Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The mid in fake midcentury modern

nplusonemag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 512 posts

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#481

Post by soco »

lmm wrote: post #466
soco wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one thing to decide for cool instead of beautiful (or useful) but a whole another thing to get paid for it. Those architects won a contest, right? One the premise of... what? We can build the ugliest, yay? Humans are just details? What exactly is the selling point of brutalism for a communal living area? You want to design your own bunker, be my guest. But something paid by the public should serve the public, no…

Some of it was needing to build cheap, low-maintenance buildings quickly, to replace what had been destroyed in the war. There's nothing wrong with making a considered decision to build something ugly and cheap because getting usable space is a higher priority than making it look good. But when you try to make a virtue of that by pretending ugly is pretty, then you're making a major mistake.

Makes fully sense indeed. Ironically enough, what is built nowadays around me is exactly the other way around: personal space buildings look at least half-way passable, and public/office buildings are all those gray square turds, with some glass. But yes this is Switzerland, birthplace of Le Corbusier...

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#482

Post by nemo44x »

bombcar wrote: post #470
nemo44x wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a Queen Anne-ish home near me that I always joke is a window showroom. There’s like 1 of every style of window on this thing. A double hung sash with a gothic thing and then a sleeper and a casement etc. Even the lines of the home - just everywhere. But in todays context it’s a simply gorgeous home. “Eclectic” if anything but it has stood the test of time. But I imagine looking at it from that period and it p…

I think a lot of the "love" for these types of homes is simply the materials and the craftsmanship - even as they became "mass produced" they were built "heavy" - modern drywall is better in almost every way but it doesn't have the gravitas .

Yeah, the materials are great -in particular the old growth wood which simply isn’t available today. There’s also a good chance the home design is completely unique since home building by and large was done very differently pre-1940s. So a neighborhood of them looks awesome compared to one where everything went up in the post-war era.

Just compare a period revival built in 1915 to one from 1970. It probably isn’t even close which one not only looks better but also uses the right lines, moldings, etc. I think there was simply a better understanding by architects about what details a particular style of home should and should not have.

But yes a well constructed modern home is probably better in most ways than an old home. Better waterproofed, more efficient, engineered better, etc. If built well which I’d argue most modern homes aren’t unfortunately. But I have seen modern homes framed out entirely in engineered wood, have advanced sheathing and waterproofing and high-end siding. Will last many generations.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#483

Post by donatj »

int_19h wrote: post #472
donatj wrote: post #19

There is a bank near my house that has a façade second floor. It makes no attempt to look real from any angle, not from the street nor the parking lot. You can see right through the oversized glassless windows into the sky, beyond that the entire thing is wavy in an unpleasant way. It doesn’t even fit with the style of the rest of the building. My suspicion is it exists almost as a critique of the idea of façades? It…

Can you clarify what you mean by a "façade second floor"? To me, façade means front side of the building in general, regardless of how it's constructed.

I mean it has a fake second story similar to the way many buildings in the old west did.

https://lifedeathiron.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/ohio1.jpg?...

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#484

Post by bombcar »

nemo44x wrote: post #482
bombcar wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of the "love" for these types of homes is simply the materials and the craftsmanship - even as they became "mass produced" they were built "heavy" - modern drywall is better in almost every way but it doesn't have the gravitas .

Yeah, the materials are great -in particular the old growth wood which simply isn’t available today. There’s also a good chance the home design is completely unique since home building by and large was done very differently pre-1940s. So a neighborhood of them looks awesome compared to one where everything went up in the post-war era. Just compare a period revival built in 1915 to one from 1970. It probably isn’t eve…

There was a "bad spot" around the late 80s through the early 2000s I feel, when houses were just starting to be "improved" for energy efficiency, where some really bad decisions were being made (water barriers that trap water in the walls allowing mold to spread, etc).

Modern building science has raced past those, but not all construction crews are utilizing them; which is sad. Many times there's not an increased cost at all; it's simply correctly using materials.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#485

Post by crazygringo »

throwaway82388 wrote: post #446
kennend3 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding to this and using some every day examples. Why are expensive "sports cars" almost always ugly (Bright yellow or neon green??). One would think if you had that sort of money you would realize that a bright green car is tacky as F, but that is the point. To turn heads - this is why they bought the car in the first place. Why are most cars not coloured like this - because it is ugly and most people don't drive a…

The question about cars is largely one of personality. Who drives bland cars? People who feel social pressure to not stand out, possibly who feel powerless, or who appreciate anonymity. Who drives flashy cars? People who feel important, who feel in control of their own circumstances and image, who think of themselves as iconoclastic.

Funny, I couldn't disagree more.

When I think of "people who feel important, who feel in control of their own circumstances and image" I think of people who choose understated cars, because they're confident in themselves and have nothing to prove or compensate for by feeling the need to show off flashy colors.

But when I think of people who are insecure and not getting enough emotional approval elsewhere in their lives -- isn't that the "stereotypical" flashy-car owner?

When you look at high-powered execs in Manhattan -- who feel very important and very in control -- they're not the ones in flashy-colored cars.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#486

Post by mcphage »

rrreese wrote: post #361
keiferski wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of being outraged, I suggest you read the comments again. No one said it is ugly or that it isn't beautiful, just that it's not typically thought of as an example of "a beautiful thing." People think of it as a symbol of Paris, not an exemplar of beauty. Especially people that live in Paris and see it everyday.

A comment made two hours before yours literally calls it a monstrosity

One of the best passages in Foucault's Pendulum is when the main character wanders Paris and describes the tour as a "foul metal spider", "Lone suppository, hollow obelisk, Magnificat of wire, apotheosis of the battery, aerial altar of an idolatrous cult, bee in the heart of the rose of the winds, piteous ruin, hideous night-colored colossus, misshapen emblem of useless strength...". It goes on for quite a while. Mind you, the character is half insane and entirely paranoid at that point. It's quite a fun monologue.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#487

Post by RC_ITR »

lmm wrote: post #464
RC_ITR wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the secret to this thread. Every “adult” generation always hates 50-100 year old architecture, because that was what was slightly old and starting to show its age when they were kids. Gen-X/Millenials associate brutalism with non-renovated stuffy classrooms, empty downtown office buildings, and dirty public plazas. Then a bunch get torn down (usually the lowest effort versions) and people adaptively re-use the…

> Then a bunch get torn down (usually the lowest effort versions) and people adaptively re-use the best ones and everyone remembers the original intent of the style and falls in love with it again. Then why hasn't that happened with brutalism? It was hated in the '90s, '00s, and '10s, and it's still hated now. And why is the "international style" so much better regarded despite being the same age?

I’m not sure I’m tracking what you’re getting at.

International Style had its biggest impact in the US on NYC and just look down park ave to see those buildings getting torn down. Union Carbide being a great example.

And the brutalism point confuses me, since plenty of brutalist buildings have been and will be torn down, but I doubt Harvard is going to get rid of it’s Le Corbisier and I bet in 60 years people will talk about how lucky they are to have the only built example of his work in the Western Hemisphere.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#488

Post by nemo44x »

bombcar wrote: post #484
nemo44x wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the materials are great -in particular the old growth wood which simply isn’t available today. There’s also a good chance the home design is completely unique since home building by and large was done very differently pre-1940s. So a neighborhood of them looks awesome compared to one where everything went up in the post-war era. Just compare a period revival built in 1915 to one from 1970. It probably isn’t eve…

There was a "bad spot" around the late 80s through the early 2000s I feel, when houses were just starting to be "improved" for energy efficiency, where some really bad decisions were being made (water barriers that trap water in the walls allowing mold to spread, etc). Modern building science has raced past those, but not all construction crews are utilizing them; which is sad. Many times there's not an increased cos…

And it also has to be done right. I noticed a small leak in my home that aligned with where a new vent was installed a couple years ago and I went up to confirm my suspicion that the flashing was installed wrong. And it was.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#489

Post by bombcar »

nemo44x wrote: post #488
bombcar wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a "bad spot" around the late 80s through the early 2000s I feel, when houses were just starting to be "improved" for energy efficiency, where some really bad decisions were being made (water barriers that trap water in the walls allowing mold to spread, etc). Modern building science has raced past those, but not all construction crews are utilizing them; which is sad. Many times there's not an increased cos…

And it also has to be done right. I noticed a small leak in my home that aligned with where a new vent was installed a couple years ago and I went up to confirm my suspicion that the flashing was installed wrong. And it was.

One of the better advances in recent times have been things that reduce "envelope penetration" because dammed if it is never ever done right apparently, even on brand new construction. Furnaces and water heaters venting via PVC through the wall seems to work out better.

It's the #1 reason I'd hire multiple home inspectors during construction if I ever have a house built.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#490

Post by bobthepanda »

wizofaus wrote: post #408
bobthepanda wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also rose colored glasses. Many of the surviving examples of historic architecture we consider classic today, were ugly or dilapidated mass architecture in their time. Ask someone in 1900 what they thought of a New York tenement or a Sears mail-order home, and they would look at you like you were insane for suggesting those characteristics now command seven-figure premiums. (What would've been the true beauties…

Surely the opposite effect must also exist - that the historical buildings we see today are the ones that survived because they were considered worth keeping - you wouldn't expect the ugly/shoddily-built ones to survive. However given there are entire streets with attractive historical buildings in many towns and cities I'm not sure either theory explains much - there are virtually no streets I've seen anywhere in th…

Usually it's how hard people fight to keep a building.

Take the NYC tenements. They were substandard housing when they were built, with multigenerational families using a single room on a floor with a single shared bathroom for the floor.

A lot of times, the reason we lost wealthy housing or buildings, is because wealthy tastes and fashions changed, and they no longer cared for outdated buildings, which may have lacked modern electric or water services. Or the wealthy may have moved on from the area entirely; in the mid-19th century when mansions were built around it, Central Park was the edge of NYC, but 100 years later these barons preferred pastoral estates in Long Island, upstate New York or New Jersey, and their old mansions were in the middle of a metropolis.

Poor areas were more likely to not get redeveloped via market forces, because there wasn't money to be made giving poor people the latest and greatest in housing, and on top of that poor people were not going to demand the latest and greatest because they wouldn't be able to afford the rent on that kind of building. And people fight harder for their housing if its redevelopment means getting displaced onto the streets. Gentrification of poor areas in the United States doesn't really get going until the '80s, by which time we already have historic preservation laws.

Obviously there are exceptions to these scenarios but this is one of many sources of why some buildings survive and some do not.

Post reply on HN