It sort of read like a sanitized version of Charles Murray’s “Human Accomplishment”, which is a “quantitative” “argument” for why Western culture is superior that commits severe epistemic mistakes [1]. Scott Alexander has some good takes, but this is not one of them.
And to give a positive example: I challenge anyone to visit The Barbican estates in London on a clear summer day, to take in the hanging gardens and constructed river, and not be awed. Modern and contemporary architecture can absolutely move the spirit.
[1]: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray...
It seems to me like your postive example is a non-sequiter. I don't think Scott is arguing that it's impossible to make architecture that "moves the spirit" using modern design/construction. He's arguing that, for the vast majority of modern buildings, nobody is even trying to move the spirit. Even in cases where historically we would expect them to (major institutions, public art installations, large companies, rich people with large houses).
The question is, why do people with almost unlimited resources choose to build rectangular prisms of largely unadorned glass or concrete?
And your answer is (please correct me if I'm wrong), because modernists think it's better, and people generally agree even though they can't express this agreement in surveys?
What is your basis for believing this? And even if you engage with the literature on aesthetics in architecture, how do you find yourself siding with the modernists instead of the critics of modernism like Christopher Alexander and Nikos Salingaros? This is a serious question, I've been trying for a while to find a defense of modernist architecture that I can actually understand.
Looks like a flooded commie block
And, given the absurd prices that flats there go for, 'flooded capitalist block' would be closer to the mark...
When your estate/arch/construction costs start to exceed $20-50 million, you can get basically whatever you can think up. Giant multistory libraries, entirely of solid, old hardwoods with a glass walkwalk suspended from the ceiling? Done. 18-car garage? Done. Pool and minigolf on the roof? Done. Commercial level home gyms? Done. The client wants the absurdly large kitchen's cabinetry done without fasteners, just joinery: Done. When the client says 'I want a much higher PSI concrete for the foundation, even though it literally won't matter: done. $25k for a coffee table? Basically the same as an Ikea table to these clients.
A few examples: A home being built for client of a friend had a 26ft-tall marble fireplace from a castle/villa in Italy (which the client also purchased for this purpose) disassembled, shipped to the US, and reassembled in his CT home. This was 1 of 4 fireplaces in the residence. Hell, I've seen a property in the Hamptons where the guest house would have been the envy of Newport, RI; and even the full-time help lived in a beautiful home on the estate that exceeded most normal people's homes at 3600 sq ft.
Humans can build nice things. It's just a matter of how much money you're willing to spend. To build great things, it's a matter of how much money you're willing to throw away.
Every part of that house in seacliff was following that mantra. Exceptional attention to detail, independent craftsmen contributing special pieces, and carefully selected design language. It was cool to work on it.
Even as the lead person on creating that, I can't afford to replicate it in my own house. And my house isn't cheap. Its just not practical, and short of doing the whole house as an exercise in design and craftsmanship you just can't get the return on those things vs drywall.
Doable? Very much so. But it defiantly is a learning experience. Also keep in mind what you put into it may not translate into what it will sell for. That will depend on the area you build in and similar sized homes in the area. No mater how nice it is.
I essentially only have been exposed to the architecture and construction of homes for the ultra-wealthy. Numbers weren't that important other than there were more zeroes than I'll ever have.
Things have weird values and a number would be hard to give. I rent and am not super knowledgeable about 'regular people' housing, oddly enough.
[2] https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/result....
Does that money give you access to people who can build a home with soul?
An 18-car garage on its own is just a flex.
>had a 26ft-tall marble fireplace from a castle/villa in Italy
To me, this is a hint that the client couldn't find somebody to build something soulful anew. Instead, he had to take something exquisite from somewhere else to fill the void in his new house.
One example? In Canada we have a standard for air tightness, and more, called R-2000.
Houses with this standard have to have heat exchangers, for they are so airtight, that they require air be circulated in from outside.
When it is -40C, this change can mean heating costs of 200/month vs 2000!
I assure you, houses from 100 years ago were horrid with air gaps, poor insulation, and so on. All such houses have long since been retrofitted, rebuilt, otherwise the heating and cooling bills would be ludicrous.
Old houses may look nice, but there are many things like this, which have been improved 100fold..
Absolutely wasteful but so enjoyable.
This *is* what we call a modern and well-designed system.
I have several relatives who are home builders and have acted as my own general contractor in building a home, so this is an area of interest to me.
Comparing the average home today (yes that shitty McMansion included) to the average home 100 years ago, today's homes are way more efficient and comfortable in terms of amenities, climate control, being draft- and vermin- free, and safe.
But corporate builders aren't concerned about that. They do shoddy work because they know they can get away with it. It's just good enough that an overworked inspector will pass it, but by the time the buyer moves in and the honeymoon period has ended, the corporation which built it has been dissolved and its profits reabsorbed into the parent company. Good luck going after them at that point.
I kind of rationalized that the house is still solid after 70 years, I know pretty much every inch of the superstructure now, so why not just renovate?
One difference is that we used to use old-growth timber a lot more.
I own a 200 year old cottage. It has a LOT of mass. The walls are a meter of stone, and the mortar is lime. The thatched roof is about 1.5 meters of straw.
It's REALLY COLD. Keeping it warm takes a huge amount of energy. I've removed some of the modern Portland-cement based render and replaced with lime mortaer and that at least helped with damp (it breathes a bit) but it's still really cold.
Once you _do_ get it warm, though, it does take a while to cool down. Similarly, it can be quite warm outside and still take a couple days for the cottage to properly warm up - there's a lot of thermal inertia.
The extension to it, built last year, uses 70x200mm (about 3"x8" in inches) studs, and has 200mm thick Rockwool insulation throughout the walls and in the roof. The windows are triple glaze. I heat the extension with less energy than the cottage, and it's 3 times as big and 5-6 times as much volume, due to the higher ceilings.