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

The mid in fake midcentury modern

nplusonemag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 512 posts

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#331

Post by ericmay »

DrBazza wrote: post #271
ericmay wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure capitalism has an effect (similar to how communism built a lot of absolutely disgusting, depressing housing) but I don't think capitalism created American suburban homes out of thin air. There isn't anything inherently cheaper about building a home that isn't symmetrical regardless of materials - in fact the opposite would be true. I think it's less about economic models though and more about a lack of socie…

If I'm a shareholder of a company that builds office blocks, I'll be demanding dividends and a return on my investment. Unless the customer (e.g. Apple and their giant do(ugh)nut) specifically ask for something that isn't structurally significant, a construction firm isn't going to add it.

> If I'm a shareholder of a company that builds office blocks, I'll be demanding dividends and a return on my investment.

Sorry I'm not following the point here. Can you elaborate?

> Unless the customer (e.g. Apple and their giant do(ugh)nut) specifically ask for something that isn't structurally significant, a construction firm isn't going to add it.

That's my point. There isn't any competition in the marketplace or any options for customers.

There are roughly 0 firms today that offer everyday people the ability to live in any new construction that isn't an asymmetrical suburban house built in a car-only development. A few have popped up, granted, but these are a tiny fraction of a fraction of new development in America at least.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#332

Post by eli_gottlieb »

ridgered4 wrote: post #257
ericmay wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To latch on to this great post there are a couple of other worthwhile discussion points: We're still in a nuclear war mental model. We can't build beautiful things if we think they'll be destroyed in a war. We still have a societal level PTSD from World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and other things. World War I veterans came back with horrific problems. That's why architects like Frank Lloyd…

Never seen the Boston City Hall before. I clicked thinking "How bad could it be?" and was sort of surprised at my visceral negative reaction. It is truly hideous! The article describes it as Brutalist, but most Soviet Brutalist stuff I've seen at least gives me a sense of simplicity, efficiency and usually symmetry even if the structures are depressing. This building seems to have eschewed even those positive traits!

Massachusetts strongly dislikes you and wants you to know you should go away. It's built into architecture across the state.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#335

Post by pixl97 »

yunwal wrote: post #232
pixl97 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not like the aesthetics the author is complaining about were chosen for purpose like a farmer painting his barn red because red is cheap I would completely disagree. "Rich enough" is mostly meaningless, there are a 1000 different subsystems running under this that make a slight deviation in a product increase in price massively. From laws and regulations on consumer products and housing rules, to what gets shi…

I do woodworking and $1000 could get you a really nice artisan-made custom end table. Obviously depends on your specs but it’s hard for me to think of any specs that would make it more unless you were specifically trying to make it extravagant (some rare wood, gold inlays, etc)

The scale still holds true. For an order of magnitude less, around $100 I can get a perfectly workable end table that doesn't look horrible but is rather generic.

Honestly I meant to say dresser as they commonly start at $1kish for a decent one, but end table still works.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#336

Post by smsm42 »

pizzalife wrote: post #304
gfxgirl wrote: post #267

This is the equivalent to "why does modern music suck" (said by every generation of the next generation's music) Scott Alexander posted something similar https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/whither-tartaria And the response he got was arguably predictable..., others didn't agree that modern architecture is ugly. Sure there are some ugly buildings. But, for example, for me. I went to some 1929 building that I'm sure…

I had a hard time taking this article seriously after seeing the first picture with the caption "new ugliness". The picture depicts art by KAWS, arguably a very successful modern artist - someone must think what he is doing is worthwhile. I personally don't like his art, but saying it's "ugly" is rather subjective..

You're saying it as somehow "subjective" is bad. Of course it's subjective, and the whole point it a lot of modern art is subjectively perceived by most people as ugly, while being praised and promoted by "experts".

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#337

Post by muro »

Ygg2 wrote: post #52
DocTomoe wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I am in the minority here, but I actually like brutalist architecture between 1965 and 1985. Not the cookie-cutter ghettos, I mean artful architecture, like Habitat 67 or the Robarts Library, or the Wellcome headquarters.

I too like brutalist architecture for its sincerity. Big Cities are inherently ugly. Brutalist architecture just don't pretend they are pretty.

Big cities can be ugly, but don't have to be. Less car centric, more green cities can be very pretty. Any brutalist architecture in those is terrible, making the place look worse on purpose.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#338

Post by smsm42 »

blue039 wrote: post #106
sph wrote: post #10

There are two schools of thought: those that think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and those that think, like Steve Jobs famously quipped, that some people just have no good taste. After fighting with this concept for years, I decided to embrace the superiority and smugness that comes with the latter: the vast majority of people have no understanding of beauty and aesthetic. The only thing that stops the w…

There is nothing objectively beautiful about modern architecture. Brutalism, for example, is talentless nonsense. Before the advent of "everyone gets sued", the ADA, nuclear war, etc there was actual creative freedom. Now, everything is just one size fits all. Just in case you happen to attract the wrong attention. Architecture really is a reflection on how mind numbingly dull modern life actually is.

With brutalism, as it is obvious from its name, it is a deliberate move. The bigger question is why this direction has been embraced so much. I.e. why brutalist architects get commissions to build the next ugly building after they built the previous ugly (and often poorly functioning) building? Why taxpayers, who pay for many of these buildings, tolerate it? I think the latter may be because of the "you have no taste, peasant" thing - they have been convinced that "the experts" know what is really beautiful and really ugly, and only their opinion matters. I think there might be time to push back on that and admit the possibility that if something looks ugly, there may be a chance it is ugly.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#339

Post by rglullis »

idiotsecant wrote: post #276
trilbyglens wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it that America can still be traumatised from the world wars architecturally but europe is not? I don't really buy the argument that america builds badly because of fear of destruction. It's more that we are an utterly utilitarian culture. We have nothing old, and cannot imagine that anything might become old. Our goals are to maximize profits while minimizing cost, so we end up building $10m houses out of shi…

>Our goals are to maximize profits while minimizing cost, so we end up building $10m houses out of shitty plywood and fake bricks glued on the fascade. I think claiming that building things to a budget is some kind of unsophisticated Nouveau riche mentality is overlooking the experience of the vast majority of people. The US median household income (usually two people) is $78,075. The majority of people don't have th…

The cost of a home has almost nothing to do with the materials. It's the developer that is trying to cut as much as possible, because this means he gets increased profit margins.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#340

Post by lotsofpulp »

ericmay wrote: post #331
DrBazza wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm a shareholder of a company that builds office blocks, I'll be demanding dividends and a return on my investment. Unless the customer (e.g. Apple and their giant do(ugh)nut) specifically ask for something that isn't structurally significant, a construction firm isn't going to add it.

> If I'm a shareholder of a company that builds office blocks, I'll be demanding dividends and a return on my investment. Sorry I'm not following the point here. Can you elaborate? > Unless the customer (e.g. Apple and their giant do(ugh)nut) specifically ask for something that isn't structurally significant, a construction firm isn't going to add it. That's my point. There isn't any competition in the marketplace or…

Everyday people have insufficient wealth to shop around for homes or dictate design.
Post reply on HN