I'd love to hear your thoughts on retrofitting or retro-facading ugly buildings to fit with the local or acceptable aesthetic, to 'fix' current damage.
There will be some questions over who should foot the bill (current owner, future owner, central fund, etc) but it seems like it could be a relatively quick and affordable way to improve the aesthetic of the built environment. For some buildings, just a lick of paint will uplift the property, others could be covering with flora or panelling, even 'fake' brickwork.
Most cities already have something called “design review” which is intended to promote beautiful buildings. And yet, ugly buildings persist. The reason for this is that “beauty” is subjective. The buildings you see - ridiculous articulation, ugly mismatched siding - look like that _because of_ design review.
You should revisit this topic but include some architects/ developers who have experience with the design review process so they can explain how “banning ugly buildings” is put into practice.
An ugly building has negative effects on people around it, in the same way that a business polluting does.
We should, at a local level, decide what buildings can be built (generally). A local authority may insist that a building matches the Georgian/medieval aesthetic. But, that comes with a cost, that the local authority runs on the rents it gets. And, if they forbid a building, the town will be worse off in terms of rent/rates collected. But may be economically richer.
It means everyone values the space correctly. And it is best done locally because some places may value the prettiness of the buildings higher. The people and businesses of Bath are going to want something Georgian to fit in with the rest of it, to keep the tourism business going, and because they’re wealthier and don’t mind paying more tax for less buildings. People in Chippenham may prefer to have more employment opportunities, so will let someone build a cheap, modern steel and glass building.
It allows us to remove building codes and simply put the power in the hands of local councils. Do we, the representatives of the people, think this building enhances or degrades the town? From that, you apply different business rates. A new attractive theatre will improve a town, so offer competitive business rates to get them to put it here.
It also allows the creation of a new, attractive modernism. Modern buildings can be attractive, and they are also more functional. The Metropolitan Opera House (1966) is not ugly, but also used modern building techniques to be more “vertical” allowing an audience of nearly 4000, the largest capacity in the world. Symphony Hall in Birmingham and the Cardiff Millennium Centre are not ugly (in my opinion) and are far more enjoyable than most venues that lack the same comfort and facilities. People like the Eden Project and the American Aur Museum at Duxford.
But we have to get away from the idea that all modernism is a cheaply done but functional building like a Regus office, or some sort of ridiculous impractical “statement” like the works of Daniel Libeskind and Zaha Hadid.
Eroding property rights is what caused the housing shortage. Advocating for anything other than restoring property rights is poorly thought through contrarian wankery.
Yes. And any argument in favour of code compliant pattern books for the sake of aesthetics is arguing in favour of continued policy failure.
The lack of affordable housing has a single cause: market inefficiency. Only removing the regulations and taxes hindering market efficiency can restore market efficiency.
Skirting part of the approval process isn’t a solution because it still leaves all the efficiency-hindering building codes (which have never had a cost-benefit analysis) in place.
Insurance and liability are much better vehicles for safety standards than reducing the rights of property owners.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on retrofitting or retro-facading ugly buildings to fit with the local or acceptable aesthetic, to 'fix' current damage.
There will be some questions over who should foot the bill (current owner, future owner, central fund, etc) but it seems like it could be a relatively quick and affordable way to improve the aesthetic of the built environment. For some buildings, just a lick of paint will uplift the property, others could be covering with flora or panelling, even 'fake' brickwork.
I think very cool idea. My feeling is that this should be achieved through residential improvement districts.
See https://www.worksinprogress.news/p/fixing-retail-with-land-value-capture but imagine we're applying it to residential neighbourhoods. Or, alternatively: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol48/iss1/2/
Most cities already have something called “design review” which is intended to promote beautiful buildings. And yet, ugly buildings persist. The reason for this is that “beauty” is subjective. The buildings you see - ridiculous articulation, ugly mismatched siding - look like that _because of_ design review.
You should revisit this topic but include some architects/ developers who have experience with the design review process so they can explain how “banning ugly buildings” is put into practice.
They discuss design review in detail beginning at 21:30.
An ugly building has negative effects on people around it, in the same way that a business polluting does.
We should, at a local level, decide what buildings can be built (generally). A local authority may insist that a building matches the Georgian/medieval aesthetic. But, that comes with a cost, that the local authority runs on the rents it gets. And, if they forbid a building, the town will be worse off in terms of rent/rates collected. But may be economically richer.
It means everyone values the space correctly. And it is best done locally because some places may value the prettiness of the buildings higher. The people and businesses of Bath are going to want something Georgian to fit in with the rest of it, to keep the tourism business going, and because they’re wealthier and don’t mind paying more tax for less buildings. People in Chippenham may prefer to have more employment opportunities, so will let someone build a cheap, modern steel and glass building.
It allows us to remove building codes and simply put the power in the hands of local councils. Do we, the representatives of the people, think this building enhances or degrades the town? From that, you apply different business rates. A new attractive theatre will improve a town, so offer competitive business rates to get them to put it here.
It also allows the creation of a new, attractive modernism. Modern buildings can be attractive, and they are also more functional. The Metropolitan Opera House (1966) is not ugly, but also used modern building techniques to be more “vertical” allowing an audience of nearly 4000, the largest capacity in the world. Symphony Hall in Birmingham and the Cardiff Millennium Centre are not ugly (in my opinion) and are far more enjoyable than most venues that lack the same comfort and facilities. People like the Eden Project and the American Aur Museum at Duxford.
But we have to get away from the idea that all modernism is a cheaply done but functional building like a Regus office, or some sort of ridiculous impractical “statement” like the works of Daniel Libeskind and Zaha Hadid.
Sam and Ben: You briefly mentioned the work of Sam Dimitriou(?) on offsetting. Could you point me to where to find some of that work?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/what-happened-to-backing-the-builders
This?
Eroding property rights is what caused the housing shortage. Advocating for anything other than restoring property rights is poorly thought through contrarian wankery.
Have you listened to the podcast?
Yes. And any argument in favour of code compliant pattern books for the sake of aesthetics is arguing in favour of continued policy failure.
The lack of affordable housing has a single cause: market inefficiency. Only removing the regulations and taxes hindering market efficiency can restore market efficiency.
Skirting part of the approval process isn’t a solution because it still leaves all the efficiency-hindering building codes (which have never had a cost-benefit analysis) in place.
Insurance and liability are much better vehicles for safety standards than reducing the rights of property owners.
Hi, fully agree. The only thing that doesn’t change is the dead. To “preserve” our cities means killing them.
Like Obama's Presidential Library? Yes definitely ban it.
Not the nicest design, sadly. GWB's is good though!