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

121–130 of 382 posts

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#121

Post by rbanffy »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #102
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…

Industrial modernism is an aesthetic of distance, abstraction, predictability, and containment. But the flip side isn't anti-modernism, it's mass-market kitsch, which is at least as ugly. Minimalism isn't bad on its own, and the best minimal design really is beautiful. But the abstraction and containment went too far, and the result is often functional (on a good day) and joyless even if it's a prestige product. And…

> But the flip side isn't anti-modernism, it's mass-market kitsch, which is at least as ugly.

It's far more common than it should be.

> The worst is block sprawl and suburban slop - endless subdued and constrained repetitions of the same thing, with very minor variations.

The economic of bathtub curves incentivises designs nobody hates, even if at the cost of nobody loving them.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#122

Post by rbanffy »

paleotrope wrote: post #100
recursivedoubts wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are too rich to be able to afford things like Sears Roebuck houses now.

So rich but nobody has any money anymore.

All the money belongs to a remarkably small group of people.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#124

Post by bix6 »

paulorlando wrote: post #97
bix6 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn’t say anything about efficiency. It’s all cost driven. Cheapest inputs possible. The PE backed builder isn’t dealing with the building in 2 years, what do they care how well it works?

If you just look at hard costs and ignore beauty and comfort, is it also the cost-over-what-timeframe question? If a building is expected to be actively used for 100 years vs 20, you get to different decisions. My other question that I've never found a good answer to, is with mechanization, how is it that "cheap" modern buildings are so expensive. Or were old, traditional buildings super expensive? What is the cost o…

Unfortunately only custom homes can afford to care about beauty. Developers are building for cheapest possible and letting the long term owners deal with the consequences.

Homes still aren’t really mechanized. I’ve seen attempts but they haven’t worked well yet. Labor and materials are so expensive!

And most new homes are built by one of a few big groups. Oligopoly issues again.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#125

Post by bix6 »

torginus wrote: post #90
bix6 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn’t say anything about efficiency. It’s all cost driven. Cheapest inputs possible. The PE backed builder isn’t dealing with the building in 2 years, what do they care how well it works?

I think most developers have a captive market. They don't really compete, they build whatever they want, and still sell, because somebody somewhere will still buy, since they know they can sell for more.

Yes plus everyone is competing on cost so the lowest bid gets chosen.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#126

Post by rbanffy »

anon291 wrote: post #103
Analemma_ wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, every time people get grumpy about modern architecture and look over to see if I agree I tell the story about how I used to work at a company in Boston which moved from a beautiful 19th century building to a soulless Modernist steel-and-glass skyscraper. And thank fucking god: the old building was too hot in the summer, too cold in the winter, had too little natural light, and was too cramped. The Modernist buil…

It's not hard to make an old style building with modern amenities. I have a 1920s home and with like a few days of work it lives like a modern place. This is not some dichotomy.

> It's not hard to make an old style building with modern amenities

In my experience, the biggest issue is natural light - it's hard to beat glass walls when you need a structural skin with some windows where possible.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#127

Post by asdff »

torginus wrote: post #90
bix6 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn’t say anything about efficiency. It’s all cost driven. Cheapest inputs possible. The PE backed builder isn’t dealing with the building in 2 years, what do they care how well it works?

I think most developers have a captive market. They don't really compete, they build whatever they want, and still sell, because somebody somewhere will still buy, since they know they can sell for more.

The units are basically commodities. Same floor plans same amenities same building about the same rent. True across the country for these sort of newer buildings, only real difference is the pool doesn't close for the season for those in milder climates.

It is designed to be this way for investors more than consumers. Investors want these units to be as fungible as possible so they can better compare local market dynamics. Commodity trading has a lot of advantages for the investor after all. The consumers have no choice really but to be in this market if they want to be sheltered at all. It isn't like you really can exercise free market selection for something necessary like shelter. You have to take what has been made available and you cannot do without.

There is therefore no incentive to make a smart building that is favoring the tenant since this doesn't grow the potential pool of tenants in the area, that pool remains the same size as it was. It is unlike a lot of other markets where having a better product might actually grow the customer base of the product segment overall.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#128

Post by rbanffy »

dzonga wrote: post #86

the tragedy is that architects (experts) prefer the modernist buildings. while common people prefer the classical buildings which makes cities more livable. the other tragedy is before 'regulations' normies designed buildings - they didn't have architecture degrees. don't know if that's still possible anymore. & buildings shape lives. the only way to reverse the modernist trend is to have laws that incentivize classi…

> architects (experts) prefer the modernist buildings. while common people prefer the classical buildings which makes cities more livable.

Good architects match modernism with livability. A couple months back I visited the Barbican Centre in London and it never ceases to amaze me how thoughtful is every little design item.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#129

Post by rbanffy »

plorg wrote: post #62
nairboon wrote: post #14

Classical and in a sense neoclassical architecture literally stood the test of time.

Always seems weird to me that "classical" is stark white columns and sculptures. The original Greek buildings were quite colorful, it's only the intervening millenia that are responsible for wearing away their paint.

It is a fact they improved with prolonged exposure to the atmosphere and UV light.
Post reply on HN