Reminder that the tier list is
This is the proper order and I will fight anyone on this

Also general architecture thread I guess, post your favorites and/or thoughts on what socialist architecture should be like

Attached: blogger-image--709283273.jpg (687x589 316.88 KB, 37.74K)

Other urls found in this thread:

you made the thread twice, fag

Noticed, tried deleting but password is messed up. Sorry about that.

Attached: nikolai-suetins-crypto-suprematist-model-for-the-1937-soviet-pavilion-featuring-iofans-palace-of-the-soviets1.jpg (2199x1663, 1.11M)

no prob.

Attached: architecton-malevich-e12862249737091.jpg (440x721 30.51 KB, 23.55K)

Attached: ilya-chashnik-design-for-a-suprematist-architectural-model-1925-26.jpg (509x589 95.37 KB, 38.5K)

Attached: tumblr_nzad19EIOD1qam55mo1_500.jpg (2328x3596 147.68 KB, 3.89M)

Some more Yakov Chernikov from his Gothic "Stalinist" period later in his life if you're into that

Attached: blogger-image--806003491.jpg (450x345 138.22 KB, 77.59K)

This one is the worst. I mean it looks awesome in terms of scale but when you think about it for more than 5 seconds then you realize that it's a massive waste of space and would look silly, especially the 2nd pic.

Some more Suprematism, some of these are simply different angles of the ones from before but offer a different perspective

Attached: d0b0d180d185d0b8d182d0b5d0bad182d0bed0bdd18b-d0bcd0b0d0bbd0b5d0b2d0b8d187d0b01.jpg (945x668 11.24 KB, 63.98K)

Also art deco is absolutely trash and shouldn't even make a list of architecture. Same goes for Soviet neoclassical. Both are wasteful, ineffective garbage that are super bourgeois.

brutalism looks like ass

It was from a darker time for Yakov, most of his work is usually constructionist stuff like this

Attached: 500342680_b6c9ffc5f6_o.jpg (389x450 61.41 KB, 37.69K)

I didn't want to save a single image from this tread. Louie Kahn was actually inspired by ancient monolithic architecture – you know, buildings that had a soul and purpose to humanity – not this lefty rebuttal of nature where the ugly is somehow beautiful because it defies the classical values of LIFE itself.

shut the fuck up roger scruton

dubs denied

Weird flex tbh. No need to be so forward.

That goes for you too faggot

Attached: 7-CCA.jpg (700x533 180.06 KB, 62.31K)

No lefty will ever create something as pure and inspiring as this beauty. 15,000+ years of spiritual brilliance is proof enough.

Attached: beauty.png (1000x990, 1.31M)

I am.

Attached: 500390053_8c3efe10df..jpg (383x450 82.84 KB, 111.94K)

These places look like ornate prisons. You want to occupy these spaces? Please take the dick out of your mouth before you post.

Attached: we45yew4t5rewr.jpg (720x431 70.73 KB, 104.22K)

Louie Kahn actually had some light and spirit in his buildings, I can't say that is true for most of his peers in this lifeless category.

Attached: lk2.png (960x731 500.19 KB, 1.18M)

*Scream in Suprematism*

I bet you like buildings like the these two you """naturalist"""

Attached: cde109400e133312276727d9191b2eac3b4420c325ecf644355b114b5e9dc7ea.jpeg (1200x1730 351.13 KB, 343.08K)

fuck nature

No, I think they both suck. It's like intellectual nipple twsiting, these structures are simply not inspired, or inspiring.

Triangles? More like pure mastery.

Attached: triangles.png (3456x4932, 13.23M)

Attached: mmm grayons.png (732x832, 348.71K)

tired: scary ugly heeb bunkers :-(
inspired: decorative vinyl window shutters on your garage doors

Are you fucking serious m8?

Attached: .png (745x814, 147.15K)

These threads always seem to bring certain undesirables fresh out of the bush looking to check the progress of the socialist white man

Attached: 2ABF8E7C-07BD-40A8-A4C3-278D4B38B62F.jpeg (345x350, 101.94K)

Pretentious prancing sissies all of you. Humanists deserve to be thrown in neoclassical gulags.

Reminder triangles are ancient, pagan, reactionary garbage.

Attached: 351883.jpeg (850x929, 96.8K)


Attached: ilia-chashnik-supremolet-suprematist-planit-1927-1928-india-ink-on-paper-624-x-846-cm1.jpeg (806x589, 73.94K)

You read too much art criticism and theory. You sound like some goth kid that thinks Bauhaus or Joy Division somehow represent sorrow – or in your case, a robotic future of flat cheap materials devoid of anything other than communist dick riding.

this is the coolest image posted so far.

Suprematism is like that, here's some more

Constructivists for the most part, mostly garbage
"post"-punk garbage
This isn't an argument outside of the cheap liberal humanist/naturalist arguments people have heard a thousand times before. I bet you unironically like Art Deco and jizz your pants at how "innovative" and "breathtaking" contemporary is.

Attached: 0187.jpg (874x880 76.32 KB, 66.91K)

Attached: 4003-180dpi.jpg (440x679 395.14 KB, 65.43K)

where are my situationist bros at?

I think Constant Nieuwenhuys and his New Babylon is the perfect way of abolishing the town and country

Attached: newbab-20.jpg (600x511 219.76 KB, 328.42K)

I don't think brutalism is the worst thing ever but it has its limitations for sure, you have to admit a lot of the more vulgar brutalist structures look exactly like what you would expect in some fictional dystopian terror state.

The clean and green future aesthetic is popular among basically everyone, that's why it's equally used as shorthand for 'utopia' in sci-fi.

Attached: eco city 2.jpg (818x605 134.83 KB, 273.98K)

This is true, but I think a lot of brutalist architecture would look fine if they just used warmer colors instead of dreary gray. A little dye in the concrete goes a long way.

Maybe, also more windows, and greenery is good, we know they both improve health and that should be a primary concern - art is good, but form should follow function, buildings are primarily places that make people feel happy in their daily lives.

They should be, rather. I'm not fond of some 'auteur' jacking off on the page and designing something 'striking' but is miserable to actually live in/around.

I don't like art deco – quit assuming and projecting onto people.

Someone made a good point here in the brutalist thread while ago that brutalism actually forces people to use greenery and integrate it as opposed to minimalism. Its an interesting point.

Tbh, most pictures of brutalist buildings are taken in black and white so that's a large reason for the look. The Buffalo City court house is actually brownish during the day and a lot of brutalist buildings alternate between brown, grey, black, and white. Some like the Beijing Digital building uses colored lights and the first building here has red under the arch when you enter and places small red banners to the side as well.

Attached: HIGO_01.jpg (1600x1311 307.42 KB, 514.92K)

I mean I'd be cool if all of our buildings looked like playstations

is that why we still aren't 100% on what the fuck stonehenge was for?

I like it. Brutalism is at its best when it exudes an air of security and strength, not of state repression.


What do you like then? Because so far you've only made reference to "soul" and "spirit" and "life". Are you of those "organic" type of people?

I've posted ancient structures, and a few select works by L Kahn. Here are some other inspired examples.

Attached: wellwhynot.png (640x600 865.69 KB, 578.65K)

the unknown has plenty of purpose to humanity. This subtle humor is what is lacking in brutalism – its dead, there before you, done, complete. Whereas, thousands of years later.. a cluster of stones still inspires people.


Can someone give me the rundown on Suprematism? Never heard of it before, I'm an architecture pleb. My two cents about brutalism is that Green Brutalism is basically my ideal, fucking gorgeous, tho I also love old brick and mortar apartment buildings and rowhomes with some stylistic flourishes here and there.

What do you guys think of these Bolivian buildings? I think it's neat, pretty clearly inspired by Andean art which is cool, I wish there was more cultural variety in architecture, so much potential for it but more developed cities in the third world are normally just whatever was popular in the US and Europe 5 or 10 years ago.

Attached: BJ_11.jpg (635x953 65.9 KB, 238.64K)

good art is timeless and will last. The rest is just consumer fad academia.

Well yeah but there's still plenty of use in arguing what constitutes good art, especially for artists, their patrons, and audiences, the latter of which is everyone in the case of architecture

So this is the power of mystic reactionism…

Yeah, they inspire people because they're pre-civilisation, not because of their objective artistic merit. Art is graded on a curve against social advancement - the less that had to be sacrificed to create the say the more pedestrian it is. If someone paid to have a bunch of stone blocks arranged in their backyard today with bulldozers and cranes nobody would give a shit.

*create the art

Fugg :^DDD

My favorite thing about /leftypol is that you are always assigned a title based on your presumed views (ie not being the perfect red tool), "bah, looks at the avant-neo-flux-additavist, he still doesn't live for communism!"

Also, the fact that many of you so easily refute nature and history shows you are nothing but degenerates. Machines can fabricate anything nowadays, and they are still being used to create garbage. It doesn't make sense to me, but then again, I value nature and truth.

Not him but what is this supposed to mean?

Has it ever occurred to your idiotic pea sized brain that Humanity has the capability to and was meant to surpass the idiotic war of all against all that nature is at its core? Appeals to nature are fucking retarded.

the fact you say shit like 'you degenerates' and 'leftists are anti-soul and purpose to humanity' are what makes me classify you, was I wrong? Your response demonstrates clearly I wasn't.

I'll give Kahn the Phillips Exeter Academy Library (which I've posted already), Salk, and maybe parts of Yale, and that's it. Basing your architecture on ancient architecture doesn't make it good, all you're doing is putting sentimentality and nostalgia for a time you never lived in on a pedestal and expecting everyone to say its good because of it. Take Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban for example, its based of Bangladesh's history and old buildings and is made to look like ruins to do so. I'm expected to say this National Capital building is "good" because it makes allusions to the past and pretends to be something it is not. At best it is a superficial illusion, at worst its dishonestly lying to my face. Its inauthentic, attempting to mimic what it isn't and becoming an image of another image in the process. Its no different then an insecure adolescent teenager, too unsure of what music he likes and of his own place as a person that one day after he goes through his dads old album collection and listens to two "best hit" collections, declares himself "born in the wrong generation" and goes on to form a band mirrored directly after his new "favorite band" which makes largely uninspired imitations of its music and then expects everyone to like them because they're "inspired" and "from when music was good", completely ignoring that that music was good for its time, had its time in the spotlight, and had its time end. The original music was authentic and was shaped by the authors and the period, while the tribute band is inauthentic infantalists trying to be what they are not and expecting us to clap for them when we would rather prefer they go on and make something of themselves rather then ride the coattails of others. A Brutalist building doesn't lie to you, its a big concrete building and it states it outright. A Suprematist building doesn't pretend to be something else, its a building meant to be completely apart from the original environment in which it is called forth. But your ancient civilization inspired buildings? They walk into the room eyes down, hunched over, sporting an ACDC tribute shirt and a chemical treated mullet, and say to the class, "Clap for me".

Attached: Bhaban.jpg (1024x698, 79.19K)

Create a ecumenopolis, cover everything with red stars, hammer and sickles and monuments to humanity and our supremacy.

Attached: RCO133_1491561459.jpg (740x572 693.67 KB, 474.22K)

This but unironically.

Except for some autistic posters in here because the stone blocks would be "reactionary".

Frank Miller, is that you?

As if the blatant fascism wasn't enough.

Worshipping them and saying they're the rebuttal to degenerate modern culture would be reactionary.

Fuck suburbs so much. They take up space and makes traveling around the city a huge chore/waste of time. Why can't we all live in kino skyscrapers and commie blocks?

Attached: disgust.png (600x378, 93.23K)

Needs more bunker

Attached: 508369502.jpg (500x397 101.33 KB, 111.17K)

*patrician enters thread*

Attached: Wiley Castle.jpg (493x370, 65.35K)

Good, and connected housing pilled (there's an entire town in Australia underground, not ideal but a model none the less).

That looks incredibly impractical, and suffocating due to the excess greenery

I knew this thread would be full of pseuds, but in my heart of hearts I am an optimist, so I was still surprised at the complete INUNDATION of pseuds here. None of you have shared a single theory about what makes any architecture good or bad. You have just sprang up, dicks in your hands, arguing. What a bunch of wastes.

please help me get better at buildings

I actually really like this, it doesnt seemed forced or artificial to me. Im , idk much about architecture only really my own aesthetic preferences, happy to learn tho

You probably just want to build whatever works best given the environment. I don't think anybody likes living in clear glass greenhouses in the middle of a desert, or a bunker in an area prone to flooding. There is no one size fits all solution to urban planning and architectural design, that is exactly why capitalist cities are so fucking ugly and inconvenient, they think they can mass produce literal cities.

You’re a formalist, thinking that just placing styles in a top is actually reflective of what they meant in their time. It just shows how much of a phillistine you are when you cling onto your “taste” so much, as if it meant anything that you actually liked suprematism and that you saved photos from the charnel house.

Architecture is not a fucking top 10 albums of the year you idiot, have you even read any of Malevich’s essays? Because you’re the first kind of formalist he would have derided

I'm sure what you were going for by calling me a formalist when I'm literally posting conceptual Malevich and Khidekel architecture. Also, of course the list is just personal list of architecture types, it was just made to stir discussion and that should have been obvious enough. One more thing before I head back to work
I'm sorry, but have YOU read Malevich?

Yeah of course I did, I just dunked on you because you’ve randomly put up that list as if it meant something, because just lumping them together like this has to be a superficial understanding of what they meant. It’s also reflected in the other posts in your thread, where you’re way too elitist.

Also do not get me wrong, I love suprematism as well, just like I do with modernism generally and I would not have said anything if you did not put actual neoclassical stalinist architecture higher than modern movements. That’s incredibly confusing and I just cannot understand what could one possibly like in socialist realism that was better than simple modern or new objectivity, it’s just absurd. Malevich is turning in his grave

Attached: 401DAF59-FC79-437A-8DBE-F94118067201.jpeg (414x584 62.86 KB, 69.32K)

I really like the architecture of Philadelphia & other old American cities. Bricks are nice.

Attached: Philadelphia-Row-Houses-AIRBNBDNC0716.jpg (639x426 1.27 MB, 641.62K)

If you couldn't tell, I'm just trying to have a banter. Scoffing comes with the territory
I purposely didn't put other Neoclassical based architecture because honestly Stalinist architecture is one of those things that I can respect in an imposing kind of way; it projected power and influence during a time when other powers were attempting to portray the USSR as savages or unfeeling and dullish. Most Stalinist architecture isn't explicitly ornate either, most of them are more like fortified military complexes with very simple ornate design added as an afterthought. And it's very upfront to you with this, it doesn't seen dishonest at all. Only a few go "all out". I put modern as low as it is because I honestly dislike a majority of "modern" architecture. That's not to say I dislike modernist architecture as a whole, it's just the group of buildings that are put together as what makes up "modern" seems incredibly made-up and fake to me and built with the goal of impressing you with just minimalism, or worse with what looks "cool" and "creative". As I've said before, I don't like architecture that lies to me and almost all current "modern" architecture that still exist or is built as art projects feel like they are lying.
Not to seem picky, but why would you like this? The philosophy behind it is explicitly capitalist and the whole thing embodies exactly what I mentioned before, which is this sense of lying to you. The architecture is entirely business oriented, and yet it tries to impress you with this idea that it's escaping into something new out of the old. I like Suprematism becuase it's a style in which it impossible to be dishonest, because to be so it would negate itself. It can not be anything but upfront with you. It's honestly the only one I have ever found that can do this for me.

Attached: Stalinist_architecture_(19780328909).jpg (5325x3550, 6.09M)

I do not like new objectivity either for the reasons you’ve already mentioned, I follow Benjamin in his critique of it in The Artist as Producer (give it a read, it’s pretty short).

I mentioned it just in contrast to stalinist neoclassicism, which is pure Romantic kitsch with a workerist twist. It seems that you’re already pretty knowledgeable of what those different styles entail, so that’s why you ranking stalinism so high comes off as a surpsise, since it rejects everything suprematism stood for. Even the one you posted is heavily ornated compared to something from the 20’s. Again, this gives me the impression that you like them only because they look “cool”, which is superficial at best.

Pic related some suprematist burroughs and the suprematist film set of Aelita.

Attached: CF669E05-0E81-4438-BF26-27E6182BBE2E.jpeg (936x597 518.7 KB, 203.51K)

As for stalinist architecture being “honest”, I tried to explain already in the brutalist thread how it obfuscates the class struggle by solidifying the proletariat as proletariat etc

user I'm from Philadelphia and you have no idea how much I love our architecture and how distraught I am with these hideous gentrified condos destroying it and filling up with bourgeois scum. Idk if I really hate this style or if i just cant seperate it from the colonization of my city but it is physically repulsive to look at

Attached: Screen-Shot-2015-10-30-at-10.08.46-AM.png (1476x1020 343.51 KB, 2.24M)

Oh, and I forgot to mention I work in contracting so I am often working for landlords "flipping" the houses and apartments they just kicked tenants out of

When I look at these, post-rock automatically starts playing in my head. It's a nice feeling tbh. Anyway, irl they wouldn't be this shiny.

Attached: dezeen_2364_col_8-1704x1277-1200x899.jpg (1200x1499 115.82 KB, 186.96K)


Damn… if you go to certain parts of center city you'll still find some of that colonial architecture, I believe. There are also a few towns out west in PA that have this similar style, but it's slowly going away in favor of shittier "modern" sleek bullshit.

This might be my Eurotrash privilege showing but this looks just as drab and commercial to me as the modern stuff.

Great taste friendo, baltimore is my favorite city in the states and the architecture is a big part of that.

Attached: 6EEB136B-CE7F-4499-A261-0882642ADC38.jpeg (1600x1200, 1.98M)



Yeah im Philly user and the center city housing in those pics is definitely not my favorite, it's too polished and weirdly symetrical. The older industrial parts of the city have a grimier but more interesting look to them.

Yeah Old City has all the OG colonial buildings but theyre fixed up to the point that they may as well be new shit. Sometimes it's nice to walk around there but it's an unbearably rich and obnoxious neighborhood.

Lol, I think the upwards extension is a bit unnecessary, there's nothing wrong with preserving old buildings. I know it was in jest but in seriousness I think Buckingham Palace would make a superb central museum site for London, perhaps they could make it into 'the museum of monarchy' so could all look back and wonder at how they got away with it so long, and all the riches they managed to pilfer in the meantime.

Attached: welfare queens.jpg (600x895, 67.82K)

Just coming back to say that I thought about what you said while I was on standby, and after mulling it over I can't really disagree with what you said. I apologize, I'm in the wrong here, especially in regards to Stalinist neoclassicalism. When I tried to think about why I liked it, all that came up was just this idea of it being "honest". I think I did what I do for most things and placed it in the "honest" category of the binary I think in, and I think I did so because I conflated it with the era in general and juxtaposed it with the west and capitalism. Stalinist architecture was "honest" because it was in contrast to what I saw as "dishonest", and because it had the presentation of a military installation which made me associate it with order, structure, and a strict militant mindset, not because of the actual idea behind that structure or the obfuscation it created. The way I came to my conclusion on it was flawed and I see that now, it was built out of conflation and association with figures and ideas I was defensive about in contrast to others I opposed. I don't usually say this, but thanks for telling me what I needed to hear. And usually I hate doing this kind of thing, but I thought I should say it. Hope it didn't sound like adulation.

Attached: manifesto-without-qualities_wai-think-tank_o.jpg (1200x744, 474.75K)

What would be a god-tier football stadium architectural structure?

old soldier field with it's greco roman columns looked great

Attached: soldier.jpg (736x517, 100.46K)

That looks pretty nice but I meant football (soccer as americans call it) but I suppose the design itself works for both sports. Personally I love these, in spanish we call it "bandeja" (tray stadium), I think it looks amazing.

Attached: canchanuevaau9.jpg (1256x620 10.71 KB, 277.54K)

I know that Cuba took all the mansions that all of Batista’s officers owned, and gave them to people as public housing.

That's fair but I hardly think a general's mansion is as historically valuable as Buckingham Palace.

Well also the article is quite clearly a joke: the mock designs to turn it into a tower-block while keeping the face carrying-on upwards is pretty indicative of that.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (860x1137, 1M)