I miss when buildings were large and intricate now it always feels like one or the other.
How come we don’t build cool stuff anymore?
Its because of damn modernists in architecture. If Ludwig Mies van der Rohe didn't come up with this idiotic idea of covering the whole fucking building in glass, then we would have a normal architecture everywhere. People think that classical types of architecture are more expensive because they look fancy, but in reality they cost roughly the same money as these glass boxes.
Also, your picture was drawn by Etienne Louis Boullee who was an architect with a lot megalithic concepts but he didn't built that much of them.
slang for something excellent, trendy, and socially desirableBernd2026-03-24 16:34:51 · 3mnNo. 357485"Cool" typically means moderately cold, calm, or fashionable and impressive. It describes temperatures that are refreshing (e.g., a cool breeze), a composed demeanor under pressure ("keep your cool"), or "slang for something excellent, trendy, and socially desirable." It also refers to colors like blue/green.
“Cool” /ko͞ol/ (architecture)-
A style of design that uses size or intricacy to create structures that have meaning or impact (feel emotion or convey a message usually about monumentality and persistence) .
Examples:
Anything baroque
Templo mayor
Most renaissance architecture
The pink mosque
Most Cathedrals
The Volkshalle (If made)
The Kremlin
Most palaces for that matter
The red square
the forbidden city
Traditional Korean architecture
I could probably think of more but hopefully you get the idea.
China and Dubai prove that it’s still possible however my critique is how that was done with near slave labor getting payed on the cent. However what made some of these structures so grand is the fact of a group of people shared a common goal of being remembered far past they are gone, I think more building should think this way, I think more buildings should be cool.
Let’s take Astana and New York for example.
Astana Is uniform and symmetrical it’s very clean with massive white roads, usually large spaces are “cool”. Every building looks unique utilizing circles and round shapes, take for instance the Bayterek Tower or the EXPO 2017, they look unique, like nothing I’ve ever seen. The Astana Grand Mosque looks beautiful and I could go on about buildings I just don’t feel like it.
For New York on the other hand is crowded, which makes sense because there’s a lot of people, however the building layout is very uneven and scattered. Everything looks cluttered and messy as if they wanted to make a lot of big things but didn’t plan on where they should go. Well, still definitely impressive each building is doing something different, and yet still has the rectangle layout of “built tall” what made Astana so cool or epic is that it’s not just one building that impressive rather the entire area is a masterpiece of ingenuity and architectural achievement. New York is similar however the focus was more on a single building rather than the big Picture.
<kitsch
As in art? renaissance, baroque, and Neo-classicalism are more of what I am referring to. Unless you are referring to what I dislike as kitsch, and if so than thats half true, with kitsch architecture I feel like it’s very hit or miss, which is why it’s so risky and usually companies don’t try to make things look special.
I made this thread because I heard of a new HEB is coming to my city. I saw a massive area of land that was completely leveled and I was thinking to myself about such a big area of land that could have been used for something better than a massive UGLY building. But alas, you’re right companies don’t care about if it’s a rectangle or not, everyone is working towards minimalism.
Renaissance is mostly fine. The rest is kitsch.
The monumental structures aren't. Those are brutalism at worst and miming Hellenism at best.
I'd be glad if noone built any of it ever. And then we should purge that full steel and glass monstrosities that don't fit into the surrounding buildings but they build them everywhere anyway.
To all of you – an uneducated crowd of stubborn retards lacking in expertise in architecture and construction works, I present a proof of why beautiful buldings are not more expensive than glass and steel cubes YouTube: y5w4REl_Few?si=XRNprCNONu7bdvpx go and watch.
We don't build "cool" or ornate stuff like we used to primarily due to the high cost of skilled labor, the prioritization of functionality and speed over aesthetics, and the rise of modernist architectural styles that favor minimalism. Modern construction relies on mass-produced materials like steel and concrete to maximize ROI and efficiency, while traditional, intricate craftsmanship has become too slow and expensive. Ultimately, the focus has shifted from creating monumental, ornate structures to prioritizing cost-saving, practicality, and specialized, high-efficiency spaces. Economics and Speed: Following World War II, the focus shifted to rapid, cost-effective construction, leading developers to favor simple designs over detailed, time-consuming ones. Labor Costs & Craftsmanship: The scarcity of skilled artisans (stone carvers, specialized woodworkers) makes traditional ornamentation expensive compared to modern, machine-made alternatives. Modernist Philosophy: A 20th-century cultural shift embraced "form follows function," viewing ornamentation as unnecessary or inefficient. Durability and Materials: Modern materials such as reinforced concrete and glass are designed for efficiency and structural capability rather than the multi-centennial longevity of older stone or brick buildings. Survivorship Bias: Many older, plain buildings did not survive, causing us to overvalue the past, while our current, less-impressive projects are all kept, making it feel like everything is "bland". YouTube: onNckTvCOPA?si=wMfLoPIhMYXT9tyM
My theory is that neither individuals nor organizations feel comfortable being frivolous or indulgent with their wealth anymore. Instead, all wealth is now used to accumulate even more wealth, power, and status.
In the past, efficiency and optimization were less critical. Successful businesses and wealthy individuals could afford to indulge. However, today's businesses aim for efficiency, optimization, and indefinite scaling. No business is satisfied with where it is but instead wants to be much larger. Why design a lavish company tower when that money could be invested in growth? Or dedicate all your time to constructing a beautiful house when you could instead buy a condo in NYC to spend a few months per year. Think of how the market and your customers would judge you for being so wasteful!
Once enough people and businesses shift away from beautiful indulgences, the norms and markets that support them dissipate.
In the past, individuals could be big fish in small ponds, enjoying their status, position, and wealth. Satisfaction with one's wealth was more attainable, as people used their money to achieve concrete goals and derive contentment from their accomplishments. Wealth was a means to an end, providing fulfillment and stability at various financial levels.
Today, however, we are exposed to a vastly expanded environment of wealth and success. Social media, global news, and entertainment showcase the lifestyles of those in slightly higher status brackets within your aspirational lifestyle. It’s no longer just about keeping up with the Joneses next door; it’s about keeping up with those you envy globally.
For businesses and individuals, wealth is no longer just a means to achieve goals; it becomes a perpetual quest for more wealth, opportunities, and optionality.
This relentless pursuit of optionality and growth can lead to a paradox: despite increasing wealth, indulgences may decline.
Architecture is expensive. Most beautiful architecture comes from a time where some monarch held more wealth than all the peasants combined, so they could build lavish palaces like Versailles and patron statues. Now, theres still massive inequality, so common houses/apartments are still meh, but the wealthy decide they would rather spend money on getting even wealthier than on a palace
I would also like to point out that a lot of people do consider modern architecture beautiful. Not really for econo-box buildings, but for a lot of the glass sky scrapers and the higher end buildings there's fans. That's just a matter of taste, and even if i think it'd be awesome to bring back victorian style, that'd actually piss a lot of people who don't like that style off.
There’s a thing called survivorship bias, whereas in the case of architecture, the beautiful buildings are all that remain from the past, therefore you think that all building from the past were beautiful.
This isn’t the case, it is just that the shitboxes have long been knocked down and built over.
Also there are architectural ages. We are going through a modernistic age, not as appealing as georgian or victorian.
Also, practicality… glass walls are about an inch thick, stone walls are about 4ft thick, you get a lot more floor space with glass.
Meh,The "graying" of the modern world is a recognized phenomenon where daily life—cars, house paint, and consumer goods—has become increasingly devoid of color, driven by a surge in, and preference for, minimalist, neutral, and "safe" designs. This trend is fueled by mass production, industrial manufacturing, and corporate, "Pinterest-ized" aesthetics aimed at appearing clean and modern.
I don't think that's the whole story, are you really saying that money wasn't an issue in the past? Because materials and technology was definitely more expensive.
I think it boils down to survivorship bias, since we only remember and see all the beautiful buildings of the past but forget the ugly ones, or the ones which aren't even standing anymore.
Also the architectural style has significantly changed to a more futuristic one, nowadays often incorporating nature into it, and you can find beautiful and impressive construction built today, look at Singapore airport terminal.
