My simple theory on why we stopped building beautiful buildings

>My theory is that neither individuals nor organizations feel comfortable being frivolous or indulgent with their wealth anymore.

I guess the author hasn't paid attention to the rise of the mega-yacht or having personal jets. If you also don't think that the wealthy live in opulent real estate, then I've I'm not sure what rock you've been living under.

What I assume the author is really referencing is how skyscrapers and other buildings are no longer as "beautiful" as they used to be. Beyond the survivor bias of the older buildings that we perceive as "beautiful", a real explanation probably ties more to corporate accounting and business practices than anything else.

The big grand skyscraper for a company HQ pre-dates the exodus of city centers in the 70s and 80s. In the meantime, the construction of these types of buildings is now being pursued by developers, rather than corporations. Those developers have a much different approach to building, which is much more about making profitable real estate, rather than something that's a statement or a symbol. Corporation also needs more flexibility in their office space that makes renting vs owning a much more viable approach to meeting space needs. We no longer need all employees working under one big roof, and corporations are far more likely to have far more office locations than they did.

I also think that the definition of what this author and the one they're responding to consider "beautiful" is largely missing. We still build fantastic buildings, but they likely don't look like they were built in the 1920s or 1930s and may not align with everyone's preferred aesthetic.

Apocryphally, a Las Vegas taxi driver was asked how the city had changed and said 'When the mob was running things they were happy as long as you were making money. Now that MBAs are running things you need to make as much money as possible.'

1. First, beauty is subjective and many of these so-called ‘ugly’ buildings will be considered attractive decades in the future. Think Brooklyn Brownstones or New England triple deckers, both considered scourges at one time.

2. Labor costs. It’s relatively expensive to build ornate masonry buildings in high-wage economies. Overall, this is a good thing.

3. Zoning. It’s difficult to get approval for most building projects, doubly so if the building is in some was unique or unusual . Developers go with has been approved before.

4. Survivorship bias. Old, ugly buildings were torn down long ago, leaving the relatively attractive standing.

There is no need to conjure up half-baked, speculative, psychological theories like the author does.

The problem is that theory doesn't explain why specifically, modernism displayed traditional architecture starting in the 1920s.

Was there a phase change in what businesses requested from architectural firms? Was there a systemic shift in shareholder relations, or how boards made decisions? Were non-ornamented buildings substantially less expensive? Do we have accounts of decision-makers requesting less ornamentation?

The issue that I have with this theory is that it's bottom-barrel speculation. It's no better than folk etymology and we shouldn't hold it to a lesser standard. There's more mundane explanations too, like architectural students were indoctrinated with modernism architectural principles because it was a shiny new design trend rather than an over-arching economy of hidden incentives that resulted in minimalism.

1. https://depts.washington.edu/vienna/documents/Loos/Loos_Orna...

1) survivorship bias, old buildings we see have survived because they are either pretty, useful or too expensive to replace.

2) old buildings are presented at good looking, even if they aren't. Just look at some of the victorian cheese that infests london

3) people don't commission their own houses as much anymore

4) labour is expensive

especially in terms of companies chasing eternal growth. What we have seen in the tech bust boom cycle from the 90s till now is that no matter how large you get, saying you aren't growing is a swear word.

The human part I am a bit perplexed on. some people have massive net worth (5 million+) and think they will never have enough for retirement. I am like, how much do you want to spend in retirement? "100k$/year" and me be like: and somehow you think you can't do that right now with 5 million?

then you have people on the other side that say 'how could I ever retire, what would I do?'. like ... anything? O_O

Most wealthy people or companies today aren't really wealthy. They just have stocks with imaginary value. Most of which were bought by someone else's money and need to be repaid at some point.

People in 1024 -> This dazzling new cathedral is a testament to the majesty of God and a point of national pride.

People in 2024 -> This indulgent new cathedral is made from the exploitation of the masses and is a symbol of a something-phobic regime. Seize their assets!

This also works on an individual level, especially online - being novel makes you a target, so instead everyone chooses to be boring.

* 50+ years of architecture thought leaders spreading idealized modern designs far and wide across industry and design schools

* Rise of low-cost building materials and global supply chain, displacing more expensive locally produced materials and construction techniques.

* Construction approval processes which remove artistic flourishes and frown upon creative designs because they don't meet code.

A link in case the site doesn't load.

Business has optimized itself simply to make money; so-called shareholder value. Financialization has become the dominant mode, and one way to wring more out of a product (or construction) business is to skimp on product 'quality' but keep prices relatively high by covering it up with marketing, finance and other pricing tricks, or simple 'natural collusion' - if everyone's products are turning to crap, customers won't notice or have no choice anyway.

People still want nice things, it's just that for most people even quite expensive things can't be trusted to still be so nice.

However, one wonders if 3D printing may allow the return of detail work that would be cost-prohibitive otherwise.

FLW wanted to use new tech to build new forms, others wanted to use it to focus on function. A clash that didn't didn't necessarily conform with the general populations or Schopenhauer's views of the sublime.