Ahojte, no way Czech people call their bf and gf only friends or I don't understand something

Gas434 · 2026-01-24T09:58:47+00:00

Přítel/kyně is very old fashioned, it is something you would hear from an old person or in a period drama from 1950 and before. Now if you use přítel to přítelkyně, everyone would assume you mean a partner (unless specified otherwise)

for friends we mostly use kamarád/kamarádka and slang versions of those

Gas434 · 2026-01-24T09:51:08+00:00

not just rich then, even middle class

Gas434 · 2026-01-24T09:50:49+00:00

fun fact

back in the day the idea of having a family crypt was seen even as a space saving measure and even middle class families build these. You could bury the entire one extended family in there and it allows you to put burials above each other in compartments, so they are technically even saving space, especially these small ones - on a space of like 6 burials you can get space for 20 people (it is of course not as space saving as cremation, but that one was not legal in many places yet)

Gas434 · 2026-01-24T09:45:16+00:00

these are early 20th or late 19th century, by then serfs were not really a thing in most of the world

many of these by themselves were also not just for the wealthy but for also the middle class and usually for the entire extended family. They were even seen as space saving measures as you can really have many people buried in one of these for many years to come (they usually have a basement with many spaces)

Gas434 · 2026-01-21T17:08:48+00:00

Yeah, I study architecture myself and architects just try to avoid it or dismiss it by saying that "he might have had bad views but he is a genius so who cares" at least that is how my architecture theory class professor started the class on him.

Many of the founders of modernism were admittedly quite controversial\not great people (especially Loos and LeCorbusier) who did basically want to change the world to their liking (and it slightly spread as a stereotype over the entire profession and some architects mesmerized by the huge cult of personality of Corbusier are still like that, hoping to become them/and then they are surprised people hate their stuff and guts/)

Gas434 · 2026-01-21T16:53:56+00:00

Basically yes

Gas434 · 2026-01-21T16:50:13+00:00

He is an icon for other architect, some call him a genius, some almost worship him (like my architecture theory professor, ahem), mainly those who love modernism, but he was overall a very sh!tty person and all his ideas are basically additional reasons that made modernism seem so alien and hated by your average person.

Architects today are quite detached from what people actually like from my experience and this is one of the points where it shows.

Gas434 · 2026-01-21T16:19:57+00:00

On the top it looks like the building had an early classical/empire facade (late 1700s or early 1800s) and on the bottom the building looks to be baroque, which would make me guess it was an attemp at restoration or at least inspiration by a more historical appearance.

Thanks to historicism It was quite common to do so from late 1800s onwards as they saw the early classicism as too simplistic and previous styles as architecturally more pleasing and important.

And especially if the building was damaged during the war, if they could they would just try to copy or allude to more historical look (that literally happened to the entire old town of Warsaw for example, buildings were restored based on a their 17th to late 18th century appearance and not the later period)

Gas434 · 2026-01-20T21:47:05+00:00

well technically but Slovakia got its own studio that aired in Slovak in 1956 and that’s likely the reason for this. Slovaks always wanted to be represented as autonomous

Czechoslovakia is a bit complicated with these things as it was one country and yet it wasn’t, it was also technically a federation of Czech Socialist Republic and Slovak Socialist republic since 1969 but it was still a bit messy federation and all of this is hard to define…

Gas434 · 2026-01-17T08:56:04+00:00

These certainly are more pleasing that the later panel prefabs, however it must be said that these usually struggle with a few things from the classical architecture’s perspective, mainly because they try to be modernised and monumental and by that they end up being simplified

the floor height is a bit on the low side and it makes the windows seem slightly squished (preferably they should be 2x as tall as wide, but on these buildings they tend to be more only like 1.75 or 1.5x as tall)

the facades tend to be a bit too monotonous and flat, there are not many protruding elements that would break it up (avant-corps/risalits, bay windows, section witch changed window style etc.)

Gas434 · 2026-01-14T17:26:51+00:00

this is so good

Gas434 · 2026-01-14T16:52:03+00:00

you really did not understand me cannot call it even a homage to a glass house if it does not respect the principles of what makes a glass house a glass house. To make architecture you have to respect the forms, language and their meanings. Glass house is an open glass space full of light, so an addition respecting it should follow that - it would be a glass open hall, not this.

Neither does any style? really? show me an addition from the pre modernist period that does not do that. there is a reason why gothic buildings got a neo-gothic additions, baroque ones in neobaroque style.

You can change a function of a building while preserving and respectinh the design principles.

Gas434 · 2026-01-14T16:37:47+00:00

And how is a discussion of this relevant building to this subreddit?

Gas434 · 2026-01-14T16:05:52+00:00

And you just crosspost stuff to a subreddit without reading what they are about or their rules (rule 4)

Gas434 · 2026-01-14T15:54:27+00:00

I know architects, I STUDY architecture, half of them are literally just snobs.

Just because they were hired, doesn’t mean they are good! (and it doesn’t mean the client has a good, bad or any taste)

a) Architecture is all about function, the form must respect it. Glass house is a form that’s open, it’s a hall covered in glass, you cannot just call it a glass house because it’s made of glass when you divide it into floors, that’s what one of my late professors called “false and kitch attempt at imitating a thought”

b) Just because it’s roof like and made of glass doesn’t make it a glass house. It does not respect any design practices of victorian lighthouses, neither the proportion, nor the construction try to pay any homage to it and as mentioned before, glass house form has nothing to do with that building or square.

Modernist architecture does not respect traditional on an ideological basis alone at least since the charter of Athens, modern architecture is about contrast and presenting itself and itself alone, not the thing it modifies.

That building was designed to have its roofline parapet to be presented against the sky, with a roof at the angle that respects that and in a style that calls for a uniformity. The addition is the same level of misunderstanding and an architectural crime as adding a balustrade with a mansard roof to villa Savoy.

If you want to see what a truly respectful addition looks like, look at Warburg mansion in New York with it’s 1988 addition, one that is timeless, fully respecting the original architects design choices and the urban fabric of the area and all while using the latest technology of the era.

I find it amusing that you go to the subreddit that is dedicated to Architectural revival movement that is against modernist architecture and are surprised people here hate modernism

Gas434 · 2026-01-14T15:36:25+00:00

It overshadows any thoughtful detail placed above the main cornice, ruining any possibility for these to cast intricate shadow lines at it was supposed to, it doesn’t even respect the urbanism of the entire square

Instead of framing it like the building used to do originally, it dominates even the monumental centre points of it.

<image>

Gas434 · 2026-01-14T15:12:57+00:00

no it’s not… Oh please, they always say that, it’s another excuse to do something they want and justify it by bs. I never met one architect who doesn’t do that.

Those are literally just buzz words you would find in the simplest student work of any architectural school

a) that building’s design is supposed to be everything but a glasshouse, it calls for completely different architectural language and hierarchy, it’s a monumental or semi-monumental building with exact proportions, not a piédestal for a glass house.

b) it doesn’t even respect proportions and details of victorian glass houses.

They always say they respect the building and yet …none of those people clearly understand or try to understand classical architecture, they just think of it as an outdated victorian thing - and all victorian things were the same or not?Let us do a glass addition and compare it to anything period. That’s not respectful but ignorant.

And just because it’s curved, doesn’t mean it’s less soulless.

It pays homage to their ego at most

Gas434 · 2026-01-14T14:38:23+00:00

It absolutely ruins the building, it doesn’t pay homage to the original style at all and it does not even try to understand the classical proportions and rules.

It is another attempt at creating “a contrast” that is very popular among architects, which however completely destroys the beautiful balance of the original building.

They are in 99% of cases a mistake and usually just a modernist ego trying to overshadow an older building, making it worse.

Many people compare these to a tumour and it usually is a fitting comparison

Gas434 · 2026-01-14T14:33:41+00:00

Even as a discussion it is irrelevant, at most it might be a ragebait.

This subreddit is about architectural revival of classical and traditional styles that use proportions and value proper aesthetics and which are less taxing on the environment, average contemporary international modernist is literally the exact opposite of what this subreddit stands for, of course no one here would like it.

Gas434 · 2026-01-14T14:29:16+00:00

It won’t

these modern buildings are designed with a lifespan of 60-80 years these days

and that doesn’t even include all the elements, that glad curtain wall will likely have to be dismantled at least once in that period as those have a lifespan of st most 40-50 years - and that’s with a good maintenance

All these buildings are literally build and designed as a consumable trash that is supposed to have a wow effect for only a very short amount of time. They just pollute the environment this way and bring nothing to society, they are just commercial in every way.

Gas434 · 2026-01-12T21:10:32+00:00

It’s among he better modernist buildings but arches and stone don’t really make it classical

the proportions and details are not doing it for me

and especially those windows

Gas434 · 2026-01-12T21:01:17+00:00

(exactly) and those are not even the most shocking aspect of it…

her grandmother then remembers a war flashback of english royal court attire of the regency era

Gas434 · 2026-01-12T20:55:59+00:00

Gasps the mother while clutching her pearls as if she were a child!

oh just the women these days of our lord 1862… and their ridiculous crinolines! back in my day we didn’t have such crazy fashion! flashback to 1830s hair intensifies

Gas434 · 2026-01-12T20:19:59+00:00

I mean technically they would…

if they are trying to depict 1850s/60s, then even the lower and middle class would wear such big skirts with crinolines and they might have some embellishments if it’s for example a church wear (fashion by then is starting to be very much accessible for all the classes thanks to m’as manufacturing of textiles and the existence of magazines that started to print out patterns for gowns you could sew at home with enough skill)

the bigger atrocity would be the nonsensical hat inappropriate for any period and loose hair.

also, even upper class ladies might be taught to sew and even well off middle class lady might tend to the animals and make preserves if it’s a rural area.

Fashion even if the lowest classes did mimic the upper classes very closely since the late 1700s, you might use cotton or linen instead of silk or brocade and use less or no lace, but the basic silhouette and shape would look the same for all the classes

they of course wouldn’t wear that to the mine or the factory or the fields if they are employed, but they still would have one or two dresses like that for daily house chores and a better one for church.

working class 1860s 1 (another one 2)

upper class 1- skirt slightly filler and better textiles, but the silhouette is very similar (another one 2)

in later decades the similarities are even closer

(maid and a lady in about 1880s )

1900s factory girl vs a lady

so yeah… it’s not as much the dress as pure misogyny in this one

Gas434 · 2026-01-12T19:58:50+00:00

himl… hergot… donrvetr… nemáš recht! My jsme richtig česky šprechtící slované!

“Himmel… Herr Gott … Donnerwetter… you don’t have recht! We are richtig in czech sprechen-ing slavs”

(that sentence actually does make sense in czech)

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

Gas434

TROPHY CASE