4 ms·

I don't know, it might just be me but if you're going to write an article (a really long one) bemoaning how everything is ugly you need to provide more than one

I don't know, it might just be me but if you're going to write an article (a really long one) bemoaning how everything is ugly you need to provide more than one picture. I want picture proof, not long descriptions that leave me to imagine. Pictures paint a thousand words and all that!

pixl97 4y ago
The problem with the word ugly is its completely an opinion. There is no right or wrong ugly. The author would have done much better to forego the word ugly and replace it with hyper conformity.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  It's also rose colored glasses. Many of the surviving examples of historic architecture we consider classic today, were ugly or dilapidated mass architecture in their time. Ask someone in 1900 what they thought of a New York tenement or a Sears mail-order home, and they would look at you like you were insane for suggesting those characteristics now command seven-figure premiums. (What would've been the true beauties of those eras, the mansions, are mostly gone, mostly because they tended to be in high-value areas that would've been redeveloped in later generations because of said high value.)
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Surely the opposite effect must also exist - that the historical buildings we see today are the ones that survived because they were considered worth keeping - you wouldn't expect the ugly/shoddily-built ones to survive. However given there are entire streets with attractive historical buildings in many towns and cities I'm not sure either theory explains much - there are virtually no streets I've seen anywhere in the world with almost entirely attractive modern buildings.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      Usually it's how hard people fight to keep a building. Take the NYC tenements. They were substandard housing when they were built, with multigenerational families using a single room on a floor with a single shared bathroom for the floor. A lot of times, the reason we lost wealthy housing or buildings, is because wealthy tastes and fashions changed, and they no longer cared for outdated buildings, which may have lacked modern electric or water services. Or the wealthy may have moved on from the area entirely; in the mid-19th century when mansions were built around it, Central Park was the edge of NYC, but 100 years later these barons preferred pastoral estates in Long Island, upstate New York or New Jersey, and their old mansions were in the middle of a metropolis. Poor areas were more likely to not get redeveloped via market forces, because there wasn't money to be made giving poor people the latest and greatest in housing, and on top of that poor people were not going to demand the latest and greatest because they wouldn't be able to afford the rent on that kind of building. And people fight harder for their housing if its redevelopment means getting displaced onto the streets. Gentrification of poor areas in the United States doesn't really get going until the '80s, by which time we already have historic preservation laws. Obviously there are exceptions to these scenarios but this is one of many sources of why some buildings survive and some do not.
- yunwal 4y ago
  I disagree. I think within a given context like “architecture in the neighborhood I live in”, there’s an objective component to beauty/ugliness. There are universal human needs and desires that are being deprived by bad modern architecture (being in touch with nature, feeling comfortable, human communication and expression).
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Again, 'modern architecture' is the failure point of your argument, as in "This has changed and is only a modern problem" being the primary failing. In the past most architecture sucked, it has since been bulldozed and replaced by architecture that sucked. Why? Because architecture that sucks is generally cheap. I would say the past I would say architecture sucked even worse most of the time. I'm sure 40 years from now someone will say "Do you remember when we built everything like the Apple campus", and the answer to that should be "No, not at all, it was an extraordinary building at the time, but it was rare", and that is the same comparison to today.
    - yunwal 4y ago
      It’s an attractive theory that only the prettiest buildings survive, but doesn’t seem to be supported by the evidence. Photographs from the turn of the century reveal that there are simply fewer unattractive buildings. https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/against-the-survival-of-the-prettiest/ https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/against-the-survival-of... There’s an interesting theory at the end that suggests maybe every generation sees it’s own architecture as ugly, because it’s more common, etc. This seems possible, but there’s little evidence of it in the past, and it’s strange that it doesn’t happen as much with other aesthetic preferences (music, art, film). There are certainly some “born in the wrong generation” types, but it doesn’t seem as common or to span generations like the aversion to modern architecture.
pugworthy 4y ago
Ironically (to me), the one picture provided basically matches the color palette of the website.

pixl97 4y ago

The problem with the word ugly is its completely an opinion. There is no right or wrong ugly. The author would have done much better to forego the word ugly and replace it with hyper conformity.

bobthepanda 4y ago
It's also rose colored glasses. Many of the surviving examples of historic architecture we consider classic today, were ugly or dilapidated mass architecture in their time. Ask someone in 1900 what they thought of a New York tenement or a Sears mail-order home, and they would look at you like you were insane for suggesting those characteristics now command seven-figure premiums. (What would've been the true beauties of those eras, the mansions, are mostly gone, mostly because they tended to be in high-value areas that would've been redeveloped in later generations because of said high value.)
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Surely the opposite effect must also exist - that the historical buildings we see today are the ones that survived because they were considered worth keeping - you wouldn't expect the ugly/shoddily-built ones to survive. However given there are entire streets with attractive historical buildings in many towns and cities I'm not sure either theory explains much - there are virtually no streets I've seen anywhere in the world with almost entirely attractive modern buildings.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Usually it's how hard people fight to keep a building. Take the NYC tenements. They were substandard housing when they were built, with multigenerational families using a single room on a floor with a single shared bathroom for the floor. A lot of times, the reason we lost wealthy housing or buildings, is because wealthy tastes and fashions changed, and they no longer cared for outdated buildings, which may have lacked modern electric or water services. Or the wealthy may have moved on from the area entirely; in the mid-19th century when mansions were built around it, Central Park was the edge of NYC, but 100 years later these barons preferred pastoral estates in Long Island, upstate New York or New Jersey, and their old mansions were in the middle of a metropolis. Poor areas were more likely to not get redeveloped via market forces, because there wasn't money to be made giving poor people the latest and greatest in housing, and on top of that poor people were not going to demand the latest and greatest because they wouldn't be able to afford the rent on that kind of building. And people fight harder for their housing if its redevelopment means getting displaced onto the streets. Gentrification of poor areas in the United States doesn't really get going until the '80s, by which time we already have historic preservation laws. Obviously there are exceptions to these scenarios but this is one of many sources of why some buildings survive and some do not.
yunwal 4y ago
I disagree. I think within a given context like “architecture in the neighborhood I live in”, there’s an objective component to beauty/ugliness. There are universal human needs and desires that are being deprived by bad modern architecture (being in touch with nature, feeling comfortable, human communication and expression).
- pixl97 4y ago
  Again, 'modern architecture' is the failure point of your argument, as in "This has changed and is only a modern problem" being the primary failing. In the past most architecture sucked, it has since been bulldozed and replaced by architecture that sucked. Why? Because architecture that sucks is generally cheap. I would say the past I would say architecture sucked even worse most of the time. I'm sure 40 years from now someone will say "Do you remember when we built everything like the Apple campus", and the answer to that should be "No, not at all, it was an extraordinary building at the time, but it was rare", and that is the same comparison to today.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    It’s an attractive theory that only the prettiest buildings survive, but doesn’t seem to be supported by the evidence. Photographs from the turn of the century reveal that there are simply fewer unattractive buildings. https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/against-the-survival-of-the-prettiest/ https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/against-the-survival-of... There’s an interesting theory at the end that suggests maybe every generation sees it’s own architecture as ugly, because it’s more common, etc. This seems possible, but there’s little evidence of it in the past, and it’s strange that it doesn’t happen as much with other aesthetic preferences (music, art, film). There are certainly some “born in the wrong generation” types, but it doesn’t seem as common or to span generations like the aversion to modern architecture.

pugworthy 4y ago

Ironically (to me), the one picture provided basically matches the color palette of the website.