
Crimes in Concrete - overwhelm
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/06/crimes-in-concrete
======
ppod
It's fascinating how neatly being politically conservative or progressive
lines up with the corresponding architectural view. I like brutalism, but I
disagree with the removal of Scruton from that position, it seems political.
What annoys me about articles like the above is that they seem to ignore the
possibility that aesthetics involves a lot of subjectivity. The argument seems
to boil down to, "of course it's ugly, just look at it". But you look at what
young travellers and photographers actually spend time appreciating and
sharing images of, the modernist parts of Chicago, London and New York seem be
appreciated at least as much as other cities and districts with well-regarded
pre-20thC buildings.

~~~
jdietrich
More to the point, look at what people choose to live in. Good modernist and
brutalist homes sell quickly and at a significant premium over prevailing
market rates.

Modernism got a bad name in many Western countries, because it was used as an
architectural and philosophical justification for cheap and shoddy system-
built housing to fill the post-war housing gap. That doesn't make rectilinear
forms and bare concrete inherently bad; we don't blame vernacular architecture
for characterless mock-Tudor estate houses and vulgar McMansions, we blame bad
architects, profit-hungry developers and philistine houses.

[https://www.themodernhouse.com/](https://www.themodernhouse.com/)

[https://vimeo.com/93963469](https://vimeo.com/93963469)

~~~
icebraining
> Good modernist and brutalist homes sell quickly and at a significant premium
> over prevailing market rates.

I admit I wouldn't be asking if it agreed with my biases, but how do we know
this? Seems hard to control for all the other variables.

~~~
kd0amg
There are definitely some confounding factors other than architecture to
account for. At least in Boston, new construction isn't replicating the
century-old triple decker (of course, truly doing that would take a century of
wear and tear). So I have to wonder how much of that price premium comes from
having brand new stainless steel appliances and on-site gyms instead of creaky
floors and questionable wiring. And then it seems to me, just wandering around
town, the "modern" new construction is priced well above market price (lots of
units sit vacant for a long time, with many eventually adding deal-sweetening
offers like a month or two of free rent).

------
hairytrog
The only pre-20thC buildings that remain are the ones that survive. The ones
that survive are the ones we like and that are able to survive (not plywood
and well built). Survival is the real measurement of how much we like it - it
is the ultimate arbiter of aesthetics/beauty/cultural significance/engineering
excellence, and it trumps all the chatter of self-appointed critics. If it's
garbage, we tear it down or stop maintaining it until it comes down on its
own. Darlyrimple is right, "it's ugly, just look at it." These buildings may
continue to fall because people don't like to use them. I'm just worried that
people will adapt to like the buildings .

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
> The only pre-20thC buildings that remain are the ones that survive.

This has become a cliché talking-point, but it isn't entirely true. Or, at
least, it doesn't fully apply here.

The best contrast to "modernism" would be the episode directly preceding it,
namely Art Nouveau or Jugendstil.

There are lots of European cities both large and small that were predominantly
built in this style, because it coincided with the rapid growth of cities as
industrialisation swept (parts of) Europe. While British cities and Paris are
somewhat older, everything east of France saw a major growth spurt in this
time.

Because construction was rather centralised, a great many houses of rather
similar style were built.

My city, Berlin, is a prime example of this. The core city centre is somewhat
older, but about 80% of the housing stock were built within 25 years around
the turn of the 20th century.

Here's a street view of my house:
[https://goo.gl/maps/NRhfef2KEdx7yAET8](https://goo.gl/maps/NRhfef2KEdx7yAET8)

If you walk around a bit, you will see newer, mostly ugly buildings. But
essentially no houses were ever demolished for aesthetic reasons. Every new
house owes its existence to World War 2.

Here's a map showing building age on a block-by-block level:
[https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/so-alt-wohnt-
berlin/](https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/so-alt-wohnt-berlin/) (click on
"Karte aktivieren" to the right). If you hover over different blocks, you will
note that for the vast majority, houses were built around the same time. The
same is true for wider areas, generally becoming younger as one leaves the
centre (as expected for a growing city.

For the "survival of the pretty" theory, one would expect more within-block
heterogeneity, with one house surviving and it's direct (ugly) neighbour
having been demolished and rebuilt.

Go to cities that weren't bombed, such as Budapest, and you will find entire
quarters unchanged since they were built about 120 years ago.

~~~
deogeo
Tangential, but what's with the censorship on that street view? Freedom of
panorama issues?

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
Privacy. There were some complaints about street view when it was introduced,
and Google allowed any resident to block their house.

------
burlesona
As a former architect I agree with most of this. For those not familiar, this
quote is the gist:

> Making Dystopia is much more than a very detailed critique of a building or
> two here or there. It is an angry criticism of an entire worldview—the
> worldview of the type of person who much prefers his worldview to the world,
> and in so doing causes untold ruination.

Specifically the modernists ala Le Corbusier, Robert Moses etc. were prone to
a view that everything that had come before was garbage and that we needed to
tear it all down and start over.

> While claiming to be con­tinuators, the modernists also claimed to be
> revolutionary, wanting to rebuild the world from a blank slate. Considering
> what they actually achieved, this was a more accurate representation of
> their activities; and Le Corbusier hardly saw a city that he did not want to
> knock down and build again, as if no one had ever thought of anything before
> him.

So the book (and this review) aren't talking so much about a particular style
of building (and hence the lack of photos) but rather the cultural phenomenon
of the modernist movement in architecture and how remarkably well they stamped
their oppressive worldview on the world.

It's a long read, but worthwhile.

------
jupp0r
I'm no architect, but I feel it's absolutely crazy to throw completely
different styles of buildings into the same box, label them modernist and
blanket reject them. I absolutely love some [1], but hate others [2]. I'm sure
most people feel the same.

[1] [https://www.elledecor.com/design-decorate/g8674077/modern-
ho...](https://www.elledecor.com/design-decorate/g8674077/modern-
houses/?slide=1)

[2] [https://www.elledecor.com/design-decorate/g8674077/modern-
ho...](https://www.elledecor.com/design-decorate/g8674077/modern-
houses/?slide=3)

~~~
bdauvergne
Glass houses are a thermal crime. I'm from south of France, suck kind of
houses are stupid here, but I think also anywhere. There is a typical
architecture here, for countryside houses, that of the "Bastide", which is
adapted to the climate. In hot climate, it's too much opening during summer,
in cold climate it's too much opening during winter. Maghreb, spain and all
countries around the Mediterranean have their own architecture adapter to hot
climate with nearly passive cooling during summer (with an adapted way of
life, i.e. work early and do nothing in the middle of the day during summer).

We don't need styles, movement or whatever, we need forms evolved for a long
time by normal humans (on this point I'm a fan of Christopher Alexander
position on architecture, see A Pattern Language or The Timeless Way of
Building). Modern architecture is just a fraud based on nothing.

Look at those : * [http://www.hugues-bosc.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2011/09/M...](http://www.hugues-bosc.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2011/09/Mas-et-Bastide-en-Provence-Architecte-01.jpg) *
[https://sunnyspainholidays.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/su...](https://sunnyspainholidays.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/sunnyspainholidays.com-top-12-bech-holiday-
destinations-in-southern-spain-720x380.jpg)

~~~
jupp0r
> Glass houses are a thermal crime.

I don't think this is true. Some of the most energy efficient houses are
passive solar houses that use large glass surfaces for heating that are
covered using shades in the heat, but also use high thermal mass materials for
heat/cold storage.

From an aesthetics perspective, many people like natural light, I wouldn't
want to live in the houses you provided as examples for that reason.

~~~
bdauvergne
Go outside, people living in those houses lived outside for most of the colder
hours (morning/evening), they were sunny enough (but maybe you come from a
northern country).

------
rmason
It's always been kind of amazing to me that people will get all upset over a
building but that often changes with time. Same thing with a piece of art.
Locally here there was a most controversial design for a parking garage.
People just hated it but now its almost adored.

[https://foursquare.com/v/the-habitrail-parking-
garage/4eb994...](https://foursquare.com/v/the-habitrail-parking-
garage/4eb994f1775b7ec2973dc0c6/photos)

Same thing with the new Broad Art Museum by the late architect Zaha Hadid.
Totally looks out of place in a Big 10 college town. Yet inside the light is
the most fantastic of any art museum I've ever visited in the world.

[https://www.archdaily.com/293358/eli-edythe-broad-art-
museum...](https://www.archdaily.com/293358/eli-edythe-broad-art-museum-zaha-
hadid-architects/50a2aa0ab3fc4b4ec200003d-eli-edythe-broad-art-museum-zaha-
hadid-architects-photo)

Course sometimes something is built with zero redeeming value. I'd wager that
something built from concrete can be beautiful.

~~~
c0vfefe
I'm familiar with both those buildings, and can attest to the fact that
sometimes the boldest and inscrutable design decisions eventually become the
most well-loved. High risk, high reward.

------
DenisM
Pretty much spot on - the "architects" of the world colluded in driving
humanity to misery and despair by encasing people in hollow concrete spaces.

What I don't understand is how this came to be?

In the Soviet Union, for example, all resources come from the single source,
so the distribution of funds becomes politicized and all kinds of crazy shit
can fester simply because the group promulgating said shit was better at
politicking (see: Lysenko). All universities then have to teach the same
stuff. Groupthink. Monoculture. I get it.

But how did the western world succumb to this? Surely there are different
architectural schools? Different funding sources? What is going on the minds
of the people who are writing checks for all these modern Paris buildings [1]?

[1] By the way, the author forgot to include the Mitterrand library in his
list of peace crimes in Paris:
[https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/diaporama-7866-bnf-20-ans](https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/diaporama-7866-bnf-20-ans)

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
It's cheaper to build undecorated boxes. Calling it high art is just a cover.
There is also a skill shortage since nobody has paid for quality in
generations. The craftsmen that meticulously laid intricate art deco brickwork
don't exist anymore and no modern mason can seem to do as good a job. Instead
we get uninspired generic concrete and glass prisms designed to maximize
square footage for the landlords.

~~~
bdauvergne
Also work and time was cheaper then, they could spend centuries building the
same cathedral with nobody complaining about the ballooning price.

~~~
Udik
If it took centuries there is a reason.

~~~
bdauvergne
Mostly one: they were patient.

~~~
Udik
I imagine (but I have no real information on this, so I might be wrong) that
cathedrals were always works in progress, on which you could throw a small
percentage of your surplus in the good years, and keep idle in the bad ones
(or maybe also a bit the opposite, in anti-cyclic fashion). See how the
Sagrada Familia is being built in Barcelona (and has been, for 137 years):
with an annual construction and maintenance budget of around 25 million, a
very small yearly amount for such a huge project.

------
LordHumungous
It would be helpful if the author provided examples of modern buildings that
he considers beautiful, or modern architects who he thinks are doing it right.

~~~
yellowapple
There's also (on desktop at least) a lot of open space on the sides of the
article that would've been a great place for, you know, some pictures of
"good" v. "bad" architecture.

------
oftenwrong
Reminds me of this article, "Why you hate contemporary architecture":
[https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-
contempo...](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-contemporary-
architecture)

------
Zigurd
Was just at Umass Amherst for my son's graduation. It's an open air museum of
brutalism.

Breuer's student center building:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_D._Lincoln_Campus_Cente...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_D._Lincoln_Campus_Center)

The nearby parking garage is better, actually.

The Fine Arts Center:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Arts_Center_(Amherst,_Mas...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Arts_Center_\(Amherst,_Massachusetts\))

~~~
LeanderK
> It's an open air museum of brutalism.

I am not sure how to interpret your comment. Was this meant to be in a
negative sense or in a positive sense? Or without any judgement?

~~~
JoshTko
Brutalism is an architecture style common in the mid 19th century

~~~
theoh
20th century.

------
theamk
> This is so self-evidently true that I find it hard to understand how anyone
> could deny it, but modern architects and hangers-on such as architectural
> journalists do deny it, like war criminals who, for ­obvious reasons,
> continue to deny their crimes in the face of overwhelming evidence.

That's a very convincing argument right in the second paragraph.

------
DoubleGlazing
I think the thing a lot of people overlook when critiquing any kind of
architecture is that for every architectural style there are good and bad
examples. Sometimes, we focus too much on the bad to the detriment of the
good.

I have often felt that a lot of the hate for 60s/modernist/brutalist
architecture comes from the stand out bad examples. For example the works of
John Poulson, an inept architect who landed loads of massive and lucrative
contracts because he was really good at bribery. His practice churned out
building designs at a ferocious rate and while some are considered decent
(e.g. Leeds International Pool) the vast majority are just bland, soulless
blocks designed and built to a price point. Many also had serious structural
issues too.

There is a lot of modern architecture to love and appreciate if you can filter
out the bad.

------
JohnFen
In the past 5 years or so, there has been a bit of a building boom in my city.

The dominant architectural style reminds me a lot of the style discussed in
this article. None of it has a concrete facade, but otherwise it would fall
right in line. It's ugly, depressing, and distressing.

~~~
mywittyname
Are you talking about the colored concrete fiber side?

[https://www.allurausa.com/blog/17-fiber-cement-siding-
color-...](https://www.allurausa.com/blog/17-fiber-cement-siding-color-ideas)

~~~
JohnFen
That's the look, yes, but I'm not sure (as in I don't know) if that's the
actual construction method.

------
cftorres
Medellín (Colombia) is a city wich tends to modernism and is a great example
of a place with no architectural value. I think the problem has a cultural
dimension as citizens praise "Coltejer building" (2nd in the image) as the
icon of the city even when it replaced a much pretty theather. Maybe humans
get eclipsed with novelty and can't notice the impact of their creations on
early stages.
[https://www.elcolombiano.com/documents/10157/0/620x410/20c0/...](https://www.elcolombiano.com/documents/10157/0/620x410/20c0/580d410/none/11101/SBKW/fotos-
medellin-1302042014_\(6\).jpg)

------
skybrian
No pictures when writing about architecture?

~~~
inflatableDodo
Is a literary review of a book about architecture, so has quotes from the
book. I assume the pictures are one level down.

~~~
theoh
I'm not sure James Stevens Curl is a good person to go to for compelling
images of architecture. Check out his website:
[http://www.jamesstevenscurl.com/james-stevens-curl-
architect...](http://www.jamesstevenscurl.com/james-stevens-curl-architecture-
drawings)

He can sort-of draw buildings and architectural details but basically he
doesn't really have a great eye for architecture. If he did, he would think
twice before making the tedious old right-wing arguments in the book. He's an
example of someone who is conservative in way that's not grounded in
practicality. Disliking the way 20th C architecture played out is one thing,
trying to convince us to return to pre-modern architecture is something else.

By the way, it sounds odd to describe the content of a book as "one level
down" from a review of that book.

~~~
inflatableDodo
Thank you for the link, I read some more of the reviews for his book on there.
A. It appears that you are talking nonsense and B. I'm probably going to buy a
copy.

~~~
theoh
I probably can't convince you of anything, but there are definitely two sides
to this story. You can choose to listen to Stevens Curl if you want to. You
can choose to listen to Theodore Dalrymple as well. Like Stevens Curl he is a
blowhard with very iffy politics.

As a trained architectural historian (who has spent years in the UK) it's very
clear to me where he is coming from, and it's not a rational place. HN is a
terrible venue for discussions of architecture because it's full of people who
think their own blinkered opinion is the law. Stevens Curl is just like that.

Edit: even the conservative Spectator has Curl's digits:
[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/modernist-
architecture-i...](https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/modernist-architecture-
isnt-barbarous-but-the-blinkered-rejection-of-it-is/)

~~~
inflatableDodo
>I probably can't convince you of anything

You might be able to, but if you claim someone is making tedious old right
wing arguments, when it according to the reviews he spends his time commenting
on Corbusier's fascism and the Spectator lumps him in with Vonnegut, then I
can't take your critique all that seriously. Do you think Vonnegut's
architectural critiques are also tired right wing arguments?

~~~
cfmcdonald
And Orwell, apparently he is now a right-winger too.

~~~
theoh
The point Bayley is making is that there is a motley crew of people of all
political persuasions who think modernization in the 20th C was a disaster.
The mechanization of war was the big shock. Obviously there is everything from
e.g. socialist environmentalists on the left to the libertarian rejection of
organized society on the right. There's a huge spectrum.

~~~
inflatableDodo
The way it played out in architecture has been pretty bad. Corbusier in
particular should have just stuck to chairs. He was much better at chairs than
he was at buildings.

As far as this kind of thing goes, I love stuff by Altair Alto and Shigeru
Ban, whereas I'd happily bury George Marsh under his own concrete. Norman
foster I am 50/50 on. Some of his stuff I like, but the tulip and the gherkin
are basically just giant tumescent cocks sprouting out of the centre of
London.

------
pkamb
lots of good Brutalism / Modernism accounts on Instagram if you're into that:

[https://www.instagram.com/thisbrutalhouse/](https://www.instagram.com/thisbrutalhouse/)

[https://www.instagram.com/themodernhouse/](https://www.instagram.com/themodernhouse/)

------
stuart78
I don't fully understand why architecture is so bitterly divided between its
factions. I am the son of an architect (loyal to his faction) and I like a lot
of that stuff and a lot of other styles, including much made of concrete. It
seems like something built into the culture at an early stage. Some of the
Bauhaus practitioners saw their work as an expression of a Socialist agenda
and Classicists are taught that only the traditional styles of design and
building are acceptable.

There is (or ought to be) a common enemy to all factions, which is cheap
disposable architecture. Long-term structure that are also climate change
adaptable seems a decent common purpose, for example.

Somehow, however, the capital A Architect class seems to exist above the
buildings designed for and by people who do not care about aesthetics, so the
cheap and disposable seem to slip under the radar. Perhaps because Lennar
Builders and their ilk don't care what academics think of them?

------
theklub
I thought this was going to be about poor concrete construction.. For example
... [https://portal.ct.gov/DOH/DOH/Programs/Crumbling-
Foundations](https://portal.ct.gov/DOH/DOH/Programs/Crumbling-Foundations)

------
nullc
The author fails to acknowledge the enormous expense of building anything
else. Traditional forms require a considerable amount of on-site highly
skilled labor which is often just not available in sufficient quantities, on a
sufficient time-table, at an acceptable price.

~~~
bdauvergne
It's non-sense, past has a lot of example of simple architecture done by
people without many resources acommodating the mass. Rome was already 1
million people during the first millenia, there were buildings with 6 or 7
floors, they were not all covered with classical friezes and statues costing
extra-labor.

~~~
nullc
> done by people without many resources

[Waits]

> Rome was already 1 million people during the first millenia, there were
> buildings with 6 or 7 floors,

Did you really choose an example of a society that used slave labor
extensively?

It's hard to make a comparison due to opportunity cost. Imagine you are a
person with the innate competence and dedication to eventually become a master
craftsman. Do you learn woodworking, stonework, etc. and labor inexpensively
for years as a apprentice to eventually top out at being paid moderately well
doing work that benefits a single project .... or do you learn to develop
cellphone apps that get used by tens of millions or billions of people?

As we create more jobs which are highly leveraged-- where one unit of work
potentially produces an enormous amount of benefit all less leveraged jobs are
squeezed by the competition.

In cases where high skills and years of training don't matter the effect isn't
so great because skilled industrial production jobs don't compete as much for
that labor pool. But for these construction jobs, they do.

~~~
bdauvergne
Are you trying to compare cellphone app development with woodworking or
stonework ? It needs more time to be a good woodworker but I think more people
can learn the job (you don't need to be literate). Any actual construction
worker (and there are a lot more than cellphone app developers) could build
with ancient building techniques like vaulted ceilings given time and
instructions. It's not a problem of craftsmanship or leverage, it's more a
problem of standardization without benefits (I do not think concrete flat
ceiling are really less expensive than vaulted for one or two floors
buildings, Christopher Alexander reports that they still build houses like
this in Mexico, doing vaults with simple crossed wood splines[1]).

[1]:
[http://www.flyingconcrete.com/vaults.html](http://www.flyingconcrete.com/vaults.html)

------
magwa101
Honestly, puke. I've been watching "Grand Designs", great show about people
building their own places in Britain. Many shows feature local "councils" who
mandate all sorts of restrictions to "maintain the beauty and aesthetics of
the town". Honestly they're protecting "old crap", that's an eyesore, eco
disaster, ugly and it should be torn down. These people are doing everyone a
favor. Very irritating to see the hoops the builders have to jump through.

~~~
chrisseaton
Why have you put council in scare quotes?

------
SilasX
I couldn't find a reference in the text -- is the title a riff on "Sermons in
Stone", a fictional book written by the antagonist of _The Fountainhead_?[1]

(Yes, I read it, go easy on me.)

[1] Link has SPOILERS, so you were warned: [https://www.shmoop.com/the-
fountainhead/ellsworth-toohey-tim...](https://www.shmoop.com/the-
fountainhead/ellsworth-toohey-timeline.html)

------
goodmachine
It's interesting how architectural modernism works in pop culture (Hollywood
films, for example) where the buildings play the bad guy: an arrogant,
oppressive or cruelly indifferent character, a stand-in for totalitarianism,
for places of extreme wealth or poverty.

Now we're here I can't think of many active celebrations of the form in
painting, literature, comics or games either. You?

------
rdiddly
Modernists and their apologists are like flat-earthers. All criticism can be
chalked up to your ignorance of the _secrets_ that _only they_ are willing to
confront.

------
1024core
San Francisco is undergoing exactly such a crime wave. The new apartment
buildings are just glass and steel, with no redeeming features whatsoever.
Compare these new buildings to the Flood Building or the Hobart Building, and
you'll shed a tear or two.

~~~
titanomachy
The Hobart building is pretty to look at. But if I'm actually going to spend
my time in the building, I would much rather have the floor-to-ceiling windows
of a generic modern steel-and-glass tower.

I wonder how much of this design trend is due to the development of better
materials (e.g. more insulating glass).

~~~
bdauvergne
Why ?

~~~
titanomachy
Natural light. View. The illusion of space rather than confinement.

------
mda
Half of the article is how fascist nazi communist those architects were, with
some sprinkling of islam references. Utterly tasteless.

------
skookumchuck
Then there are the bunkers at the University of Washington. The rest of the
campus has all these beautiful buildings, one wonders how the bunkers ever got
approved.

