4 ms·
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 hi
by 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 agoEurope 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]
- anthk 3y agoIn Spain you can even spot an astronaut on an really old building in Salamanca, older than the US itself. But that's made as a hint/norm/law? among Historicians/Restorers in order to say 'hey, this chunk is not the original, it had been restored recently because of maintenance'.