I guess "ugliest" depends on the weather. Looks pretty handsome rn.Submitted by oozforashag t3_11je373 in boston
Anxa t1_jb2hrgp wrote
Reply to comment by TomBirkenstock in I guess "ugliest" depends on the weather. Looks pretty handsome rn. by oozforashag
That 5&1 design is so easy, cheap, and is gonna age terribly. Just part of the race to the bottom for developers.
thejosharms t1_jb2sxlm wrote
Cape Cod homes are just so easy and cheap, gonna age terribly. Just part of the race to the bottom... (Reddit: Circa 1800~)
The colonial model is so easy, cheap and gonna age terribly. Just part of the race to the bottom for developers (Reddit: circa 1850~)
The triple decker model is so easy, cheap and is gonna age terribly. Just a part of a race to the bottom (Reddit: Circa 1870~)
Reddit circa 2020~: Ugh we keep tearing down these beautiful historic buildings and homes for these soul-less, bland modern condo and apartment buildings! Where has all the character gone!
Should I keep going?
/r/Boston - BUILD MORE DENSE HOUSING.
Developers build 5:1 buildings far more dense than stand alone buildings
/r/boston NO NOT LIKE THAT MAKE IT COOL LOOKING OR SOMETHING, RENOVATE HISTORIC BUILDINGS!
Developers: OK, but it's going to be expensive....
/r/boston NO. ALSO IT MUST BE AFFORABLE HOUSING
JFC what do you people want?
We can get housing "good" in terms of aesthetics and art, "fast" in that we all seem to agree we're in a housing crisis or "cheap" in that the developer can build it and rent units out at a reasonable cost.
Choose two. We can't have all three without massive government subsidies and as much as I'm in favor of that, and policies like UBI, it's really unlikely to happen even in the deep blue sea of MA. Can we just take what we can get instead of whining about generic 5:1 construction (which to draw attention to my original point is how construction has always worked and why you drive through neighborhoods where all the houses more or less look the same?)
okletssee t1_jb2w80y wrote
The "1870s redditors" were right IMO lol. But I think this is a good point overall. Eras just have different styles due to economics, technology, artistic preferences, etc., etc...
calinet6 t1_jb4ta2y wrote
If you read some architecture writing like Christopher Alexander, one of the cool concepts is that architecture is not fixed and changes over time based on the needs of the inhabitants.
I find it cool that the triple deckers are undergoing a second life in many parts of town as people improve them and keep them up, many were turned from three units to two (“Philly style”) to accommodate larger families and more space needs.
We can expect this to happen more and more over time and there’s even some sense that we should build in preparation for change over the life of a building. And a more generic almost malleable style or construction might be just the thing over the long term to be ready for change.
Kinda a cool perspective.
TuarezOfTheTuareg t1_jb4wih4 wrote
God thank you!! Do people seriously think that builders in past eras were some kind of weird altruistic anomalies who opted for good design over profits? If older buildings are "good architecture", it's because the builders of the past backed into it while pursuing profit and it's because our tastes have been weened on older designs. The fan-favorite "cape house" was designed by Royal Barry Wills not because it looked nice, but because it was the most efficient design that could be pumped out in mass quantities. Now we view it as the quintessential quaint single family home. Who's to say we wont feel the same way in 70-100 years about the 5:1s?
TomBirkenstock t1_jb5eud7 wrote
Some of those older buildings are ugly, though. We should expect more, and I don't think critiquing ugly condos is the equivalent to saying we shouldn't build more housing stock. We absolutely should. I certainly wouldn't pay over a half a million to live in an ugly condo building from 2015, but clearly some people will.
Anxa t1_jb3gd3d wrote
> what do you people want?
I didn't say any of the things you just implied I said, so I don't really know how to answer this question.
calinet6 t1_jb4ssix wrote
Doesn’t matter. We need to catch up to the tune of approximately 100,000 more new units per year. Every era’s style differs, my 1900 Victorian for example is built like shit and need(ed/s) all kinds of structural improvement. The beams in the basement are literal tree trunks and the rafters are 3/4” boards.
We need to stop glorifying old stuff through rose colored glasses and wishing for more undefinable “character” and start building people homes to live in. Fast.
shiverMeTatas t1_jb2j8vq wrote
What does 5&1 mean?
locke_5 t1_jb2kllb wrote
"Five over one" meaning five floors of apartments over one base level/parking.
AeuiGame t1_jb4v766 wrote
The five and one actually refer to building materials. Wood floors (Type 5) over a concrete base (Type 1). Its a building code thing, but yeah, its usually used as apartment levels over one retail/base level.
Buildings of various heights can be five over ones.
DPC128 t1_jb2k1c2 wrote
It basically refers to all those soulless 5 story condo buildings that are going up literally everywhere. The boxy gentrified-looking ones.
Next-Editor6166 t1_jb5lewt wrote
Right next to all the T "rapid" transit stations
[deleted] t1_jb2k8jc wrote
[deleted]
mpjjpm t1_jb2lqz0 wrote
You can gentrify a neighborhood by tearing down older buildings a replacing them with new builds
[deleted] t1_jb2n9s8 wrote
[deleted]
Acadia_Due t1_jb2ru80 wrote
Gentrification can refer to the character of a neighborhood (see definition 2 here). On top of that, "gentrified-looking" does not necessarily mean gentrified.
Moment_of_Inertia t1_jb4zj7w wrote
Why would 5 over 1 construction age terribly?
Next-Editor6166 t1_jb5mgdz wrote
ugly, typically. And single family homes, uggh. Don't have many pet peeves, but travel around the country see all the new homes being built 20 ft from one another, bulldoze any and all trees, but there's plenty of adjacent land.I understand the $cost. Welcome to everywhere
hx87 t1_jb45oub wrote
Having the windows set in 4 inches from the exterior wall instead of being flush would fix 90% of 5/1 aesthetic problems. For some reasons builders insist on flush windows even when the rest of the waterproofing layer is 2-4 inches behind the exterior wall, which is insane from an engineering point of view.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments