I think Postmodernist architecture looked really cool, and we should've built more wacky shit like this instead of the more soulless modernist cubes
I mean, it looks like a sketch that got crumpled up and thrown away. Surely, the glass people could make several dozen custom curved windows for it this year?
>>18602441Is this photoshopped?
WACKY POSTMODERNISM WAS EVEN WORSE THAN GLOBAL POSTMODERNISM: NIHILISTIC, DEPRESSING, SATANICAL IN SPIRIT, AND UGLY.EUCLIDEAN POSTMODERNISM —EXEMPLI GRATIA: NEORATIONALISM, RICARDO LEGORRETA, LATTER BARRAGÁN, LATTER RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ— WAS WHOLESOME.
>>18602441It looks like trash. It's still a soulless concrete cube, just diverse and gender-fluid.
>>18602454Even this looks unironically better than OP's trash.
>>18602441If you have the money you can have your house built like that. If you are asking why there aren't many of those houses in generel that it comes down to a) not being cheap and quick to produce and b) not being easily interchangable in its function.
>>18602500>it comes down to a) not being cheap and quick to produce and b) not being easily interchangable in its function.It comes down nobody actually wanting this because it looks disgusting.
>>18602441>always with the exteriorsWhy cant 4chan architecture-fags into interiors? A cool/trad/ugly exterior is completely secondary to a cool/livable/terrible interior. Buildings are for being in, not for looking at.
>Buildings are for being in, not for looking at.Imagine being this retarded basement dweller and never having to contemplate the number of interiors vs. exteriors you'll have the misfortune of seeing in your life
>>18602516Just to comment on this specific specific house, the interior volume seems to be some kind of auditorium and in my opinion it strikes me as a not very nice one. So I'd say in this case that the interior had to play second fiddle to a cool exterior, which in my opinion makes it not a very good house. This is again quite typical of 4chan fags who are myopically obsessed with IMAGES and likely never set foot in an actual auditorium.
>>18602527The interior is actually much more tolerable than the exterior of this garbage.
>>18602544>as an imageI'm helping you out by adding your retarded assumptions. In actuality it is a huge space for huge cost that fits an incredibly small number of people, and fits them in a flat plane making it hard to see the speaker, and which probably has terrible acoustics too.
>>18602549>it is a huge space for huge cost that fits an incredibly small number of peopleNot relevant.>making it hard to see the speakerOnly relevant if you're there to see the speaker. We're talking about the architecture.>probably has terrible acoustics tooA cave has "terrible acoustics". Also not really relevant in this context.The new internet is crawling with genuine 80 IQ subhumans, most of whom are schizophrenics with disorganized thought.
>>18602551>The new internet is crawling with genuine 80 IQ subhumans, most of whom are schizophrenics with disorganized thought.That's not true. There are more bots than people on the Internet now.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory
>>18602551>the pixels on my screen are more important than idiomatic yardsticks for architecturetouch grass, dilate, have sex, neck yourself and in addition: fuck you
>>18602660Whom are you quoting and what are "the idiomatic yardsticks for architecture"? Protip: it's none of these:>fitting a large number of people in a small space for a small cost>making it easy to see a speaker
>>18602669I was using the meme arrow and the idiomatic yardstick of architecture is that form follows function
>>18602699>the idiomatic yardstick of architecture is that form follows functionThat's the idiomatic yardstick for human cattle pens in capitalist "society" and possibly some starving "communist" hellholes.
>>18602441In 2000 years people will still visit the colosseum and others ancient buildings.All this modern builds they will be destroyed in 200 years when the people will understand the ugliness of those buildings
Why, I ask you, can we not build in German Neorenaissance style anymore, or anything like it?Don't worry, I know the answer. There aren't enough craftsmen around anymore to make the bespoke decorations and do the bespoke brickwork and tiling. There aren't enough architects left who can go outside of AutoCAD's technical limitations and build according to centuries-old principles of proportion and scale.
>>18602759>in 200 years when the people will understand the ugliness of those buildingsAs if they don't understand it today. Sadly, there's simply no relation between what real people find beautiful and what gets built in modern "society".
>>18602784Design by committee is a cancer.
>>18602759>>18602784It's like that retard said: what you're seeing is "form follows function", in a context where uplifting the spirit and creating a lasting monument to beauty is no longer a function of architecture, but demoralizing, alienating and baffling the viewer is.
>>18602709It's the optimizing function that over time determines whether a building is likely to get built or remain a fever dream in the dysgenic mind of some chud.
>>18602764Because the interiors are shit compared to the cost
>>18602792Because your "uplift the spirit" cucked trad-architecture can only do huge lit interior spaces at insane costs of hundreds of man-years, while modern architecture can do it in 6 months at a cost some random mediocre richfag can shoulder
>>18602516>>18602527based and true. do believe there is correlation between appearance and practicality though, one's aesthetics are shaped by one's values after all. and a gormless exterior like op's is a fairly reliable sign of a thoughtless interior.
>>18602863>mentally ill, unconscious spergout.>>18602847>80 IQ word salad
>>18602441>>18602454>>18602457Humiliation rituals imposed by the champagne socialist ruling class.If you had to endure modern college you've seen it, the way they like to sit and imagine some ridiculous utopia where everything is trans+ or whatever, then get offended by completely reasonable criticism. This is the real basis behind "hostile architecture" so prevalent now, revenge against the chuds who walk in a straight line across the grass instead of using the silly zig zag stone path they built.
>>18602869I welcome your concession
>>18603084Your mumbling doesn't matter. The bottom line is that the people who invoke "form follows function" aren't actually making any useful distinction. They're just demonstrating their idea of 'function' excludes any virtues besides being fit for some use. If that's the criterion for great architecture, all of humanity's best architecture fails because pretty much all of it could be optimized into simple concrete shapes while remaining just as usable.
>>18603084>>18603101The pathetic whining about "trad architecture" is also a total miss. I don't see any merit in doing the same thing over and over. There's obviously a vast space of possibilities to explore for genuinely beautiful architecture. It's just not happening under your soulless, utilitarian philosophy the way it does under "trad" values.
>>18603101>>18603105Bigger interior spaces with more light intake and more views of the exterior for the same money are objectively better, all else being equal. Flat walls and 90 degree corners are objectively easier to furnish and clean. You can have your "beauty" within those common-sense constraints.
>>18603120>Bigger interior spaces with more light intake and more views of the exterior for the same money are objectively better, all else being equal.>all else being equalThat's trivially true, but then you follow it up with this crap:>Flat walls and 90 degree corners>You can have your "beauty" within those common-sense constraints.Making it explicit that all else is not equal.
>>18603125What's your point - of course someone can chose to build houses with cramped dark interiors with weirdly shaped curved and angled rooms, and sometimes people do, but very few people like to live and work in that. It's more accurate to say that your form better follow function or no-one will finance your shit.
I feel like there are a lot of people ITT that miss the point of architecture like in OPs picOf course Frank Gehry could've designed more conventional architecture but...why? We already know that we can, we already know what conventional architecture looks like. Buildings like in OPs pic are meant to showcase what kind of unorthodox styles are possible with modern building techniques, and double as public art pieces, to give a city more variety. The Postmodernist architectural movement was heavily inspired by Las Vegas for its eye-catching and colorful buildings
>>18602863>only source of light is a caged window above a concrete lined boxSome asshole will pay millions of dollars for this prison cell. Fuck concrete homes and fuck you
>>18604099>>only source of light>one more source of light is clearly visible in the photo
>>18604116I can see four sources of light in that photo, you might be blind
>>18602516that's not true, /fa/ has a semi-frequent thread about interiorsjust give us an architecture board to this dying website already
>>18604087because eventually it loses its "wow" effect
>>18604215Tall, soulless glass towers in every major city on Earth has also lost its wow effect
>>18604220correct, I have no objection to this statement.
>>18602863What the fuck are you talking about? Are you somehow unaware that people built houses prior to the last century? What is wrong with you retards? Just a constant deluge of thoughtless garbage. Even if it's bots, someone had to tell them to do this.
>>18602441Traditional architecture only.
>>18604220How do you feel about tall glass towers with surprising voids of varying shapes? Or tripartite floor-plans around a hexagonal core? That's the fashion-forward bleeding edge, son. But again with the exteriors.
>>18604116Yeah the other daylight source is from a recessed window that looks like it's from ADX Florence. No your gay designer lamps don't count.
>>18604479>I'm right when the ways I'm wrong dont count
>>18604479apart from the four light sources already identified it's obvious from the shadows light intake from a big entrance to the left and a smaller room (bedroom) can be inferred
>>18604087Every wannabe starchitect feels the need to shart out something unorthodox. All it results in is these public eyesores that just conflict with whatever skyline they belong to. When architecture stopped being about civic values and became some jerkoff's "art piece" is when the West started dying.
>>18604486>>18604488>nuh uh you're wrong on this minute technicallyYou absolute proles. You deserve a concrete box.
>>18604087To be better you have to be different, but not all that is different is better.The work of Frank Gehry (jude) would be alright as a novelty tucked away in a corner, something elementary schools arrange daytrips to, not as a city vista. As >>18604500 points out your brainsharts are not as brilliant as you think they are. Unless they are a humiliation ritual as >>18603006 suggests.
>>18602441reminds me of stata at MIT
