4 ms·

Well, given the post WW2 built environment... Yeah, I'm gonna call it something bad. But this is the problem, I suppose. It's obvious that the fractal complex

Well, given the post WW2 built environment... Yeah, I'm gonna call it something bad. But this is the problem, I suppose. It's obvious that the fractal complexity, materials, beauty and craftsmanship of older buildings is vastly superior to what even rich folks can afford today, but we have to sit around and argue about taste and air conditioning, rather than figure out what the hell happened.

Turing_Machine 10y ago
Off-the-rack clothing doesn't match the materials, beauty, and craftsmanship of a bespoke Savile Row English cut suit, either, but neither does it cost $3-5,000 a pop. I personally like having more than one set of clothes to wear. I also like air conditioning when I'm in a hot climate and central heat in a cold one. Electricity and running water are also nice.
- carsongross 10y ago
  Completely agree. I live in Sacramento, air conditioning is a must. But this house was sold to average humans, in contrast to Savile Row suits. I think we need to embrace the healing power of "and" here: the modern amenities and size are great, but we've lost something very significant in the materials and aesthetic quality (regardless of taste, I have seen well done houses in nearly every style save brutalism) far out of proportion to what we pay for housing.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    > But this house was sold to average humans, in contrast to Savile Row suits. I don't think so. From some not-too-reliable numbers I found in Google (if you have better ones, feel free), the median house price in 1925 was $6,000. This Sears house cost almost 60% of that just for materials. No land, labor, mechanical... If we apply your 4x adjustment, the Sears house cost about $14,000 as built. That's more than twice the median house price of the day. This was a house for wealthy people.
    - Someone 10y ago
      "just for materials" And not even all of them: "Price does not include cement, brick, or plaster"

Turing_Machine 10y ago

Off-the-rack clothing doesn't match the materials, beauty, and craftsmanship of a bespoke Savile Row English cut suit, either, but neither does it cost $3-5,000 a pop. I personally like having more than one set of clothes to wear. I also like air conditioning when I'm in a hot climate and central heat in a cold one. Electricity and running water are also nice.

carsongross 10y ago
Completely agree. I live in Sacramento, air conditioning is a must. But this house was sold to average humans, in contrast to Savile Row suits. I think we need to embrace the healing power of "and" here: the modern amenities and size are great, but we've lost something very significant in the materials and aesthetic quality (regardless of taste, I have seen well done houses in nearly every style save brutalism) far out of proportion to what we pay for housing.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  > But this house was sold to average humans, in contrast to Savile Row suits. I don't think so. From some not-too-reliable numbers I found in Google (if you have better ones, feel free), the median house price in 1925 was $6,000. This Sears house cost almost 60% of that just for materials. No land, labor, mechanical... If we apply your 4x adjustment, the Sears house cost about $14,000 as built. That's more than twice the median house price of the day. This was a house for wealthy people.
  - Someone 10y ago
    "just for materials" And not even all of them: "Price does not include cement, brick, or plaster"