Hacker News Reader

Comment by qiqing | Hacker News Reader

I just wish there was some neighborhood like La Défense where 'all future high rises' in the Bay Area are exiled, where people prefer a vital, living, high-density, sustainable city to the preservation of the aesthetic of their sentimental notions of the city.

View on HN

Also, it's a false dichotomy that we must have either no development, or a building everyone (other than the architect himself) hates.

For most of history, architects sought a graceful balance between art and practical considerations. It seems to be a recent development that they have split into separate groups, one of which focuses solely on cutting costs, and the other of which focuses solely on building monuments to their own genius.

I wish I could find a link, but I recall years ago an interview on NPR with an architect that designed some building in LA (for paying parking tickets or something). Anyway, during the interview he accidentally admitted to not actually caring about the people that would end up using the space.

He then followed up by back-pedaling of course, but I've always remembered that as a moment when my cynicism about "modern" architecture felt validated.

You may be interested in the Alexander/Eisenman debate[1], if you've not encountered it before.

On the one side, an architect who believes in designing buildings largely as a means of communicating artistic messages—even, and perhaps especially, designing the building to make people uncomfortable[2], because to make a building that comforts and reassures is a bit like lying about the state of the world, or doing a broader disservice by reinforcing the status quo. Buildings as statements, buildings as jokes[3], even.

On the other, an architect who finds this view practically psychopathic, since, after all, people will live their lives in these places. Buildings, in his view, should serve people over communicating a message and, above all, should please the humans who will look at them and crawl around in them.

[1] http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Eisenman_Debate.htm

[2] http://socks-studio.com/img/blog/eisenman-alexander-01-800x6...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Eisenman#/media/File:Grea...

>On the one side, an architect who believes in designing buildings largely as a means of communicating artistic messages—even, and perhaps especially, designing the building to make people uncomfortable, because to make a building that comforts and reassures is a bit like lying about the state of the world, or doing a broader disservice by reinforcing the status quo. Buildings as statements, buildings as jokes, even.

Yeah, that's pretty much the premise of brutalism [1]. Actually I think there's a place for that kind of thing and some of the best examples in London are really awe-inspiring and interesting places to hang out (e.g. the National Theatre, the Barbican). But of course there are some 'concrete monstrosities' as well.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

I don't think that brutalism goes as far as that. It does try to be 'honest' but it does not deliberately try to be uncomfortable.

Architects who purposefully design buildings to be uncomfortable seem like people who I would find extremely annoying or even infuriating to deal with. Except in very special cases, an architect's job is "design buildings for people to use", not just "design buildings".

I'm struck by the parallel between architecture in your example and software engineering. You could say the same about the engineers who don't ever consider the humans who will be using their software.

I don't really see the parallel. There's a big difference between not understanding the end user (which I'd say is usually the case with bad software interfaces), and actively no caring about the end user or even intentionally creating a negative experience.

I don't recall ever using software where I thought the creator intentionally made things difficult.

FWIW, I'm not making the argument that high-rises have to be hated. I'm saying that categorically hating high-rises is bad for everyone who wants to live in that city and can't.

Even better, the non-high rises in Paris are five or six stories tall. Most of SF is zoned for max 40 feet.

For reference the height restriction in Paris between 1977 and 2008 was 102 feet for the center and 121 feet further out.

Isn't that what SoMa is? No (or significantly lesser) height restrictions, where the Salesforce tower is going up, and bordered by Bart, Caltrain, and the Embarcadero line.

Isn't Mission Bay and Hunter's Point less regulated? I know they are building a few high rises and hospital buildings that are quite tall. No NIMBYs live there to shoot down development plans yet.

> vital, living, high-density, sustainable city

I get what you mean, but La Défense is more or less the opposite of that. The people responsible should be shot, as it taints the ideals of what you mentioned. Tour Montparnasse should be loaded from cellar to attic with excessive amounts of explosives and be put out of its misery.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com