4 ms·

They've aged well because they were deemed worth saving after several decades. Since Penn, Euston stations the interest in saving as much as possible rather tha

They've aged well because they were deemed worth saving after several decades. Since Penn, Euston stations the interest in saving as much as possible rather than just the best examples has caused some lesser quality old buildings to be kept.

shaki-dora 8y ago
I’ve heard this explanation (i. e. selection bias) a few times, but I don’t think it holds true. I live in a 190x building in Berlin that was nothing special for its time. Yet people prefer this style to anything built later, including most modern buildings (which are, however, preferable to the abominations of the 60s, brutalism or not). Here’s a streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/bmFBmYywHAF2 https://goo.gl/maps/bmFBmYywHAF2 walk around a bit and you see many such buildings. Only where bombs destroyed the older houses in WW2 will you find anything build after 1920. The reasons aren’t necessarily a loss in taste: the older buildings have far higher ceilings, which may be due to them often being filled with far more people than is usual today. Alternatively (or because of that) heating costs did not factor into such decisions. As to skyscrapers and larger buildings such as museums or hospitals, it’s important to remember that glass & steel & concrete is rather new technology. It’s far cheaper than brick, and simply a compromise between costs and appearances that was not commonly available back then. It’s also somewhat inconsistent but undeniable that we appreciate the decorative elements on the exterior, or the stucco inside, yet it feels somewhat tacky to make them today: McMansions are what happens when you think you can plunder all that’s beautiful from previous eras.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Very high ceilings is one technique used to keep buildings cool during the summer before AC or even electric fans were around.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- improbable22 8y ago
  The street view shows what I think would have been housing for people moderately high up the scale. I'm pretty sure that none of the initial residents would have washed the floors themselves... certainly upper half, right? So there's something in the selection view. I don't know what happened to the buildings which housed the lower half. I know Berlin in 1900 was famous for having lots of awful newly-built tenement buildings, much lower standards than NYC or London at the same period. Maybe these were much less likely to be restored? But I agree that selection isn't the whole story. Technology is some of it: heating was never cheap, but lighting was even more expensive, which is why old factories have huge windows. I think formality was another part, having a big formal room for guests was important for respectability, whereas today most housing is designed much more around its daily use... so things get subdivided to have more separate bedrooms.
barry-cotter 8y ago
I regret that five minutes searching didn’t lead me to the original article I found this so this is all if I recall correctly stuff. The average architect lives in a building over a hundred years old. The most desired buildings in the Netherlands are equally over a hundred years old, with people basically preferring faux copies (because buildings that inaccessible to the disabled are now illegal to build) to more modern architecture. I’m aware there’re a lot of old buildings in most developed countries but there are more new ones. While there may be some bias towards keeping nice old buildings it’s not enough to explain the difference in quality. Old buildings straight up look better, they were designed by better architects.

shaki-dora 8y ago

I’ve heard this explanation (i. e. selection bias) a few times, but I don’t think it holds true. I live in a 190x building in Berlin that was nothing special for its time. Yet people prefer this style to anything built later, including most modern buildings (which are, however, preferable to the abominations of the 60s, brutalism or not). Here’s a streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/bmFBmYywHAF2 https://goo.gl/maps/bmFBmYywHAF2 walk around a bit and you see many such buildings. Only where bombs destroyed the older houses in WW2 will you find anything build after 1920. The reasons aren’t necessarily a loss in taste: the older buildings have far higher ceilings, which may be due to them often being filled with far more people than is usual today. Alternatively (or because of that) heating costs did not factor into such decisions. As to skyscrapers and larger buildings such as museums or hospitals, it’s important to remember that glass & steel & concrete is rather new technology. It’s far cheaper than brick, and simply a compromise between costs and appearances that was not commonly available back then. It’s also somewhat inconsistent but undeniable that we appreciate the decorative elements on the exterior, or the stucco inside, yet it feels somewhat tacky to make them today: McMansions are what happens when you think you can plunder all that’s beautiful from previous eras.

darkpuma 8y ago
Very high ceilings is one technique used to keep buildings cool during the summer before AC or even electric fans were around.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
improbable22 8y ago
The street view shows what I think would have been housing for people moderately high up the scale. I'm pretty sure that none of the initial residents would have washed the floors themselves... certainly upper half, right? So there's something in the selection view. I don't know what happened to the buildings which housed the lower half. I know Berlin in 1900 was famous for having lots of awful newly-built tenement buildings, much lower standards than NYC or London at the same period. Maybe these were much less likely to be restored? But I agree that selection isn't the whole story. Technology is some of it: heating was never cheap, but lighting was even more expensive, which is why old factories have huge windows. I think formality was another part, having a big formal room for guests was important for respectability, whereas today most housing is designed much more around its daily use... so things get subdivided to have more separate bedrooms.

barry-cotter 8y ago

I regret that five minutes searching didn’t lead me to the original article I found this so this is all if I recall correctly stuff. The average architect lives in a building over a hundred years old. The most desired buildings in the Netherlands are equally over a hundred years old, with people basically preferring faux copies (because buildings that inaccessible to the disabled are now illegal to build) to more modern architecture. I’m aware there’re a lot of old buildings in most developed countries but there are more new ones. While there may be some bias towards keeping nice old buildings it’s not enough to explain the difference in quality. Old buildings straight up look better, they were designed by better architects.