I don't agree with you. For one thing, I think there's a false economy in penny-pinching on a building that you might otherwise use for literal centuries. But I also think that it's at odds with the type of government you should want to have. Even if you think that it would have no effect on the type of people who are willing to work there or their psychology as they work there, a government that is of the people must have a dress code because it must be among the people. The government should not set out to make your city worse before they pass a single bill just by being an eyesore.
You can make a building not ugly for no extra cost, all it takes is not letting a batshit insane architect anywhere near the project.
And actually a lot of modernist buildings are incredibly impractically designed too, resulting in more expensive maintenance; there's a reason why for a lot of human history buildings have looked somewhat similar, and it's not just because of technology.
I park my car in the parking lot of the modern, recently built library of my town.
For some reason they surrounded that place with this very smooth, shiny type of tile. All around the building, even the stairs leading down to the parking area, the little outisde chilling place too.
The freaking moment it gets even just the tiniest bit of dew on it, that shit gets so slippery it's crazy. In winter it's like you are doing ice skating.
Another point - the mechanical engineering department at my old university is one of those modern buildings, with a terribly modern multiple-plane roof that looked fantastically trendy in the 1960s.
However, as any roofer could have told you ... all those internal angles on the internal area of the roof trap the water, which, in the real world, rots through the metal frames. Thing leaks like a sieve.
Just for confirmation: that was a modernist abomination, right? Because I've heard that buildings built today in Hungary are often in a classical and really beautiful style.
I mean.... yeeeah. For some reason they assumed that to sell the idea this is a modern library means you have to make it look like this.
Funny enough, the little sidewalk thingy you see was so damn bad they had to cover it in a thin layer of cement since this photo was taken.
On the right you see some railing. That's where you go down some stairs to a parking lot. They gave some texture to some of the steps, but not all of them and it's not sufficient anyway.
(Parking is free, though, so I shouldn't bitch.)
Much like how backstage in a theater is often full of visible plywood, ropes, and mundanity while the front is all velvet and polished hardwood, a government building is a front for the face of the government to outside parties. An embassy, in example, is a government building, but if your embassy is comparable with a old western two-cage prison except with more molds and mildews, it's going to reflect poorly on your representation to those countries. Conspicuous spending: You declare how successful you are by how wasteful you are, and it directly translates to the respect you both deserve and get. You can say you're totally above it, but if you went into a restaurant that was all gold and hardwood, and one that had broken beams and plain clearly-patched spackle for walls, you'd feel more confident about eating in the one than the other, it's not just human condition, many animals do it too. Some birds make nests just to show off to mates, and have a "Real" nest elsewhere.
A lot of money should go into making the buildings look good. Keep them clean. Keep them maintained. Keep their aesthetic representative of the country they are representing. You are not from Shitstain, you're from America, and anyone should FEEL that on entering an American government building.
That stated, true brutalist archetecture I find often to be ugly, personally, but it IS very utilitarian, you'd like it given your statement here. The goal of brutalism is defensive lines, durability, and utility in that order, with "aesthetics" never even appearing on the list. It was mainly found in the USSR, as it represented THEIR country: no spare thought for appearances, just an iron and cement unyielding force.
All that stated, people have tried making purely functional buildings, pure glass so they can be supervised at all times, no walling, no gargoyles, no paintings, just glass, and the reflected light off it was causing burns to nearby buildings and pedestrians. Sometimes a bit of decoration is an important part of function.
I mean, am I alone in thinking that literally none of my money should be spent on making a government building look good?
We have to look at those government buildings, so the "NO STINKIN' GUBBERMINT" doesn't hold much sway. If it were the inside, sure. But the outside has to look nice, because it's so goddamn depressing to walk through a city that has the ugliest trash as its buildings.
I mean, am I alone in thinking that literally none of my money should be spent on making a government building look good?
Make sure it is functional. Anything other than that is wasted money, and it's MY money being wasted.
I don't agree with you. For one thing, I think there's a false economy in penny-pinching on a building that you might otherwise use for literal centuries. But I also think that it's at odds with the type of government you should want to have. Even if you think that it would have no effect on the type of people who are willing to work there or their psychology as they work there, a government that is of the people must have a dress code because it must be among the people. The government should not set out to make your city worse before they pass a single bill just by being an eyesore.
You can make a building not ugly for no extra cost, all it takes is not letting a batshit insane architect anywhere near the project.
And actually a lot of modernist buildings are incredibly impractically designed too, resulting in more expensive maintenance; there's a reason why for a lot of human history buildings have looked somewhat similar, and it's not just because of technology.
I park my car in the parking lot of the modern, recently built library of my town.
For some reason they surrounded that place with this very smooth, shiny type of tile. All around the building, even the stairs leading down to the parking area, the little outisde chilling place too.
The freaking moment it gets even just the tiniest bit of dew on it, that shit gets so slippery it's crazy. In winter it's like you are doing ice skating.
Another point - the mechanical engineering department at my old university is one of those modern buildings, with a terribly modern multiple-plane roof that looked fantastically trendy in the 1960s.
However, as any roofer could have told you ... all those internal angles on the internal area of the roof trap the water, which, in the real world, rots through the metal frames. Thing leaks like a sieve.
Fucking physics, messing with muh creative design. Reality can't be trusted to make my vision viable.
Just for confirmation: that was a modernist abomination, right? Because I've heard that buildings built today in Hungary are often in a classical and really beautiful style.
I mean.... yeeeah. For some reason they assumed that to sell the idea this is a modern library means you have to make it look like this.
Funny enough, the little sidewalk thingy you see was so damn bad they had to cover it in a thin layer of cement since this photo was taken.
On the right you see some railing. That's where you go down some stairs to a parking lot. They gave some texture to some of the steps, but not all of them and it's not sufficient anyway.
(Parking is free, though, so I shouldn't bitch.)
I disagree.
Much like how backstage in a theater is often full of visible plywood, ropes, and mundanity while the front is all velvet and polished hardwood, a government building is a front for the face of the government to outside parties. An embassy, in example, is a government building, but if your embassy is comparable with a old western two-cage prison except with more molds and mildews, it's going to reflect poorly on your representation to those countries. Conspicuous spending: You declare how successful you are by how wasteful you are, and it directly translates to the respect you both deserve and get. You can say you're totally above it, but if you went into a restaurant that was all gold and hardwood, and one that had broken beams and plain clearly-patched spackle for walls, you'd feel more confident about eating in the one than the other, it's not just human condition, many animals do it too. Some birds make nests just to show off to mates, and have a "Real" nest elsewhere.
A lot of money should go into making the buildings look good. Keep them clean. Keep them maintained. Keep their aesthetic representative of the country they are representing. You are not from Shitstain, you're from America, and anyone should FEEL that on entering an American government building.
That stated, true brutalist archetecture I find often to be ugly, personally, but it IS very utilitarian, you'd like it given your statement here. The goal of brutalism is defensive lines, durability, and utility in that order, with "aesthetics" never even appearing on the list. It was mainly found in the USSR, as it represented THEIR country: no spare thought for appearances, just an iron and cement unyielding force.
All that stated, people have tried making purely functional buildings, pure glass so they can be supervised at all times, no walling, no gargoyles, no paintings, just glass, and the reflected light off it was causing burns to nearby buildings and pedestrians. Sometimes a bit of decoration is an important part of function.
We have to look at those government buildings, so the "NO STINKIN' GUBBERMINT" doesn't hold much sway. If it were the inside, sure. But the outside has to look nice, because it's so goddamn depressing to walk through a city that has the ugliest trash as its buildings.