- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why has architecture, design, and fashion changed so drastically from say pre WW2 to now?
Posted on 6/4/26 at 7:47 am
Posted on 6/4/26 at 7:47 am
I don’t think one has to be anything more than simply observant to recognize the shift that has taken place over time from valuing form to simply function alone in so much of our architecture, the vehicles we purchase, and even the clothes we wear to generations pre WW2 or thereabouts.
There are obviously major advancements that have taken place in technology and materials especially which have played a role, but it’s not as if people prefer the looks of some brutalist building to a building with character and interest, or a vehicle that serves a purpose but lacks an interesting design that moves you, or fashion that serves a purpose but without much in the lines of class to draw from. Does this say something about our society on a whole in what we value, or has what we valued been driven by someone or something else?
Some stark examples to compare/contrast are say
BRHS built in 1926
Liberty High School (Lee for the older folks like myself) Built in 2016
1958 Cadillac Seville
2026 Cadillac CT5
Average way men used to dress leaving the house
The way in which most American men leave the house today, and I feel as if I’m being more than generous.

There are obviously major advancements that have taken place in technology and materials especially which have played a role, but it’s not as if people prefer the looks of some brutalist building to a building with character and interest, or a vehicle that serves a purpose but lacks an interesting design that moves you, or fashion that serves a purpose but without much in the lines of class to draw from. Does this say something about our society on a whole in what we value, or has what we valued been driven by someone or something else?
Some stark examples to compare/contrast are say
BRHS built in 1926
Liberty High School (Lee for the older folks like myself) Built in 2016
1958 Cadillac Seville
2026 Cadillac CT5
Average way men used to dress leaving the house
The way in which most American men leave the house today, and I feel as if I’m being more than generous.

Posted on 6/4/26 at 7:51 am to Mike da Tigah
Civil Rights era in the 60s and then the Vietnam war with the hippies.
This post was edited on 6/4/26 at 7:53 am
Posted on 6/4/26 at 7:51 am to Mike da Tigah
There are people that control the media, academia, and a big portion of finance that have a vested interest in seeing America fail and it all trickles down from there
Not naming any names of course
Not naming any names of course
Posted on 6/4/26 at 7:51 am to Mike da Tigah
It's called "minimalizing"
Look at the original Cotton Exchange building in New Orleans built in 1883 with all the ornate statues on the building...
Look at it today...
Look at the original Cotton Exchange building in New Orleans built in 1883 with all the ornate statues on the building...
Look at it today...
This post was edited on 6/4/26 at 7:56 am
Posted on 6/4/26 at 7:58 am to Hangover Haven
It’s as if they planned on the building saying something about them and they wanted to stick around a while.
Posted on 6/4/26 at 8:01 am to Mike da Tigah
building things that look like shite make the local populace feel less connection to the area, thus they are easier to control
Posted on 6/4/26 at 8:01 am to Mike da Tigah
The destruction of art is a tenet of International Bolshevism.
Posted on 6/4/26 at 8:05 am to Hangover Haven
quote:
It's called "minimalizing"
I call it maximizing profits.
Posted on 6/4/26 at 8:05 am to Mike da Tigah
Costs
It would cost a fortune to build something new like the St. Louis cathedral.
It would cost a fortune to build something new like the St. Louis cathedral.
Posted on 6/4/26 at 8:07 am to jefforize
quote:
building things that look like shite make the local populace feel less connection to the area, thus they are easier to control
Schools look like soulless robot factories and factories are obviously the byproduct of the training in the schools. It’s all quite dystopian if you ask me.
Posted on 6/4/26 at 8:07 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
The way in which most American men leave the house today, and I feel as if I’m being more than generous.
Have you been to an airport recently?
You're being unrealisticly generous.
This post was edited on 6/4/26 at 8:08 am
Posted on 6/4/26 at 8:21 am to Mike da Tigah
There are different drivers for each.
For cars, the drive (heh!) became for more aerodynamics, especially once CAFE Standards came into play (cars in 1978, light trucks in 1982).
For clothing style it started with the Baby Boomers and their counter-culture movement in the 1960s and 1970s. That dovetailed into the adoption of newer textiles from the 1970s-1990s (stretch fabrics and synthetic blends were generally easier to care for while also looking more casual). This bled into the 1990s-through today where the push has been for more casual dress in the workplace (especially in the tech culture).
For architecture, in the wake of WW2 building materials (especially in Europe) were at a bit of a premium, especially for housing. This rippled out to impact buildings of all sorts. Architects of the time like Le Corbusier, Banham, etc. were able to capitalize on this with their "truth to materials" mindset, which meant the building’s structural elements, plumbing, and mechanical workings were often left visible rather than hidden behind drywall or plaster. This also meant focusing on function far more than form (resulting in more blockiness and straight lines) which also appealed to the counter-culture movement (which helped speed up adoption).
While the easy answer is "muh Boomers," the more accurate answer how varying catalysts came together to influence them along with how they appealed to Boomers.
For cars, the drive (heh!) became for more aerodynamics, especially once CAFE Standards came into play (cars in 1978, light trucks in 1982).
For clothing style it started with the Baby Boomers and their counter-culture movement in the 1960s and 1970s. That dovetailed into the adoption of newer textiles from the 1970s-1990s (stretch fabrics and synthetic blends were generally easier to care for while also looking more casual). This bled into the 1990s-through today where the push has been for more casual dress in the workplace (especially in the tech culture).
For architecture, in the wake of WW2 building materials (especially in Europe) were at a bit of a premium, especially for housing. This rippled out to impact buildings of all sorts. Architects of the time like Le Corbusier, Banham, etc. were able to capitalize on this with their "truth to materials" mindset, which meant the building’s structural elements, plumbing, and mechanical workings were often left visible rather than hidden behind drywall or plaster. This also meant focusing on function far more than form (resulting in more blockiness and straight lines) which also appealed to the counter-culture movement (which helped speed up adoption).
While the easy answer is "muh Boomers," the more accurate answer how varying catalysts came together to influence them along with how they appealed to Boomers.
Posted on 6/4/26 at 8:23 am to Mike da Tigah
I think most of our “plain” building were built under the philosophy of some Russian-American guy who believed productivity would be highest in plain looking buildings in spaces that wouldn’t distract people from their work. I think time has taught us the opposite to be true, but the guy’s name escapes me. Let me do a mid post Google search…Albert Kahn is perhaps who I’m thinking of
Posted on 6/4/26 at 8:45 am to Mike da Tigah
It's somewhat of shrinkflation in the construction world. Cheaper costs turns to greater profit margin.
Posted on 6/4/26 at 9:14 am to Hangover Haven
Appearances can deceive.
Many of those ornate old buildings had bolt on cast iron facades that corroded so badly they started falling into the street. Elegant interiors were painted plaster. Few were built to last.
Preformed/stressed concrete beams and panels along with hanging sheet walls did a lot to make minimalism the accepted price point.
That big old Caddie was falling apart after 2 years, long before today's common 100k miles cars.
Many of those ornate old buildings had bolt on cast iron facades that corroded so badly they started falling into the street. Elegant interiors were painted plaster. Few were built to last.
Preformed/stressed concrete beams and panels along with hanging sheet walls did a lot to make minimalism the accepted price point.
That big old Caddie was falling apart after 2 years, long before today's common 100k miles cars.
Posted on 6/4/26 at 9:15 am to Mike da Tigah
architecture, design, and fashion
—Change constantly
—Change constantly
Popular
Back to top

13








