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

Most people prefer traditional architecture

worksinprogress.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 382 posts

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#111

Post by alex-moon »

boh wrote: post #61

Modernism is the act of using cheaper resources and more standardized/cheaper methods of production. The aesthetic is more of a side-effect of those limits. Ugliness has become a cultural norm in order to suit the modern economy. It may come as a surprise but it required years of cultural development and education for most people to accept the work of Dieter Rams as some aesthetic pinnacle rather than soulless mass p…

"The aesthetic is more or a side-effect of using cheaper resources and cheaper methods of production."

This is a really interesting argument and very much not the story I've heard. Can you cite any sources for any of your statements at all?

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#112

Post by mmooss »

boh wrote: post #61

Modernism is the act of using cheaper resources and more standardized/cheaper methods of production. The aesthetic is more of a side-effect of those limits. Ugliness has become a cultural norm in order to suit the modern economy. It may come as a surprise but it required years of cultural development and education for most people to accept the work of Dieter Rams as some aesthetic pinnacle rather than soulless mass p…

> Ugliness has become a cultural norm

I love modern architecture (and art); I find many older forms to be garish, focused on pointless decoration and on wealth display, rather than on the beauty of function and form. The imagination of [some] modern architecture, starting from those fundamentals, is stunning.

You don't like it, which is just as valid, but trying to turn your preference into a universal truth for humanity is not valid. Can't it be just your preference?

Why is it so important? I think the real subtext for most such comments is culture war: A reactionary take on modernism and postmodernism, trying to make them outre, outside norms, attached to political liberalism which is often the real target.

Innovation is usually greeted by reactionary responses; what's odd is that, in our world of modern double-speak, reactionary has become seen as cutting edge instead of a lack of imagination and progress, of retreat and regression. Let's go back to what we were doing 100+ years ago!

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#113

Post by Abstract_Typist »

daemonologist wrote: post #64
addaon wrote: post #38

"Traditional" isn't really defined here, but seems to mean "first half of the 20th century," which feels like a relatively narrow tradition. Not a lot of preference for teepees and yurts.

People definitely like teepees and yurts (and thatched roofs, dry stone walls, log cabins, etc.), it's just that at some point the practicality gap becomes too wide to contemplate. But this is a reasonable point to raise. Although both would serve their purpose a concrete viaduct is much cheaper to build than a masonry one, to the point that it may be difficult to justify the latter no matter how strong the public pr…

Somehow, it always makes me smile that the Glenfinnan Viaduct (as seen in Harry Potter) is concrete. I'm not sure quite why.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#114

Post by Zigurd »

cavemandaveman wrote: post #95
Zigurd wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

From your comments and the way you describe yourself, you strike me as the stereotype of the sort of person you'd find at a DSA rally. Over-schooled (as opposed to over-educated), arrogant, and finding grievance in everything. The author writes an article observing that people find more beauty in traditional architecture and you immediately slander him as a racist white guy who wants to go back to 1950s segregation?…

You don't have to return to the 1950s to find racism and segregation in present day America. There's a lot of work yet to do. Get on it or get out of the way.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#115

Post by FLeXMurphy »

The traditional examples look sturdier and heavier. The brick bridge looks overbuilt and hence safer.

The examples where arch students gave higher scores, like with that god awful-looking house, I don't have an answer to. Maybe they had terrible taste. Just because you are a student of architecture it does not mean you have good taste or how to build beautiful things that evoke a specific emotion.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#116

Post by mmooss »

hardwaregeek wrote: post #96

Perhaps there’s a difference between what people prefer looking at and what’s actually nicer to inhabit? Architecture is optimizing for people inhabiting the building, not just staring at it in a photograph. It’s like if you asked someone to judge a phone based on a photo. Yes there’s some aesthetic judgement but it matters more if the phone is usable. I know that personally I find New York’s prewar buildings more be…

> I find New York’s prewar buildings more beautiful than your average soulless luxury tower

There might be some survivorship bias there.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#117

Post by ogogmad »

expedition32 wrote: post #20

When I was a child I saw Blade Runner. Ever since that day I've had a weakness for concrete jungles. Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai- that's how humans were intended to live. Unfortunately my European brothers and sisters prefer to live in open air museums. However slowly but surely skyscrapers have been creeping up into the Netherlands- you just can't beat the efficiency.

I don't see why this got downvoted. The heart wants what the hive wants.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#118

Post by rbanffy »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #109
lukeify wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Architecture is optimizing for people inhabiting the building, not just staring at it in a photograph With modern materials and structural design you can absolutely have both.

You would have to convince the design community that form can follow things other than function. Until form is no longer synonymous with function, design will eschew ornamentation.

When form doesn't follow function, usability suffers.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#119

Post by [deleted] »

Zigurd wrote: post #114
cavemandaveman wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your comments and the way you describe yourself, you strike me as the stereotype of the sort of person you'd find at a DSA rally. Over-schooled (as opposed to over-educated), arrogant, and finding grievance in everything. The author writes an article observing that people find more beauty in traditional architecture and you immediately slander him as a racist white guy who wants to go back to 1950s segregation?…

You don't have to return to the 1950s to find racism and segregation in present day America. There's a lot of work yet to do. Get on it or get out of the way.

[deleted]

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#120

Post by AlexandrB »

rbanffy wrote: post #118
kelseyfrog wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would have to convince the design community that form can follow things other than function. Until form is no longer synonymous with function, design will eschew ornamentation.

When form doesn't follow function, usability suffers.

Or you can do like modern UI designers and throw both form and usability in the trash and optimize for novelty and "brand" instead.
Post reply on HN