Hacker News Reader

Comment by rob74 | Hacker News Reader

I'm in Europe (in Germany to be more precise), but believe you me, new buildings that I would describe as "beautiful" are few and far between here too. I think most of it is due to what I would call cookie cutter mentality. For most architects, a building is just a job. They don't realize that even the most unassuming building is something that may be used for 100 years and more, that will influence the lives of thousands of people (if only because they see it and seeing it makes their day a bit better or worse), and deserves to be treated as such.

View on HN

I think architects are certainly aware of the importance of architecture, and most would love to make beautiful quality architecture. But in the end architects are hired by someone who decide the budget, and cookie-cutter is just cheaper.

It seems the options are mostly at the extremes. Cookie cutter and Statement architecture, but maybe not much in the middle.

> even the most unassuming building […] will influence the lives of thousands of people (if only because they see it and seeing it makes their day a bit better or worse)

This bears repeating.

The amount of people who have to contend with a building will always far outnumber the number of people who inhabit or profit from the building.

How should we build, knowing that?

this makes architecture particularly important, in a way that other forms of art is not

painters are free to create ugly works of art all they like, to a first order of appoximation we are in a position to ignore them

not so with the built environment

a long conversation...

Architects certainly realise that a building is more than just a job but they also get pulled along in the strife for change for change's sake since any architect who just repeats or refines whatever has been done before is unlikely to find him- or herself chosen by the top agencies.

Have a look at where architects live and compare it to what they design. You'll find that many if not most - architects or otherwise - prefer to live in classical buildings which in nothing resemble the concrete-glass-steel(-wood) style of modern architecture. There are exceptions but they are in the minority, at least among the architects I know.

There are road bridges I pass in the UK where I think, wow that is really nice. These aren't big things, but they are beautifully designed non the less. They were of course built many years ago.

I do wonder if there is a bit of survivorship bias here. The pretty objects survive, the ugly ones do not. Though there are also changes in taste. In the UK people today like the rows or terraced houses. They were built to be the cheapest possible dwellings, but the style is now popular.

Most buildings in Greece are build by civil engineers. Architects are not needed and rarely involved. The result is very small houses with many rooms and "spaces" but all very small and ugly. For example, it's common to have 3 bedroom in 120m².

Wait, since when is 120m2 considered small for 3 bedrooms? That's quite a large apartment.

Since forever. The 3 bedrooms are box-size, there just enough space for a bedroom, a closet and an office - you can't walk around without bumping.

I love people nagging about architecture of buildings that they are not paying for.

I also disagree that most buildings will or should be used for 100 years.

I am quite of a fan of one generational building. Mostly because a lot of people will move around anyway. Unless you are really wealthy family that can afford to stay in place for generations.

Well it is cheaper to stay for generations in some village than in city center.

But most kids will probably move to the city anyway.

So building something fancy is in my opinion waste of resources and most likely having bad impact on environment.

Building something that can be easily replaced- even if not as nice - has the advantage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com