6 ms·

It seems like this is the fate for everyone. Sometimes when I see pictures of old buildings I can't help but notice that it seems like everything used to be so

It seems like this is the fate for everyone. Sometimes when I see pictures of old buildings I can't help but notice that it seems like everything used to be so much fancier than it is now. Even though the builders didn't have the advantage of modern tools and science they sculpted statues and gargoyles and domes and columns and flying buttresses and trusses and everything inside and out was covered in intricate carvings and gilding and mosaic and fresco and ornament. Somehow all of our education and technology has resulted in everything being as basic and cheap as possible. We're lucky if builders bother to do even a half-assed job slapping together thin sheets of drywall and formaldehyde-soaked plywood. All the effortful artistry has been replaced by whatever is simple and cheap. Given enough time Nepali villages will be filled with nothing but tract housing and big box stores.

powerapple 3y ago
if there are slaves, they can spend their life building your fancy house. Yes, we are going to have houses which are ugly maybe, but more people are going to have houses. It is a win for humanity.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  But we still watch things like the Qatar World Cup which was largely understood to have been constructive by modern day slaves. Was the quality of architecture more aesthetic there than in other competitions?
someotherperson 3y ago
Things have always been cheap. The difference is that in exchange for quality and intricacy we're giving the craftsman and contractors a liveable wage and allowing 12 year olds to go to school.
- HarryHirsch 3y ago
  The wheel has turned - now we are keeping 20-year olds in school who should instead be earning money and are saddling them with impossible student loans. And half of the building contractors are Mexicans with even less rights than your worker with US passport.
emptyfile 3y ago
>Somehow all of our education and technology has resulted in everything being as basic and cheap as possible. Yeah, because housing poor people is a greater priority nowdays, as opposed to builind palaces. >Sometimes when I see pictures of old buildings I can't help but notice that it seems like everything used to be so much fancier than it is now. Here's some houses in Poland 100 years ago. Looks fancy eh? https://monovisions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/vintage-daily-life-in-galicia-eastern-europe-1920s-08.jpg https://monovisions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/vintage-d...
krisoft 3y ago
> Even though the builders didn't have the advantage of modern tools and science they sculpted statues and gargoyles and domes and columns and flying buttresses and trusses and everything inside and out was covered in intricate carvings and gilding and mosaic and fresco and ornament. > We're lucky if builders bother to do even a half-assed job slapping together thin sheets of drywall and formaldehyde-soaked plywood. You are comparing cathedrals with regular living/working places. Cathedrals concentrated a huge amount of resources in them for ideological reasons. Regular living/working places are produced as cheaply as possible to meet the requirements. Both then and now. Prestige buildings get lavished with ornamentation and pomp. Both then and now. The article talks about something different. It is comparing regular folks homes then and now, and describes how a particular art form is disappearing.
- quietbritishjim 3y ago
  Just a note that this is true for "cathedrals" in the figurative sense as well as the literal sense that you seem to mean it - there are plenty of attractive historical buildings that weren't religious but still represented displays of prestige and power by governments or just individuals. There's also heavy survivorship bias going on here. The Dickensian slums of London weren't worth preserving so were wiped away, whereas more impressive buildings were much more likely to be preserved. A naive assessment of historical buildings in London might be that the whole place was much more impressive than today, whereas it may be that, on average, the reverse is true.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Europe is filled with old buildings with decorative elements. Some of this is survivorship bias, but fire and bombs destroyed buildings fairly indiscriminately. Instead the cost of labor was relatively low so adding these elements was simply more affordable and therefore they ended up on more buildings. This shows up for even iconic modern buildings. The Sidney Opera house is a perfect example, from a mile away it looks interesting but get close and there’s few small scale details that look interesting. By small scale I mean fit within a 3 foot by 3 foot cube the way a gargoyle head might.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Almondsetat 3y ago
Pictures of old buildings = pictures of old rich people's buildings
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  Not necessarily. Impressive stone buildings in the Western Balkans were often built by people who were quite poor, except for what livestock they held. It helped that society was clan-based, so resources were pooled, and when these families had to build a house in a region of vendetta and invasion, for protection they chose stone that has held up well over time. An interesting parallel might be those old Amish houses in the US built well through communal effort, even though the families might have been cash-poor.
- autoexec 3y ago
  There's certainly some truth to that, but even the comparatively wealthy people of today live in homes made using terrible materials and zero craftsmanship/artistry. They're still charging us as much as they can get away with, to the point where housing is increasingly considered unaffordable, but the quality of the work and the materials are total trash.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    By what measurement do you determine the materials of today’s homes of the wealthy are terrible? The far better insulation/windows. Easy to manipulate and fix drywall which also happens to be cheap. Paint that comes in a billion colors. Cement fiber siding that has very high resilience relative to cost. Electrical systems that are very unlikely to cause fires and can run multiple 30amp lines around the home? Multiple zone HVAC. PEX plumbing that is lead free and much cheaper/easier to fix. Quartz countertops, synthetic floor to ceiling “marble” bath surrounds. Durable and easy to fix LVT flooring that comes in a billion styles. High quality carpets with padding. Heated floors. Lights that come in many colors, styles, and most of all, use a fraction of the energy. Yes, there is less “art” or whatever it is that costs a lot of human time. But the utility per dollar has never been higher, and I’ll take a modern home over an old home anyday.
OfSanguineFire 3y ago
In this particular case, article describes a style passed down through the women in the family. If you spend all day at home, you have time for things like that, and the Indian Subcontinent continues to have a substantial percentage of women who remain in the home. However, as women eventually join the workforce it might be inevitable that this and other such traditions fade.
blueridge 3y ago
https://mcmansionhell.com/ https://mcmansionhell.com/
- ctom96 3y ago
  Love that site, so good and really captures what I don't like about modern housing

powerapple 3y ago

if there are slaves, they can spend their life building your fancy house. Yes, we are going to have houses which are ugly maybe, but more people are going to have houses. It is a win for humanity.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
But we still watch things like the Qatar World Cup which was largely understood to have been constructive by modern day slaves. Was the quality of architecture more aesthetic there than in other competitions?

someotherperson 3y ago

Things have always been cheap. The difference is that in exchange for quality and intricacy we're giving the craftsman and contractors a liveable wage and allowing 12 year olds to go to school.

HarryHirsch 3y ago
The wheel has turned - now we are keeping 20-year olds in school who should instead be earning money and are saddling them with impossible student loans. And half of the building contractors are Mexicans with even less rights than your worker with US passport.

emptyfile 3y ago

>Somehow all of our education and technology has resulted in everything being as basic and cheap as possible. Yeah, because housing poor people is a greater priority nowdays, as opposed to builind palaces. >Sometimes when I see pictures of old buildings I can't help but notice that it seems like everything used to be so much fancier than it is now. Here's some houses in Poland 100 years ago. Looks fancy eh? https://monovisions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/vintage-daily-life-in-galicia-eastern-europe-1920s-08.jpg https://monovisions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/vintage-d...

krisoft 3y ago

> Even though the builders didn't have the advantage of modern tools and science they sculpted statues and gargoyles and domes and columns and flying buttresses and trusses and everything inside and out was covered in intricate carvings and gilding and mosaic and fresco and ornament. > We're lucky if builders bother to do even a half-assed job slapping together thin sheets of drywall and formaldehyde-soaked plywood. You are comparing cathedrals with regular living/working places. Cathedrals concentrated a huge amount of resources in them for ideological reasons. Regular living/working places are produced as cheaply as possible to meet the requirements. Both then and now. Prestige buildings get lavished with ornamentation and pomp. Both then and now. The article talks about something different. It is comparing regular folks homes then and now, and describes how a particular art form is disappearing.

quietbritishjim 3y ago
Just a note that this is true for "cathedrals" in the figurative sense as well as the literal sense that you seem to mean it - there are plenty of attractive historical buildings that weren't religious but still represented displays of prestige and power by governments or just individuals. There's also heavy survivorship bias going on here. The Dickensian slums of London weren't worth preserving so were wiped away, whereas more impressive buildings were much more likely to be preserved. A naive assessment of historical buildings in London might be that the whole place was much more impressive than today, whereas it may be that, on average, the reverse is true.
- Retric 3y ago
  Europe is filled with old buildings with decorative elements. Some of this is survivorship bias, but fire and bombs destroyed buildings fairly indiscriminately. Instead the cost of labor was relatively low so adding these elements was simply more affordable and therefore they ended up on more buildings. This shows up for even iconic modern buildings. The Sidney Opera house is a perfect example, from a mile away it looks interesting but get close and there’s few small scale details that look interesting. By small scale I mean fit within a 3 foot by 3 foot cube the way a gargoyle head might.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Almondsetat 3y ago

Pictures of old buildings = pictures of old rich people's buildings

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
Not necessarily. Impressive stone buildings in the Western Balkans were often built by people who were quite poor, except for what livestock they held. It helped that society was clan-based, so resources were pooled, and when these families had to build a house in a region of vendetta and invasion, for protection they chose stone that has held up well over time. An interesting parallel might be those old Amish houses in the US built well through communal effort, even though the families might have been cash-poor.
autoexec 3y ago
There's certainly some truth to that, but even the comparatively wealthy people of today live in homes made using terrible materials and zero craftsmanship/artistry. They're still charging us as much as they can get away with, to the point where housing is increasingly considered unaffordable, but the quality of the work and the materials are total trash.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  By what measurement do you determine the materials of today’s homes of the wealthy are terrible? The far better insulation/windows. Easy to manipulate and fix drywall which also happens to be cheap. Paint that comes in a billion colors. Cement fiber siding that has very high resilience relative to cost. Electrical systems that are very unlikely to cause fires and can run multiple 30amp lines around the home? Multiple zone HVAC. PEX plumbing that is lead free and much cheaper/easier to fix. Quartz countertops, synthetic floor to ceiling “marble” bath surrounds. Durable and easy to fix LVT flooring that comes in a billion styles. High quality carpets with padding. Heated floors. Lights that come in many colors, styles, and most of all, use a fraction of the energy. Yes, there is less “art” or whatever it is that costs a lot of human time. But the utility per dollar has never been higher, and I’ll take a modern home over an old home anyday.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

In this particular case, article describes a style passed down through the women in the family. If you spend all day at home, you have time for things like that, and the Indian Subcontinent continues to have a substantial percentage of women who remain in the home. However, as women eventually join the workforce it might be inevitable that this and other such traditions fade.

blueridge 3y ago

https://mcmansionhell.com/ https://mcmansionhell.com/

ctom96 3y ago
Love that site, so good and really captures what I don't like about modern housing