Why the buildings of the future will be shaped by … you | Marc Kushner

Why the buildings of the future will be shaped by … you | Marc Kushner

Translator: Joseph Geni
Reviewer: Krystian Aparta Today I’m going to speak to you about the last 30 years
of architectural history. That’s a lot to pack into 18 minutes. It’s a complex topic, so we’re just going to dive right in
at a complex place: New Jersey. Because 30 years ago, I’m from Jersey, and I was six, and I lived there
in my parents’ house in a town called Livingston, and this was my childhood bedroom. Around the corner from my bedroom was the bathroom
that I used to share with my sister. And in between my bedroom and the bathroom was a balcony that overlooked
the family room. And that’s where everyone
would hang out and watch TV, so that every time that I walked
from my bedroom to the bathroom, everyone would see me, and every time I took a shower
and would come back in a towel, everyone would see me. And I looked like this. I was awkward, insecure, and I hated it. I hated that walk, I hated that balcony, I hated that room, and I hated that house. And that’s architecture. (Laughter) Done. That feeling, those emotions that I felt, that’s the power of architecture, because architecture is not about math
and it’s not about zoning, it’s about those visceral,
emotional connections that we feel to the places that we occupy. And it’s no surprise
that we feel that way, because according to the EPA, Americans spend 90 percent
of their time indoors. That’s 90 percent of our time
surrounded by architecture. That’s huge. That means that architecture is shaping us
in ways that we didn’t even realize. That makes us a little bit gullible
and very, very predictable. It means that when I show you
a building like this, I know what you think: You think “power”
and “stability” and “democracy.” And I know you think that
because it’s based on a building that was build 2,500 years ago
by the Greeks. This is a trick. This is a trigger that architects use to get you to create
an emotional connection to the forms that we build
our buildings out of. It’s a predictable emotional connection, and we’ve been using this trick
for a long, long time. We used it [200] years ago to build banks. We used it in the 19th century
to build art museums. And in the 20th century in America, we used it to build houses. And look at these solid,
stable little soldiers facing the ocean
and keeping away the elements. This is really, really useful, because building things is terrifying. It’s expensive, it takes a long time,
and it’s very complicated. And the people that build things — developers and governments — they’re naturally afraid of innovation, and they’d rather just use those forms
that they know you’ll respond to. That’s how we end up
with buildings like this. This is a nice building. This is the Livingston Public Library that was completed in 2004 in my hometown, and, you know, it’s got a dome and it’s got this round thing
and columns, red brick, and you can kind of guess what Livingston
is trying to say with this building: children, property values and history. But it doesn’t have much to do
with what a library actually does today. That same year, in 2004,
on the other side of the country, another library was completed, and it looks like this. It’s in Seattle. This library is about how
we consume media in a digital age. It’s about a new kind
of public amenity for the city, a place to gather and read and share. So how is it possible that in the same year,
in the same country, two buildings, both called libraries, look so completely different? And the answer is that architecture works
on the principle of a pendulum. On the one side is innovation, and architects are constantly pushing,
pushing for new technologies, new typologies, new solutions
for the way that we live today. And we push and we push and we push until we completely alienate all of you. We wear all black, we get very depressed, you think we’re adorable, we’re dead inside because
we’ve got no choice. We have to go to the other side and reengage those symbols
that we know you love. So we do that, and you’re happy, we feel like sellouts, so we start experimenting again and we push the pendulum back
and back and forth and back and forth we’ve gone for the last 300 years, and certainly for the last 30 years. Okay, 30 years ago
we were coming out of the ’70s. Architects had been busy experimenting
with something called brutalism. It’s about concrete. (Laughter) You can guess this. Small windows, dehumanizing scale. This is really tough stuff. So as we get closer to the ’80s, we start to reengage those symbols. We push the pendulum
back into the other direction. We take these forms that we know you love and we update them. We add neon and we add pastels and we use new materials. And you love it. And we can’t give you enough of it. We take Chippendale armoires and we turned those into skyscrapers, and skyscrapers can be
medieval castles made out of glass. Forms got big, forms got bold and colorful. Dwarves became columns. (Laughter) Swans grew to the size of buildings. It was crazy. But it’s the ’80s, it’s cool. (Laughter) We’re all hanging out in malls and we’re all moving to the suburbs, and out there, out in the suburbs, we can create our own
architectural fantasies. And those fantasies, they can be Mediterranean or French or Italian. (Laughter) Possibly with endless breadsticks. This is the thing about postmodernism. This is the thing about symbols. They’re easy, they’re cheap, because instead of making places, we’re making memories of places. Because I know,
and I know all of you know, this isn’t Tuscany. This is Ohio. (Laughter) So architects get frustrated, and we start pushing the pendulum
back into the other direction. In the late ’80s and early ’90s, we start experimenting with something
called deconstructivism. We throw out historical symbols, we rely on new, computer-aided
design techniques, and we come up with new compositions, forms crashing into forms. This is academic and heady stuff, it’s super unpopular, we totally alienate you. Ordinarily, the pendulum would just
swing back into the other direction. And then, something amazing happened. In 1997, this building opened. This is the Guggenheim Bilbao,
by Frank Gehry. And this building fundamentally changes
the world’s relationship to architecture. Paul Goldberger said that Bilbao
was one of those rare moments when critics, academics,
and the general public were completely united around a building. The New York Times
called this building a miracle. Tourism in Bilbao increased 2,500 percent after this building was completed. So all of a sudden, everybody
wants one of these buildings: L.A., Seattle, Chicago, New York, Cleveland, Springfield. (Laughter) Everybody wants one,
and Gehry is everywhere. He is our very first starchitect. Now, how is it possible
that these forms — they’re wild and radical — how is it possible that they become
so ubiquitous throughout the world? And it happened because media
so successfully galvanized around them that they quickly taught us
that these forms mean culture and tourism. We created an emotional
reaction to these forms. So did every mayor in the world. So every mayor knew
that if they had these forms, they had culture and tourism. This phenomenon
at the turn of the new millennium happened to a few other starchitects. It happened to Zaha and it happened to Libeskind, and what happened
to these elite few architects at the turn of the new millennium could actually start to happen
to the entire field of architecture, as digital media starts
to increase the speed with which we consume information. Because think about
how you consume architecture. A thousand years ago, you would have had to have walked to
the village next door to see a building. Transportation speeds up: You can take a boat, you can take a plane,
you can be a tourist. Technology speeds up:
You can see it in a newspaper, on TV, until finally, we are all
architectural photographers, and the building has become
disembodied from the site. Architecture is everywhere now, and that means that
the speed of communication has finally caught up
to the speed of architecture. Because architecture
actually moves quite quickly. It doesn’t take long
to think about a building. It takes a long time to build a building, three or four years, and in the interim, an architect
will design two or eight or a hundred other buildings before they know if that building
that they designed four years ago was a success or not. That’s because there’s never been
a good feedback loop in architecture. That’s how we end up
with buildings like this. Brutalism wasn’t a two-year movement, it was a 20-year movement. For 20 years, we were producing
buildings like this because we had no idea
how much you hated it. It’s never going to happen again, I think, because we are living on the verge
of the greatest revolution in architecture since the invention of concrete, of steel, or of the elevator, and it’s a media revolution. So my theory is that when
you apply media to this pendulum, it starts swinging faster and faster, until it’s at both extremes
nearly simultaneously, and that effectively blurs the difference
between innovation and symbol, between us, the architects,
and you, the public. Now we can make nearly instantaneous,
emotionally charged symbols out of something that’s brand new. Let me show you how this plays out in a project that my firm
recently completed. We were hired to replace this building,
which burned down. This is the center of a town
called the Pines in Fire Island in New York State. It’s a vacation community. We proposed a building that was audacious, that was different than any of the forms
that the community was used to, and we were scared
and our client was scared and the community was scared, so we created a series
of photorealistic renderings that we put onto Facebook and we put onto Instagram, and we let people start
to do what they do: share it, comment, like it, hate it. But that meant that two years
before the building was complete, it was already a part of the community, so that when the renderings
looked exactly like the finished product, there were no surprises. This building was already a part
of this community, and then that first summer, when people started arriving
and sharing the building on social media, the building ceased to be just an edifice
and it became media, because these, these are not
just pictures of a building, they’re your pictures of a building. And as you use them to tell your story, they become part
of your personal narrative, and what you’re doing
is you’re short-circuiting all of our collective memory, and you’re making these charged symbols
for us to understand. That means we don’t need
the Greeks anymore to tell us what to think
about architecture. We can tell each other
what we think about architecture, because digital media hasn’t just changed
the relationship between all of us, it’s changed the relationship
between us and buildings. Think for a second about
those librarians back in Livingston. If that building was going
to be built today, the first thing they would do is go online
and search “new libraries.” They would be bombarded by examples
of experimentation, of innovation, of pushing at the envelope
of what a library can be. That’s ammunition. That’s ammunition
that they can take with them to the mayor of Livingston,
to the people of Livingston, and say, there’s no one answer
to what a library is today. Let’s be a part of this. This abundance of experimentation gives them the freedom
to run their own experiment. Everything is different now. Architects are no longer
these mysterious creatures that use big words
and complicated drawings, and you aren’t the hapless public, the consumer that won’t accept
anything that they haven’t seen anymore. Architects can hear you, and you’re not intimidated
by architecture. That means that that pendulum
swinging back and forth from style to style,
from movement to movement, is irrelevant. We can actually move forward and find relevant solutions
to the problems that our society faces. This is the end of architectural history, and it means that
the buildings of tomorrow are going to look a lot different
than the buildings of today. It means that a public space
in the ancient city of Seville can be unique and tailored
to the way that a modern city works. It means that a stadium in Brooklyn
can be a stadium in Brooklyn, not some red-brick historical pastiche of what we think a stadium ought to be. It means that robots are going
to build our buildings, because we’re finally ready for the forms
that they’re going to produce. And it means that buildings
will twist to the whims of nature instead of the other way around. It means that a parking garage
in Miami Beach, Florida, can also be a place for sports and for yoga and you can even
get married there late at night. (Laughter) It means that three architects
can dream about swimming in the East River of New York, and then raise nearly
half a million dollars from a community
that gathered around their cause, no one client anymore. It means that no building
is too small for innovation, like this little reindeer pavilion that’s as muscly and sinewy
as the animals it’s designed to observe. And it means that a building
doesn’t have to be beautiful to be lovable, like this ugly little building in Spain, where the architects dug a hole, packed it with hay, and then poured concrete around it, and when the concrete dried, they invited someone to come
and clean that hay out so that all that’s left when it’s done is this hideous little room that’s filled with the imprints
and scratches of how that place was made, and that becomes the most sublime place
to watch a Spanish sunset. Because it doesn’t matter
if a cow builds our buildings or a robot builds our buildings. It doesn’t matter how we build,
it matters what we build. Architects already know how
to make buildings that are greener and smarter and friendlier. We’ve just been waiting
for all of you to want them. And finally, we’re not
on opposite sides anymore. Find an architect, hire an architect, work with us to design better buildings,
better cities, and a better world, because the stakes are high. Buildings don’t just reflect our society,
they shape our society down to the smallest spaces: the local libraries, the homes where we raise our children, and the walk that they take
from the bedroom to the bathroom. Thank you. (Applause)


  • Damon Blade says:

    On a side not Brutalist Architechture is an eyesore. It is messed up. No more.

  • Kathrine Mench Hauton Gundel says:

    I really like how passionately he speaks about this. I feel like he could teach more than this and I feel inspired by his energy in this TED-talk even though I'm normally not in architecture or design.

  • Collapsar 77 says:

    Brief summary: Thanks to social media, and mass electronic media in general, the buildings we architects have already pre-determined are the good buildings that you should want– EG, buildings that look like they were manufactured by the Lego corporation or the art department at Square Enix– can now be pre-rendered to give you warning they will be coming. Also we get feedback from this I guess, but we don't really do much with it since we then proceed to build the same building we had planned anyway– but feedback is good, right? Brutalism sucked and people hated it but we'll never make the mistake of making ugly, oppressive buildings exclusively, for literally decades, ever again– even though, un-admittedly, that's literally all we design anymore, we just do it in a different style. See, NOW we use obscurantism to explain why it's amazing, just like modern art. Why, we do it so effectively, we can actually count on people going to towns building new buildings and requesting their new building be one of these indistinguishable giant-sized alien probes. But it doesn't matter– these "innovative" buildings that mostly can't be distinguished from one another on a bet are self-evidently going to be massively popular because– because the Guggenheim was.

    Thank G*d you ignorant plebs are finally coming around to our way of thinking, because we've always had the answers, you just didn't want them because you were stuck up and boring and wanted buildings that actually looked like something. Truly a new era is dawning.

  • Michael Dodd says:

    Architecture and postmodernism? This dude's read Frederic Jameson.

  • Zainab Amadahy says:

    Interesting but I gotta say I hate the styles he likes. I'm not partial to harsh angles, squarish blocks and the metallic or curtainwall looks. I prefer curves, soft edges, nature, light and internalized communal spaces.

  • I'm Simon says:

    Seattle now looks like a Sh*thole…

  • ninuxy says:

    Jews love money.

  • James M says:

    Yeah..well that's the kindda architect Marc Kushner it's. A really bad one where his architecture it's influenced more by social media rather than design, concept and discovery. Worst architectural TED talk I have watched so far

  • Jeff Gao says:

    Wow that felt like a loooonnng 18 mins lol

  • MaxBrix says:

    I am going to go to the bathroom. If you see me I will be traumatized and become an architect.

  • Patrick Edgar Regini says:

    He's such a beautiful creator of whatever he wants to make himself believe.

  • Patrick Edgar Regini says:

    Was it me, or did I sense a little bit "political gay agenda promo" in the presentation of 'his firm's' Fire Island building?

  • Trebor Ironwolfe says:

    The Livingston library, to me, appears much like an ugly reinterpretation of Jefferson's Monticello… Maybe that's just me…

  • Son Quatsch says:

    americans are so hammy. everything is a major production with bright lights and oooo and aaah

  • RagHelen says:

    The kitschy library is much better for being with books than the one in Seattle.

  • William Howle says:

    I'd been to two or three of Bilbao's buildings and had no idea they were all his until now. Makes sense.

  • SomeGuy says:

    Whiny, complaining and Jewish…. Yes, it is Jared Kushner's Cousin…..

  • beautifulcrazy says:

    Awesome, so we're all hobby architects? Most importantly the people are the ones who have input and say. Very democratic process. I wonder if Marc Kushner is Jared's baby brother? One Democrat and a Republican in the same household?????

  • Jay Pace says:

    bs leaves out all reference to nature, the site the life cycles of planet and people. THIS IS A MARKETING SCHEME NOTHING MORE!

  • Sachs Husam says:

    His last words reflects his childhood… thanks.

  • Nervidsen says:

    Sorry to say that but I have the feeling that the usa are still 10 years back in time in comparison to Europe

  • Bert Visscher says:

    This makes me think of my presentation titled Accessibility In Mind. You can find the text I adapted for my website at https://bertvisscher.net/aim.php.

  • Bruce B says:

    But there has to be floor space. Look at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. Top floor, NO SPACE.

  • ingeborg postelnik says:

    he disclosed his "race" right at the start; over one billion plus jewhaters will not hear what he says.

  • Kathy Wedzik says:


  • James Runco says:

    This guy is being very politely condescending to the general public. He basically says, architects have been ready to create cool spaces for generations but you Luddites weren't ready for it. Also I'd like him to study change management, because so much of this breaks down to the ADKAR model. I'm glad they did some community engagement, but personally I didn't care for the building they made. If you do appropriate change management, I don't think that people are that upset about new designs, they just want them to elicit certain feelings. Yes being lazy and safe and using the tricks that you know works is one way to do this. Another, much better way is to elicit feedback and then ACT on it. I was really disappointed to see him say that after collecting feedback they produced exactly the same building anyway. That means you weren't listening.

  • Doug G says:

    Will they let a bedraggled, nasty stink homeless guy in a that fabulous building to take a shower and get something to eat?

  • Stephen Leyden says:

    That was excellent. The democratisation of architecture and society

  • Georgie Horváth says:

    This is all very cute, unless, you know, you've got your country already built.

  • lovelyways74 says:

    When you're so bored from clickbait you speed up to 1.25x and eventually just click away

  • jerry tom says:

    That architect means the future of the city.A modern city needs more such art building.

  • WhimpyPatrol says:

    He's a first-world victimized rich-kid grown up to be a salesman who could use both a sales spiel or an architectural form to sell a  tourist trap.  But does his theory explain suburban housing styles?  Architects didn't destroy the beautiful Victorian, English Tudor, mid-century modern or minimalist movements from which a scant "handful" of beautiful residential houses were modeled.  Beautiful suburban architecture was stifled by the gaudy tastes of both consumers and house building pros who think bacon-BBQ-Vanilla ice cream is vogue.  I don't care how many gables, hips and turrets post modern architects put together and how fancy a CAD system they use, house styles today lack the magic that had creeped in here and there in residential houses between 1870 and 1970.  Neither attending Berkeley school of architecture nor being a successful housing builder seems to correlate with what I find appealing residential architecture.

  • Jennifer Hill says:

    When you thought you were getting a home tour but u get a TED talk

  • t s ó l a r i a says:

    What a fantastic way to introduce the topic.

  • t s ó l a r i a says:

    I'm terribly enthused about all this, though I wish today's buildings had more gothic influences. Cathedrals… Cool

  • Eric Christen says:

    A Lie Berry? A berry that lies.

  • Eric Christen says:

    Googling for other people's ideas, what the Chinese do routinely, is proof of little or no imagination. Imagination is the universal arena of creativity, not google. I designed a future building 15 years ago that changes according to the needs of the inhabitants. This concept/invention will be published/illustrated next year alongside several others.

  • Peter Harris says:

    the westminster planning department have a problem doing horizons

  • bajaman52 says:

    I just have to say with all the "emphasis" on sustainability and wise use of resources these days, this guy is completely lost to the fact that most of these wild new fantastic buildings that he lauds are a complete waste of time, resources and space just so guys like him can say they are pushing the limits. What an idiot. That Ohio Library for some reason is "not" a social center and gathering place because it is more traditional and the Seattle library is, just because it is all glass and steal and futuristic? How much did the Seattle library cost? How much of it's cost was dedicated useless space for the wow factor that the public has to pay for? How much CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere to produce all that glitz, just for satiating his and other architects desire to push the envelope, these same folks demonize industry and hysterically rant about the Armageddon of climate change at our door step, yet here he is telling us that people are simpletons for choosing a traditional design over these other outlandish (though beautiful) designs that speak of pure consumption and personal vanity. Houston we have a problem…

  • Americo says:

    The worst, no recomendable.

  • Kaarli Makela says:

    Off- grid tiny, either ensconced halfway into the earth, or on wheels …
    What's needed is low cost housing that doesn't depress the spirit.
    Independence and greater health can be accessed via tiny home gardens, permaculture experiments, etc …
    Zoning must be addressed, etc so that this can uplift strengthen and unify communities …

  • Maria Bekos says:

    Kushner is a Jew name & what do you know he has his own Firm, ugh whatever. Thanks for the gay bathroom story i want my time back

  • scottab140 says:

    Upper class homes are modern, middle class are five decades behind the trends before building codes demolish the old for the new.

  • Kane Tomlinson-Weaver says:

    This guy is way too intense jus sayin

  • ChilledTea says:

    the pride flag needs to die

  • Dolores J. Nurss says:

    I think Mr. Kushner and many other architects miss the point on what makes architecture popular or disliked. The modern work that he seems to think found acceptance through social media evoked nature or natural lifestyles. The first had a fluidity of line that made it less cold than most modern structures, and the other had a rough-hewn rustic look. People like pillars, I believe, because they unconsciously relate them to treetrunks, and the flourishes of antique furniture because they invoke leaves and organic forms. Whereas modern Bahaus or Brutal forms seem to invoke nothing except for the architect's cold, mathematical ego. Also, both of the accepted modern buildings had detail providing visual entertainment, whereas most modern work is minimalist and can cause actual physical stress from the lack of visual stimuli. I think the future of architecture lies in fluid, soft, inviting, nature-inspired forms, with intriguing detail–something that doesn't look like a high school math assignment.

  • Norman Pascual says:

    If a rendering has at least one instagramable angle and social media wannabes, bulimics, impostors, and what nots loved it, we should build it because that building is going to be successful. That's a huge load of bull.

  • Yang's Boba says:

    this guy is handsome

  • Chris Parnell says:

    I want to give a few ideas about being a woman . . . Signed some dude. It’s just I’m also a fan of leaders leading sometimes, maybe even rarely; but not every discipline needs crowd sourcing. I’m not even an architect.

  • Rattle snake chick says:

    is this entitled grown child complaining…
    some kids live in hotels and shelters….

  • carpediem says:

    Sorry brutalism was great

  • David says:

    We're under siege and housebound.

  • Paul Watson says:

    Marc Kushner , you rock ….

  • M J says:

    this is an amazing performance

  • Sean Reed says:

    intro to architecture appreciation.

  • paul taeza says:

    love the jokes

  • X says:

    As a former architect myself I can say this based on my own reflection and observations over the years: an architect's perspective on what is a "good" architecture can be just as narrow as anyone else's. Sometimes a "good architecture" to an architect is about landing on the cover page of certain magazines – or gathering likes on social media nowadays. The role of architects have been devolving into mostly playing with forms and shapes and often with a severe lack of understanding of the economics and operations of buildings and cities.

  • ندى الربيع says:

    Zuha Haded namber one

  • magiczna flet says:

    dosnt matter who and how we build our buildings…….. feel sorry for civil engineers watching it

  • naly202 says:

    only 4:16 minutes into the video and i'm annoyed. i wouldn't even step into the modern monstrosity. imagine a hot day. it is just damn ugly. the first one wasn't too nice either, but i liked the columns.
    that glass monstrosity looks like a greenhouse and who would want to go there to stay online, when they can easily do that at home.
    ah, well… maybe i'l old fashioned.

  • CrustyCurmudgeon says:

    All this happy bs, yet nearly every home builder in America still includes formal living rooms and dining rooms that never get used, puts in two-story family rooms with tons of glass that make occupants feel like fish in an aquarium, and promote open floorplan concepts where every sound is heard everywhere in the house and there are few private, cozy places. If architecture is moving forward, it sure doesn't seem to be serving the new home buyer with practicality or a very long-term vision. In the place we spend most of our time indoors, architecture isn't doing much to improve the experience.

  • Yash Pal Goyal says:

    i wish my father would have understood that.

  • Eric Johnson says:

    considering that the poll was conducted for and by people who sit inside. it is completely wrong.. and also biased.

  • airmark02 says:

    Elitist Propaganda …for the elitist academic world of self conviction disconnected from reality ~ lol.

  • who8myfish says:

    Too much makeup

  • Marcus T. says:

    Speaking about outside, exterior, and finishing with interior !?
    Sooo, back to my house project with "Revit"! Interior practical, comfortable, smart, organised, with large spaces… Exterior, i dont care… As you said, 90% of the time is inside!

  • 色々大好きおじさん says:



  • Olaf Gillot says:

    Ey don't smacktalk brutalism, I love concrete 🙁

  • Alasdair Macintyre says:

    Oh my God people can see me I hate it!!! Gtfoh grow some baaaawwwlllss

  • kordian play says:

    This video was beautifull

  • Danta claus says:

    I remember this TED X, I called that German buiding a pile of scrap metal in on the the thousand or so comments below. I still mean it. Too many hours working around steel mills and junk yards have taken their toll on my view of architecture. Sorry

  • Danta claus says:

    Perhaps Architects need to learn how to listen to public's comment after advertising their 3D model on-line

  • R. B.L. says:

    actually it is about math (budgets) and zoning.

  • Balzion says:

    Americans who spends 90% indoors are probably climate change deniers… So pampered with things they could just buy and probably waste things because they could just afford it. Not thinking behind the things they can buy that everything has limits and every resource we have is very precious.

  • Christian Dela Pena says:

    wow this guy is good! as an architect, i would never be able to speak like that!

  • Karriem Williams says:

    One of my best Tedtalks.


    It's a slap in the face of thousands of years of European architecture. That is all modern architecture is, and these deconstructionists, post modernists know it. They revel in it.

  • Jina Kabi says:

    Что, если бы политики рассуждали так же? 🥰



  • Yatinder Sharma says:

    This is not a good topic on TED

  • Jarah Al-Ajeeli says:

    He fucking killed that talk, it was amazing!

  • Crystal Yeow says:

    For 3 years Brexit has not reach an agreement, why ? The world is made up of Yin n Yang, so is your birth date, 50% of them will agree, the other 50% of the people always want to be against the other half, those that want to follow me, just follow, those that don't want is ok, by all means, when I am alive I aim for money
    N stability, when I am died, I aim for heaven !

  • Crystal Yeow says:

    卖豆芽卖我一公斤,我一个人吃, 这种小贩,很好哦!所以要搬离新加坡 !我要组织自己的国家 !

  • ElNo's World says:

    Wow absolutely amazing because this man giving this talk is a genius that he would make that observation and be able to turn it into an educational experience for the public rather than setting himself up on a pedestal whether there's a roof on top of that pedestal or not above the rest He's talking our language and sharing with us the connections rather than the disembodiment of how we commune with everything around us and everything within us and how all of our beliefs are built on a faulty foundation we were had by the so-called geniuses who created a world around their own imagining manipulating us into believing we should be apart from nature rather than a part of it and that's how it all began with someone else's dog someone else is thinking and someone else is creating a world that we never asked for and now adopt and believe is what is supposed to be without ever having question that. Now I know that's a run-on sentence but let me just warn you I could care less about society and what it dictates cuz I'm a creator in my own right and so are you we're all co-creators. But what have we created? An absolute mess an ILL.us.ion.
    As he points out…

    Well don't think that you're not the architect of your life and how the story goes it doesn't have to be the way they designed it and they programmed us to believe it should be. You're not a slave He didn't come here to build their buildings to run their businesses and to run yourself right into the ground you didn't come here to be disconnected cuz there's no time for that socializing caring for your neighbor recognizing the homeless offering them something like a smile a meal or place to shower possibly even do something more philanthropic rather than handing them a meal whether it's fish or a burger you have them your hand and help them up by teaching them a better way one that will sustain their life help them build resources so that they can give back as well. But that's not where our society and culture has taught us it's taught us to hide in buildings 90% of the time collective mini toys as possible and hoard everything then by weapons to protect that stuff that has no meaning from the people we think want because they don't have it. That's an incredible realization and that is exactly how those who consider themselves successful operate they operate from place of fear rather than gratitude and love. Somehow in their mind they feel that they're elite privileged And it's because there were the and others aren't. But buildings are his business and life is mine. There are many types of homes in today's world. Many people are opting out of going this long expensive arguments route. they're trading everything in and buying sprinter vans building a small dwelling within the back of it and combining their love of travel their love of being free all in one place they have transportation they have water they have kitchens they have beds and they have porta potties they can get up and go whenever they want to and no one can tell them how much money they owe them for their expense of storage unit known as an apartment a rental house a condo a vacation rental. They know that life is too short and there's too much to see and too many people to meet. They don't need much to be happy and because of that they are free to go and to come wherever they please. they don't have to work for someone else if they don't want to they can do the things that they love
    Earn small amount of money to purchase the things they can't build create or make. They must rather see nature spend time with friends make new friends love learn and sit around contemplating themselves in the world around them. But there's so many people opting out right now they're trading it all in call their American dreams which turned out to be a nightmare for something more and that means going Less. Technology allows people to work from wherever they are to take breaks when everything need whether it's for the bathroom or simply for themselves to rest digest and recharge. Like nature intended for all of us every animal and don't think for a second that you are not related to that cow who ate that hay. You are because you're a mammal. We have the cognitive capacity so we think to live a better life and yet That's not the world we created we created separation division superiority infuriating domination and devastation. And finally created disassociation and disconnection from the planet from the resources and from one another but the most horrifying thing we ever did was disconnect from the truth first of who you are before they told you who you should be and from one another because that word right there if you divide it into an and other it holds the truth and that is that they are another you. We have ideas of grandeur but they often are exclusive for certain individuals that we deem while we condemn the rest. So thank you for the inspiration deer sir fellow New Jersey and architect. I appreciate the philosophical spark

  • Fanndis Goldbraid says:

    Jared Kushner's cousin. The library is Seattle is hideous. The one in Livingston looks comfortable.

  • Joshua Robles says:

    Sounds like a good dream till you realize what the governments are up to and how they will restrict everything in the future.

  • Снежана Клёкта says:

    do people really hate brutalism? it looks so monumental and magnificent.

  • Adrian Catalin Marin says:

    You know that French and Italian is in the Mediterranean influence right?

  • Otilesoj says:

    Architecture is familiarity,hence, familiarity is architecture.

  • bogusswe says:

    bluargh. The juice simply hate that they can not do it better than the europeans. So they create this ugly temporary (modernism) world.

  • Marie Light says:

    Whatever form a building takes, the function has to be there, including efficient use of water and energy resources. The engineered part relating to function should not be part of public opinion. Each person decides what makes a bridge beautiful, which is immaterial to the purpose carrying a load so people and can move over water quickly.

  • Dmitry Strakhov says:

    these hysterical psychopaths want to lock all in those modern look, human-field-distorting buildings.

  • Bonolo Kekana says:

    Life is ever evolving. So is architecture.

  • Largemouth Bassman says:

    Average person can’t afford to built a house like that.

  • Gauthier Merlot says:

    He s happy bc architects get a feedback from social media . What a great progress ….? Good for you , your is getting easier , but he doesn't talk about what s really important : how we should stop building in conflict with our environment.

  • db Productions says:

    not a fan of that wooden building tbh

  • Flechokalhipto says:

    Fabulous …

  • Local Kamikaze says:

    People hate brutalism?? I was unaware of this

  • Dadson worldwide says:

    We lost 2 dominating trade towers that was full of brawn and for 3 billion we got back a bland glass rectangle the freedom tower.
    dubai couldve built 2 burge kaliefs for the same cost and they made something classy.
    We really havnt built anything as stylish as everyine else in decades.
    This was our most orestigous and important build ever and the trade center plaza even had the money to do whatever with yet we get what we got .

  • SmuttiOtti says:

    If you have to share your design online before it’s built to get consensus and know if it’s right for the brief, then you are not an architect but more a dressmaker! His building is the ugliest thing I’ve ever seen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *