TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

121 点作者 cyunker超过 3 年前

36 条评论

thedigitalone超过 3 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;KGab2" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;KGab2</a>
tortarga超过 3 年前
As the article hinted at the simple answer is Car Dependency. Suburbs are regulated and built to accommodate cars now and not people.<p>The topic is explored thouroughly on the &#x27;Not Just Bikes&#x27; youtube channel. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;c&#x2F;NotJustBikes" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;c&#x2F;NotJustBikes</a> which uses information from urban planning group &#x27;Strong Towns&#x27; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.strongtowns.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.strongtowns.org&#x2F;</a>.
评论 #28938588 未加载
评论 #28938325 未加载
评论 #28938349 未加载
评论 #28942120 未加载
评论 #28939424 未加载
评论 #28938929 未加载
评论 #28938684 未加载
scelerat超过 3 年前
I may be romanticizing it as a mere occasional visitor, but my impression of Tokyo is as a place which has managed to manage a balance of (incredible) density with livable neighborhoods. Lots of public transit, commercial districts, residential zones with small shops and groceries. Very walkable, bikeable, and even driveable if that&#x27;s what you need. But within the city you seldom need to drive.<p>I grew up in LA suburbs. We had to drive to do anything: shop, go to the movies, visit friends. When I finally moved out of the home I grew up in, I moved to Hollywood, the neighborhood, which is very walkable and has lots of good public transit. Later I moved to San Francisco, and at this juncture I&#x27;m in a neighborhood in Oakland built up mostly in the 1910s-1930s. Not nearly as walk friendly as my old SF and LA neighborhoods, but there are still good groceries, restaurants, and bars within a 5-15 minute walk. And it&#x27;s an aesthetically beautiful mix of victorian, craftsman, and spanish-style architecture for the most part, in gently rolling hills surrounding a beautiful tidal estuary which reflects the downtown high-rises.<p>When I visit my family in the suburbs, it feels really weird and isolating.
评论 #28938977 未加载
jedberg超过 3 年前
&gt; That is why the increasing cost of craftsmanship, while real, cannot account for the decline of neighborhood beauty.<p>It&#x27;s not the cost, it&#x27;s the availability. I&#x27;m currently in the process of a home renovation. If you want a master craftsman to build you say, kitchen cabinets, you may have to wait <i>years</i> for them to be available.<p>Or you can go to the store and buy custom built cabinets from a factory and have them in a few weeks.<p>It&#x27;s the same with the outside of the house. You can build a generic outside with supplies from Home Depot, or if you&#x27;re really fancy the contractor&#x27;s supply depot, or wait years for a master to do a custom job for you.
评论 #28938424 未加载
评论 #28936284 未加载
评论 #28938355 未加载
评论 #28936944 未加载
评论 #28937623 未加载
评论 #28936640 未加载
评论 #28937196 未加载
评论 #28938044 未加载
beowulfey超过 3 年前
Seems a lot of these comments are thinking “nice” refers to the livable sense, but the article is specifically referencing aesthetics. And then makes the argument that modern neighborhoods don’t look pleasing because there is no consistency between neighboring houses.<p>I don’t buy this at all. There are many tracts of suburban (USA) houses where every house looks consistent and similar, with subtle differences in coloration being the main changes. And they do NOT look aesthetically pleasing.<p>I have a different theory. Go look at an old building and note the intricate details on trim, along windowsills, above doors, under roofs. Look at old bridges, lampposts, street signs or skyscrapers.<p>Humans used to build things with passion, and the builder’s pride shows in the result. Even low cost buildings like brownstones in the cities have these details; they give the buildings personality.<p>My theory is modern construction, since it is often prefab or cookie cutter parts, lacks these human touches, and we subconsciously sense it when we think they don’t look “nice”.
评论 #28939445 未加载
评论 #28940399 未加载
评论 #28939544 未加载
throw8383833jj超过 3 年前
For some reason the vast majority of houses are ugly for the following reasons: the proportions are off.<p>I mean, I understand the need to have smaller lots. But, if you&#x27;re going to have a small 3K sq ft lot then you need to limit the width of the house to allow at least 20&#x27; on each side and raise the height of the house to two stories, if it&#x27;s more than 800 sq ft.<p>Another big reason for ugliness is the extremely shallow and underdefined rooflines typical of ranch house style. You need to have steep well defined rooflines that give the house shape. And add a small stone tower off to the side to make it look even better.<p>Another big problem is the 2 or 3 car garages which always have to be immediately infront of the house which makes it look like you&#x27;r coming home to a parking garage and not a home. Put the garage in the back, where it belongs and have a 6&#x27; wide small driveway with nicely paved bricks.<p>Another even bigger problem is the propensity of people to put down pavement EVERYWHERE. the driveways are insanely big. the streets are waaay to wide. and then if that&#x27;s not enough, they fill up the backyard with pavement too. If you take an arial shot, you&#x27;ll notice almost half the lot is filled up with pavement: talk about ugly.<p>And, there&#x27;s no trees. Why? it doesn&#x27;t cost much to put down some trees. it makes the neighborhood so much more beautiful and even decreases the temperatures in the summer. you could even make them fruit trees so people can get free food.
评论 #28937335 未加载
评论 #28938180 未加载
评论 #28938958 未加载
评论 #28938688 未加载
评论 #28939293 未加载
评论 #28938855 未加载
cletus超过 3 年前
Two reasons:<p>1. People (in the US at least) overall consistently choose more land over living somewhere walkable. In a lot of places, the marginal cost of more land is near zero; and<p>2. The dirty secret of car dependency is that most people (in the US) like being car dependent. In all but the densest largest cities, private vehicles are so much more convenient. Even in Manhattan there are a nontrivial number of people who cling to their cars.<p>When a lot of people say they want to live somewhere walkable what they really mean is they want their same 4000 square foot house on half to one acre of land next to somewhere walkable.<p>Walkability is predicated on high land costs so obviously that doesn&#x27;t scale.
评论 #28939003 未加载
评论 #28938916 未加载
评论 #28939181 未加载
zwieback超过 3 年前
Buried in the article is an important point: people care a lot about interior and not much about exterior appearance. Typical cookie-cutter suburban neighborhoods are built assuming nobody walks around in them anyway. On the inside these houses are pretty deluxe, though.<p>Also, in the US it&#x27;s very difficult to build a house out of solid wood like my house from 40s. New materials might not look as nice but are less wasteful, more energie efficient and faster to build with.<p>Finally, people do come to new neighborhoods, e.g. in Portland the newish neighborhoods like Pearl District are successful in the sense that they are new, high density and mixed shopping&#x2F;dining&#x2F;living. Not for low income though.
评论 #28937552 未加载
评论 #28937256 未加载
评论 #28939339 未加载
评论 #28937660 未加载
Johnny555超过 3 年前
<i>If you ask the objective and measurable question of which neighborhoods tourists pay money to see, the answers are almost exclusively older neighborhoods,</i><p>That doesn&#x27;t sound like a good objective measure of what is a &quot;nice&quot; neighborhood -- I visit a lot of places as a tourist that I wouldn&#x27;t want to live in. We have the neighborhoods we have because people are choosing to live in them.<p>Some things, like a central car free housing core with cars relegated to the outside edges of the neighborhood sounds attractive on paper (and for some people in real life too), but when you picture yourself schlepping groceries 2 blocks to your house, or walking the baby out in the rain to the car to take her to the doctor, it&#x27;s less attractive for living, at least to those accustomed to living in the American car culture.<p>But really, it comes down to the bottom line -- people prefer to pay less than to pay more. If houses in a cookie cutter boring neighborhood cost 10% less than the ones in a planned neighborhood that&#x27;s objectively nicer, it&#x27;s going to be a lot harder to sell those expensive homes. So the developer&#x27;s not going to build them in the first place.
评论 #28940880 未加载
jason-phillips超过 3 年前
From &quot;A City is not a Tree&quot; by Christopher Alexander:<p>&gt; It is more and more widely recognized today that there is some essential ingredient missing from artificial cities. When compared with ancient cities that have acquired the patina of life, our modern attempts to create cities artificially are, from a human point of view, entirely unsuccessful.<p>&gt; Architects themselves admit more and more freely that they really like living in old buildings more than new ones. The non-art-loving public at large, instead of being grateful to architects for what they do, regards the onset of modern buildings and modern cities everywhere as an inevitable, rather sad piece of the larger fact that the world is going to the dogs.
评论 #28937978 未加载
paxys超过 3 年前
Architectural beauty is heavily dependent on context. Ornate gothic architecture, for example, peaked in popularity in the USA around 1870 and fell out of style in the early 1900s. Interest in it was revived in the late 20th century, so the same neighborhoods that would have been considered ugly and outdated 60 years ago are now &quot;beautiful&quot; again.<p>A lot of it is also about uniqueness. The author is rightly awed by pre-war architecture in Europe when he travels, but tourists worldwide are similarly fascinated by glass skyscrapers in New York.<p>Talking at the neighborhood level, houses constructed today are meant to be more transient vs those from the last century. Builders (whether a property developer or individual resident) will consider sale and resale value first and foremost before anything else. A &quot;unique&quot; house will have far less buyer interest.
评论 #28943663 未加载
评论 #28937344 未加载
Ensorceled超过 3 年前
I live in a wonderful neighbourhood that was developed in the early 1900s in an old factory converted to lofts. The workers lived around the area, the GM home was across the street. Similar factories, all lofts now, randomly dot the neighbourhood.<p>Our &quot;main&quot; street is half a kilometre away and has shopping, bookstores, restaurants. All small businesses.<p>Several transit routes run by the edges of the neighbourhood.<p>Everybody walks. Everybody used to walk to work. Streets are almost all one way.<p>It&#x27;s cars. It&#x27;s always cars that make neighbourhoods terrible.
评论 #28939403 未加载
bobulous超过 3 年前
&gt; For one thing, there are autos all over Paris, so at least in principle it ought to be possible to build in ways that are both highly attractive and allow for cars.<p>The presence of cars does not mean it was built for cars. The most important difference between pre-war and post-war neighborhoods is that one was built FOR cars
评论 #28938192 未加载
评论 #28938430 未加载
评论 #28938599 未加载
ryanj20021超过 3 年前
We can and we are!<p>I’m the CEO of Culdesac. Our vision is to build the first car-free city in the US, starting with the first car-free neighborhood built from scratch in the US. That’s Culdesac Tempe, a 1000-resident neighborhood that is under construction now. Residents move in next year.<p>Join our waitlist at culdesac.com. If you want to visit in the meantime, drop me a note. We have something exciting happening on site next month that is open to the public.<p>Hiring-wise, we&#x27;re hiring in Tempe or remote. Dm me on socials if you can’t find something. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.culdesac.com&#x2F;jobs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.culdesac.com&#x2F;jobs</a><p>Here&#x27;s our insta, which has lots of construction updates <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.instagram.com&#x2F;liveculdesac" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.instagram.com&#x2F;liveculdesac</a><p>Here&#x27;s our tik tok <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.tiktok.com&#x2F;@liveculdesac" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.tiktok.com&#x2F;@liveculdesac</a><p>Here&#x27;s our twitter <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.twitter.com&#x2F;culdesac" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.twitter.com&#x2F;culdesac</a><p>Here&#x27;s my twitter where I also talk a lot about ebikes <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.twitter.com&#x2F;ryanmjohnson" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.twitter.com&#x2F;ryanmjohnson</a><p>Here&#x27;s our intro article <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;culdesac&#x2F;introducing-culdesac-3fbfe7c4219c" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;culdesac&#x2F;introducing-culdesac-3fbfe7c4219...</a><p>Here&#x27;s a longer piece on us <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;amp&#x2F;s&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2020&#x2F;10&#x2F;31&#x2F;business&#x2F;culdesac-tempe-phoenix-sprawl.amp.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;amp&#x2F;s&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2020&#x2F;10&#x2F;31&#x2F;busi...</a>
评论 #28939083 未加载
评论 #28939538 未加载
评论 #28939086 未加载
评论 #28939579 未加载
评论 #28939326 未加载
gwbas1c超过 3 年前
I disagree: Many of the most attractive neighborhoods to me were built recently.<p>I used to love walking around the area in Palo Alto around University Ave, on the residential side of Middlefield. Many of those buildings are new.<p>When I could buy, and then build, a house in Massachusetts, I chose recently-built, upscale neighborhoods. The difference, compared to most neighborhoods, is that the houses are more expensive, and built to a higher quality. (I also favored neighborhoods with restaurants in walking distance. This is possible, even in suburbia.)<p>I suspect that the older neighborhoods the article favors are just the upscale ones. The cheaper neighborhoods built centuries ago didn&#x27;t last.
评论 #28937083 未加载
lliamander超过 3 年前
I&#x27;ve seen some reasonably beautiful, middle class neighborhoods that were designed as recently as the early 1970&#x27;s, but nothing since then.<p>And while there are many aspects of modern interior design that I appreciate, floorplans tend to be universally terrible for anything designed since then as well. I have yet to walk into a (non-custom) home that was built since the year 2000 that I would ever want to live in.
评论 #28936966 未加载
评论 #28937676 未加载
mkl95超过 3 年前
Right. I don&#x27;t mind a house that looks old from the outside but is actually well architected and maintained. However old folks had very different lifestyles, which makes their houses awkward for modern use.<p>In my country, the typical old house or flat has several tiny bedrooms stacked next to each other, offering little privacy. Oversized common areas are to be expected. Tiny bathrooms where baths were replaced with small showers, and claustrophobic kitchens that double down as dining rooms are common.<p>However, my biggest pet peeve is orientation. Apparently, suburban architects didn&#x27;t know how to use a compass until a few years ago. As a result, rooms often face south, which makes working from home in the summer nearly unbearable.
UncleOxidant超过 3 年前
The other thing that old neighborhoods have is mature trees and landscaping. Trees old enough such that the canopy covers the street. It takes about 75 years to get most of the common deciduous trees to that size.
proc0超过 3 年前
There are two simple answers, one of which was mentioned already, in the comments and in the article:<p>&gt; I can visit many European cities and find lovely parts of town to walk through<p>1. Cars. They have ruined walkable neighborhoods, and in the US there are artificial walkable shopping centers, but you have to drive ther anyway. Everything being spaced out affects the architecture&#x2F;landscape.<p>2. Building technology and ethos. It seems to me modern buildings are not built to last, and this is on purpose. Of course this is a huge factor! Old villages around the world always had many buildings that were made to last. This automatically means you will think deeply on its aesthetics, its symbolism, etc. Nowadays it&#x27;s just about getting it done, and having an indoor space, with the outside looking as plain as possible for buidling costs and speed. I really wish building tech would also explore extremely durable constructions at smaller scales for towns and such. This would force people to think seriously about outside look and feel.
a1pulley超过 3 年前
I live in a small, gated city in Los Angeles with 1 acre minimum lot sizes and rigorously enforced exterior styles, like white paint and single-story elevations. The average lot size is closer to 2 acres. You could snip the street map in one place and have a tree, meaning most streets end in cul-de-sacs. With a couple of exceptions, canyons have not been filled or bridged for roads; roads respect the preexisting contours of the land.<p>The city isn&#x27;t walkable at all—and it&#x27;s on average 1 hour from my office in Santa Monica—but the open spaces between houses, the lack of terraforming abominations you see in other hilly developments in LA, and the white ranch motif make the neighborhood &quot;nice&quot; to me.<p>Much of what I personally find &quot;not nice&quot; about modern neighborhoods is the clumsy imposition of our collective human needs—architectural, infrastructural—on the land itself.
hosh超过 3 年前
Christopher Alexander had developed this idea of pattern languages and living architecture. Although the idea of pattern languages turned into cookie-cutter design elements selected by the developer and enforced by the HOA, they were originally meant to allow residents to have functional, aesthetic, and cohesive architecture. That is, in all the possible pattern languages, there are pattern languages that, no matter what combination is chosen, you have functional and cohesive architecture.<p>Residents and communities then, can then choose something that work for their family and for their communities. Architecture comes alive, and lives and grows with the residents.
diordiderot超过 3 年前
I imagine the lifestyle in many planned Soviet housing blocks was more pleasant than a low income American<p>Edit: I just mean the physical environment, not political &#x2F; social &#x2F; economic
评论 #28938519 未加载
评论 #28937682 未加载
评论 #28937239 未加载
adolph超过 3 年前
Nice neighborhoods are not built but grown, pruned and grown in cycles of fortune that seem good in retrospect but aren’t within human capability to foresee predictably.
zaptheimpaler超过 3 年前
Beauty or aesthetics haven&#x27;t been quantified so they cannot be used as a metric to guide decisions in a world where all decisions are made via metrics. Looking at modern architecture or urban design, everything is designed based on a few metrics - cost, time to build &amp; energy efficiency primarily.<p>How does a policymaker argue to spend $X more on a prettier building? That would just come off sounding too subjective to justify today. Now we will no doubt see psychological studies telling us obvious truths about humanity - that living in nice places feels good actually. The paper will say things like &quot;pretty buildings improve quality of life by 23% and productivity by 6%&quot;. But unlike subjective opinion, a scientific paper is a defensible piece of evidence so we need the study to justify building a pretty neighborhood in a modern context.<p>This clinical economic view of the world is pervasive today so nothing can be justified outside of a utilitarian lens.
brendoelfrendo超过 3 年前
This article seems all over the place and I don&#x27;t agree with most of it.<p>&gt;For one thing, there are autos all over Paris, so at least in principle it ought to be possible to build in ways that are both highly attractive and allow for cars.<p>The boulevards and avenues of Paris were built by the government as infrastructure improvements and became known for their use as long parks, effectively; yes, they were built to be scenic, and the fact that they&#x27;re wide enough for car traffic is a nice side effect. Modern automotive architecture, though, goes further; you need parking lots or garages, and large signage visible from the road. Developers don&#x27;t really care that a roadside commercial development looks pretty; people are going to drive to Target all the same. And, of course, let&#x27;s not forget that Paris wants to limit automobile traffic as much as possible.<p>&gt; Diamond Head may also contain a partial answer to the larger mystery. Perhaps what modern neighborhoods are lacking is coordination...<p>If we&#x27;re using Diamond Head as our benchmark, it looks like what most modern neighborhoods are lacking is millionaires, not coordination. Your average suburban development is going to be quite tightly coordinated: built by a single builder out of a book of facades, floorplans, and materials.<p>&gt; These days, most homeowners decide to “go it alone.”<p>Who is &quot;most,&quot; here? I don&#x27;t think most homeowners are building custom homes; heck, a quick source I found shows that only 13% of home buyers in 2020 bought new construction[0].<p>The only thing I agree with here is that homes are designed around the interior first. Look at any suburban sprawl house, and you&#x27;ll see a hideous mishmash of materials, window shapes and sizes, and rooflines--especially when you go past the front of the house and start looking at the parts you can&#x27;t see from the street.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.rocketmortgage.com&#x2F;learn&#x2F;home-buying-statistics" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.rocketmortgage.com&#x2F;learn&#x2F;home-buying-statistics</a>
quadrangle超过 3 年前
Here&#x27;s one attempt to address one aspect of this. The claim is that all the beautiful stuff we like has lots of <i>detail</i>, stuff that isn&#x27;t so simple and plain and nothing to look at.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.strongtowns.org&#x2F;journal&#x2F;2021&#x2F;6&#x2F;3&#x2F;cognitive-comfort-and-visual-clutter-is-it-time-we-started-regulating-style" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.strongtowns.org&#x2F;journal&#x2F;2021&#x2F;6&#x2F;3&#x2F;cognitive-comfo...</a>
dave333超过 3 年前
Village Homes in Davis Ca<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.villagehomesdavis.org&#x2F;home" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.villagehomesdavis.org&#x2F;home</a><p>Widely viewed as an improvement over plain tract suburbia but not copied anywhere that I&#x27;m aware of although cohousing does the same sort of thing on steroids. Reason might be that buyers have selfish insular motives initially and don&#x27;t see the benefits of community.
cwdegidio超过 3 年前
One thing that drives me insane about modern neighborhoods is the instance in tearing down every damn tree... so you are left with endless unshaded lawn. You would think with this modern movement towards reconnecting with nature, etc we would build neighborhoods that work with the surrounding environment instead of tearing it all down and flattening everything.
评论 #28938759 未加载
评论 #28938515 未加载
hbarka超过 3 年前
One word: stroads<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;ORzNZUeUHAM" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;ORzNZUeUHAM</a>
7373737373超过 3 年前
I found this video yesterday: &quot;Why Japan Looks the Way it Does: Zoning&quot; which was very illuminating <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=wfm2xCKOCNk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=wfm2xCKOCNk</a>
throwawayboise超过 3 年前
Survivorship bias.<p>All those old nice neighborhoods were also built by and for the wealthy. The lower classes lived in squalid tenements and slums that are now mostly gone.
frogpelt超过 3 年前
Nice website except for the popups and information bars every where.
DoreenMichele超过 3 年前
The way we finance housing is a factor.
DubiousPusher超过 3 年前
Wow, what? IMO this article is way off the mark.<p>Regulation is not preventing beautiful homes. There are three things probably most detracting from neighborhood beauty in America are: a lack of regulations, capitalism and materialism.<p>All the places he lists as beautiful, especially in Europe have some of the most regulations regarding what you can build. A community design review, where a council literally has input upon the visual design of your building is almost unheard of in America but is common in European countries. The closest you get in America is some CCNRs saying you can&#x27;t have a metal roof or the like. Parts of Switzerland literally require you to build a frame which represents the shape of the house you want to build so community members can walk by for some weeks and see how it affects the neighborhood skyline.<p>Capitalism has probably had the biggest impact. The reason older neighborhoods are beautiful because they were built at a time when practicing a craft was hugely important to a profession. You built those houses with all the mil-work and trim because that&#x27;s just how it was done. Yes, builders were seeking to turn a profit but in many professions, a kind of cultural ethic prevented raw profiteering. That changed after the war. Post-war programs and an economic boom meant that you could start a business around moving shear volumes of houses. These builders hired people who weren&#x27;t trained to think a porch without corbels was a sin. It&#x27;s not just they didn&#x27;t have the know-how. It&#x27;s that they didn&#x27;t think it was important or essential the way an old-school builder might. Modern American neighborhoods are what you get when profit is maximized and community input is minimized.<p>What people wanted in a house changed as well. The desire for material comforts like multiple bathrooms with indoor plumbing, loads of electrical equipment, forced air systems and more caused a good deal of the cost of the house to shift into equipment rather than aesthetic. The standards of home construction have gone way up too. From structural elements like the foundation to the quality of insulation to weather tightness.<p>Edit: BTW, I&#x27;m not saying one way or the other is the better way to do it. But if you want beauty, that requires a couple things: community review to increase coordination and enforced aesthetic quality. (These used to come from cultural sensibilities and now usually only are the product of regulation, HOA, CCNRs, ordinance, etc.) Both of these things requires the market to sell something people don&#x27;t necessarily want to pay for.
评论 #28941288 未加载
kfprt超过 3 年前
Unfortunately this plague of bland boxes has come to my neighborhood. Internal volume is more valued than neighborhood aesthetics. It seems there&#x27;s a correlation between these boxes and people never leaving the house but to work.
评论 #28937170 未加载
评论 #28937208 未加载
iammisc超过 3 年前
We&#x27;ve lost all sense of aesthetics as something that exists outside an individual&#x27;s mind. Aesthetics used to be an independent study of philosophers for millenia, until our modern age decided that all aesthetics are equally good. This fundamentally has to do with the embrace of relativism at all levels of society.<p>This is going to be controversial, but in the west, the ultimate cause of the decline in objective beauty is a rejection of Christianity, which, for millenia in the west, has insisted that there is such a thing as objective beauty.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.catholic.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;print-edition&#x2F;ugly-as-sin" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.catholic.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;print-edition&#x2F;ugly-as-sin</a><p>I&#x27;d also recommend &quot;The Abolition of Man&quot; by CS Lewis (not explicitly christian, but Lewis was obviously extremely devout and a major apologist)<p>It remains to be seen if the west will develop a sense of objective beauty without a shared moral system.
评论 #28937044 未加载
评论 #28937187 未加载
评论 #28937595 未加载
评论 #28938482 未加载