Dokk Holm: Snart Elsker Alle Betong

[SmalltownUrbanist]

Is this really beautiful?

http://www.dn.no/forsiden/etterBors/article2317522.ece

De som hater denne formen for betongbygninger, bør notere seg muligheten for at de snart vil begynne å elske slik arkitektur. At folk på et tidspunkt begynner å like det de før mislikte, er nemlig selve normalen i forbrukersamfunnet. En haug av studier innen forbrukersosiologien viser nettopp dette, og de fleste av oss vil med letthet kunne spole tilbake i våre egne liv og med forbløffelse oppdage at vi omfavner uttrykk vi tidligere har demoniser

Just read this article from Erling Dokk Holm where he claims that everyone will grow to love concrete, just as people change their taste for food, fashion etc. He then uses this as an argument not to tear down Høyblokka.

Is it wrong to apply consumer behaviour to architecture, or do you think Dokk Holm is right in his predictions?

I'm very interested in other views on this, unfortunately it isn't possible to comment on the article itself.

Personally I think bare concrete is hideous, and that these buildings are so fundamentally different from other architectural styles that I'm not sure that the same rules apply. Dokk Holm compares it to fashion, but in fashion you have quite a clear disctinction between what the famous designers show on the runway and what most people would actually wear. Like high fashion primarily exists on the runway, this love of concrete and modernist/brutalist architecture almost entirely exists within the profession of architecture, and in my opinion it should stay there..

[Galro]

Have this kind of buildings ever been loved by people outside of the architectural community? Is that we there were so many demonstrations against them when they were built in the first place? I can't say I'm care too much for this holier than thou attitude from the pro-høyblokka camp either. It's one thing having an opinion either way, but it goes gets rather tiresome when you proclaim this opinion as fact and something that shouldn't be discussed.

[cashew]

The main philosophy behind this architecture is functionalism. I'm not so sure you can say that about older architecture (to the same extent, anyway). With that in mind, his arguments of how we regard older things now, might not be as relevant for this style in the future.

On another hand, you most likely would not have the architecture we have today, without this architectural history. And I think we can see a pretty clear line from this strict functionalism to the modern architecture like the Opera House in Oslo, for example. So I think there's a possibility for people to appreciate this architecture in means of historic reference. But not based on the aesthetics alone.

One of the main reasons that I my self am not a particular fan of this architecture, is because it's an era change that does not fit in with the previous eras. In my city, Stavanger, we've got beautiful 18th century wooden houses side by side with hideous children of this new architectural era. That does not look good. But I'm sure these buildings would look better in a homogenous environment in means of its architecture (look at New York, for example). If I'm not mistaken it was this way with the Gothic architecture as well.

With this in mind, I must say that I agree with this guy to some extent. But I think it'll take a long time before we do. Probably sometime after we're all dead!

[City of Rain]

I've heard this argument made tons of times before, and I still don't believe it. Sure, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but certain designs will simply appeal more to the majority of people, in a completely natural manner. We are simply programmed to prefer certain things over others. This can be shapes, smells, tastes etc.. why is the taste of chocolate or the smell of fresh flowers generally preferred over that of shit? We are programmed to consider excerment disgusting, and most of us do. This will never change, although there will always be some scat sex lovers out there. I think that in 500 years European cities will still be considered to have the most beautiful architecture by the majority of the worlds population, and that's in spite of ugly buildings such as the one pictured in the article.

[essenze]

I agree with CoR, and i think Dokk Holm speaks for himself mostly here and is waaay off. He extrapolates the change of fashion trends to project that there are no absolutes, whether beautiful or ugly. Well, that is simply BS, with all due respect. Introducing a relativistic view to architecture, similar to the established politically correct views for relativistic culture and moral, makes me just shake my head. There ARE in fact good things and bad things in this world, which can be stated in the opinion of an overwhelming majority of people. There are good smells and bad smells, pretty girls and ugly girls, and there is architecture that is beautiful and architecture that just makes you sad.

If you should follow Dokk Holm's logic, Murmansk will be the most beautiful city in a decade, while central Paris would be awful. Not so. I think we can pretty much agree that raw concrete is not used in a façade for it's beauty, but because it's functional, cheap and low maintenance. Quality never goes out of style. We can easily judge by our history the more and the less successful approaches to good looking architecture and well-planned cities.

[muster]

Originally Posted by essenze

I agree with CoR, and i think Dokk Holm speaks for himself mostly here and is waaay off. He extrapolates the change of fashion trends to project that there are no absolutes, whether beautiful or ugly. Well, that is simply BS, with all due respect. Introducing a relativistic view to architecture, similar to the established politically correct views for relativistic culture and moral, makes me just shake my head. There ARE in fact good things and bad things in this world, which can be stated in the opinion of an overwhelming majority of people. There are good smells and bad smells, pretty girls and ugly girls, and there is architecture that is beautiful and architecture that just makes you sad.

If you should follow Dokk Holm's logic, Murmansk will be the most beautiful city in a decade, while central Paris would be awful. Not so. I think we can pretty much agree that raw concrete is not used in a façade for it's beauty, but because it's functional, cheap and low maintenance. Quality never goes out of style. We can easily judge by our history the more and the less successful approaches to good looking architecture and well-planned cities.

You are wrong. Taste changes with experience and knowledge. What girls you like changes with age. Same with food, you learn to like things with age, like fish, strong cheese, liquor ans so on. You like different clothes. The list just goes on. What building you like also changes with time. I for one like concrete. Sverre Fehn is a good example how it can be used in a beautiful way.

[SmalltownUrbanist]

Originally Posted by muster

You are wrong. Taste changes with experience and knowledge. What girls you like changes with age. Same with food, you learn to like things with age, like fish, strong cheese, liquor ans so on. You like different clothes. The list just goes on. What building you like also changes with time. I for one like concrete. Sverre Fehn is a good example how it can be used in a beautiful way.

But can the same things be applied to something that is as inorganic as raw concrete? I believe the love for concrete comes out of the same principles of separation that are the fundament of modernism. The seperation of functions, uses, humans and nature and so on. Concrete is such a seperation from nature, so inorganic that it fits perfect with this philosophy.

But can we relate to it, other than on an ideological level? Architects might love what it represents, that it is beautiful in the way it contrasts with the "natural". I believe however that as humans - who for the vast, vast majority have lived with the organic, natural as our environment, something we're hardwired with - cannot relate to this kind architecture on a psychological level.

Descartes came up with the idea that the "city is a machine", but that has later been proven to be a very blunt simplification and its application to real life cities have proven disastrous. I believe this love for concrete, at least the way it is being used today, is constructed on the same basis, and the same fallacy.

[Galro]

Concrete can indeed create great and well received results. Just take a look at the dome on the Pantheon in Rome. I don't think people hate the brutalism architecture because they used concrete per se, but because they used it to make what is usually considered to be hideous structures. My impression isn't that the Empire State plaza in Albany, New York or the planed city of Brasilia is consider to be pretty and nice despite the fact that all the buildings there are built with marbles for example. It's not the material that troubles, but the architecture.

I do btw think it's kind of funny how people who have devoted their life to architecture are arguing that architecture don't really mean that much. It is apparently just fashion.

[City of Rain]

Originally Posted by muster

You are wrong. Taste changes with experience and knowledge. What girls you like changes with age. Same with food, you learn to like things with age, like fish, strong cheese, liquor ans so on. You like different clothes. The list just goes on. What building you like also changes with time. I for one like concrete. Sverre Fehn is a good example how it can be used in a beautiful way.

It is interesting that you should mention girls. As you know, tastes vary a lot in terms of guys preference in girls, as well.. but you would be dishonest not to acknowledge that there does exist a somewhat universal perception of what is beautiful and what is not. There is a reason why certain girls are simply more sought after than others.

My problem is not so much concrete being used as a material in buidlings, but more the brutalist style of architecture.. For example, I think Norway would have been a more beautiful place had Erling Viksjø never become an architect.

[SmalltownUrbanist]

Originally Posted by City of Rain

My problem is not so much concrete being used as a material in buidlings, but more the brutalist style of architecture.. For example, I think Norway would have been a more beautiful place had Erling Viksjø never become an architect.

I do agree that the style of architecture also is important, and it kind of follows the same logic as my argument towards concrete, with the theoretical basis for modernism.

I just keep thinking that whenever I see concrete being used that if some other material was used it would've looked better. It might just be me tho, and obviously cost, level of maintenance, robustness etc comes into play.

A lot of new buildings aren't all that different from brutalist buildings, with other materials, no? And although they might not be ideal they are at least an improvement.

[Galro]

I agree that the materials certainly is part of the of the negativity around brutalism, but I don't think it's only that. It's part of the equation but nothing more.

[Oslo 5]

Originally Posted by City of Rain

It is interesting that you should mention girls. As you know, tastes vary a lot in terms of guys preference in girls, as well.. but you would be dishonest not to acknowledge that there does exist a somewhat universal perception of what is beautiful and what is not. There is a reason why certain girls are simply more sought after than others.

My problem is not so much concrete being used as a material in buidlings, but more the brutalist style of architecture.. For example, I think Norway would have been a more beautiful place had Erling Viksjø never become an architect.

there has newer been an universal perception of what is beautiful, -and back in the 1600s fat people was the thing, both men end women was supposed to be as fat as possible to be considered sexy...

there are lot of beautiful brutalist architecture, but you needs an acquired taste as muster writes

[City of Rain]

Originally Posted by SmalltownUrbanist

I do agree that the style of architecture also is important, and it kind of follows the same logic as my argument towards concrete, with the theoretical basis for modernism.

I just keep thinking that whenever I see concrete being used that if some other material was used it would've looked better. It might just be me tho, and obviously cost, level of maintenance, robustness etc comes into play.

A lot of new buildings aren't all that different from brutalist buildings, with other materials, no? And although they might not be ideal they are at least an improvement.

I don't know, haven't really thought about it.

Originally Posted by Oslo 5

there has newer been an universal perception of what is beautiful, -and back in the 1600s fat people was the thing, both men end women was supposed to be as fat as possible to be considered sexy...

there are lot of beautiful brutalist architecture, but you needs an acquired taste as muster writes

That was because it symbolized wealth. Just look at how unhappy the majority of men are with the girls in todays model indistry. The majority of us want girls with curves rather than anorexic-looking ones. It lies in our nature to find indications of good health attractive. For example, most will prefer big breasts because it indicates fertillity.

And like I said, you can't deny that certain women are generally perceived as very beautiful, as in 90% of people will agree that they are. We are programmed to prefer certain facial traits over others, and I think this can be applied to architecture, too.. some shapes and designs are simply more appealing to the human mind, the same way babies are predisposed to preferring bright colors like red. In Bergen, most people find the city hall to be extremely ugly.

[Galro]

Originally Posted by Oslo 5

there are lot of beautiful brutalist architecture, but you needs an acquired taste as muster writes

But do you think we should build cities/buildings to meet a taste few have acquired? Shouldn't public spaces where these building usually are located, be for all to enjoy regardless of their background?

[Galro]

Originally Posted by City of Rain

For example, I think Norway would have been a more beautiful place had Erling Viksjø never become an architect.

I think you should add the guys working at Arcasa to your list there.

[cashew]

I do btw think it's kind of funny how people who have devoted their life to architecture are arguing that architecture don't really mean that much. It is apparently just fashion.

The expression/style is fashion, like everything else. But good design yesterday is just as much good design today. And I think this is where the key lies in this discussion. All the architecture of this style does not look good, but the well executed and thoughtful designs does, for the most part. Like the works of Sverre Fehn, Luigi Snozzi and Enric Miralles for example.

I guess it's a question of which buildings we are talking about, and their locations. If it doesn't fit in, it looks more like a statement than anything else.

[Oslo 5]

Originally Posted by Galro

But do you think we should build cities/buildings to meet a taste few have acquired? Shouldn't public spaces where these building usually are located, be for all to enjoy regardless of their background?

no, not cities, but single buildings, of course, in a democracy one can't deny any architectural style

[Oslo 5]

Originally Posted by City of Rain

That was because it symbolized wealth. Just look at how unhappy the majority of men are with the girls in todays model indistry. The majority of us want girls with curves rather than anorexic-looking ones. It lies in our nature to find indications of good health attractive. For example, most will prefer big breasts because it indicates fertillity.

And like I said, you can't deny that certain women are generally perceived as very beautiful, as in 90% of people will agree that they are. We are programmed to prefer certain facial traits over others, and I think this can be applied to architecture, too.. some shapes and designs are simply more appealing to the human mind, the same way babies are predisposed to preferring bright colors like red. In Bergen, most people find the city hall to be extremely ugly.

Well, then again, the models showing hot-coture isn't doing it for the majority either, and back in the 1920s women was supposed to be flat breasted.... and there are lots of men of today who likes chubby girls too (and those who doesn't like girls at all)

my point being is that people has different tastes, and nobody should dictate the architectural style.. then our cities would be very dull indeed

[SmalltownUrbanist]

Originally Posted by Oslo 5

Well, then again, the models showing hot-coture isn't doing it for the majority either, and back in the 1920s women was supposed to be flat breasted.... and there are lots of men of today who likes chubby girls too (and those who doesn't like girls at all)

my point being is that people has different tastes, and nobody should dictate the architectural style.. then our cities would be very dull indeed

I'm not sure if you can apply consumer behaviour to architecture. What girls or clothes you prefer are completely personal choices that have no (significant) wider implications to anyone else.

Architecture is however a part of the public domain, and the preference and taste of the architect is imposed on anyone who interacts with the building in one form or another. Buildings are also integral part of cities, and can have a great effect on them. Therefore I don't think you can really use the same rules for architecture, save for maybe priavte houses in residential areas which is a far more individual choice and does not have such a great effect on the city or area as a whole.

And a mix of architectural styles might be needed, but only to a certain extent. The mish-mash of buildings that have been built the last 100 years with no context or relation to the surrounding buildings, while having produced a wide variety, hasn't really worked very well. A certain coherence is needed, also for the special buildings to really stand out.

[Galro]

Originally Posted by cashew

The expression/style is fashion, like everything else. But good design yesterday is just as much good design today. And I think this is where the key lies in this discussion. All the architecture of this style does not look good, but the well executed and thoughtful designs does, for the most part. Like the works of Sverre Fehn, Luigi Snozzi and Enric Miralles for example.

I guess it's a question of which buildings we are talking about, and their locations. If it doesn't fit in, it looks more like a statement than anything else.

But people often argues that the built up environment affects peoples psychology. This is usually argument behind spending a lot on architecture when building schools or hospitals for example. Or in other words that it is more than just mere fashion. If it is just fashion however then what's the point with spending money on architecture at all? Surely it's then better to just build the cheapest thing possible if the end results is that the building end up as an eyesore whenever it is out of fashion anyway?