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

211–220 of 382 posts

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#211

Post by IslandRebel »

rbanffy wrote: post #149
IslandRebel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen plenty of examples of Brutalism in architecture (in the UK) first hand and to most people it looks like ugly concrete blocks with hole in it.

Sometimes being "ugly" is the point. You want to bring out emotions - the building can be grandiose, imposing, surprising, but, if you look closely, it's a carefully crafted work of art that's also highly functional. One great example from the city where I grew up: https://hicarquitectura.com/2024/09/lina-bo-bardi-sesc-pompe...

I don't care for this argument at all. There are functional buildings where I live from the Industrial Revolution that look quite nice. I want things to look nice where I live. I don't want them to be ugly and demoralising.

As for the building you showed me. I think it looks awful. It actually looks worse than the architecture in movie Equilibrium.

https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-architectural-revie...

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#212

Post by tengbretson »

rbanffy wrote: post #167
tengbretson wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because they study architecture. If the architecture they're studying is divorced from the preferences and needs of the uneducated masses then who cares? They may as well be studying their own butts.

> divorced from the preferences and needs of the uneducated masses then who cares? Preferences, perhaps, but needs, I'm sure not. On this, I much prefer being divorced from preferences, than designing soul-less buildings designed solely to cater to preferences, without leveraging the knowledge gained through years of study.

"they just don't know what they actually need"

Classic butt-guy response.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#213

Post by pchristensen »

tensor wrote: post #50

It seems like these comparisons are more "expensive traditional design vs low cost modern design." None of their examples had what I would consider a single expensive and nice modern design. But every single example of "traditional" design was essentially luxury pricing.

Several of the referenced studies used award winning modernist buildings, and others used similar size and use of buildings e.g. city halls.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#214

Post by nitwit005 »

cryptonector wrote: post #199
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…

> Architecture is optimizing for people inhabiting the building, not just staring at it in a photograph. Entertainment is a non-productive activity. But people need entertainment. People like to live comfortably. But people also like beauty. It's that simple. People do care about the looks of buildings. Aesthetics matters.

The people outside the building aren't paying rent.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#215

Post by janalsncm »

iamnothere wrote: post #194

I just wish there were more acceptance of experimentation. I like well-executed Art Deco, Art Nouveau, 60s high modernism, whatever you call the 70s angular wooden buildings, “natural” styles like adobe that use clay and wood, all kinds really. As long as a style is appropriate for the structure’s use and environment, it’s fine. But economics favors ugly boxes, and local building restrictions make it even more expens…

Idk, these seem pretty innovative:

https://www.dezeen.com/2026/02/17/chinese-projects-completed...

Not that I like all of them, but the point stands.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#217

Post by nl »

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.

Zaha Hadid and Frank Gehry would like a word.

Taste is subjective, but is there really a more beautiful building in the world than the Heydar Aliyev Center?

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#218

Post by cindyllm »

matchbok3 wrote: post #209
solid_fuel wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You seem to be making up arguments against some caricature that you have built in your mind in order to satisfy some form of virtue signaling or sanctimonious belief. Whatever it is, it makes no sense and I feel dumber for having read it. > Go touch grass, it's healthy. (And get off bluesky) You seem to have been triggered by the OP pointing out that a lot of this traditionalist architecture movement is - yes - rac…

Overcomplicating things and referencing vague connections does not make an argument inherently better. Just longer. No, it's not racist, no matter how much you try to make it so. It's exhausting and tired and makes people like Trump win. Racism is bad, good looking buildings are ... good. Absolutely ridiculous, please listen to yourselves and please, please, think long and hard about how median American's would respo…

[dead]

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#219

Post by analog31 »

DGAP wrote: post #56

In public spaces I have no doubt this is the case. I'm more curious about residential though - see huge interesting in MCM over the last decades. I am biased but I think there is a great deal of interest in warm, modernist spaces with ideas like natural materials and lots of natural lighting, especially when compared to the beige boxes of American home building.

Indeed, the beige boxes are neither modernist nor classicist.

My family lives in a MCM house built around 1960. We bought it in a "hot" market where you couldn't be particular about anything. We chose a house based on location and the interior.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#220

Post by a34729t »

__d wrote: post #201
grebc wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White or grey are grossly over represented in Australia. It’s like people visit the remains of the forum in Rome and picture the colours being as they are today instead of the ridiculously bright/strong colours they would have been when erected/used.

I painted my house blue and orange in protest at the boring colour choices most people make. No one else on my street has followed my lead though. I think some of it is because people are obsessed with treating housing as an investment, and so anything outside the norm is a financial risk.

I wanted to paint my house in Razzle Dazzle, but orange and green. My wife threatened to leave me, so the idea was abandoned.
Post reply on HN