
Future generations will laugh in horror and derision at the folly of facadism - sndean
https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/campaigns/outrage/outrage-future-generations-will-laugh-in-horror-and-derision-at-the-folly-of-facadism/10026645.article
======
tlb
One reason old buildings seem generally better than new buildings is
survivorship bias. We only see the exceptional old buildings that were worth
preserving. The franken-buildings in the article won't survive many
generations to be laughed at.

In general, the prediction "future generations will laugh at X" rarely comes
to pass. Better laugh while you can.

~~~
cm2187
I think there is more than that.

First, architecture followed the same trend as modern art where taste and
beauty have given way to being original and conceptual. This results in very
mediocre constructions. Paris attracts millions of tourists who come to admire
its palaces and tasteful haussmanian style. No such enthusiasm for the modern
buildings of Frankfurt. Not to mention the concrete-made brutalist horrors and
other modern architectural “creations”.

Second, apart from the said brutalist bunkers, all modern constructions are
designed for a very limited life (even infrastructures like bridges). I was
visiting the Pantheon in Rome last week, a 2000 years old building which
interior made of marble and stone looks almost new (after many renovations I
am sure). What will be left of our glass and steel buildings? They are merely
more durable than a mongol tent. The only trace historians will have of our
civilisation is the selfies we publish on Facebook really.

~~~
atombender
People do flock to modern constructions, of course. Getty Center, Bauhaus
museum in Berlin, Guggenheim museum, Gropius House, Sydney opera house, Oslo
opera house — too many to mention! Not all modern architecture is worth
admiring, but I for one consider many "brutalist bunkers" to be very
beautiful, more so than the Pantheon.

There's lots of old architecture that was, once, "original and conceptual" (in
the derogatory sense that I think you meant). It's just that these styles are
so established that we don't recognize them as innovations anymore, and
they're therefore not "weird modernisms".

~~~
harry8
All of the modern buildings you mention had an immense budget and were
intended to be great buildings for generations. This doesn't always work but
most of the time it isn't even attempted. The facades in the article front
buildings that would never and could never be in that class.

"We have a street frontage, people like the look of it, keep it." Seems
reasonable to me when the alternative is "Can an architect with a cost-minded
budget do something people will like better?" Because that answer is usually
no. (Why? Is a good question to ask.) If people don't like the street
frontage, bring it down, have a go!

There is rather a lot of preciousness in architecture and it would seem a
contempt for what people actually like is in evidence more often than it
should be. UX testing on architecture, is that even a thing?

~~~
rwallace
> All of the modern buildings you mention had an immense budget and were
> intended to be great buildings for generations.

So was the Pantheon. Survivor bias invites us to compare the great, high-
budget buildings of previous centuries with the average, lowest-bidder
constructions of our own.

------
twic
The writer of this is the pseudonymous Gentle Author, who writes the
Spitalfields Life blog:

[http://spitalfieldslife.com/](http://spitalfieldslife.com/)

He's definitely more concerned with preserving the old ways from being abused
than he is with protecting the new ways for me and for you.

My favourite bit of facadism in London is the Lloyd's building. In 1928
Lloyd's of London built a big wedding cake sort of thing for their
headquarters:

[http://archiseek.com/2013/lloyds-leadenhall-st-
london/](http://archiseek.com/2013/lloyds-leadenhall-st-london/)

Then in 1978 smashed it down and built a giant oil rig, thus summoning
Margaret Thatcher to our dimension:

[https://www.rsh-p.com/projects/lloyds-of-
london/](https://www.rsh-p.com/projects/lloyds-of-london/)

But the wedding cake had a nice bit on the front, so they kept that:

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/maggiejones/5738790055](https://www.flickr.com/photos/maggiejones/5738790055)

If you walk along Leadenhall Street from the west, on the south side, you're
walking past a number of fairly low-rise buildings of various ages, and you
don't really see the modern bit. Until you walk past the Lloyd's facade, and
look through the front door, and instead of there being an atrium,
receptionist, etc, there's a yard with an oil rig in it.

~~~
rurban
Lloyds is not at all a good example of postmodern facadism. It's to the
contrary of one the worlds greatest examples of modern architecture. This tiny
"wedding cake" front has nothing to do with the building itself. It's
separated, everyone can see that. This is a pure example of wrongly understood
city planning and preservation. But they let it build which is the most
important point. He is one of the architects of the Centre Pompidou in Paris
btw.

------
ageitgey
One funny note is that a similar thing happens all the time in Southern
California for a totally different reason - building permit and tax
regulations.

In some areas if you leave even the tiniest sliver of the facade (or any wall)
in place, the project is considered a "remodel" instead of "new construction".
This comes with much cheaper permits and possibly lower taxes.

It's not uncommon to walk past a building site that is entirely dirt except
one poor little old wall being propped up desperately waiting for a new
building to be constructed around it. I've seen tiny block buildings torn down
except for one wall and rebuilt into ultra-trendy indoor/outdoor cafes that
managed to hide that original wall somewhere in the new structure.

~~~
wahern
If the regulatory environment is anything like in SF, it's less about cheaper
permits and more about not getting into a years-long battle with the planning
commission and NIMBYs. Many people simply give up.

Realistically your only choices are to hack the system or don't touch the
property. The only winning move is to not play the game.

~~~
closeparen
Planning has been making noise about cracking down on these “tantamount to
demolition” projects. I wouldn’t expect the loophole to be particularly
durable.

~~~
wahern
They have in SF, too. It's because of pressure by NIMBYs. But it's not like
this loophole is new. The trick has been used for decades and it's almost
standard operating procedure for low-budget "new" construction.

It's a polite fiction that has persisted because planning commissions aren't
oblivious to the problems. But they're beholden to the political power of
NIMBYs. The hack operated as a safety value that gave commissions plausible
deniability when NIMBYs bring their pitchforks and torches. Once its gone
it'll push the cost of newer development further beyond the reach of small-
time developers and homeowners, and there'll be even less of the so-called
missing middle housing coming online. It'll hasten the trend to large, more
upscale developments.

That said, I'm dubious the loophole will go away anytime soon. The entire
system would seize up and so I expect municipalities to keep deflecting as
long as they can.

I'm not defending the practice. But such absurdities are inevitable when
communities push for policies completely at odds with economic realities.

~~~
greglindahl
I was wondering why there's a building site in downtown Palo Alto that's a
dirt lot with a single short wall held up by a lot of props!

------
dangus
I don't think the article makes any sort of objective point.

The author essentially says "I don't like it, it's cheesy."

Well, I can just as easily say "I like some of these facadist buildings." And
I do.

If the author spoke with some more concrete reasoning about why these
buildings are such abominations, perhaps I could be convinced. Until then,
it's hard not to consider this just another example of every design feature
having good and bad executions.

There are timeless Brutalist, Modernist, Classical, and Contemporary buildings
just like there are ugly, unremarkable, bad examples. The same is probably
true of Facadism.

I think the only argument that comes close (which the author didn't get into
enough) might be the destruction of historic buildings as an alternative to
full restoration. I wish more effort was taken to quantify this concept. In
other words, present a particular example of a building project and
demonstrate to the reader with real data why it would have worked better as a
restoration project, complete tear-down, or otherwise handle the project
differently.

There must often be a functional desire to build a modern building, perhaps
one that provides more comfort, natural light, safety, accessibility,
flexibility, square footage, etc.

Finally, it should be mentioned that buildings are owned by private companies
and individuals, who generally have a right to do whatever they want to them!

~~~
cleansy
> Finally, it should be mentioned that buildings are owned by private
> companies and individuals, who generally have a right to do whatever they
> want to them!

Err, no. A city can and should decide what the "overall look and feel" is.
London fails at that spectacularly. Pretty much all cities that are considered
beautiful have building guidelines in place that support that. Like: you can
build only to the height of neighboring buildings, windows need to line up,
specific styles and mandatory balconies to fit into the environment. Think of
Amsterdam or Barcelona.

The overall look of a city is part of the quality of life of its citizens. If
you leave it to property developers, well, you get something like London.

EDIT: "The school of Life" made a video that explains that pretty well. [1]

1:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c)

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
> A city can and should decide what the "overall look and feel" is. London
> fails at that spectacularly.

London's skyline is one of the most iconic skylines in the world. The more
recent additions like the London Eye (or whatever it's called these days), the
"walkie talkie" and the Shard just add to its unique character IMO.

~~~
cleansy
An iconic skyline sure. But unless you are one of the few who can afford
renting/buying and apartment higher up you mostly notice how much shadow a
cluster of high rise buildings casts onto the street level.

Walking from the tube to my office I noticed 3 story buildings next to 10,
then 5 then 3 again. Old brick buildings next to soviet style apartment
blocks. Even for the pavement they used 6 different materials or styles from
the station to the office, around 400m.

It is not that hard nor expensive to make an attractive looking city. You just
need the political will for it.

------
ryandrake
This kind of tasteless fakery is all over cookie cutter USA suburbia—basically
anything builtbafter 2000 or so is totally phony. Faux brick siding in front
(look around the sides and back and you’ll see the cheap aluminum siding).
Huge, ridiculous arches that don’t structurally support anything. 20 gables on
one roof. Tons of Windows in front, with nothing (or oddly placed/sized ones)
on the sides and back. Non functional shutters and chimneys. Over optimizing
for curb appeal and house flipping.

~~~
Casseres
You might enjoy reading McMansion Hell [0].

[0] [http://mcmansionhell.com](http://mcmansionhell.com)

~~~
rurban
Or the modernist manifest of all manifests "Ornament und Verbrechen", Adolf
Loos
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_and_Crime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_and_Crime)

Fulltext (english) at
[https://web.archive.org/web/20141108111449/http://www2.gwu.e...](https://web.archive.org/web/20141108111449/http://www2.gwu.edu/~art/Temporary_SL/177/pdfs/Loos.pdf)

------
madrox
Aesthetically, people love old buildings. However, people also love modern
building code that keeps us safe in things like earthquakes.

Also, preservation laws are wild [1]. If you own an old building, you usually
have to agree to the preservation laws that came with it. They usually state
you can't mess much with the exterior, but go nuts on in the inside.

In face of all these barriers, facadism is the loophole.

[https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/](https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/)

~~~
onion2k
These buildings are in London. There aren't any earthquakes.

~~~
Analemma_
Earthquakes can occur anywhere:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraplate_earthquake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraplate_earthquake).
I don't know what kinds of regulations London has around earthquake safety,
presumably it is laxer than in Japan, but they are still important.

There are other safety reasons to prefer new buildings too. Fire safety,
perhaps? Particularly topical in London at the moment!

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
> There are other safety reasons to prefer new buildings too. Fire safety,
> perhaps? Particularly topical in London at the moment!

Ironically in the case of Grenfell it was the new additions (the cladding)
that allowed the whole building to burn when the original design would have
kept the fire contained.

~~~
pas
A bit more info for those wondering: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2018/may/17/hackitt-revi...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2018/may/17/hackitt-review-grenfell-style-cladding-building-regulations)

"[...] council building inspectors approved the use of cut-price combustible
cladding and insulation on the 24-storey block after 16 inspections."

------
JumpCrisscross
Oh whatever. Manhattan's SoHo neighborhood's cast iron facades are beautiful
and historical in their precursorship to the island's pioneering of the
skyscraper. When they were erected, they were called out as cheap imitations
of stone frontage. Now they're revered.

Another reputable facade job is the Puck Building [1], which had its ass cut
off by when Elm Place was widened into Lafayette. Also, I'm not sure if the
Hearst Building [2] counts as a facade, but I personally think it's a neat
union of old and new.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puck_Building](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puck_Building)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearst_Tower_(Manhattan)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearst_Tower_\(Manhattan\))

~~~
emodendroket
Yeah, but "facadism," as described in the article, is essentially hollowing
out some old, architecturally significant building, and making a different,
mismatched building inside the remains.

~~~
ghein
Facadism happens due to economics.

The historic building is far too small for what's needed in the location now.
The building can't be brought up to modern standards with any sort of rational
budget. So we have adaptive reuse - wildly popular in many areas such as the
historic docks and warehouses in London, disused steel mills, etc

Facadism allows you to keep a great street level architecture while
dramatically increasing the density and utility of the area. Useful in London,
where you couldn't build up until very recently, but especially in North
American cities where there are very few old buildings since they aren't that
old and the cities were dramatically smaller than they are today.

So accept facadism or widespread annihilation of historic fabric.

~~~
emodendroket
> So accept facadism or widespread annihilation of historic fabric.

Look at these examples. The historical fabric has already been annihilated and
keeping the facade around is making a mockery of it.

~~~
mmirate
> historical fabric

I don't get it; why can't we just write some textbooks and then be done with
it?

~~~
emodendroket
Well, that seems like a grim world to live in.

------
dijit27
Why wait for future generations? Some of these seem pretty horrific and worthy
of derision in the here and now.

I think the biggest problem I see in looking at this trend is the utter
inauthenticity of the resulting building. It fails to preserve the original
building and it doesn't allow a new building to express itself.

I see value in preserving or renovating the old, I see value in creating
something new. I even think a real fusion of old and new could be great. But
from what I see this does none of those things. This seems more akin to
putting lipstick on a pig.

But perhaps future generations will come to love the charm of this
juxtaposition. Perhaps new construction will create new freestanding facades
so that the real building can be swapped out easily without changing the
frontage. And at the very least I can find amusement in the building of these
abominations.

------
oldcynic
I've never understood the point of this. Why keep the often beautiful
Edwardian or Victorian facade if what you construct behind it doesn't respect
anything of the original you went to such lengths to keep? Bolt a standard
office or apartment complex to the back and pay so little regard that the
floors don't even line up with the old frontage or match in any major respect.
Just build a cheap office block and be done. At least that's honest.

Then again I suppose that would reveal the Emperor's New Clothes. Modern
architecture simply can't do public buildings, balance, aesthetics or anything
that isn't either a standard curtain wall box or a £15bn signature tower
block.

We didn't learn from all the Victorian buildings pulled down in the sixties
that many now regret losing.

~~~
afterburner
> Why... ? Just build a cheap office block and be done.

Because those are ugly and boring.

~~~
oldcynic
So is the result of just about every facade preservation.

Some fine examples here: [https://inspiringcity.com/2016/02/14/facadism-the-
laziest-an...](https://inspiringcity.com/2016/02/14/facadism-the-laziest-and-
most-unsatisfying-form-of-preservation-is-causing-irreparable-damage-to-
spitalfields-and-to-london/)

------
pwaivers
> "Future generations will laugh in horror and derision..."

Is there anything in the past that we laugh at in horror and derision? Future
generations will probably understand why we did it, or just tear it down.
There is not much reason to mock the architects.

~~~
rpowers
I laugh at the 70s deco look with pink refrigerators, green counter tops, and
shag carpet.

~~~
soared
That is coming back into style and I kind of like it! (I can't track it down,
but someone released a phone recently that was black and white with one pastel
colored button)

------
wrs
This is happening all over the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Seattle. I don’t
know if it’s worse to knock down an interesting building and replace it with a
giant soulless cookie-cutter apartment building, or to leave the façade of the
original stuck to the outside like a cruel joke...

~~~
mulmen
I like the trend in Seattle personally. We are in a major building boom right
now and if everything was entirely new construction it would be jarring in the
future. The facadism in SLU particularly prevents the entire neighborhood from
being cooike cutter glass boxes and gives some visual variety that maintains
the (idealized) historical style of the city.

Go look at Bellevue and Redmond, the cities were obviously built in a series
of booms that had very little variety. It's all very stale and boring.

------
jackconnor
This is hilariously short-sighted. They are kinda ugly, but future generations
will definitely not have the context to “wither in horror”. More likely, it’ll
be like the Louvre and architects will bitch and moan until they get old and
die, and literally everyone else will either not notice or just think “cool
glass pyramid”.

------
781
In Bucharest there is this building:

[https://i.imgur.com/f6PFnAN.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/f6PFnAN.jpg)

It's the office of the romanian architects guild.

~~~
artursapek
That looks like a humorous photoshop.

------
salawat
I always thought the entire point of architecture was to create a
building/structure/space that looks like it was actually there all along.

You choose readily available materials to build it out of, you try to match
the "style" of structure to the environment and culture of the space.

Has modern architecture just thrown Vitruvius out the window?

~~~
trgn
Yes.

Only utility remains of his three principles of architecture.

Beauty has bastardized into branding. The building is a sculpture that needs
to project the values of the patron. That's why most modern buildings look
futuristic, because most institutions regard themselves as forward thinking.
Or buildings look "fun" or "interesting" or "special", or whatever trait the
patron thinks defines his identity.

Robustness isn't required anymore either, since building cost is amortized
over the duration during which the typical investor expects a ROI, a
generation or so. The practical result is new buildings that are no longer
build to last indefinitely.

~~~
salawat
Welp...

'Scuse me while I go drink away that sorrow... Truly, modernity is a hell I
can't seem to wake up from.

Funny how everything we praise about the old ways has a habit of getting
thrown out with the bathwater in the name of economic "profitability". I liked
humanity better when we built stuff to honor things other than our checkbooks.

------
quantumofmalice
As with post-modernism (which this is simply a late stage manifestation of)
you shouldn't blame the superficial reaction, you should blame the initial
problem, which was architectural modernism and an obsession with discarding
all the lessons of the past in the name of innovation, so called. Tom Wolf
nailed it in "From Bauhaus to Our House":

[https://www.amazon.com/Bauhaus-Our-House-Tom-
Wolfe/dp/031242...](https://www.amazon.com/Bauhaus-Our-House-Tom-
Wolfe/dp/0312429142)

As badly as these buildings suck, they at least make a gesture at a humane
world.

Christopher Alexander tried to warn us.

------
newman8r
I had no idea this was even a thing, but all the examples look pretty tacky.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facadism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facadism)

------
peteri
To be honest the current White Hart is better than the previous façade which
had a mix of shops underneath (I used to work nearby).

Even then it looked nothing like this view from 1827
[https://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/view-
item?i=1311](https://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/view-item?i=1311) so it's
always been an issue.

In this particular area of London I'd rather they knocked down the façade than
try to keep it, unless it has particular merit (although there are less listed
buildings (600) than I would have thought in the City).

~~~
spiralx
You might find this animation interesting, it shows how few genuinely old
buildings remain in London:

[https://youtu.be/NB5Oz9b84jM](https://youtu.be/NB5Oz9b84jM)

~~~
peteri
Thanks for that its interesting.

------
peterwwillis
The following isn't facadism, but a different turn on a similar theme:
[https://goo.gl/maps/doYSK7sUdSR2](https://goo.gl/maps/doYSK7sUdSR2) (turn the
camera to the left to see the giant Shepard Fairey mural, which is probably
destined for demolishment or painting over by the look of the scaffolding
attached to it)

Everywhere in gentrifying Northeast Philadelphia, there are these _horrendous_
modern buildings going up next to traditional brick and stone rowhomes. They
look like a modernist disease attacked a normal building. And they're going
for a mil and a half.

View here: [https://goo.gl/maps/uxrVykuDmDy](https://goo.gl/maps/uxrVykuDmDy)
and then move forward in the street one inch, and you'll see the earlier
plywood skeleton of the modern building on the right. It's so sad. (these are
actually the attractive examples)

------
marcoperaza
I’d rather have a neoclassical or neogothic or Art Deco facade with a standard
building behind it than totally surrender to the soulless garbage that passes
for “modern” architecture in cities.

I have read somewhere that the general public actually prefers the older
styles, but that architects prefer modern styles. I’ll see if I can find the
source.

------
galfarragem
Why does this happen? Economy explains most phenomena.

a) Developers want to maximise profit: generally more area means more profit
and optimizing the height of the building is the way to get it.

b) City Halls will evoke (sometimes dubious) historical value to block the old
building.

c) Developers will finally apply for an extension of the existent. City Hall
has a tougher job to justify blocking the extension. After some delays,
developers eventually will build it.

Other fact to mix: extensions are probably the most demanding projects.
Pragmatic architects (the ones that usually get large projects) are not
suitable for it, they will not spend more time than the strictly necessary.

------
rurban
We already are the future generations that have to laugh at the old "facadism"
sins. Great word BTW!

Baroque is the old Post-Modernism. You cannot really blame Rem Koolhaas and
all the fancy new movie and stage-design loving post-modern architects. You
have to blame education. Modernism is not taught properly in schools. That's
why those reactionary and cheap movements always came along after every modern
epoche, which invented new technology and optimized architecture. Just look
into every single art school, there are postmodernists all over the places.

------
ggg9990
Future generations are going to laugh/shudder in "horror and derision" at
many, many, many things in our present day before they get to architectural
facades.

------
Finnucane
This sort of thing goes on everywhere, though those are some extremely bad
examples. In my own neighborhood right now a block of older buildings is being
knocked down. Most of them were fairly nondescript, but on the corner there
was a particularly nice old granite bank building, so the facade is being
saved, which will probably end up as the entryway for some new block of flats.
Designed, of course, in some completely different style.

~~~
jen729w
Welcome to Fitzroy, Melbourne, Australia. Just round the corner someone has
kept the most ludicrous, skinniest piece of brick facade; meanwhile an acre of
land is being cleared behind it for what will presumably be an ugly behemoth
of tiny units that everyone hates.

I’d love to know how much keeping that facade cost. It’s shored up with a
couple of tonnes of steel girder.

~~~
incompatible
The only thing they hate more is housing they can't afford at all.

Facadism isn't particularly new though. I remember somebody saying the same
thing back in the 1980s, that in the future it would be considered ridiculous.
Now here we are in a "future generation" and it's still going strong.

I think the best thing would be to document the old buildings and then
demolish them, so that they can enter history gracefully. Nothing lasts
forever, and modern cities need new buildings.

------
zilchers
I don’t really mind these buildings - juxtaposition is always a legitimate
form of artistic expression, I don’t think that goes away in architecture.
Would it perhaps be better to commit one way or the other? Maybe, but it makes
sense for a country with as much history as England (while wanting to be
progressive as well) to make trade offs, and seeing how styles change is kind
of interesting.

------
antishatter
Surely there are examples that aren't comical? It must be like every other
category of anything 90% is shit and 10% is pretty good.

------
spaceliquid
Adding a rain screen facade with an air barrier to buildings reduces the
energy consumption. And why not have some fun with the design. I don't think
anyone's going to be laughing, its just going to become the norm.

------
ranko
This reminds me of the Potempkin Village
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village)

------
kzrdude
It brings something philosophical to mind, if something is truly preserved if
you leave only the facade. Surely in buildings and other things alike, the
whole influences the surface.

The empty facade is a dead husk.

------
surfmike
Many beautiful San Francisco buildings are simple boxes with a Italianate
facade. Many generations later, people still seem to admire them.

------
imhelpingu
I thought this was going to be about information hiding in OOP leading to too
many different peer-level abstractions.

------
627467
How do English speakers know to read "fah-sah-dism" and not "fah-kah-dism"?

~~~
Synaesthesia
Like a lot of things in English, you just learn it, doesn’t always make sense.
It’s similar to facial.

~~~
wavefunction
or facade

------
rayiner
Historical preservationists may be the worst people. Almost no buildings are
worth cementing history in place and destroying the natural cycle of
destruction and renewal.

~~~
rurban
There are plenty, that's why there exists an expert in almost every European
country who decides on such aesthetic and preservational issues. Either in
bigger cities or by country.

Even in the US with its very short history there would be architectonical
landmarks worth preserving. But that's a cultural issue over there, in Europe
people love their history, and in many cases this expert has to demand
improvements on the plan (which makes it more expensive), denies it at all, or
accepts a new better architecture than the old one.

Facadism would never pass such experts, that's why its so ridiculous. In these
cases it's only the mayor vs some citizens or newspapers.

------
rdiddly
Myself I'm more plagued by the horror of _fә KAHD ism_ caused by leaving out
the _cedille_ (ç). Or maybe it's _FACK ә dism_.

------
GreeniFi
They look like spaghetti western sets!

------
padmanabhan01
has there been any generation that laughed in horror and derision at anything
in history till now?

