3 ms·

> These buildings were meant to stand the test of time, Person says. But they’re in need of significant investment if they are going to exist for another five d

> These buildings were meant to stand the test of time, Person says. But they’re in need of significant investment if they are going to exist for another five decades. Daily reminder that people pay millions of dollars to live in what were originally brick warehouses, factories and power stations. If you build nice looking, properly proportioned buildings out of humane & durable materials, they will get maintained and reused. If you build abstract garbage that appeals only to bean counters and an intellectual elite interested in theory and posturing as innovators, people will tear them down as soon as they have the socio-political power to do so. Christopher Alexander tried to warn us.

TacticalCoder 2y ago
> > These buildings were meant to stand the test of time, Person says. But they’re in need of significant investment if they are going to exist for another five decades. The romans would like to have a word of two. I mean: if these things were meant to stand the test of time and now already need significant investment, they failed. Not a surprise seen the mindset that created those monstrosities.
Terr_ 2y ago
> in what were originally brick warehouses, factories and power stations That sometimes happens, but how much of that is attributable to survivorship bias, market pressure from increasing density, and maybe some favorable grandfathered-in legal quirks? (As opposed to raw architectural appeal.) Maybe all the uglier and worse-proportioned and lower-quality warehouses and factories and power-stations tend to get demolished long before anyone could think of converting their interiors to apartments or offices--or they persist but in unfavorable locations.
- recursivedoubts 2y ago
  survival bias is the last refuge of the modern architect Abandoned power stations found in the middle of rural California built by nameless workers simply using pattern books are more aesthetically significant buildings than most high end projects today
  - filoleg 2y ago
    > Abandoned power stations found in the middle of rural California built by nameless workers simply using pattern books are more aesthetically significant buildings than most high end projects today I would say that the time will tell. I bet it will definitely hold true for some cases (as you are imo correct, there are plenty of awful high end projects out there), but I am not so sure if it will hold true proportionally (i.e., the ratio of aesthetically significant to non-significant buildings among nameless abandoned power stations vs. high end projects). A lot of it is also just about the tastes of time. I remember when brutalism felt overplayed to hell by the end of the 20th century (in eastern europe especially, which is where I lived at the time), and I was somewhat sick of it myself. But as the time went, brutalism fell out of favor, and the dust was settling, I reversed my opinion on it. I disliked it because it was overplayed and annoying, but in balanced amounts, I really appreciate certain aspects of it now.
    - recursivedoubts 2y ago
      Brutalism will never be anything more than an eyesore to the vast majority of people. Architecture is as much about agreeability as anything, which is the problem: most architects (and most intellectuals) have an adversarial relationship with the majority of the people they share an aesthetic space with.
xtiansimon 2y ago
> “…pay millions of dollars to live in what were originally brick warehouses, factories and power stations.” Not because they are ‘beautiful’ in and of themselves. Residential living in a space designed for industry is an aesthetic of scale and human triumph over the machine. Residential living in an open space located in a busy, high density, high value, urban setting is a statement of wealth—I have so much money I can have this much space with nothing in it. And you live in a cramped three floor brownstone walk-up? Ha! (Which would be a traditional and normative sign of wealth, short of the last detached single family house in Manhattan.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schinasi_Mansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schinasi_Mansion)

TacticalCoder 2y ago

> > These buildings were meant to stand the test of time, Person says. But they’re in need of significant investment if they are going to exist for another five decades. The romans would like to have a word of two. I mean: if these things were meant to stand the test of time and now already need significant investment, they failed. Not a surprise seen the mindset that created those monstrosities.

Terr_ 2y ago

> in what were originally brick warehouses, factories and power stations That sometimes happens, but how much of that is attributable to survivorship bias, market pressure from increasing density, and maybe some favorable grandfathered-in legal quirks? (As opposed to raw architectural appeal.) Maybe all the uglier and worse-proportioned and lower-quality warehouses and factories and power-stations tend to get demolished long before anyone could think of converting their interiors to apartments or offices--or they persist but in unfavorable locations.

recursivedoubts 2y ago
survival bias is the last refuge of the modern architect Abandoned power stations found in the middle of rural California built by nameless workers simply using pattern books are more aesthetically significant buildings than most high end projects today
- filoleg 2y ago
  > Abandoned power stations found in the middle of rural California built by nameless workers simply using pattern books are more aesthetically significant buildings than most high end projects today I would say that the time will tell. I bet it will definitely hold true for some cases (as you are imo correct, there are plenty of awful high end projects out there), but I am not so sure if it will hold true proportionally (i.e., the ratio of aesthetically significant to non-significant buildings among nameless abandoned power stations vs. high end projects). A lot of it is also just about the tastes of time. I remember when brutalism felt overplayed to hell by the end of the 20th century (in eastern europe especially, which is where I lived at the time), and I was somewhat sick of it myself. But as the time went, brutalism fell out of favor, and the dust was settling, I reversed my opinion on it. I disliked it because it was overplayed and annoying, but in balanced amounts, I really appreciate certain aspects of it now.
  - recursivedoubts 2y ago
    Brutalism will never be anything more than an eyesore to the vast majority of people. Architecture is as much about agreeability as anything, which is the problem: most architects (and most intellectuals) have an adversarial relationship with the majority of the people they share an aesthetic space with.

xtiansimon 2y ago

> “…pay millions of dollars to live in what were originally brick warehouses, factories and power stations.” Not because they are ‘beautiful’ in and of themselves. Residential living in a space designed for industry is an aesthetic of scale and human triumph over the machine. Residential living in an open space located in a busy, high density, high value, urban setting is a statement of wealth—I have so much money I can have this much space with nothing in it. And you live in a cramped three floor brownstone walk-up? Ha! (Which would be a traditional and normative sign of wealth, short of the last detached single family house in Manhattan.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schinasi_Mansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schinasi_Mansion)