3 ms·
It’s odd to me to place this as a “conservative” preference. In what way is this conservative? And why is that meaningful? Anyway - there is growing evidence o
by ericmay 5y ago
It’s odd to me to place this as a “conservative” preference. In what way is this conservative? And why is that meaningful?
Anyway - there is growing evidence of “objective truths” in architecture and design. Namely work tracking things like heart rate, eye movement, etc. Findings are indicating that asymmetrical houses or imposing skyscrapers are actually stressful to humans. The fist being stressful because you naturally look for symmetry (notice how you see faces in certain things?) and most “modern” architecture was created by people who lived through World War 1 and 2 and created houses that were asymmetrical and in some cases even shaped like bunkers if you are inclined to spot it. Skyscrapers create a disconnect not just from their imposing presence (will this fall on me??) but they’re also bad because they remove the human presence from the street and create sterile environments.
Anywhere you look the most desirable neighborhoods and the places where everybody takes pictures of and travel to feature “conservative” housing styles that were almost universally adapted from local building materials and for local weather patterns (white building in the Mediterranean or a-frame cabins) and naturally attract people.
When you search for a city like Amsterdam you get pictures of the beautiful homes on the canals. Nobody travels there for the ghastly glass modern architecture which certainly has never been described as quaint.
We already know how to build homes and walkable towns and neighborhoods. Unfortunately that doesn’t stroke the ego of useless academic architects who are trying to create more and more self-serving, disfigured structures so we get houses that just look ridiculous. Does a car live here or a person? I can’t tell.
And if you’re still confused go look at the Soviet style bunker apartments that look like crap or Boston City Hall building which surprisingly doesn’t cause people to commit suicide on the spot on account of its absolutely hellish design.
- robbrown451 5y agoI think you are mistaking the word "conservative" for a political position. The parent is using it as in this definition "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values." Steep roofs are more traditional. I'm definitely not buying the idea that asymmetrical houses are "stressful" in any meaningful way. I mean, I guess you could say anything that is interesting and non-bland is stressful, but that is quite a stretch.
- ericmay 5y agoSure, my “this is unnecessarily political” radar might be off. Especially given there is a lot of angst about Trump’s decision to mandate all federal buildings follow Greco-Roman architecture (maybe the only good thing he ever did) so there is a pushback now where anything “conservative” or traditional is bad and modern is good kind of thing. I’m surely overreacting. But I’d also challenge this notion that buildings built a certain way are conservative in any meaningful sense. And calling them conservative as though that’s an attack on them has a hidden assumption that everything new must be good, which we surely know is not the case. So it’s not really necessary in this context to call the architecture conservative. It wouldn’t be a true description of the architectural style, and it wouldn’t add any interesting perspective to the conversation. Are Boston City Hall and the African American History Museum “liberal” because they are new? And if I commented and said that they were liberal would you seriously not see political undertones? Anyway, I think if you think about it a bit it makes a lot of sense that we look for symmetry and would find symmetry in our environment more pleasing. Asymmetry could indicate a predator or something not “normal” which must be dealt with. There is ongoing research, though not much. I’ve enjoyed reading some of Ann Sussman’s work [1] on the topic and I’m sure one can find ways to poke holes in her work. Ultimately I feel like it makes intuitive sense. Hell, why are we intentionally designing houses to be asymmetric and why does that only become prominent now? Relatively speaking. > I guess you could say anything that is interesting and non-bland is stressful, but that is quite a stretch. Right which isn’t something I’d say. I also wouldn’t consider American suburban homes or brutalist architecture to be interesting to the eye except in that they are good examples of things you wouldn’t want to do; cheap in the case of American suburbs and psychotic in the case of brutalist. [1] https://geneticsofdesign.com/ https://geneticsofdesign.com/
- robbrown451 5y agoYeah I didn't see the usage of "conservative" above as being a negative per se. It was only saying that the negativity expressed toward some modern architecture is very subjective. I'll agree on your opinion on brutalist and typical suburban. Yuk to both. I like neighborhoods like many here in San Francisco, where a really modern house can be right next to a Victorian. Very close to me is this street, which is one of my favorites (let's just say I like "funky"): https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7399065,-122.4298453,3a,75y,212.26h,99.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0q8gl7YdxSkSL6vDeZwGDQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7399065,-122.4298453,3a,75y,...