Why do all new buildings in America look like this?

debeguiled said:
Is there anything you couldn't say that about?

I saw repainted centuries old French panels since color schemes change over time. It does not look so bad and if the paneling is done with good materials, then you can redo it "aux-naturel". I also saw old repainted doors which were 200+ years old.

At least the couple in your example left the panels, which would be a shame to remove. And I agree with that similar to how you leave old wooden panel floors intact, (let alone parquetry) - preserve and cover them up if you want to have a carpet.
 

Salinger

Woodpecker
Simeon_Strangelight said:
debeguiled said:
Is there anything you couldn't say that about?

I saw repainted centuries old French panels since color schemes change over time. It does not look so bad and if the paneling is done with good materials, then you can redo it "aux-naturel". I also saw old repainted doors which were 200+ years old....

Ah...so those things are called French panels.



I wish I had those in my apartment...
 

Kona

Crow
Gold Member
debeguiled said:

I have this massive mango tree in the front that just has to be removed. A few friends and I are going to try our hands at lumberjacking. Its 10.5 feet around at the biggest spoet. I'm gonna redo all the counters everywhere with mango slabs. Its my 2020 project.

Stuff like this:





Its gonna be a wooden wonderland in here.

Aloha!
 

debeguiled

Peacock
Gold Member
Garuda said:
These things are fire hazards.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...a-s-new-apartment-buildings-all-look-the-same

The advance of the mid-rise stick building has come with less fanfare, and left local officials and even some in the building industry surprised and unsettled. “It’s a plague, and it happened when no one was watching,” says Steven Zirinsky, building code committee co-chairman for the New York City chapter of the American Institute of Architects. What caught his attention was a blaze that broke out in January 2015 at the Avalon apartments in Edgewater, N.J., across the Hudson River from his home. “When I could read a book in my apartment by the flame of that fire,” he says, “I knew there was a problem.” Ignited by a maintenance worker’s torch, the fire spread through concealed spaces in the floors and attic of the four-story complex, abetted by a partial sprinkler system that didn’t cover those areas. No one died, but the building was destroyed.

There haven’t been many such fires in completed stick mid-rises, but the buildings have proved highly flammable before the sprinklers and walls go in. Dozens of major fires have broken out at mid-rise construction sites over the past five years. Of the 13 U.S. blazes that resulted in damages of $20 million or more in 2017, according to the National Fire Protection Association, six were at wood-frame apartment buildings under construction.

These fires often bring a local outcry to restrict stick apartments. The Atlanta suburbs of Sandy Springs and Dunwoody enacted bans on wood-frame buildings above three stories, but they were later overturned by the Georgia legislature. There’s also talk of new regulations in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Massachusetts, and Maryland. But the place where legislative action seems most likely is New Jersey.


Building permits have been issued for 105,000 new apartments in the state since 2012, and it sure looks like most are in wood-frame mid-rises. Glenn Corbett, a former firefighter who teaches fire science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, took me on a tour of some of New Jersey’s “toothpick towers,” as he calls them, pointing out places that fire engines can’t reach and things that could go wrong as the buildings age. “You’re reintroducing these conflagration hazards to urban environments,” he says. “We’re intentionally putting problems in every community in the country, problems that generations of firefighters that haven’t even been born yet are going to have to deal with.”

The toughest of the bills before New Jersey’s legislature would restrict urban stick buildings to three stories and 7,000 square feet per floor. Proposals with a better chance of passing call for, among other things, masonry firewalls between building segments and full sprinkler systems for apartment buildings three stories and higher. The Avalon at Edgewater has been rebuilt with these measures; Feigin, construction chief for AvalonBay, the building’s owner, says they’re now standard for all the company’s new mid-rise developments. The 2018 IBC adds provisions aimed at stopping fires from spreading through apartment-building attics, and a proposal approved late last year, over the objections of builders and apartment owners, will change the 2021 code to effectively require full sprinkler systems for all four-over-one podium buildings.

Can we rely on developers’ economic interests and the model-code process to work things out? Alexi Assmus, who’s been active in the New Jersey debates and the IBC process, is dubious. A businesswoman and civic activist who got involved when AvalonBay built a wood-framed complex in her hometown of Princeton, she tried to introduce changes to the national model code and didn’t get far. In theory, anyone can participate on the International Code Council committees that submit recommendations to the government officials who vote on the IBC, but in practice it’s mostly trade group representatives who do. “The special interests all have the money to go there and stay at the hotels,” Assmus says. “Don’t think that this third-party ICC is going to give us codes that are in the public interest, necessarily.”

This article was excellent. Of course these things are cheaper to build, it had to be the reason. Unfortunately wood is a fire hazard. So add chemicals to the wood, change the building codes so wood is no longer a fire hazard, and build as many as you can before people start dying and they change the codes back. And while you are at it, skimp on fire suppression systems because they cost money. It all makes sense now.
 

Serie A

Pigeon
As stated above, part of the problem is that a lot of architects the world over use the same software (and probably the same CAD templates to boot).

Additionally, architectural fashions, property development trends and consumer tastes are now increasingly global.

The result is that this homogeneity is not restricted to apartment blocks. Check out the following stadia:







One of these is in Munich; another is in Istanbul; and a third is in London. To the untrained eye, however, they are all pretty much interchangeable.
 

SlickyBoy

Ostrich
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.

Then you therefore not only know who does the actual building-by-numbers construction for cut-rate daily wages, but you also know the investing firms are the same people ensuring that the supply of cheap labor stays cheap.

Cost and politics aside, it's possible to look at many buildings and guess within a ten year span of when they were built - 1960s buildings in particular have the same sort of look to them, almost as if Lincoln Mercury decided to build skyscrapers for a decade.
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
Serie A said:
As stated above, part of the problem is that a lot of architects the world over use the same software (and probably the same CAD templates to boot).

Additionally, architectural fashions, property development trends and consumer tastes are now increasingly global.

The result is that this homogeneity is not restricted to apartment blocks. Check out the following stadia:







One of these is in Munich; another is in Istanbul; and a third is in London. To the untrained eye, however, they are all pretty much interchangeable.

This just goes to prove what a great sport Baseball is! Retro style baseball parks are very popular. After decades of modern (ugly) looking parks, numerous cities have retro styled baseball parks, such as Coors Field.
 

polar

Pelican
Gold Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-plus-five

One-plus-five, also known as five-over-one, or a podium building[1], is a type of multi-family residential building commonly found in urban areas of North America.[2][3] The mid-rise buildings are normally constructed with four or five wood frame stories above a concrete podium (usually housing retail or resident amenity space). The one-plus-five style of buildings exploded in popularity in the 2010s, following a 2009 revision to the International Building Code which allowed up to five stories of wood-framed construction.[4]

In short: this style of construction allows to build up to five floors entirely out of wood, which is much cheaper than other materials. To make up for the commonplace layout, the architects attempt to experiment with "unique" facade designs.
 

Towgunner

Woodpecker
This thread is really striking a cord with me. I see a connection between the broader depraved culture we're forced to live under and all this bland uninspiring and downright ugly architecture. This is all contrived, mind you, rather than being something genuinely desired by most. Unfortunately I had to qualify the last sentence with an "by most" because, as evidence of this evolving landscape of rectangle soup, some people, apparently, desire this shit. I wish I could explain to the asshat cretin that just got an award that he is responsible for littering our world with despair. I can spend all day in a place like Saint Paul's in London, CofE notwithstanding. I can barely stand a new modern habit for more than a few minutes, and people actually live there.

What scares me is the sprawl of this. It most be stopped. I can't imagine a hellscape of life if we lived in a world populated by these buildings and other civic art. For that matter the current iteration of art can get fucked too.

I live near a town called Quincy Massachusetts. Its always been a bit of a working class town. A "city" by define and name, but, a satellite of Boston. This will not change. The town had its own personality. The main drag, Washington Street, was actually quite pleasant. There was this Bavarian influence going on with a series of building that sat a long a sort of rotary. By way of this position they tended to dominate the cityscape and coupled with some older decor made for a unique experience. I liked it and enjoyed driving to and from on route 3A, which intersected the city.

Today, I'm more inclined to describe my reaction as barfing rather than crying, although I am quite sad. No one would ever describe Quincy as attractive, but, she had a great personality personified by the architecture. And its as though that old bird just got buried for good. Quincy has been overtaken by an invading army of rectangles. And all of the development is apartments or condos. The capacity increase is substantial and I wonder where the demand is coming from. It makes no sense to me probably because I have a refined pallet and sense of the aesthetic. But someone is leasing this shit.

Last time I was there the battering rams were tearing down some of the old landmarks. That's not necessarily a bad thing, unless, its replaced with modern architecture. One such building boasts on its advert that it's an "Art Deco" themed apartment complex. Well, Miami Beach fusion with Quincy Ma? Um, to even entertain the idea like that is akin to suggesting a chocolate sauce to egg salad combination. You'd think our "educated" artists today would pick up on that vibe, seeing how such a building would repulse the blind. But then again, should I really be surprised? At any rate you could tell that the owners picked this "model" out of the catalog. I only noticed there was an "art deco" influence only after they mentioned it. This building is a disgrace. I can hear the milquetoast words of the buildings leasing agent trying to finalize a lease by mentioning in passing that "didn't you know this is an "art deco" building...ahhhh". Shit on him. If this is what will pass as modern architecture's attempt to fuse the modern with a taste of the past, than, all modern architects should be sent to Mars along with elon and bezos.

This echoes what occurred in Boston, not necessarily the proper part of Boston, but what was known as the Fan Pier or Mud Flats, I talked about it earlier. We have to stop the spread of this shit. No one should have to live under such conditions.
 
Roosh said:
I thought it was only an east coast thing, but I saw these buildings everywhere. It's the standard design for all new buildings.
I have been bitching about these cheap looking, ugly boxes in San Francisco for year now. It's mostly cost. When what you build has zero detail and zero artistic value, it significantly reduces costs.
 

Regent

Pigeon
Serie A said:
As stated above, part of the problem is that a lot of architects the world over use the same software (and probably the same CAD templates to boot).

Additionally, architectural fashions, property development trends and consumer tastes are now increasingly global.

The result is that this homogeneity is not restricted to apartment blocks. Check out the following stadia:







One of these is in Munich; another is in Istanbul; and a third is in London. To the untrained eye, however, they are all pretty much interchangeable.

To be fair, there's only so much variation of design you can have in a soccer stadium. No?
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Stadiums used to look very different from country to country. British stadiums for example are usually square, "boxy", with a roof over the rafters, and very close to the touchline, example the stadium at Ipswich:

[img=622x400]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe....jpg/1024px-Portman_Road_aerial_(cropped).jpg
[/img]


south American stadiums tend to be more curved and cavernous, often with art deco or brutalist touches, example Sao Paolo FC:

[img=622x400]https://www.graciemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/morumbi.jpg[/img]

Centenario Stadium, Uruguay's main football stadium in Montevideo:

[img=622x400]https://sc2.elpais.com.uy/files/article_default_content/uploads/2017/09/09/59b38266ce589.jpeg[/img]

Sometimes though south American designs can be super boxy with upper bleachers so steep you'd almost need a seat belt, like the famous Bombonera in Buenos Aires, or this stadium in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, when they are wedged into dense cities:



Some interesting modern designs like this rendition for AC Milan:

[img=622x400]https://www.repstatic.it/content/lo...f843744-dfcb-4ff5-8c4d-60e6e1314f99.jpg[/img]

[img=622x400]https://www.repstatic.it/content/lo...49c46bd-8c1f-4ba2-afc9-dd1b0c9e855a.jpg[/img]

[img=622x400]https://www.repstatic.it/content/lo...c8572e7-b140-416b-9684-beefcabfbddb.jpg[/img]
 
Top