Comment by intended | Hacker News Reader

Comment by intended | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is some strange no? It looks like you are talking about city planning more than architecture when talking about city centers.

Modern designs are affected by supply and demand, while modernist designs have been supplanted by many other school.

Innovation has ranged from tiny homes, to livable homes, to new materials, to shipping containers, building heights, concrete types, designs and more.

I’ve seen architectural styles emerge and evolve from different countries, so it’s hard to read this and find the source of your opinion.

The creation of public spaces is highly dependent on the governance of those localities.

I was bemoaning the growth of self sufficient enclaves as a real estate solution in Mumbai, but I acknowledge that this is the market providing for its consumers what the government is yet to provide.

Is this primarily an attack on academia, under the assumption that everyone hates the combination of “innovation” “modernism” and “professors”?

Academia here is highly dysfunctional.

For one, you don‘t need academics to build houses.

It‘s an idea of the 20th century that you would.

Previously architecture schools were part of the art departments. A bit of engineering, maybe, but that‘s it.

Now that you have academics, they need to be innovative.

The old doesn‘t count. Architecture becomes like fashion. Students are scolded if they want to produce anything traditional.

This is true for 99% of architecture schools worldwide. Notre Dame is a noticeable exception, as are several summer schools in Europe (by INTbau for example).

There is zero reason for neglecting or denying traditional architecture. The Romans have already known how to live well. Without artificial air condition. Perfectly climate adapted. Natural materials.

Second, architecture schools are not about education, it‘s about becoming part of a cult. It‘s about telling a story, about winning competitions, and about convincing investors. Not so much pleasing the users of a building.

Who the heck denies traditional architecture? My friends were studying architecture along side me in college, they have tons of studies on classical architecture.

Heck I know about classical building methods, styles and the economics behind them and I’m not even an architect.

And I was not even born in the west.

Like, I don’t expect a neophyte architect to use methods that can build houses only up to 3 stories based on stonework.

They need to use drywall and construction methods unique to their locality.

But there’s thousands of other and file architects, and thousands more who make insane and wonderful things, along with professors who …

Dear heavens, What happened on your journey?

Besides - there’s always place for new and interesting, if rebellion is your go to motif - have at it.

Modern itself was a rebellion against older forms and thinking.

It is a well-known fact that 99% of architecture schools are about making students follow a particular set of tastes we call “modernism” - an ideology that states that buildings need to be innovative, that traditional methods should be neglected. It favors minimalist forms, neglects art forms like ornament, idealizes the “genius architect”, and favors “modern” materials like concrete.

If you don’t follow this stream, more often than not you will get bad grades or fail tests.

Some people said “architecture is not about education, it is about entering a cult”.

Some more details here: https://youtu.be/syQMTZyzqcg?si=NTz362TrktrIEBhr

Reply on news.ycombinator.com