Post

Conversation

The mismatch between architects’ tastes and mainstream people is well-documented but we see this in many fields and it leaves a puzzle — film critics’ favorite movies are rarely the biggest hits, but capitalism gives us blockbusters anyway.
Quote
Samuel Hughes
@SCP_Hughes
Does the public prefer traditional architecture? Half a century of surveys find: worksinprogress.co/issue/do-peopl - Between 60 and 95 percent prefer traditional architecture; - This pattern holds across gender, class, race, nationality and political views; - More traditional
Image
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

One option is to move to a city that has a lot of these old buildings from the 1930s. The old style mixed with new construction is cool.
capitalism forces you to build shit people actually pay for, not just what critics cum over. archietcts keep designing for each other and ignore the damn market.
Isn’t it just that the people who have veto power tend to side with the architects’ tastes? Whereas it’s hard to veto a popcorn flick
Besides these two renders both sucks big time, that's like asking if people prefers listening to jazz of pop music and being surprised professional musicians tend to like the former and regular folks the latter. Duuhhh anyone?
i think it's partly to signal one's sophistication/in-group status. they want to avoid at all costs having their taste labeled as 'pedestrian', so it naturally drifts towards less approachable aesthetics
The analogy is even worse than that for architects. Audiences generally *like* the Oscar winners even if those aren’t the biggest box office hits. But the public hates what modern architecture schools have been vomiting out.
I think one of the dimensions here is that the *very best* Oscar-bait films get popular and are arguably the best films period. (I'm not a film guy but can we agree on like The King's Speech?) But the *median* Oscar-bait film is less enjoyable than the median popular film.
I think it's funny that anyone thinks architects are designing buildings. 90% of current buildings are designed by developers, zoning and building codes. The building in the picture on the right is more expensive. Also they are not equally good within their respective styles.
The average suburban building in America looks more like the thing on the right. Everyone wants to live in an 18th century European building but we cannot actually reproduce that.
A building is an engineered product - aren’t these modern designs motivated by some utilitarian benefits just as much if not more than pure taste?
Wouldn’t the building on the right have “too much massing” under some US cities’ design codes? How much do the tastes/beliefs of urban planners (who seem to subscribe to a lot of truisms that may or may not be grounded in anything empirical) influence that vs architects?
I think it’s simple: classical architecture is opinionated. No one will get fired for a flat wall
The aesthetic effect of the building on the public is not internalized, you can just not buy the ticket to the movie, not the case with buildings. Sure, maybe the tenants/buyers care a litt bit what the building looks from the outside, but I think the effect is marginal.
Mass-market movies that get good reviews do tend to do better than mass-market movies that are panned Critics like small releases best. But if you look only at wide releases - movies actually available in cinemas to the general public - critical and commercial responses do match
Effect building has on the people outside is an externality, not the case with movies. It seems like a natural equilibrium that in the absence of regulation, buildings will only look good on the inside.
How much more do you figure the building on the right costs than the one on the left? You do realize that architects work for clients, right? Someone is paying for these buildings, and, really, most of these decisions are purely financial.
I wonder if it's actually the mismatch between the owner vs viewers. I bet the owners want cool looking buildings, but the public wants boring ones.
A competition for the Harold Washington Library in Chicago had a bunch of modernist entries and a traditionalist classically styled building that fit into the 1890s south loop architecture. They picked the traditional one They said they were not interested in "hero-architects."
Image
the public doesn't chip in $10 each to buy buildings.
It’s generally not the ‘architects taste’, but the costs associated with building in traditional styles.
I would imagine it’s how movies and music can monetize popularity in a way buildings can’t?
But I do prefer the left one over the right one. I guess I'm just a weirdo.
It’s like this in garden design. You build enough and you get sick of the stuff everyone likes. Your tastes begin to become niche.
It's amazing how bad some modern architecture is. I love older, classic housing and larger buildings. Brutalism was a great name for it.
This is also similar to how leftist intellectuals who claim to represent the working class are soundly rejected by the working class.
I’m confused… so it’s a market failure that the “blockbuster” buildings that the majority of people like most aren’t being built? And this occurs because architects—rather than the public—control the design of public buildings?
Maybe the paradox is that the most talented creatives want to make things that stand out, while most people want things they already know they like. Creative prestige rewards novelty. Mass markets reward familiarity.