4 ms·

The purpose of most buildings is to be useful, not to look pretty in pictures. > Modern architecture has destroyed our cities. It's hard to find a building bui

The purpose of most buildings is to be useful, not to look pretty in pictures. > Modern architecture has destroyed our cities. It's hard to find a building build after WO2 that's actually pretty That's because the things that get preserved are the things that are pretty. You think Romans built their outhouses and warehouses and cheap apartments to look like the colosseum? No, that shit was ugly too, that's why it's not around any more. This is called "survivorship bias". Don't base your opinions of the past exclusively on the things that survived til now. The things that survived til now are, by definition, the exception to the norm from the time. Not every european building is a work of art, not every Lancaster Bomber avoided being shot in the engines, not all the dinosaurs were animated skeletons. > Nothing compared the historic cities of Europe. What do you think Barcelona is? > In a time when it's cheaper then ever to build HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA. No. [https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/construction-costs-hit-highest-spike-in-50-years/2891677/ https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/construction-costs-hit-hig...]

airstrike 3y ago
> The purpose of most buildings is to be useful, not to look pretty in pictures. I'd say that's their stated purpose, not their inherent one. Beauty is only useless to those who choose to believe so. If you're not convinced, I recommend Roger Scruton's "Why Beauty Matters" https://vimeo.com/549715999 https://vimeo.com/549715999
gravescale 3y ago
I know the economics must somehow make sense, but it's still hard to wrap my head around the fact that even with quite literally once-unimaginable computing power, semi-magical modern materials, structural theory, decades of recorded research and testing, international standardisation, leaps in simulations, optimisation, robotics, pneumatics, hydraulics, electronics, networking, transmission, logistics and supply chain engineering, economies of scale that dwarf the imagination of the most ardent technologist of yesteryear....humans still can't stack bricks or nail frames cheaply enough to reliably put roofs over heads. It's a hell of a Red Queen thing.
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  "Won't", not "can't".
  - gravescale 3y ago
    You're right, but there's a lot of people here making excuses predicated on treating entirely socially-voluntary problems (like providing no public transport, or allowing regulatory capture to inflate costs) as laws of nature.
- spaniard89277 3y ago
  We can do that. But we can't make new space.
  - pegasus 3y ago
    If the footprint is so expensive, you'd expect more investment in building quality, not less.
    - azulster 3y ago
      bricks and wood are unable to maximize the quality of a limited footprint. an expensive plot of land in a city needs to be built to certain quality standards to make sure it is affordable and safe. this is only possible with steel and concrete. brick and wood alone can't build safely and cheaply over 3 stories
      - pas 3y ago
        Of course depending on the definition, but light-framed wood is good for around 5 stories. And mass timber (eg. CLT - cross-laminated timber) is good up to ~20. And for the foundation concrete is still needed. But a lighter one. https://www.construction-physics.com/p/mass-timber-is-great-but-it-will https://www.construction-physics.com/p/mass-timber-is-great-...
      - pchristensen 3y ago
spaniard89277 3y ago
> The purpose of most buildings is to be useful, not to look pretty in pictures. Architecture is the only art where you're forced to participate. So we could pretty much say the opposite, buildings should, among other things, contribute to make a place nice. Or at least not make it more miserable. > What do you think Barcelona is? Most of Spanish cities are built with crap buildings dating above the 60s. Just concrete blocks, in some cities even with just plain grey and humidity stains. It doesn't matter how historic the city is, because the "historic center" it's just a small spot surrounded by uglyness.
- astrange 3y ago
  If your only complaint is the buildings are grey then try painting them.
throwaway91838 3y ago
>That's because the things that get preserved are the things that are pretty. You think Romans built their outhouses and warehouses and cheap apartments to look like the colosseum? No, that shit was ugly too, that's why it's not around any more. This is called "survivorship bias". The interior of the small apartments in Pompeii are beautifully decorated, and at the very least more skillfully so than most medieval churches, and we are talking about a small run of the mill rural Italian town. The reason Roman architecture is gone, is that the christians scrapped them for building materials to build churches, something that still happened until relatively recently (see the Temple of Ceasar pillaged in the late 15th century). The Colosseum itself is a pretty bad example of architecture left intact, it's literally sawn-off in half.
bluGill 3y ago
> > Nothing compared the historic cities of Europe. >What do you think Barcelona is? Not historic. Well some of it is, there is a tiny small town core that dates back to Roman times. The vast majority of the city only dates back to the 1900s. They were just lucky that Gaudi and other great architects practiced then and built landmarks that really should be preserved for as long as we can. Don't make a mistake though, Gaudi and peers built the city we know in the 1900s which isn't very old.

airstrike 3y ago

> The purpose of most buildings is to be useful, not to look pretty in pictures. I'd say that's their stated purpose, not their inherent one. Beauty is only useless to those who choose to believe so. If you're not convinced, I recommend Roger Scruton's "Why Beauty Matters" https://vimeo.com/549715999 https://vimeo.com/549715999

gravescale 3y ago

I know the economics must somehow make sense, but it's still hard to wrap my head around the fact that even with quite literally once-unimaginable computing power, semi-magical modern materials, structural theory, decades of recorded research and testing, international standardisation, leaps in simulations, optimisation, robotics, pneumatics, hydraulics, electronics, networking, transmission, logistics and supply chain engineering, economies of scale that dwarf the imagination of the most ardent technologist of yesteryear....humans still can't stack bricks or nail frames cheaply enough to reliably put roofs over heads. It's a hell of a Red Queen thing.

bigbillheck 3y ago
"Won't", not "can't".
- gravescale 3y ago
  You're right, but there's a lot of people here making excuses predicated on treating entirely socially-voluntary problems (like providing no public transport, or allowing regulatory capture to inflate costs) as laws of nature.
spaniard89277 3y ago
We can do that. But we can't make new space.
- pegasus 3y ago
  If the footprint is so expensive, you'd expect more investment in building quality, not less.
  - azulster 3y ago
    bricks and wood are unable to maximize the quality of a limited footprint. an expensive plot of land in a city needs to be built to certain quality standards to make sure it is affordable and safe. this is only possible with steel and concrete. brick and wood alone can't build safely and cheaply over 3 stories
    - pas 3y ago
      Of course depending on the definition, but light-framed wood is good for around 5 stories. And mass timber (eg. CLT - cross-laminated timber) is good up to ~20. And for the foundation concrete is still needed. But a lighter one. https://www.construction-physics.com/p/mass-timber-is-great-but-it-will https://www.construction-physics.com/p/mass-timber-is-great-...
    - pchristensen 3y ago

spaniard89277 3y ago

> The purpose of most buildings is to be useful, not to look pretty in pictures. Architecture is the only art where you're forced to participate. So we could pretty much say the opposite, buildings should, among other things, contribute to make a place nice. Or at least not make it more miserable. > What do you think Barcelona is? Most of Spanish cities are built with crap buildings dating above the 60s. Just concrete blocks, in some cities even with just plain grey and humidity stains. It doesn't matter how historic the city is, because the "historic center" it's just a small spot surrounded by uglyness.

astrange 3y ago
If your only complaint is the buildings are grey then try painting them.

throwaway91838 3y ago

>That's because the things that get preserved are the things that are pretty. You think Romans built their outhouses and warehouses and cheap apartments to look like the colosseum? No, that shit was ugly too, that's why it's not around any more. This is called "survivorship bias". The interior of the small apartments in Pompeii are beautifully decorated, and at the very least more skillfully so than most medieval churches, and we are talking about a small run of the mill rural Italian town. The reason Roman architecture is gone, is that the christians scrapped them for building materials to build churches, something that still happened until relatively recently (see the Temple of Ceasar pillaged in the late 15th century). The Colosseum itself is a pretty bad example of architecture left intact, it's literally sawn-off in half.

bluGill 3y ago

> > Nothing compared the historic cities of Europe. >What do you think Barcelona is? Not historic. Well some of it is, there is a tiny small town core that dates back to Roman times. The vast majority of the city only dates back to the 1900s. They were just lucky that Gaudi and other great architects practiced then and built landmarks that really should be preserved for as long as we can. Don't make a mistake though, Gaudi and peers built the city we know in the 1900s which isn't very old.