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

431–440 of 512 posts

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#431

Post by ozim »

rob74 wrote: post #136
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…

I'm in Europe (in Germany to be more precise), but believe you me, new buildings that I would describe as "beautiful" are few and far between here too. I think most of it is due to what I would call cookie cutter mentality. For most architects, a building is just a job. They don't realize that even the most unassuming building is something that may be used for 100 years and more, that will influence the lives of thou…

I love people nagging about architecture of buildings that they are not paying for.

I also disagree that most buildings will or should be used for 100 years.

I am quite of a fan of one generational building. Mostly because a lot of people will move around anyway. Unless you are really wealthy family that can afford to stay in place for generations.

Well it is cheaper to stay for generations in some village than in city center.

But most kids will probably move to the city anyway.

So building something fancy is in my opinion waste of resources and most likely having bad impact on environment.

Building something that can be easily replaced- even if not as nice - has the advantage.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#432

Post by tablespoon »

pizzalife wrote: post #387
booleandilemma wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the equivalent to "why does modern music suck" (said by every generation of the next generation's music) At first I agreed with you but then I clicked the submission article and saw those ugly mouse statue things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaws Lots of people seem to enjoy those "ugly mouse statue things".

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaws

> Lots of people seem to enjoy those "ugly mouse statue things".

Sorry, they're still crap. Seriously, taking the MTV VMA statue and robotically slapping his characters head on it? I recently watched the Nathan For You episode "Dumb Starbucks" and those statutes remind me the lazy, deliberately terrible parodies he displayed at an art gallery to establish his bona fides as a "parody artist."

I can't find the YouTube clip of it, but here are some screenshots:

https://www.vulture.com/2015/11/test-your-logos-with-nathan-...

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3844774/mediaviewer/rm341341388...

And here's him singing some equally-terrible parody songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I71IJOym2ic.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#433

Post by rglullis »

baremetal wrote: post #412
rglullis wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>The cost of a home has almost nothing to do with the materials. In this environment? Citation needed. Building materials of all sorts are difficult to source, often with long lead times, and are multiples of what they were a few years ago. Labor has gone up as well. Builders are lucky to get 20% margins.

> In this environment?

It doesn't matter the environment, when we are talking about margins. Increased costs to the builder are passed along to the end customer.

> Labor has gone up as well.

Which makes any possible savings in materials contribute even more interesting as a way to increase the margin.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#434

Post by actionablefiber »

bombcar wrote: post #413
actionablefiber wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then those people will want things like “electricity” and “a network of wide paved roads” and “Internet” and “drinking water” and “sewage” and “timely package delivery to their front door” and “big box stores with parking lots the size of two city blocks” - and those things at that density have absolutely terrible unit economics and environmental externalities. I frequently see people complain about how traffic i…

Heh everything you mention there is available in thousands upon thousands of small towns across the US - basically anywhere there's a Walmart that isn't a city.

Yes, and those have terrible unit economics and environmental externalities! We should not be looking at the unsettled land in between as an opportunity to stretch ourselves even thinner!

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#435

Post by djur »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #231
BrandonS113 wrote: post #212

I'm now visiting a brand new office building in London and it is stunning. Not minimalist, brutalist, ornate. And unique. And everybody who works in it seems to love it. I want to work there. What bugs me is how most new buildings are similar all across the world. 100 years ago, each city has a character unique to it. Barcelona was uniquely Barcelona. Copenhagen was uniquely Copenhagen. Now most new buildings look li…

A meme was circulating last week showing dozens of sedans from multiple automakers and it highlighted just how similar they all looked. The meme was criticizing the notion that competition facilitates innovation. However I think people failed to take into account that cars have likely converged to a common design as a consequence of fuel economy and regulatory pressures. I wonder if similar pressures affect architect…

Part of it is complying to building codes, and part of it is a tactic to get through design review boards. "This is a design you've approved a dozen times before and appears in cities all over the country" is an effective argument against all kinds of design nitpicks, and complaints about the buildings looking too similar can be addressed by letting the board slap on some random facades and whatnot until they feel invested.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#436

Post by pizzalife »

tablespoon wrote: post #432
pizzalife wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaws Lots of people seem to enjoy those "ugly mouse statue things".

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaws > Lots of people seem to enjoy those "ugly mouse statue things". Sorry, they're still crap. Seriously, taking the MTV VMA statue and robotically slapping his characters head on it? I recently watched the Nathan For You episode "Dumb Starbucks" and those statutes remind me the lazy, deliberately terrible parodies he displayed at an art gallery to establish his bona fides as a "paro…

What I'm trying to say is that anyone is free to say they're crap, but that is not an objective opinion. "Perception is subjective" - Sol LeWitt

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#437

Post by gnulinux »

royaltheartist wrote: post #25

This feels less like it tells us anything about the world but more about how small the author's conception of it is. Reminds me of people who complain about how music is "bad these days" but they're only talking about what they hear on the radio and aren't really exploring what the landscape has to offer A lot of what gets created is for functional purposes, and it has always been that way. As time goes on, the funct…

> music is "bad these days"

Exactly, music is absolutely incredible these days. In any genre you pick, you will find very inspired, innovative and beautiful examples.

Some people who say "music is bad these days" try to contrast pop music with 18th/19th century Western classical music. But that makes absolutely no sense because there are heaps over heaps of beautiful classical music composed in 21st century. You just need to go out there and find them. E.g. there are Unsuk Chin, Jennifer Higdon, Fred Lerdahl, Michael Torke, James Yannatos etc... There is no shortage of beautiful classical music produced today, if you care to look outside of household names.

Similarly, when people contrast pop music with classic rock (e.g. mid-to-late 20th century Rock and Hard Rock), I think they're once again failing to find the right kind of aesthetics. There are Greta Van Fleet, Heart, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club etc... All kinds of artists who make great Rock music. But since they're not mainstream anymore, they're not exposed to masses as much as Rolling Stones, Queen, Led Zeppelin etc...

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#438

Post by msla »

> We live in undeniably ugly times.

And, in a few decades, it'll be seen as retro, and stylish, and something to be emulated.

Does anyone really pretend style makes progress, as opposed to merely making changes?

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#439

Post by cdrini »

keiferski wrote: post #179
cdrini wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I'm blown away people here are confidently saying things like "most people don't think the Eiffel Tower is beautiful." Huh? Are you guys joking? Are these comments generated by GPT? It's beautiful because of its geometry. It's beautiful in the way it compliments the city. It's beautiful when it's lit up at night. What more do you want exactly? Who would have the gall to say something like "most people" don't thi…

Instead of being outraged, I suggest you read the comments again. No one said it is ugly or that it isn't beautiful, just that it's not typically thought of as an example of "a beautiful thing." People think of it as a symbol of Paris, not an exemplar of beauty. Especially people that live in Paris and see it everyday.

I'm not outraged, just surprised at how confidently people will say statements that are near impossible to justify. Eg the Eiffel Tower "is not typically thought of as an example of 'a beautiful thing'". ... What?? Citation needed? Did you conduct a survey? Why do you think you know what most people think? And to state it just as a fact. When, opposite that discussion is the fact that it's one of the most internationally recognized buildings _ever_ -- to confidently say that none of those people see it as "a beautiful thing" and only as a symbol of Paris?? I'm perplexed :P I don't even a little bit follow your logic.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#440

Post by cdrini »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #233
cdrini wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I'm blown away people here are confidently saying things like "most people don't think the Eiffel Tower is beautiful." Huh? Are you guys joking? Are these comments generated by GPT? It's beautiful because of its geometry. It's beautiful in the way it compliments the city. It's beautiful when it's lit up at night. What more do you want exactly? Who would have the gall to say something like "most people" don't thi…

>"say something like "most people" don't think it's beautiful?" Note quite, people today see the Eiffel Tower as a world wonder and a symbol of France itself. But back in the late 1800's many Parisians considered it gaudy and several prominent artists bitterly contested its construction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower

I always find that story funny because the structure is so clearly beautiful to my eyes! I was responding to some sibling comments that said that today "most people" don't think it's beautiful.
Post reply on HN