@UrbanCourtyard New to NA and a fan of the interaction and activity-dense, walkable Euro city. but, wright’s Broadacre model’s has merits: it absorbs massive population influxes and offers independence from centrally controlled infrastructure, and is more easy to densify.
@tomhfh@michalrozworski It is also true though that older houses are built better than the new builds. So better builds is a contributing factor to price.
@tomhfh@michalrozworski Counter factual : a 100sq.m Barbican flat *also* sells for a million. Price seems more sensitive to location, and amenities which are a function of density.
@bswud Ok, on same page. Re: shortage downstream of "ugly" - the nuance is that ugliness comes from cultural desensitisation and deskilled labor. Potemkin villages (even the old looking) don’t need craft. People reject shoddy buildings, not new ones. Restore craft to restore pride.
Architecture is downstream from law.
If your buildings are ugly, inert, overpriced, and impossible to build, the problem is not just aesthetic. It is political.
This week on the Free Cities Podcast... @patrik_schu on why bad governance produces bad cities.
@CharlestonArchi No morality intended. My words attempt to articulate my reasoning for why I think we can re-apply Haussmann’s (and others) vision and inventiveness towards new architecture.
@CharlestonArchi Contemporary society is different. We shouldn't just replicate; we must extend. Take his grand vision, rule-based design & standardized construction, and add today's structural optimization & mass customization to re-apply his forward-thinking logic.
@CharlestonArchi I agree. I am just stating the table stakes to be considered, and also clarifying that I am not against any mature style, nor disrespecting any craft or historic tradition.
@CharlestonArchi Ok. I support structurally elegant, well-made, well-functioning architecture regardless of which style they are in. All mature styles can produce such architecture. Which style should be used, to build in the 21c is different debate.
@CharlestonArchi Ok - what word should I use instead ? (I haven’t made any claims about the architecture I practise - for the purpose of this conversation I am not practicing architect, but a historically interested person with an interest in masonry, heavy timber construction, etc ).
@CharlestonArchi I didn’t say computers = honest. I said computers can aid in genuine revival by capturing and extending some of the tacit skill needed (in born design and construction) for “honest” architecture.
@CharlestonArchi Yes, Agreed. I find them “fake” for the same vitruvian reasons - they are not well made, resulting in much reduced functionality and therefore not having beauty. (Use of computers is a separate point altogether).
@CharlestonArchi Ok. To clarify then: I am critical of the cheap, thin veneer copies of historic buildings (like this), not of well made historic architecture (like the original by Haussmann in Paris).
@CharlestonArchi I am not asking you to condemn anything. I am suggesting there is more enriching ways we can make continued use of historic traditions in stone masonry, plaster work etc . Also “morally reprehensible” are you words. I didn’t suggest anything like that
https://t.co/5ypm40NBy9
@CharlestonArchi I don’t want you to condemn nor am I condemning fine hand craft. I think it is a disservice to the craft, invention, wisdom and heritage of fine historic architecture (like Haussmann) to support thin brick veneer, fake plaster veneer facades that are made to fake a historic look.