5 ms·

> since modern sky scrapers are not expected to "survive" for thousands of years anyway And maybe that’s a problem! Why exactly are we not building beautiful l

> since modern sky scrapers are not expected to "survive" for thousands of years anyway And maybe that’s a problem! Why exactly are we not building beautiful landmarks that will survive eons like the Romans did? We have a throwaway culture, and nobody ever dares question it.

WJW 5y ago
I think you are suffering a bit from survivorship bias here. Way less than 0.001% of Roman buildings are still standing and the ones that remain have been continuously maintained over the centuries. If humanity will keep maintaining the White House for centuries it will look just as good in 4021 as it does today.
- leadingthenet 5y ago
  The White House is not a modernist / postmodernist building that was designed with planned obsolescence in mind, so I'm not entirely sure why you've used it as an example. In fact, it's a perfect example of a beautiful neoclassical landmark that was intended to inspire and last through the ages. Survivorship bias is always brought up in these discussions, but I believe it to just be a cop-out. Take a look at any well-preserved medieval / renaissance / early industrial era city in Europe (Bruges, Edinburgh, Venice). They are all absolutely gorgeous, even the buildings used historically by the lower classes (ones that were not even built with longevity in mind). No, something flipped around the 1920s, and architecture, along with our whole societal philosophy around it, has clearly changed. I'd argue that it's for the worse.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Needs changeover time. Thick stone walls can provide insulation, but their hell on WiFi etc. Growing up in a 200+ year old building you find a lot of architectural designs and modifications that don’t fit with modern usage. Pre AC maximizing summer cooling involved maximizing airflow where now we want maximum insulation. Before central heating we wanted chimney’s everywhere. And before wood stoves we wanted giant fireplaces everywhere. Even central heating has gone through several iterations, many different radiator designs for steam/water, central air, and now a zigzag of pipes underfloor. Very old buildings may look nice, but they aren’t inherently better.
    - leadingthenet 5y ago
      > Very old buildings may look nice, but they aren’t inherently better I never said they were. I only said that they were built to last and that they were infinitely more aesthetically pleasing because we actually gave a damn about these things as a society. Now we don't. Old buildings can be upgraded (I should know, I live in one, and have both functional pipes, insulation, heating, and Wi-Fi). So let's upgrade them, and let's ALSO ensure that whatever we build today includes not only modern amenities, but are also objects we can be proud of leaving as a legacy to future generations. Just like our ancestors did for literally millennia.
      - Retric 5y ago
        > we actually cared about this things as a society No, the buildings that survived are generally more aesthetically pleasing, most old buildings where shacks. Walk around an old plantation for example and the slaves quarters didn’t survive. Search around for some original outhouses and you realize what survived isn’t simply representative of what was built.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > In fact, it's a perfect example of a beautiful neoclassical landmark that was intended to inspire and last through the ages. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you've never been to the White House: it's a mildewed, creaky mess that was gutted twice (once by war[1], again to prevent it from collapsing under its own misdesign[2]). It undergoes constant, active maintenance, and is not intended by any means to "last through the ages." But to get to the actual point: the neoclassical style is built on a historical lens. It takes classical architecture on face value, as it was in the 18th century (i.e., weather-washed and in ruins). Its appliers wanted to promote their interpretation of classical greatness, which corresponds in no particular way to the actual greatness of cultures in the classical period. The Romans would have laughed at our neoclassical use of blindingly white marble[3]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Reconstruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Reconstruction [3]: https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/prms/hd_prms.htm https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/prms/hd_prms.htm
- jbay808 5y ago
  It's mostly not survivorship bias, actually, and the ones that remain haven't been continuously maintained over the centuries. Many of the ones still standing today suffered from centuries of neglect, damage in war and rebellion, and even were actively looted for materials to build other buildings from. Others just got gradually buried by floods (or volcanos, etc) and are intact underground.
flohofwoe 5y ago
That way lies a slippery slope ;) It's pretty close to the "Ruinenwerttheorie" of the German Nazis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruin_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruin_value
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- curtainsforus 5y ago
  From the first wikipedia paragraph, I don't see anything wrong with building things so they'll look cool a) when they're maintained and in use and b) when they're badly maintained and crumbling. I'll take 'Ruinenwerttheorie' buildings over brutalist concrete piles that look disgusting the day they're built and worse as they age. The 3rd Reich had a lot of problems, but they had some good aesthetics (Huge Boss, etc). To ignore that, and shun a whole realm of aesthetics because it was appreciated by The Devil, is a waste and a poor strategic move; you're abandoning the beautiful elements because they had the misfortune to be mixed into a dark brew. It's an artistic tragedy, and a poor political move, putting you in a similar spot to the 3rd Reich themselves with regards to their ideas about 'degenerate art'. The height of technology, and we cloak ourselves in ugliness and mediocrity, not daring to build anything beautiful. What a fucking waste. The sorts of small-souled people who build modern western identikit cities don't deserve to go to the moon.
  - flohofwoe 5y ago
    I think the point is that it takes a sort of hubris that's quite typical for autocratic regimes to show off to the rest of the world - and future generations - with gigantomanic architecture. IMHO a healthy society should be "above" this sort of stuff.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      Brutalism was adopted by the Soviets, who were also pretty oppressive. I'd rather live in a beautiful building than a concrete square. The idea that people should live in purely functional environments with no room for beauty or art is a purely modernist idea.
kingkawn 5y ago
even more insidious is our culture of hollow sentimentality

WJW 5y ago

I think you are suffering a bit from survivorship bias here. Way less than 0.001% of Roman buildings are still standing and the ones that remain have been continuously maintained over the centuries. If humanity will keep maintaining the White House for centuries it will look just as good in 4021 as it does today.

leadingthenet 5y ago
The White House is not a modernist / postmodernist building that was designed with planned obsolescence in mind, so I'm not entirely sure why you've used it as an example. In fact, it's a perfect example of a beautiful neoclassical landmark that was intended to inspire and last through the ages. Survivorship bias is always brought up in these discussions, but I believe it to just be a cop-out. Take a look at any well-preserved medieval / renaissance / early industrial era city in Europe (Bruges, Edinburgh, Venice). They are all absolutely gorgeous, even the buildings used historically by the lower classes (ones that were not even built with longevity in mind). No, something flipped around the 1920s, and architecture, along with our whole societal philosophy around it, has clearly changed. I'd argue that it's for the worse.
- Retric 5y ago
  Needs changeover time. Thick stone walls can provide insulation, but their hell on WiFi etc. Growing up in a 200+ year old building you find a lot of architectural designs and modifications that don’t fit with modern usage. Pre AC maximizing summer cooling involved maximizing airflow where now we want maximum insulation. Before central heating we wanted chimney’s everywhere. And before wood stoves we wanted giant fireplaces everywhere. Even central heating has gone through several iterations, many different radiator designs for steam/water, central air, and now a zigzag of pipes underfloor. Very old buildings may look nice, but they aren’t inherently better.
  - leadingthenet 5y ago
    > Very old buildings may look nice, but they aren’t inherently better I never said they were. I only said that they were built to last and that they were infinitely more aesthetically pleasing because we actually gave a damn about these things as a society. Now we don't. Old buildings can be upgraded (I should know, I live in one, and have both functional pipes, insulation, heating, and Wi-Fi). So let's upgrade them, and let's ALSO ensure that whatever we build today includes not only modern amenities, but are also objects we can be proud of leaving as a legacy to future generations. Just like our ancestors did for literally millennia.
    - Retric 5y ago
      > we actually cared about this things as a society No, the buildings that survived are generally more aesthetically pleasing, most old buildings where shacks. Walk around an old plantation for example and the slaves quarters didn’t survive. Search around for some original outhouses and you realize what survived isn’t simply representative of what was built.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > In fact, it's a perfect example of a beautiful neoclassical landmark that was intended to inspire and last through the ages. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you've never been to the White House: it's a mildewed, creaky mess that was gutted twice (once by war[1], again to prevent it from collapsing under its own misdesign[2]). It undergoes constant, active maintenance, and is not intended by any means to "last through the ages." But to get to the actual point: the neoclassical style is built on a historical lens. It takes classical architecture on face value, as it was in the 18th century (i.e., weather-washed and in ruins). Its appliers wanted to promote their interpretation of classical greatness, which corresponds in no particular way to the actual greatness of cultures in the classical period. The Romans would have laughed at our neoclassical use of blindingly white marble[3]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Reconstruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Reconstruction [3]: https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/prms/hd_prms.htm https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/prms/hd_prms.htm
jbay808 5y ago
It's mostly not survivorship bias, actually, and the ones that remain haven't been continuously maintained over the centuries. Many of the ones still standing today suffered from centuries of neglect, damage in war and rebellion, and even were actively looted for materials to build other buildings from. Others just got gradually buried by floods (or volcanos, etc) and are intact underground.

flohofwoe 5y ago

That way lies a slippery slope ;) It's pretty close to the "Ruinenwerttheorie" of the German Nazis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruin_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruin_value

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
curtainsforus 5y ago
From the first wikipedia paragraph, I don't see anything wrong with building things so they'll look cool a) when they're maintained and in use and b) when they're badly maintained and crumbling. I'll take 'Ruinenwerttheorie' buildings over brutalist concrete piles that look disgusting the day they're built and worse as they age. The 3rd Reich had a lot of problems, but they had some good aesthetics (Huge Boss, etc). To ignore that, and shun a whole realm of aesthetics because it was appreciated by The Devil, is a waste and a poor strategic move; you're abandoning the beautiful elements because they had the misfortune to be mixed into a dark brew. It's an artistic tragedy, and a poor political move, putting you in a similar spot to the 3rd Reich themselves with regards to their ideas about 'degenerate art'. The height of technology, and we cloak ourselves in ugliness and mediocrity, not daring to build anything beautiful. What a fucking waste. The sorts of small-souled people who build modern western identikit cities don't deserve to go to the moon.
- flohofwoe 5y ago
  I think the point is that it takes a sort of hubris that's quite typical for autocratic regimes to show off to the rest of the world - and future generations - with gigantomanic architecture. IMHO a healthy society should be "above" this sort of stuff.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Brutalism was adopted by the Soviets, who were also pretty oppressive. I'd rather live in a beautiful building than a concrete square. The idea that people should live in purely functional environments with no room for beauty or art is a purely modernist idea.

kingkawn 5y ago

even more insidious is our culture of hollow sentimentality