The linked article about architecture was just embarrassing. A classic case of someone desperately trying to universalize their personal taste (to assume survey respondents have a consistent idea of what constitutes “classical” or “modern” is a stretch). It doesn’t engage remotely with arguments from modernists who drove this change, or the scholarship on aesthetics,… very little substance for the length.

It sort of read like a sanitized version of Charles Murray’s “Human Accomplishment”, which is a “quantitative” “argument” for why Western culture is superior that commits severe epistemic mistakes [1]. Scott Alexander has some good takes, but this is not one of them.

And to give a positive example: I challenge anyone to visit The Barbican estates in London on a clear summer day, to take in the hanging gardens and constructed river, and not be awed. Modern and contemporary architecture can absolutely move the spirit.

[1]: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray...

If he's saying "everything is worse now that buildings don't look like the Taj Mahal, and clothes don't look like traditional Chinese ceremonial robes", how does this translate into support for Western exceptionalism?

It seems to me like your postive example is a non-sequiter. I don't think Scott is arguing that it's impossible to make architecture that "moves the spirit" using modern design/construction. He's arguing that, for the vast majority of modern buildings, nobody is even trying to move the spirit. Even in cases where historically we would expect them to (major institutions, public art installations, large companies, rich people with large houses).

The question is, why do people with almost unlimited resources choose to build rectangular prisms of largely unadorned glass or concrete?

And your answer is (please correct me if I'm wrong), because modernists think it's better, and people generally agree even though they can't express this agreement in surveys?

What is your basis for believing this? And even if you engage with the literature on aesthetics in architecture, how do you find yourself siding with the modernists instead of the critics of modernism like Christopher Alexander and Nikos Salingaros? This is a serious question, I've been trying for a while to find a defense of modernist architecture that I can actually understand.

I should have been more clear---I just meant that his argument had a similar kind of structure. I don't think he's engaging in Western exceptionalism (nor do I think he's a closet racist).

To answer the question, my point is that there are countless examples of powerful, inventive, playful, varied works of modernist+contemporary architecture. I simply reject the premise. I brought up the Barbican because the core of his argument is "nobody likes these things because they're ugly," and I'm saying: I like them. They move me. Some of my most enduring early memories are of the Barcellona Pavillion and the Getty Center. And to read these architects, that was often the point. I guess I'm asking, why should I give a shit about this guy's taste? Don't yuck my yum.

He's just not putting forward a very strong case, nor invoking others who have studied these questions before him. I'm not claiming that there aren't any valid critiques, just that his isn't one of them. If he's only stating that middling traditionalist buildings look worse than middling modern ones: I buy that, and I think it's probably a question of economics, as he says. But to me, when recent architects set out to create the monolithic and meaningful, it's not clear they're less successful than their predecessors.

Regarding public tastes, a mea culpa: I had dismissed the survey too quickly, and on a deeper look it's reasonable (although it includes few instances of what I'd call great 20th+21st century examples). But, as the Civic Art Society says, it's hard to disentangle Americans' aesthetic preferences with their normative conception of what a federal building (or any important building) should look like. That will naturally tend toward traditional styles. I'm also not convinced that today's choice expression of populist preferences---the McMansion---is going to stand any test of time. Whereas I do think currently dispreferred styles will endure and come to signal beauty.

As for writing, I guess I found Le Corbusier's treatises convincing enough? But for defenses that post-date the modernist era, I'm not sure I have an answer for you. To me, the best defense is the work itself.

> The Barbican estates in London on a clear summer day, to take in the hanging gardens and constructed river, and not be awed

Looks like a flooded commie block

Go there on a clear sunny day, it's gorgeous.

And, given the absurd prices that flats there go for, 'flooded capitalist block' would be closer to the mark...

As someone really frustrated trying to buy a home that isn't soulless this still begs the question why we seemingly can't build buildings that are exceptional quality by the standards of 100 years ago -- at any price! For fun I've toured 5+ million dollar mansions for sale and they're just as shitty as any mass-produced suburban neighborhood, they're just bigger. Like what was even the point of technological advancement, better construction equipment, logistics, materials science just to make worse houses?

That's because all that technological advancement went into making houses cheaper not better. Add to that the financialization of everything but especially housing over the last half a century (things that are the same as each other are easier to price and finance), and you get a country that builds mostly cheap low-quality housing that's all the same as each other. Add to that the fact that the labor force and the construction industry in general has coalesced around the new normal (which is natural), and you have a knowledge gap too, where most people and companies in the industry only know how to build the fast, cheap, easy-to-finance way. Anything other than the fast, cheap, easy-to-finance way is now niche, and therefore even more expensive than it would otherwise be. I think that this knowledge gap is the biggest reason why even even the richest people live in what is essentially just a bigger breadbox. If those rich people were to get anything other than a big breadbox, they'd have to really know what they wanted and seek out niche professionals who can build to their exacting tastes. And some do. But most rich people are just like anyone else, and they pick their new house from what essentially amounts to a catalog, and the builders put in the catalog what they already know how to build and like building - which is fast, cheaply built, easy-to-finance, disposable housing.

I have some insight into the high-end architectural world. You (in the general sense) absolutely can get houses of exceptional quality. You (as in Spivak) probably cannot. Because they are insanely expensive today. But these are bespoke, 'if you have to ask you can't afford', old-money type expenses.

When your estate/arch/construction costs start to exceed $20-50 million, you can get basically whatever you can think up. Giant multistory libraries, entirely of solid, old hardwoods with a glass walkwalk suspended from the ceiling? Done. 18-car garage? Done. Pool and minigolf on the roof? Done. Commercial level home gyms? Done. The client wants the absurdly large kitchen's cabinetry done without fasteners, just joinery: Done. When the client says 'I want a much higher PSI concrete for the foundation, even though it literally won't matter: done. $25k for a coffee table? Basically the same as an Ikea table to these clients.

A few examples: A home being built for client of a friend had a 26ft-tall marble fireplace from a castle/villa in Italy (which the client also purchased for this purpose) disassembled, shipped to the US, and reassembled in his CT home. This was 1 of 4 fireplaces in the residence. Hell, I've seen a property in the Hamptons where the guest house would have been the envy of Newport, RI; and even the full-time help lived in a beautiful home on the estate that exceeded most normal people's homes at 3600 sq ft.

Humans can build nice things. It's just a matter of how much money you're willing to spend. To build great things, it's a matter of how much money you're willing to throw away.

Indeed. this is completely correct. In my hobby woodworking business in 2019, I made a $45k wall all out of CNC machined mahogany. It was patterned, and 2" thick. The design, Machining, install, and finishing took months. it was >$5k in raw material in wood, not counting the costs of fasteners, sub-wall, finishes, etc. Labor made up the bulk of the costs, though.

Every part of that house in seacliff was following that mantra. Exceptional attention to detail, independent craftsmen contributing special pieces, and carefully selected design language. It was cool to work on it.

Even as the lead person on creating that, I can't afford to replicate it in my own house. And my house isn't cheap. Its just not practical, and short of doing the whole house as an exercise in design and craftsmanship you just can't get the return on those things vs drywall.

What do you think it would cost to get a 750 square foot home built super quality in old style? I don't mean fireplaces from italy, I just mean stuff like real brick masonry, super well insulated, slate roof, hardwood floors, a real fireplace. Basically I want to build a house that looks like a brick house from 1875 but is energy efficient and structurally sound, with modern electricity, plumbing and climate control. Is that a thing that any builder would do?

You would probably want an architecture firm to put it all together. They have the correct connections to the right people to make it work. You just listed off several different contractors. Roofer to do slate, Mason to do the brickwork, carpenters for the interior/exterior wood work, electrician for the modern electrical runs, plumber for water, architect for a nice plan for everyone to follow, AC/heating specialist for climate control, general contractor for all the general stuff and keeping things going to plan and holding people to task for not doing the job right and many will do things badly and argue they did it right. Had to argue with an AC guy once for an hour because he installed the unit in backwards, until the foreman showed up and made him 'put the unit in correctly'. A friend is currently dealing with a roofing guy whos crew did a seriously bad job (as in scrape it off and do it again bad). Add in something like 'smart home/IoT' and you will need a firm that does that sort of thing.

Doable? Very much so. But it defiantly is a learning experience. Also keep in mind what you put into it may not translate into what it will sell for. That will depend on the area you build in and similar sized homes in the area. No mater how nice it is.

To be quite honest, I have no clue. Your comment was what I'd actually wanted to say, but you found the words instead of me, haha.

I essentially only have been exposed to the architecture and construction of homes for the ultra-wealthy. Numbers weren't that important other than there were more zeroes than I'll ever have.

Things have weird values and a number would be hard to give. I rent and am not super knowledgeable about 'regular people' housing, oddly enough.

Biltmore House [1], the largest private home in the United States, cost $5,000,000 to build in 1895-1900 (I think it's a beautiful home and I would love to have it's library). Adjusted for inflation, it would cost around $160,000,000 [2] (maybe more, depending upon how you figure inflation). In fact, I'm not sure you could build that today for any amount of money.

[1] https://www.biltmore.com/

[2] https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/result....

>exceed $20-50 million, you can get basically whatever you can think up.

Does that money give you access to people who can build a home with soul?

An 18-car garage on its own is just a flex.

>had a 26ft-tall marble fireplace from a castle/villa in Italy

To me, this is a hint that the client couldn't find somebody to build something soulful anew. Instead, he had to take something exquisite from somewhere else to fill the void in his new house.

We completely do, but many choose not to.

One example? In Canada we have a standard for air tightness, and more, called R-2000.

Houses with this standard have to have heat exchangers, for they are so airtight, that they require air be circulated in from outside.

When it is -40C, this change can mean heating costs of 200/month vs 2000!

I assure you, houses from 100 years ago were horrid with air gaps, poor insulation, and so on. All such houses have long since been retrofitted, rebuilt, otherwise the heating and cooling bills would be ludicrous.

Old houses may look nice, but there are many things like this, which have been improved 100fold..

One thing I really like about staying in old places in my hometown (Europe/not US) is tall ceilings and windows not being airtight means there's always fresh air in the room and the coastal air is wonderful.

Absolutely wasteful but so enjoyable.

The comment you are responding to discusses air exchange systems to supply more fresh air than simply dealing with a leaky old house. So both absolutely more wasteful and also less enjoyable than a modern and well-designed system.

I'm fairly certain you two are speaking completely past each other about radically different climates.

> One example? In Canada we have a standard for air tightness, and more, called R-2000. Houses with this standard have to have heat exchangers, for they are so airtight, that they require air be circulated in from outside. When it is -40C, this change can mean heating costs of 200/month vs 2000!

This *is* what we call a modern and well-designed system.

I don't think this is correct at all, and this perception is probably largely due to survivorship bias.

I have several relatives who are home builders and have acted as my own general contractor in building a home, so this is an area of interest to me.

Comparing the average home today (yes that shitty McMansion included) to the average home 100 years ago, today's homes are way more efficient and comfortable in terms of amenities, climate control, being draft- and vermin- free, and safe.

I’m guessing it’s just a race to the bottom? I suspect if you were willing to pay significantly more you could still get a house constructed according to whatever your specifications are.

If you have money, you can absolutely get a house that will stand the test of time.

But corporate builders aren't concerned about that. They do shoddy work because they know they can get away with it. It's just good enough that an overworked inspector will pass it, but by the time the buyer moves in and the honeymoon period has ended, the corporation which built it has been dissolved and its profits reabsorbed into the parent company. Good luck going after them at that point.

Right, that's what I'm saying about the race to the bottom. I'm sure you could find a corporate builder (perhaps even the same corporate builder!) to build whatever project you're talking about for 3 times the price and it will be significantly better quality. It's easy to lament the way the market has trended, but are you willing to pay 3 times more? Probably not.

You'd also have to build that well made house not in a local trendy development on some private land that is away from everything.

We have the option of selling a home we own (but don't currently live in). It was built by my grandfather in law in the 1950 so over 70 years old. We could sell it for market rate (bout $1.5M) or renovate it (making it much larger, better layout, etc) for about $600K.

I kind of rationalized that the house is still solid after 70 years, I know pretty much every inch of the superstructure now, so why not just renovate?

That's interesting, where are you looking and what characteristics are you looking for?

One difference is that we used to use old-growth timber a lot more.

It’s exactly the same as movies - what’s missing is mass. Old houses made of stone and dense wood have mass and warmth and stability. Modern houses in the US are light and hollow. Even the walls are literally hollow.

That's... surprising to me.

I own a 200 year old cottage. It has a LOT of mass. The walls are a meter of stone, and the mortar is lime. The thatched roof is about 1.5 meters of straw.

It's REALLY COLD. Keeping it warm takes a huge amount of energy. I've removed some of the modern Portland-cement based render and replaced with lime mortaer and that at least helped with damp (it breathes a bit) but it's still really cold.

Once you _do_ get it warm, though, it does take a while to cool down. Similarly, it can be quite warm outside and still take a couple days for the cottage to properly warm up - there's a lot of thermal inertia.

The extension to it, built last year, uses 70x200mm (about 3"x8" in inches) studs, and has 200mm thick Rockwool insulation throughout the walls and in the roof. The windows are triple glaze. I heat the extension with less energy than the cottage, and it's 3 times as big and 5-6 times as much volume, due to the higher ceilings.

Yeah it's the thermal inertia that keeps it very steady.