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

Beauty in my backyard

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: Beauty in my backyard

#21

Post by bluGill »

nemomarx wrote: post #17
throwaway63467 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory no, depends on how it’s done. It’s mostly a concrete ceiling with Bitumen and another polyethylene based layer on top normally, requires renewal every 30-50 years but it will stay tight if done right, at least it’s not much worse than a tiled roof.

Is it better in some other way than an angled tile roof? I suppose you get more interior room at the same heights at least. Where I'm from heavy snow kinda rules out flat roofs so I'm unfamiliar with the reasons you'd want them.

I've seen places where the roof is an outdoor living space. That is the stairs go up to the top (not just maintenance access, but full access), and there is a safety railing around the top so kids can't fall off the edge. They are a great place to have a party, and replace the suburban backyard.

That is the primary benefit of a flat roof, but it is only a tiny number of buildings that are like this. The vast majority of buildings do not allow roof access. Still I encourage it.

Re: Beauty in my backyard

#22

Post by bluGill »

Nursie wrote: post #16

When it comes to the UK, I think this diagnosis that people lost trust that new buildings would beautify rather than uglify their towns and cities, is definitely a strong part of the picture. But the story is wider than this because even when we look at domestic housing, we find that people in general prefer the older housing, and it's not only because of the looks. It's a bigger picture of pervasive enshittification…

If you compare a house built in 1910 to one build in 1950 you are on balance often right. These days most new houses I see have larger rooms, thicker walls. The modern house often does feel worse made, but as an engineer I know enough to look beneath the covers and it is very clear that the worst modern house is significantly higher quality than the best old ones - but this often doesn't translate to "feelings", and so the poorly insulated house that just barely stands (and is a fire hazard) feels better even though it is inferior in all structural ways.

When I look at the streetcar suburbs of my city (1880s) I see lots are on average about the same size as lots today, and houses were generally much smaller. But the lots were deeper and narrower so how they feel is different.

Re: Beauty in my backyard

#23

Post by BoxOfRain »

Nursie wrote: post #16

When it comes to the UK, I think this diagnosis that people lost trust that new buildings would beautify rather than uglify their towns and cities, is definitely a strong part of the picture. But the story is wider than this because even when we look at domestic housing, we find that people in general prefer the older housing, and it's not only because of the looks. It's a bigger picture of pervasive enshittification…

Fully agree with this in the UK, the king (then Prince Charles) was on the money when he said that unlike the post-war town planners, the Luftwaffe can't be accused of replacing our buildings with anything more offensive than rubble!

The idea that ornament is a crime has done more visual damage to our buildings than any other single factor in my opinion, the fact we still regularly poll as preferring Victorian and Georgian buildings is an indictment of those responsible for our stock of them; I prefer those buildings but it depresses me that we've made things worse rather than better aesthetically for the last century or so when we didn't have to.

Modern new builds are bleak things for the most part; oppressively low ceilings, tiny postage-stamp sized windows as the enshittified way to comply with energy efficiency legislation, styling which looks like it was done by ChatGPT, and build quality that makes British Leyland cars look like epitomes of careful manufacturing. While if it were up to me I'd replace our discretionary planning system with a rules-based one and remove a lot of incumbent NIMBY vetos, I can see why NIMBYs exist in such enormous numbers given the race to rock bottom on everything except price when it comes to housing.

Re: Beauty in my backyard

#24

Post by PavleMiha »

softwaredoug wrote: post #20

I don’t think this is true. Opposition is not really related to aesthetics. People fight even theoretical housing (zoning). NIMBYs oppose building housing on derelict / ugly lots. Architectural review is used by neighbors to stop housing - not because they’re preservationists - but for a load of unrelated issues and architecture is a convenient veto point.

This is addressed in the article, ugliness probably isn't causing NIMBYism, but it is contributing to conservationism, which is a slightly different thing, and affects house-building in different ways (most conservationist concerns are not quite NIMBY, as most of the proponents of conservationism don't live in the neighbourhood being conserved).

Re: Beauty in my backyard

#25

Post by BoxOfRain »

bluGill wrote: post #22
Nursie wrote: post #16

When it comes to the UK, I think this diagnosis that people lost trust that new buildings would beautify rather than uglify their towns and cities, is definitely a strong part of the picture. But the story is wider than this because even when we look at domestic housing, we find that people in general prefer the older housing, and it's not only because of the looks. It's a bigger picture of pervasive enshittification…

If you compare a house built in 1910 to one build in 1950 you are on balance often right. These days most new houses I see have larger rooms, thicker walls. The modern house often does feel worse made, but as an engineer I know enough to look beneath the covers and it is very clear that the worst modern house is significantly higher quality than the best old ones - but this often doesn't translate to "feelings", and…

I currently rent a 1930s mid-terrace, literally everything wrong with it is stuff I could address myself if I owned it. It's mostly the years of 'landlord specials' that would need undoing, and I'd reinstate the fireplaces too. These kind of houses were meant to breathe through the chimneys, and since the 1960s we've been bricking them up and wondering why our houses have damp problems.

Re: Beauty in my backyard

#26

Post by delis-thumbs-7e »

cassepipe wrote: post #12
delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #6

I skimmed three articles of this publication: one saying the more permittent zoning policies on historic urban areas would allow more growth and more environmentally sustainable buildings; other saying Europe is falling behind its auto-manufacturing and does not have its own Tesla, because they cannot kick out workers fast enough; third that Australia stopped asylum seeker by simply preventing boats coming in (and br…

The problem with that worldview is that it's always the same look from the same perspective that is, the economic machine is an extractive system (top Your perspective ignores the fact that some of "us, the people" are actually benefiting from this economic machine/collective organization. In industrialized societies, it's been decades that even the people at the bottom of the social ladder have "more to lose than th…

You do not only misunderstand completely what I am saying, but contibute me a worldview that I do not have.

Yes, I am familiar with the economic rise of postwar Europe/US and how it contributed to wellbeing to not just workers in the west, but also final collapse of those old empires and liberation of those colonised nations from their European masters (what happened after that in many of them is another story). The improved living standards were not just some automatic by-product of economic growth, but series of political decisions made how to share that wealth. This was linked to not strong labour and democratic movements to force that wealth to be distributed more equally. After 70’s you look at purchasing power and living standards stagnating and both political and economical power becoming more and more concentrated on small elite to the point that now you can just bribe the US president to do an executive order you want.

My point is that this sort of pseudo-liberal “Well, Achsually” -technocratism presented by this publication is just a thin veil for business as usual rentier capitalism, that only benefits a very small elite. We have democratic ways to solve these problems, but that will mean some billionaires having to settle for being centimillionaires.

Re: Beauty in my backyard

#27

Post by throwaway63467 »

nemomarx wrote: post #17
throwaway63467 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory no, depends on how it’s done. It’s mostly a concrete ceiling with Bitumen and another polyethylene based layer on top normally, requires renewal every 30-50 years but it will stay tight if done right, at least it’s not much worse than a tiled roof.

Is it better in some other way than an angled tile roof? I suppose you get more interior room at the same heights at least. Where I'm from heavy snow kinda rules out flat roofs so I'm unfamiliar with the reasons you'd want them.

It’s just way cheaper, make a concrete ceiling, slap some insulation and proofing on top, done.

Re: Beauty in my backyard

#28

Post by ethersteeds »

nemomarx wrote: post #17
throwaway63467 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory no, depends on how it’s done. It’s mostly a concrete ceiling with Bitumen and another polyethylene based layer on top normally, requires renewal every 30-50 years but it will stay tight if done right, at least it’s not much worse than a tiled roof.

Is it better in some other way than an angled tile roof? I suppose you get more interior room at the same heights at least. Where I'm from heavy snow kinda rules out flat roofs so I'm unfamiliar with the reasons you'd want them.

Flat roofs are very cost effective due to simplicity of design and installation. They also provide usable area for HVAC, solar panels, and decks.

Re: Beauty in my backyard

#29

Post by Nursie »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #23
Nursie wrote: post #16

When it comes to the UK, I think this diagnosis that people lost trust that new buildings would beautify rather than uglify their towns and cities, is definitely a strong part of the picture. But the story is wider than this because even when we look at domestic housing, we find that people in general prefer the older housing, and it's not only because of the looks. It's a bigger picture of pervasive enshittification…

Fully agree with this in the UK, the king (then Prince Charles) was on the money when he said that unlike the post-war town planners, the Luftwaffe can't be accused of replacing our buildings with anything more offensive than rubble! The idea that ornament is a crime has done more visual damage to our buildings than any other single factor in my opinion, the fact we still regularly poll as preferring Victorian and Ge…

The small windows thing is real here in Aus as well, we lived in a new build for a while 4 years or so back, that was built like a fortress. Small, high windows in the main rooms and some of the bedrooms, so you couldn't see out, so the builder can meet their energy-efficiency targets. Really oppressive to live in.

And in part it's because - get this - double glazing is considered an expensive luxury, and a new, European invention, rather than just the absolute bare minimum. There are even Australians who believe it's a bad idea all round because it would keep the heat in and make their houses harder to cool.

Re: Beauty in my backyard

#30

Post by modo_mario »

throwaway63467 wrote: post #2

Most new single home construction in Germany is in the form of cubes with flat roofs, absolutely ugly and will look like crap in 30-50 years (for me it looks like crap now already), see e.g. [1]. Insanity but for the builder it makes sense as it’s the cheapest way to conform to the energy saving requirements and maximize living room per lot size which is restricted due to idiotic zoning laws. I don’t get how this can…

Same here in Belgium.

It's placeless architecture and not exactly sustainable since they'll need replacements sooner and a stupid amount of the co2 cost of a building is in it's construction and the fabricaiton of it's materials.

And then there's runoff from the roof with the sun exposure. I kind of expect this will end up a bigger issue than we make it out to be at the rate we're building these.

Post reply on HN