4 ms·

> highly skilled craftsmanship will never again be affordable on an architectural scale Is that why those award-winning buildings look like that? Because the a

> highly skilled craftsmanship will never again be affordable on an architectural scale Is that why those award-winning buildings look like that? Because the architects tried to make them cheaper? Is 'detail' requiring highly skilled craftsmanship the only way to make pleasant buildings? Because a few of the buildings (Venice and the Italian village) the article gives as examples of beauty have only the barest, simplest of details.

grp000 5y ago
Those Italian buildings were created as highly practical structures at the time, in waterway locations that constrained the geometry of how the city grew, so they have an interesting and historical appearance. Also a lot of the Italian architecture is not a building, but an entire city, not sure those really count.
Grakel 5y ago
Its very hard to get contractors to work with materials today. So you can have some factory create panels of steel and glass, and the contractor can have (relatively) unskilled cheap labor snap them into place. That's a lot of construction today. Some really beautiful structures do use minimalism, but so many big architects today strive for speed, size, and function. I think most modern beautiful, minimalist structures are usually smaller, built for fewer people, etc. Maybe?
mannykannot 5y ago
I think the statement you quote is incorrect. Our society is quite capable of paying for artisans to restore the architectural splendors of earlier times, and does so. At the same time, expenditure on architecture for its own sake seems to have increased in the last decade or so, at least in centers of wealth (which, in modern times, is where non-utilitarian architecture has its first home, even if it likes to have a weekend place in the country.) What has not happened is that, for the most part, the paymasters for the latter development have demonstrated little interest in adopting styles that demand highly skilled craftsmanship of the sort formerly valued (and still valued, apparently, so long as it dates to a previous era.) Today's vanity architecture reflects the values of those who commission it, rather than being a result of market prices for artisan work.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  The Victorians had a concept of civic pride and public service which is completely absent today. I owe a lot to this dude, because he made sure that when worker was housing was being built it would have a library on the periphery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Passmore_Edwards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Passmore_Edwards There was an explicit goal of providing education and opportunities to working people. (Well - working men. But this was over a century ago now.) Modern philanthropy has no equivalent. There is no interest in creating high quality useful public spaces for ordinary people. So there's no architectural tradition to support that goal.

grp000 5y ago

Those Italian buildings were created as highly practical structures at the time, in waterway locations that constrained the geometry of how the city grew, so they have an interesting and historical appearance. Also a lot of the Italian architecture is not a building, but an entire city, not sure those really count.

Grakel 5y ago

Its very hard to get contractors to work with materials today. So you can have some factory create panels of steel and glass, and the contractor can have (relatively) unskilled cheap labor snap them into place. That's a lot of construction today. Some really beautiful structures do use minimalism, but so many big architects today strive for speed, size, and function. I think most modern beautiful, minimalist structures are usually smaller, built for fewer people, etc. Maybe?

mannykannot 5y ago

I think the statement you quote is incorrect. Our society is quite capable of paying for artisans to restore the architectural splendors of earlier times, and does so. At the same time, expenditure on architecture for its own sake seems to have increased in the last decade or so, at least in centers of wealth (which, in modern times, is where non-utilitarian architecture has its first home, even if it likes to have a weekend place in the country.) What has not happened is that, for the most part, the paymasters for the latter development have demonstrated little interest in adopting styles that demand highly skilled craftsmanship of the sort formerly valued (and still valued, apparently, so long as it dates to a previous era.) Today's vanity architecture reflects the values of those who commission it, rather than being a result of market prices for artisan work.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
The Victorians had a concept of civic pride and public service which is completely absent today. I owe a lot to this dude, because he made sure that when worker was housing was being built it would have a library on the periphery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Passmore_Edwards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Passmore_Edwards There was an explicit goal of providing education and opportunities to working people. (Well - working men. But this was over a century ago now.) Modern philanthropy has no equivalent. There is no interest in creating high quality useful public spaces for ordinary people. So there's no architectural tradition to support that goal.