Gregor Vukasinovič
Belle Epoque
There wouldn't have been much standing in the way of late 19th/ early 20th century people designing buildings like they did from the 60's onward. Simplistic, utilitarian, built for efficiency. Large glass panes weren't easily manufactured yet, and anything that would require a computer was out of the question obviously, yet at the same time I keep getting astonished how much can be achieved without those, from the Eiffel Tower to gothic cathedrals to the great ocean liners of old. It certainly would have been feasible to mass-produce buildings with plain facades void of any and all ornamentation. It just didn't occur to people.
Also, speaking of efficiency, I don't like that. Often times that's just a euphemism for no built-in redundancies. Just good enough for an ordinary day, but when things get even a bit rough, it's bound to fail. Whether that's a machine, the healthcare system, or the storm drain under the street. If you design something for efficiency, you admit it's not that important, or maybe just that you're unable or unwilling to come up with something better.
That doesn't necessarily mean to throw out the Kiss principle - "Keep it Simple, Stupid!" Redundancy and complexity are two different things and in most cases indirectly related at best. The instances where they are linked more closely tend to be the ones often summarized as rocket science, regardless of whether actual rockets are involved.
Belle Epoque
There wouldn't have been much standing in the way of late 19th/ early 20th century people designing buildings like they did from the 60's onward. Simplistic, utilitarian, built for efficiency. Large glass panes weren't easily manufactured yet, and anything that would require a computer was out of the question obviously, yet at the same time I keep getting astonished how much can be achieved without those, from the Eiffel Tower to gothic cathedrals to the great ocean liners of old. It certainly would have been feasible to mass-produce buildings with plain facades void of any and all ornamentation. It just didn't occur to people.
Also, speaking of efficiency, I don't like that. Often times that's just a euphemism for no built-in redundancies. Just good enough for an ordinary day, but when things get even a bit rough, it's bound to fail. Whether that's a machine, the healthcare system, or the storm drain under the street. If you design something for efficiency, you admit it's not that important, or maybe just that you're unable or unwilling to come up with something better.
That doesn't necessarily mean to throw out the Kiss principle - "Keep it Simple, Stupid!" Redundancy and complexity are two different things and in most cases indirectly related at best. The instances where they are linked more closely tend to be the ones often summarized as rocket science, regardless of whether actual rockets are involved.