4 ms·

Really? I feel the complete opposite. I moved to Seattle recently from Europe, and I feel the contemporary houses way prettier. Most of the homes in my suburb

Really? I feel the complete opposite. I moved to Seattle recently from Europe, and I feel the contemporary houses way prettier. Most of the homes in my suburb seem to have been built in the 60s or 70s and they could be described as a shed-like box coming in 2 or 3 variations. Most contemporary homes are also boxy, but I find them far more aesthetically pleasing. But as someone else said it's a matter of context. If you were building in the historic city center of a European town with its own traditional style, contemporary architecture would feel jarring and out of place.

debatem1 3y ago
I'm not arguing about what's aesthetic or not. I'm saying that a city should explicitly pick one: either have all the same design because that's how you want the city to be, or have varied designs because the alternative is the above without the honesty. I would prefer the latter because I think 'modern' designs aren't modern at all and are instead cheaply executed clones of what was transgressive architecture 50 years ago. But I appreciate that the city should make decisions based on what everyone wants-- not just me, but also not just developers.
- angarg12 3y ago
  But don't they already do? either cities have strict rules about how buildings look like (rare) or they don't. Probably what you are seeing is just a side effect of the slow effect of gentrification. When you have old houses in desirable parts of town, it's often better to level them to ground and build a new one rather than refurbish it. New builds are mostly dominated by contemporary aesthetics because... well, they are what's fashionable now. If this happened in the 90s, you would have a lot of Mc Mansions with 90s aesthetics, and in 20-30 years you'll get houses with whatever style is popular then.

4 ms·

Really? I feel the complete opposite. I moved to Seattle recently from Europe, and I feel the contemporary houses way prettier. Most of the homes in my suburb

by angarg12 3y ago

debatem1 3y ago
I'm not arguing about what's aesthetic or not. I'm saying that a city should explicitly pick one: either have all the same design because that's how you want the city to be, or have varied designs because the alternative is the above without the honesty. I would prefer the latter because I think 'modern' designs aren't modern at all and are instead cheaply executed clones of what was transgressive architecture 50 years ago. But I appreciate that the city should make decisions based on what everyone wants-- not just me, but also not just developers.
- angarg12 3y ago
  But don't they already do? either cities have strict rules about how buildings look like (rare) or they don't. Probably what you are seeing is just a side effect of the slow effect of gentrification. When you have old houses in desirable parts of town, it's often better to level them to ground and build a new one rather than refurbish it. New builds are mostly dominated by contemporary aesthetics because... well, they are what's fashionable now. If this happened in the 90s, you would have a lot of Mc Mansions with 90s aesthetics, and in 20-30 years you'll get houses with whatever style is popular then.