Presumably, he means a single window we see is made up of 4-6 panes and
those panes are bigger than a single story
I am having trouble seeing the 4-6 windows combined from the photos of the Bellagio. The close up does not help.
The first mentioned buildings seem brutalist esp. the second one.
It is a form of utilitarian architecture that has great appeal to me.
I think in part because it is rare now.
I find them far more pleasing to the eye than the giant glass clad high rises
that was the fashion for a long time.
I have read that it is now going out of fashion, but I have not yet seen any
examples locally.
Wanting to give my dogs new and exciting places to sniff and pee
I try to walk around in different neighborhoods in the area.
As have been doing this for many years now and the unexplored
neighborhoods are getting farther and farther out.
About two years ago, at random, I found a brutalist single
family dwelling. It is a big house for a single family but
it is the smallest such building I have ever seen, it is beautiful.
(to me)
I truly stands out from all the other nearby houses.
I have visited that area often to take pictures and just look at it.
I would love a chance to see the inside.
If I had the money and I most certainly do not, id love to live
in a house like that.
It would make giving directions a lot easier as well.
I wonder if there exists brutalist "tiny homes".
That would be something to behold
> I am having trouble seeing the 4-6 windows combined from the photos of the Bellagio. The close up does not help.
You can see it better in this high-res photo from Wikimedia Commons [0]. Each of the square windows appears to span four rooms on two floors, while the lower floor rectangular windows appear to span three floors, making it six rooms.
I am surprised brutalist became popular. Concrete ends up really weathered over time and to me you end up with drab and dingy looking buildings after a while: “oh that building is from the 70s”.
I guess there were practical reasons in the beginning to not focus on adding additional finishes?
I see how brutalist architecture may be endearing because it looks so dated, like retrofuturistic imagery usually does. But take a a moment at imagining a city where most buildings are really high slabs of grey concrete darkened by damp and pollution and try not to feel depressed.
That kind of architecture was born from the need to build fast and cheap in order to avoid slums. Architects who embraced those projects invented it a style and aura.
I agree with this and believe we should make beautiful structures. I’m not sure much architecture since the 1950s in the west really does this. Modernism was the last consistently great style imo. Post Modern styles just seem so temporary and self indulgent which I suppose reflects our time.
You might enjoy the movie Columbus (2017). It's a drama about two people connecting through their passion for architecture with gorgeous shots of the modernist/brutalist buildings in Columbus, Indiana.
> utilitarian [brutalist] architecture that has great appeal to me. I think in part because it is rare now. I find them far more pleasing to the eye than the giant glass clad high rises that was the fashion for a long time.
"Giant glass clad high rises" are not a fashion -- they're popular because most people in the U.S. and Europe like the way they look.
In some sense these pretty glass buildings are a symbol of American ideology. Free markets tipped the balance from the art elite, who wanted people to live in brutalist slaughterhouses, toward the common people, who like their optimistic, futurist buildings and are willing to pay for them.
>In a lecture about the universal characteristics of classical architecture, professor Nathaniel Walker argued that human beings crave two things: order and variety. If there's too much order, it's boring and oppressive. If there's too much variety, it's chaotic and unpleasant. In his view, classical architecture all over the world aims at creating a "delicate balance between order and variety."
It's how 'fractal' things are. There is at least one 3b1b video about this. I think humans prefer a fractal number of about 1.5 or so, which is about what nature is.
In short, the designers of these buildings experienced trauma during the wars that changed their brains, in a way that makes human features upsetting. Most buildings reference human features in some way (mouth, eyes), and this modernism avoids that and calms their brains.
It aligns nicely with the astute observation about the windows, in that they humanize these large buildings.
I think the author missing the biggest reason for these styling differences. This is their function. A long term dwelling serves a different function than a hotel. All of the residential buildings have more personalization on the outside of the building than hotels allow. I'd also like to add that the shown residential homes show much more wear and age than the hotels do, making it hard to do a side by side comparison.
I'm always driven towards residential areas where the personality and style of the owner comes out in the property. In the US many suburban HOAs, apartment management and condo boards will put arbitrary limits on the appearance of the outside of the home. I can't stand the single family neighborhoods where all the homes were build at the same time, with the same builders, in the same style. In my neighborhood lots are of varying sizes, homes are built in a ~fifteen year span with different styles, and there is no hoa.
Condo buildings can generate the same level of sameness if several of them are built in the same neighborhood around the same time, with similar style, and enforce strict limitations on outside visual appearance. We see this a lot in the US when an area is "upzonned" and developers flock to build "luxury" apartments and condos. I prefer buildings where residents put furniture on balconies, hang decorations from their window, grow plants outside, and have blinds open displaying rooms styled differently than their neighbors. I prefer living in urban neighborhoods where the buildings are of varying ages and show different architectural styles.
Hotels can do enforce a very high level of uniformity. Additionally the amenities, furnishing, styling, and art are very much at the whim of current styles. This increases the "order" and decreases the "chaos". The order comes from function, and I wouldn't want to live in a hotel like environment.
> I think the author missing the biggest reason for these styling differences. This is their function. A long term dwelling serves a different function than a hotel. All of the residential buildings have more personalization on the outside of the building than hotels allow. I'd also like to add that the shown residential homes show much more wear and age than the hotels do, making it hard to do a side by side comparison.
Yeah I'm surprised nobody else mentioned this. The residential buildings have window AC units and people hanging laundry on their balconies to dry, two things you'll never see at modern hotels (the ones pictured don't even have balconies).
There's no apples to apples comparison happening here.
The German Democratic Republik (East Germany) had the problem of needing housing for many thousand people in the 1970s. It was not possible to build enough flats. The only way they could scale up their efforts was through standardisation.
Berlin Marzahn and other areas were villages back than. The Marzahn Village for example still exists today.
People wanted individualisation, but the housing was needed. So they put color in their balconies, which made them look like color patches. And there existed big murals on the ends of some houses.
After reunification, a lot of these buildings were modernised and made look the same again. Only the color scheme between houses was different. Existing murals were often painted over. People then realised, it does look nicer to have coloured walls and they start to let artists paint the ends again.
Here is an example by the East German artist Mad C
> Good on the author for acknowledging (twice) that not everyone shares their sense of aesthetics.
I disagree. For example:
> unless you like them, I'm not questioning anyone's personal taste
This type of soft-pedaling is too pervasive in people’s writing nowadays. It diminishes the author’s point when they are too afraid to commit to their own opinions because they might offend someone that disagrees. This constant affirmation of “you might disagree, and that’s OK,” is irritating.
I live in Romania. 90% of the buildings sport this brutalist look, not to mention there are rows after rows having the same design. You get bored and depressed very quickly if you live in such environment.
I'm always amazed at the diversity of the facades when I visit other european cities.
Hard same, I was wondering if I was crazy! You might also want to look into solarpunk art and urban design, at least to me it feels authentic like the monster building.
When I was buying a house some years ago, and one of the places we were looking at was a subdivision outside town with all the houses being nearly the same. It was nice, and the seller talked about how they had chili cookoffs every year, and my partner really wanted to buy the place. My brain however was really put off, and wanted to get away, right now.
We ultimately bought a place in town, within easy walking distance of the main intersection and all of the businesses there, and right by the park so we could walk our dog. The house is much older, and looks like it's been added to over the years, which might not be to the author's taste but I really like the authenticity.
I guess when choosing between something completely designed from the top down to hide what it is and something that doesn't hide it's nature, I'm more drawn to the latter.
The HK buildings feel dystopian by Western standards because they're incredibly crammed. By local standard, they might actually be pretty good (looks like each unit gets pretty large windows/"indoor balcony" style rooms).
Truly, tastes vary. I also think the "chaotic" buildings are much more beautiful than their Vegas counterparts. This is maybe due to my hobby of plein air/urban sketching; if I were to pick a subject to draw on-site, I would immediately be drawn to the Hong Kong buildings. There's not much visual interest to the Vegas buildings.
I want to live in the building, not look at it and as such I want a balcony, a window that opens and an individual A/C unit that can deliver a strong blast next to my bed on summer nights. If it looks ugly from outside, who cares, make it up with a pretty, clean and safe street with shops and restaurants nearby.
What you prefer to live in is not the point of the article. It's about why some large, many unit buildings appear imposing / overwhelming while others less so.
This is a false dilemma. There's no need to choose between ugly buildings with climate control and attractive buildings with poor climate control.
It can be very hot in Las Vegas and the buildings shown in the article have climate control more than capable of making you cold in the summer.
Christopher Alexander has a whole lifetime work on this subject.
While “order” and “variety” are something that humans crave, that is something that can naturally come about because of “generative codes”. That the design process unfolds, with participation by inhabitants. Centers are identified, and design take all of that account. You end up with something that has both, universal invariants, while also uniquely in relation to everything around it and the people living within it.
For those interested, this site has links to many of Christopher Alexander’s ideas. The people who put this together are aiming to apply his ideas to software design: https://beautiful.software/
Another Las Vegas Window Trick is to prevent any natural light on the casino floors. The gambler has no sense of time of day without looking at a clock, but that’s not the same as feeling “oh, it’s almost dawn” by looking at the daylight.
It seems human beings have certain levels of texture detail that we find aesthetic. Any more or less, and we find it unappealing. I first realised this when I noticed that fictional spacecraft look appealing when they have a certain amount of exterior detail or "knurling". I also find trees with smaller leaves (e.g. Banyan trees) more calming to look at than those with large leaves. I suspect both phenomena are related.
Probably related to the more general notion of boring stuff and too dense stuff. It is as if brains optimize towards a certain percentage of surprise in their stimuli.
I dunno, the more chaotic buildings really emphasize that there’s a person living in each one. That can be neat to think about. Somebody’s whole home life lives in each of those tiny windows.
It is interesting that people tend to take photos of the Las Vegas hotels that emphasize the visual effect that makes them look smaller, while they tend to shoot these apartment towers in a way that makes them look looming and overwhelming. It is just a matter of framing though, the apartments are shot from much closer up.
And there’s also the aspect of the building maintenance. I suspect the hotels just bring in more money per day and get more aesthetic touch ups on the outside. Apartment and condo building sometimes look a little grimy just because they don’t get painted every year or whatever.
There’s a converse trick: divided lites. Many newer doors and windows that appear to have small panes of glass (“lites”) separated by strips of wood or metal are actually large insulated glass units (sets of multiple sheets of glass and their spacers and sealing hardware) decorated with wood, metal or plastic outside the glass. Sometimes a strip of something is out in between the panes glass as well to make it less obvious.
It turns out that double- or triple-paned glass is a better insulator than wood, and the perimeter is a meaningful part of the cost, so one large unit is better for cost and performance than a bunch of small units.
On the other end of the spectrum: here in Amsterdam some of the canal houses deliberately use smaller windows for the top floors, to give the impression that the homes are taller (and more prestigious).
The way it was explained to me is that it's an optical illusion when viewing the homes from street level. A 17th century window trick. :-)
> In a lecture about the universal characteristics of classical architecture, professor Nathaniel Walker argued that human beings crave two things: order and variety. If there's too much order, it's boring and oppressive. If there's too much variety, it's chaotic and unpleasant. In his view, classical architecture all over the world aims at creating a "delicate balance between order and variety."
The overall article is great too with the example photos.
Yeah, the post-modernists had some good ideas about offsetting the monolitic, scaleness nature of modernist design, like for example, bringing back ornamentation. Personally, I'm more partial to the dutch structuralists reactions to modernism, which tried to reconcile the same critique without also lapsing into kitsch.
Also, Corbusier's Unite d'Habitation doesn't belong in the article's list of "ugly, distressing" buildings. Corb's built work was actually built explictly and thoughtfully around human proportions. I've walked around (and in) it, and it doesn't feel monolithic, and oppressive at all. Cutting a section across it reveals it's real cleverness - the apartment units are linked in such a way that each unit can have 2 floors, so you get a diversity of environments typical apartment units don't provide.
I lived in Asia in the 1990s and was close friends with several local and international architects working on residential buildings which often had commercial space on the ground floor.
One common complaint was their models and drawings never ended up looking like the result because the developer would add features (one example: a parking garage which required a large ramp) and commercial tenants would add hanging signage. Residents typically used balconies for drying laundry, not the flower gardens shown in the drawings. Almost everyone used frosted windows, not clear windows, because outside views of other buildings or the surrounding landscape were not valued - it was all about the interior amenities.
[+] [-] ThinkBeat|3 years ago|reply
I am having trouble seeing the 4-6 windows combined from the photos of the Bellagio. The close up does not help.
The first mentioned buildings seem brutalist esp. the second one. It is a form of utilitarian architecture that has great appeal to me. I think in part because it is rare now.
I find them far more pleasing to the eye than the giant glass clad high rises that was the fashion for a long time. I have read that it is now going out of fashion, but I have not yet seen any examples locally.
Wanting to give my dogs new and exciting places to sniff and pee I try to walk around in different neighborhoods in the area. As have been doing this for many years now and the unexplored neighborhoods are getting farther and farther out.
About two years ago, at random, I found a brutalist single family dwelling. It is a big house for a single family but it is the smallest such building I have ever seen, it is beautiful. (to me)
I truly stands out from all the other nearby houses. I have visited that area often to take pictures and just look at it. I would love a chance to see the inside.
If I had the money and I most certainly do not, id love to live in a house like that. It would make giving directions a lot easier as well.
I wonder if there exists brutalist "tiny homes". That would be something to behold
For an explanation of the term brutalist see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9ton_brut
[+] [-] pimlottc|3 years ago|reply
You can see it better in this high-res photo from Wikimedia Commons [0]. Each of the square windows appears to span four rooms on two floors, while the lower floor rectangular windows appear to span three floors, making it six rooms.
0: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bellagio_hotel.jpg
[+] [-] ec109685|3 years ago|reply
I guess there were practical reasons in the beginning to not focus on adding additional finishes?
[+] [-] cassepipe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmk|3 years ago|reply
https://sika.scene7.com/is/image/sika/usa-first-methodist-ch...
[+] [-] rmnwski|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] O__________O|3 years ago|reply
http://www.vegastodayandtomorrow.com/windows.htm
[+] [-] nemo44x|3 years ago|reply
I agree with this and believe we should make beautiful structures. I’m not sure much architecture since the 1950s in the west really does this. Modernism was the last consistently great style imo. Post Modern styles just seem so temporary and self indulgent which I suppose reflects our time.
[+] [-] tschumacher|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hasbot|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] anothernewdude|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 2h|3 years ago|reply
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Béton_brut
[+] [-] gadders|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scrozier|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] password11|3 years ago|reply
Reminds me of https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-11-16.
"Giant glass clad high rises" are not a fashion -- they're popular because most people in the U.S. and Europe like the way they look.
In some sense these pretty glass buildings are a symbol of American ideology. Free markets tipped the balance from the art elite, who wanted people to live in brutalist slaughterhouses, toward the common people, who like their optimistic, futurist buildings and are willing to pay for them.
[+] [-] Nifty3929|3 years ago|reply
It's how 'fractal' things are. There is at least one 3b1b video about this. I think humans prefer a fractal number of about 1.5 or so, which is about what nature is.
[+] [-] sbarre|3 years ago|reply
Those windows are massive but the proportions are deceptive. Neat.
[+] [-] rgoldfinger|3 years ago|reply
In short, the designers of these buildings experienced trauma during the wars that changed their brains, in a way that makes human features upsetting. Most buildings reference human features in some way (mouth, eyes), and this modernism avoids that and calms their brains.
It aligns nicely with the astute observation about the windows, in that they humanize these large buildings.
[+] [-] htag|3 years ago|reply
I'm always driven towards residential areas where the personality and style of the owner comes out in the property. In the US many suburban HOAs, apartment management and condo boards will put arbitrary limits on the appearance of the outside of the home. I can't stand the single family neighborhoods where all the homes were build at the same time, with the same builders, in the same style. In my neighborhood lots are of varying sizes, homes are built in a ~fifteen year span with different styles, and there is no hoa.
Condo buildings can generate the same level of sameness if several of them are built in the same neighborhood around the same time, with similar style, and enforce strict limitations on outside visual appearance. We see this a lot in the US when an area is "upzonned" and developers flock to build "luxury" apartments and condos. I prefer buildings where residents put furniture on balconies, hang decorations from their window, grow plants outside, and have blinds open displaying rooms styled differently than their neighbors. I prefer living in urban neighborhoods where the buildings are of varying ages and show different architectural styles.
Hotels can do enforce a very high level of uniformity. Additionally the amenities, furnishing, styling, and art are very much at the whim of current styles. This increases the "order" and decreases the "chaos". The order comes from function, and I wouldn't want to live in a hotel like environment.
[+] [-] chimeracoder|3 years ago|reply
Yeah I'm surprised nobody else mentioned this. The residential buildings have window AC units and people hanging laundry on their balconies to dry, two things you'll never see at modern hotels (the ones pictured don't even have balconies).
There's no apples to apples comparison happening here.
[+] [-] rmetzler|3 years ago|reply
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wohnungsbauprogramm_(DDR)
People wanted individualisation, but the housing was needed. So they put color in their balconies, which made them look like color patches. And there existed big murals on the ends of some houses.
After reunification, a lot of these buildings were modernised and made look the same again. Only the color scheme between houses was different. Existing murals were often painted over. People then realised, it does look nicer to have coloured walls and they start to let artists paint the ends again.
Here is an example by the East German artist Mad C
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Berlin_Mural_Fest_2019_M...
Here is a video of Team Mad Flava, painting a large mural in Greifswald.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q0vMB5k71c
[+] [-] userabchn|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hanspeter|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dguest|3 years ago|reply
Personally I think there's a beautiful chaotic honesty in the monster building. The Vegas hotels look phony, even more so now that I know their trick.
[+] [-] atomicUpdate|3 years ago|reply
I disagree. For example:
> unless you like them, I'm not questioning anyone's personal taste
This type of soft-pedaling is too pervasive in people’s writing nowadays. It diminishes the author’s point when they are too afraid to commit to their own opinions because they might offend someone that disagrees. This constant affirmation of “you might disagree, and that’s OK,” is irritating.
[+] [-] chitza|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twoquestions|3 years ago|reply
When I was buying a house some years ago, and one of the places we were looking at was a subdivision outside town with all the houses being nearly the same. It was nice, and the seller talked about how they had chili cookoffs every year, and my partner really wanted to buy the place. My brain however was really put off, and wanted to get away, right now.
We ultimately bought a place in town, within easy walking distance of the main intersection and all of the businesses there, and right by the park so we could walk our dog. The house is much older, and looks like it's been added to over the years, which might not be to the author's taste but I really like the authenticity.
I guess when choosing between something completely designed from the top down to hide what it is and something that doesn't hide it's nature, I'm more drawn to the latter.
[+] [-] tgsovlerkhgsel|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] now__what|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cat_plus_plus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joecasson|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exegete|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kag0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weberer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] docandrew|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hosh|3 years ago|reply
While “order” and “variety” are something that humans crave, that is something that can naturally come about because of “generative codes”. That the design process unfolds, with participation by inhabitants. Centers are identified, and design take all of that account. You end up with something that has both, universal invariants, while also uniquely in relation to everything around it and the people living within it.
[+] [-] hosh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TedDoesntTalk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hliyan|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hug|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mach1ne|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bee_rider|3 years ago|reply
It is interesting that people tend to take photos of the Las Vegas hotels that emphasize the visual effect that makes them look smaller, while they tend to shoot these apartment towers in a way that makes them look looming and overwhelming. It is just a matter of framing though, the apartments are shot from much closer up.
And there’s also the aspect of the building maintenance. I suspect the hotels just bring in more money per day and get more aesthetic touch ups on the outside. Apartment and condo building sometimes look a little grimy just because they don’t get painted every year or whatever.
[+] [-] amluto|3 years ago|reply
It turns out that double- or triple-paned glass is a better insulator than wood, and the perimeter is a meaningful part of the cost, so one large unit is better for cost and performance than a bunch of small units.
[+] [-] adrianh|3 years ago|reply
The way it was explained to me is that it's an optical illusion when viewing the homes from street level. A 17th century window trick. :-)
[+] [-] rajnathani|3 years ago|reply
> In a lecture about the universal characteristics of classical architecture, professor Nathaniel Walker argued that human beings crave two things: order and variety. If there's too much order, it's boring and oppressive. If there's too much variety, it's chaotic and unpleasant. In his view, classical architecture all over the world aims at creating a "delicate balance between order and variety."
The overall article is great too with the example photos.
[+] [-] saeranv|3 years ago|reply
Also, Corbusier's Unite d'Habitation doesn't belong in the article's list of "ugly, distressing" buildings. Corb's built work was actually built explictly and thoughtfully around human proportions. I've walked around (and in) it, and it doesn't feel monolithic, and oppressive at all. Cutting a section across it reveals it's real cleverness - the apartment units are linked in such a way that each unit can have 2 floors, so you get a diversity of environments typical apartment units don't provide.
[+] [-] ilamont|3 years ago|reply
One common complaint was their models and drawings never ended up looking like the result because the developer would add features (one example: a parking garage which required a large ramp) and commercial tenants would add hanging signage. Residents typically used balconies for drying laundry, not the flower gardens shown in the drawings. Almost everyone used frosted windows, not clear windows, because outside views of other buildings or the surrounding landscape were not valued - it was all about the interior amenities.
[+] [-] sssilver|3 years ago|reply
Mini does this very effectively.