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

491–500 of 512 posts

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#491

Post by Pxtl »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #459
Pxtl wrote: post #33

I gotta say this essay is a bit disappointing. It seems mostly an excuse for the author to grouse and enjoy their own flowery prose. It's the kind of writing I'd expect to see in a Neal Stephenson novel, and it's fun, but it's not really useful as an essay -- it offers very little insight or information. I've often been curious - besides the obvious problems of municipal red-tape, why is construction so expensive now…

Construction is expensive because construction salaries are high. Authors clearly have never owned a century old building though, as easily shown in the first paragraph: > Our own walk begins across the street from our apartment, where, following the recent demolition of a perfectly serviceable hundred-year-old building, a monument to ugliness has recently besieged the block Century old buildings (I own in one!) are…

Hah yeah I live in a century home I know that feel. Double brick walls are lovely but there are definite downsides to living in that old a building. It's just that there's the obvious question "why don't we build new Old Buildings"? Some of it is obviously labour - nobody wants to pay a bricklayer in this day and age.

I was mostly confused because I live in the greater Toronto/Hamilton area, which rapidly joined Vancouver and SF in insane price inflation, and so we're talking million dollar homes made of cheap materials.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#492

Post by idontpost »

vineyardmike wrote: post #478
helen___keller wrote: post #14

It's worth mentioning that a lot of modern architecture (in single family & small-to-mid multifamily developments) is essentially dictated by money: what sells the best (typically the design that maximizes square footage), what is cheapest to build, and what is capable of passing for a given state and municipalities zoning and building code. People shop by location, price, and square footage as their primary search c…

> Consider a pre-war world with little-to-no television in the average household, Maybe the lack of TV is why people made their homes beautiful (eg wallpaper is very unpopular today).

No post body was provided.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#493

Post by throwaway4aday »

RC_ITR wrote: post #349
throwaway4aday wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people in the 60’s Are you sure that was the opinion of the average person or was it the opinion of someone writing a column on architecture in a magazine?

You’re not really aware of the history of city, huh? The neighborhoods with Victorians were either torn down or became low income in the 1950s (ever wonder why hippies flocked to Haight Ashbury?)

Were they torn down or became low income because they were built in the Victorian style or was it perhaps because they were older buildings that needed a lot of renovation so it was cheaper to tear them down and build new or sell them off at lower prices?

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#494

Post by pizzalife »

tablespoon wrote: post #463
pizzalife wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> What I'm trying to say is that anyone is free to say they're crap, but that is not an objective opinion. Heh. As a total aside, "objective opinion" is the kind of oxymoron that fits HN "rationalism" oh so well.

Yeah, they don't exist. But the article is written in the style of someone who thinks their opinion about aesthetics is objective.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#495

Post by throwaway4aday »

bombcar wrote: post #424
throwaway4aday wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be a very subjective opinion. Personally, I find the weird creases on that building disconcerting and unpleasant to look at.

Yeah, that's ... weird. But then again (in my opinion) all skyscrapers look like crap and only become "iconic" by being there for a long time and people get used to them.

I don't think that the Art Deco style skyscrapers look like crap. I quite enjoy them. I think most modern sky scrapers look like crap because they're all done in a modern style with no decoration. Other styles never really got a chance to express themselves since everything was taken over by the modernist look.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#496

Post by throwaway4aday »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #362
throwaway4aday wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this actually how it's practiced? I know this is the professed meaning of the term/movement but when it comes to the implementation it seems to be turning into something much different. Also, in this definition of beauty where do you draw the line for "ugly" or is it now a word without a meaning?

I'm in a lot of these circles and usually it's exactly how it works. You see a fat person, someone says they're beautiful. Do you A: call them ugly to make them feel bad or B: keep moving. The basis of body positivity is to help folks have less self hate while being like "wtf dude, don't be a dick" to the people constantly criticizing them.

I don't think body positivity is needed for that, just manners. Is there actually a problem that is being solved by body positivity that can't be solved by just being polite?

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#497

Post by sbaiddn »

com2kid wrote: post #284
sbaiddn wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never bought into the "eye of the beholder" on aesthetics. I might not understand a particular aesthetic. It might be impossible to formulate logical rules to decide what is beautiful. But beauty is objective, nonetheless. Be it an exquisite Japanese drawing of a bird with ink and rice paper, or Caravaggio, anyone with a soul can see that talent, effort, and a sense of "wholeness" went into creating both. I, person…

> On the other hand, 1950s brutalist buildings, by their own architect's admission, are ugly. Plenty of brutalist buildings are not ugly. https://preview.redd.it/1w5r7lmno0491.jpg?width=4032&format=... Interesting uses of lines and perspective, a willingness to have large sweeping architectural shapes that were not possible before, huge stairwells, open air walkways, plenty of windows for natural light. Yes the concr…

Let me guess. A university or a museum.

It's.. not pretty. A wannabe portico that is more reminiscent of a jail hallway. Its lined with buttock crushing benches to "rest".

As you (necessarily briefly) sit on this bench, at no point are you allowed to fathom that you'll ever escape the concrete that envelops you on every side.

Concrete floor.

Concrete walls.

Concrete ceiling.

But! There's hope in the horizon! A few trees grow in the courtyard. these are the only things that shatters this prison cell. That introduces hope and, yes, beauty. None of it manmade.

For the beauty in this picture, if there is any at all, is exclusive to nature. The trees' elegance jumps at the viewer precisely because otherwise everything in this picture is ugly.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#498

Post by sbaiddn »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #301
sbaiddn wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never bought into the "eye of the beholder" on aesthetics. I might not understand a particular aesthetic. It might be impossible to formulate logical rules to decide what is beautiful. But beauty is objective, nonetheless. Be it an exquisite Japanese drawing of a bird with ink and rice paper, or Caravaggio, anyone with a soul can see that talent, effort, and a sense of "wholeness" went into creating both. I, person…

> I never bought into the "eye of the beholder" on aesthetics. Indeed, but I suspect this has a lot to do with the embrace of materialism, a metaphysical view that has far-reaching and destructive intellectual consequences. Once you accept materialism, you have a whole world of phenomena that cannot be explained purely in terms of res extensa which leads some people to a kind of crypto-Cartesian position in which thi…

"Thats just your opinion man!"

Ugh. The triteness is the worse part.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#499

Post by lmm »

RC_ITR wrote: post #487
lmm wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then a bunch get torn down (usually the lowest effort versions) and people adaptively re-use the best ones and everyone remembers the original intent of the style and falls in love with it again. Then why hasn't that happened with brutalism? It was hated in the '90s, '00s, and '10s, and it's still hated now. And why is the "international style" so much better regarded despite being the same age?

I’m not sure I’m tracking what you’re getting at. International Style had its biggest impact in the US on NYC and just look down park ave to see those buildings getting torn down. Union Carbide being a great example. And the brutalism point confuses me, since plenty of brutalist buildings have been and will be torn down, but I doubt Harvard is going to get rid of it’s Le Corbisier and I bet in 60 years people will ta…

> International Style had its biggest impact in the US on NYC and just look down park ave to see those buildings getting torn down. Union Carbide being a great example.

My point is you saw a lot less of people complaining about how ugly the style was.

> plenty of brutalist buildings have been and will be torn down, but I doubt Harvard is going to get rid of it’s Le Corbisier and I bet in 60 years people will talk about how lucky they are to have the only built example of his work in the Western Hemisphere.

Bet most people will still think it's ugly, even in 60 years.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#500

Post by idiotsecant »

rglullis wrote: post #339
idiotsecant wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

This is plainly and patently false. Materials are (more or less) fully half of the cost of building. If you use nonstandard materials that goes up because you need specialized labor in addition.
Post reply on HN