It's an elegant solution to wear slim fitted pants without awful hip pocket bulges. Cargo pants are not the solution here, as they are huge and baggy and the pockets flop around with anything in them.
I'd love to try these.
They implement this pocket strategy and work well for me. The author would likely be interested to know that this topic was covered in detail as an engineering exercise in NASA flight suits. More functional pockets for people strapped into a vehicle.
One of the more interesting innovations was a pocket on the top of the thigh for holding flight checklists or maps. It had a clear cover so that what was inside the pocket could be viewed without taking it out. A phone pocket like that would be pretty cool (and way nerdy but hey, if the pocket fits ... :-))
Superficially, perhaps. But the zipper inclusion makes your example the "strategic" difference that properly considers the importance of what might be stored in such a pocket. IMHO, the author's approach is overshadowed by cost cutting, where the narrative serves to distract the reader with discourse on "method" that doesn't quite align with the original problem description.
When I click the x I only get another scammy dating site.
And unlike GP I cannot remember visiting one in the first place :-/
Also the lower the pocket is, the higher the chance stuff will jiggle around if you run or simply walk faster, because it has more room to do it down the leg and the range of motion is wider. Is this the case with the phone in one of these pockets?
At first I was intensely disappointed by the post ("why so wordy?", "why no pictures?"), but then I got to the design part and said "holy shit I want this".
If people are happy with their cargo pants, no worries . It doesn't conform to a lot of current fashion aesthetic, but if that doesn't hit a person's radar, then cool, great. But a lot of people in the thread here are feeling attacked because someone doesn't like to wear the pants they like to wear.
Fashion is aesthetic and therefore subjective, and it changes over time. At one point cargo pants might have even been "cool". I don't remember them ever being "office" though.
Last time I wore cargo pants (probably the late 90s) I remember everything just annoyingly swing around as I walked.
https://store.google.com/us/product/pixel_3a_specs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_3a#Specifications https://store.google.com/us/product/pixel_3a_case_fabric
I find the solution interesting even for women. I solved the same problem by putting the pockets horizontally at the waist. I will try moving the pocket down to the upper leg.
I like the horizontal, but maybe a 15 degree angle would be best, however, do the horiz pockets get in the way when you sit?
I started with the Silhouette 3 piece yoga pattern (which has a side panel) and made the pocket horizontal. It seems to me you can take an off-the-rack pair of pants and make the same modification.
I hope for the return for Zozosuit, personally. I didn't get a chance to buy anything before they shut down but I enjoyed the measurement process and was hopeful for a good pair of jeans.
https://qz.com/quartzy/1539036/the-zozosuit-has-been-an-expe...
How hard can it be to 3d scan a person and output a custom fitted garment? Print? Robo sew? Anyway it seems like a bounded engineering problem.
Edit: it was ‘Getwear’, found the name through the design company portfolio. They specialized in jeans. Alas, since the site is dead, I can't locate the postmortem, only this article in Russian: https://vc.ru/offline/6359-getwear-close
Basically, it seems that the demand just isn't there.
Your sewing robot will make a dozen of units per day and cost hundreds of thousands. Monthly salary of just several sw engineers from SV is probably greater than total operational expenses of a medium-sized factory in India for a year.
I wonder how much extra you’d pay for extra pockets.
You're getting the wrong pants if that's the case.
For a time now, I've been buying work pants almost exclusively. Not the cargo pants with flappy hip pockets, but the lighter duty work pants or "service pants", though I'm not 100% sure of the correct english word for them. They're work pants, but not made for heavy physical labor.
Specifically I've been buying pants from the Swedish brand Blåkläder. The quality is just so far beyond chinos or affordable jeans you can get today, and there are so many practical pockets. Even though I work in an office as a computer toucher, I like wearing these work pants, also as a statement of solidarity with the people who ply their trades out in the real world.
If you want something that doesn't have cargo pockets, Varusteleka's tactical jeans are utterly amazing, the most comfortable jeans I've ever worn. Their worker pants are great too, but somewhat more old-fashioned in design.
Slim fit pants just need to go away forever, honestly. They're needlessly uncomfortable for literally not benefit at all, plus you even look stupid in them.
In the UK we might call them "combats" or "combat trousers", and the best ones tend to come from military surplus stores.
So it's "service" as in service tech or mechanic, not military service.
https://www.blaklader.com/en/product/16251370-blaklader-work...
For shorts, I really like their Unite shorts in ripstop polycotton.
By the way this is the way the fashion industry has operated for a long time and people are rightfully sick of it.
The author would have done much better to avoid making general statements. He could have said something like "i really do not like the way pockets look on my pants. I like to wear tight pants and large pockets really ruin that look."
> Appendix: Sam, have you simply invented cargo pants?
> No. Cargo pants solve different problems for different people.
> If cargo pants are appropriate for your daily life, you definitely don’t want or need my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa. Cargo pants aren’t office-wear; these dress pants aren’t combat-wear.
EDIT: it seems like the author edited the article. Never mind.
That sounds like an awfully pretentious office, that I personally would never agree to work in.
Who says they're awful? Why do they say that?
We must be informed and skeptical consumers.
Why yes, yes we can.
But, OK, let's answer it. The first answer is right in the fine article: Hip pockets lead to bad posture when sitting. They cause back pain.
The second answer is that if you dress for aesthetic instead of functional reasons, one of the very first concerns is silhouette. And if you care about that, you often care about the torso first, lines second, limbs third. (Note: Since it's an aesthetic judgment, it depends on your preferences)
Hip pockets ruin the look of the torso and lines from any angle except a pure frontal view. Worse, they ruin it for tight and loose fitting clothes (because for loose fit, hip pockets with anything of significant weight hangs awkwardly)
This pocket design addresses the first issue completely, and the second issue somewhat. (You'll still notice a change in the line especially on tight fit, but it's less noticeable because it's not affecting torso, and it's not at the end of limbs - which get more attention than the middle)
Maybe our list of maximes to follow should include "we must assume that people have a reason for what they do, and question somebody else's aesthetical judgment followed by an accusation that they're uninformed or unquestioning is not the best conversational gambit".
See, I think you've missed what everyone in this thread is trying to get at. The defense of cargo pants is based on a pretty simple dialectic:
· Who determines what is fashionable or "aesthetic"?
Mostly, the people who design, sell, and advertise clothes. And also, people who directly profit off of being fashionable.
· What metrics do they use to decide what they're going to call fashionable?
Mostly, whatever will allow them to change styles from year to year and sell as many products as possible and maintain their position at the top of the fashion world.
· Is it in our interests to buy into this system of fashion?
No! In fact this dialectic has shown that fashion is basically bullshit, and that it's not just morally neutral but good to resist! To try to come up with our own fashions based on what appeals to us personally or simply wearing whatever has the most utility.
For the record, I don't necessarily agree with this argument (I lean towards fashion-neutral), but I think this pattern of thinking is extremely common in hacker culture. While I'm cynical about how fashion is created, I don't wear cargo pants either, but that's because I find them much less comfortable than a straight (not slim) cut pair of jeans.
Not really, no. "Aesthetic" is "concerned with beauty", not necessarily "beautiful". If you do care about beauty, you care about shape, texture, color.
> Who determines what is fashionable or "aesthetic"? These are two different things - the first one emerges as industry consensus, the second is your sense of beauty.
> What metrics do they use to decide what they're going to call fashionable?
Literally, I don't care. At all. The discussion wasn't about fashion. OP asked why people would consider hip pockets ugly. The answer was "people who prioritize beauty over function". There's no "they" who determine beauty. We have our own preferences.
My reply wasn't about fashion. It doesn't mention fashion with a single word. Neither does OP. And so I'm deeply amused to see that you think I didn't read closely enough.
Yes, which is why I'm suspicious of people who make dictates and maxims about fashion.
My point is that those maxims were created by people who have an obvious incentive to sell you more things, and having you supplement pants with carrying bags would benefit them.
We must also take unconscious racism and classism into account when judging the fashion dictates of others: "Big pockets make it look like you work for a living! We must therefore shun big pockets!" is not exactly value-neutral.
Also:
> Hip pockets lead to bad posture when sitting. They cause back pain.
Good thing we're not talking about hip pockets, but pockets farther down the leg.
> > Who says they're awful? Why do they say that?
> > We must be informed and skeptical consumers.
> Hip pockets lead to bad posture when sitting. They cause back pain.
Actually, we are talking about hip pockets.
No, we must not. The only thing fashion miss is ideological foundations, then it'd take just one more step for it to make following fashion mandatory for everyone with legal repercussions for not following fashion trends enough.
There are different reasons to dislike big pockets. Different people have different reasons. If some people have racist between their reasons to dislike baggy pants, it doesn't mean that to dislike baggy pants is equal to be a racist. If the most stupid person in the world believes that sky is blue, it doesn't mean, that sky is green.
Obviously the broad-shouldered build, full beard, glasses and balding head help sell the appearance.
Fashion is only for people who need other people to tell them what to wear.
Form follows function. I don't wear boots because I think they look good, I wear them because they're comfortable to walk around in for a whole day and last much longer than regular shoes.
I don't wear polo shirts because they look good, I wear them because they're comfortable and because the collar is practical to avoid sunburn on my neck. They also tend to last longer than t-shirts.
I don't wear work pants because they look good, I wear them because they're comfortable, last longer than regular pants and because they have a bunch of practical pockets.
The end result may be that I do fit a certain type of look, but that is incidental and was never the goal in itself.
Fashion trends are pointless and destructive. They herd us into cheaply made fast fashion and is a great factor in our willfull destruction of the environment.
For each of the things that you’ve mentioned (boots are comfortable and last longer, etc) that you attribute as “form following function”, each of the functions may be fit by alternative forms.
You say you wear boots: what type? Even within steel-toed work boots there’s several different styles and fashions, and colour makes a difference. I did a quick search and on “Boot Barn”, there are 611 styles of steel-toed work shoes. For “style”, you have: 202 pull-on style, 172 lace-up (137 6" and 80 8"); 66 cowboy; 30 high/low top; 28 logger; 20 hiking; 19 roper; 19 wedge; 16 slip-on; 16 work sneaker; 10 driving shoe; 9 authentic; 7 Chukka; 7 Oxfords… You have work shoes that are heavily rubberized for electrical hazards; you have anti-slip.
You picked a style of boots that you _liked_. You may have had functional reasons for picking boots in the first place, but whether you want to admit it or not, you picked a particular _fashion_.
When you buy polo shirts (which I don’t wear because they look _awful_ on me, and they’re not at all comfortable), do you have colours and/or brands that you buy regularly? You might buy Lacoste brand entirely because you’ve found their quality good, or maybe you buy Hilfigger (or do you buy an entirely different brand because both Lacoste and Hilfigger are too “fashion”, so you’ve chosen the “anti-fashion” fashion brand?). Do you always buy the same two or three colours of polo shirts? You’re following a fashion.
Fashion is what people _do_. It’s not this amorphous thing. What is fashionable this year is not fashionable next year. Sometimes this is driven by fashion designers, but more often than not, a “fashion trend” takes two to ten years to catch on and become popular enough to become a “trend”. (Was punk a fashion trend? No, but it spawned at least three or four fashion trends out of it as people started to follow the scene and then age out of it.)
So dude, what you wear _is_ your fashion. You may not think that it’s fashionable, but you’re choosing your look based on an aesthetic that you believe you inhabit _whether you think so or not_. Otherwise, you’d have chosen an entirely _different_ look based on the same functional requirements you stated.
If you buy from the fashion-adjacent brands, some of which have also introduced streetwear collections, of course they will reflect some trends. If you buy from brands that purely make work clothes, practicality still comes first, because if they don't last, they just lost a repeat customer. The main drivers in that segment are durability and comfort, not looks.
Generally I just try to avoid clothes with obviously tacked-on flair and garish design elements. That means I mostly buy straight forward work pants and shirts, polos/t-shirts with no logos (or minimal logos for polos, they're hard to find without the traditional little logo on them), and boots/shoes in subdued or clean classic designs. I like the Norwegian M77 military boots because they're affordable, comfortable and super durable, and because they don't scream "look at me I'm so tacticool!", unlike a lot of newer designs. They've been made unchanged since 1977, and they obviously got it right.
Is it fashion or anti-fashion? I don't know, I just don't want to be a walking billboard for silly trends.
I've had this discussion a number of times, and I guess it really bugs people that not everyone cares obsessively about fashion and outward appearance as they do.
Just stop buying trends. Buy sustainable and long-lasting. Repair when things break. Keep the same things for as long as possible instead of buying something new all the time. Frequent thrift shops.
If that’s what you got from what I said, then either I’ve failed to make what I’m saying clear or you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve said. I don’t actually care how you dress. As a lot of people are fond of saying—words have meanings. And what _you_ define as “fashion” is a small (but vocal and visible) subset of what the word “fashion” means. Sadly, even if one is trying to buck trends…you’re participating in a trend of bucking trends.
You are describing a fashion—a trend even—that resonates with a certain number of people.
I am also amused that you recommend visiting thrift shops. Fashion “leaders” tend to make their own clothing, visit thrift shops (because often they are poor artists trying to make their own way and can’t afford or don’t like the current fast fashion trends), and combine clothing in ways that (sometimes) eventually becomes a fashionable trend.
(Consider the pre-ripped jeans trend. This wasn’t caused by some “Fashion Overlord” deciding that this would be some year’s fashion. People who became fashionable wore their jeans into the ground and looked good in them. Other people couldn't/didn’t want to rip their jeans or wear them into the ground like that, but felt that having ripped jeans gave them some sort of fashion credibility…so it became something that mattered in fast fashion. But it started from someone who didn’t decide to make a fashion statement as such anyway.)
I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it: none of my clothing choices are based on fashion nor on appearance, other than the basic requirement of actually being dressed and not wearing ragged scraps.
My choices are based on practicality. If someone wants to turn that into fashion, they can go right ahead, it won't change my choices.
You’re assuming that fashion is vanity.
It isn’t.
If you phrase them as universals, thereby implicitly criticizing everyone who has different tastes, expect pushback from everyone whose tastes disagree.
If you phrase it as personal preference and accept the less dramatic expression that that supports, you’ll get less pushback.
If you phrase it as a universal and then have an offended response to the pushback because people should respect the difference in tastes, then, well, you've got a reasonable complaint but are directing it in the wrong direction.
Cargo pants solve different problems for different people.
If cargo pants are appropriate for your daily life, you definitely don’t want or need my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa. Cargo pants aren’t office-wear; these dress pants aren’t combat-wear.
This is not dismissing cargo pants or the wearing thereof. This is dismissing the failure to grasp that details matter a lot in fashion, and the detailing in cargo pants renders them inappropriate to certain contexts. It even directly acknowledges that this goes both ways, and that the detailing on these pants would render them inappropriate to the contexts that cargo pants are designed for (if not limited to).
>No. Cargo pants are fashion-as-pretend-occupation — when not at work, wear a fancy chronometer to suggest you’re a pilot or a diver, or camo to suggest you’re in the military. Cargo pants are a paratrooper costume. Cargo shorts have giant external pouches so teenagers in the 90’s, trapped in school, could say (sartorially) “I go out into the world and do adventurous things!” even though the things they stored in those pouches were doritos and portable cd players.
>I am discussing clothing as it might be worn by people while doing their real jobs, not their pretend ones. If cargo pants are appropriate for your real job, you definitely don’t want or need my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa."
It's a nice blog post showing why they solve a problem and how to iterate, but it's about as novel as wearing a coat to keep from getting cold. I suspect you and the blog author are unusual in that you don't know about this pretty common pant type.
They were a big enough deal that Time Magazine put them in their "Best inventions of 2001" list: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,288...
In the end, I didn't really care for them and it looks like most people didn't either as they're discontinued. The cargo pocket was more fussy than just putting my stuff in the regular old pockets. I think I remember hitting things with my knees a lot in certain positions.
These days? I guess it depends on what you consider "dress pants", but for pants that don't scream "I'm working construction or shooting a gun during an invasion"...looking around for a bit, Dickies, Red Kap, Scottevest (promoted by Steve Wozniak specifically as a good pair of pants for big phones), Docker D3 line. I've definitely seen them at places like Target, JoS.A.Bank, etc.
Tactical brands like 5.11, Woolrich, Propper, etc. will also sell "discreet" or "concealed carry" cargo pants that look basically like normal slacks.
There's also a ton of plain old fitted and fashion cargo pants around too. I think Armani, Betabrand, etc. has some. They look a bit obnoxious to me I'm afraid.
As a 90s nerd that fell into a habit of carpenter pants when they were briefly cool, but came to respect the "mobile pocket" functionality of having a pocket further down the leg towards the knees. It's really fast/convenient to move things (especially phones) in/out of. It's continued to surprise me how slow it has been to be adapted to other pants. If it takes the "mobile pocket" rebrand, that's fine, but it's still somewhat rude to forget the blue collar roots of the idea.
(It also amuses me that while the article addresses the cargo pants criticism, doesn't seem familiar with either the "mobile pocket" or "carpenter's pocket" name.)
And there's some men's one out there similar: https://www.hugoboss.com/us/relaxed-fit-cargo-pants-in-itali... https://www.wearfigs.com/pages/shop-products/mens-axim-cargo...
Although as a programmer, no one would bat an eye if I wore shorts to work, even, so I find the author's claims that cargos can't be worn to an office kind of outdated. Maybe he's a car salesman or something and his boss forces his to wear a suit.