to travel, it is wonderful to visit countries whose history and architecture goes back thousands of years. I hope going forward in time that countries still maintain their architectural individualism .
Have a lovely week ❤
Art Decó and the international style (american "vertical" modernism) are more american, like the postmodernist copypasta styles of the fastfood chains or lifestlyle centers. But Art Nouveau, modernism (horizontal version)/brutalism and postmodernism in general are more european (but they also have their latin american and eastern asia variations).
And modernist archteture have a lot of classisst principles. We can view modernism as a contemporary form of classissim, because is inspired by rationalist principles.
Art Déco - as it name suggests - originated in France and other European countries
@@_jpgand a lot in Belgium
Art Deco is French in origin
Interesting thought. Art Deco is something I’d be proud of, but the International Style I find only really looks nice in certain applications if it’s “chopped up” enough…i.e. not too “boxy”.
The afro-american museum is beautiful and challenging. A masterpiece. The other two make not me felling anything but that is aloso a quality. All buildings need not stand out. The last building is interesting because it was build with function as the main point.
Not only spinning off antiquity, but later centuries, too. The cathedral in Helena, Montana was built based on the Votiv Church in Vienna. Anyone visiting Vienna will notice the resemblance immediately. Frohe Ostern!
❤ This topic is one of my favorites. I think for many of us, since architectural art and urbanism are the most tangible for most people, simply because you encounter them every day and can have a more direct effect on your mood than many other arts. That's why I don't even know how to shorten what I have to say. But I might try to make my own opinion in a digestible size. If it makes any sense at all, because it really matches Ashton's opinion.
the problem about modern architecture is not the question of beauty, it is the fact that while architects call themselves "creative", all they ever build nowadays is boxes that look the same all over the world: the buildings you showed towards the end of your video could literally stand in any part of the world, and this is so boringly standardized that it reduces architcture to "take any box of the needed cubature and let technicians do the rest." and if you wanna be fancy, you add some odd facade as a "Behübschung".
Yes, but I would argue that is EXACTLY the point. One of the most famous Swiss-French architects of all time is Le Corbusier, who pioneered the modernist movement. He argued that we now LIVE in a global world. We travel the world. We communicate on a global scale. We trade on a global scale. The world is "smaller" than ever before, more accessible than ever before, and power and influence can be held by the masses and not by a select wealthy few - so wouldn't it be incredible if we had a truly "global style"? (I'm speaking rhetorically here because this was Le Corbusier's argument for modernism)... Wouldn't it be great if there was a modernist movement that COULD work anywhere? Buildings that could be afforded by anyone (and not just the wealthy elite)? Buildings that did not discriminate on wealth, race or class - but let the form follow the function and celebrate building materials and construction rather than superficial ornamentation?
@@TypeAshton you mean one standardized worldwide human culture? what a nightmarish cultural empoverishment!
what do people travel for? to see the sme all over the world, or to experience the destination´s cultural specifics?
I agree that a loss of cultural heritage would be quite nightmarish. I don't 100% agree with everything Le Corbusier stood for - his ideas for the re-design of Paris specifically give off "Big Brother" vibes.
But I think there is something elegant about wanting to create a style that could both serve the masses and celebrate construction without unnecessary ornamentation. Archiectural styles evolve on a continuum. Le Corbusier grew up in the Victorian period when we all of a sudden had the rise of industrialization and the "new" middle class. And when formerly poor families suddenly became wealthy - they started replicating the visual vocabulary of what wealth had traditionally meant - which is why we had a resurgence of "neo-" architecture (neo-classical, neo-gothic etc.)
But what was interesting about many of the pieces created during the victorian period was we also started to get cheap knock offs of what used to take real craftsman months or years to produce. We started getting furniture that was cheap but plentiful. And architectural copy-cats that kind of looked like the real thing, but ultimately weren't.
And in a way, Le Corbusier and his cohort were reacting to that. We now have wealth and power, but why are we so keen on trying to play cheap costume to the wealthy elites that had suppressed us for so long?
@@TypeAshton Le Corbusier represents one extreme in the swinging of a pendulum between pure functionalism and overwhelming ornamentation. as you mentioned, plentiful ornamentation had lost its value, because mass produced ornament did not express wealth any more, just the desire to belong to the affluent classes. on the other hand, pure functionalism without ornaments is not human as humans also hae a sense of aesthetics and strict functionalism denies any individualism in a functional object (there is a reason why hammers (tools in general) look pretty much the same all over the world: form follows function. if you argue in favour of functionalism (as Le Corbusier in architecture and many before him did , we´d be running around in Mao-like uniforms, eat soylent green/red... if you argue in favour of functionalism, you rather sooner than later end up degrading humans themselves to be purely functional, as well, and demand them to leave out any individual traits.
I think we have progressed on this path towards unkfied functionality further than what is good for mankind, already.
The neoclassical style buildings could also be anywhere in the world. And most of them are box shaped (like the White House). So what's the difference?
For me architecture is a window into history. Most things change in a decade or two like cars and the fashion people are wearing. But buildings can show you things from decades or centuries past. And even the most modern building will eventually become a piece of the past that future people will look at to get a glimpse of 2020s life. And who knows what the future will find beautiful.
Thank you for your work. Happy Easter. ❤
Thank you! Happy Easter to you too.
Copying ancient Greek-Roman architecture was also a thing in Europe until the mid 19th century. For example, you can find two such »temples« on the Bavarian shore of the Danube river near Regensburg in Kelheim (Befreiungshalle) and Donaustauf (Walhalla). So copying this style in the US was just popular back then.
I've thought about this through many years of travel and conversations about the topic. It seems to me, we humans like symmetry in architecture, no matter what style and is found on most continents and throughout the ages/epochs. One example: the TajMahal.
I personally appreciate when outer form adjusts to inner function and practicality, and that at all scales.
I also notice how it 'irks' me when a building stands out like a sore thumb in an otherwise "architectural complex" or something super modern in a traditional town or village. I know that in time, one gets used to it and eventually more such modern buildings will be the norm, but the first and or only one does irritate.
Once again a great video with an interesting topic!
🐰🐣🌼🌷
When I think about american architecture I always think about the beautiful Art Deco Skysrapers around the US and how prominent they stand in their skylines, while the skylines around the world feel rather similiar regarding their modern and global style. But another style that is rather unknown nowadays but I deeply adore is the Googie Architecture that emerged around the 1940s in the US and even though it has never really made it around the globe I still believe it is really fascinating as well as beautiful!
OMG, what a great video!! I have been vaguely wondering about this - in Europe, the US is seen as ultra modern but when we go there, we are nonplussed by the antediluvian looks of not only the buildings but also the trucks (esp garbage trucks!), trains, or busses, kitchen styles, or airports. You have such great architects, and you attract the best architects from all over the world because we think of the US as the country of endless possibilities. Some of my favorite buildings (apart from everything Frank Lloyd Wright has ever designed and every Art Deco building in DC): the Phillips Exeter Academy Library in New Hampshire, the Beinecke Library and Maya Lin's Women's Table at Yale (otherwise the epitome of old-world monstrosity!), the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta, GA. I adore the SLC courthouse - such a clever design!! Again, thank you for this video. Very, very awesome.
Really glad you enjoyed the video! Thanks for watching.
Happy Easter 🥚🥚🐰🐰 Black Forest Family and @all
Happy Easter Arno!
You should do a video on American prudishness. It’s really weird
She has!
Yeah, you lost me at naked George, well just topless. And some consider Venus or David p0rn, 🐰 Frohe Ostern.
it's not that weird if you think about who were the religious groups moved there...
a third of the country are looney Christofascists - now guess where the prudishness comes from ;)
@@icoborg The weird part is that those religious groups also preach restraint, discipline and frugality. While you can absolutely find traces of those qualities through American society, the image America has is exactly the opposite.
What comes across as weirdly hypocritical is that this American prudishness goes hand in with an exploitation of, and obsession with youth, good looks and fame.
Thanks for another great video!
I find it ironic how one could say that modernist architecture is ”democratic”, when in fact most people, if they could vote on the matter, would choose something classical. Yes, tastes change, and I think that right now the tastes are preferring classical, is it then undemocratic to erect a classical building? I personally think that we the people should have a say in how our public spaces look, and not be the victims of an elitist architects dream of being special.
In my personal opinion, modernist architecture removes personality from the building. There are many unique american architectural styles that have personality and unique craftsmanship, like the Arts and Craft style, Hamptons, Art-Deco (esp. the Guardian building in Detroit) Creole, Sears-homes, googie, Parkitecture. They are unique to the US, have personality and showcases a mix between many different cultures around the world. Modernism does not.
Does a building have to be beautiful? Looking at old European cities, they are beautiful with a complete organic mixture of styles that have grown over the years. And I don't think there is a distinct German, French or Dutch style. There are buildings and houses build by the available materials and technology. For example, natural stone is often used in France, but rarely in the Netherlands. Without natural stone but a lot of clay, we Dutch use baked bricks. So per region you see styles driven by utility.
Only the 'big' buildings escaped that approach as they are also meant to express emotions, wealth or whatever message was intended by the builder.
And sometimes these buildings are ugly, and don't fit in the picture. But that should not stop us from building them. Barcelona has a collection of buildings by Gaudi, that would not have been build if conformity is a main criteria.
The present political climate (and not only in the US, there is enough of that going on in Europe as well) is one of polarisation and of seeking dominance over people that think or act differently. Everyone seems to concentrate on what others do wrong, and than tell them that, as loudly as possible. In such a climate, an architecture used for a building becomes a political statement. Not because of beauty, but because of that dominance game.
Happy Easter everybody 🎉
My politics and architectural tastes are different from what people expect. I’m a through going modernist. Yet things of importance shouldn’t be changed on a whim and the past shouldn’t be dismissed lightly. Human nature isn’t always linear and it goes along with what we like about the love of the beautiful and the shock of the new - art and architecture.
It's not only in the USA where government buildings are imitating ancient styles. In Switzerland, if you look at the federal palace, the building of the federal supreme court in Lausanne, they too lean back to Rome and Greece. On the other hand, the Berner Münster was changed significantly in the 19th century by finalizing the tower. Historism was omnipresent, for the better or the worse. The USA just made it bigger, as how it's usually done on the other side of the pond 😉.
In architecture I find beauty in originality and truth to materials. I have problems with concrete made roman columns, or with plastics imitating wood. Modern architecture has sometimes the impostor syndrome as well and tries to imitate rather than to create.
The Austrian Parliament Building looks like a Greek temple. There is even a statue of the Greek goddess Athena at the entrance.
My problem with brutalist architecture is that it is boring and repetitive. There are exceptions. But they are exactly that: exceptions to the rule.
I have a thing for Mission Revival architecture - it looks REALLY nice.
Most buildings in Washington DC were built during the neoclassical period (1760-1860 Sometimes even into the 20th century). Many European cities have neoclassical buildings too that were built during that time.
Ich wollte nur mal kurz sagen, dass ich deine Beiträge einfach klasse finde, insbesondere wie Du alles hinterfragst, Perspektiven und Sichtweiten öffnest. Thumbs up! Respektvolle Arbeit, ein guter Kanal.
I am generally no fan of modern architecture, but that museum building within the bronze arabesque structure, I'd call beautiful
It really is stunning, especially at night.
I really liked that one too! But yes unfortunatly it does stick out like a soar tumb when viewed at large.
@Type Aston - In the USA, are only US architects admitted to the tender competition for government construction projects or are international architects also allowed? A really good addition/contrast to your video would be the whole process surrounding the rebuilt Berlin city palace "Humboldt Forum" (YT A palace for Berlin and the world? | DW Documentary ; Berlin baut ein Schloss Film von Norbert Busè ).
I think that the building of the housing department is the most beautiful of all examples of architecture you showed. It’s very original, light and yet sturdy looking.
I really LOVE this building. The windows and they way they are set inside of the concrete leave different shadow angles depending on the time of day... the entire arrangement becomes a kind of texture to the building.
@@TypeAshtonIsn't this arrangement part of passive temperature control of the building? A way to reduce IR while still have visible light inside.
I just subscribed to you and already you reward me with a new video. Thank you!
Love from The Netherlands ❤
Thanks for subbing! ♥️
welcome
We could do with some of your bike path architecture over here in Germany. 🙈
@@ThePixel1983 we didn't always have it like nowadays. Start by going to council meetings when they are going to change a street or junction and advocate for small incremental changes. They do make a difference
I like the federal courthouse building and I think future generations will regard it as a hallmark of modern architecture.
I'm usually not that much into all those aspects of architectural designs. But as you asked, here my thoughts:
When you decide on beautifulness only, I'd rank the Building #2 to be my favorite one. For me it has the highest artistic standards. And the bronce color as well as the woven patterns somehow represent African or African American culture. Even the canopy at the entrance, at first glance very angular and massive, fits in with this in a second thought. Somehow it also represents the burden on the shoulders of African American culture.
Building #1 (Fort Lauderdale Federal Courhouse) would rank as #2 in regards of beauty. I like the bright, light-flooded corridors, the light-colored marble on the elevators and, above all, the wave-like roof construction at the entrance, which gives the whole impression something light and modern. It would be really interesting to see this "in real life", because the first impression of the computer-generated graphics can be deceptive.
In terms of beauty, this means that building #3 comes last for me. Seen from the outside, it is a massive block and the non-symmetrical cuts are rather disturbing to my eye. It's hard to explain but somehow it is as it is.
If I look at the buildings from the perspective of modernity and functionality in connection with beauty, then the rankings shift. Here I find building #1 to be the best design, followed by building #2 and finally building #3.
Last but not least, if you look at the buildings from the point of view of sustainability, the ecological footprint and the effort / costs for maintenance, then for me building #3 comes in first place, building #1 in second place and building #2 in last place.
To sum it up for me all three buildings somehow have their justification and change their ranking depending on which perspective has the highest priority for you.
The American fascination with European imitation - which is the sincerest form of flattery - always struck me as a younger sibling craving the approval and acceptance of an older sibling.
In the case of neo-classical architecture, I wonder how much of its use was an effort by the American elites to be accepted by the European elites.
For all the, frankly, patriotic chest thumping of certain corners of the American politic, one would think they would be more interested in promoting American schools of architecture. Though I think you hit it, Ashton, that the appeal of what was defined as "beautiful" has more to do with a dog whistle for white nationalism and less to do with aesthetics. In fact, given how subjective aesthetics are, I can't think of another reason to try to legislate taste.
My personal preference is when form and function marry. A building can be very efficient in terms of energy, space, materials, maintenance, etc. and still be pleasing to the eye. That can be expressed in any cultural form and has been through the centuries.
The dirty little secret that Americans are loathe to admit is that our country was settled mostly by Europeans. Insisting that our culture be "authentically American" rather than ripping off of Europe is like going to a Chinese-American family and asking why they haven't stopped eating Chinese food.
Do you people forget that the US was founded and built by... Europeans?
@@chickenfishhybrid44 the huge contributions by enslaved peoples and the modeling of the US government on the Iroquois Confederacy, at first the former English colonists thought of themselves as English. But especially after The War of 1812, "Americans" began to develop a stronger identity that was largely, "we're not British." So, yes, it is still surprising that Americans spent decades still trying to impress Europeans.
I think you missed that buildings of authority in England also emulate the grecoroman style. They weren't reinventing the wheel, they were just trying to imbue the new country with authority. Same reason for all the symbols on the money.
There is an interesting "yes, but..." point to be made... One of the arguments for why the Parliament building in London should be made Neo-Gothic was because neoclassical architecture was too much associated with the United States and the seat of British government shouldn't emulate a former colony.
@@TypeAshtonyup even the UK parliament website openly explains how the neoclassical style was associated with republicanism and revolution - not sure it is now. I wonder what revolutionary architecture looks like today - maybe a tented community on Wall Street!
The Smithsonian Museum building looks is amazing!
Its like an Armani suit, it never gets old. Classic style will be always good looking. 🤷♂️
The Ft Lauderdale Court House is beautiful while still traditional and also appears to be aware of budget concerns. Building expense and functionality have to factor into choice for Government buildings, and probably more than a few people have a voice in the final design selection eliminating the possibility of a more radical or experimental design. Trying to please the crowd never leads to anything unique. Look at the Vietnam memorial. People complained about its radicality so they had to add a traditional statue of 3 servicemen.
Some futurism/modernism helps and looks good especially in certain types of buildings such as high-rises, roadway stops, hospitals, warehouses, etc...
We can bring back tradition. They just do not have to be as elaborate as Neoclassical and certain Victorian styles. The problem is that many tract homes and strip malls use traditional styles but they are pretty artificial looking. We cannot restore architecture IF we can restore urban planning.
I'd say the most relevant part for buildings is what you connect with them. Thinking about ancient buildings like the collosseum, the Panthenon or other buildings, you might think about their symbol of wealth and influence, their age and the fact that they are thousands of years old and still exists. Wealth, influence and withstanding thousands of years might be some things you want to copy for your building. Massive, impressive buildings to display your wealth, your resistance, something like that.
Hello Ashton, Frohe Ostern,
Thank you for letting me have a glimps in Amerikan architekture
I enjoyed your video it is very good.
I have never been in Amerika so I dont have a Idea what it looks like.
In Potsdam ( near Berlin) you will find little Rome, French buildings ,Dutch style Hauses and Russian houses. Have a nice week many Greetings Christiane 😊😊❤
Majority of parliament buildings in Europe are in classicism/neoclassicism style as a tribute to ancient roots of democracy. The US is not alone in that sense
Another great video. There is perhaps one piece missing: Andrea Palladio, a Venetian architect that brought ancient world architecture into Renaissance Europe. In many ways US government buildings copy his architecture, not the original. The influence of the oldest surviving republic (Venice) on the youngest republic in late 18th century is often overlooked.
As a Canadian, a trained artist/designer with an interest in architecture and history, I am extremely affected by buildings large and small. We moved every year as I was growing up and can remember the impact on feelings 1:47 of every house we lived in and how I tried to change them. And so many public buildings influenced my life as well. The beautiful grand Parliament Buildings in Victoria, the opening of the public art gallery built in the new West Coast Modern of the west coast 1950’s, the equally beautiful longhouses of the First Nations. Art school was housed in a new brutalist building of the 1960’s which was perfect for the time, to allow free expression of art not tied to the European tradition. I could go on and on as every age produces some amazing and some pretty awful stuff. I think the bigger the building the bigger effect it will have on the 😅peoples’ psyche and the more serious must be the vetting process. I’m enjoying this discussion so much, thank you!
11:30 I appreciate Ashton's optimism
Great video! I read that New Traditional Architecture is now popular in Germany . What do you think about it? And what do you think about the fact that pre-war architecture has been rebuilt in Germany even in recent years, such as the "medieval city" of Frankfurt.
Interesting video. Just for the record, Brunelleschi did not design Santa Maria del Fiore (the Duomo of Florence) but just the dome (including the lantern in a separate contract), which was built around 120 years after the initial construction began.
As for the topic of this video, I don't have strong opinions one way or the other, but it should be noted that classical architecture is evergreen and automatically "institutional", like classical music, I think there is an argument to be made about not wasting resources into something that might or might not work, maybe it isn't as exciting but not everything needs to be, it's a bit like endlessly looking for fancy fonts when Times New Roman would do the job just fine and doesn't risk looking gawdy.
I love the architecture you find in the center of American small towns. Buildings that reminds you of the wild west. That is something I enjoy very much when visiting.
As the much-quoted saying goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". "Beautiful" is something that is pleasing to the eye, and I dare say (as supported by several of the drone video clips you employed) that the most pleasing part is symmetry. Which is why numerous nations and cultures made this the central point of their architecture - the Greeks as much as the Chinese, and their respective predecessors and/or derivatives, to just name those two. And this architecture has also been used to convey a sense of awe towards the system countless times, in democracies (if one considers the 18th and 19th U.S. a democracy), monarchies and dictatorships alike. We do not think of "Nazi architecture" as ugly because a lack of aesthetics, but because we know it was employed to further evil purposes, and also because it was blown out of proportion in order to be literally overwhelming (think of "Reichshauptstadt Germania" as shown in your video, or the (basically "classical Greek") statues of Arno Breker.
One should be aware of the potential for misusing a prescribed style of architecture before decreeing it to be the official directive (though I'm afraid for the MAGA crowd this may be a feature, not a bug). But just imagine if after another Trump term (all gods please forbid!) the entire federal architecture looked like Mar-a-Lago and other McMansions. Give me some more failed attempts at copying the Parthenon yet again any time.
Hi Ashton. I think classicism was a mania in the late 18th and in almost the entire 19th century. In Germany the names of several famous architects are associated with that style like Friedrich Weinbrenner in Karlsruhe, Friedrich Karl Schinkel (Berlin) and Leo Klenze in Munich. Referring to the old Greeks wasn't limited to architects though. See eg. Friedrich Nietsche who was inspired by the culture of Ancient Greece. And the composer Richard Wagner. And of course the poet Friedrich Hölderlin.
Courthouse coincidence?
I think the 2nd building is really cool.
It is my favorite, for sure.
По моему скромному мнению это потому, что демократия как форма правления впервые появилась в Греции, сенат был типичным римским государственным учреждением где был представлен народ, по видимому основатели США в этих древних учреждениях эллинов и римлян видели образец для свободных граждан (свободных от феодальных сословий Европы).
Most capitol buildings are not classical, but based on early baroque architecture. Like the Saint Peter in Rome was a template for the Washington DC Capitol. So far more Paladio than Pericles.
The first time I saw Pompidou Center I was fabbergasted! I was just trying to find my way around Paris. Speaking no French. I thought I had stepped in to a different universe. I wonder. Is it loved today? Or is it outdated like sideburns and disco?
I love it! Also the surrounding area.
Beauty has always been in the eye of the beholder.
However, there are some common things throughout architecture and civil environment designs that keep making their return throughout the world. Things like white walls are typical in most Mediterranean-style houses, but also in typical German-style or Japanese-style houses. Red or black roofs are also very common throughout the world. Pillars in architecture were also seen in Mayan and Incan architecture. And the direct environment also makes a difference: the contrast between a building and the surroundings like greenery or the blue color of a lake can make a difference to the perceived beauty of a building. Furthermore, whatever is deemed beautiful is also time/fashion-bound. Cultures change over the years, and they adapt, copy or invent new trends. What is seen as beautiful now, can be seen as ugly 100 years later, or the other way around.
Defining beauty in architecture is very difficult, if not impossible...
it's not an identity crisis.
we are everyone because we come from everywhere. we are not copying.
we are bringing our individual own and mixing and merging and combining it with everyone else's individual own.
Who's we? US contemporary architecture is mostly bland, lowest common denominator, and tediously uniform. It's been getting a bit better recently, but for decades everything has been some sort of frame construction with veneer (mostly brick) and pillars stuck onto it.
When I do work on my house, one of the major concerns is whether doing anything mildly interesting will decrease the home value because nobody wants to buy anything that isn't brain-numbingly boring since realtors have decided that nobody will buy anything that isn't a box with traditional-looking crap glued on.
I'm gonna call it "Friendly Brutalism". Brutalism! Now in white! With sunlight*!
_*sunlight not included_
😂😂😂
I think, that the Greek style of architecture, even more than the Roman, has a very important impact on hoe people feel about the buildings. Mostly it's about the proportions. For pretty much most people, a Greek temple feels inviting and integrating. They feel part of the community, that has build this, even if in total dimensions it's overwhelmingly huge.
On the opposite side there's Egyptian temple architecture, that was intended to intimidate people. You were supposed to feel small and unimportant, when approaching the god and his priests. When you look at Nazi-Architecture, they take a lot from the Egyptian style, like e.g. the columns of the Luxor temple, that was echoed in the entrance of the Reichskanzlei, or the Tempelhof airport. The Germania-Plans for Berlin were somewhere between Egyptian, and Babylonian intimidation with that long procession street, leading up to the big hall, like to the Ziggurat in Babylon.
While in Nazi-Architecture that choice is expected, the Kanzleramt in Berlin also mimics Egyptian temple-architecture in a different way, with its long way towards the entrance, surrounded by the building itself. While you walk towards the entrance of the Kanzleramt, you feel like being watched from all sides. It makes you feel small, irrelevant and intimidated, just like the long entrance was at the Karnak temple. Also the main part of the building, and the garden are closed off from the public, like the center of a Egyptian temple, where the god was thought to live. It's very different to the old Kanzleramt in Bonn.
The opposite can be seen with the even bigger but much more inviting Paul-Löbe-Haus right across the Kanzleramt, where the Bundestag-Offices are. It has more Greek proportions, and your way towards the entrance is open, and not intimidating. If you walk towards it, you feel invited, and like you're a member of that community. There's no distinct part closed of from the public, everything is more open.
The Roman use of proportions seems to be somewhere in between the Greek, and the Egyptian styles. Roman buildings, while often similarly inviting as Greek temples, sometimes also can be quite intimidating. The Pantheon in Rome, or the Maison Carrée in Nîmes are inviting examples, While the Castel Sant'Angelo, Hadrians mausoleum, is closed off from public access, and looks down on you, just like an Egyptian temple.
It might be just my European upbringing, that I feel like that with these buildings, but looking at these ancient cultures, and their societies, I do think, there's something very fundamental to it. The very strict hierarchical societies of Egypt, or Babylon developed an architecture style, that is meant to make people feel irrelevant, while the relatively (for the time) open society of Greece has developed a very inviting style. Therefore, when designing buildings, that should represent democratic nations, you might want to consider Greek proportions, and avoid the intimidating aspects of the Egyptian style.
Yes, I think, Germany should get rid of that Kanzleramt, because it's an abomination. Not as architecture per se, but as a representation of a democratic nation.
I wrote a book a while ago about the separation of architectural theory and construction practice - I still find it odd how much attention is given across the social sciences and humanities to matters of aesthetics and form (including underlying ideologies and discourses etc) etc and how relatively little to the working conditions, experiences, and practices of those constructing buildings. It’s like the former is worthy of theorising and the latter not so much.
It has been a while since I took a course on the subject, but I remember a professor discussing how little clients are willing to pay for post occupancy evaluations. Even if it means that relatively minor changes after the fact would make measurable changes in the longevity and usability of the building.
@@TypeAshtonyes that’s right - the user, even the building itself, are often of little concern to clients. For example, most volume house builders in the UK don’t employ architects and are essentially land barons. There is an anarchist architect I like called Colin Ward who published on the need to decentre the architect and client and re centre the user in the building process. Monika Grubbauer, an urban studies prof at Hamburg, published a chapter in my book on how informal housing in the global south can exemplify this, although it’s often castigated in the west as slum dwelling. Anyhow, I’m very interested in this sort of thing, particularly as it applies to the building process. Not sure YT comments are the best place for these sorts of discussions but if you or anyone reading this are interested my profile is publicly accessible at Loughborough University.
It is better than the steel and concrete boxes that compose most of modern architecture. The Bauhaus look has deformed cityscapes around the world. I remember a tour guide in Cologne stating that Cologne has been destroyed twice, once by allied bombers and the second time by its own architects. Nobody lampooned the style better than Thomas Wolfe in From Bauhaus to Our House.
So, how does 'classical' architecture fit in to Albuquerque, NM, where the dominant architectural theme is 'pueblo'?
What would happen if an architect merges 'Disney' and 'Classical' in a courthouse in Orlando?
There are newly built government buildings in Jackson, Mississippi that look like they were designed by Albert Speer. Accident? Inadvertent?
Tempelhof airport in Berlin was designed in the 'classical' style. It might be a bit hard to find a public building in either Greece or Rome designed to accommodate throngs of hurried travelers filing their way through security checkpoints - something here just doesn't compute. This gets worse given that the airport was built in period of piston aircraft and 'phased out' in the period of much larger jetliners. In either case one could be thinking that the airplanes are landing on government or business districts.
Penn Station was modeled after the Baths of Caracalla, which is certainly an impressive play of light and volume, but a bit jarring when the former was for leisurely gathering for social interaction and the latter was for getting to and from work via trains. Running from one platform to another is hard on the eyes when the light is shifting from sun to shadow repeatedly.
So how does all that arch and column stuff work in Yellowstone National Park?
When one goes to 'Fort Liberty' (used to be called Fort Bragg) one thinks more of medieval castles or cannons and earthworks. Is something like an 'inviting public space' appropriate for a high security, compartmentalized organization? Even more so with 'Camp Lejeune', where the vision is tents and people sitting around campfires in the middle of woods.
Just what sort of architecture is appropriate for a lab where they're blasting frozen hydrogen pellets with 192 laser beams?
This is such an interesting topic. Modernism itself can be boring or exciting. Take Köln and Düsseldorf for example. As I moved to Köln 2 years ago, almost every Kölner told me: our city is ugly, but we love it nonetheless and Kölner are the best. And I honestly can't argue with that.
Now Düsseldorf was rebuilt roughly at the same time, but I have at least 5 examples of my favourite modern architecture in Düsseldorf, that are really interesting and exciting. And so did my guests that came to visit and saw the both cities.
What is inexplicable for me is that Köln is SOOOOOOO old, that it actually would have the right to copy the classical or medieval architecture, or even the 19th century. But the architects chose the modern approach and also executed it very.... questionably. Those were the car times I guess.
But then again, Geschmacksache😊
"Beauty is subjective and constantly changes" - it would be foolish to disagree with this statement, but at the same time Greco-Roman architecture is an example of art that that has been revered for millennia. If you wanted to enforce beauty standards there are worse places to look. Personally I don't oppose this type of legislation, I think buildings that represent the state should have certain aesthetic qualities.
Based.
Cities all over Europe were often burned down and rebuilt, with every new ruler / rich citizen / the more prosperous the city became, the cityscape changed according to the fashion of the time and allowed the old to merge with the new. You can see stark differences in cities from the drawing board, such as the capital Brasília.
Americans aren't copying Europeans, they are Europeans themselves.
Thank you! Especially the people that designed most of the notable buildings.. hardly removed from Europe.
Not all Americas are European tho
Do some research, Ashton, about Karlsruhe as a possible city planning example according to masonic principles for Washington....
When I tink of American architecture I think of the Chrysler building in new york or the (also) art deco style buildings in Miami Beach. An art stile that was in fashion in Europe but was clearly Americanized and made their own. Frank Lloyd Wright was an amazing architect and is for me what real architecture in the US once was. I'd love to see the US go to their short past and modernise these ideas or expand on them instead of copy past what is already made. And don't get me started on the sadness that is the modern subberb where every home looks the same and could exist in every state, not taking in account the weather or local products that should influance a home.
8:18 This is a good example. The Victor Emmanuel II National Monument was inaugurated in 1911, and hosts the unknown soldier tomb, it was hated by Romans because its style and they called it "the Typewriter"
I think personally I would like public buildings to have something enduring about them. I often feel if they are drawn with Fibonacci proportions, they are more pleasing to the eye somehow. But I also really believe that public buildings should in this day and age be sustainable, maintainable and take into account effects of global warming aspects. And last but not least, a building is not something isolated but always exists in a context. So I prefer that when a new building is placed into an existing context, there is some kind of relationship with what is already there. I often think about the wildly differing styles allowed in Belgian suburbs (often regulations seem to only limit the height of a house and closeness to the plot perimeter) whereas in Dutch suburbs, there seem to be more restrictions on style aswell, which - once completed - will give a much more calm and cohesive look
Old administrative buildings do not have just exterior design features and internal spaces for art. They also serve some functions and their internal spaces are designed for the functions and organisational structures of the period. Older buildings can be difficult and very costly to convert to service well the new ways of working in more modern organisations. That means old buildings become relics of their time. If there aren't too many of those, that cost can be tolerated. But instead of being an asset they become a burden, unless some clever new usage can be found for them.
I've always liked how Philadelphia City Hall looks. If I remember correctly, it's French inspired architecture
1 - Looks fine I guess, I certainly wouldn't campaign to demolish it if it was next to me.
2 - My initial reaction on seeing it for the first time was it looked Japanese. I'm not sure how well it fits in with other buildings in Washington DC, though it would look just fine in somewhere like Kyoto.
3 - Looks very nice inside, outside, not so much, and I don't think it will age very well. To me it looks like some boring but essential functional building like for example a power station or chemical plant that you would find in an industrial estate.
In the UK, the latest architectural fas seems to be 1920s American buildings 🤷🏻♀. Some of it actually works quite well, others not so much. But the biggest problem is going to be the flat roofs in about 20 years time when they start to leak.
An interesting analysis! While Classical Architecture has a lot of aesthetic appeal, so does non-European architecture - like Japanese architecture, for example. America has a rich variety of Native American traditions (ex: adobe, popular in New Mexico). Overall, though, I think the quintessential US architecture is that of Frank Lloyd Wright. Wright was American and took inspiration from American and Japanese influences but set out to create a distinctly American style, in part, to push back against Eurocentrism in architecture.
I'm kind of indifferent towards modern architecture and tend to look at it in an utilitaritan way. There are exceptions, when a building is telling or is part of a story. Like one of the first high-rise buildings in my home town of St. Gallen. It was built in the 1970's and has a oval shape and a house facade I associated with the original starship Enterprise as a kid. It's officially called "Silberturm", which would translate to "Tower of Silver", it looks outdated today, like many things from the 70's do, but to me it's a testament of a time when people had a bright sight of the future and showed that in the unique style of the building.
And it gave my younger me the impression that Captain Kirk could be right behind the next door 😁
I actually think the Salt Lake courthouse doesn't look that bad. I quite like the incorporation of natural light into the structure, and it also is set back from the street, which is nice in a downtown area. Now, is it the most architecturally innovative, most aesthetically pleasing building in the world? No. But I think it actually isn't that bad, either.
Frohe Ostern. Wunderbarer Kanal.
When most americans see a bright building with columns, do they think "aaah, ancient greek architecture!" or "ah, one of the fancy federal buildings!"? I guess most will have seen more images of the White House, the Capital and the big DC Obelisk than the pantheon or obelisks in Egypt. So in a way, this is (at least a part of) "american architecture".
For me: I do think that every public place (buildings & infrastructure) should be somewhat beautiful. Sure, that's always subjective, but I'd like for every project to at least be able to allocate _some_ of the funds just for the look. A cube might be the cheapest way to build an office, and it's not a problem to have some of those - but when all buildings are just a plain blank concrete wall, that's not exactly making the people there feel good.
in a funny twist of fate ive always found that architects are themselves rarely able to identify beautiful architecture. they start spouting theories and influences with big words while forgetting to think if its actually pretty. its like those fashion designers that think pretty models equals low BMIs and some numbers for waist sizes etc. those that didnt like the eiffel tower at first where also engineers and architects, proven wrong in time.
all three buildings at the end are very much not beautiful to me. the museum i dont mind since that surely is the place for some experimental stuff but those others are neither neo classical nor pretty in anyway.
I agree that just taking a style from somewhere and copying it as a official policy is something lazy, uninspired, pretentious and insecure. I don't know if you need a "national" style, I really like it when architecture reflects the geography, culture and history of either the place it stands or the purpose of the building, like the Elbphilharmonie and its reflecting waves or the sparse and utilitarian exterior of the Bauhaus Museum in Weimar which, for all its interior failings, does convey what Bauhaus was about
Since Canada's government institutions were created in the 19th Century, and our country came about as a reaction to the American Revolution (and Quebec was hostile to the French Revolution), our institutional architecture, at least until the First World War, was influenced by Victorian Romanticism, especially Neo-Gothic or Scottish Baronial architecture, or in the case of Quebec, French Renaissance architecture modeled on 17th century French chateaux. This was in reaction to the Classical styles favoured by both the USA and France at the time, following their respective revolutions.
Can't wait for the Fiat Multipla to become a beloved classic car....!
I think with the last three examples that the museum will age the best. It's modern, but it has texture.
I'd say that the more natural stone and brick that is typical with the neoclassical buildings will also age better for the same reason.
The neoclassical inspired courthouse and the cube o' justice are too sterile.
My problem with architects is that buildings should be inexpensive as possible to build, functional, have low heating and cooling bills, and then look great. That is why I ended up in Mechanical Engineering instead of Architecture. Square is nice but bland unless you spice it up a little with a pattern, columns, etc. I have visited Falling Waters in Pennsylvania, Talisman , and the House on the Rocks in Wisconsin.( perhaps the Wisconsin houses are the same house) Wisconsin has other Frank Lyod Wright buildings I have driven past that are public buildings. The buildings look great and have a more functional layout for our modern life styles but the heating & cooling loads ( a big area of my engineering education) for the buildings are terrible and the stark minimalist interiors doesn't make me feel like living in them. Structurally they are less expensive to build than the older style buildings of that era, but good old Frank more than offset those cost savings with his architectural fees. Myself, I would tend to keep the exterior of his buildings but with less glass and then mix the old with the new on the interior design.( there is a Swedish architect that does a great job of this or modern farmhouse interiors) Then there is the case of blending with the existing neighborhoods architecture with your modern designed building and I believe that this is important. ( the town we left is mostly Victorian architecture) For structural economy, I am into curves such as Felix Candela's thin shelled curved structures or the Alcan building in Calgary. ( hypars!) I am also into domes, curved arches, & round cylinders. Then how do you get your house to fit into your neighborhood? If your out in the middle of corn field as in a lot of the Upper Midwestern USA; why not but not in town. Then there is pleasing your wife and that is another problem beyond this post of video's content. Perhaps I will have an arched utility shed some day way out in my backyard. ( they are less expensive to build than a square one for an enclosed amount of space)
I really appreciate your video. I personally think that all building "structures" should be built to be practical. Taking into consideration the environment, meaning strong enough to survive the environment (winters, summer heat, etc) of the region, is now and possibly more extreme in the future. But also, taking advantage of natural light, wind "ventilation" if needed. Buildings covered in nothing but glass might be practical if they're solar panels (provide renewable electricity). I'll never understand why they haven't changed the building codes in many places in the US, plywood, and drywall the storm comes once a year, destroys everything and then they rebuild everything again on the same materials. Makes no sense. 🤔
They did partly. Florida has a stronger building code because of storms.
Do you guys actually think that houses all over the US are destroyed each year by just typical "storms"? The type of weather events you're seeing completely destroy houses in the US are not very common in most of Europe. Hugest swathes of the US have hotter summers AND colder winters than alot of Eruope. Alot of the US has more extreme weather in general.
Like many things in the US, there really isn't a style of architecture that is "American". Much of what has been built was inspired by, if not directly copied, Europe of differing time periods. Europe is where most early American settlers came from and the education was based on. Look at how we use Latin for mottos and other expressions to give them some "class and gravitas". It was also where the sense of esthetics was derived from. I don't see it as plagiarism as much as "imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery". The American psyche and tastes are pretty complex, owing to the diverse places that we all came from. Most did not arrive as young children, but arrived as adults (or slightly younger) and much of their education and cultural norms had already be formed by then. At the same time, we were trying to form something new in a democracy and who else would we emulate but ancient Greece, the original. There is also the sense of solidity and permanence that these large stone structures with their columns and vaults gave. I think is not the style of some of the buildings that many people don't like as much as they seem so separate from the other structures that surround them. The Eisenhower Office Building is not bad by itself, but is rather jarring to see in the context of the other classical or federalist building that surround it. The mansard roof, extensive use of ornamentation, color and other features are very different from anything else. Think of it in the sense of if you put a modern tall glass and steel tower office building in the center of Paris in sight of the Louvre and Notre Dame. Although not ugly on it's own, it would clash with all of the architecture that surrounds it and, to many, be esthetically unpleasing. I M Pei's glass pyramids at the Louvre is an example of this. They were, and still are, very controversial (but they do provide a great plot twist for a Dan Brown novel).
The African-American history and culture museum is so interesting building! I love African ornaments, upside pyramids design and warm color. It reffers to Africa and it's something non-African at the same time. I think, architects captured the point with this building.
I also like the column walkway around the first court. Wavy celling design is refreshing and not boring, unike the main building (but it's a law court, it shouldn't be funny and sparkly).
The third building is quite modern, in my opinion. It's bright and glassy, but there's nothing to an eye to grip, actually. Well, once again, it's a law court, not a gazebo in a park.
I don't understand this gravitating to an ancient Greec and Rome stye nowadays. Isn't the US a country, where cultures from around the world meeting? Why be so passionate about represent two particular (and relatively small!) cultures and ingnoring all others? Why not find your way? Modern culture builds not only on ancient Greec and Rome basis, it has so much more!
I don't prefer one style over the other, but one important question that needs to be asked is "what is going to stand the test of time?". Building something fashionable might be cool, but how will it look in 10, 20, 50, 100 years? While classical is not exactly cutting edge, at least we KNOW that it is timeless and will look good in 1000 years time. With modern stuff you're taking much more of an expensive gamble. Just look at brutalism as an example of a style that was once all the rage, and now many people hate it because the concrete doesn't weather well after 50 years.
The problem with brutalism is that - in general - the architects who design them don't get to set the budgets for maintenance, which is why many of them seem to deteriorate horribly.
You know what I love about cities? I love when every building feels like it's own personality, some old, some new, some curvy and round, with playful details, some straight and angled that feel almost stoic, to me it represents the rich and colorful history of the city... the nazis had grand plans for Berlin, most of the buildings they built were grand and neoclassical, all of them looked like a variation of the same building, with a matching color scheme and architectural details, no color or playfulness, but a uniform grandness of some epic imaginary antiquity... I don't like that much and neoclassicism has never been able to scratch the itch like most other architectural styles, it tends to be boring... also, neoclassical architecture is a lie, all of that white Roman marble was actually painted over and in reality would have resembled the 3rd day of an LSD bender...
Honestly, there is already a style in place for government buildings. They should stick with consistancy with moden upgrades internally, otherwise it looks like cheap mishmosh. Some of the ultra moden buildings look very cold and these aesthetics are subjective.
17:04 Gives off more of a Dubai vibe
Ashton is very well spoken und auch hubsch asf !
I don't see why American 'plagiarism' of classic architecture is such a bad thing. I live in Munich and there are bunch of Greco-Roman style buildings and statues all over the place. (all over Europe for that matter)
Ironically ancient Romans were greatest 'plagiarists' themselves, famous for copying other cultures in many different aspects of life and perfecting architectures and technologies of other peoples.
Founding fathers using references to Roman culture makes a huge sense if you think of it in terms of building a state:
US was designed as a Republic (like Rome in its early days) which was a contrast to European states that were mostly ruled by absolute monarchs at the time.
That's why George Washington was often compared to ancient Roman statesman Cincinatus instead of some glorious medieval European king or even Roman emperors who weilded absolute power.
Thus it has less to do with some 'white men' bullshit that's being used as a buzzword all the time.
And exactly because beauty is very subjective and America is comprised of people of multitude of cultural and ethnic backgrounds, usage of simple classic architecture for government buildings is probably the most neutral and pragmatic approach.
The rest can be decided by the communities locally.
Thank you. The US was founded and largely built by Europeans for christ sake.