5 ms·

The only pre-20thC buildings that remain are the ones that survive. The ones that survive are the ones we like and that are able to survive (not plywood and wel

The only pre-20thC buildings that remain are the ones that survive. The ones that survive are the ones we like and that are able to survive (not plywood and well built). Survival is the real measurement of how much we like it - it is the ultimate arbiter of aesthetics/beauty/cultural significance/engineering excellence, and it trumps all the chatter of self-appointed critics. If it's garbage, we tear it down or stop maintaining it until it comes down on its own. Darlyrimple is right, "it's ugly, just look at it." These buildings may continue to fall because people don't like to use them. I'm just worried that people will adapt to like the buildings .

pjc50 7y ago
Well, apart from the "listed building" system which freezes them on an entirely political basis.
- microtherion 7y ago
  Yes, my worry is not so much that architects build ugly or dysfunctional buildings (that has always happened), but that today's architects, once they manage to build something, tend to have quite a bit of power to prevent tearing down or altering their oeuvres, no matter how ill conceived.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  It's telling that architects feel the need to list their beautiful creations to keep them from being torn down by the philistines.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    It's not usually the architects themselves, it's more an intelligentsia thing.
Retric 7y ago
Comparing buildings by their external appearance is never going away, but many people just don’t care. Brutalist is thus never going away simply because at it’s core it was very utilitarian. The fad was mostly an over reaction, but sometimes you just want a large concrete box and anything else is a waste of resources.
- jonhendry18 7y ago
  Nobody minds brutalist architecture when it's used for a fortified airplane hangar.
jweir 7y ago
Sometimes this is true, sometimes this is not. The mess that is Penn Station comes to mind. The buildings and neighborhoods torn down for freeway projects come to mind. Sometimes the new is all that is required to be better than the old.
IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
> The only pre-20thC buildings that remain are the ones that survive. This has become a cliché talking-point, but it isn't entirely true. Or, at least, it doesn't fully apply here. The best contrast to "modernism" would be the episode directly preceding it, namely Art Nouveau or Jugendstil. There are lots of European cities both large and small that were predominantly built in this style, because it coincided with the rapid growth of cities as industrialisation swept (parts of) Europe. While British cities and Paris are somewhat older, everything east of France saw a major growth spurt in this time. Because construction was rather centralised, a great many houses of rather similar style were built. My city, Berlin, is a prime example of this. The core city centre is somewhat older, but about 80% of the housing stock were built within 25 years around the turn of the 20th century. Here's a street view of my house: https://goo.gl/maps/NRhfef2KEdx7yAET8 https://goo.gl/maps/NRhfef2KEdx7yAET8 If you walk around a bit, you will see newer, mostly ugly buildings. But essentially no houses were ever demolished for aesthetic reasons. Every new house owes its existence to World War 2. Here's a map showing building age on a block-by-block level: https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/so-alt-wohnt-berlin/ https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/so-alt-wohnt-berlin/ (click on "Karte aktivieren" to the right). If you hover over different blocks, you will note that for the vast majority, houses were built around the same time. The same is true for wider areas, generally becoming younger as one leaves the centre (as expected for a growing city. For the "survival of the pretty" theory, one would expect more within-block heterogeneity, with one house surviving and it's direct (ugly) neighbour having been demolished and rebuilt. Go to cities that weren't bombed, such as Budapest, and you will find entire quarters unchanged since they were built about 120 years ago.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Tangential, but what's with the censorship on that street view? Freedom of panorama issues?
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
    Privacy. There were some complaints about street view when it was introduced, and Google allowed any resident to block their house.
jjtheblunt 7y ago
Sadly, false: "Survival is the real measurement of how much we like it". Many structures survive because their destruction would release regulated toxins, which were unregulated when built.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  One way to read that is the regulation is preventing progress.
  - chris1993 7y ago
    But a better way to read it is that regulation is protecting us from the mistakes of the past. Unless you fancy inhaling asbestos?
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      >But a better way to read it is that regulation is protecting us from the mistakes of the past. Unless you fancy inhaling asbestos? Well since we're playing the false dichotomy game I'd gladly take prosperity with a side of lung cancer over cancer free stagnation.
      - jonhendry18 7y ago
        Progress isn't going to be held up by a couple of acres remaining idle because nobody wants to pay the remediation costs. Your notion of progress is weak.
  - jonhendry18 7y ago
    Disease is progress Ignorance is strength
- jonhendry18 7y ago
  On the other hand, they probably aren't still being used, either. Nor are they likely to be civic focal points like a city hall.
ht_th 7y ago
> The only pre-20thC buildings that remain are the ones that survive. The ones that survive are the ones we like and that are able to survive (not plywood and well built). Unfortunately, the city I live in has been burned, bombed, or otherwise destroyed a couple of times since it became a city in the late middle ages. This destruction happened regardless of likeability or sturdiness of the buildings involved.
- jonhendry18 7y ago
  If the buildings are valued enough, and the society can afford it, they are often rebuilt.

pjc50 7y ago

Well, apart from the "listed building" system which freezes them on an entirely political basis.

microtherion 7y ago
Yes, my worry is not so much that architects build ugly or dysfunctional buildings (that has always happened), but that today's architects, once they manage to build something, tend to have quite a bit of power to prevent tearing down or altering their oeuvres, no matter how ill conceived.
Gibbon1 7y ago
It's telling that architects feel the need to list their beautiful creations to keep them from being torn down by the philistines.
- pjc50 7y ago
  It's not usually the architects themselves, it's more an intelligentsia thing.

Retric 7y ago

Comparing buildings by their external appearance is never going away, but many people just don’t care. Brutalist is thus never going away simply because at it’s core it was very utilitarian. The fad was mostly an over reaction, but sometimes you just want a large concrete box and anything else is a waste of resources.

jonhendry18 7y ago
Nobody minds brutalist architecture when it's used for a fortified airplane hangar.

jweir 7y ago

Sometimes this is true, sometimes this is not. The mess that is Penn Station comes to mind. The buildings and neighborhoods torn down for freeway projects come to mind. Sometimes the new is all that is required to be better than the old.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

> The only pre-20thC buildings that remain are the ones that survive. This has become a cliché talking-point, but it isn't entirely true. Or, at least, it doesn't fully apply here. The best contrast to "modernism" would be the episode directly preceding it, namely Art Nouveau or Jugendstil. There are lots of European cities both large and small that were predominantly built in this style, because it coincided with the rapid growth of cities as industrialisation swept (parts of) Europe. While British cities and Paris are somewhat older, everything east of France saw a major growth spurt in this time. Because construction was rather centralised, a great many houses of rather similar style were built. My city, Berlin, is a prime example of this. The core city centre is somewhat older, but about 80% of the housing stock were built within 25 years around the turn of the 20th century. Here's a street view of my house: https://goo.gl/maps/NRhfef2KEdx7yAET8 https://goo.gl/maps/NRhfef2KEdx7yAET8 If you walk around a bit, you will see newer, mostly ugly buildings. But essentially no houses were ever demolished for aesthetic reasons. Every new house owes its existence to World War 2. Here's a map showing building age on a block-by-block level: https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/so-alt-wohnt-berlin/ https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/so-alt-wohnt-berlin/ (click on "Karte aktivieren" to the right). If you hover over different blocks, you will note that for the vast majority, houses were built around the same time. The same is true for wider areas, generally becoming younger as one leaves the centre (as expected for a growing city. For the "survival of the pretty" theory, one would expect more within-block heterogeneity, with one house surviving and it's direct (ugly) neighbour having been demolished and rebuilt. Go to cities that weren't bombed, such as Budapest, and you will find entire quarters unchanged since they were built about 120 years ago.

deogeo 7y ago
Tangential, but what's with the censorship on that street view? Freedom of panorama issues?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  Privacy. There were some complaints about street view when it was introduced, and Google allowed any resident to block their house.

jjtheblunt 7y ago

Sadly, false: "Survival is the real measurement of how much we like it". Many structures survive because their destruction would release regulated toxins, which were unregulated when built.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
One way to read that is the regulation is preventing progress.
- chris1993 7y ago
  But a better way to read it is that regulation is protecting us from the mistakes of the past. Unless you fancy inhaling asbestos?
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >But a better way to read it is that regulation is protecting us from the mistakes of the past. Unless you fancy inhaling asbestos? Well since we're playing the false dichotomy game I'd gladly take prosperity with a side of lung cancer over cancer free stagnation.
    - jonhendry18 7y ago
      Progress isn't going to be held up by a couple of acres remaining idle because nobody wants to pay the remediation costs. Your notion of progress is weak.
- jonhendry18 7y ago
  Disease is progress Ignorance is strength
jonhendry18 7y ago
On the other hand, they probably aren't still being used, either. Nor are they likely to be civic focal points like a city hall.

ht_th 7y ago

> The only pre-20thC buildings that remain are the ones that survive. The ones that survive are the ones we like and that are able to survive (not plywood and well built). Unfortunately, the city I live in has been burned, bombed, or otherwise destroyed a couple of times since it became a city in the late middle ages. This destruction happened regardless of likeability or sturdiness of the buildings involved.

jonhendry18 7y ago
If the buildings are valued enough, and the society can afford it, they are often rebuilt.