prose like this always makes me wonder if i'm stupid. it seems like somebody spent a lot of time crafting it, but it just goes nowhere.
so in the absence of a point in the article, here's the point i wish it made alongside those pictures: all of those buildings would surely be called "ugly" if somebody proposed building them in my city. it seems like every time a new building is proposed, the general consensus amongst the neighbours is that it's ugly, and will ruin the "character of the neighbourhood". but looking back on historical buildings, it seems like almost nothing is considered ugly. everything is a style, and a specific building might be a good or bad example of the style. but everything that gets built is worthy of appreciation (and preservation).
once a building exists and has been used, or even just experience by people passing by, people will come to love the building for what it is. there's no such thing as an ugly building.
I'm personally in the category of wishing government just set some very basic limitations (max height, lot coverage, maybe light output at night, max noise output, basic electrical and plumbing interoperability and then stamped approved on every proposal that came in within the spec in a very short period of time while telling everyone who doesn't actually own the land to STFU.
So, while I don't agree every building deserves appreciation or preservation, wishing everyone would STFU comes to the same conclusion that things should be built if someone is willing to put their own money up to do it and it doesn't violate very basic rules (what those rules should be and what should be zoned under what set of rules is a whole different discussion).
I'm a fan of those, however, I do think they are a symptom of bad overegulation of the higher density rather than the ideal. The ideal for me is much closer to what lots of Europe looks like with basically that but all next to each other filling the whole block, usually along a narrower street so you get the more ideal 3 to 2 ratio of street width to building height and on the first floor it's all small to medium shops so the street is interesting to walk on. To make that possible here would would have to get rid of minimum parking requirements and change a bunch of practices around building public roads, which would probably be for the better. I am happy to see the 5 over 1 being allowed and gaining traction though.
I'm not sure you want to write policy off of what the worst city for NIMBYism in Europe thinks is a good idea. That policy has turned the city proper into a very difficult place for the average person to live. Allowing more skyscrapers could have alleviated a lot of that problem, especially with the changing demographics with people increasingly living alone outside of a family structure, which requires dramatically more units to support the same population density in the same area.
> Allowing more skyscrapers could have alleviated a lot of that problem.
And it would have destroyed any character that has made the city so desirable in the first place.
Paris is certainly denser than any american suburb. How about getting rid of the extreme negative cases trying to optimize what is perfectly within an acceptable range?
That's not accurate. The trade off is always change the character with more density or change the character by changing the economic makeup of the people that live there and it shouldn't even be a question which to choose. The choice is very obvious because the outcome of preserving character at the expense of accommodating the needs of the people living there is pretty much always having the place turn into a rich guy playground (with or without lots of homeless people depending on how authoritarian the place is) and the poors to middle classes that used to live there being displaced to much poorer commuter quality of life situations or into outright homelessness. The only people that blocking progress does anything for is the entrenched owners of the real estate, everyone else gets screwed.
> changing the economic makeup of the people that live there
I really don't get this argument, even less so with the hyper-connected world we live today.
The world's population has grown ~6x since the Eiffel Tower was built. Why do we need to cram these people into the already big cities, instead of developing the smaller towns? It's not like land is a problem, and it's not like we still depend on having our settlements on an area with immediate access to a port or river.
In North America specifically, it would be a lot easier to change the zoning laws and regulations in the suburbs and increase their absurdly low density and inefficient land use, than it would be to constantly trying to put everyone and their dog in the already dense cities.
The best way to avoid turning Paris into a "rich guy playground" is by creating a supply of other playgrounds to keep up with the increased demand, not by destroying the existing playgrounds in the first place.
Thats wrong. Modernist buildings are seen as ugly in some cases for decades after constructing. There are some anti - modernist movements in Europe. Your sentiment is very wrong.
It is not a thesis. It is a page of history «from the introduction to Ian Nairn’s Modern Buildings in London, out in a reissue from Notting Hill Editions».
About the movement:
> As a figure venting dissent to an emerging generation frustrated by the pace of change, Nairn would go on to inspire a fully-fledged protest group. After giving an incendiary lecture at the Royal College of Art in 1958, a band of students, among them the pop art painter Pauline Boty, were roused to found Anti-Ugly Action. Its members took to the streets to express their disgust with buildings they considered reactionary or offensive, in flamboyant fashion
And the book (the work) is promoted presenting Nairn as bearer of strong insights about «understanding of how people live and behave», «the interaction between people and places».
The article explores the architectural criticism of Ian Nairn, focusing on his 1964 book "Modern Buildings in London." It highlights Nairn's initial optimism for modern architecture and his subsequent disillusionment with its direction and quality. The article reflects on the lost era of London's architectural history, emphasizing Nairn's influence on architectural criticism and his relevance in understanding the relationship between people and urban environments. It serves as a commentary on how architecture shapes society and human behavior.
It discusses a book by the architectural critic Ian Nairn, in the context of the social, political, and architectural conditions of the time and place it was released.
