4 ms·

Cheaper lighting costs across an entire city are a very good reason. "Ugly architecture" is subjective. A lot of architects care very much, but they follow the

Cheaper lighting costs across an entire city are a very good reason. "Ugly architecture" is subjective. A lot of architects care very much, but they follow the academic line and lack the imagination and empathy to understand why elements of that aesthetic are unpopular and impractical - a completely different problem, even if it causes related outcomes. Bugs are easy to write and hard to fix. MBA culture as a whole is fixated on quick extractive shareholder returns, not on celebrating supreme engineering quality. MBAs care very much too, but not about the things the author (and probably most of us) care about. Some people do care but are simply not good at their jobs. Even if you do care, people will assume you don't. Anyone who's done direct customer facing work or even just sold stuff online will know that people love to nitpick. And so on. The problem is narcissism vs empathy. Caring means trying to have some insight the experience of others. Narcissism is on a scale from blank unawareness of others to outright hostility, whether overt or covert. There's a lot more of the latter than the former around at the moment, and corporate and economic values provide some conveniently expedient justifications for it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gizmo 2y ago
The problem, essentially, is that you can't rage against the dying of the light all by yourself. If you're an architect and badly want to build great housing your goals are frustrated every step of the way. By people who don't care enough to do all the little things that are necessary to make a building 5% better in 20 subtle ways. You can only fight indifference for so long before you're empty. What is the point of lighting being cheap if it produces a city where people don't want to live? Good lighting isn't unaffordable either. Cities with good lighting actually exist! And yet people will insist shitty lighting is somehow necessary. It isn't.
ericmay 2y ago
> "Ugly architecture" is subjective. I think this actually illustrates the author's point and gets at the heart of the cultural malaise we are experiencing. If everything is subjective, nothing can be improved because nothing can be better than something else. But this isn't the case. The Mona Lisa is objectively better than anything I have ever painted. Architecture is no different. Some buildings quite literally are better than others and we can scientifically study this [1]. We can recognize that all opinions are valid, but that some are better than others. We do this in daily life too, if you are in the ER and the trauma team comes and tells you their opinion on your condition, you will value that opinion over the opinion of the person outside waiting for a ride. Art, music, architecture - no different. Tens of millions of people visit the Notre Dame Cathedral. Why? Religious reasons of course, but many visit simply to marvel at the wonderful architecture. Contrast that with Rocky City Church [2] here in Columbus where I live. A big, bland, gray "modern" building that as our standards have dropped to nothing (remember everything is subjective so nothing can be better than anything else) we have come to accept as the norm. This is the Nobody Cares phase of not just architecture but society as well. [1] https://annsussman.com [2]https://rockcitychurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/1.png
- bccdee 2y ago
  > The Mona Lisa is objectively better than anything I have ever painted. No it isn't. If I saw one of your paintings and liked it better, there would be no way for you to prove me wrong. My opinion might be highly unpopular, but that wouldn't make it objectively incorrect.
  - ericmay 2y ago
    How would you compare the two?
  - mcswell 2y ago
    Then substitute one of my drawings (or paintings, if I painted) of a person. There's no way in the world that anyone--anyone!--would think mine were better. That's because mine are truly awful.
    - bccdee 2y ago
      Even then, that's just an opinion that everyone shares. Objectivity isn't when everyone's subjective experiences align—it's when something exists independent of any subjective experience. If there were no humans at all, "beauty" would be meaningless. It's an inherently subjective property which humans ascribe to objects. Conversely, the Earth would still orbit the Sun, because gravity is objective.
      - ericmay 2y ago
        In the same way I can state as an objective fact that Patrick Mahomes is way better than either of us at being a quarterback, I can say that any painting I've ever done isn't as good as the Mona Lisa.
        bccdee 2y ago
        A better quarterback wins games. What does a better painting do—win art contests? Judged by what objective criteria? Art doesn't have rules the way football does. A painting can't "win at being art"; each individual audience member either likes it or they don't.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

gizmo 2y ago

The problem, essentially, is that you can't rage against the dying of the light all by yourself. If you're an architect and badly want to build great housing your goals are frustrated every step of the way. By people who don't care enough to do all the little things that are necessary to make a building 5% better in 20 subtle ways. You can only fight indifference for so long before you're empty. What is the point of lighting being cheap if it produces a city where people don't want to live? Good lighting isn't unaffordable either. Cities with good lighting actually exist! And yet people will insist shitty lighting is somehow necessary. It isn't.

ericmay 2y ago

> "Ugly architecture" is subjective. I think this actually illustrates the author's point and gets at the heart of the cultural malaise we are experiencing. If everything is subjective, nothing can be improved because nothing can be better than something else. But this isn't the case. The Mona Lisa is objectively better than anything I have ever painted. Architecture is no different. Some buildings quite literally are better than others and we can scientifically study this [1]. We can recognize that all opinions are valid, but that some are better than others. We do this in daily life too, if you are in the ER and the trauma team comes and tells you their opinion on your condition, you will value that opinion over the opinion of the person outside waiting for a ride. Art, music, architecture - no different. Tens of millions of people visit the Notre Dame Cathedral. Why? Religious reasons of course, but many visit simply to marvel at the wonderful architecture. Contrast that with Rocky City Church [2] here in Columbus where I live. A big, bland, gray "modern" building that as our standards have dropped to nothing (remember everything is subjective so nothing can be better than anything else) we have come to accept as the norm. This is the Nobody Cares phase of not just architecture but society as well. [1] https://annsussman.com [2]https://rockcitychurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/1.png

bccdee 2y ago
> The Mona Lisa is objectively better than anything I have ever painted. No it isn't. If I saw one of your paintings and liked it better, there would be no way for you to prove me wrong. My opinion might be highly unpopular, but that wouldn't make it objectively incorrect.
- ericmay 2y ago
  How would you compare the two?
- mcswell 2y ago
  Then substitute one of my drawings (or paintings, if I painted) of a person. There's no way in the world that anyone--anyone!--would think mine were better. That's because mine are truly awful.
  - bccdee 2y ago
    Even then, that's just an opinion that everyone shares. Objectivity isn't when everyone's subjective experiences align—it's when something exists independent of any subjective experience. If there were no humans at all, "beauty" would be meaningless. It's an inherently subjective property which humans ascribe to objects. Conversely, the Earth would still orbit the Sun, because gravity is objective.
    - ericmay 2y ago
      In the same way I can state as an objective fact that Patrick Mahomes is way better than either of us at being a quarterback, I can say that any painting I've ever done isn't as good as the Mona Lisa.
      - bccdee 2y ago
        A better quarterback wins games. What does a better painting do—win art contests? Judged by what objective criteria? Art doesn't have rules the way football does. A painting can't "win at being art"; each individual audience member either likes it or they don't.