5 ms·

Honest question: why do you think that the older buildings didn't "maximize profit" for their creators?

pjmorris 7y ago
Not the GP, but I think that the optimizations that lead each locality to have a distinct look came from local minima and maxima (e.g. availability of building materials, local construction practices, function of the building, desire to please the local population, as well as profit maximization), while the average McDonald's, as a for-instance of corporate design, comes from much more global minima and maxima. It's not that the builders of older buildings didn't consider profit, it's that they didn't have Excel-wielding MBA's optimizing a global supply chain to control every aspect of the average building's construction.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Right, the iconic look of the buildings in Paris is entirely a result of a regulatory loophole on building height and the Parisians “maximizing profit” in that environment.
  - notahacker 7y ago
    They were built up to the maximum number of storeys and plot dimensions and extracted higher rents than the medieval streets they replaced, but the look is mostly because of the enforcement of building codes that controlled down to minutae like enforcing alignment of balconies. Which was ultimately the product of a vision which prioritised visual impressiveness over economics (the prioritising appearance over economics applies to Parisian buildings built prior to Parisian building codes too, though obviously there's a lot of survivor bias there)
  - mises 7y ago
    No, it's also a result of the demand for pretty-looking stuff. Some people, for example, appreciate the aesthetics of apple products (though I'm not as much a fan) and will pay extra. Many will buy a fancier home for more than the size. Others buy cars which are outrageously expensive, less reliable, and some times (depending on the brand) less comfortable than others. These act as status symbols and are aesthetically pleasing. Those who build and sell them are maximizing profit, because they believe there to be a market for such items. In fairness to your point, there are craftsmen and artisans who insist on doing things a certain way. That said, they usually have buyers for their products. Those buildings stand today because some one wants them there, are usually quite valuable, and have been re-sold numerous times.
  - cwilkes 7y ago
    Are you talking about the typical 6 story walkup? I thought that was mainly due to Napoleons head of urban renewal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Eug%C3%A8ne_Haussmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Eug%C3%A8ne_Haussmann So less of a loophole and more of a direct outcome
  - baud147258 7y ago
    Fun story on current building height regulation in Paris: my brother was working on a renovation project, where most of the building was demolished, including most of the floors, except the four walls and the roof, since the building predates the current height restriction and is taller than the max height: if they had removed the roof, the new building would have been smaller, so they kept the roof to keep the same (above-regulation) height
inimino 7y ago
> [...] architecture from a time when "maximizing profit" wasn't the only thing ever considered in building. > why do you think that the older buildings didn't "maximize profit" for their creators? "Maximizing profit" was not the only thing considered and maximizing profit should never be the only thing considered. The idea that maximizing profit is the most important thing or the only thing is a radioactive idea that is poisoning western civilization.
egypturnash 7y ago
Here, have a look at a representative sample of images: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=new+orleans+french+quarter&bext=msl&atb=v1-1&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=new+orleans+french+quarter&bext=ms... Just look at any of those wrought iron railings. From a purely functional viewpoint they could do their job of being a railing to stop you from falling off the balcony with a series of plain vertical bars. But they are these elaborate concoctions of decoration and detail that someone had to cast, bend, and shape. You'll find similar aesthetic choices made throughout the city; a lot of houses have wrought iron bars over their windows to deter breakins, and very few of them are the simplest, cheapest design possible, for instance. I am quite sure these buildings have made a profit; hell, the ones in the French Quarter are a big part of the modern tourist economy that draws people and money from all over. But there are a lot of details all over that serve purely to make the buildings pleasing to live and work in, which tend to be the first thing to go in modern architecture driven entirely by maximizing profits (and also still in love with the inhuman brutalist visions of people like Le Corbusier, when it comes to building housing).
- kortilla 7y ago
  But making a building aesthetically pleasing usually is for the purpose of increasing profit (attracting tenants, etc). Any building where the owner is worried about resale value or attracting long-term customers who care about visual appeal is incentivized not to cut corners if it’s any kind of buyer’s market.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Maximizing profit is not always achieved by going for pure function over form. A lot of places try to maximize profit by making a place aesthetically pleasing so more people come.
- kazen44 7y ago
  One of the supposed reasons for this is the relation between labour and product prices. Before WW2, labour was far cheaper then materials, especially in Europe.
  - 7y ago

Not the GP, but I think that the optimizations that lead each locality to have a distinct look came from local minima and maxima (e.g. availability of building materials, local construction practices, function of the building, desire to please the local population, as well as profit maximization), while the average McDonald's, as a for-instance of corporate design, comes from much more global minima and maxima. It's not that the builders of older buildings didn't consider profit, it's that they didn't have Excel-wielding MBA's optimizing a global supply chain to control every aspect of the average building's construction.

kortilla 7y ago
Right, the iconic look of the buildings in Paris is entirely a result of a regulatory loophole on building height and the Parisians “maximizing profit” in that environment.
- notahacker 7y ago
  They were built up to the maximum number of storeys and plot dimensions and extracted higher rents than the medieval streets they replaced, but the look is mostly because of the enforcement of building codes that controlled down to minutae like enforcing alignment of balconies. Which was ultimately the product of a vision which prioritised visual impressiveness over economics (the prioritising appearance over economics applies to Parisian buildings built prior to Parisian building codes too, though obviously there's a lot of survivor bias there)
- mises 7y ago
  No, it's also a result of the demand for pretty-looking stuff. Some people, for example, appreciate the aesthetics of apple products (though I'm not as much a fan) and will pay extra. Many will buy a fancier home for more than the size. Others buy cars which are outrageously expensive, less reliable, and some times (depending on the brand) less comfortable than others. These act as status symbols and are aesthetically pleasing. Those who build and sell them are maximizing profit, because they believe there to be a market for such items. In fairness to your point, there are craftsmen and artisans who insist on doing things a certain way. That said, they usually have buyers for their products. Those buildings stand today because some one wants them there, are usually quite valuable, and have been re-sold numerous times.
- cwilkes 7y ago
  Are you talking about the typical 6 story walkup? I thought that was mainly due to Napoleons head of urban renewal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Eug%C3%A8ne_Haussmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Eug%C3%A8ne_Haussmann So less of a loophole and more of a direct outcome
- baud147258 7y ago
  Fun story on current building height regulation in Paris: my brother was working on a renovation project, where most of the building was demolished, including most of the floors, except the four walls and the roof, since the building predates the current height restriction and is taller than the max height: if they had removed the roof, the new building would have been smaller, so they kept the roof to keep the same (above-regulation) height

inimino 7y ago

> [...] architecture from a time when "maximizing profit" wasn't the only thing ever considered in building. > why do you think that the older buildings didn't "maximize profit" for their creators? "Maximizing profit" was not the only thing considered and maximizing profit should never be the only thing considered. The idea that maximizing profit is the most important thing or the only thing is a radioactive idea that is poisoning western civilization.

egypturnash 7y ago

Here, have a look at a representative sample of images: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=new+orleans+french+quarter&bext=msl&atb=v1-1&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=new+orleans+french+quarter&bext=ms... Just look at any of those wrought iron railings. From a purely functional viewpoint they could do their job of being a railing to stop you from falling off the balcony with a series of plain vertical bars. But they are these elaborate concoctions of decoration and detail that someone had to cast, bend, and shape. You'll find similar aesthetic choices made throughout the city; a lot of houses have wrought iron bars over their windows to deter breakins, and very few of them are the simplest, cheapest design possible, for instance. I am quite sure these buildings have made a profit; hell, the ones in the French Quarter are a big part of the modern tourist economy that draws people and money from all over. But there are a lot of details all over that serve purely to make the buildings pleasing to live and work in, which tend to be the first thing to go in modern architecture driven entirely by maximizing profits (and also still in love with the inhuman brutalist visions of people like Le Corbusier, when it comes to building housing).

kortilla 7y ago
But making a building aesthetically pleasing usually is for the purpose of increasing profit (attracting tenants, etc). Any building where the owner is worried about resale value or attracting long-term customers who care about visual appeal is incentivized not to cut corners if it’s any kind of buyer’s market.
cortesoft 7y ago
Maximizing profit is not always achieved by going for pure function over form. A lot of places try to maximize profit by making a place aesthetically pleasing so more people come.
kazen44 7y ago
One of the supposed reasons for this is the relation between labour and product prices. Before WW2, labour was far cheaper then materials, especially in Europe.
- 7y ago