Vakkert i tåke og regn

Omsider har våningshuset ved Grythengen vunnet tilbake sin verdig, etter at det ble herpedert på 50-tallet.

-Wikimedia.

Selv i tåke og regn gløder stabburet av indre lød.

-Wikimedia.

Four fallacies justifying the ugliness of the built environment of our time.

1. We are told that beauty is subjective, in the eye of the beholder, so everyone thinks differently.

But studies on the most beautiful places or buildings show the common human preference towards the pre-modernist (before 1950s) variety of built environments, predominantly based on the classical tradition: an architectural philosophy and a set of rules on how to design sustainable buildings and cities from a human point of view, aiming to compose buildings with proportions, harmony, symmetry appealing to human perspective.

2. We are told that it is too expensive to build beauty.

But we are living in an age more well-off than ever. And even in poorer times, even when designing buildings with a modest purpose, it was considered worth the effort and investment to beautify the environment. Not to uglify.

Further, are all the ugly new buildings really cheap?

3. We are told that new buildings should reflect “our time”, not the past.

But this leads to false innovation, to value newness as a value in itself, only for the sake of novelty. And buildings to become outdated and ready-to-be-demolished at a quickening speed, so that there will be an urgent need for the new ‘new’ again and again.

All architecture is copying, imitating, emulating, recycling something that has already been done – classically inspired or modernistically inspired. But we are told to accept only the modernistically inspired new, although it also reflects the past.

4. We are told that a strong contrast between old and new architecture is a good thing.

But this leads to an ever worsening environment, with new buildings trying to stick out at any price. Adding contrast is adding chaos, not harmony.

The more I've tried to dig into and understand these arguments justifying the modernist credo, the more all the arguments sound like bullshit.

That’s why I believe it is an ideological phenomenon, dressed in the clothes of unquestioned truths. ‘The emperor has no clothes’ analogy.

Why should we be the generation to witness the downfall of beauty and the triumph of blunt ugliness?

Today we are a Nordic civic movement with altogether ca. 30.000 members in local, regional and national networks. Join us if you care.

The Nordic Network: Arkkitehtuurikapina - Arkitekturupproret - Architectural Revival

(This text is based on my blog for the international YIMBYcon event, organized in Helsinki, 18-19 August 2017.)