3 ms·

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 t

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.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Here, let’s put it in data. What are the highest $/sqft (read: desirable) neighborhoods in every mature city in the country (old enough to have traditional local vernacular)? Shockingly, they’re all the ones with traditional, local vernacular architecture! Where’s your data that demonstrates beauty is subjective? Surely you can back up that claim, right?
      - amazingamazing 2y ago
        > Where’s your data that demonstrates beauty is subjective? lol only on HN would someone demand data to demonstrate that beauty is subjective.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        I suppose in the presence of overwhelming data to the contrary we just oughta take your word for it :) Have fun in your fantasy where nothing gets built!
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        I’ll be fine, I already own a few houses :). Enjoy the objective beauty in which no one disagrees!
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Huh? What’s the relevance? I suspect this is just a super awkward brag in place of an argument but I ought to be sure.
BenFranklin100 2y ago
The OP is correct. In the real world, bad faith NIMBYs will reject any and all buildings as ‘not beautiful enough’. The reason is that they really don’t want new construction period. It’s not about beauty. In other words, you’re the one living in the fantasy world if you think we can just sit down, decide on what is beautiful, and then build, build, build. This will never happen. Zoning must be majorly reformed, and if you think it will be easier to reform zoning if we incorporate aesthetic standards, you are wrong. People simply don’t want new buildings in their neighborhood.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  You fall into the same trap that so many people do, which is arguing against the most extreme version of your opponent instead of trying to build a coalition against them by winning over the much larger, much less extreme portions of the opposition. We can de-fang the most extreme by weakening zoning and we ought to build a broad pro-development consensus by building fantastic environments (which is absolutely, demonstrably possible to do in a cost-effective manner). To put it more directly: we need to politically disempower the bad faith NIMBYs via zoning reform and we need to win over the people who are (justifiably) tired of their built environment becoming more and more insulting to the human senses and local culture. https://ourbuiltenvironment.substack.com/p/why-everywhere-looks-the-same-248940f12c4 https://ourbuiltenvironment.substack.com/p/why-everywhere-lo... Extremely sad how paralyzed you’ll be in agitating for change with this fatalistic “the presence of extremists means I don’t need to win over moderates” attitude.
  - BenFranklin100 2y ago
    Oh hush. You’re the barking up the wrong tree with this ‘beautiful housing’ thing. If we want to reform zoning, it’s not going to be by winning over NIMBYs about beauty standards. The way to reform zoning is to win over younger, upwardly mobile folks who are currently priced out of the housing market. There are many, many of them. They need to be educated that too little construction leads to supply shortages, and thus high prices. We also stand a chance of winning over labor/blue collar workers who will benefit from plentiful construction. Business owners, both small and large, are also natural allies as high home prices make it difficult to find and keep employees. All these people care about something much nearer and dearer to their hearts than pretty architecture: MONEY. The focus on aesthetics is a distraction at best. In practice, it plays straight into NIMBY hands by granting that beauty standards is a hurdle that must be overcome in order to build.

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.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Here, let’s put it in data. What are the highest $/sqft (read: desirable) neighborhoods in every mature city in the country (old enough to have traditional local vernacular)? Shockingly, they’re all the ones with traditional, local vernacular architecture! Where’s your data that demonstrates beauty is subjective? Surely you can back up that claim, right?
    - amazingamazing 2y ago
      > Where’s your data that demonstrates beauty is subjective? lol only on HN would someone demand data to demonstrate that beauty is subjective.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        I suppose in the presence of overwhelming data to the contrary we just oughta take your word for it :) Have fun in your fantasy where nothing gets built!
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        I’ll be fine, I already own a few houses :). Enjoy the objective beauty in which no one disagrees!
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Huh? What’s the relevance? I suspect this is just a super awkward brag in place of an argument but I ought to be sure.

BenFranklin100 2y ago

The OP is correct. In the real world, bad faith NIMBYs will reject any and all buildings as ‘not beautiful enough’. The reason is that they really don’t want new construction period. It’s not about beauty. In other words, you’re the one living in the fantasy world if you think we can just sit down, decide on what is beautiful, and then build, build, build. This will never happen. Zoning must be majorly reformed, and if you think it will be easier to reform zoning if we incorporate aesthetic standards, you are wrong. People simply don’t want new buildings in their neighborhood.

llamaimperative 2y ago
You fall into the same trap that so many people do, which is arguing against the most extreme version of your opponent instead of trying to build a coalition against them by winning over the much larger, much less extreme portions of the opposition. We can de-fang the most extreme by weakening zoning and we ought to build a broad pro-development consensus by building fantastic environments (which is absolutely, demonstrably possible to do in a cost-effective manner). To put it more directly: we need to politically disempower the bad faith NIMBYs via zoning reform and we need to win over the people who are (justifiably) tired of their built environment becoming more and more insulting to the human senses and local culture. https://ourbuiltenvironment.substack.com/p/why-everywhere-looks-the-same-248940f12c4 https://ourbuiltenvironment.substack.com/p/why-everywhere-lo... Extremely sad how paralyzed you’ll be in agitating for change with this fatalistic “the presence of extremists means I don’t need to win over moderates” attitude.
- BenFranklin100 2y ago
  Oh hush. You’re the barking up the wrong tree with this ‘beautiful housing’ thing. If we want to reform zoning, it’s not going to be by winning over NIMBYs about beauty standards. The way to reform zoning is to win over younger, upwardly mobile folks who are currently priced out of the housing market. There are many, many of them. They need to be educated that too little construction leads to supply shortages, and thus high prices. We also stand a chance of winning over labor/blue collar workers who will benefit from plentiful construction. Business owners, both small and large, are also natural allies as high home prices make it difficult to find and keep employees. All these people care about something much nearer and dearer to their hearts than pretty architecture: MONEY. The focus on aesthetics is a distraction at best. In practice, it plays straight into NIMBY hands by granting that beauty standards is a hurdle that must be overcome in order to build.