Why Americans LOVE to Copy "Beautiful" European Architecture

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.

Frank Lloyd Wright probably came closest to creating a unique American design language. Fallingwater feels unlike any other house.

It’s Easter Day everybody! Happy Easter!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Classicism was also widespread in Europe at the time. The Brandenburg Gate in Berlin is just one example of this.

You should do a video on American prudishness. It’s really weird

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.

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".

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 🇨🇦.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

My problem with brutalist architecture is that it is boring and repetitive. There are exceptions. But they are exactly that: exceptions to the rule.

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!