Hacker News Reader

Comment by Marazan | Hacker News Reader

Ah, I did not realise it was from Le Corbusier that the brutalist's obsession with flat roofs came from.

There is no greater symbol of the absolute anti human idiocy of the movement than: A) constructing a flat roof building on the west coast of Scotland (200+ rain days a year) B) declare it a master piece

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Peter%27s_Seminary,_Cardr...

View on HN

There does seem to be a strong cultural thread in architecture that views the profession as more art than design. If I have to live and work in a building, I would much rather it was designed with me in mind than being the architect's expression of personal style.

Edit: to be fair, this criticism could also be levelled at programmers and interface designers.

As someone who is just coming to the end of his architectural education and having worked in the industry for about 7 years now I can say this is largely a problem with academia in arhtecture which sees itself as some kind of pseudo-philosophical subject. Building regulations in most countries that I have worked in, for better or for worse, will not allow for architects to pull off what the modernists or the post modernists did anymore. (This is not to say that there aren't people out there still churning out poorly thought out buildings)

"not allow for architects to pull off what the modernists or the post modernists did anymore"

Thank all gods for that!

That sounds like architects have been tempered by regulations moreso than having changed ambitions though, am I missing something? My understanding is that the modernist and postmodernist icons were not academics but practicing architects, sometimes both.

Similar ambitions are still there from my anecdotal experience (especially among people in the polar ends of the profession's spectrum ie. the new grads and the veterans) but most architects I meet these days while appriciative of the works of people like Corb and other modernists, completely understand their shortcomings.

But what has really curbed the possibility of anything like those movements to happen again is the neoliberal economics in contrast to the post war socialist policies of the time.

That makes sense, by post war socialism are you thinking the Warsaw pact countries or the more social-democratic elements of Keynesianism? Either way, makes sense given most development is done privately for profit now. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

You are mixing a few things here, flat roofs have nothing to do with brutalism in particular or Le Corbusier - they existed long before both. Maybe you meant modernism in general?

Anyway, for anyone wondering about all these flat roofs in modern architecture I recommend watching this video:

Why Do Architects Insist on Using Flat Roofs? - Stewart Hicks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW0ydAMVQ2w

I find it hard to take seriously someone who is "suprised" by the existence of flat roofs in traditional North African/Mediterranean/Middle Eastern architecture.

Why? Do you feel humans should be born with a natural instinct for Mediterranean architecture, much as they are for the supremacy of iterative software development?

I would expect a person who runs an architecture YouTube channel to be vaguely familiar with major styles of architecture, yes.

No, but if you criticize an architectural feature, maybe researching where it came from and what the reasoning behind it is can be expected.

I do also wonder what people consider modern. As I sit in my flat-roofed 1880’s Chicago home. Surrounding block after block of flat-roofed residential buildings housing millions of people, largely constructed between 1872 and 1930.

It's also worth realizing that much of style comes from technology -- an architect makes his name by designing something that couldn't have been built fifty years ago.

Much of 19th century style was built around millwork, because millwork let you use this wide flat boards and linear patterns that were all but impossible to do at scale before.

For the 20th, you had glass, steel and concrete -- because again, there were things you could do with concrete that you just couldn't before.

So it was back to the beginning of time; you give an architect a flying buttress, and he's going to use it.

But the flying buttress solved a need. They wanted to build higher because they wanted to celebrate god in an even more glorious fashion, bringing in more light, more stained glass, more people in front of the altar.

The difference with modernism, which is really a mindset, and so deeply seeped in we barely recognize it anymore, is that technology, in and of itself, is a value. That is why we have the flat roof in Scotland. The value is not keeping the inhabitants dry, or being mindful of long term maintenance issues. Technology, especially high technology, demands its application. That is modernism. It's a curse.

Contrast this very clearly against humanism. Man is measure of all things. Not, as in modernism, that man should adapt to the measure. It's not that technology wasn't valued, but only as a tool, a means to an end. Or a means of understanding, a metaphor. The telescope is an implement of science, not a fetisj. In modernism, the tool is fetishized. The concrete that enabled shaping walls at large scales, now must be everywhere. Why, why would a living space demand that it be harsh, and in odd large shapes? It does not. But because at one point reinforced concrete was high technology, it must. It's a very infantile mindset, like a toddler, who has similar infatuations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com