4 ms·

Why is the modern world so ugly?

5 points by Pamar 6y ago

bediger4000 6y ago
I don't think this article makes a case for the validity of the question itself. The author seems to believe that their sense of esthetics is universal. This kind of belief is known to be false.
- jaclaz 6y ago
  Maybe it was not intended to make that case. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we can also imagine that: >As a result, the nice architecture there is, most of which was built before 1900, is hugely oversubscribed and collapsing under a weight of tourists – and the few pleasant streets that remain are costlier than they ever were at the height of the aristocratic age. What the Author (and tourists, and residents - judging from the market price of houses in given cities or neighbourhoods) consider "nice" is actually an oudated idea of niceness, and actually ugly to modern eyes. Still, somehow, it appears as more attractive than modern architecture and neighborhoods to the masses.
  - bediger4000 6y ago
    > Maybe it was not intended to make that case. Please. > Still, somehow, it appears as more attractive than modern architecture and neighborhoods to the masses. This isn't true in Denver, where I live. I've lived in two older (originally developed circa 1900) neighborhoods, Baker and Highlands. Old, poorly-maintained or poorly-constructed houses gradually bet replaced. You can walk down 2 blocks and see a house from 1900 (or even before), a house from the 30s, a house from mid 50s, and a new house. Every single house is identifiable as being from a particular period. If modern architecture is so sucky, why do people build it, buy it an live in it today? Why not imitate the grand, universally loved styles of the past? That could easily be done. But it isn't. The article's premise is entirely unexamined, and isn't at all universal. The author just looks at what tourists want to see on vacation, not what people live in in ordinary, not very touristy cities and parts of cities.
    - Pamar 6y ago
      I think that you may have a point, but - while admitting I never seen Denver - I would like to ask you if you have ever seen a European city. Or, better yet, lived in one for a more than 2 weeks.
      - jaclaz 6y ago
        Yep, I also have never seen Denver, which could well be an exception. Being European and having lived, besides in my home city in a few other European cities, the article reflects my experience and what I observed, as said this not only applies to tourists, but also to market values of properties, i.e. to locals.
      - bediger4000 6y ago
        I have seen European cities, but only Copenhagen as an adult, and that was in 1993. One of the obvious falsehoods in the original article is illustrated by Copenhagen. The article had some line about throughout history, people lived in neatly organized towns with periodic open squares. I don't think Copenhagen fits that model at all - the streets appear disorganized to my eye, with little orientation or regularity. Open squares appeared only haphazardly, and there didn't appear to be enough to satisfy demand. I will grant you that Copenhagen in 1993 would be far easier to live in without a car than Denver in 2020. But it wasn't the aesthetic dream that the article proposed, it was more "biological" and pieced together than architectural and designed, and even in 1993, Copenhagen had a mix of ages and styles.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  The original "Patterns" book by Christopher Alexander is a compelling exploration into what might underly this broad "sense of aesthetics".[0] It may not be "universal" as you state, but it's certainly shared by most people, across a wide variety of world cultures. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language
  - bediger4000 6y ago
    Thank you for making a point that's not propped up by unexamined underlying assumptions.

5 points by Pamar 6y ago

I don't think this article makes a case for the validity of the question itself. The author seems to believe that their sense of esthetics is universal. This kind of belief is known to be false.

jaclaz 6y ago
Maybe it was not intended to make that case. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we can also imagine that: >As a result, the nice architecture there is, most of which was built before 1900, is hugely oversubscribed and collapsing under a weight of tourists – and the few pleasant streets that remain are costlier than they ever were at the height of the aristocratic age. What the Author (and tourists, and residents - judging from the market price of houses in given cities or neighbourhoods) consider "nice" is actually an oudated idea of niceness, and actually ugly to modern eyes. Still, somehow, it appears as more attractive than modern architecture and neighborhoods to the masses.
- bediger4000 6y ago
  > Maybe it was not intended to make that case. Please. > Still, somehow, it appears as more attractive than modern architecture and neighborhoods to the masses. This isn't true in Denver, where I live. I've lived in two older (originally developed circa 1900) neighborhoods, Baker and Highlands. Old, poorly-maintained or poorly-constructed houses gradually bet replaced. You can walk down 2 blocks and see a house from 1900 (or even before), a house from the 30s, a house from mid 50s, and a new house. Every single house is identifiable as being from a particular period. If modern architecture is so sucky, why do people build it, buy it an live in it today? Why not imitate the grand, universally loved styles of the past? That could easily be done. But it isn't. The article's premise is entirely unexamined, and isn't at all universal. The author just looks at what tourists want to see on vacation, not what people live in in ordinary, not very touristy cities and parts of cities.
  - Pamar 6y ago
    I think that you may have a point, but - while admitting I never seen Denver - I would like to ask you if you have ever seen a European city. Or, better yet, lived in one for a more than 2 weeks.
    - jaclaz 6y ago
      Yep, I also have never seen Denver, which could well be an exception. Being European and having lived, besides in my home city in a few other European cities, the article reflects my experience and what I observed, as said this not only applies to tourists, but also to market values of properties, i.e. to locals.
    - bediger4000 6y ago
      I have seen European cities, but only Copenhagen as an adult, and that was in 1993. One of the obvious falsehoods in the original article is illustrated by Copenhagen. The article had some line about throughout history, people lived in neatly organized towns with periodic open squares. I don't think Copenhagen fits that model at all - the streets appear disorganized to my eye, with little orientation or regularity. Open squares appeared only haphazardly, and there didn't appear to be enough to satisfy demand. I will grant you that Copenhagen in 1993 would be far easier to live in without a car than Denver in 2020. But it wasn't the aesthetic dream that the article proposed, it was more "biological" and pieced together than architectural and designed, and even in 1993, Copenhagen had a mix of ages and styles.
zozbot234 6y ago
The original "Patterns" book by Christopher Alexander is a compelling exploration into what might underly this broad "sense of aesthetics".[0] It may not be "universal" as you state, but it's certainly shared by most people, across a wide variety of world cultures. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language
- bediger4000 6y ago
  Thank you for making a point that's not propped up by unexamined underlying assumptions.