3 ms·

OMG a Le Corbusier nephew. Right, let's raze all historical cities, and build stell and glass cubes. And while we're at it, let's burn a few books and paintings

by ludoo 13y ago

OMG a Le Corbusier nephew. Right, let's raze all historical cities, and build stell and glass cubes. And while we're at it, let's burn a few books and paintings too...

namdnay 13y ago
Or a Modern Hausmanian :)
glenra 13y ago
> Right, let's raze all historical cities, and build stell and glass cubes. If redevelopment were generally allowed in cities like Paris and New York some of ugliest, least unique buildings would tend to get replaced with something newer and possibly better. And fifty or a hundred years later some of those new buildings would themselves also be prized by preservationists. People HATED the Eiffel Tower when it was first proposed. Some even hated it after it was built. (de Maupassant: “this tall skinny pyramid of iron ladders, this giant and disgraceful skeleton.”) Don't be like those people. > And while we're at it, let's burn a few books and paintings too... The traditionalist position here makes us burn all the potential new books and paintings, because we already have enough copies of the old ones to fill the library. Better to keep a hundred copies of an old book than 99 copies of the old book and one copy of a new one, right?
- yardie 13y ago
  The city planners did allow some unchecked redevelopment in the early 70s and 80s. Most of those buildings are still considered ugly and time hasn't made them any prettier, trust me. I wouldn't say it's the traditionalist but the the people have, collectively, have decided that they want a specific aesthetic and most of the buildings being proposed aren't it. The Forums Les Halles was erected in the 70s, the architects thought it was pretty, a majority of the population didn't like it. It was built and, 30 years later, demolished.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    Most of those buildings are still considered ugly and time hasn't made them any prettier, trust me. Aesthetics are for the comfortable. I don't think most New Yorkers know (or care) what the exteriors of their buildings look like. I'd rather have ugly buildings and lower rent so I can save. Yes, I'm a dick because I care about my future more than whether bored rich people like the looks of the city. I live here, I work here, I don't fucking "look at" it because I don't have time and I don't really care. For aesthetics, I go to Central Park. I'd be pissed if that went away. But I don't give the square root of a fuck if someone wants to build a hideous 100-story apartment building (bringing down rents, one hopes) in the Village, as long as they do it safely. If you want aesthetics, go out to the mountains. It's beautiful and no one is going to build a 100-story eyesore any time soon.
    - Jacqued 13y ago
      The thing is, new constructions tend to make rents higher, because they are usually of higher standards than what they replace. Typically, a newly build building will sell flats at 14k€/m² where as the surroundings sell for 10k, because it is newer, more comfortable and consumes less electricity for heating. And rents go up accordingly. Also, I think most people do care what their place looks like ; it's a combination of factors, but prettier buildings always sell for more, and inhabitants of prettier buildings tend to take better care of them. I wouldn't want to live in (or next to) one of the terrible 60-70s condos at the limits of paris, unless rent was _at least_ 30% lower than in a more proper place.
      - michaelochurch 13y ago
        The painful truth about it is that we're both right. Those luxury condos aren't built by landlords wanting to bring down the rent, obviously. They're built with full intention of taking advantage of clueless yuppie transplants who haven't a clue what things should actually cost, or whose monstrous senses of suburban entitlement leave them thinking they need a 2500 SF (232 m^2) space in the city. In the short term, they actually do drive up rents. The opportunities and bargains come out in the long term. What then happens is that the developers overbuild, and a few years later a large quantity of housing stock comes on to the market, depressing price. Look at what has happened in Florida, Nevada, and even California. It can happen again, and it's ugly but still far better than the alternative (Manhattan rent levels). Also, most "luxury" housing is not of a quality that real rich people would accept. "Luxury" means there's a small gym and a doorman, but the quality of this housing/renovation is usually low-- which is fine given that you're just using it as a crash-pad while you work a 60+ hour job that requires living close to work. (Rent if you can; don't buy.) "Luxury apartments" are for people making upper-middle incomes in their professional jobs who need college-like pampering because of their insane work schedules, rather than genuine rich. That said, you have to be extremely careful in playing this sort of game. Manhattan "luxury condos" are selling at 40-50 times annual rent for a variety of reasons, so you'll actually lose a lot of money if you buy one and try to rent it out. Trying to time the crashes caused by overbuilding is not something most people can afford to do. However, it is abstractly and also obviously good for society when more housing is created.
- king_jester 13y ago
  > If redevelopment were generally allowed in cities like Paris and New York some of ugliest, least unique buildings would tend to get replaced with something newer and possibly better. And fifty or a hundred years later some of those new buildings would themselves also be prized by preservationists. This is completely unfounded. There is no guarantee that new construction would be more aesthetically pleasing and we've seen that new development has not brought down prices in New York City and that gentrification continues to get worse.
  - glenra 13y ago
    THere's no guarantee, no. But it's a pretty safe bet. Yes, buildings built in the 1880s have a certain style to them, but so do buildings built in the 1970s, 1990s, and today. By the end of the century people will undoubtedly have some nostalgia for the old-fashioned building style of 2013. Not all buildings built today will stand the test of time, but some will. More will if there are more to choose from. Think about the original Twin Towers. By objective measure they were boring and hideous, but people liked them anyway - it grew on the populace. Like the Eiffel Tower did on Parisiens. As for gentrification, the newest buildings will tend to have high prices, but if enough of them are allowed to come on the market eventually there will be a glut and prices will collapse. Maybe the price collapse will be more in the older buildings as upscale tenants move to the new ones. (Getting rid of rent control would help a lot too, of course. Right now new buildings specialize in high-end in part because anyone who chose to specialize in low-end would quickly lose the flexibility to set their own rent and choose their own tenants.)

by ludoo 13y ago

OMG a Le Corbusier nephew. Right, let's raze all historical cities, and build stell and glass cubes. And while we're at it, let's burn a few books and paintings too...

namdnay 13y ago

Or a Modern Hausmanian :)

glenra 13y ago

> Right, let's raze all historical cities, and build stell and glass cubes. If redevelopment were generally allowed in cities like Paris and New York some of ugliest, least unique buildings would tend to get replaced with something newer and possibly better. And fifty or a hundred years later some of those new buildings would themselves also be prized by preservationists. People HATED the Eiffel Tower when it was first proposed. Some even hated it after it was built. (de Maupassant: “this tall skinny pyramid of iron ladders, this giant and disgraceful skeleton.”) Don't be like those people. > And while we're at it, let's burn a few books and paintings too... The traditionalist position here makes us burn all the potential new books and paintings, because we already have enough copies of the old ones to fill the library. Better to keep a hundred copies of an old book than 99 copies of the old book and one copy of a new one, right?

yardie 13y ago
The city planners did allow some unchecked redevelopment in the early 70s and 80s. Most of those buildings are still considered ugly and time hasn't made them any prettier, trust me. I wouldn't say it's the traditionalist but the the people have, collectively, have decided that they want a specific aesthetic and most of the buildings being proposed aren't it. The Forums Les Halles was erected in the 70s, the architects thought it was pretty, a majority of the population didn't like it. It was built and, 30 years later, demolished.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Most of those buildings are still considered ugly and time hasn't made them any prettier, trust me. Aesthetics are for the comfortable. I don't think most New Yorkers know (or care) what the exteriors of their buildings look like. I'd rather have ugly buildings and lower rent so I can save. Yes, I'm a dick because I care about my future more than whether bored rich people like the looks of the city. I live here, I work here, I don't fucking "look at" it because I don't have time and I don't really care. For aesthetics, I go to Central Park. I'd be pissed if that went away. But I don't give the square root of a fuck if someone wants to build a hideous 100-story apartment building (bringing down rents, one hopes) in the Village, as long as they do it safely. If you want aesthetics, go out to the mountains. It's beautiful and no one is going to build a 100-story eyesore any time soon.
  - Jacqued 13y ago
    The thing is, new constructions tend to make rents higher, because they are usually of higher standards than what they replace. Typically, a newly build building will sell flats at 14k€/m² where as the surroundings sell for 10k, because it is newer, more comfortable and consumes less electricity for heating. And rents go up accordingly. Also, I think most people do care what their place looks like ; it's a combination of factors, but prettier buildings always sell for more, and inhabitants of prettier buildings tend to take better care of them. I wouldn't want to live in (or next to) one of the terrible 60-70s condos at the limits of paris, unless rent was _at least_ 30% lower than in a more proper place.
    - michaelochurch 13y ago
      The painful truth about it is that we're both right. Those luxury condos aren't built by landlords wanting to bring down the rent, obviously. They're built with full intention of taking advantage of clueless yuppie transplants who haven't a clue what things should actually cost, or whose monstrous senses of suburban entitlement leave them thinking they need a 2500 SF (232 m^2) space in the city. In the short term, they actually do drive up rents. The opportunities and bargains come out in the long term. What then happens is that the developers overbuild, and a few years later a large quantity of housing stock comes on to the market, depressing price. Look at what has happened in Florida, Nevada, and even California. It can happen again, and it's ugly but still far better than the alternative (Manhattan rent levels). Also, most "luxury" housing is not of a quality that real rich people would accept. "Luxury" means there's a small gym and a doorman, but the quality of this housing/renovation is usually low-- which is fine given that you're just using it as a crash-pad while you work a 60+ hour job that requires living close to work. (Rent if you can; don't buy.) "Luxury apartments" are for people making upper-middle incomes in their professional jobs who need college-like pampering because of their insane work schedules, rather than genuine rich. That said, you have to be extremely careful in playing this sort of game. Manhattan "luxury condos" are selling at 40-50 times annual rent for a variety of reasons, so you'll actually lose a lot of money if you buy one and try to rent it out. Trying to time the crashes caused by overbuilding is not something most people can afford to do. However, it is abstractly and also obviously good for society when more housing is created.
king_jester 13y ago
> If redevelopment were generally allowed in cities like Paris and New York some of ugliest, least unique buildings would tend to get replaced with something newer and possibly better. And fifty or a hundred years later some of those new buildings would themselves also be prized by preservationists. This is completely unfounded. There is no guarantee that new construction would be more aesthetically pleasing and we've seen that new development has not brought down prices in New York City and that gentrification continues to get worse.
- glenra 13y ago
  THere's no guarantee, no. But it's a pretty safe bet. Yes, buildings built in the 1880s have a certain style to them, but so do buildings built in the 1970s, 1990s, and today. By the end of the century people will undoubtedly have some nostalgia for the old-fashioned building style of 2013. Not all buildings built today will stand the test of time, but some will. More will if there are more to choose from. Think about the original Twin Towers. By objective measure they were boring and hideous, but people liked them anyway - it grew on the populace. Like the Eiffel Tower did on Parisiens. As for gentrification, the newest buildings will tend to have high prices, but if enough of them are allowed to come on the market eventually there will be a glut and prices will collapse. Maybe the price collapse will be more in the older buildings as upscale tenants move to the new ones. (Getting rid of rent control would help a lot too, of course. Right now new buildings specialize in high-end in part because anyone who chose to specialize in low-end would quickly lose the flexibility to set their own rent and choose their own tenants.)