Why do all new buildings in America look like this?

Oak said:
Art and aesthetics are an outgrowth of society. Societies with higher values and self-respect produce dignified architecture.

Western society is now centred around earning a wage and consuming products. Hence the architecture consists of soulless little death-boxes.

I wish you were wrong
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
Salinger said:
The "glass and steel" office buildings are bad in the sense that they all look alike.

However, the apartments and condos of today are the real eyesores. In the past, the facades of these buildings had character...







But nowadays, because of the need to save time and money, facades are very uninviting. They give buildings an Orwellian feel since they look boxy and cheap.

I've noticed there are no arches, no sloped roofs (why?), and they all use the same cheap railing on the balconies which look like the bars to a prison cell.

Most of them also seem to sport a minimalist feel to them and are painted either white, tan, or some shade of red. Here's one in Denver that is the epitome of both ugly and soulless.


The first three pictures are beautiful, and obviously upscale. However, the units in the ugly bottom picture are all at least $500K, so they are upscale too. They could easily afford the cost of decorative materials hand workmanship to beautify the building exterior.

Edit: I will add that the interiors of these buildings are soulless too. They can have nice kitchens and baths, and nice flooring, but the don't have the kind of beautiful interior details that older homes have, with ornate fireplaces, ornate woodwork, beautiful built in shelves, arched doorways and windows, etc. All of these elements are clearly still possible. There are some new homes that have them, but for some reason, these bland, featureless pods are more popular.
 

memcpy

Kingfisher
Basically the building in America are that way for a few reasons. @Wrathofgnon covers it all on his twitter account, here is a small portion of that thread:

 

Easy_C

Crow
Something positive:

At least those ugly buildings in the OP look better than those ghetto two story, exterior stairwell apartment units that are rampant in low income US areas.
 

infowarrior1

Hummingbird
@911
I found the talk enlightening however.

He goes off on a rant about protestants in that podcast unfortunately. Completely and totally wrong in that regard. As if protestants hate beauty or something.
 
Here's the simple answer: the eternal lowering of the bar. Everywhere.

The longer one is more of an equation, you see, you have unfettered immigration across the world where no original host culture can tend to its roots and cultivate what was so unique about their past even if it was something as simple as the geometry of a steeple or the arch of a doorway. Take old east coast US vs old west coast US, both had different architectural styles until the 60s or 70s hit. Same for Europe until they all became infested with corporate HQ's. Everything that comes in the name of binding (namely corporatism and globalism) is so damn ugly that it can't hide it even if it tries. It is particularly relevant in the architecture. Nations of men were once inspired by the Creator to create buildings honoring him and to be pleasing to all eyes, now men and wymyn architects honor their check-cutters with a testament to everyone's uninspired malaise and spiritual bereftness.

I plan to build a church one day, a small simple one, with one large room, perhaps a small cellar, but a simple setting, with no more than four pews or so, and a small altar, no idols, no images, just a place to honor God and be at peace, somewhere tucked away in a forest on a mountainside, made of strong slabs of stone with minor wood trusses, and perhaps a stained glass window in the back. I will learn how to do all of it if I have to.
 

kosko

Peacock
Gold Member
Easy_C said:
Because a lot of these buildings are designed by investing firms who are just trying to throw up the cheapest building possible to generate some cash flows that they can then convert into securities and sell on the capital markets. They’re thrown up in a very short amount of time by “lowest bidder” contractors who just try to make them look decent by putting a cheap front on the building designed to appeal to “trendy” millenials.


I know of what I speak when it comes to this topic.

Yes, this above is the correct answer...

You can also include two things, one the over zealous building code rules, and second, zoning which take an already heavy investor spreadsheet designed mess and turn it even more into a boxy mess.

Building code rules with over zealous fire seperation... Zoning rules with over zealous minimum room sizes ... Which you end up turning what used to be interesting brick and beam buildings into the mess above.
 
Easy_C said:
Because a lot of these buildings are designed by investing firms who are just trying to throw up the cheapest building possible to generate some cash flows that they can then convert into securities and sell on the capital markets. They’re thrown up in a very short amount of time by “lowest bidder” contractors who just try to make them look decent by putting a cheap front on the building designed to appeal to “trendy” millenials.


I know of what I speak when it comes to this topic.

Correct - architects would love to design more elaborate buildings, but for most ones it's cheaper to purchase ready-made templates.

They do however build nice innovative buildings whenever there is an incentive to attract the usually more moneyed class:





The run-of-the-mill projects here are frankly still better than what was offered during the worst periods of the 1960s-70s.

Still - cities must absolutely have an aesthetics czar/committee who clearly decides whether the design fits the rest of the buildings and that it is beautiful to a certain degree. Public opinions sometimes can be correct (against brutalism), but also wrong (against the Eiffel Tower Paris).
 

Easy_C

Crow
So that tall building?

I see that freaking thing every day from my office and it’s ugly AF. It’s not a great example.

However there are a couple nearby that are quite good looking. NYC benefits in many neighborhoods due to an abundance of pre-war architecture and that the newer stuff, modern though it may be, at least tries to look good such as the new Bank of America tower.
 
The reason they all look like that is because they are steel framed with external cladding which ad nothing in structure but do give you the freedom to experiment with aesthetics.

Concrete is long gone, it's used for infrastructure but it would cost way too much to look pretty.

Most houses and even apartment buildings are built (at least here) with inferior (cheap) wooden frames!
 
They look like the kind of condos that have popped up all around South East Asia for decades.

I actually think they're way better than what came before it, the soulles steel and glass of the 80s and the horrendous brutalism of the 70s.

No one will call these modern designs "hideous" and "disgusting" like I would call most brutalist architecture.

They're just basic, because they're fundamentally just slabs of concrete with a thin veneer. Underneath they're still the kind of boxy cheap concrete of the 70s, just this time they figured out people loathe raw concrete and flat surfaces.
 

Blaster

Ostrich
Gold Member
The run-of-the-mill projects here are frankly still better than what was offered during the worst periods of the 1960s-70s.

I was going to bring this up, to. Yes, these modern "trendy" buildings might be ugly but I still prefer them to the equivalent generic/cheap housing architecture from the 60s and 70s. They might not have the same appeal as well-preserved 19th century brownstones from high-end neighborhoods, but that's not necessarily a fair comparison.

Here's a 19th century building that isn't particularly aesthetic. It's just a concrete box with windows, fire escapes, and a brick facade.

 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Blaster said:
The run-of-the-mill projects here are frankly still better than what was offered during the worst periods of the 1960s-70s.

I was going to bring this up, to. Yes, these modern "trendy" buildings might be ugly but I still prefer them to the equivalent generic/cheap housing architecture from the 60s and 70s. They might not have the same appeal as well-preserved 19th century brownstones from high-end neighborhoods, but that's not necessarily a fair comparison.

Here's a 19th century building that isn't particularly aesthetic. It's just a concrete box with windows, fire escapes, and a brick facade.


Actually, it's a good-looking facade, with an ornate roof lining, great fenestration, and a good basic red brick and black detailing color scheme. It probably looks even better on the inside, with bright interiors, solid wood floors, panelling, detailing around doors and windows, nice ceramic bathrooms - all the hallmarks of pre-war era solid American craftsmanship, way better than what you get in even higher end condos today, where for example they use wood veneers for floors instead of solid hardwood parquet slabs.

The only reason it looks like an ugly block here is because the building that was stuck to it was torn down, the concrete side was slapped on after they tore down that missing building.
 

Blaster

Ostrich
Gold Member
Actually, it's a good-looking facade, with an ornate roof lining, great fenestration, and a good basic red brick and black detailing color scheme.

It's really nothing special. Sure it could be worse, but there's nothing about it that's inherently better than the first picture in Roosh's OP. The "Louis" building looks like it has big windows to let in a lot of natural light and attached balconies. The blocky overhangs both give the facade depth and allow slightly more living space for the tenants. The black, beige, and gray color scheme is no worse than the red and black.
It most assuredly has a spacious elevator and open floor plans designed for modern amenities that allow for easy installation of furniture not to mention day to day commuting. The plumbing and electric is designed together with the floor plans, and includes central heating and AC.

Meanwhile the 19th century building has probably had its interior wrecked and rebuilt several times as landlords changed and responded to different trends and markets, leaving oddly shaped and oddly sized rooms with light switches and other fixtures in bizarre locations, pedestal sinks, steam radiators, and poorly insulated windows. You can even see window AC units in the picture.

I stayed in an AirBnB once with a nice ceramic toilet in the bathroom-- a bathroom that was comically small. I literally could not close the door while sitting on the toilet because my legs were too long. No idea what kind of code that might be violating but it was an old American building in an old American city and probably had some kind of grandfather exception. And, yes the door to the bathroom was a nice heavy wooden door. But what does it matter if you can't shut it?

The only reason it looks like an ugly block here is because the building that was stuck to it was torn down, the concrete side was slapped on after they tore down that missing building.

The building that was torn down was probably uglier. Probably why it was torn down. This is one that survived.
 

Towgunner

Woodpecker
I'm so glad the topic of architecture has been brought up. Modern architecture fucking sucks huge cow ass shit stained shit shit! I fucking hate it. Did I say I fucking hate it? Because I fucking hate it. I suggest you look into the story of modern architecture...it very much relates to what our community is experiencing.

I read this a few months ago but the story goes like this. There was a debate between two prominent architects I think at Harvard U in the early 80s. One of the architects represented maintaining an architectural aesthetic of beauty the other represented a utilitarian position. The latter was a class act assfuck shit eating motherfucker. The arrogance of this sub human cretin literally oozes from the pages you read from like someone's remaindered spastic coughing discharge a la flu and cold season. And his "rationale" is apropos to our issues here.

In so many words, the utilitarian architect argued for no beauty and aesthetic to be in architecture going forward. He wanted to create an environment where buildings created an imposing atmosphere that made pedestrians feel small, insignificant, worthless and meaningless. His disdain for the person and for beauty was uncanny to say the least. Woven into his tirades of anti-beauty was a distinct atheism ergo the rejection of any lofty or flowing constructs, for instance, the way a cathedral will capture your eye and pull you upwards. This person was an anti-human cretin and we can thank him for all the shit architecture we see today.

It goes without saying who won the debate. After all look around. And that pains me. First, an institution as esteemed as Harvard basically arbitrarily declared this person the winner. How can the best of us be so detached from the common experience of beauty. They have live in this world too and so walk the same desperate streets and enter the same imposing an uninviting structures the rest of us must? Second, why did this extremely important decision occur in an obscure setting without any input from the rest of us? I mean this single event determined how the entire West was supposed to be decorated. This goes to show that many things are being decided for us by un-elected people. Ahem the entire feminist agenda. This must stop.

The fallout has been catastrophic in my opinion. My home town, Boston, has suffered from it. Boston used to be a historical town. Cobble stone streets, warm pubs, Victorian street lamps. There was this void that existed between Boston proper and the legendary "Southie", South Boston, which is not aesthic, just a bunch of cheaply made Irish Battleships and projects. But you Southie was off in a corner. It was just a rough neighborhood. The void was called "the mud flats" and it was were you could always park for super cheap. You'd just have to endure the wind off the harbor. Over the course of a few years an entirely new city was created here. Dozens of commercial and residential buildings. All looking like the one's Roosh posted. Its sickening. The effect that the aforementioned architect intended to produce has been produced. And people actually live there!
 

Tom Slick

Robin
SoyGoy said:
How has no one brought up (((Agenda 21))) yet? Theres a reason this appears to be a worldwide (((phenomenon)))

Jay Dyer got into this briefly during his June 10, 2017 review of Zbigniew Brzezinksi's first book "Between Two Ages". This was paid member content, so I can't post a link, but it's only $4.95/month and is the best cultural, geo-political, and theological analysis I know of.

Beginning around the 22 minute mark in his 58 min. review titled Vid – Jay Dyer Analyzes Brzesinki’s Transhumanist Predictive ‘Between Two Ages’, Jay mentions Agenda 21 and the smart cities initiative for a couple of minutes, linking it back to what Brzezinski wrote in 1970, so this amazing architecture is a long term plan coming to fruition now. These ugly boxes have certainly become numerous in my top 10 US city in the past few years.

Jay says there's a UN program to get local mayors and city officials to join in order to work toward the smart city objective, and there's even a Target Cities initiative connected to the Clinton Foundation to help you transition to pod life.

Target Cities was a two-year immersion program that has benefited 11 districts across nine North American cities. Launched in 2014 as a Clinton Global Initiative Commitment, Target Cities was designed to advance sustainable, district-scale development while creating replicable models for change. Target Cities was a peer learning and technical assistance program to help each team elevate their sustainability strategy with an emphasis on project governance, performative roadmapping and EcoDistricts Certified readiness. Together, the cohort, which included 30 practitioners from 11 industry sectors participated in 4 peer learning workshops and a series of best practice webinars.

In total, the Target Cities cohort represents more than 60 partners collaborating to transform more than 1,500 acres of existing neighborhoods, downtown areas, business districts, historical precincts, brownfield sites and university campuses. These districts encompass tens of millions of square feet of real estate occupied by tens of thousands of existing and new residents, workers, visitors and students.

One thing I like about Jay Dyer after listening to him on about 10 geopolitical topics is that he does address the ((())) ? and provides perspective on how relevant that is for each area he is analyzing.
 
Top