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

Antirender: remove the glossy shine on architectural renderings

antirender.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 478 posts

Re: Antirender: remove the glossy shine on architectural renderings

#282

Post by wiseowise »

_kb wrote: post #276
zdragnar wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much any place with brutalist architecture, really. I'll happily take pretty much any revival or classical style over "modern" or brutalist style. There's nothing more depressing than walking by beautiful historic old buildings only to turn a corner and see a monstrosity of concrete and glass somehow reaching the epitome of bland and uninviting.

Hard disagree. This is what brutalism looks like in sunny, subtropical Brisbane, Australia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QPAC_Exterior.jpg If the straight concrete isn’t your thing, they’re also currently extending it with a glasshouse: https://www.snohetta.com/projects/queensland-performing-arts...

Looks even worse in the sun. At least it belongs in the depressing, shitty weather.

Re: Antirender: remove the glossy shine on architectural renderings

#283

Post by tpoacher »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #264
yetihehe wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do we ensure that we don’t enter the failure mode of “not enough necessities get made”? Pay higher when someone does things. UBI + income. If you want to live better, try doing something that will bring you money, but if you fail, you can still live and try something other next time. Current model: if you try something and fail, you are homeless and starving.

Failing -> homeless and starving is a failure mode at the level of the individual. That’s not good, but failure modes of the entire structure are higher priority and the two don’t really compare apples to apples. Capitalism (absent corruption) is actually sort of cleverly recursive there because financial destitution by definition cannot affect producers of vital goods, because the act of producing vital goods is pre…

I don't think the "producers" argument is true, and even so it really does depend on the profession and on current trends.

What was vital yesterday may be obsolete tomorrow (see hospital secretaries vs ambient scribes for instance). I assume when you think of people taking a potentially "destitution-risky" decision, you think "entrepreneur without savings or backup income", not "hospital secretary". Yet here we are.

Also, in many professions, "production" is multi-level. Who is the producer in a hospital, the nurse, or the hospital manager? Yet I can assure you nurses, as vital as they are, get fixed term contracts or get fired all the time. Same with teachers and academics.

So, no, the system rewarding the hospital manager and the university deans for the "vital" work of their nurses and teachers isn't "cleverly recursive"; it's exactly the failure mode both you and OP speak of, except it's somehow both systemic and personal, depending in what angle you're looking at.

Re: Antirender: remove the glossy shine on architectural renderings

#285

Post by materialpoint »

This should be compulsory for pitching architects and entrepreneurs. Prove that your design can withstand real weather and the washed out decay of time. Classical architecture withstands weathering and littering remarkably better. Architects are even using corrugated steel sheets intended for ugly shacks as the fascade of new buildings intended for people to live in. It couldn't be worse.

Re: Antirender: remove the glossy shine on architectural renderings

#287

Post by scotty79 »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #243
Timwi wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there a better way? Yes, UBI. Then you can create what you want and your livelihood doesn't depend on it going viral.

How do we ensure that we don’t enter the failure mode of “not enough necessities get made”? Like it seems like people are ideologically for or against UBI, but I’ve never seen anyone discuss how the mechanism would avoid this outcome. Like I’m not saying it’s 100% the outcome that would happen on whatever time frame, just that even e.g. a 10% chance of that happening would make it too risky to attempt at scale. And l…

Necessities get made because there's someone to buy them. Only 5% of people are employed in agriculture and 15% in manufacturing. 80% of working people could do nothing and we'd still be fine when it comes to necessities. And we don't even have peak automation.

Re: Antirender: remove the glossy shine on architectural renderings

#288

Post by strken »

_kb wrote: post #276
zdragnar wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much any place with brutalist architecture, really. I'll happily take pretty much any revival or classical style over "modern" or brutalist style. There's nothing more depressing than walking by beautiful historic old buildings only to turn a corner and see a monstrosity of concrete and glass somehow reaching the epitome of bland and uninviting.

Hard disagree. This is what brutalism looks like in sunny, subtropical Brisbane, Australia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QPAC_Exterior.jpg If the straight concrete isn’t your thing, they’re also currently extending it with a glasshouse: https://www.snohetta.com/projects/queensland-performing-arts...

I don't hate brutalism but I'd much rather have the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Exhibition_Building than QPAC, rain or shine.
Post reply on HN