Why can't scandis build?

>money saving
That may have been true back when "modern architecture" consisted of concrete cubes but there's no way you can design something like pic related and justify it as a cost cutting measure. At this point they just fucking hate classic notions of aesthetics.

Attached: blobitecture.jpg (1200x800, 256.4K)

It's actually cheaper to build traditional stuff than post-modern stuff. The "modern architecture is inexpensive" argument is bullshit.

another architecture bad post 😔
let me explain to you, the reason buildings dont look like they used to is for a couple simple reason. daylighting, material costs and building techniques
>daylighting
having daylighting is often required in building codes for every room and with sufficient intake, and thus you are very limited in what you can build facade wise. you wont get away with old shit if you want to fulfill the requirements
>material costs
certain material costs have gone down a lot, such as glass panes and concrete. and it makes it much easier and faster to build, especially with the new techniques of modules.
>building techniques
we no longer lay bricks, and thats to not have building times so high. we also minimize accident risks on the work site

Finally someone who actually has sex.

If they were trying to save costs and make construction quicker, they would've built a basic rectangular building, not some retarded hunchback pile of paper looking shit

>we no longer lay bricks, and thats to not have building times so high.

also because there simply aren't enough skilled bricklayers in the west. Here there are so few that the ones who can do it ask a LOT of money, and that's just guys who build normal houses with plain facades. To build the intricate shit that is required for classical architacture you need very skilled artisans (not only bricklayers but other trades too) the likes of which we simply don't have anymore.

good. hopefully brick houses become non existent. real houses are made of wood

explain how the mosque was built then nerds 😏

>we no longer lay bricks
Happens occasionally, here's a new building in Helsinki homo city that was laid by hand

Attached: dhN4po4.jpg (2048x1638, 686.92K)

Classical architecture is more about proportions, not intricate detailing. Also if we did want intricate details, we could just do it with concrete mouldings. That's what the buildings around my university do—it's technically "modern architecture" but with classical proportions, so it looks modern yet still aesthetically pleasing. As for bricklaying, it is still very much a thing in America.

lmao new buildings has just brick facade

Here's another one that I think was laid by hand. They've been using a lot of brick recently, some of them are pre-fab but sometimes they're laid on the spot

Attached: 50159584433_6a83dd7142_k.jpg (2048x1271, 622.24K)

Oslo is different from the rest

Oh yeah I guess that's what he meant. Yeah they don't use brick as the wall anymore, it's just a facade. But I don't know what difference that really makes. I don't care about what the inner material is, I just care about what it looks like

But this is cool

I was at the Munch museum this week actually. First floor had a bunch of different artists. Second floor had many of his paintings. Third floor had his biggest paintings that took up entire walls. The fourth floor had his art that was pressed on wood. Near the top was some afro-Norwegian's solo exhibition that I naturally skipped. Then there was a bar at the top floor. I wanted to get a drink but it was packed with snobby people and a sign told me to wait to be seated by the maître d' so I just left. Also the staff spoke English to me because they couldn't understand my Western dialect. Nice paintings, I hate Oslo though

Attached: Doghead.jpg (1920x2560, 667.57K)

currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-contemporary-architecture

Attached: Big Black Block.jpg (2000x1330, 1.35M)

based, the log house built on your own plot of land is the ultimate in Northern European living. It doesn't need to look particularly "traditional" either as it looks good even with modern architecture.

Attached: index.jpg (929x619, 83.93K)

norway is different from the rest. when god made scandinavia he put all the sovl in norway

scandies never could build since thousands of years, compare viking architecture (wood houses) to islam golden age which was at the same time period. it's not even funny

Building something that is "cool" but does not respect its environment is a childish thing. It's worse with buildings because buildings have to stay up for decades in order to pay themselves off, so you can't remove them easily if you get bored of their "coolness".

i dont really care either but theres still huge difference, brick facades on modern blocks are good enough for me, thats best we can get. I like simple brick facade more than those colorful buildings that uses bright colors in all shades.

True

If you want anyone to give a fuck you should paraphrase the arguments laid out in the article, not just provide a link.

I have some more photos. Truly /ourpainter/

Attached: Literally me.jpg (2560x1920, 594.96K)

...

we still have churches and houses standing from that period. we didn't need fancy buildings just a wooden house to live in. just like today

I say this not because I disagree with it(the headline looks familiar; I've probably read the article at one point) but because being able to give a succinct version of the arguments it lays out will engage people far more than simply just posting a link.

Finnish boybutt