Hacker News Reader

Minnesota native here. There's plenty of outdoor infrastructure decoration that does just fine in Minneapolis.

Kindly don't incorrectly use my home as justification for your beef with beauty.

I think their point is a good one: that there is a reason that things got this way and it’s easy to underestimate the costs associated with beauty.

I wouldn’t read it as a “beef with beauty”.

I moved from a place that puts at least some effort into beautification to a place that slaps everything as cheaply and minimally together as possible. Both with significant freeze-thaw cycles.

I'm pretty pragmatic in general. I get the argument in the abstract. But having been on both sides, I know which is better.

But more to the point, the parent used a very bad example to make their point.

There's a middle ground between cheap and beautiful: "functional". I think you're being a bit hyperbolic in this discussion.

Sure, but I don't think I've called for aesthetics at all costs anywhere here.

You need to look at some cities in the south for comparison. The things they can get away with are on a completely different level since they only need to reject water. Stamped designs in sidewalks and other horizontal slabs are a good example, common in lots of "nicer" applications down there (say a pedestrian entrance to a courthouse or something). You'd be a lunatic to do it anywhere with a real winter. It'll spall in short order.

But, the south gets the short end of the stick for non-masonry materials and plant growth. Anywhere shaded harbors mold. Wood rots. So the kind of complex trims and accents you see in for example the northeast are fairly absent in the south.

Unless you're trying to keep colored plastic looking bright the desert is easy mode.

If this is true, then why do European cities with medieval infrastructure still look better than US cities with modern infrastructure?

built in a time where cost was not really an issue. Human labor was cheap, scale and complexity lower (from an engineering point of view, just add more stones until it looks good), and inflation wasn't really a thing so bulk was possible

Because they were built over centuries, like natural selection, only the best/most practical survived the test of time. Lot's of rubbish was built as-well, it's just not standing anymore.

Also car centric urban design is IMO inherently ugly (limited options for greenery etc).

> only the best/most practical survived the test of time

But we can learn from that and imitate.

Selection bias and natural rock vs concrete.

Gosh, I wish there had been other ideas for beautification other than a single desert overpass that obviously wouldn't work in colder, wetter climates.

Although I see grooves or other embellishment on struts in the UK, however they could be so much better.

sort of a reductionist argument, in my opinion. obviously it's going to cost more to build and maintain nice things but we should want to do that because it makes our lives richer.

I think you're on the right lines, that people just have no clue how much infrastructure there is in the modern world and even building it as cheaply and as easily to maintain is a burden in the trillions of dollars.

"in san francisco it costs a million dollars to build a public toilet. ergo, we should not build public toilets, because the cost is too high"

or, we should try to figure out why building costs so much money. 90% of the current NYC subway system was complete by 1960. in 2017, just 3km of track took 10 years and costed 5 billion dollars.

>or, we should try to figure out why building costs so much money

There's been a billion studies on this, I suggest you go read them.

One of the bigger ones is property costs over/under the stuff we're building. One of the other ones is community interests in preventing it from happening. This second one is one of the bigger issues. NIMBY can stop you in your tracks, and unless you go full authoritarianism on them, it's not easy to stop. Then add in cost disease and you start seeing there is no simple solution.

You don't need to reinvent the justification, just quote straight from the "Resolution on eliminating excesses in design and construction" from the USSR, 1955 [0]:

    The Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR resolutely condemn the mistakes made in architecture, design and construction, as contradicting the line of the Party and the Government in this matter, causing significant damage to the national economy and hindering the improvement of the housing and cultural and living conditions of workers.

   When designing and constructing buildings and structures, architects and engineers must pay primary attention to issues of economics, construction, creating the greatest conveniences for the population, landscaping, apartments, schools, hospitals and other buildings and structures, as well as landscaping of residential areas and neighborhoods.

    In order to avoid excesses and amateurishness, our architects and engineers must become conductors of everything new and progressive in design and construction. Construction must be carried out according to the most economical standard projects, developed taking into account the best achievements of domestic and foreign construction, based on industrial production methods.

    Soviet architecture should be characterized by simplicity, strictness of forms and economy of solutions. The attractive appearance of a building and structure should be created not by using far-fetched, expensive decorative ornaments, but by organic connection of architectural forms with the purpose of buildings and structures, their good proportions, as well as the correct use of materials, structures and details and high quality of work.

    The Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR believe that decisively overcoming shortcomings in design and construction, and the rapid and complete elimination of excesses in architecture will make it possible to save significant funds and direct them to the further expansion of housing, cultural and domestic, industrial and agricultural construction, as well as to the expansion of work on the improvement and landscaping of cities and towns.

That, incidentally, was the point of time when the Soviets borrowed the brutalism from the UK; it'd be only fair for the UK to re-embrace it. All in the name of the people's prosperity and happiness, and it worked so well in the past too! Oh, and also retroactively fine the most prominent architects for good measure as well, to set proper example.

NGL that resonates with me a lot more than the parent post.

Kind of funny how your own "well I don't like what he's saying so I'll compare him to the communists" comment belies the real reason people have a knee jerk distaste for such architecture. Basically the USSR sucked and was miserable so when people see a parking garage that looks kinda like a block apartment they have a negative disposition toward it.

Well, such comments sometimes force people to engage with the topic on its own merit though, of course, sometimes it devolves into political squabbles instead.

"Anything I don't like is a commie" --Some guy on <strike>reddit</strike>HN.

Post WWII USA did it first. The massive expansion of roads and single family housing post war in the US, coupled with the baby boom demanded some of the largest growth in infrastructure seen in the world. We did it fast and cheap and ugly.

You don't need some vast conspiracy of communists saying build it ugly to control the people. You just need lowest contract bidding.

> Post WWII USA did it first.

Pre-WWII USSR did it first, actually: they had a huge apartment building effort since the late 20s all throughout the 30s in the cities due to forced urbanization and industrialization. Most of it was obliterated during the WWII. Then, of course, there was post-war reconstruction of 1945-1953; and only then they got this post-1955 Khrushchevka style of buildings, with no design, no paint, no decorations etc.

> Can you imagine how quickly moisture and winter would destroy the facade

I'm 100% down with a new paint job every six months. Get a different artist to do it every time. I'll be like driving through a new place every time!

I'm stoked that my local council is paying artists to doll up the ugly concrete faces on sides of buildings. It looks incredible and every one has a story. Sure, in a couple of years the rain and weather will destroy it, but then they get a new one to come for a do-over!

I'm not sure it's so simple as "making it pretty costs more". I'd bet there are hidden utilitarian cost benefits as well. E.g., murals prevent graffiti. (No judgment concerning graffiti, but municipalities tend to pay to remove it.)

Or: maybe there is no large cost trade-off. Do beautiful manhole covers seen all over the world significantly affect the total cost of ownership?

I agree. They have painted large concrete structures like this in cold weather places in the United States and they start chipping and deteriorating almost immediately. A deteriorating "public arts" project where untalented "artists" graffiti the side of an overpass is far worse than plain concrete.

Murals seem to last just fine here in Seattle and in the Nordic countries. Maybe your city needs to buy better paint?