Why Modern Architecture is SCAM

Great video. On your question at the end of the video, 'what are the new stories?' I think you already answered: a. follow a universal grammar that integrates buildings within the whole b. keep it organic and incremental. c. keep it regional, adapted to the particularities of each place (weather, culture, custom) The irony is that this does mean going back, because these principles are perennial and all pre-modern architecture embraced them. Now there were several 20th century theorists who tried to adopt them; I think Rem Koolhaas tried to come up with an algorithmic design technique (superimposition, if I recall correctly) that simulates the effects of time and historical incremental change; parametric tools have also been employed to this end; with Houdini you can artificially age buildings and simulate wear and tear. For the regional part, there was Kenneth Frampton's critical regionalism; as for discovering a universal grammar, Charles Jencks attempted to formulate it in 'The Architecture of the Jumping Universe', where by using fractal shapes, strange attractors, non-linear equations and other shapes inspired from nature, he claimed to achieve an even truer organicism than that of classicism. Now we look at the actual designs of these people - Koolhaas, Jencks, Libeskind etc - and they are still horrendous and don't come close to the harmony and organic character of pre-20th century architecture.

Sad that we never got to experience a grand international airport in classical architecture. I have always loved being in and around classical railway stations and loathed both airports and modern railway stations.

I agree, logic doesn't work on most people. What works is telling emotional stories. I think you put it best... first we should start by designing a functional building using basic shapes like squares, circles, triangles, rectangles, etc to make a functional building in the location it is being built. For that to happen, the architect should study the site, the community, the people, the weather, the resources, the buildings, the culture, etc. Then we should ornament the buildings so that it has 80% of the local community character and 20% of the architects "new" ideas because people will have to look at them for the next 100+ years. It wouldn't make sense to tear down buildings after 10 years because it no longer fits into the community, that would be a waste of resources ( time, money, effort, etc ). Next there needs to be a story told about the building that weaves in the past, present, and future. All three aspects of time should be seen in a building, a plaque made with the story, and dedications / celebrations that tie to the building.

Great work! Keep it up, especially featuring more older ideas that still work better to solve all-time problems (like minimizing maintenance and repairs due to weather effects) than newer but not better ideas.

Great take and spotlight on the functionalism or lack-of regarding Bauhaus and its implementation on industrial design. Still, currents and design schools like Bauhaus among others can still be great for certain markets or niches like commercial, utilitarian or business related buildings, structures more so than residential especially en-masse, just like i.e. Miles Van der Rohe or Frank Lloyd Wright’s. That’s the key aspect for me, differentiating the ultimate goal and function of a structure. A brutalist structure is dreadful, depressing for people to live in but if it’s a warehouse, a train or bus station then its dreaded basic, barebones design could be seen as utilitarian and be actually a pro especially in relation to cost-benefit and speed of implementation, construction.

Great video! When you were talking about flat roofs and rain i heard you mention snow once. Flat roofs in places where its snows is very bad. if you get a lot of snow on a flat roof it will cave in the roof from the weight of the snow. Like you said that is why they made pointed roofs to protect the roof, it was functional. @12:20 I was so sad when you said that beautiful building was torn down and replaced with such an ugly one.

Nice rant! I agree with you! 😅 As for what to do.. if you’re lost, you need to go back to your last way point. In the case of architecture and design it was Art Deco. And we need to start from there?? 🤷🏽‍♂️🤷🏽‍♂️

How about a lecture about the 1% architecture? Jeffrey Kippnis also mentioned 'bad buildings all over town'. Thanks for your work Sebastian, great content you have.

Why beauty matter by Sir Roger Scruton - discusses this very issue

Oscar Niemayer is the maximum exponent of the modernism in Brazil. But really as a simple person from all different type of arquitetures from colonial on, modern arquiteture is the one that I fill less pleasant to the eye.

Your channel is fantastic! I'd be very interested to listen to your insights on navigating the practical aspects of managing clients and builders, addressing the economic challenges in construction, and finding a balance between being an artist and a service provider.

I would like to know more about facade design, window composition, proportion, hierarchy, the mathematics and geometry. Also the link between the Greeks and the Egyptians, clearly the columns etc were derivative

When I was in architecture school, all the 'theories (so-called) of architecture' were about the pointless arty rhetoric of the modern movement and its spinoffs. We didn't have a real theory that provided a structure for us to tell socially meaningful 'stories' with our buildings that would be comprehensible to those who moved in and around the building and made sense in the social and built context. Architecture is the practice of producing socially meaningful shelter: about people and their occupations (ie activities) and pursuits. Traditional architecture is very good at this. Modern, 'machine for living' buildings ignore people and do little for them. E Michael Jones criticises this very aptly in Degenerate Moderns. I look at the farce of 'open plan' living; which turns an expensive house into a one room barn. Or the bland tedium of buildings that ignore how people approach, use, move through and, one hopes, enjoy them...but not usually.

This is a very informative talķ, thank you very much! I would like to suggest one thing about presentation: It would be easier to listen if you followed one thought to the end before introducing a new one instead of interrupting your own thoughts midway with ever new aspects.

In Nietzsche's Human, All Too Human in the 4th chapter about artists and writers, part 220, N writes how people stop creating great art when society stops believing in absolutes. Agnosticism is not new but having agnostic cultures is. It is the scale of the agnosticism that is new.

Excellent talk, my congratulations. On your last question, I'd beg to differ in that going back is not a story, because, in my opinion, it has always been a story 'to go back' except for now, hence, the modern disaster. For example, the ancient Greeks went back to ancient Egypt and found inspiration there for their own architecture; ancient Rome went back to Greece and included some of their own adaptations; Renaissance architects and artists literary went back to Ancient Rome and started using what we may call 'classical' design again; after that, we had a Gothic revival; and after that we had a classical Greek revival; and so on. Similar things happened in non European countries, e.g., Mayan revival, Egyptian revival, etc. An important note that I think it's important to mention is that there's a very small number of institutions that have decided to teach non-modernist architecture and urbanism, such as the University of Notre Dame or Benedictine College and a surprisingly increasing number of independent INTBAU summer schools are teaching pre-modern arts and design ranging from Gothic, Classical and Vernacular architectures and urbanism. So, my humble answer would be: going back in order to later go forwards is an adventure on its own worthy of a story.

Hi Sebastian, I'm very new to your channel and am thoroughly enjoying it while studying for my exam about different periods in architecture. I haven't gone through all your videos to check if you've made one on this topic, but it would be interesting to hear if there's any sort of new architecture that follows this logic of natural evolution, and perhaps evolves to embellish buildings with detail and ornaments in a new way, rather than seeking to replicate the ornamentation of pre-modern or classical styles. I suppose critical regionalism somewhat tries to stay in coherence with where the architecture is built, but it's not like it's necessarily going back to the details and ornamental designs of the pre-modern era.

We need more beautiful, walkable towns in the US

I'm prepared to not agree that modern fails by default, but I appreciate the need for the discussion. I find much of it "de-humanizing". What's greatest is when what looks like an entrance has a sign "Use other door" It was before modern possibly that architecture and design lost it's way. Rococo was a fun sidetrack and maybe we never recovered. Then NeoClassicism maybe mostly worked, but then there was a lot of poor mimics of classicism. Thank you for this discussion! The creation of a "style" is something I had not fully thought through. But in that time of science and machines, don't you think someone MUST investigate a "machine" for living. Let's tell stories about all of us--not the sculptural fantasy of one man (it's usually a man).

just came across your video, great video and great channel. keep it up! i will refrain from a long, drawn out detailed statement about architectural theory and why i agree with you, but not suitable for a youtube comment. I have discussions and debates about these topics all the time and for my work. great video.i too get very angry and worked up when discussing thjis stuff. will recommend your channel to friends. :)