Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thejosharms t1_jb2sxlm wrote

Reply to comment by Anxa in I guess "ugliest" depends on the weather. Looks pretty handsome rn. by oozforashag

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?)

81

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...

23

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.

3

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?

6

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.

1

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.

−1