A further explanation for the deterioration in quality of buildings is provided by Saifedean Ammous with his explanation of time preference as it relates to architecture in his book "The Fiat Standard". In short he suggests beautiful buildings are created when the money with which they are funded is not being rapidly debased. ie when built during a period of hard money such as the gold standard.
A perfect example I see regularly is The Crown Hotel on Cricklewood Broadway. A slightly Gothic red brick coaching inn built around 1889. Next to it is a rectilinear modern concrete and steel hotel extension built in the last ten years. The original Crown is still a magnificent structure with original features intact that although setback, projects a stature and presence onto what is a pretty grim arterial road. The modern hotel extension's plaster cladding is already badly stained and the bare metal balconies corroding away. Even though it is closer to the road it has no presence or quality that will endure.
In those low inflationary times when a budget was set for a building then the cost of materials was unlikely to dramatically inflate between approval and completion and the currency was unlikely to be debased. Nowadays with domestic inflation and imported inflation expressed through all the components that have to come from abroad the chances are that the time from budget through planning process and other regulations to completion will be far longer. Thus all the materials and labour have to be paid for in a currency that has also been debased in the interim. Usually leading to cuts to either the quality or scope of the building in order to stay within an outdated budget.
I dislike the red brick housing estates inspired by Fred Dibnah and approved and signed off by Dave and Sheila in accounts popping up all around the UK.
Like the faceless retail parks they fit a financial model which is unfortunate.
On the flip side, people will pay a premium to own a property with a view of the City? Most city views these days are that of relatively modern square tower blocks?
I must admit I do have a soft spot for the Sears (now Willis) tower in Chicago. Also the GPO (now BT) tower.
But by and large I agree. The new builds seem to be designed by cost accountants rather than architects
But Concorde was designed & built in metric units. Post war social housing is like the purposely burnt gruel in 19th century workhouses to disincentivise its demand.
* I am 5’ 9” and don’t know without calculating its metric equivalent; I weigh about 13 stone - ditto
* the joint of lamb I am right now overseeing in the oven for Sunday lunch is 5lb 2oz
* the walk I took yesterday was 6 miles
* I admire Poundbury and loathe Milton Keynes
* I monitor the temperature in Fahrenheit which means something (below 40 = perishing; 40s = cold; 50s = cool; 60s = warm; 70s = pleasantly hot; 80s = very hot; above 90 = unbearable).
I favour the smallest State possible (would get the State out of health and education provision tomorrow), low taxes, don’t recognise the concept of “hate speech” etc etc.
I am the epitome of what is today called “far right”, aka fairly commonplace conservative.
Fascinating thanks. The building lower left in Lewisham looks like it’s been knocked up in Minecraft by a 10 year old. It’s fortunate for that development that it stands next to Lewisham shopping centre…
I think this article is implausible because it's not as if constructing in imperial is going to always align with the ratios of the various metrics that you mention, e.g., foot, inch, span etc. I think the better explanation is simply beauty is an external benefit which is not captured by the owners or constructors and hence it is underprovided for in the free market (of course, this explanation is hopeless in explaining why old building are prettier).
Interesting to see you don't countenance having someone differ with you, and that you don't note for others that you are deleting/censoring one of your readers. Tells enough about your character, which in turn brings doubts over your "thoughts." Kinda pathetic.
A further explanation for the deterioration in quality of buildings is provided by Saifedean Ammous with his explanation of time preference as it relates to architecture in his book "The Fiat Standard". In short he suggests beautiful buildings are created when the money with which they are funded is not being rapidly debased. ie when built during a period of hard money such as the gold standard.
A perfect example I see regularly is The Crown Hotel on Cricklewood Broadway. A slightly Gothic red brick coaching inn built around 1889. Next to it is a rectilinear modern concrete and steel hotel extension built in the last ten years. The original Crown is still a magnificent structure with original features intact that although setback, projects a stature and presence onto what is a pretty grim arterial road. The modern hotel extension's plaster cladding is already badly stained and the bare metal balconies corroding away. Even though it is closer to the road it has no presence or quality that will endure.
In those low inflationary times when a budget was set for a building then the cost of materials was unlikely to dramatically inflate between approval and completion and the currency was unlikely to be debased. Nowadays with domestic inflation and imported inflation expressed through all the components that have to come from abroad the chances are that the time from budget through planning process and other regulations to completion will be far longer. Thus all the materials and labour have to be paid for in a currency that has also been debased in the interim. Usually leading to cuts to either the quality or scope of the building in order to stay within an outdated budget.
I agree with that argument, indeed I have long made it! Sound money underpins everything.
I dislike the red brick housing estates inspired by Fred Dibnah and approved and signed off by Dave and Sheila in accounts popping up all around the UK.
Like the faceless retail parks they fit a financial model which is unfortunate.
On the flip side, people will pay a premium to own a property with a view of the City? Most city views these days are that of relatively modern square tower blocks?
I must admit I do have a soft spot for the Sears (now Willis) tower in Chicago. Also the GPO (now BT) tower.
But by and large I agree. The new builds seem to be designed by cost accountants rather than architects
Very true.
But Concorde was designed & built in metric units. Post war social housing is like the purposely burnt gruel in 19th century workhouses to disincentivise its demand.
* I am 5’ 9” and don’t know without calculating its metric equivalent; I weigh about 13 stone - ditto
* the joint of lamb I am right now overseeing in the oven for Sunday lunch is 5lb 2oz
* the walk I took yesterday was 6 miles
* I admire Poundbury and loathe Milton Keynes
* I monitor the temperature in Fahrenheit which means something (below 40 = perishing; 40s = cold; 50s = cool; 60s = warm; 70s = pleasantly hot; 80s = very hot; above 90 = unbearable).
I favour the smallest State possible (would get the State out of health and education provision tomorrow), low taxes, don’t recognise the concept of “hate speech” etc etc.
I am the epitome of what is today called “far right”, aka fairly commonplace conservative.
Your theory holds!
Thanks. Well at least you have the Flying Frisby!
Fascinating thanks. The building lower left in Lewisham looks like it’s been knocked up in Minecraft by a 10 year old. It’s fortunate for that development that it stands next to Lewisham shopping centre…
hahahhaa
You are always so insightful.
Well said.
I think this article is implausible because it's not as if constructing in imperial is going to always align with the ratios of the various metrics that you mention, e.g., foot, inch, span etc. I think the better explanation is simply beauty is an external benefit which is not captured by the owners or constructors and hence it is underprovided for in the free market (of course, this explanation is hopeless in explaining why old building are prettier).
My solution to the problem from a libertarian point of view is here: https://themusingindividualist.substack.com/p/how-a-libertarian-society-can-ensure
Interesting to see you don't countenance having someone differ with you, and that you don't note for others that you are deleting/censoring one of your readers. Tells enough about your character, which in turn brings doubts over your "thoughts." Kinda pathetic.