The Problem with Architectural Contrast - with Marjo Uotila

In this video, Marjo Uotila tells why the idea that contrast in architecture as a virtue on its own is leading to chaos and thus not good for cities. Often, contrast is prized or defended by architects, while most people don't appreciate it or even hate the contrast, that seems to tear beautiful urban fabric apart.

----

----

Music: Wolgrim, by Cody Martin
GEK65JOXOGTTZA3X

[SP]

Or contrast is a scam because they don't know how to build pretty buildings 😒

[Ommelanden]

In my architectural study I was also told often that adding highly contrasting extensions to monuments was somehow a good design choice. I was pretty tempted to say "You know what else contrasts? A tumour on a CT scan."

[konradzawadzki]

There is one instance when contrast is a good thing: when it is 1) an exception (not like every second building on a given street) and 2) when contrast is about lack of ornaments in the new building, but the "rhythm" and proportions of the new building relate to the old one

All the historical architectural that we worship and visit as tourists nowadays have also changed and were subject to trends and fashion. One thing that our ancestors did differently is that every change they made was not radical and it always paid certain hommage to their roots, traditions and previous trends by recreating or referencing all the architectural practices and ornaments which they considered valuable. Whereas the modern architecture is actively trying to decouple itself from its own roots.

[nathanh.]

I deeply hate the idea of adding modern buildings next to old ones, or worse add modern extensions to old buildings. One modern building or element in the middle of an historic street is enough to ruin it.

I'm myself very interested in industrial heritage, and I just hate to see how architects dont understand that adding glass boxes on top is just ruining the beautiful original architecture... Obviously it's also the case with non industrial stuff

[Afri_Pandora_Archieve]

I think contarst is not necessarilly bad, if done right and taking atleast some aesthtic features from the things the contrast is being made

[adamcheklat]

Don’t get me started with contrasts. The Military museum in Dresden was disfigured. Now it looks like a dude being stabbed.

I've been to the Netherlands before, in Amsterdam, Haarlem, and Utrecht. On any given street, no two buildings looked alike, yet they all fit in well with the aesthetic.

[ismaelsegarra]

I disagree that adding contrast= adding chaos

[Piedra_Blanca]

Sometimes "chaos" is a sign of natural organic growth of a city. Le Corbusier had uniform repetitive buildings for his urbanist proposals, but the people subbed to this channel would say he represents modernist hubris...

[killerofprimes]

Heterogeneity in architecture is much more interesting than monotony and failed mimicry

[tonyharpur]

I saw a lovely pair of brick fronted buildings erected on a Georgian (late 18th/early 19th century) street in Limerick, Ireland. The height matched the adjacent original structures, as did the brick facades, but the window openings were different, yet followed the window levels set by the older buildings. As a modern in-fill I felt it was an elegant, unobtrusive solution, blending beuatifully with the street. A beautiful bl÷nd oof old (brick, height, window levels) and new (window openings).

[JohnFromAccounting]

I hate juxtaposition between beautiful and ugly. Why would I willingly compromise a good thing to allow more of a bad thing?

[IRGhost]

It only seems to work because the beauty of the older building adds a quality to the modern building that makes the modern building seem not as ugly as it would otherwise have been. The contrast only improves aesthetics when adding a new building next to an old building, but not the other way around, and a parasitic relationship emerges. An old building doesn’t gain beauty when a new building is next to it, but the new building absorbs the visual interest of the old.

[felipellrocha]

Arguing that `contrast = chaos`, then making an argument against chaos is itself a fallacy.

[slksol]

Our municipality recently passed zoning changes and re-designations for residential lots. What used to be neighbourhoods of single story post-war bungalows and houses converted to shops dispersed throughout can now be developed into 3 story structures with up to 8 housing units, no matter if they are on the end of the street or the middle of the block, no parking or additional infrastructure required… The 2 decade period prior to this the natural step change was to build semi-attached or double detached 2 story infills on these former sites. While the execution and respect for the surrounding buildings and neighbours had varying degrees of consideration/success, it made sense mostly. An increase in housing density is required as cities grow… but now, this latest zoning and development push is becoming a giant red blight across the city with no exclusion zones whatsoever. It’s not just chaos and stark contrast it creates, it ensures everything in the wake or the literal shadow of these massive structures rising taller than the urban canopy (or at the expense of these 50-80 year old trees altogether) are destined to fail in their current form. There are no concessions or innovative reimagining of space to be had.

It’s build big, quadruple housing capacity and discard all the benefits and charm of the previously built and landscaped environment in the neighborhood . David or Goliath. It’s now acceptable to forgoe a back yard or exterior space altogether for a two story apartment suite where you can peer into homes and lots of all the single or two story family homes that will inevitably depreciate, dilapidate and age out in the next 5-10 years for the next shotty developer (with questionable building aesthetic and practices) to demolish and rebuild carbon copy structures. It’s a war on longevity and quality everywhere in the name of “democratization“ and “sustainability”no matter the blatant hypocrisy.

[parksideevangelicalchurch]

Beautiful building are the only sustainable buildings. Old buildings have survived this long because they were beautiful and stirred something deep within people that make them passionate enough to renovate and restore them. Ugly modern buildings, no matter how energy efficient they may be, are disposable precisely because people are either indifferent to them or they actively hate them.

[MissSchnickfitzel]

Its soooo ugly i hate cities because old buildings are more beautiful and new cities lack greenery. They make me depressed

[velvet]

"contrast" is just a way to justify eyesores

[Leka]

Mixing new buildings with old rarely works. It usually just makes for an unsightly mess.