[cm2187]

I am glad the pantheon still stands. But the real question is are there really any modern structure that will be worth preserving for 2000 years. Architects have long abandoned aiming for beauty to aim for originality. Originality doesn’t last. Humans in 2000 years will only wonder why on earth our society could manufacture atom level micro ships but couldn’t come with a single structure worth preserving.

[GuB-42]

All structures are worth preserving. The article is about a latrine. Do you think ancient Romans thought a literal shithole was worth preserving? And yet, it is now an important piece of history.

As for beauty, you never know, take the Eiffel tower for instance, when it was built, people found it ugly, and it was to be a temporary structure. Now it is the symbol of Paris, more popular than the Paris Pantheon, which much better fits the classical standards of beauty.

The Eiffel tower is also more historically significant, more representative of its time. The Paris Pantheon, is an imitation of the Roman style, beautiful, but probably not as interesting for future historians. If both building survive that is, which won't happen without continuous maintenance, at least for the Eiffel tower.

[cm2187]

The Eiffel Tower dates from the XIX century. Pre the shift to originality. Which XX century building in Paris is objectively beautiful? The tour Montparnasse? The Centre Pompidou? Or Jussieu’s campus? Even the Opera Bastille is pretty lame, not outright ugly but lame.

[GuB-42]

I like Centre Pompidou, and if it wasn't technically problematic, it could have aged really well.

For those who don't know, Centre Pompidou is built "inside out", with all the technical parts like ducts, framing, elevators, etc... fully visible from the outside. There is some beauty from function here, like looking at an old locomotive. For people in the future, it would be an insight into what a 20th century building is made of.

Problem is: for a form-from-function design it is not very functional. Because the technical parts are also part of the aesthetics, it makes maintenance problematic. Every single pipe you change has to be of the same model or you would ruin the façade, which is crazy. Unfortunately (for me), it is one of the least likely building to stand the test of time, from a technical perspective.

Other than that, the Louvres pyramid is starting to gain some acceptance, even though it was almost universally hated when it was built, who knows how it will be seen a few hundred years from now, if it still stands.

[Saline9515]

Sand used to make concrete is a finite ressource, and extremely polluting to extract. Why wouldn't we save it and build lasting buildings?

[GuB-42]

It is not.

You can make sand by crushing rock, we don't because it is cheaper to extract natural sand. Should we run out of suitable natural sand, we will just have to go with the more expensive option, not a big deal.

[graemep]

There are some structures worth preserving. Sagrada Família is one. Places of worship and private homes (at least those individually architect designed vs standard designs) tend to be a lot nicer than office blocks and other commercial places.

I do think a lot of new building hideous. Looking at St Paul's in London from the west so you see the hideous backdrop to its east is depressing.

[fhub]

Sydney Opera house comes to mind as something that might still be curious to people in 1000 years.

[cm2187]

A curiosity is one thing. But where is the wow factor you get when you enter Rome’s pantheon?

[ChrisRR]

What makes you think buildings aren't going to change within the next 2000 years? Hell just look at all of the Tudor buildings dotted around. They probably didn't think they were anything special 600 years ago