4 ms·

We could also mass-produce beautiful buildings. The Brooklyn Heights brownstones, quintessential beautiful urbanism, were mass-produced for cheap. Euclidean zo

We could also mass-produce beautiful buildings. The Brooklyn Heights brownstones, quintessential beautiful urbanism, were mass-produced for cheap. Euclidean zoning is an unmitigated disaster. Pushing for developers to build enjoyable environments for humans is not.

amazingamazing 2y ago
Beautiful buildings…? Enjoy your fantasies while little gets done in the real world, then. Endless committee meetings blocking viable developments while people bicker that proposals are not beautiful enough. Sigh. The attitude here around conditional housing is exactly why we’re in this predicament. Luckily for myself and others on here we already own housing, but if you don’t and agree with the parent you’re shooting yourself in the foot.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Absolute goofball stuff buddy. You, “realist”: the solution to people successfully blocking development is to convince them buildings cannot and should not be beautiful Me, in fantasy land: Here’s a specific example of a cost-effective, mass-produced neighborhood that is considered one of the most beautiful in the entire country, we should do more of that. The more you perpetuate the myth that cost-effective building needs to be ugly, the more resistance you’re going to produce… obviously. An imperative to build beautiful doesn’t actually necessitate committee after committee. Stop propagating myths that are destructive to your own priorities, lol.
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    Perhaps you should read - I didn’t say buildings should not be beautiful, nor that they would be ugly.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      How is one to interpret the sentence (which was the entirety of your original comment): “Beautiful buildings…? Enjoy your fantasies while little gets done in the real world, then.“ Please answer specifically what you meant by this statement.
      - amazingamazing 2y ago
        The inherent subjectivity of beauty in a building will needlessly delay a project as it is evaluated and contested - should be clear with “little gets done in the real world…” as well as the rest of the post…
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Nope. Beauty (especially in architecture) is not nearly as subjective as pedants want to make it out to be. The overwhelming majority of Americans who have any interest in city life find Brooklyn Heights, Prospect Heights, Carroll Gardens, Beacon Hill (Boston) and Rittenhouse Square (Philadelphia) to be beautiful. What actually needs to happen is a cultural revamp of our architecture schools which have perpetuated this “subjective beauty” myth and turned architecture into an academic pissing contest instead of a system to build for human beings. It is your specific viewpoint that perpetuates hideous building. It has infected every major architecture school in the nation except Notre Dame. Go ahead and find me ONE person who prefers the beauty of a strip mall suburb to Brooklyn Heights. If it’s so subjective that oughta be easy!
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        > Nope. Beauty (especially in architecture) is not nearly as subjective as pedants want to make it out to be. The overwhelming majority of Americans who have any interest in city life find Brooklyn Heights, Prospect Heights, Carroll Gardens, Beacon Hill (Boston) and Rittenhouse Square (Philadelphia) to be beautiful. What actually needs to happen is a cultural revamp of our architecture schools which have perpetuated this “subjective beauty” myth and turned architecture into an academic pissing contest instead of a system to build for human beings. It is your specific viewpoint that perpetuates hideous building. It has infected every major architecture school in the nation except Notre Dame. Go ahead and find me ONE person who prefers the beauty of a strip mall suburb to Brooklyn Heights. If it’s so subjective that oughta be easy! This entire comment epitomizes my original point. Thanks for the laugh.

amazingamazing 2y ago

Beautiful buildings…? Enjoy your fantasies while little gets done in the real world, then. Endless committee meetings blocking viable developments while people bicker that proposals are not beautiful enough. Sigh. The attitude here around conditional housing is exactly why we’re in this predicament. Luckily for myself and others on here we already own housing, but if you don’t and agree with the parent you’re shooting yourself in the foot.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Absolute goofball stuff buddy. You, “realist”: the solution to people successfully blocking development is to convince them buildings cannot and should not be beautiful Me, in fantasy land: Here’s a specific example of a cost-effective, mass-produced neighborhood that is considered one of the most beautiful in the entire country, we should do more of that. The more you perpetuate the myth that cost-effective building needs to be ugly, the more resistance you’re going to produce… obviously. An imperative to build beautiful doesn’t actually necessitate committee after committee. Stop propagating myths that are destructive to your own priorities, lol.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  Perhaps you should read - I didn’t say buildings should not be beautiful, nor that they would be ugly.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    How is one to interpret the sentence (which was the entirety of your original comment): “Beautiful buildings…? Enjoy your fantasies while little gets done in the real world, then.“ Please answer specifically what you meant by this statement.
    - amazingamazing 2y ago
      The inherent subjectivity of beauty in a building will needlessly delay a project as it is evaluated and contested - should be clear with “little gets done in the real world…” as well as the rest of the post…
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Nope. Beauty (especially in architecture) is not nearly as subjective as pedants want to make it out to be. The overwhelming majority of Americans who have any interest in city life find Brooklyn Heights, Prospect Heights, Carroll Gardens, Beacon Hill (Boston) and Rittenhouse Square (Philadelphia) to be beautiful. What actually needs to happen is a cultural revamp of our architecture schools which have perpetuated this “subjective beauty” myth and turned architecture into an academic pissing contest instead of a system to build for human beings. It is your specific viewpoint that perpetuates hideous building. It has infected every major architecture school in the nation except Notre Dame. Go ahead and find me ONE person who prefers the beauty of a strip mall suburb to Brooklyn Heights. If it’s so subjective that oughta be easy!
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        > Nope. Beauty (especially in architecture) is not nearly as subjective as pedants want to make it out to be. The overwhelming majority of Americans who have any interest in city life find Brooklyn Heights, Prospect Heights, Carroll Gardens, Beacon Hill (Boston) and Rittenhouse Square (Philadelphia) to be beautiful. What actually needs to happen is a cultural revamp of our architecture schools which have perpetuated this “subjective beauty” myth and turned architecture into an academic pissing contest instead of a system to build for human beings. It is your specific viewpoint that perpetuates hideous building. It has infected every major architecture school in the nation except Notre Dame. Go ahead and find me ONE person who prefers the beauty of a strip mall suburb to Brooklyn Heights. If it’s so subjective that oughta be easy! This entire comment epitomizes my original point. Thanks for the laugh.