> After New York replaced the sodium-vapor lights in the city’s 250,000 streetlamps with shiny new LEDs in 2017, the experience of walking through the city at night transformed, almost . . . overnight. Forgiving, romantic, shadowy orange gave way to cold, all-seeing bluish white.<p>Before the late 1970s, NYC was illuminated at night by pinkish-white incandescent bulbs.<p>When the yellow monstrosities were rolled out people almost rioted. Their harsh orange glow invaded bedrooms creeping between gaps in curtains and assaulting the eyes, destroyed the soft and warm ambiance that had set the night scene for generations, and muted all colors into a monochromatic hellscape.<p>After just 30 seconds on TimesMachine I found an article from 1982 about the transition and how some residents were hesitant and one jurisdiction rejected the change out of hand. It took a long time for NYC to gain its orange glow and people didn't like it. <a href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1982/09/12/137352.html?pageNumber=326" rel="nofollow">https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1982/09/12/137...</a><p>Lol here's another article from the 40s: "Sodium light is not suitable for city streets, Commissioner Goodman said, because it gives a person a sallow appearance not liked by women."<p><a href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1940/05/26/issue.html" rel="nofollow">https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1940/05/26/iss...</a><p>People of my age view them as a nuisance born out of the austerity of the 1970s, a temporary suboptimal fix that persisted due to inertia. A reminder of the rot and desperation of the that era.<p>Now this dude is nostalgic for them?
My city and apparently numerous cities in my area have passed ordinances that new buildings over a certain size have to have multiple facades to look like multiple buildings butted up to each other. The effect has been this astonishingly hideous theme park esq approximation of small town America that isn’t fooling anyone. It looks more out of place next to the actual turn of the twentieth century buildings than an unambiguously new building would.<p>We can all see quite clearly this block long apartment building isn’t actually 5 buildings. Yet, now we have to suffer five hideous facades.
I just wanted to echo the gray frustration here. I went to buy vinyl flooring (I can't afford hardwood) and the sheer amount of inexplicably "grey wood" planks was staggering. Why! Like, it's as if some alien only saw wood in an episode of I Love Lucy and wanted to replicate it.
My crackpot theory: This is in part due to CAD:<p>* Colors other than gray don't look nice in CAD and aren't the default.<p>* It's super easy to just stack a bunch of rectangles (looking at you, architects...)<p>* You can chamfer and fillet but that's the end of what most people do. More complex shapes are hard to due due to the clunky spline tools. Hence elaborate ornaments are left out.
Well, I for one don't think everything is ugly.<p>Apple devices and stores look clean and elegant to me.<p>Tesla vehicles feel and look simple and beautiful to me.<p>If given a choice, I'd rather live in new buildings with bright, light-filled interiors than in old buildings with darker, mustier interiors.<p>I could provide more examples of things I don't think are ugly. The main point is this:<p><i>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.</i>
Beauty isn’t valued in these areas by those with the resources to choose it.<p>When the majority of people and businesses live hand to mouth, those that don’t have to constantly maximise exponential returns to their owners. Who has money to burn on “valueless” beauty<p>Even if the cost of beauty is the same, and there is an actual value, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you are increasing maximum potential value but you are reducing the minimum (you turn off some buyers who don’t like the look). Throw in the concept changing over time (pale green bathrooms used to be a big think in the U.K. in the 80s) and people go for neutral and boring.
Dupe from last year, 500+ comments: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33894679">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33894679</a><p>They <i>lied</i> on the publication date.
Oh man. There is this building in the city where I live. It's SO uncompromisngly gray and ugly that sometimes I think maybe it's actually a parody of this particular style. It kind of looks like a prison from the outside too... but it's actually condos! I hate it so much that I love it. :)<p>Anyway here's a great photo of it I found on Google:<p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipMKvYH4OHFU5o4gZlSZX3C-sULYprW2fLAa-oZx=s680-w680-h510" rel="nofollow">https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipMKvYH4OHFU5o4gZlSZ...</a>
When we believed that our institutions (religious, governmental, cultural, corporate) took care of us (whether or not they did), we would invest our efforts in return.
The jig is up. Why invest more than “minimum viable caring” at this point?<p>As an Ontarian who recently took a road trip through Quebec (where a faith in culture still presides), it seemed like there was more “giving a shit” about all institutions and it came through in quality across the board.
Missing context: I believe the building referred to as "The Josh" is the Gluck+ affordable housing development Van Sinderen Plaza. [1]<p>Compare the colorful panel surfacing to the description "Our new neighbor is a classic 5-over-1: retail on the ground floor, topped with several stories of apartments one wouldn’t want to be able to afford... We spent the summer certain that the caution tape–yellow panels on The Josh’s south side were insulation, to be eventually supplanted by an actual facade. Alas, in its finished form The Josh really is yellow, and also burgundy, gray, and brown."<p>The coy phrasing about "apartments one wouldn’t want to be able to afford" is a disguised reference to the fact that the apartments are reserved only for low-income residents; the author would not want to live in Brooklyn on the poverty-level income required to be eligible for the housing development.<p>The pictured sculpture the author dislikes is "Waiting" by the artist KAWS (Brian Donnelly). [2]<p>[1] <a href="https://gluckplus.com/project/van-sinderen-plaza-affordable-housing" rel="nofollow">https://gluckplus.com/project/van-sinderen-plaza-affordable-...</a>
[2] <a href="https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/kaws-waiting-brooklyn-sculpture" rel="nofollow">https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/kaws-waiting-brook...</a>
There's a lot more variation nowadays imo, and you can find whatever you are looking for, consciously or not.<p>If you want to find ugly, you can. If you want to find vibrant bright colours, you certainly can, too. At least in the UK, in both London and Manchester, where I have lived, you can find the best and the worst of many kinds of styles. Where I visited in Belfast, also. Also in Indonesia, from Bali to Jakarta, there's so much different kinds of styles you can experience. Sure, the "average vibe" is also kind of persistent, but I think the average vibe has been quite bland in many places for a while.<p>This includes art, architecture and the vibe as well as interior decor.<p>Edit: adjusted to distinguish between "general" and "average"
Can’t bring myself to read a screed like this. Every few years there’s been an article making exactly this complaint for hundreds of years. Most things are ugly and/or trash. Always has been, always will be. And the current fashion will eventually change, it always does.
I’ve got a counterpoint: we finally have the time to breathe and <i>actually notice</i> the ugliness. You don’t care about looks in a time of war. You put a lot of effort into “looks” and loving well shortly after a war as a rebound “look now it’s so better” compensation. We’ve instead (mostly) plateaued, which, at a (mostly) global level isn’t necessarily bad.<p>(Of course, if art is a reflection of present-day it’s not necessarily <i>predicting</i> a stable future in the context of global warming/water wars etc. I wonder if more graffiti will show up on these themes over time.)
There's a stupid article like this every decade where the writer thinks he's being edgy when he's actually just regurgitating the same shit spewed by regular people every 10 years. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but really stupid people who write articles like this think their eyes are the center of the universe.<p>Take a look at this from over a decade ago:
<a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/5gynqq/what-v11n11" rel="nofollow">https://www.vice.com/en/article/5gynqq/what-v11n11</a><p>Part of the article laments how the shape of cars have turned into "cough drops" and "globular tears". Clever but I can also write a edgy article about how idiots in the past designed cars as if they were hideous boxes and the concept of a curve was too advanced for their square minds to comprehend.
Discussion from 2022: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33894679">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33894679</a>
The debate about how we can’t make classic beauty anymore will always be around (and it’s not very interesting).<p>But what strikes me in some “ugly” cities is how accepted it is to let things be objectively ugly, for example in some cities you can see how a building wedged between two beautiful buildings has been torn down but the effort to build a new one seems on hold. As if owning the building/land gave the right to leave a scar for any amount of time. In cities where this doesn’t happen I imagine you simply don’t get a permit to leave an ugly hole. Build it or face a stiff fine, perhaps forcing you to sell to someone who would build. Seems like the only reasonable way of keeping it tidy.
A lot of UK inner city areas look like this for example.
The other day, I saw some workers finishing a series of 8 white shipping-sized containers each with A/C, aligned one next to the other on a plot of urban land.<p>I decided it had to be the expansion of a public (state) school, because I’ve read on the press about these containers being used in cases of shock-doctrine implementation.<p>Compared to foreign universities, Public education and public buildings in general used to be ugly, uninspiring, from the cradle (horrible huge hospitals) to the grave (horrible huge condominia-like wall with niches for a coffin).<p>We are transcending these thresholds to go full ugliness for the poor, in the name of economic efficiency
Another article on the same topic, is "Why You Hate Contemporary Architecture" by Adrian Rennix and Nathan J. Robinson.<p><a href="https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-contemporary-architecture" rel="nofollow">https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-contempo...</a><p>The two don't necessarily disagree, but I think the one I linked is better written. Plus, something about having all the block quotes be from tweets always makes me feel like the author isn't doing enough research or reading widely enough to be authoritative.
Relevant account for those wanting more photos illustrating the article: <a href="https://x.com/culture_crit?s=21&t=vrepFz-CnvLdHpV1b9UI0A" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/culture_crit?s=21&t=vrepFz-CnvLdHpV1b9UI0A</a><p>And a great YT channel explaining these points too:
<a href="https://youtu.be/C9pg2j2oGy0?si=83HrNdnZ6PdwGfrf" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/C9pg2j2oGy0?si=83HrNdnZ6PdwGfrf</a>
This article is trying too hard to be intellectual and incorporate artsy prose. A lot of it is just nonsensical or self-contradictory.<p>Basically the author is self-aware that others’ preferences and economic conditions have led to a built environment that’s incompatible with their tastes, and that they don’t actually have the right to dictate what others choose to build and buy. So they decide to snobbily denigrate them because… (makes them feel better? some kind of psychological need to establish superiority?)<p>Tastes change. There has been a pretty continual oscillation within architecture between more minimalist and austere styling and ornately decorated styling. Feels pretty pointless to get caught up in argument that boils down to red being a better color than blue
I see quality building as a materials problem. I'm little surprised at the number of comments promoting that color is tied to quality.<p>I see color generally as the least significant feature of design. There are situation where color becomes important to communicate ideas. These moments I see as design details. I don't see them generally as intrinsic to design.<p>Mosts of the factors I see discussed in this thread are more related to mass manufacturing and trying to guess what people want.<p>Everything is ugly becuase few people take personal responsibility in making the world better.
All the new builds in my area share a rendered concrete and jail-bar fencing aesthetic that is monstorous, undesirable and ugly. There are no sensible features to look at. The corners of the build look so sharp, you'd cut your hand if you touched them.<p>The hundred-million dollar shopping centre was done up last year and it removed most of the internal landmarks and created a series of flat hallways. There is nothing to rest your eyes upon, nothing to look at.<p>It's one flat, dated shop after another. Usually based on some dead subculture from 10yrs ago and recent ladies' fashion trends.<p>The apartments went up as part of the build and that are flat cubes, copy pasted with doors and windows cut into a wall behind a front patio of flat wooden slats. Minecraft aesthetic for ferrari prices.<p>It is physically irritating to look for a pattern or a boundary line or a landmark and find nothing to anchor yourself. Everything is textureless and shapeless. I avoid the place.<p>The concept of an aspirational home is dead in my books. The traditional homes may raise the blood pressure a touch too much and seem complex.. The contemporary builds are ugly and irritating.<p>A sense of balance, proportion, beauty and differentiated shapes, physically calms me. It has to be updated traditional. Neo classical or french colonial or some such new variation on an outdated style.
Call me overly practical, but as long as we have a shortage of housing, build all the ugly you can. I’d rather have people housed in ugly buildings they can afford over waiting for something aesthetically beautiful.
Related: Why Many Cities Suck from Not Just Bikes <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4kmDxcfR48" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4kmDxcfR48</a>
> Gah! Blinded by the intense glare of an LED streetlamp, we bump right into said streetlamp. Fortunately there’s an urgent care across the street, still open in the dwindling dusk. We’re no doctor — at least not until they start giving out PhDs in walking around — but we can tell that our knee is bleeding.<p>Who is this "we" they keep referring to...are they Siamese twins?
I guess design is more about the amount of emotion evoked, rather than the quality of emotion evoked. Destruction is easier than creation.<p>Creating something so ugly that it induces a negative emotion is probably easier than creating something so beautiful that it induces a positive emotion.<p>That would also explain modern UI design.
Contrast it with beautiful areas like the Amalfi Coast or any old town in the Mediterranean. They have color and trees. The advent of concrete, specifically Portland cement, brought on the gray brutalism. Builders would rather leave the stark concrete raw than color it.
It’s possible for everyone to like beautiful things but not build them when given the chance.<p>The “problem” is, everyone has a different preference.<p>Let’s say I like mid-century modern, and spend $75,000 extra on building (tastefully) in that style.<p>Now it’s 10 years later and I want to sell the house. A potential buyer likes everything <i>except</i> the mid-century modern. Their favorite style is neoclassical.<p>To them, mid-century modern styling has a value of zero or even -$25,000. So if I didn’t build in that style, they might have been willing to pay 75k-100k more.<p>The paradox here is that a divergence in preferences, due to cultural atomization and the internet, has led to lower returns on investment in beauty (and atrophying of craftsmanship and the ability to build beautifully to begin with).<p>If you ask me, a <i>tasteful</i> aesthetic monoculture is a good thing, and can result in timeless beauty which will be appreciated long after that monoculture evolves/ends. Sameness is not inherently bad! See: Florence, Venice, Andalucia, 1800’s Paris, etc…
> WE LIVE IN UNDENIABLY UGLY TIMES. Architecture, industrial design, cinematography, probiotic soda branding — many of the defining features of the visual field aren’t sending their best.<p>One of these things is not like the others
Go and spend summer in Russia, it is the perfect antidote. St. Petersburg is amazingly beautiful! Museums, architecture, cultural performances, no morbidly obese people on streets, no graffiti, even metro is nice!
>WE LIVE IN UNDENIABLY UGLY TIMES.<p>We live in undeniably depressed times. Where people don't stop and smell the flowers or pet the dog. They don't see the bald eagle flying over.<p>You are surrounded by utter wonderful beauty and you can't see it.<p><a href="https://www.pagani.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.pagani.com/</a><p>Sunsets/Sunrises/Landscapes have gone nowhere.<p>Music is literally at all time peak for beauty because it's understood far better than ever.<p>Special FX has reached a point where they are simulating younger/dead people like Leia in Rogue one?<p>Acts of kindness and charity are now made easier then ever. I'm checking out at some big box store and you're offered a 99% charity to donate to... Yes, please, every time.
I like to refer to pieces like this as weaponized pessimism.<p>They have a certain junk food allure, but their tone isn't really something we should strive to feel in our lives.
As much as I claim to like brutalitism as a design philosophy, I do think we could bring back some things like classic marble architecture. Maybe some new fountains
We need more housing, and we needed it yesterday. Ugly is better than nothing. Folks that care about aesthetic quality over quantity are part of the problem.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.<p>From The Original Complete List Of The 45 Declared Goals.
West is not just ugly, it’s also dirty, its streets smell
pee, it has no moral compass, no standard in anything. It promotes abandoning traditions in favor of degeneration and the result is ugly and disgusting.<p>Its politicians have orgies and organize festivals to run naked on the street once a year in the name
of “pride”. Art is not art anymore, they’re producing “artists” who put candles in their ass and walk like dogs for “art”. Same as poets or singers. So much nakedness, nothing deep or beautiful. There’s no more good art, novels or movies coming out of Western culture. Careful people even take steps to protect their children from it.