5 ms·

This is the incorrect response to this. A better response is how can you make architecture with solar panels more aesthetically pleasing. The half covered roof

This is the incorrect response to this. A better response is how can you make architecture with solar panels more aesthetically pleasing. The half covered roof is objectively ugly. Leaf-like, self-standing panels look much better. I bet early stoves were ugly too but kitchen appliances do have styles and they've gotten better with updates.

RealityVoid 4y ago
I don't buy this. Tasteses are informed by what is common and what is common is so because of technical reasons, most of the time. Getting stuck in what is the current taste is myopic, we should focus on function.
- xoa 4y ago
  Bias up front, I've signed a contract to have a Tesla solar tile roof go in later this summer at a significant premium and I do care about my house design while not denying the critical importance of getting the move to renewables happening as fast as possible. That said: >Tasteses are informed by what is common and what is common is so because of technical reasons, most of the time. I think you're making a mistake here in going to generalities over the specific area we are talking about: roofs on homes. And we have literally thousands and thousands of years of examples of lots of humans caring quite a bit about the look of bulk surfaces on their homes. All modern roofing materials properly installed will do the core job of keeping out the elements. But there are wide varieties of colors, styles, and types, not for technical reasons but because lots of humans care. They care about the siding material, about stain/paint and trim color details. Having nice patterns even just with concrete. Not everyone of course, but many. We've been decorating surfaces since we lived in caves! I think you're the one being myopic with your view of "function" that entire ignores form and a significant artistic impulse across our entire species. So no, I think plain solar panels on roofs go against pretty fundamental instincts. They all look the same for starters, and they cannot be decorated or made individual in any significant way (obviously painting over them would largely defeat the purpose!). People certainly can tolerate stuff they don't like, or even outright hate, in the name of functionality. Lots of people live in architecture they dislike or even conditions they dislike because that's what they can afford (or that's what their job demands or whatever else). But I don't think you can honestly look at the vast array of buildings that are built and continuing development of design and then just claim all of that going away in favor of big uniform silicon panels on everything is simply "taste". Also, there isn't in fact a technical reason for it. Highly customizable solar shingles are clearly technically possible and could be produced in bulk. It's not as if they require platinum group metals or something inherently expensive. If you really care about this as I do, then if aesthetics would accelerate tolerance of mass installation of solar power then that is absolutely something plans should take into account. On the scale of the kinds of subsidies we give to fossil fuels and the costs we're looking at for global warming impact effects, tens or even hundreds of billions down to speed things up and help with the human factor can be quite justifiable.
  - RealityVoid 4y ago
    I think you have a some very good points, even if with some I don't agree with. I never claimed looks are not important, my claim is merely that functional design informs tastes, and things that are "ugly" can become pretty merely by being common and tastes changing. My stance is a bit shakier, nu I still think the underlying claim stands.
laumars 4y ago
A better response would be: “let’s use the tech we have now while we design a more aesthetically pleasing solution” Aesthetics can be important but pragmatically they’re far less important than the health of our planet.
mattnewton 4y ago
I don’t 100% disagree with this, but what was aesthetic today relied in part on the practical technology of the past. The instinct that everything should “look like what I am used to” is causing real harm for dubious benefits here. Roofs are infrastructure. Imagine if someone said that about bridges, preferring stone arches to steel cables and limiting us from making longer and safer bridges on those grounds. I actually think the solution here is to have the people who care about this buy the roofs they want to look at, (possibly through the state if need be), pay to subsidize some kind of aesthetic compromise, or stop complaining.

RealityVoid 4y ago

I don't buy this. Tasteses are informed by what is common and what is common is so because of technical reasons, most of the time. Getting stuck in what is the current taste is myopic, we should focus on function.

xoa 4y ago
Bias up front, I've signed a contract to have a Tesla solar tile roof go in later this summer at a significant premium and I do care about my house design while not denying the critical importance of getting the move to renewables happening as fast as possible. That said: >Tasteses are informed by what is common and what is common is so because of technical reasons, most of the time. I think you're making a mistake here in going to generalities over the specific area we are talking about: roofs on homes. And we have literally thousands and thousands of years of examples of lots of humans caring quite a bit about the look of bulk surfaces on their homes. All modern roofing materials properly installed will do the core job of keeping out the elements. But there are wide varieties of colors, styles, and types, not for technical reasons but because lots of humans care. They care about the siding material, about stain/paint and trim color details. Having nice patterns even just with concrete. Not everyone of course, but many. We've been decorating surfaces since we lived in caves! I think you're the one being myopic with your view of "function" that entire ignores form and a significant artistic impulse across our entire species. So no, I think plain solar panels on roofs go against pretty fundamental instincts. They all look the same for starters, and they cannot be decorated or made individual in any significant way (obviously painting over them would largely defeat the purpose!). People certainly can tolerate stuff they don't like, or even outright hate, in the name of functionality. Lots of people live in architecture they dislike or even conditions they dislike because that's what they can afford (or that's what their job demands or whatever else). But I don't think you can honestly look at the vast array of buildings that are built and continuing development of design and then just claim all of that going away in favor of big uniform silicon panels on everything is simply "taste". Also, there isn't in fact a technical reason for it. Highly customizable solar shingles are clearly technically possible and could be produced in bulk. It's not as if they require platinum group metals or something inherently expensive. If you really care about this as I do, then if aesthetics would accelerate tolerance of mass installation of solar power then that is absolutely something plans should take into account. On the scale of the kinds of subsidies we give to fossil fuels and the costs we're looking at for global warming impact effects, tens or even hundreds of billions down to speed things up and help with the human factor can be quite justifiable.
- RealityVoid 4y ago
  I think you have a some very good points, even if with some I don't agree with. I never claimed looks are not important, my claim is merely that functional design informs tastes, and things that are "ugly" can become pretty merely by being common and tastes changing. My stance is a bit shakier, nu I still think the underlying claim stands.

laumars 4y ago

A better response would be: “let’s use the tech we have now while we design a more aesthetically pleasing solution” Aesthetics can be important but pragmatically they’re far less important than the health of our planet.

mattnewton 4y ago

I don’t 100% disagree with this, but what was aesthetic today relied in part on the practical technology of the past. The instinct that everything should “look like what I am used to” is causing real harm for dubious benefits here. Roofs are infrastructure. Imagine if someone said that about bridges, preferring stone arches to steel cables and limiting us from making longer and safer bridges on those grounds. I actually think the solution here is to have the people who care about this buy the roofs they want to look at, (possibly through the state if need be), pay to subsidize some kind of aesthetic compromise, or stop complaining.