This is not necessarily the case. Many places in places like Iceland, Norway, Greenland, and to a lesser extent the rest of the nordic countries and some others, like the netherlands, have very colorful buildings, where each building is a different vibrant color, but nevertheless everything fits together nicely, without becoming "garish and ugly and screaming for attention", instead looking quite humble and cozy.
I'd agree they do sort of "clash", but I'd take that over this any day:
https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/118444...
Mind you, even somewhere like Venice is relatively mono-chrome (just not grey), but still striking in a way modern housing developments never are.
Why are expensive "sports cars" almost always ugly (Bright yellow or neon green??).
One would think if you had that sort of money you would realize that a bright green car is tacky as F, but that is the point. To turn heads - this is why they bought the car in the first place.
Why are most cars not coloured like this - because it is ugly and most people don't drive a bright green "Honda civic" so people can look at them.
On the housing front almost every city has bylaws and restrictions on what you can and cant do. In the US you also have HOA's with even more restrictions.
As an example - I live in what was formerly a small village . In order to "preserve the heritage" of the area everything is architecturally controlled.
Developers always need to submit your plans for review, but this area is further restricted and has its own set of "rules" outlined in a 34 page document which is on top of the city guidelines.
So all the houses in this area look similar regardless of age by design. There are houses from the 1800's a few blocks away and my house which was built in 2000 fits in just fine from the exterior view. The interior is a different matter because it is not controlled and so it uses modern techniques like steel I-beams.
On the latter, it's this weird and horrific attempt to mimic the way that buildings in Europe just fit well with each other, even when they use bright colors. In suburban America it seems that's not possible without painting a dystopian look all over the town.
Some folks will make an argument that modernism is the cause. Or that post-modernism is the cause. Or whatever is the current style is the cause. I don't buy it because there are works by Frank Lloyd Wright and Mies van der Rohe that are widely considered to be beautiful and which strike the eye. Going the other way, I've met folks who just don't like Impression. So there's aesthetics, and then there's taste. That quote by H.L. Mencken seems appropriate.
When I think of "people who feel important, who feel in control of their own circumstances and image" I think of people who choose understated cars, because they're confident in themselves and have nothing to prove or compensate for by feeling the need to show off flashy colors.
But when I think of people who are insecure and not getting enough emotional approval elsewhere in their lives -- isn't that the "stereotypical" flashy-car owner?
When you look at high-powered execs in Manhattan -- who feel very important and very in control -- they're not the ones in flashy-colored cars.
I kind of miss the times were people had colorful cars, and I don't understand this argument of screaming for attention. Looking at beautiful cars like the Alfa Giulia being black rather than Alfa red [1] or Quadrifoglio green...again?
[1]https://i.pinimg.com/564x/4b/4b/16/4b4b16277ab1652775cd5c7de...
[2]https://cdn-img.automoto.it/images/22002933/1000x/20200507-1...
This has impacts on the industries surrounding as well. If I want a custom siding color, it's going to be more expensive. We're normalizing everything around the most widely palatable, so it's all fairly bland.
My counter argument to this is that then it is the "norm" and society conditioning our taste and dictating what's palatable.
This goes as deep as influencing and forming our sexuality. We get aroused by things that would've not aroused people centuries ago, the canons of beauty themselves changed a lot.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3Y5ULj_0l3o/UrYr0ys5RTI/AAAAAAAACo...
This kind of architecture works it just requires a kind of unity and dedication to a common ideal that we no longer have.
This is really no different from "beautful colorful houses in the Nordics" someone gushed about in another comment.
You need consistency and care. If you have that, suddenly you are a "tourist destination", "cozy place to live" etc.
Correct proportions cost nothing. And that's just for starters.
But I'm intrigued now -- I thought I've heard all of the complaints about modern design, but I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone say that proportions have gotten worse. What specifically are you referring to?
The only particularly noticeable thing I can think of is cars having gotten more "bulbuous" rather than sleek, but that's entirely due to crumple zones for safety.
Which isn't to say that the proportions of windows or columns are always ideal in today's architecture... but for every supposedly perfect historical Gothic cathedral, there are plenty of terribly-proportioned historical examples as well. Overall, I see no evidence of problems of proportion getting worse. Modern architects are just as aware of proportion as they've ever been. But thankfully they're freed from archaic notions such as e.g. exact golden ratios.
Except if you ask people, specifically the people who *have to work in, live in and around these buildings*, and given the choice, they will choose, time and time again, architectural styles which have fallen out of favour with the vandals.
Some think beauty is simply in the eye of the beholder and it's the plebs who have a false consciousness. Perhaps you're one of them.
When I think of people who like older buildings, it's because of the materials, the ornamentation, the history, the culture, the craftsmanship, the uniqueness, I could go on. All of which makes total sense.
But proportion just isn't something that usually comes up. And none of this has anything to do with false consciousness, sheesh.
Reactions to beauty are instinctive, immediate, emotional. The average person on the street knows little about any of the post-hoc rationalizations you mention.
The topology of beauty has been studied, and we know that proportions are important in art, architecture, sculpture, the human body itself.
It costs nothing to create beautiful buildings.
It's strange then that these freed minds produce the ugliest buildings imaginable, en masse. And then pat each other on the backs and give each other awards for being beautiful.
See, for example, this beautiful multiple-award winning waterfront in Copenhagen https://goo.gl/maps/RGpDAsREQhnsvdJu5 only matched by this beautiful Copenhagen Opera designed by award-winning architects https://goo.gl/maps/krhiU9Poh4Ahqu9v6
The main problem is that they completely ignore the place they are: the city, the country, the nation. It's the same haphazard collection of steel, concrete and glass with no rhyme or reason that you can find anywhere: from the third world countries [1] to right smack in the center of a medieval city.
They are all devoid of any character (unless the character is "yet another soulless something").
Sorry for the TikTok link, but I can't get this from my mind: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFb14MTT/
[1] This is from my home town. https://maps.app.goo.gl/JnU2AphqF1nPyfnH7?g_st=ic The only reason it didn't win any awards is because no one wins awards for building ugly stuff in Moldova. Otherwise it's no different from Copenhagen Opera.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/44/0e/32/440e32a0e0c8fdececf6...
I get where you're coming from with grays clashing less than the highlights. But given the choice, I'd always take the loud bright colors of the Maritimes over the inoffensive neutral shades of our West Coast.
https://www.tqconstruction.ca/wp-content/uploads/vancouver-s...
Your explanation is that wealthier people choose to spend less on quality? (Not just in proportional terms, but absolutely less.) That correlation can happen, but as an explanation it leaves something out.
But one of the early points is "why is everything so gray instead of colorful?" Which is easy to answer -- when all your cars and buildings are super-colorful, they clash. They become garish and ugly and screaming for attention. Thank god we've moved to more neutral tones that actually tend to go together and recede into the background... so that we can use accent colors instead! If someone chooses to wear an attractive bright red or yellow top, let the accent be on them as a person, rather than their surroundings.
But otherwise, the answer to most of the rest of the essay is: economics. New construction (and furniture) looks the way it does because it's the cheapest to put together in terms of initial cost and maintenance for the building's desired lifespan.