How Silicon Valley helps spread the same sterile aesthetic across the world

This reminds me of a fundamental concept of New Trade Theory. This is a theory that Paul Krugman won a Nobel Prize in Economics for in 2008 (although the theory first gained attention alongside "globalization" in the early 1990s).

Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution provides a good explanation:

Consider the simplest model (based on Krugman 1979). In this model there are two countries. In each country, consumers have a preference for variety but there is a tradeoff between variety and cost, consumers want variety but since there are economies of scale – a firm’s unit costs fall as it produces more – more variety means higher prices. Preferences for variety push in the direction of more variety, economies of scale push in the direction of less. So suppose that without trade country 1 produces varieties A,B,C and country two produces varieties X,Y,Z. In every other respect the countries are identical so there are no traditional comparative advantage reasons for trade.

Nevertheless, if trade is possible it is welfare enhancing. With trade the scale of production can increase which reduces costs and prices. Notice, however, that something interesting happens. The number of world varieties will decrease even as the number of varieties available to each consumer increases. That is, with trade production will concentrate in say A,B,X,Y so each consumer has increased choice even as world variety declines.

Increasing variety for individuals even as world variety declines is a fundamental fact of globalization. In the context of culture, Tyler explains this very well in his book, Creative Destruction; when people in Beijing can eat at McDonald’s and people in American can eat at great Chinese restaurants the world looks increasingly similar even as each world resident experiences an increase in variety.

In essence, variety within local flavors/variants decreases, but the best brands are exported globally. When applied to furniture/interior decoration this means that you can find archetypes of the popular styles everywhere but that variations within those archetypes is very limited - every coffee shop, loft, restaurant of the same overarching style feels the same.

The solution for those tired of one style - pick another completely different cultural style!

Read more here: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/10/wha...

Designers and architects have always been an international bunch. Fashions are global and have been for a very long time. The Romans built things in a deliberately Greek style. French Gothic architecture was copied across Europe. Neoclassical architecture saw the Greek style return and used in government building around the world. The Victorians built the same stuff everywhere. Hollywood brought Art Deco to the world in the 1920s and 30s. The style which the author complains about so much is predominately the Mid-century Modern of the 1950s and 60s.

So no, fashion existed long ago. And it was global long ago.

I wonder if the author has ever been to the Nordics (Sweden specifically)? I would argue IKEA (and Swedish design) has largely to do with the sterile aesthetics of minimalist living and local coffee shops.

I was travelling in Eastern Europe with a friend last summer, and we noticed the phenomenon independently. We were searching for good espresso by looking for cafes that had the industrial aesthetic- bare wooden tables, vaguely scandinavian furniture, Edison bulbs. It worked without fail; every cafe we stopped in that subscribed to the aesthetic had great coffee.

I suspect the reason for this is that the aesthetic works as a costly signalling mechanism. If you're going to start a cafe with expensive coffee machines (a high end, commercial espresso machine will be ~$20 000, with a similar cost for a grinder), you're likely to also invest in design that's trendy.

The key will be seeing how the aesthetic evolves as style changes- when industrial chic is no longer fashionable, will AirBnBs still subscribe to it? I suspect not.

It's hard to deny that there's a dominant Airbnb aesthetic, and that it shares many genetic traits (mid-century modern furniture) with the "hip" interior design that seems to have taken over at least the urban Western world in the last 15-20 years.

But first, even as this aesthetic is becoming passé, we should recognize its massive penetration into our commercial lives as a huge achievement (one certainly assisted by technology and a more mobile, wealthier society). The coffee shops, restaurants, and department stores that served most of our parents 30 years ago had terrible design even when they could be said to have design or style at all.

Second, I don't think most design trends emerge as sudden and radical departures from the norm, especially when it comes to commercial endeavors that can't afford to be too risky or off-putting. But when we look back at the style of the mid-2010's from 15 or 20 years from now, I doubt we'll agree that it simply stagnated. It will have evolved into something noticeably distinct—humans are creatures of fashion—though the degree of cultural and regional diversity we had before modern telecommunications and travel is probably not coming back.

It's all part of the creation of globalized culture. Just as billions of daily active users on Facebook, global blockbusters that don't use a lot of language to be localizable in all the different markets — we're slowly, but steadily entering the age where humanity is truly no longer divided along country, language or culture lines.

And it's affecting higher classes earlier than lower; the same effect was already in place in early 19th century across the whole Europe's fashionable salons, with the same interior design fashions and french books. Now it's truly spreading to middle class: it's not only about lattes, it's also about cultural and social values, TV shows that we watch and books that we read.

And in my humblest of opinions, all things considered, this can only be a good thing.

The headline had me expecting to read yet another SV polemic: it's not just SF, but now the whole world is under attack from the bad SV people and their imperialist ambitions! /s

But when I read the article, I see it's a lot of charged words like "gentrification" to describe the phenomenon of "it's gone mainstream", and "depersonalization" to describe "it's not as good as it once was".

Airbnb is becoming popular and converging. Seems like a very believable and predictable possible outcome.

Or maybe humans inherently enjoy clean, natural building materials and avocados.

I happen to like the look. But certainly one's tastes, should they deviate from the AirSpace aesthetic, could be incorporated into the search parameters.

Having stayed at BnBs before AirBnb was cool, the usual style I encountered was one of the following: 1) Antique-y, i.e. an attempt to decorate the property in period-correct furniture, usually unsuccessfully; 2) Unapologetically kitschy.

Both "styles" require lots of loud wallpaper.

While the minimalist Nordic aesthetic of IKEA certainly plays a large role as others have pointed out, I find the aesthetic has more to do with what I've seen Brooklyn homogenize towards over the past 10 years. And behind many of those spaces are the Haslegrave brothers. [1]

I'm sure this design aesthetic has arisen independently in many different areas of the world and has seen a convergence due to the factors the article points out, but at least here in Brooklyn this aesthetic arose in the lofts along the waterfront and were pushed around the city by the Haslegraves.

Now the loft building that they live in has a steady stream of AirBnb tourists, unbeknownst to them that the aesthetic they see around the world in no small part has to do with two brothers living down the hall.

[1] http://thescoutmag.com/features/design/1066/the_brothers_has...

I despise the aesthetic. I find it fake, disingenuous, a tinsel town bland look, some ham fisted conformity.

All of the repulsive veneer of the bay with its superficial niceties but deeply dispassionate and insincere roots, as architecture! It makes me nauseous. Hate it, hate it, hate it. So passionately...

It's antithetical to a semblance of humanity and devoid of culture. A cold unwelcoming thing that screams "screw off, you're not welcome here"

The homogeneity is certainly becoming more prevalent however I think the author is placing a disproportional amount of responsibility for this phenomenon on Airbnb. The bigger issue is the confirmation bias that social apps have engendered. I only follow similarly-minded people or I only get certain type of news pieces in my feed therefore my frame of reference becomes smaller. Add to this that many products are not content to be a utilitarian commodity any longer, everything seems to be aspire to be "brand" or at its logical conclusion "a lifestyle" with its own flagship stores and flagship stores must exist in all major cities. As the noise gets louder the signal for brand identity gets louder and louder as well. Its not just cool hotels and coffee shops however. The previously mundane has gotten in on the act as well. Any recent visitor to New York City will tell you there is Citibanks, TD Banks, and Bank of America on almost every block now, often times many per block. This is in an era where few people have a need for a retail bank branch. There's an interesting phenomenon whereby these hundred of banks leave their interior lights on all night because their real purpose is advertising.

None of this bodes well for society. My optimistic self used to think that there would eventually be a reactionary element against this homogeneity but I'm not so sure any more.

It's slightly ironic that Foursquare, the article's first example of this trend, is based in New York City, not Silicon Valley.

Not Silicon Valley. General Motors, 1958. Watch "American Look"[1], and you'll see most of the design styles the author is talking about, including the Eames chair.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS6HZv4GXj8

We all know that "Like Uber but for <X>" is a bad idea, and many people worth listening to say that the real value isn't in disruptive verticals, but in disruptive business models.

So why do we continue to apply it to cities? We see this in every capital city council scheme trying to be "Silicon Valley for <country>".

I think what we'll see is a bit of an iconoclasm and fall in grace for these cities and styles. In the same way no one has been able to be better than Uber or really capture much market, cities trying to displace their native style with the Valley's will only end up losing their own and being an obviously poorer copy.

Well I guess that's the effect of interconnectedness and globalization no? We're converging towards a more homogenized society in which everything looks the same. People who used to live and be exposed to their own local environments and ideas are now exposed to a much broader and non-local view of the world.

Ultimately this an example of how good we are at exporting culture. Yeah it kind of sucks that quaint little towns will change to become more like everything else so perhaps we will lose some sense of identity as we try and reinvent ourselves according to the new culture. But well, that's the way things are after all. People change.

I think it's just a newer version of how much American-produced television was having this affect on the world a generation ago. (Including the dominance of the New York/Los Angeles dialect.)

Only a passing mention in the article, but does anyone else kinda roll their eyes and groan at the mention of "digital nomads"?

Keyword: spread

Just as finance has done for resource allocation, information technology is doing for culture. For better. Or worse.