Great work here. I think it would be helpful if you addressed the question: "If building beautifully would be conducive to more building, why is so much that is able to be built so ugly?" Because it seems apparent to me that the buildings that are able to be approved in the SF Bay Area, and perhaps generally, are palpably ugly and "of a type". Something in the approval process forces new construction to adhere to previously allowed design types, colors, shapes, etc. and therefore the pool of "what can get approved easily" is a subset of ugliness. Building something new and beautiful would be not only more expensive, but, much more difficult to get approved. It might be as simple as: beauty requires variances from local permits and building/zoning laws: it's less efficient use of space, it uses color or design palettes that aren't permitted, it uses building features - window sizes, egress, materials, etc. that are not economically achievable, it requires a lot more maintenance over time ... This needs to be explored, I reckon.
I am obviously not Samuel but imo you've basically got it with "beauty requires variance from local permits and building/zoning laws." If you want to read more, John Fechtel wrote a really great piece on this: https://fechtel.substack.com/p/why-are-buildings-so-ugly-part-1
That is SPOT ON, thank you!!! I have been loosely involved with this process in the SF Bay Area working for people trying to build unusual or beautiful buildings, and it is so so so difficult. It is effortless to build another ugly thing that looks like the ugly things built the last few years. After all, what ZAB or Design Review Committee etc. is willing to admit that some ugly thing it approved in the past is no longer allowed, it's a difficult legal position for them to stake out.
I am suspicious of the claim that most people find modernist architecture demonstrably ugly, beyond exposure to a few seconds of a photograph. Revealed preferences shows that most people vastly prefer working in a more modern building than in something like the Empire State Building, and while not all of that is directly related to the architecture, a lot of it, like floor to ceiling windows, tall ceilings, and open floor plans certainly is.
Maybe the argument is, "sure, modern and post-modern buildings are objectively nicer for their inhabitants, but they are imposing an externality on the rest of us who just have to view them from the outside."
I own an early 20th century house in San Francisco, which has not gone through a modernist remodel. What I’ve noticed in this city is that there is very little nostalgia or desire for beautiful domesticity. I think domesticity has a toxic reputation. Home spaces are not supposed to be cozy or nurturing. New remodels mostly look like hotel lobbies cleared out domestic detail. My experience is that this is actually what people want, or think they want. When they step into my house, I get so many surprised and warm exclamations. When it comes to beautiful buildings, there’s a great failure of the imagination.
Why might old buildings be nicer? Mostly survivorship bias/Berkson's paradox.
Why are ugly buildings built? Briefly touched on cars, but I'd say mostly because with site-specific upzoning and over-regulation of lot coverage, heights and angular plane, there's no competition or incentive to build something nice - the people living in them have bigger concerns like affordability, and location. Under the pretext of keeping things planned and organized, cities slowly trickle out upzoning to extract concessions. Developers might choose to build something nice if they were actually competing with other developers.
Living in San Francisco, I often feel that I am in a museum of early twentieth century construction, and that just a bit more height in the buildings would lose little and reduce the housing shortage a lot. On the other hand, all the new residential construction I see, what little there is, seems to be “five on one”, which I’m not sure I’d like to live in the thick of. What can be done?
Vancouver recently voted on the "Vancouver Villages" plan, a plan to establish medium-density housing and ease zoning near transit hubs, with the goal to create more lively vibrant neighborhoods and ease the pressure on housing prices. It was subject to the usual city regulations was shot down and cancelled due to a flood of opposition by NIMBY assholes as usual. This was being planned since 2019 with a lot of support and public feedback, the villages would have been beautiful too - the buildings were mid size, parks and decorations and public spaces were planned, it all looked really nice. All of the NIMBYs objections throughout were well heard and taken into account throughout the development and planning. They still shot it down with bullshit like "character of the neighborhood".
I want to believe some simple factor like ugliness explains their opposition so we would have a path forward, but it doesn't seem to be true. None of their stated reasons are true because you can address them and they will make up 10 more. I think this post makes an appealing leap of faith that would be unsupported if we dig into the details of developments being opposed and cancelled.
Your NITBYs are defined by being non-local; you say their political weight comes from aggregating nationally. But the design instruments you’ve advocated elsewhere in WIP (street votes, resident-adopted codes) are adopted by the people who live on the street. What reassures your generic NITBY that demolition in a conservation area won't produce uglification? Do you know of a case where promising a beautiful replacement actually bought political permission to demolish and rebuild something in a historic downtown district? Or does beauty only buy you greenfield?
Great work here. I think it would be helpful if you addressed the question: "If building beautifully would be conducive to more building, why is so much that is able to be built so ugly?" Because it seems apparent to me that the buildings that are able to be approved in the SF Bay Area, and perhaps generally, are palpably ugly and "of a type". Something in the approval process forces new construction to adhere to previously allowed design types, colors, shapes, etc. and therefore the pool of "what can get approved easily" is a subset of ugliness. Building something new and beautiful would be not only more expensive, but, much more difficult to get approved. It might be as simple as: beauty requires variances from local permits and building/zoning laws: it's less efficient use of space, it uses color or design palettes that aren't permitted, it uses building features - window sizes, egress, materials, etc. that are not economically achievable, it requires a lot more maintenance over time ... This needs to be explored, I reckon.
I am obviously not Samuel but imo you've basically got it with "beauty requires variance from local permits and building/zoning laws." If you want to read more, John Fechtel wrote a really great piece on this: https://fechtel.substack.com/p/why-are-buildings-so-ugly-part-1
That is SPOT ON, thank you!!! I have been loosely involved with this process in the SF Bay Area working for people trying to build unusual or beautiful buildings, and it is so so so difficult. It is effortless to build another ugly thing that looks like the ugly things built the last few years. After all, what ZAB or Design Review Committee etc. is willing to admit that some ugly thing it approved in the past is no longer allowed, it's a difficult legal position for them to stake out.
I am suspicious of the claim that most people find modernist architecture demonstrably ugly, beyond exposure to a few seconds of a photograph. Revealed preferences shows that most people vastly prefer working in a more modern building than in something like the Empire State Building, and while not all of that is directly related to the architecture, a lot of it, like floor to ceiling windows, tall ceilings, and open floor plans certainly is.
Maybe the argument is, "sure, modern and post-modern buildings are objectively nicer for their inhabitants, but they are imposing an externality on the rest of us who just have to view them from the outside."
I own an early 20th century house in San Francisco, which has not gone through a modernist remodel. What I’ve noticed in this city is that there is very little nostalgia or desire for beautiful domesticity. I think domesticity has a toxic reputation. Home spaces are not supposed to be cozy or nurturing. New remodels mostly look like hotel lobbies cleared out domestic detail. My experience is that this is actually what people want, or think they want. When they step into my house, I get so many surprised and warm exclamations. When it comes to beautiful buildings, there’s a great failure of the imagination.
Not enough "why" here.
Why might old buildings be nicer? Mostly survivorship bias/Berkson's paradox.
Why are ugly buildings built? Briefly touched on cars, but I'd say mostly because with site-specific upzoning and over-regulation of lot coverage, heights and angular plane, there's no competition or incentive to build something nice - the people living in them have bigger concerns like affordability, and location. Under the pretext of keeping things planned and organized, cities slowly trickle out upzoning to extract concessions. Developers might choose to build something nice if they were actually competing with other developers.
Living in San Francisco, I often feel that I am in a museum of early twentieth century construction, and that just a bit more height in the buildings would lose little and reduce the housing shortage a lot. On the other hand, all the new residential construction I see, what little there is, seems to be “five on one”, which I’m not sure I’d like to live in the thick of. What can be done?
Vancouver recently voted on the "Vancouver Villages" plan, a plan to establish medium-density housing and ease zoning near transit hubs, with the goal to create more lively vibrant neighborhoods and ease the pressure on housing prices. It was subject to the usual city regulations was shot down and cancelled due to a flood of opposition by NIMBY assholes as usual. This was being planned since 2019 with a lot of support and public feedback, the villages would have been beautiful too - the buildings were mid size, parks and decorations and public spaces were planned, it all looked really nice. All of the NIMBYs objections throughout were well heard and taken into account throughout the development and planning. They still shot it down with bullshit like "character of the neighborhood".
I want to believe some simple factor like ugliness explains their opposition so we would have a path forward, but it doesn't seem to be true. None of their stated reasons are true because you can address them and they will make up 10 more. I think this post makes an appealing leap of faith that would be unsupported if we dig into the details of developments being opposed and cancelled.
Your NITBYs are defined by being non-local; you say their political weight comes from aggregating nationally. But the design instruments you’ve advocated elsewhere in WIP (street votes, resident-adopted codes) are adopted by the people who live on the street. What reassures your generic NITBY that demolition in a conservation area won't produce uglification? Do you know of a case where promising a beautiful replacement actually bought political permission to demolish and rebuild something in a historic downtown district? Or does beauty only buy you greenfield?