Hacker News Reader

Comment by pannSun | Hacker News Reader

Is it really 'neglect', when ornamentation is deliberately attacked and avoided [1,2]? When this [3] is what modern architecture thinks a church should look like? They'll give excuses that it's due to cost cutting, then build things like [4] when funding isn't an issue.

Not that we should be surprised by lies - all war is waged by deception.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_and_Crime

[2] https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/ornament-is-crime...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Wilhelm_Memorial_Church... - The initial design included the demolition of the spire of the old church but following pressure from the public, it was decided to incorporate it into the new design.

[4] https://www.format.com/magazine/galleries/design/best-contem...

View on HN

Frankly, I think all of the buildings from your link 4 look breathtaking. They inspire a sense of awe and wonder in me - they don't look real or plausible in some way, but yet there they are, in the large. Having lots of ornamentation would very much detract from the un-real-ness of the surfaces.

The church from 3 really does look atrocious though - though even there, the interior where you are surrounded by stained glass seems like it would be quite impressive to experience directly.

Note that I also think other styles of monumental buildings are breathtaking. I was recently in Florence and could barely take my eyes off of the Santa Maria del Fiore cathedral (with its 19th century Gothic Revival facade), and similarly when I saw the Duomo in Milan or the San Pietro cathedral in Rome. But part of the beauty of architecture is seeing different styles. Another stunning building was the Pantheon in Rome - which is extremely minimalistic when compared to medieval cathedrals, but still outstanding in its design (knowing you're walking into a >2000 year old building also adds to the feeling).

I'm sure architects will eventually have their fill with brutalism and invent something new after it, and there will also be beautfiul examples of that new thing, and horrible examples as well.

> Frankly, I think all of the buildings from your link 4 look breathtaking. [..] But part of the beauty of architecture is seeing different styles.

And if there was a multitude of styles being built, I would be inclined to agree to disagree, subjective opinions will differ, and leave it at that. But they are not - 90%, if not more, of new buildings, especially large ones, all strive for that minimalist, steel & glass, unpleasant sterile aesthetic. It is not 30% modernist monstrosities, 30% art deco skycrapers, 30% art noveau, 10% classical revival.

> I'm sure architects will eventually have their fill with brutalism

Ironically I am quite fond of some brutalist buildings. They can be quite pleasant. But if any of those count as brutalist, they are far too 'cold' for my taste. Again, that would not be a problem if it wasn't all of architecture striving for that same 'cold' aesthetic.

Well, there were a good few hundred years of classicism, and then a good few hundred years of gothic architecture, and then another hundred or so of baroque and so on. It's not that uncommon for whole periods to be dominated by a single architectural style.

I am with you in bemoaning the fact that there are so few art deco and art nouveau buildings, though - those styles passed by far too quickly.

Demoralisation

What's more depressing is the examples you point out could be located in literally any large city in the entire world, such is the utter banality and dislocation of the modernist aesthetic.

Having them covered with graffiti would actually be an improvement in this respect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com