4 ms·

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

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

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