6 ms·

> These places are built all at once to a finished state. Today is peak wealth; it's all downhill from here, regardless of how much public investment is made.

> These places are built all at once to a finished state. Today is peak wealth; it's all downhill from here, regardless of how much public investment is made. This. I've struggled to phrase why most developments seem so terrible, or sterile, or what-have-you, while the areas that developed over time seem so much more... Alive? Valued? This is an amazing way to phrase that difference - it's possible to invest yourself in places that are not at peak value.

PaulHoule 10y ago
Go to the poor neighborhoods and look closely and you often find that they built a bunch of row houses that are maybe two to four stories high. Some of them got knocked down, some of them are still there but they've been altered or decorated. When the trees get taller the monotonous aspects are less visible. Some of them are now vacant lots or rebuilt houses, stores, parking lots, etc. When they went to see Levittown for it's 50th aniversary they were unable to find a single house that had not changed in a major way. Even the worst architecture and urban planning will be reprocessed over time.
- jonlucc 10y ago
  You might be interested in the episode of 99 Percent Invisible [1] that talks about how an architect was tasked with designing a bunch of housing for very poor residents in Chile after a disaster. He chose to build half-houses that are literally unfinished roofs on one side. Over time, people were encouraged to build the other half as they saw fit. [1] Episode 231 - Half a House - http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/half-a-house/ http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/half-a-house/
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    Oh so very cool. So very cool. This is going into the research pile; after Ghost Ship, this content seems excessively relevant.
  - WildUtah 10y ago
    There's a famous National Geographic photo of a cookie-cutter suburb an hour east of Mexico City. [0] Identical brand new tiny homes in cheerful monotone colors extend into the distance. If you visit that neighborhood today, you can see the results of laws very different from those in American suburbs. Most of the houses have been expanded. Each one has grown in a different way. They've been repainted different colors, there are Virgin of Guadalupe icons and paintings and Aztec designs and decorations and every other kind of individualistic expression all over. Small shops have opened to provide typical neighborhood corner store services and light industry like auto repair and electronics servicing is going on during the day. Lots of the car parking has been enclosed and some has been eliminated entirely in favor of more living space. [1] All of those changes would be illegal in the vast majority of American suburbs. When older American cities were built, the laws were more like Mexican laws and neighborhoods could grow up with residents and families and provide local services and develop character. Plus, the Mexican neighborhood and older American neighborhoods are significantly denser than new American suburbs, without being remotely like really dense development. That makes things much more accessible by walking and creates more cooperation. That's the difference a reasonably open and humble set of laws makes. [0] http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/2013/5/housing-development-mexico/ http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-d... [1] Try a satellite or street view somewhere around 19º18'30'' N and 98º51'30'' W
    - galdosdi 10y ago
      Yes, this!! If you want to visit "good suburbs" (single family homes and duplexes mostly, but with variety, character, mixed use, and you can get around by transit, walking, or car -- and a reasonable tradeoff of affordable housing but reasonable commute time) like this in the USA, the middle areas (not center, not outskirts) of northeastern cities developed before or around the time of the rise of the auto have some. Queens, Bronx, outer (ie, not the currently trendy part along the East river) Brooklyn for example. So often we frame it as a choice, quiet but car-enslaved suburban living versus hectic but convenient urban living. Wrong! You can have it all. You just need your government to not be stupid.
  - Camillo 10y ago
    That's not a new idea. It used to be common in America too, although usually in that case it was two floors, one finished and one unfinished for future expansion.
- Gargoyle 10y ago
  Unless the neighborhood covenants prevent it, of course.
- StillBored 10y ago
  That is the story of my first house in a every inexpensive blue collar/working class neighborhood. Five basic single story floorplans, couple different elevations. I purchased it at approximately 20 years old (that was 15 years ago), and at that point the houses had started to need new siding, roofs, etc. So generally as new buyers purchased them, they gutted and refinished them to varying levels. The end result is that its quite possible in many cases to walk into a house with the same basic floorplan and not really realize it right away because a couple walls had been moved around, the kitchens and bathrooms have been heavily updated at differing times and reflect the styles when they were last remolded. The landscaping is wildly different, back patio/decks/pools vary in size/style, etc. I never knew it was possible to put brick or stonework on a house built with wood siding until living in that neighboorhood. A couple of the owners apparently worked construction putting in brick siding and they bricked up their own houses in a few days. Another guy covered his house in white stonework rather than just the limited front elevation with a chair rail high stonework.
- bsder 10y ago
  Yet Levittown was absolutely excoriated when it was being built as being the exact same kind of sterility we complain about today. In addition, today is even worse because now we have Homeowners Associations which prevent any evolution because it might affect the price of someone's house in a downward direction.
1_2__3 10y ago
My opinion is because modern development is all about squeezing every single last dollar out of that development. That involves things like the illusion of open spaces while still using every last square meter of ground without wasting anything. The result is extremely jarring in ways that people can't easily articulate. Something in your brain is noticing the architecture is trying to hide what is basically a big empty box of steel and glass, with areas in between that kinda sorta seem like nice open space but doesn't seem to ever actually be used for that. It's just there to look at and think it's usable.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  I think your onto something. Of course such things are extremely subjective. One thing I have noticed that bothers me with new developments are trees. They are always short, because they are still young. Hence they have no character, yet. Storms haven't ripped them, they haven't been shared when they cover someone's window from sunlight. And if course they are always perfectly aligned and usually rounded with a square made of tiles. Everything measured and inch perfect. Interestingly this bothers me with new developments, that everything is too neat and measured. At some places I appreciate it.
  - lawpoop 10y ago
    Those trees are also selected to have a pleasing shape while they are young, not drop anything untoward like too many flowers, spiky balls, rotting fruits, pits, etc., grow relatively quickly, etc. In other words the trees are as sterile and monoculture as the architecture.
    - obstinate 10y ago
      As someone who has a tree that drops a lot of spiky balls in my front yard, I wouldn't mind if it were something that was attractive yet easy to maintain. Trees aren't sterile simply by virtue of being chosen for the convenience of their owners.
cameldrv 10y ago
Also partly because older developments have had time to evolve to meet the needs of the people who live there. Sure, some things are hard to change after the fact, but if there's anything humans can do it's to iteratively change their environment to adapt to human needs. To expect some master planner to be able to instantly create something as good as a hundred years of people trying different things is unreasonable.

PaulHoule 10y ago

Go to the poor neighborhoods and look closely and you often find that they built a bunch of row houses that are maybe two to four stories high. Some of them got knocked down, some of them are still there but they've been altered or decorated. When the trees get taller the monotonous aspects are less visible. Some of them are now vacant lots or rebuilt houses, stores, parking lots, etc. When they went to see Levittown for it's 50th aniversary they were unable to find a single house that had not changed in a major way. Even the worst architecture and urban planning will be reprocessed over time.

jonlucc 10y ago
You might be interested in the episode of 99 Percent Invisible [1] that talks about how an architect was tasked with designing a bunch of housing for very poor residents in Chile after a disaster. He chose to build half-houses that are literally unfinished roofs on one side. Over time, people were encouraged to build the other half as they saw fit. [1] Episode 231 - Half a House - http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/half-a-house/ http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/half-a-house/
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Oh so very cool. So very cool. This is going into the research pile; after Ghost Ship, this content seems excessively relevant.
- WildUtah 10y ago
  There's a famous National Geographic photo of a cookie-cutter suburb an hour east of Mexico City. [0] Identical brand new tiny homes in cheerful monotone colors extend into the distance. If you visit that neighborhood today, you can see the results of laws very different from those in American suburbs. Most of the houses have been expanded. Each one has grown in a different way. They've been repainted different colors, there are Virgin of Guadalupe icons and paintings and Aztec designs and decorations and every other kind of individualistic expression all over. Small shops have opened to provide typical neighborhood corner store services and light industry like auto repair and electronics servicing is going on during the day. Lots of the car parking has been enclosed and some has been eliminated entirely in favor of more living space. [1] All of those changes would be illegal in the vast majority of American suburbs. When older American cities were built, the laws were more like Mexican laws and neighborhoods could grow up with residents and families and provide local services and develop character. Plus, the Mexican neighborhood and older American neighborhoods are significantly denser than new American suburbs, without being remotely like really dense development. That makes things much more accessible by walking and creates more cooperation. That's the difference a reasonably open and humble set of laws makes. [0] http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/2013/5/housing-development-mexico/ http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-d... [1] Try a satellite or street view somewhere around 19º18'30'' N and 98º51'30'' W
  - galdosdi 10y ago
    Yes, this!! If you want to visit "good suburbs" (single family homes and duplexes mostly, but with variety, character, mixed use, and you can get around by transit, walking, or car -- and a reasonable tradeoff of affordable housing but reasonable commute time) like this in the USA, the middle areas (not center, not outskirts) of northeastern cities developed before or around the time of the rise of the auto have some. Queens, Bronx, outer (ie, not the currently trendy part along the East river) Brooklyn for example. So often we frame it as a choice, quiet but car-enslaved suburban living versus hectic but convenient urban living. Wrong! You can have it all. You just need your government to not be stupid.
- Camillo 10y ago
  That's not a new idea. It used to be common in America too, although usually in that case it was two floors, one finished and one unfinished for future expansion.
Gargoyle 10y ago
Unless the neighborhood covenants prevent it, of course.
StillBored 10y ago
That is the story of my first house in a every inexpensive blue collar/working class neighborhood. Five basic single story floorplans, couple different elevations. I purchased it at approximately 20 years old (that was 15 years ago), and at that point the houses had started to need new siding, roofs, etc. So generally as new buyers purchased them, they gutted and refinished them to varying levels. The end result is that its quite possible in many cases to walk into a house with the same basic floorplan and not really realize it right away because a couple walls had been moved around, the kitchens and bathrooms have been heavily updated at differing times and reflect the styles when they were last remolded. The landscaping is wildly different, back patio/decks/pools vary in size/style, etc. I never knew it was possible to put brick or stonework on a house built with wood siding until living in that neighboorhood. A couple of the owners apparently worked construction putting in brick siding and they bricked up their own houses in a few days. Another guy covered his house in white stonework rather than just the limited front elevation with a chair rail high stonework.
bsder 10y ago
Yet Levittown was absolutely excoriated when it was being built as being the exact same kind of sterility we complain about today. In addition, today is even worse because now we have Homeowners Associations which prevent any evolution because it might affect the price of someone's house in a downward direction.

1_2__3 10y ago

My opinion is because modern development is all about squeezing every single last dollar out of that development. That involves things like the illusion of open spaces while still using every last square meter of ground without wasting anything. The result is extremely jarring in ways that people can't easily articulate. Something in your brain is noticing the architecture is trying to hide what is basically a big empty box of steel and glass, with areas in between that kinda sorta seem like nice open space but doesn't seem to ever actually be used for that. It's just there to look at and think it's usable.

angry-hacker 10y ago
I think your onto something. Of course such things are extremely subjective. One thing I have noticed that bothers me with new developments are trees. They are always short, because they are still young. Hence they have no character, yet. Storms haven't ripped them, they haven't been shared when they cover someone's window from sunlight. And if course they are always perfectly aligned and usually rounded with a square made of tiles. Everything measured and inch perfect. Interestingly this bothers me with new developments, that everything is too neat and measured. At some places I appreciate it.
- lawpoop 10y ago
  Those trees are also selected to have a pleasing shape while they are young, not drop anything untoward like too many flowers, spiky balls, rotting fruits, pits, etc., grow relatively quickly, etc. In other words the trees are as sterile and monoculture as the architecture.
  - obstinate 10y ago
    As someone who has a tree that drops a lot of spiky balls in my front yard, I wouldn't mind if it were something that was attractive yet easy to maintain. Trees aren't sterile simply by virtue of being chosen for the convenience of their owners.

cameldrv 10y ago

Also partly because older developments have had time to evolve to meet the needs of the people who live there. Sure, some things are hard to change after the fact, but if there's anything humans can do it's to iteratively change their environment to adapt to human needs. To expect some master planner to be able to instantly create something as good as a hundred years of people trying different things is unreasonable.