Submitted by jurgenius87 t3_zv89kj in washingtondc
BrightThru2014 t1_j1p3iq2 wrote
Reply to comment by VulcanVulcanVulcan in In your opinion what is the most aesthetically pleasing residentialarea in the district? by jurgenius87
Why not beautiful high density homes like in Paris? I like (or at least don’t mind) change when it’s improving the beauty of an area.
VulcanVulcanVulcan t1_j1q40pw wrote
I don’t think beauty is a valid criterion for opposing new housing. It’s just used as a crutch for people who don’t like seeing their neighborhoods change.
I strongly doubt Parisian apartments would comply with current building standards. For one, they don’t have elevators generally.
BrightThru2014 t1_j1qcf2f wrote
I support new housing that is beautiful. Our lived environment has a direct affect on our mental well-being. It’s no different than saying “I support new housing that adheres to building/safety codes” — would you support new housing that didn’t have a fire escape or emergency sprinklers?
Parisian housing with elevators would work for me.
VulcanVulcanVulcan t1_j1qipoq wrote
"I support new housing [as long as it meets my arbitrary aesthetic standards]" is garden-variety NIMBYism. Do you think the citizens of Tokyo, a city that doesn't have any aesthetic standards, have poor mental health because the buildings don't all look the same? Our lived environment would be a lot better if housing prices were lower and there was less traffic.
Safety codes are to save people's lives, not to meet the aesthetic preferences of some people.
BrightThru2014 t1_j1qjkl7 wrote
Does mental health not count as a valid field of health? It is not “some people,” there actually is an overwhelming consensus on what the average person finds to be beautiful. And similarly, it’s well documented that the aesthetic appearance and layout of ones lived environment has a meaningful impact on individual well being (and even things like civic engagement and crime). Also Japanese people are among the most depressed in the world, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here?
Why are you against just building things more beautifully? Why is that the hill you want to die on? Shouldn’t everyone live in beautiful walkable medium/high density neighborhoods like those in Cathedral Heights / Kalorama / DuPont Circle? Should only rich people be able to enjoy beauty?
See Chevy Chase Lake for what I’m talking about.
VulcanVulcanVulcan t1_j1qs8u0 wrote
Do you think famously existentialist Parisians have great mental health because their city was has consistent architecture? I think that extremely high housing costs driven by NIMBY opposition to new development affects peoples’ mental health far more than like, building aesthetics. Lots of things go into crime and satisfaction, etc. and there’s zero evidence that building aesthetics have a big impact when all factors are taken together. Seems weird to design a city at great expense for small mental health benefits.
I’m all for building things more beautifully, but in the end it’s totally subjective. I think Tokyo and Hong Kong and Seoul are beautiful. Does that mean we should design DC to look like that?
BrightThru2014 t1_j1rdhvo wrote
It’s not at great expense!!! You really have no idea what you’re talking about — after taking into account the cost of the land itself plus the foundation, all of the interior of the building, etc embellishments on the exterior are a marginal cost. Nobody is supporting NIMBYism, but why should we accept new housing that looks like the same cookie cutter blocky condos that are going up in every new development from Boise to Raleigh to Phoenix, when we could build buildings that look like DC and are almost universally preferred by anyone that’s not a developer.
Do you agree that all else held equal architecture for new buildings should reflect the democratic aesthetic preferences of the vast majority of the populace? Because that’s the reason why the Seoul and Tokyo example doesn’t make sense — people want traditional middle-density architecture like they see in upper NW and Capital Hill. Either you respect what people want or you tyrannically impose your own aesthetic tastes on others.
VulcanVulcanVulcan t1_j1rqx6f wrote
I generally don’t think “people” should determine what a person decides to build on private property, no. The “traditional middle-density” architecture in those neighborhoods you like is insufficient to accommodate a growing and prosperous DC. If you want to bulldoze McLean to build rowhouses, that is great, but those same rowhouses are standing in the way of reduced housing costs in DC. Single-family rowhouses are less dense than a five-story building.
The democratic aesthetic preferences of a lot of people would be simply “whatever prevents new development in my neighborhood” and that is insufficient in my view.
9throwawayDERP t1_j1r2wng wrote
well the affordable homes in the paris suburbs look more like navy yard than kalorama. the ones that look nice are priced like kalorama...
BrightThru2014 t1_j1ref13 wrote
Why not build more housing that looks like Kalorama elsewhere?
9throwawayDERP t1_j1rezcr wrote
they do. look at the 'new construction' in georgetown. keep in mind the price is 3x what navy yard construction costs.
labor intensive intricate masonry? oh man, try to find good workers and then price it out.
BrightThru2014 t1_j1rgdk2 wrote
This is 100% false. The cost of having a nice facade is marginal compared to the cost of the land, the foundation, interior of the building, plumbing, electrical wiring, etc.
For example: https://www.dmsas.com/project/the-waycroft/
Or this: https://www.bozzuto.com/development/development-portfolio/chevy-chase-lake-phase-i/
Why not more of that?
9throwawayDERP t1_j1rgtxr wrote
Oh I'm wasn't talking about just the facade. I'm taking about the full inside and outside. I agree if you just want the facade it is cheap. I mean mcmansions are also cheap.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments