> I think that Architecture is the most visible beacon of civilization, and I don't like what it tells us about ours. This is a very one-sided view. The same a

> I think that Architecture is the most visible beacon of civilization, and I don't like what it tells us about ours. This is a very one-sided view. The same argument can be used with other items as well, say shoes for example. Sure 200 years ago shoes were much more durable, but they were also so expensive that not everyone could afford them. Same goes for housing. Sure, you can build beautiful long lasting houses today, but they'd be even less affordable than the modern "ugly boxes". Then there's changing requirements as well. I live in a 100+ year old house and while it's medium to smallish by today's standards, it used to be a twin house back when it was built... In the original layout, rooms were tiny by today's standards not to mention insulation (or lack thereof), heating (wood and coal ovens in every room instead of central heating etc.), fire protection and plumbing. It's much more expensive to modernise an old house and bring it up to code than it is to build a new one that's designed to meet all current requirements from the start.