/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

More

(used to delete files and postings)


Fascist Architecture General Blackshirt 05/22/2020 (Fri) 21:18:09 ID: e810f7 No.188
What architectural style does /fascist/ prefer, ornate classical architecture, or the more austere "stripped classicism" favored by Speer?
>>188 Depends on the nation you build in.
>>189 Not necessarily. Classical architecture is a broad term that varies from nation to nation. For example, French classical architecture would be different from German classical architecture, but they both reflect their nation's traditions. Stripped classical is more simplified and utilitarian, without being as ugly as other utilitarian styles (such as modernism and brutalism) I personally think it depends on the purpose of the building. A Capitol building should be more ornate and decorative, while something like the DMV should probably be more stripped and austere.
I'm definitely a fan of Speer's stuff. I love the huge, imposing buildings. Very grand and powerful. It's really a shame that Berlin never got redesigned.
Open file (301.89 KB 1280x789 1508689897818.jpg)
Open file (126.09 KB 600x800 Querétaro 4.jpg)
>>188 >What architectural style does /fascist/ prefer Deepens on the nation, architecture should express the culture and history of their builders and the place it was built in. While I respect individual vision and recognize Architecture as art, I reject Architecture which only serves to showcase the artist as an individual while completely ignoring the local population, instead I would encourage Architecture which showcases it's comunal nature (some design, some do the bricks, some the reliefs, etc) or are done by someone who understands the local culture and respects it, absolutely no « The Finnish architect Spräänmdo Spordo was hired to rebuild Seoul's city-hall, he said the surrealist steel and glass behemoth that now dominates the landscape was inspired by a plate of kimchi he once had, his admiration for Danish Neo-Post-Pre-Proto-Ethnoprimitivist architect Bjørgen Askel can really be seen in his liberal use of parabolic stairs inspired by Amazonian Anthills ». Beauty should not need years of academic indoctrination in order to be seen, although we must also not fall into the modern, simplistic and mass-appealing excuse for beauty de see everywhere now. Being Fascist architecture I expect an emphasis on human figures, more relieves in public places, historical references and a sense or harmony in how each element interconnects, but that is a matter of city planing. >P.S. Fuck cars
And then there is Authoritarian Architecture, I really like it, but I have no idea on how to implement them in a city, so I would keep them isolated and to a minimum All these examples are sculptures by Renato Nicolodi
>>199 I like that. It's like the intimidating appearance of brutalism, without the ugliness.
>>190 while a dmv shouldn't look like a castle european or asian it should still be modest and not an eyesore. let it blend in with the local architecture.
Open file (1.00 MB 1080x1360 Front Facade A.jpg)
Open file (384.10 KB 800x1075 Front Facade B.png)
Open file (599.21 KB 1080x1680 Atrium.jpg)
Open file (326.06 KB 650x1275 Interior-Details.png)
Open file (349.01 KB 2950x2120 CdF-Plans.png)
Now you've done it, a hard topic. >>197 You are the Mex, right? I don't think you read it but i once made a post criticizing many of your points once in another board back in the 8 place when you made something discussing national architecture around mid-60's, now that i've read you more and i understand where your ideas come from i want to apologize, even if i think that post was unread by you it was pretty harsh and took things with a very regionalist tint which i possess at times, although in strict arch things i still hold some of those points. Back on point, everyone has the right idea: Arch style depends on the nation and culture at hand, and i would dare it just depends mostly on the cultural region than nation, this will bring us into what a nation is and the fact a nation/people and a state-nation are two different things being peddled as the same in the last century or so, hence the confusion by many average civilians when faced with this discussion. Now the style itself depends on the actual physical region first, the function thing, what it's build for to withstand, then the psychological thing comes into play: It is going to be a government, work or residential building? If a gov place, for example, then it is supposed to be caring and welcoming like a Secretariat of Health or something imposing and intimidating like a Ministry of Defence? And then after these 2 comes the form factor doctrine with its ornamental/deco aspects which are what most people see, if done in such ways it can even be perceived first than even space, which is paradoxical in theory. While i don't want to bring any controversy it is worthwhile to mention 2 famous examples of fascist architecture, mind you for very obvious reasons scholars and theorists after WWII are biased against these kind of things but they cannot hide they had a clear ideology behind them and served a purpose, and for all their butthurt also speerheaded many advancements in architecture. First it's the one i know many will dislike because of its innate characteristics, but they are ideologically "justified". La Casa del Fascio of Como, Lombardy in Italy by Giuseppe Terragni, nowadays revizioned as Palazzo Terragni, is a rationalist/functionalist building made in the mid-30's to store the local gathering of the Fascist party, hence the name "House of the League". While on the surface it's your typical modernist house, Giuseppe knew fully well he was going to get his ass kicked if he just pulled a shoebox project like they did back then and actually studied the surroundings along with his knowledge of renaissance architecture of Italy. He roughly organized spaces like in the italian city-states, hence directly making reference to the old governmental places in old Rome, and made a well-illuminated atrium as the central place just like the palazzi of the landlords. The thing about the party wanting a building of such style was because of costs and image, first there wasn't that much money to make full-on palaces in every city they needed a branch, second because in such a rural place (back then) they needed to give the message of technological advancement (as italians loved the hell out of Futurismo) and because they needed to make hold of the presence of a new era, and what more so than a highly-modernist building in the middle of the old city while not losing the basic scale of grand spaces. The result itself went a bit over the top in terms of bringing new things to the table but it was considered a great piece of theory in practice and people supposedly did feel its intended purpose. It was later on decorated with frescoes from several painters well-versed in the aforementioned futurismo, just like stridentismo and some nouveau stuff. Later on after the war it was repurposed as an italian IRS building and most traces of the old era taken down or painted over. The building served its psychological purposes well, not to mention the functional ones (respecting history "in theory") and even went on to be a flagship example of the ever-so-innovative italian designers. Shame the guy then was thrown as army support line to Stalingrad and came back mad as hell and died relatively young from cardiac problems after a short-spell of general illness. >>212 >brutalism, without the ugliness. Brutalism is not ugly.
Open file (210.54 KB 1024x819 concrete.jpg)
>>217 >Brutalism is not ugly. I respectfully disagree
>>220 the fuck even is that last one
Open file (1.59 MB 3375x1375 Entry-lvl-Plans.png)
Open file (1.48 MB 1615x1515 Portals.jpg)
Open file (2.99 MB 2250x2070 Mosaiksaal.jpg)
Open file (573.06 KB 1080x1300 Marmorgalerie.png)
Open file (688.04 KB 1080x1630 Mein Kampfy Saal.png)
The second example is something most of us probably know already, the new wing of the Reich Chancellery, The Neu Reichskanzlei in Berlin, Germany by Albert Speer, is a highly lavish and very effective concept of governmental architecture. One day Adolf told Albert he wanted a new wing of the chancellery because the old place was not very good for the party's activities, which were plenty in terms of organization, along with personal headquarters and secretly a future bunker area, he gave the entire side street, by that point with the old stables and services areas demolished just for him, and a pack of official budget orders to do whatever he needed, the catch was he needed that within a year. Speer gladly accepted but in secret the dude would go on to sleep little in his passion to deliver, and he did in grand fashion. Taking his own refined skills in Stripped Classicism (also called Clean Classicism) he started conceptualizing the needs: Sturdy and well-built, grand and holding the culture/reich's ideals. The most apparent thing is the decoration but like in all these new trends in architecture, ornamentation came with innate texture instead of man-made ones (Speer clearly understood Adolf Loos' writings) and even went a step ahead in reducing costs of the same, but more on that later because the real protagonist was another one. Albert ran a system in which he created a route to see the Fuhrer, if someone had a meeting with him or simply wanted to see him the route should be a psychological ritual, and if we judge by pictures Speer did a great job, the trip itself is extremely intimidating, especially if said visitor was a rural person not used to such dimensions in building. I was going to write the route from what i remembered in a book but i found an excellent text from Speer pin-pointing the journey: From Wilhelmsplatz an arriving diplomat drove through great gates and walk later into a court of honour. By way of an outside staircase he first entered a medium-sized reception room from which double doors over 5 meters high opened into a large hall clad in mosaic. He then ascended several steps, passed through a round room with domed ceiling, and saw before him a gallery 150 m long. Hitler was particularly impressed by my gallery because it was twice as long as the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. Hitler was delighted: "On the long walk from the entrance to the reception hall they'll get a taste of the power and grandeur of the German Reich!." The series of rooms comprising the approach to Hitler's reception gallery were decorated with a rich variety of materials and colours and totalled 221 m in length. Clearly Adolf knew the concept, before they even reached him they would already be intimidated and in an inferior position, it's after all a long walk through absurd reception halls and security checkpoints, both densely texturized, to then reach a gallery full of high-ranking members and soldiers, after walking and seeing/hearing all the people at the disposal of the Fuhrer you reach a very tall secretary reception to finally walk in into the man's office. Adolf seems to have requested Speer reunions just to gaze into the plans and say nothing as the architect mentioned he let him do anything as he was already impressed. The place was finished 2 days in advance and won Albert Speer any kind of recognition for being a good planner, hence why he got high-ranking places in the war. Costs were high but still under the expectation, an example was the marble halls and decorations, our dude here used limestone cut with high duration saws (something normal nowadays but back then unusual) and then had them be polished hard until they reached a very strong color. The process was very long but still reduced costs very highly if otherwise marble was used, also construction was quick because check the ceilings: Stripped Classicism, even as the name states otherwise, uses many modern techniques or old ones rarely used but effective in large scale/mass area constructions because it was "modulated" or done in "cast" units. In the case of the ceilings/roofing these were done with a functionalist grid design, something very rationalist and german in those days due to the Bauhaus/Werkbund newly-found legacy, and build with reinforced concrete (re-bar skeleton with concrete) making it by de-facto a brutalist building. Thing is, even when its current iteration was made around those years in Germany, that kind of construction appeared in old Rome (sans steel elements), one primary example is the all-famous Roman Pantheum, showcasing a giant cement/high-density concrete dome in square grid... little less than 2000 years ago, and the Reichskanzlei reminisces of it in the Ocular room serving as checkpoint from the Mosaic Hall and the Marble Gallery, although without using the dome's form itself as weight support. Mind you this is just a part, sadly after the war the allies did a mess and the entire thing got demolished, but it took its time and proved Speer as class having withstood the entire bombing without c
>>220 Do you want me to post a screencap or do i write it up again? Not an aggressive comment but i cannot find the images at hand. >>199 >Authoritarian Architecture That's a ZOG term, the proper term for classification is Stripped Classicism or in the more extreme cases... i forgot the term but a handful of architects drew about it, one called Étienne-Louis Boullée and much, much later on Speer and a bunch of commies did too. Known sometimes with the soviets as Constructivism.
>>220 Brutalism isn't meant for a society that wants to strive forward. It's the perfect environment for dread and oppresion due to the lack of curves, something that is instinctive in nature. It's purely artificial, it doesn't have any hint of human expression, and it's main reason for it's use would be utilitarianism. It's a pretty great aesthetic, but it's not the one where you should live in. Purgatory may look a lot like it.
>>220 >>223 Screw it, here's a repost of mine sorry bud ''Brutalism is first and foremost a construction system instead of merely a stylistic/conceptual one, one which serves 3 purposes: building durability (if done like it was supposed to), rapidness in construction wherever the place (if an industrial sector is near) and high plasticity (if you have top-tier woodworkers). And its dense nature provides a very strong object visually, hence being the preferred way for government institutions and monolithic companies, as most banks and institutions employ it. The bigger picture that seems to be missed is that concrete and steel have roughly the same properties in terms of elasticity, and both are highly common materials that can be mass produced and easily applied anywhere, reinforced concrete is a constructor's dream. While many examples have worked against the spirit of its local population (see pic 1, a grey but brick-based area with notable angled roofing) due to gommie ideologies and low-budget approach of a government (consequence of the infamous International Style and overall justdoit mentality) you also have craftsmen who have molded the system into their local surroundings (pic 2, geometry and pathways done to mimic the moutains surrounding the city and antique buildings) and some others, like the majestic Paul Rudolph, have even turned it into a Bourgeoisie architecture itself (pic 3 and pic 4 from Hernandez Navarro). It might not be always grey as you can tint it at pleasure, plus it can be highly ornamental if you have the money, a high plasticity and choice of color makes it playdough for a man conscious of his culture. Also pic 5 is a place called Habitat 67, a highly-Functionalist Brutalist building done in the classic "let's erase all trace of identity and culture" way of modern-era architecture, done by Israeli architect Moshe Safdie. We can go further mentioning who were the inventors of that kind of reset-everything architecture that was the modern movement, but let me just say that you are more likely to known the answer, the surprising part is that in the middle of it all there were well-meaning germans and austrians that would regret it, and also Mussolini-era italians who weren't expecting a reversal of their ideologies.'' That last part refers to Austrians inventing their Viennese Secession architecture school that refers to them parting ways of their local, and somewhat continental, tradition of ornamenting every single thing in a building, one of the big shots in the movement was a dude called Adolf Loos who had an unorthodox humor and wrote a manifesto called "Ornament & Crime in his usual tongue-in-cheek attitude, sadly for him germanics are prone to taking things too seriously and ran with it, rallying and making a strong movement towards no ornament at all. The Germans because the Werkbund'', who wanted to lower costs while still being human spaces in the context of industrial areas, got carried out due to the ease of application and the Bauhaus, in their internal politics, made the sterile and too-efficient plans the norm for most anything for the sake of money. And the Italians because they refined the rationalist idea with their natural flair and unknowingly made it vogue for the rest of the countries, like Japan. In short: Brutalism is a way to use materials and tools, not an artistic style itself, hence why it can't be ugly in principle
>>226 the execution of brutalist architecture tends towards the ugly at best and de-person-ing at worst. it is most unnatural, with jutting edges and not a curve to be seen. a building's appearance greatly effects those who inhabit it, use it, or see it often, and seeing a drab slab of concrete every day is pretty shit. governmental buildings and the houses of the well-off should reflect the pinnacle of local design, but the poorer shouldnt be condemned to soviet blocks. schools and universities should be inviting, as knowledge betters the self, while hospitals should have an air of cleanliness while rejecting the sterility that comes with brutalism. the only place i see brutalism fitting in is military bases both within and outside the nation.
Open file (88.00 KB 706x344 Silvertop.jpg)
Open file (96.05 KB 852x852 Hope Residence.jpg)
>>228 Are we going to turn a blind eye to the pics at hand in said post? The argument you are giving me is the same as weapons are bad because they harm children, knowing full well that's not the case and it's not for kid killing but for defense, and they don't even act at all it's the individual who's using it doing the shooting. Brutalism is a system to build things, architects are just a bunch of lazy fags/are given 2 weeks to make a project for construction and avoid ornamental details. I don't know what's not to understand about that, and if we go with >>220 for ugly then we have the case of rare/showcase examples and the last one being a 3D render. Blame the architects and designers, not the construction system, you still can texturize it, tint it, cover it in stucco, put windows, make curves if your workers are not a bunch of elementary school drop-outs and design it in scales fit for a human. While i agree about the general image of public institutions having to be inviting and not a closed grey block, it still doesn't mean it's a style.
>>225 >Purgatory may look a lot like it. I think you have something here. It makes for very striking images but living in its shadow compresses and starves the human spirit, and it is precisely that human spirit given nourishment that vitally animates societies.
>>217 Do not stress about it, I easily forget things like that >>223 I dod not wanted to use the therm « Brutalism » because, as >>226 said, brutalism is less about imposing and more about materials and practices, rejecting Bourgeoisie ornamentation and thinking that the only way of representing « The people » is by stripping everything into flat and utilitarian faces. I find it funny that even if they were wrong they still nailed Brutalism as an analogy of the communist spirit. However, I would like to set up an exception, that being my country. Wewuzing for us would mean Precolumbian architecture, which was monolitic and imposing, while they were originally full of color nowadays we see them as bare rock and mortar, so it is quite easy to use brutalist-style in a way that is relevant to us. Still, there are manny bad examples because Mexico was NazBol strange in its relationships with the Western and Eastern blocks, we accepted manny Spanish Rep*blicans and thus gained an influx of communist sympathizers with big aspirations and no respect nor knowledge of our culture.
Open file (51.97 KB 680x510 ARQUINE.jpg)
Open file (625.76 KB 1200x674 GOB_MX.jpg)
Open file (107.33 KB 1024x700 PINTEREST_2.jpg)
Here is the Heroic Military College Agustín Hernández - Manuel González Rul (1/2)
Open file (1.66 MB 2000x1500 SNDRAMAS_COM.jpg)
Open file (297.52 KB 470x350 SNN_COM_MX.jpg)
Open file (29.76 KB 600x419 VICE.jpg)
Open file (105.67 KB 1280x720 YOUTUBE_COM.jpg)
Heroic Military College Agustín Hernández - Manuel González Rul (2/2)
Open file (379.05 KB 1511x1000 autoestilo_mx2.jpg)
Open file (430.97 KB 1339x1000 compartamosviajes.jpg2.jpg)
Open file (682.61 KB 1333x1000 fotoviajexlalibre4.jpg)
Open file (4.62 MB 4032x3024 IMG_6120.jpg)
Tijuana Cultural Center (CeCuT), the only place I truly like in my city, I took the picture of the garden, nice to see how much it has grown, it will serve as inspiration for when I finally get to have a garden
Open file (265.39 KB 1494x1000 7.jpg)
Open file (388.11 KB 1494x1000 8.jpg)
Open file (379.41 KB 1494x1000 18.jpg)
Open file (419.47 KB 1494x1000 20.jpg)
And lastly Mexico's Nacional Antropology Museum, if you ever get to visit Mexico City then I recomend this place and Chapultepec Castle Which the Americans turned into Proto-Columbine back in the war. I sprinkled in some of the exhibits just to draw more comparisons (1/2)
Open file (459.34 KB 1494x1000 22.jpg)
Open file (464.40 KB 1494x1000 23.jpg)
Open file (71.05 KB 630x472 image.jpg)
(2/2)
Open file (374.64 KB 1494x1000 2.jpg)
I almost forgot about the Chamber of Deputies (Green, White and Red) and here is the front of the Anthropology Museum
Open file (251.05 KB 1600x1067 Gothic example 2.jpg)
Open file (76.23 KB 1024x768 gothic example.jpg)
I love the gothic style, its been represented as a very brooding, dark style in many things but personally I see it as testament to the creativity and aspiration of man. Some of the vistas in the remaining gothic structures are awe inspiring given the tools of the time they were created in., and they resonate with western and eastern europeans and americans. They are spacious, they have so much fine detail, so much work and idealism put into every small brick that you can get lost scrutinizing each shape for hours. I'm not even religious personally but I wonder how anyone can feel close to god in a modern 2:2 concrete box converted into a church instead of merely gazing upward into a grand vaulted ceiling full of frescoes and devotional paintings. The aging process on the stone outside of most modern gothic structures only makes them more imposing and impressive as you can see that they have stood the test of time and are treasured and cared for. Clearly notre dame had to be burned down to crush the last glimmer of aspiration in the local white population. I'm not calling for every residential house to be turned into a brutalist 40k hab block. But some creative and government spaces and common areas would look great in early and modern gothic-fusion designs. anything to escape this cheap OOPS ALL WINDOWS modern jewcube design
>>246 >my city >Tijuana Eeeeew >Wewuzing for us would mean Precolumbian architecture >Mesoamerican culture >Tijuana I know your background by now but i still find funny our old saying here in the Northwest: No true northerner lives in Tijuana. I know you are actually one but i had to say that because banter many americans think it's the pinnacle of the region, while being basically a Mexico City colony in the middle of the region most adverse to them, not to mention filled with tons of non-mexican central americans kicked from the US. So back to the point, Hernandez Navarro is/was a savant (and an asshole) but he truly is the country's best architect, Colegio Militar it's a monumental thing but what really sells it for me are the details and natural illumination solutions he thought about, the pool/swimming training areas look like temples with their skylights. >>250 >gothic style >dark It is seen as such but do not be swayed by its neo-gothic buildings that are actually more norman than anything, the original one had to be one of the most luminous styles around. The Goths/Germans even invented a way to make crystal that actually passes/multiplies more light when it enters, i think it was lead or some other metal. They would do it again when they developed camera glasses later on but that's another story. >I wonder how anyone can feel close to god in a modern 2:2 concrete box converted into a church Seclusion, >>225 said it well, it is a feeling of purgatory although i think i interpret it in a "positive" manner unlike he did. Holiness is space perception + light, gigantic spaces full of detail revealed in shadow and claustrophobic places with a small shiver of light are both religious but give their different feelings, one gives immensity and tiny speck feelings while the other strikes hope in the middle of despair or a sterile barren environment where God still prevails. >jewcube design Funny that you mention that in a christian church post, that reminds me of another post i did time ago when i stumbled upon something in San Fagcisco once...
>>252 >No true northerner lives in Tijuana I am Sinaloan, so you are kinda-right, the only reason to live in Tijuana is all the money Californians trow at you. I would not go back to Sinaloa because Why would I? but as soon as I can I am leaving this city to live somewhere else while still holding business here, although I do plan on staying in Baja. >natural illumination solutions I actually really like that and it is one of my biggest concerns when abdicating for traditional architecture. I like well-illuminated buildings, but hate glass-blocks, by main ideas are things like courtyards, light-colors and to waste as little sky-light as possible. Traditional Central Mexico buildings are an example of this. Pic related too, this is a problem people of the past had too, so is there where I should look for inspiration
>>259 I'm an idiot
>>245 >2nd pic Did they really put up a flag larger than a pool, or is it a trick of perspective ? How can it even float ?
>>697 In Mexico there are things called « Banderas Monumentales » (Monumental Flags). Every important city has at least one. I thought it was something every country did. >How can it even float ? Cosmic race magic https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/mx_giant.html
>>700 >Every important city has at least one Every city with strong military presence, some of the more "traditional" cities rarely sport one other than national days e.g. cities in Tamaulipas or Sonora. Might be also a cultural thing, i remember we usually shot our fireworks towards the flag (heh). Always saw monumental flags more of a latin american thing, Argentina also has gigantic flags, even/especially their football clubs.
Open file (4.38 MB 2000x1000 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (4.66 MB 1632x1086 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (1.99 MB 1000x662 ClipboardImage.png)
Tartarian of course. What else is there?
>>247 Thats beautiful
Authoritarian > classical >neoclassical >fururism > brutalism While Brutalism may superficially seem similar to Authoritarian architecture the similarities don't extend that far- they both just use geometric cement
Open file (86.78 KB 587x378 HSBC_1936.jpg)
>>720 >Authoritarian Doesn't exist, that's a property of scale which is a trait of a stylistic choice. You might try to say monumental classicism or stripped/non-ornamental classical. >the similarities don't extend that far- they both just use geometric cement >Geometric in-situ concrete/cement That's literally Brutalism, combining canonical proportions and forms would make it New Classicism, stripping all non-essential forms would make it Stripped Classical. Using modernist/international-style proportions would make it Brutalist Modern but using both modernist proportions but scaling spaces and public areas with classical ones would fuck the radar up, which is what many do to avoid making every hall 3 meters wide. Having said that i still agree with that ranking
Open file (676.09 KB 2000x1325 art deco hall.jpg)
>No art deco C'mon now
>>719 Too bad out commie president cut the budget for the National Institute of Anthropology 75%, because gibs for the stupid masses are more important
>>738 To be fair that's one of the very few sensitive decisions he made (along with the morning shows so people can see he's a conman); all the money was funneled to southern ventures and directly into the pockets of a few scammers. A bunch of non-mesoamerican and non-capital city stuff was getting shafted pretty hard like the Paquime Zone that's getting invaded by immigrants selling chinese bootleg stuff, the Trincheras Zone that has been continuously postponed as historical site and needed american and state funds to make their museum and pay the Grupo Mexico mining jews the land for it, and then you have the Lagunero area, and the Casas Grandes ruins pending investigation, and Mayo River ruins found some years ago and completely ignored, and then you have all the Jesuit churches that are falling apart because dirty narco peasants in Oaxaca wanted money for some bogus ethnographic investigation about how they eat their boogers, so much that the Arizona University made a deal to inject tons of money to said desert places as they see it as their patrimonial treasure too, hence why Chihuahua and Sonora closed a deal to sell them water in an underhanded "megaregion" deal. INA are a bunch of southern-centric scumbags who always want all the money for themselves. t. did some research and photo logs for college and heard all that stuff from regional anthropologists for a week. Polite sage because not really fascist architecture or isn't it?
First: NO FUCKING CONCRETE Back then this shit was new. They didn't know how it would age. Now we know: The steel rusts breaking the concrete due to increasing volume. Concrete looks absolutely horrible when it gets dirty/ages. It's gonna be shit and ramshackle after 50 years.
>>217 >>226 It's ugly. >>220 >those pictures Absolutely Jewish and Bolshevik. >>221 A 3d render.
>>746 He did not redistribute the cultural budget, he cut it and then redistributed what was left while making very little background checks. INA may not be good boys who dindu nuffing, but even if they were the current administration has made it clear they they do not care about culture outside of internationalism and plastic mexicanism >because not really fascist architecture or isn't it? Architecture should be approached from a reelevant multi-disciplinary point of view, else you end up with « The Finnish architect Spräänmdo Spordo was hired to rebuild Seoul's city-hall, he said the surrealist steel and glass behemoth that now dominates the landscape was inspired by a plate of kimchi he once had (it serving as his first and most profound contact with Korean culture), his admiration for Danish Neo-Post-Pre-Proto-Ethnoprimitivist architect Bjørgen Askel can really be seen in his liberal use of parabolic stairs inspired by Amazonian Anthills ». >>812 Speak for yourself, barbarian Concrete is great, it is just misused by people who will sell the building immediately after finishing it, so why would they care about longevity?
>>818 I said CONCRETE, not roman concrete which isn't concrete at all. Just a misnomer.
The building your living in isn't made of the material in your image.
Open file (148.83 KB 1000x600 jew speech bubble two.png)
>>220 >I respectfully disagree
>>825 >>826 Got something better, then?
>>727 you lost me somewhere in those semantics, I didn't study so it's hard for me to follow. >>732 Disgusting >reflective surfaces everywhere, interior lighting would hive you an epileptic fit >hard surfaces make acoustic clusterfuck My city is full of banks like this and they are all awful spaces, even putting style aside. >>812 This is an understood feature of concrete and steel construction, even the greeks were aware of the same dynamic with limestone. But many of these building were designed with the circumspect view that everything will look trash while it ages and that fit the economic model of public works. I broke into many Soviet public buildings that had totally fallen apart and could still see their charm. Also you can actually wash concrete, and it doesn't crumble in a humidity controlled environment- you might say bricks aren't resistant to wind erosion because ruins have had their plaster worn off. >>814 based
Open file (710.57 KB 1024x685 Galleria Umberto.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfXP6KOVBOY How, I think we all agree that « Car bad », or at least that « Car-centric design bad ». So obviously we would all want to implement a push for something similar to the video (Although this guy loves bikes a bit too much), but a problem some people and I have detected is that it does not take into consideration the mass transportation of goods inside the city. By limiting the size of streets you are limiting the turn radius (and thus size) of the vehicles that can transit, which in turn reduces the amount of cargo they can transport, wasting time, increasing the price of good and so on. The solution is most-likely going to be a combination of manny measures to diminish this effect, although it is better to first lay these down and try to predict secondary effects, less we want to be called short-sighted. >Reduction of city population and size. Thus decreasing traffic of people and goods >Placing distribution centers in strategic positions to decrease the amount of vehicles entering the innder-citty >Better public transportation which would east motor-vehicle traffic and make an increase in motorized transportation of goods more feasible >Creating a chain if distribution that would decrease the size and specialization of the vehicle the closer to the inner city it is (outside you would have big cargo trains dumping a whole bunch of goods into distribution centers, then Trucks would transport to secondary centers and so on until you get cargo-cyclists distributing a small amount of products into business) >Small business with less voluminous demands. Although having manny do small orders might equal to a few making big orders, so this may be a non-variable
Open file (744.21 KB 637x420 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (2.07 MB 1043x661 ClipboardImage.png)
>>1642 That was an interesting video, I've often thought as well that cities have became far too centered around cars and it has actually, over time, inadvertently made things worse and slower than it could be, as well as dirtier. Your solutions at the bottom of your post are pretty similar with what I was starting to think of myself when you were mentioning potential issues with vehicle size and the like. And then there is the aesthetic dimension to all of this, of course. Cars are loud, dirty, and contribute to the monotony of the urban hellscape.
>>825 >I said CONCRETE, not roman concrete which isn't concrete at all Concrete is cement, gravel, sand, water and if you want to reinforce it then also steel rods/rebar. Roman "Concrete" was made with fine volcanic ash, originally called and still sold as a niche product as Pozzolana or Puzolanic Cement, sand and sometimes gravel. What differs is the proportion of cement/glue, the additives and water. Now volcanic ash is not the same as cement obviously but the americans, and later the germans, refined a recipe so complex it works just as the same as volcanic ash without having to bomb mountains. They grind metal, limestone and other stuff a secret from us to make that thing and it's sold in different proportions or ingredients, differentiated in the weight it can withstand by square centimeter (square inches for the claps), it ranges from 50-100kg/cm2 known as poor cement and it's used for shitshows or service areas like templates for foundations and quick jobs. It goes to 250 used for construction and even 400 used for federal building-tier projects and columns, then there's chemicals additivies which in the last decade have been ruthlessly changed how concrete is used, they are expensive but in an administration/time-attack POV they are a game changer... for example there's a goo that makes concrete dry in a day and reach its maximum potential in 3 days, otherwise you would have to wait 7 days for safe dry and 28 for maximum practical strength (said strength curve goes to 3 years but with very little diminished gains). So with that i wanted to say you can make roman concrete easily, in fact placing it is even easier than normal concrete, but it's gonna cost ya quite more. Now about the steel rusting, that's a smart look at it and also a current problem but it can be easily circumvented by not fucking buying chink steel, they are notorious as fuck for shitting or entirely skipping the stainless process, which is only needing for the outer parts due to the concrete/cement boiling in its cooking process (yes, many people don't know concrete is made by boiling itself due to the active limestone and other thingies interacting with water). Chinks have even used "contaminated" metal mines to make rebar, here in my area there's been cases of actual radioactive metal mixed in and made construction firms spend hilarious amounts of money trying to get rid of it because they cannot simply "disappear it" (throw it into the sea by sinking an old boat with all in it ala camorra italiana) because the military immediately escorts wherever the lot is. If you have great or simply competently made steel rebar/rods you can throw the cement in it and nothing will happen in a thousand years, now a good rod should withstand at the very least 7200kg/cm2 or be dense enough, less than that you are going to get problems but in 300 years, maybe. That's pretty good if you ask me. >>818 >plastic mexicanism Smart observation, patrioterismo and all its tentacles are harmful for everyone inside the country. A shame it's much more harmful for some than for others. >Example Hilariously written, i can somewhat defend it but i'm too amused to try. But i would say that, In the cases of filthy rich investors, i see no problem because at the end of the day a construction is just a product for the desires of someone, but when public funds come into play then shit get serious, one cannot go around like, for example, Tadao Ando did in the National Baroque Museum in Puebla, Chilangolandia. I mean in strict theory argumentation it was a very compelling job, but it's something you should only write an essay and some plans about, not fucking build the thing using money from a church campaign and a good chunk of the taxes from everyone via INA. Pipopes...
>>979 > I didn't study so it's hard for me to follow. Apologies, genres and their classifications are something taken with extreme prejudice in the field because preservation, taxes and other gov gibs and cares are almost always solely given depending on the category it sits on. For example there was a famous and accomplished austrian architect called Rudolph Schindler who basically redefined modernism in California, but he did so making it cheap and accessible because that's what it was in essence. He had a rival, a jewish austrian architect called Richard Neutra who did the same as him but under the guise of architecture as art, used many of the same techniques but with unnecessarily expensive materials and poetic arguments to con the media. One died as a modest middle-class architect known and respected in California and the other as a rich constructor featured in many articles and known as America's most renowned architect in its time around the 60's (he wasn't) and retired in Switzerland on a mountain, one had its buildings classified as "regional" and the other as "modernist/international style" by themselves and the museums of art (headed by you know who). The difference is that a group of those houses don't pay taxes, are given special funds for restoration every 10 years and royalties from photos go to the owners, the other group have the same rights as a regular crack house not to mention the government can take it down at any time if they want to do something in the city's infrastructure, they just pony up the minimal value by the insurance company and soft-evict you with some rights to pick a house with minimum price. Classification standards are dead-serious in terms of the egomaniacal nature of the architect profession along with the rights and obligations of the owners who might see an architect and his craft as an investment. But anyways, ravid theory aside the difference between the genres i told you are what set of rules the constructors made along with what finishing techniques the workers used to ornament the building. Then an asshole from a real state company/art museum comes in and judges what you did really was.
>>199 It's good for a really cool environment in a video game, but as the foundation of your metropolis and artistic ambassador to the world? It's shit and unerving. I see buildings like that in dreams.
>>825 Roman concrete IS concrete you backwater ape. The difference between Rome's concrete and our modern structures is theirs' has sat and harden for a millennia while ours' hasn't.
>>195 I like this style the most too
Open file (156.25 KB 784x604 iu.png)
Open file (115.30 KB 720x531 iu-2.jpeg)
>>1671 I do not envision these things of buildings to make-up an entire city. I see them as a single monumental building with some separation from the rest of the city like >>244 >I see buildings like that in dreams. Yes, with their separation from the city you can forget about harmony, connectivity and the like. I like horror but I am pretty cynical with movies and stories, I am unable to achieve enough suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy them. But the idea of buildings like this do give me some chills and absolutely love it, when I visited the "Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas" I couls not care less about the Jews, but the center—where the stelæ are at their tallest— was absolutely /comfy/. So I would love to have access to « unnerving » landscapes like these, although I cannot think of a reason to build them aside from « Shit looks cool, yo »
Open file (1.23 MB 997x597 ClipboardImage.png)
>>1704 >"Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas I visited that a few years ago. To me it felt like the archetypal example of Jewish art, which seems almost invariably to be soulless and hideous. It's like this abomination I saw at Dachau (pic) alongside their gift-shop, cafeteria and (((reconstructed))) buildings and
>>1705 I also remember that at Dachau, and the « My penis is huge, I swear » Soviet statue. There is also the Libeskind portion of the Jewish museum in Berlin. As monuments and as buildings they show arrogance, overconfidence, and a desire to twist the world so you can claim that you reinvented it—A true Luciferean who thinks perversion is creation—. Holobunga aside, it fails as a memorial by making things about itself, constantly taking your attention away just to show you a portion of itself—I guess even when designing a holocaust museum, Jews are still unable to overcome their egocentrism—. I did not think that it was « hideous » , more like out-of place, the worst part about it was what they were about, followed by the arrogance of imposing such buildings into the people, a « Was it necessary to put this in the middle of the city? ».
>>1672 >The difference between Rome's concrete and our modern structures is theirs' has sat and harden for a millennia while ours' hasn't. That's not all though. Roman concrete uses pozzolanic ash, which prevents cracks and thus helps further protect structures from collapse.
>>1705 Looks like some cuneiform writing you would find in Sumeria. Guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
>>1704 Those are horrific art styles. The first three are structures literally designed to give off horror and fear to future civilizations to ward away a New Mexican nuclear waste disposal site.
>>1737 >The first three are structures literally designed to give off horror and fear to future civilizations to ward away a New Mexican nuclear waste disposal site. Yep, designed to cause fear regardless of cultural background. Well, I listen to sp00ky radio broadcasts, and psichophonies just because; of course I like this kind of stuff. Still, I feel the need to say again that I would not want anything of this style anywhere close a city.
I've got a fair interest in architecture, urban design, etc. and I know there's a decent amount of talk among Fascists about similar topics. I figured this'd be the best place to do it. How would you, if you had control, change your country/states makeup when it came to urban design? What would you change to incentivize and make a difference in how people live and commute in your new cities? What would you incorporate and how? There's a lot I could ask but I'll try and cut this at the knees and let you take it from here. I'd love to hear how you'd handle these things. if it helps, you can specify *where* you'd be changing not just what.
>>2535 Apologies for the linebreaks, by the way.
Buildings made with local, natural materials, no synthetics. Wattle and daub walls, thatched roofing, wood, stones, etc.
Open file (40.88 KB 550x352 dug out.jpg)
>>4129 I've always been a fan of these types of styles too. They tend to have a nice and rustic comfy character to them, something that doesn't feel completely soulless, and not to mention I'd bet that it is much cheaper and better for the environment than the houses found cloned throughout American suburbs today. I'm also a fan of dugouts
Open file (76.30 KB 760x1204 shid.png)
>>2535 I had tons of urban design books but i gave them away to friends because it's useless to learn other than making open-world games or hypothetical studies, only a handful of people ever reach the level of actually taking decisions to change the grid. I don't remember that much but i can say that in cities with rampant growth rates (most of them since the 70's) the best/obligatory thing to do is the creation and/or planning of the elemental concepts "junction" (Jtn) and "landmark" (Lmk). What that means is basically the zoning of areas with clear-cut spaces between them every so and so to avoid the grid hell/squaring of a city, making it a pain to transit/travel in a cognitive manner. This sounds obvious but in "modern" cities made in very flat areas this is made badly very often because they want to do it in a "3D" way, the classic one when settlements still had hills (Lmk), curved roads (Jtn) and big palaces (Lmk); in the "modern"/flat way you need to either force the landmarks to be giant or think in the "2D" way and use space horizontally rather than vertically. When the industrial age happened cities in the world still looked like the first part in this shitty sketch-thing related, usually beside rivers and hilly places, low height buildings and curved roads with level changes once in a while, so nothing serious. Later on, especially in the americas and U.S. (mainly on their heyday of business making) they had to resort in creating vertical landmarks, in the latter case on their midwest and west cities due to the flatness of the settlements of the great plains and semi-arid areas, so you ended up with skyscrapers in places they really weren't needed (thanks to decent economic conditions), giant neon signs and needle towers, prompting the quick creation of the "americanized" urbanism which at times worked but ended up having tons of visual contamination. In places were the economic resources weren't that good, bad luck, it's neon/giant signs only. Second part of the shit sketch portrays that, even if you have big buildings sometimes the signs will visually dwarf or rival them from a pedestrian POV. Returning to back in the day around the mid 19th century the britbongs had plenty of problems in the natural road to discovering the pros and cons of the industrial age, the germans came late to that game but made quick progress and one of the many things they learned from others is to avoid the same problems, one was the grid/industrial hell sectors that were spawning quicker than what the citizens could "culturally" appropriate, create and mold as public areas. Basically big business/govs were making huge chunks of areas quicker than what the folk did in decades with a natural progression of what did and didn't feel right in terms of city. The germans, now with their fangled new empire around the mid-1870's after winning a couple of wars, started their progression and made some theories around urbanism, i forgot authors and many concepts but basically they mentioned living quarters should be far away from the industrial places (it wasn't obvious back then) and transportation needed to be fast as fuck from one point to another but within special lanes, the rest should be compact and needed cool places like gardens (botanical parks i think they call them in the texts) and road design variations for the sake of it (breaks movement monotony and creates areas visually dissimilar). But then the car came around, many people tend to forget most modern cities in the american continent are post-car invention while in Europe they were, if anything, bike-friendly with compact horse roads, the big lanes were for coach carts and/or adjacent service areas for train stations. WWI and WWII made many cities start anew due to heavy damage and are a mix-match of tons of different shit hence why many of them are terrible examples to follow through like Paris or London (big mistake many urban architects do in big colleges) while some others are terrible in their own way that they were made for bikes and trams only before the need of shitloads of transportation for goods (Belgium, Netherlands, North Germany) but that are actually great places in terms of pedestrian life.
>>2535 It's a very tough topic and whoever does it needs to know exactly what the city/quarter will be used for, but there's some golden rules that can apply anywhere. For example considerable level changes between big ass transportation lanes, commercial quarters and housing areas; lanes should be the lower point so that in heavy rain or other shenanigans all the stuff falls into there, and because drainage systems are usually under those lines then easier to get it out of the city. Height restrictions are also obligatory, nothing should be higher than your city/town's big hill/mountain and in historic quarters nothing should be taller than the average point of the front facades, in fact every building should be roughly the same height. If we go further there's also a municipal/county-approved color palette, i hate the politics of Sedona, Arizona and its usual califag denizens but they were quite smart to be one of the first and most successful cities in implementing such system, the injuns/cowboys at Santa Fe, New Mexico also did something similar many years ago but that was because they had a surplus/wanted to sell bricks, adobe and plaster. This obviously renders many business signs obsolete or very limited, that's okay for some due to visual easiness. Parks are mandatory but they shouldn't be thrown around like nothing, either make them big or very small, the former to enforce an area's horizontal landmark and visual rest candy, level changes should be recommended too with the natural levels left intact to provide further essence and justification for road/lane variation to break monotony; the latter parks should be used as playgrounds in housing areas and resting places in the middle of commercial quarters, i've walked shit tons of distances inside cities to merely sit down and eat a fucking meal bought in a 7/11. Trees are good but shouldn't be thrown around either, many of them means more illumination issues at night, which means nigger hell spots/crime, and not any of them means the cattle won't even dare to go there in the hot summer/spring days. In an urban area you either move (transit) or rest (public areas), there's no in-betweens, the rest of your day is either inside your work area or living quarter, which are other rules. If transit is efficient but cannot be done on your own with relative comfort (identifying directions without names, walking there) then it's not good, if you can walk there but there's no interesting or comfortable places to stay and have a lunch/smoke/breath then it's also not good, if you can identify every area of the city (while having picturesque routes to reach each one) but without an easy way to move long distances in relatively short times then you are fucked good, especially law enforcement if someone wants to siege a quarter or you want to move out of the place (reason why the french invented their boulevard system).
Open file (78.17 KB 640x430 1594309062252.jpg)
Open file (78.07 KB 550x458 1594306126401.jpg)
Open file (168.99 KB 1024x768 1594572602527.jpg)
My feelings about architecture are complicated. I can't summarize it in a word or even necessarily images. For small towns and personal homes, I like natural stone/wood buildings that feel very handmade. Homes are part of the nature and feel like they rose from the ground and were crafted from materials in the nearby environment. Town buildings close together to give a feeling of a tight community, antique details on things like hand rails and lamp posts for a sense of novelty and excitement and craftsmanship.
>>4158 As for big cities, I like the feeling of majesty and height, a lot of details and depth. You're in the land created by gods, walking the stairs up to Olympus or something. You as an individual are nothing and nobody compared it, it's something beyond a single person, at most you could imagine being assigned as the current master of one room.
>>199 Holy cow, feels like it's Librian architecture. cookie 4u if ref gotten
>>217 The atrium is not totally bad but the issue with this building is the lack of details. I do not think that brutalism should automatically mean a lack of refinement in the average surface which, lazily, comes with no relief, no trench, no volumetric art work. It too often becomes reduced to the pure functionality, which was argued for by Marxism. The lack of different hues hurts too.
>>226 >pictures shit, meh, gud, meh, shit
A lot of the monolithic ancient architecture, starting with the Egyptian pyramids of Gizeh, is sheer brutalism, but elegant and harmonious. Modern brutalism, for the most part, would be cancerous and distorted by architects.
I absolutely love the intimidating atmosphere, but it is a bit bland. It could use a bit more detail, Hitlers vision of Berlin. I'm surprised that he didn't do it considering the fact that he wanted to be an architect

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?