6 ms·

I agree with the premise of the article but there’s also some survivorship bias at play. We know about (and don’t knock down) the particularly beautiful older b

I agree with the premise of the article but there’s also some survivorship bias at play. We know about (and don’t knock down) the particularly beautiful older buildings. If you go to New York City there’s beautiful stuff from the early 20th century (think Chrysler Building) and plenty of unremarkable stuff still standing (think pre-war walk ups). Maybe one in a hundred of the older buildings is remarkably beautiful. Still, there don’t seem to be many large scale projects built to last today. Nothing on the scale of Grand Central for a public building has been attempted in a long time, and it’s a shame because it’s quite awe inspiring to commute through there.

barry-cotter 5y ago
> We know about (and don’t knock down) the particularly beautiful older buildings. We have lots of evidence from paintings and photographs that it's not just survivorship bias, that things have gotten on average uglier. > If you go to New York City there’s beautiful stuff from the early 20th century (think Chrysler Building) and plenty of unremarkable stuff still standing (think pre-war walk ups). Still more aesthetically pleasing than a large majority of what's built now. > Maybe one in a hundred of the older buildings is remarkably beautiful. Not being actively ugly is pretty good too and a great deal more common in older buildings than newer ones. There are many, many more neighbourhoods that people will travel to just to walk around and appreciate that were built before wWW2 than after, in every country that was developed before then, and almost all that weren't.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  We have lots of evidence from paintings and photographs that it's not just survivorship bias, that things have gotten on average uglier. There's definitely a bias at play here, whatever name you give to it. Maybe a bias toward familiarity, where the longer something has been around, the more people decide they like it. I look forward to the day when I can build my perfect glass and stone paradise and finally escape the terror of older buildings and small spaces designed for people less than 5' tall.
  - telotortium 5y ago
    Where are you that's designed for people less than 5 feet tall? Generally it's the older buildings that tend to have higher ceilings - until very recently, most post-war buildings were built with 8-foot ceilings or even shorter.
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      Not just the ceiling height matters. Older buildings I've been in tend to have very narrow staircases and hallways (not enough room for elbows and shoulders), light fixtures mounted directly at or below my eye level, rooms in which it would be impossible to lie down with arms above head, and/or showers that barely reach chest height. And I am not particularly tall.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Isn't that just your more bias? Why would they have ugly buidings in a painting or photograph? Have you looked at the modern architecture of Singapore or Japan? Way more people visit a downtown with generic skyscapers than small old style neighborhoods.
watersb 5y ago
> Nothing on the scale of Grand Central for a public building has been attempted in a long time. I am not a commuter in New York City, which may contribute to my difficulty in understanding this. Because the Oculus Terminal looks very strange and elaborate to me, and is actually a train station. I think. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_Transportation_Hub https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_Transport... I've not been in that building, only seen photos. I find Grand Central Station to be beautiful in its way, and I very much like the grand terminal of the Los Angeles station, which was a surprise to me (it's featured, as the police station in an opening scene of the movie "Blade Runner".)
- rp1 5y ago
  I’ve lived in upstate NY and have taken the metro north to Grand Central everyday. I now live in New Jersey and take the path to the WTC everyday. Obviously the Oculus and GC are very different, but the Oculus is still breath taking after so many visits. I agree it’s a very good building. One thing I like about GC is that it has an infinite amount of detail. You can be blown away entering the building and seeing the grand hall, or by inspecting the tiniest detail. The Oculus, with its algorithmic design, is lacking that feature.
pg_bot 5y ago
NYC built a 4 billion dollar train station 5 years ago. It looks like a jail for superman.
allturtles 5y ago
The survivorship bias argument has two major problems: 1) There are many older cities in Europe where the entire city center is beautiful. Paris, for example, or Tallinn. These aren't just rare 'survivors.' 2) Where are buildings from the last 40 years that will be the 'survivors' of the future? In NYC alone dozens of beautiful buildings were built in the 1920s and 30s. Where are the dozens of modern equivalents?

barry-cotter 5y ago

> We know about (and don’t knock down) the particularly beautiful older buildings. We have lots of evidence from paintings and photographs that it's not just survivorship bias, that things have gotten on average uglier. > If you go to New York City there’s beautiful stuff from the early 20th century (think Chrysler Building) and plenty of unremarkable stuff still standing (think pre-war walk ups). Still more aesthetically pleasing than a large majority of what's built now. > Maybe one in a hundred of the older buildings is remarkably beautiful. Not being actively ugly is pretty good too and a great deal more common in older buildings than newer ones. There are many, many more neighbourhoods that people will travel to just to walk around and appreciate that were built before wWW2 than after, in every country that was developed before then, and almost all that weren't.

nitrogen 5y ago
We have lots of evidence from paintings and photographs that it's not just survivorship bias, that things have gotten on average uglier. There's definitely a bias at play here, whatever name you give to it. Maybe a bias toward familiarity, where the longer something has been around, the more people decide they like it. I look forward to the day when I can build my perfect glass and stone paradise and finally escape the terror of older buildings and small spaces designed for people less than 5' tall.
- telotortium 5y ago
  Where are you that's designed for people less than 5 feet tall? Generally it's the older buildings that tend to have higher ceilings - until very recently, most post-war buildings were built with 8-foot ceilings or even shorter.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Not just the ceiling height matters. Older buildings I've been in tend to have very narrow staircases and hallways (not enough room for elbows and shoulders), light fixtures mounted directly at or below my eye level, rooms in which it would be impossible to lie down with arms above head, and/or showers that barely reach chest height. And I am not particularly tall.
GhettoComputers 5y ago
Isn't that just your more bias? Why would they have ugly buidings in a painting or photograph? Have you looked at the modern architecture of Singapore or Japan? Way more people visit a downtown with generic skyscapers than small old style neighborhoods.

watersb 5y ago

> Nothing on the scale of Grand Central for a public building has been attempted in a long time. I am not a commuter in New York City, which may contribute to my difficulty in understanding this. Because the Oculus Terminal looks very strange and elaborate to me, and is actually a train station. I think. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_Transportation_Hub https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_Transport... I've not been in that building, only seen photos. I find Grand Central Station to be beautiful in its way, and I very much like the grand terminal of the Los Angeles station, which was a surprise to me (it's featured, as the police station in an opening scene of the movie "Blade Runner".)

rp1 5y ago
I’ve lived in upstate NY and have taken the metro north to Grand Central everyday. I now live in New Jersey and take the path to the WTC everyday. Obviously the Oculus and GC are very different, but the Oculus is still breath taking after so many visits. I agree it’s a very good building. One thing I like about GC is that it has an infinite amount of detail. You can be blown away entering the building and seeing the grand hall, or by inspecting the tiniest detail. The Oculus, with its algorithmic design, is lacking that feature.

pg_bot 5y ago

NYC built a 4 billion dollar train station 5 years ago. It looks like a jail for superman.

allturtles 5y ago

The survivorship bias argument has two major problems: 1) There are many older cities in Europe where the entire city center is beautiful. Paris, for example, or Tallinn. These aren't just rare 'survivors.' 2) Where are buildings from the last 40 years that will be the 'survivors' of the future? In NYC alone dozens of beautiful buildings were built in the 1920s and 30s. Where are the dozens of modern equivalents?