Crimes in Concrete • Hacker News Board

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#131

Post by titanomachy » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:48 PM UTC

deogeo wrote: post #56

titanomachy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Hobart building is pretty to look at. But if I'm actually going to spend my time in the building, I would much rather have the floor-to-ceiling windows of a generic modern steel-and-glass tower. I wonder how much of this design trend is due to the development of better materials (e.g. more insulating glass).

And when you look out from those large floor-to-ceiling windows, you will see another steel-and-glass tower. And when you go outside, you will be surrounded by them, as will your children when they try to play. But I'm sure as long as you're bunkered in your room and ignore the outside world, steel-and-glass towers are great - location is irrelevant when it comes to real-estate.

I have a pretty nice view actually. I'm sorry you are bitter.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#132

Post by on_and_off » Thu, May 16, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

ppod wrote: post #2

It's fascinating how neatly being politically conservative or progressive lines up with the corresponding architectural view. I like brutalism, but I disagree with the removal of Scruton from that position, it seems political. What annoys me about articles like the above is that they seem to ignore the possibility that aesthetics involves a lot of subjectivity. The argument seems to boil down to, "of course it's ugly…

an article I stumbled upon today : https://www.timeout.fr/paris/sites-et-monuments/les-meilleur...

(in french but it you don't really need to read the text to appreciate the pictures)

Crimes in concrete really irked me in the way the author just assumes that they hold the truth about architectural beauty.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#133

Post by cgrealy » Fri, May 17, 2019, 2:59 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #79

cgrealy wrote: post #66

I am impressed by how much literary wank the author managed to fit into this article while at the same time providing zero arguments other than "waaahhh, I don't like it, therefore everyone else must feel the same".

Maybe so, but Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Fair enough, my comment was a bit snarky, but I feel that pointing out the author failed to back up his arguments is a legitimate criticism.

Re: Crimes in Concrete

#134

Post by bdauvergne » Sat, May 18, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

jupp0r wrote: post #129

bdauvergne wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glass houses are a thermal crime. I'm from south of France, suck kind of houses are stupid here, but I think also anywhere. There is a typical architecture here, for countryside houses, that of the "Bastide", which is adapted to the climate. In hot climate, it's too much opening during summer, in cold climate it's too much opening during winter. Maghreb, spain and all countries around the Mediterranean have their own…

> Glass houses are a thermal crime. I don't think this is true. Some of the most energy efficient houses are passive solar houses that use large glass surfaces for heating that are covered using shades in the heat, but also use high thermal mass materials for heat/cold storage. From an aesthetics perspective, many people like natural light, I wouldn't want to live in the houses you provided as examples for that reaso…

Go outside, people living in those houses lived outside for most of the colder hours (morning/evening), they were sunny enough (but maybe you come from a northern country).