I place this question on polls to get a wider coverage...
2007-04-10 21:32:40 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
I think both the UK and the US went through a horrible phase in the 1950s that can be directly attributed to the war, but for two very different reasons.
Despite having helped save the world for democracy Britain suffered shortages and resource issues far longer than a number of other nations involved in the war – including the French, but that’s another issue. This included not only in the home, but in efforts to rebuild the nation. Restoration of damaged landmarks were addressed with little concern for finding matching or original materials and new construction was approached with little architectural imagination – the materials simply didn’t exist for the country to pursue it’s architectural legacy.
The good news is the tide radically turned in the late 1980s and I think England (specifically London) is seeing a new pride in the appreciation of architectural efforts and is boldly engaging in respecting the history and lore of past structures while turning an innovative eye to the future.
The US suffered a few decades of architectural embarrassment for almost the opposite reason – too much, too fast, too quickly decided upon. The result was big urban boxes and cookie-cuttered suburbs that looked so bleakly the same (and smattered with trees no high than five feet initially) as to be an instant eye-sore.
Today when asked about the state of architecture here I point to the out standing Homes for Islanders program in Washington state and to the dynamic restoration and respect shown to neighborhoods in Chicago.
Good signs for those of us that appreciate a good buttress!
2007-04-11 07:18:22 · answer #1 · answered by Andy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The century that was responsible for the ugliest building was the 1800s, in the mining and other fronter towns, of North America. The reason they where ugly is because they where designed for functionality and quick building. The buildings were not costly, so the owners did not loose much when they abandoned the buildings. If I have to Narrow it down to one decade, then I will just say The 1840s; because, I know the the California gold rush happened in the 1840s. In North America, the construction methods stayed much the same for the last half of the 1800s, which is why I just mentioned the 1800s in general.
2007-04-11 07:56:52 · answer #2 · answered by Bud#21 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Sixties without a doubt cos that's when all the hideous high rises and disgusting concrete jungles were built in some sort of twisted utopian vision some european architect had! I live in Gosport at the moment and the estate next to my daughter's school is just the most depressing place I have ever seen! To make people live there is inhuman it really is!
2007-04-11 04:46:43 · answer #3 · answered by wattie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i like buildings of all eras. but the typical ranch style house is my least favorite. it is so common with just a 2 sided roof. i believe that was becoming the most popular in the 50s and 60s for younger families that needed an affordable house to buy, although they were around long before that. it is just more cost effective for builders to make a simple 4 sided structure. i still live in a ranch style house but i have added on 3 times and had the roof redone with 8 angles to give it more style.
2007-04-11 04:42:05 · answer #4 · answered by benjamin 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, post-war (1960s especially) architecture is called, very appropriately, Brutalist. Brutalist architecture is the high-rise tower blocks you see, and are extremely ghastly. However, in Britain, the main reason they were built was because they were a quick, cheap and easy way to build homes in communities devastated by the WWII bombings.
They are ugly, monochrome rectangular-blocks of filth. Having said that, the Centre George Pompidou (considered to be Brutalist) is quite interesting- but not what I would call pretty.
2007-04-11 16:55:13 · answer #5 · answered by thomastalkson 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The 1970,s,They built some real nasty buildings in London in the Late 1960,s and early 1970,s
2007-04-11 04:37:39 · answer #6 · answered by Bella 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Has to be the 60's. Look how many of the concrete high rises were puled down less than 20 years later.
2007-04-11 05:02:31 · answer #7 · answered by Archangel Gabriel 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the 1930' are a time where the archeticture is very much the same though it would have to depend on the country that is was in becasue in this period it varried widely in america, europe, and asia
2007-04-11 04:38:29 · answer #8 · answered by vortexflight 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1960s - concrete tower blocks
it was partly the complete misunderstanding that concrete looks fine in Southern France (Courbussier is to blame) but looks gross when damp and in the urban wetlands of England
2007-04-11 04:36:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think the 60's and the 70's. It was all very bland and boxy. Probably for time and money
2007-04-11 04:42:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋