/leftydesign/

Soviet architecture was pretty bad but I think we can all agree that fascist architecture was fucking terrible.

I reject corporatism as a means of societal organization.
By definition I am not a Fascist.

I would be willing to bet money you would.

My fap folder is mostly full of girl-cock.
That said, my Brutalism folder is 2.1 gigabytes.

Hey man, if you both hate freedom and colour and love dicks and enforced uniformity, then 'fascist' and 'technocrat' is a distinction without a difference. Also the historical Technocrats that you LARP on this balinese macrame forum pretty much all went fascist by the time the war rolled round so again, distinction without a difference.

Making shit up is just utterly sad.
The sort of thing I would expect of a red.
Name one prominent that publicly declared support for Fascism, just one.

Technocracy Inc was very much against Fascism.
It was the Crux of their 'Total Conscription' campaign that they ran throughout the majority of the American involvement in WW2.

...

confirmed bookchinite

...

While looking around for pictures to kick off the thread I found out about an old Soviet design journal that apparently gained some popularity in the west. It was called Tekhnicheskaya Estetika. Would anyone know how to go about getting copies?

what is your problem user?
architeture was one of the few good things fascism gave to italy

Damn user you almost triggered me, be careful next time.

Here's to make up for my previous shitpost:
youtube.com/watch?v=TqKQ94DtS54

Hell yeah, arcologies. You'd never get that shit going under capitalism - too much capital investment and questionable ROI.

This is all pretty ugly tbh.

Well then post the stuff you think isn't ugly, that's the point of the thread. Don't let the fuckhead at the start of the thread and my eco-utopia posting turn you off.

some Cool Shit I like

Your elven shit are eye sores that only inspire disgust.

Today OP was not a faggot.

mods are asleep post liberatory technology

greenhouses are a liberatory technology

isn't that middle pic from Undiscovered Country

I've already posted this in the flag thread but I made a bunch of dutch socialist flags

you know what I hate? having to drive to get to places. Even public transportation is fine from time to time, but I really hate the idea that I have to use some form of private or public tranportation to read books, buy food, etc… I hate how the US has designed their cities. If you go to places where they design their town or cities, you have stores and public places close to people live. I hope we can redesign cities that are more friendly to those who wish to get places by just walking

youtube.com/watch?v=ZORzsubQA_M&feature=youtu.be

My nigga

art-deco is so randian but I don't even care I love it

Really? I never explicitly think of Ayn Rand when I see Art Deco, more Metropolis if anything. Anyone who rejects artistic style due to their association with someone is spooked to hell and probably a dirty stinkin' revisionist

>tfw Nazis/fascists made shit like the Roman salute and general Faustian quirks practically taboo so now the only people that really like that stuff are Nazis
shit sucks, man

Brutalism is fucking disgusting and anyone who likes it should feel bad.

Wut?

This opinion is correct. Funny story - the only person I knew irl who liked brutalist architecture was also the single most submissive person I'd ever met. It was extensive. All the girlfriends he'd ever had cheated on him, his best friend was a domineering authoritarian freak, he basically never expressed an original opinion, etc. Pretty much a living Holla Forums cariacature. I'm pretty sure his love of brutalism was a direct result of his totally submissive personality. Being surrounded by imposing, impersonal symbols of abstracted absolute authority must be comforting to that type of person.

In other news, I noticed something interesting when looking for solarpunk pictures to post for the thread. It seems that bicycles have been adopted as the emblem of a certain strain of tumblrite liberalism. I thought this was interesting, because to me it seems to provide a good shorthand for everything wrong with that strain of politics. Obviously the bicycle is being put forward as a 'response' to the car's dominance in modern American life.

But let's consider it some more. Bikes are exactly as atomised and individual as cars are, perhaps even more so. They let you feel good about doing the right thing at the cost of vastly reduced convenience. They're a total non-solution for anyone who works at hard manual labour or in rural areas. And best of all, adopting bike transport instead of car transport requires only that the stupid masses change their minds and decide to act 'ethically' - no actual changes to infrastructure are required.

In short, bikes are the most liberal mode of transport. Post trains, buses, and other forms of mass transit to combat liberalism.

I think the picture is implying that the structure of life in an arcology would promote positive social interaction better than a vast and impersonal megalopolis. Don't ask me though, I don't subscribe to any of Soleri's utopianism - I just think arcologies are cool.

TBF, bikes are way more practical for getting around in cities than cars are, and where I live a lot of people use them in conjunction with mass transit.

Agreed. As a PA fag I live around a lot of woods and forest and I'm genuinely fond of the state's environment but it kills me to see the deforestation caused by suburban colonies due to the "horizontal planning" that our country subscribes to. One of the few things I can agree with Howard Scott on is the idea of "vertical planning": encouraging more urbanized cities that build apartments as high as functionality would allow.

Good! Not everyone likes to be surrounded by others at any given point in time. Socialism should also take into account solitary individuals.

Shit, that looks awesome

You wouldn't even mega-tall buildings, just stop covering the country with endless rows of single family houses with huge lots. Replacing suburbs with more densely packed and slightly more vertical (like, a few stories high) towns with amenities that are within walking distance would do a lot to minimize the need for cars and with that the space required. Besides, enormous structures have their own problems, being hugely expensive to build and maintain and having a lot of their space devoted to simply moving people up and down (which grows enormously the bigger you make the building), not to mention the social effects of surrounding people with such huge structures.

...

A form of notation used to compare the efficiency of algorithms in computer science?

I considered it but I feel it doesn't quite have the 80s mech aesthetic that I have in mind. I prefer the slightly more round and "bubbly" designs that were prevalent in some sci-fi and mecha

Is there a name for this high-tech+environmentalism stuff?

I have a boner so hard for eco burtalism

From the looks of it, the blanket-term is just Green Building

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_building

I dunno if you've been on threads like these before, but it may also fall under the "Solar Punk" genre that's slowly growing out of Tumblr iirc. There's also the The Zeitgeist Movement

I, too, hate being able to see outside.

...

hello newfriend
also post your preferences
also that cunt's threadshitting spam makes me want to restart the thread to be rid of it

Those roads are gonna turn into mud after the first rain, and with all those people it'll quickly become impossible to move through. And how the hell are you going to get emergency vehicles through there, let alone bikes? We have pavement for a reason, folks! And why plant trees next to a building? Plant them in the middle instead of that ugly-ass garden, it'll also make more room for transit.
Also, who the fuck plonks a windmill in the middle of a city? The noise would be unbearable.
Love the rooftop gardens, though

From what I can gather.
It is a church in the Balkans.

Those pictures are literally disgusting.

You made a thread asking for 'beautiful living spaces', 'pics of comfy spaces free from alienation' and 'architecture directed toward communal living' - I provided such examples.

It is not my fault that the inherent beauty and functionality of Brutalism exposes your wood-elf rubbish for the garbage that it is.

Your pics make me want to vomit
Stop being an autist

oh fuck is that stupid cunt still posting in here?
reminder that you can block posters by tripcode via the button to the left of the poster's name

Like this but in space.

Oh, I'm sure that they do.
Functionality, efficiency and industrial beauty has always made your sort uncomfortable.
I bet you had to 'cleanse' yourself with 'healing crystals' after looking at then.

I would consider a desire to live in glorified tree-houses to be far more autistic.

What did he mean by this?
That bare concrete isn't going to be 'clean' for long. Hell, even in the pics you've shown they look dirty as fuck.
You need to go back

O'neill cylinders, Stanford toruses, and Bernal spheres are right up your alley then

t. Alpha 60

Also, efficiency? Functionality? Those buildings don't even have basic things like drain pipes, and as for efficiency, huge amounts of material are wasted on these huge concrete slabs that serve no practical purpose and are in fact detrimental to the use of the building. This is not even to mention the things that could be added that would dramatically improve the functionality of the building, such as solar panels or gardens on those flat fucking roofs or wall-side vegetation which would help immensely in keeping the buildings and surroundings cool and purifying the runoff greywater, but you're probably too busy masturbating to bare concrete to think about that kind of stuff. Glorified tree-houses would be way more efficient and functional than this crap.

That romanticists, hopelessly divorced from our objective, digital reality.
Very often turn away from the virtues of human industry and retreat into vile nature worship.

You can see this with the Nazis and their 'Blood and Soil' ideology, Tolkien and 'new agers' - just to give a few examples.
Just look at the impractical rubbish that is the first picture here - Functionality and industrial virtue is abandoned in favour of some romantic view of 'living with nature'.
It is sickening.

With regular maintenance it can be kept clean - just like with any other building.

A safe space is literally what the sort of people that filter me wish to create.
Romanticists cannot handle reality.
It is the exact same reason why Holla Forums works so hard to maintain their own echo-chamber.

Ring-worlds >>> Other mega structures.

As I have explained previously, the aesthetic impression that a building leaves is extremely important.
The function of the 'concrete slabs' is aesthetic in nature - in some ways the most important part of the building.

Take that shit back to San-Francisco where it belongs, faggot.
All of those things would detract from the aesthetic function of the building.

And could be better provided by dedicated, centralized infrastructure.

t. Humanities Major.

Even the right wing has to admit we're better at this.

So what you're saying is that your buildings aren't efficient, aren't functional, aren't at all practical, and are just there to look imposing. You are literally abandoning functionality and common sense in favour of your masturbatory, deluded view of an ideal technocratic society that is only possible in your head. You're an idiot.

...

Is Brutalism the ugliest architectural movement of all time?

Google has spoken

I never said any of that at all.
In fact I said quite the opposite.

I would encourage you to work on your reading comprehension skills, because this is rather embarrassing.

Again, I never said that.
What I simply said was that part of the function of just about any building is to impart certain emotions on people.
Brutalist aesthetics invoke the sort of emotions that should be reinforced in people.

As I have already said, aesthetics is part of functionality.

Additionally, solar panels and greenery would only increase the required level of maintenance while providing very little in return.
Centralized, dedicated power plants and water treatment/recycling plants are far more efficient.

Funnily enough, that is exactly what I think of 99% of the ideologies on this board.

t. Humanities Major.

You're completely wrong. By the way, infrastructure does have to be changed. Bike somewhere with designated bike roads and your life will be changed.

Bikes are great, and fun, and very social!

That's what you said. You literally said you were willing to sacrifice the utility of the building, by omitting things that would make it more efficient and practical as an actual building that people use, in favour of aesthetics.
Not really, no. The primary function of a building is to be used, not to be looked at. A functional building is one that is good to live in, not one you think looks nice.
Yeah, in other words you like it because it looks imposing. Phrasing it like an autist doesn't change that.
Growing some ferns along the side of a building doesn't take a lot of fucking maintenance, and photovoltaic panels just need to be kept clean. Besides, you yourself said that maintaining your 'aesthetic' is gonna require a lot of maintenance. Bare concrete is gonna look real ugly real quick.
FFS, have you even googled any of this shit? Or did you just fap at the pictures?
You're also delusional, so that's no surprise. At least our ideologies actually have supporters.
And what's your major? Oh wait, you probably haven't even finished high school. How about you grow up and follow an ideology that actually exists.

I said that I would be willing sacrifice one possible design aspect of a building to promote another.

Solar panels and greenery does not make a building more efficient.
All it accomplishes is the creation of an eye-sore.

I never said that human use was not the primary function of a building.
I literally said that aesthetics is part of functionality - not that it was the primary functionality.

Fucking step it up senpai.

I never said that at all.
Indeed, that seems like quite the amount of projection.

I happen to like Brutalist because it evokes a sense of humanities collective triumph over our primitive past.
If you find bare concrete 'imposing', I think that says alot you.

I never said that at all.
I just said that Brutalist buildings could be kept clean via regular maintenance.

Better then looking real ugly right from the concept art, as with your elf shit.

This is pretty sad, but expected.
I would expect someone in favour of tyranny of the majority would attempt to argue from popularity.

Oh dear.
It seems that I have hit a nerve.

Tell me, was it English literature or Women's Studies that you wasted your time on?

This shit is fucking hilarious.

I really like the neoclassical socialist realism of the 40's and 50's in Warsaw, generally much more compact than later modernism which tended to be all over the place and held a big middle finger towards pedestrians. Also a lot of the leading prewar architects were involved at the time, such as Pniewski. Modernism isn't bad per se, there's a lot of sleek showpiece buildings but otherwise it's very isolating for the average person. Commieblocks being built in parallels rather than in logical city blocks and so on, fetishizing the car above all else etc.
Neoclassicism is currently undergoing a revival in Germany in particular.

...

Everyone posts these indoor concrete, ironic warehouse, designs.

I don't know but if it's commie but 70s is comfiest to me.

Something commie looking. Eixample in Barcelona.

Eixample.

...

I fucking love those city blocks

Hey, fuck you buddy. Half the reason to socialism is worth fighting for is state mandated universal brualism.

This fagget actually calls himself a technocrat.

...

Confirmed for being a faggot larper that only experiences the world though pretty pictures and memes. Concrete is pure shit in every regard and you betray your fake stemfaggotry by not knowing this.

just to counter some of the awful brutalism :)

These are gorgeous.
Makes me sad that I will never live in a treehouse cabin community

I thought concrete was fantastic for building, what are you talking about?
I mean, giant concrete slabs everywhere is gaudy and inefficient, but it makes for a great skeleton.

Workshop from Bookchin covering some of his work on urbanisation and cities:
youtube.com/watch?v=TO26ZiXdI-w

Here's some shit from a North Korean architect.

What if I told you that we live in space right now

I don't understand the purpose of putting a house on stilts. Le Corbusier designed a house like that (more grey and less nature of course, just talking about the stilts-thing), which actually got built. It's like this: You enter the house at street level and you have to get up the stairs or escalator since you don't live at street level, and I don't live at street level, and nobody lives at street level, and there is no shop in the house at street level either. We can convert any house with multiple floors to that experience by blocking off access to one of the floors, the floor that is most convenient to use. What's the point?

Here is a nice one:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_67

You must be American. you know there are plenty of cities around the world which effectively use bikes for transport. Bikes are a very practical mode of transport.

...

why is there no escape?

Bikes are objectively better than public transport because it allows for quicker travel time without the need for expensive infrastructure. They also dont take up much space at all. It is also decentralised, meaning no clogged up travel hubs. It gives people their own destination in hand without having to rely on public transport. Public transport sucks massive balls if you need to be anywhere not in metropolitan downtown.

You fucking american.

Every time I look at that picture, the second thing I see is the awful build quality of that cop car. I mean look at that door panel alignment!

I guess if you want to build a road under it? I don't know…

...

Houses in the tropics are built on stilts for passive cooling. It's really weird to see people be all 'why would you build a house on stilts?' when it's so common here the type of house is literally called a 'Queenslander'.

I know, right?

I love houses like these

...

...

We need an archive of this; some people really like this thread IIRC.

...

Not suprised tbh.

…is a spook. Did you know that France has almost half the CO2 footprint per capita of Germany, despite the latter investing much more into green technologies? And you know why? Because France's energy infrastructure is 70% nuclear. If you want to save the environment you must do it through pragmatical methods not feel-good nonsense.

Nuclear energy is eco-friendly you dumb faggot. Hot water and a small amount of non-gaseous toxic waste is as safe for the environment as any eco-friendly technology gets.

I know it's mostly impractical and unwieldy outside of museums and functional greenhouses,especially on a midlevel floor like that, but the idea of an indoor garden/ is so cool to me. Just chilling with a beer or a book against a tree or on a picnic blanket, then going home with a short elevator ride.

Then why do most green activists and pro green-energy oppose it? In the US the fuckin republicans are the group most supportive of nuclear energy.
I know that it is environmentally safe, but that is not an opinion shared by the majority of environmentalists. And that is why I called eco-friendliness a spook. People who invoke it, mostly do not really care about the environment; they just babble about of group approved list of technologies, most of which are pretty crap. Spain had a national program of solar energy using salt towers. After being finished its maintenance budget was cut because it wasn't efficient enough.

The nuclear energy is a particular case. When it works it's very clean, but when something goes wrong shit REALLY hit the fan.
I really hope they'll finally succeed in developing nuclear fusion which would be tremendeously more productive and safe.
It would also have the adantage of BTFOing petromonarchies forever…

Because nuclear energy is eco-friendly up until the moment something goes wrong, and then you render an area uninhabitable for decades, not to mention the further continent-wide consequences of radioactive fallout. Furthermore, nuclear waste is a pain in the ass to dispose of, and if something goes wrong there you also run the risk of contamination. Finally, nuclear energy is actually pretty fucking expensive, and it's non-renewable (nuclear power costs around 100$/MWh compared to around 50$/MWh for wind. For the price of a nuclear power plant you could build way more wind turbines, which have lower maintenance and won't go have terrible consequences if they fail (which nuclear power is even more likely to do since their expense pushes cash-strapped countries to keep old reactors running, which is a problem France has now). Renewable energy sources are superior, especially when you factor in powerful local sources like hydroelectric dams and geothermal power, which have the added benefit of ignoring the traditional issue of renewable power sources being unreliable (in France, dams are used for regulating the power net and Iceland is almost completely powered by geothermal plants).

Also, source if you're interested in the costs of different kinds of power

the handful of nuclear disasters, like chernobyl and fukushima, seems to be the motor behind the antinuclear hysteria of a lot of "environmentalists." surely current nuclear technology is advanced enough that such events can be mitigated or even eliminated

personally i feel harnessing the power of the sun is the future. it's really just a big ball of energy raining down on us at all times (except at night i guess, but still)

Protocols exist to prevent catastrophic events, unfortunately, safety tend be neglected in favor of profit.

another victory for the profit motive. bravo capitalism

Just to add after looking through this some more: it's actually a pretty good look into alternative vs. conventional energy sources. Page 16 even has a table for the various characteristics of the different power sources (whether they're able to provide consistent power, able to regulate their output throughout the day, etc.) To summarise for those of you who don't like to read:
mentions) is expensive as fuck, more expensive than nuclear, but it has the advantage of being able to store heat for power generation throughout the night.
TLDR: Coal, Diesel, and Nuclear fanboys BTFO. Cow farts are the best conventional source of energy, but only in the most futuristic cow fart burners. Solar and Wind are the real winners, but Thermal Solar is really expensive. Geothermal and Biomass make for reliable and renewable, if slightly more expensive, sources of power

I know very little about Chernobyl but although I personally think we could do well with nuclear energy, they should be established in low-risk areas of the world; the nuke plant in Fukushima shouldn't even be in Japan, or anywhere in the Ring of Fire

It's slightly open.

It might seem impractical and unwieldy now, but it seems that a lot of futurist people consider aeroponics to be the future of agriculture. I don't know how that will translate into residential buildings, but it would be pretty damned cool to have something like that inside an apartment building.

gizmodo.com/the-high-tech-farms-where-our-future-food-will-grow-in-1687747888

Seems pretty obvious don't it?

Brutalism is def most proletarian of architectural styles but having so few windows is p much the worst thing you can do for social and mental health on the job.

That shit fucks with you after a while. Anyone working 6-8 hours a day in these buildings would be like 100% likely to just bring an ar-15 into work one day.

I thought a list of socialist sci-fi would fit the thread, this list was put together by China Mievllie (inb4 'boo trot', etc):

theweeklyansible.tumblr.com/post/20777236577/50-sci-fi-fantasy-works-every-socialist-should

Stilts are also good if the area is subject to occasional flooding and also help keep fucken snakes out of the house

Too many windows and too much open space can be just as oppressive. Feeling like you're being watched all the time can do your head in.

...

It's not so much that the style itself is imperialist, user. It's just that certain people overdid it and permanently associated the style with gaudy imperialist arrogance.

God, the Capitol building would look so much better without that kitschy fucking dome