Perhaps there’s a difference between what people prefer looking at and what’s actually nicer to inhabit? Architecture is optimizing for people inhabiting the building, not just staring at it in a photograph. It’s like if you asked someone to judge a phone based on a photo. Yes there’s some aesthetic judgement but it matters more if the phone is usable.

I know that personally I find New York’s prewar buildings more beautiful than your average soulless luxury tower. But I enjoyed living in a soulless luxury tower because it had good lighting, not terrible elevators and decent fixtures.

Modernism is the act of using cheaper resources and more standardized/cheaper methods of production. The aesthetic is more of a side-effect of those limits. Ugliness has become a cultural norm in order to suit the modern economy. It may come as a surprise but it required years of cultural development and education for most people to accept the work of Dieter Rams as some aesthetic pinnacle rather than soulless mass production. It's only recently, (with designs like the Ferrari EV for instance) that people are starting to see how limited our aesthetic language has become. Modernism is too cheap to replace so the "beauty" of soulless minimalism will likely endure in the zeitgeist, but it's not a very interesting environment to be in.

Several things are at play here. The first is that pre-Modernist architecture was heavily designed around natural lighting and cooling. Many buildings and houses designed and built before the 1920s used combinations of materials and elements that maximized the use of daylight. Transom lights and polished marble floors for example were often used to allow light to bounce through a room and to induce airflow. The light came in from a high place and bounced from the floor to fill normally unlit spaces, while hot air was pushed up and vented through the transom windows. If you've ever been in an office building built from the 1870s through the 1940s you'll notice every single transom only opens outwards towards the hall, as the hall created a high pressure space that pushed air into the low pressure rooms, an effect that is amplified when paired with ceiling fans. Meanwhile things such as mullions allowed the windows themselves to be set more deeply inside the wall by providing a strengthening member that allowed a larger opening. That larger opening with the windows set further in provided shade while still allowing in diffused light, and helped in preventing glare upon the glass while creating an overhang using the building's facade or cornices to allow the windows to be opened while it was raining because eaves are useless above two stories of height.

People don't understand these individual parts and don't understand how they all work together. But they definitely feel the cumulative effects, and those cumulative effects are much friendlier than Modernist and post-Modernist design. Modernism and all the schools that followed it rely on electric technology to fill in the gaps in the design, which makes them feel less accomodating to humans. Electric lighting, electric heating and cooling, and electro-mechanical traversal. Those things aren't as tactile, and many aren't even visible. The Modernist building does not present itself as something humans made, maintain, and interact with, but instead presents itself as a machine that you are temporarily inside of as a foreign entity because everything designed to outwardly accomodate humans is instead either streamlined down or fully away. The overhead lights shine light that you cannot influence, the hidden vents expel air from a place you cannot see or change, and the hanging facade glass walls provide no palpable separation from the outside world. Your mind tells you that this mid-century tower is a place where you do not belong.

While my karma might get incinerated with this quote, it is incisive on traditional architecture. The author is reviled by many.

“Yes, God damn it, the Parthenon!”

The ruler struck the glass over the picture.

“Look,” said Roark. “The famous flutings on the famous columns—what are they there for? To hide the joints in wood—when columns were made of wood, only these aren’t, they’re marble. The triglyphs, what are they? Wood. Wooden beams, the way they had to be laid when people began to build wooden shacks. Your Greeks took marble and they made copies of their wooden structures out of it, because others had done it that way. Then your masters of the Renaissance came along and made copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Now here we are, making copies in steel and concrete of copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Why?”

There's more to architecture than just the façade, which is what people are rating when they are just looking at photos of the exterior. The interiors, structure, and services, etc. of modern building are often far superior to older ones, and i suspect many 'ordinary' people would agree.

In general you have to separate what people prefer from what they're willing to pay for. It's very clear that people will pay more for a slightly larger home with one extra bedroom or bathroom than for a smaller home with more ornate decoration. These are the forces which lead to the construction we see today: people build at the lowest cost what people will buy for the highest price.

"Traditional" isn't really defined here, but seems to mean "first half of the 20th century," which feels like a relatively narrow tradition. Not a lot of preference for teepees and yurts.

Look at this picture:

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!5kYm!,f_auto,q_auto:...

Which side is modern and which is traditional? The examples on the right are clearly more modern than the examples on the left to my eye: the left looks like it's from the '70s while the right is unmistakably 21st century. But the examples on the left are run-down, plain, and feature advertisements and bricked-up windows and steel shutters and security doors, while the examples on the right are brand new and shiny and walkable. There's graffiti in the first example and in the last one they replaced the asphalt with pavers!

Hard to take the conclusions seriously when the authors have their thumbs on the scale.

It seems like these comparisons are more "expensive traditional design vs low cost modern design." None of their examples had what I would consider a single expensive and nice modern design. But every single example of "traditional" design was essentially luxury pricing.

In public spaces I have no doubt this is the case.

I'm more curious about residential though - see huge interesting in MCM over the last decades. I am biased but I think there is a great deal of interest in warm, modernist spaces with ideas like natural materials and lots of natural lighting, especially when compared to the beige boxes of American home building.

Next thing you're gonna tell me that English speakers overwhelmingly prefer novels written in English.

Cultures have visual languages just the same as they have written and spoken (and signed) languages. The crucifix symbol has an understood meaning in most European cultures, because of how foundational Christianity is to their cultures. Is it really so surprising that people prefer buildings in a visual language they already understand?

There's also this paragraph at the very end:

>If this is true, a greater puzzle comes into view. Almost every architectural school in the world exclusively teaches broadly modernist styles, and probably more than 99 percent of architects practice exclusively in them. In Britain, there has been hardly a single public commission in a traditional style since the 1950s, and only a trickle of commercial and institutional ones. Except in the market for private housing, traditional styles have been virtually extinct for seven decades. Although in some cases this can be explained by anti-traditional planning rules, the broad trend is still evident in jurisdictions whose development control systems are stylistically neutral.

In a world where we've seen nothing but modernist designs for 70 years, is it really that surprising that people might prefer novel designs? Especially novel designs in a style they are repeatedly told is better, or references a more refined time?

I like how modernist builings look when they are just built and new. But traditional architecture usually ages much better.

I think the perspective from inside vs outside the buildings is important. Consider Meta’s classic campus vs their newer buildings designed by Frank Gehry. I like the exterior appearance of the classic campus much better as it feels “friendlier”, but from the inside, it flips drastically. The newer buildings are far superior in every way compared to the dimly lit, fluorescent feeling you get inside the older buildings with the small windows.

I always like to look at the windows for these “more attractive” buildings. They always lead me to believe the indoor experience is worse in some way. Either cramped or similar. Sometimes they imply a dark windowless rooms. Generally, they seem like they prioritize the appearance of the building over the experience of being inside the building, which is unambiguously the more important part of the building.

The funny one is the buildings that have better landscaping. A few of the buildings in the post only look attractive as a consequence of the green courtyard in front. If you cover up that part of the photo, they just don’t look as stunning compared to the other. Perhaps that’s an argument for traditional courtyards (fair enough), but it doesn’t imply the need for traditional building construction.

I absolutely love neoclassical architecture.

I wish more people were building brand new, modern neoclassical buildings that are truly beautiful in a Haussmannian way, yet as practical as modern skyscrapers.. something like 1 Mayfair in London or 150 East 78th Street in New York.

Most people have bad taste, preferring elaborately ornate crap with multiple clashing patterns. No surprises here.

Reminds of poetry. I read somewhere that people love poetry that rhymes and want more of it, but modern poets won't give it to them.

Classical and in a sense neoclassical architecture literally stood the test of time.

I just wish there were more acceptance of experimentation. I like well-executed Art Deco, Art Nouveau, 60s high modernism, whatever you call the 70s angular wooden buildings, “natural” styles like adobe that use clay and wood, all kinds really. As long as a style is appropriate for the structure’s use and environment, it’s fine. But economics favors ugly boxes, and local building restrictions make it even more expensive (or even impossible) to be creative. It’s no wonder that many builders don’t bother, sticking to “safe” styles.

But how much say do those people have in what gets built? I can rent a flat because it's close to work without liking the building at all.

Well then. The solution is obvious: we need to educate the public so that it attains the correct tastes. It's doable: after all, the architecture students do manage to obtain the taste for the modernist architecture during their time in the college/university.

Or maybe do nothing, it's not like the public opinion really matters in the technocratic settings.

Modern architecture, like modern art and modern classical music and jazz, is supposed to be ugly. That's because it is based on existentialist philosophy that believes that life is meaningless and what ordinary people consider a good life is an attempt to escape this alleged truth. The purpose of the arts is supposed to be to push the ugly truth into people's faces so they can't ignore it.

the tragedy is that architects (experts) prefer the modernist buildings. while common people prefer the classical buildings which makes cities more livable. the other tragedy is before 'regulations' normies designed buildings - they didn't have architecture degrees. don't know if that's still possible anymore.

& buildings shape lives.

the only way to reverse the modernist trend is to have laws that incentivize classical buildings otherwise we gonna keep getting ugly buildings.

To me, the public seems to prefer a design that integrates, or fit in, with the rest of the street/location it's in.

Modern buildings often are their own idiosyncratic isolate in the middle of the city.

When looking at movies, cities tend to have a uniform feel and look (like the elvish Rivendell), and I think people enjoy that.

Like Mont-Saint-Michel in France, or the Chuxi Tulou village in Fujian, China.

I think the problem can be traced back to the fact that we've failed to develop a popular design language since pre-WW2^1.

That in itself could be traced back to the professionalization of building manufacturing - the small-scale building and design that happened before this industrialisation of construction did away with all the little vernacular architectural decisions that would have been part of a building's design. Far more of the labour-force was involved in building construction, and less was done with pre-fabricated materials (probably just bricks and mortar), and certainly not as much was done on a mass-scale with the same homogenous approach^2, and with much less concern for the labour costs associated with those little details that add "character" to an older building^3.

I'm starting to find small examples of lower-scale construction projects in my home city (Sydney) that seem to return some interesting elements to newer building construction, like variation in materials such as perforated shading or different colours or textures of prefab cladding, using brick for feature walls in other pre-fabricated concrete buildigs, more external hanging gardens, etc). This is better, and I'm happy to see it, because while the older federation terraces in Sydney are nice to look at, they're hopelessly underdesigned for the climate (too hot in summer, too cold in winter, too dark in a country that is blessed with natural light, and often with damp and mould problems that shouldn't exist on a building post 1900).

^1 popular in the sense that its widespread amongst the general population, not the way modernism is popular with architects, both for its cost and the way its become part of the popular taste of architects as a profession

^2 the treasured old neighbourhoods in cities that are preserved and made "heritage" are the results of hundreds of individual decisions by dozens of individual builders and tradespeople, which although similar, contain enough difference to convey a sense of character. Compare that with a small team of planners working for a single construction company remaking a block or entire suburb.

^3 I could be wrong, but I would have thought labour costs were a much lower component of building construction then, or at least there was far more labour hours that go into a building's construction, allowing more time for the little details that give an older building its little characteristics like lacing, fancy brickwork or unusual reliefs.

Now try 1970s public housing in Paris and Vienna, socialist blocks in Poland or projects in Chicago. It will be a lot more balanced because these places were designed for people to live in, not as radical statements. They are simple to save costs but there is no "artistic" movement behind them doing it on purpose.

Abstract modernism with random shapes and obsessively minimalist design is only the worst case scenario where all the hate is justified. It's what happens when architects design for each other and not the rest of us.

Once there was a blackout in my neighborhood that affected commercial properties too. While driving down the street in total darkness the only structure that stuck out when my headlights pressed them was the local Mexican restaurant which isn't traditional in the least—it sort of looks like what Davy Crockett would've built if he survived the Alamo and opened a Cheesecake Factory. But it stood out that night.

I like modern architecture but I wouldn't want to live in it or near it. Modern architecture is depressing.

Plenty of people will rate the design of classic cars more highly, and will visit shows that display them. They also won't buy a car that looks like that.

Everyone loves the SF painted ladies but no one seems to build new ones.

I DO NOT prefer traditional architecture. I prefer whatever is inexpensive and practical. Hanging brick cladding in front of a modern building is neither inexpensive nor practical. What I really care about is the savings associated with this ruthless cost cutting and brutalist simplification to be passed on to the ordinary folks instead of being hoarded by the oligarchs.

I thought this was an article about microservices.

Many have never seen a really, truly beautiful high modern home, and it shows. Lots of both traditional and modern slop out there, with gems on both sides every once in a while.

Most people also prefer IKEA furniture.

Mostly this is looking at architecture as urban sculpture. That is relevant, but the most critical experience of a building is on the inside. Modern designs spearheaded modern interior spaces including spacious corridors, atriums for exposing important views and improving navigation, and other such features. More than that modernist buildings are good at presenting functional spaces with a minimum of details to interfere with usage and customization. Different uses can add decoration or functional features as necessary as there is plenty of space available and no ornamentation to interfere with.

And then there is the issue of construction. Many older designs use materials and methods that are either out of date or expensive to replicate with currently popular building materials. Simply going back to older designs is not a practical option for most buildings. There has to be some balance of old ideas with newer methods.

Sturdy is good.

survivorship bias is a big factor

Yeah "prefer" over other aesthetics.

But most people will prioritise cost (both capex and opex) and comfort over aesthetics.

There is a nice youtube channel called The Aesthetic City. There are some really nice new projects done with traditional architecture in Europe.

Just the usual things. There are a handful of gatekeepers who somehow, miraculously, dictate trends, and everyone follows them like some sacred text. To draw a parallel with porn, OnlyFans showed that people actually do not care that much about long form porn movies. I wonder when people will realize that most minimalist modern buildings are cheap, tasteless, and soulless, and start building whatever they actually find beautiful.

OT, but I've discussed Gothic cathedrals with Gemini, and we don't make 'em like we used to--charitably, because they take up a lot of space? A Gothic cathedral looks like a bird with massive wings. Those "wings" are outside of the church's interior; people call them "flying buttresses"--they stop the walls from bursting outwards.

Then again, I wonder whether the modern innovation of using steel under tension could enable us to make the "wings" (buttresses) smaller.

The traditional examples look sturdier and heavier. The brick bridge looks overbuilt and hence safer.

The examples where arch students gave higher scores, like with that god awful-looking house, I don't have an answer to. Maybe they had terrible taste. Just because you are a student of architecture it does not mean you have good taste or how to build beautiful things that evoke a specific emotion.

I personally generally agree, but I actually quite like the very most recently constructed buildings in my area (southwest Paris), which are still clearly modern but more generous with ornamentation and featuring more organic shapes and often incorporating greenery.

I feel similar positive about new buildings in my native Netherlands, which seem to be getting less flat and with smaller, more reasonably sized windows (if you know, you know!)

This feels frustrating.

They are comparing "same buildings" with AI but I would imagine they are not controlling cost.

Imagine gargoyles and metal dragons on drainpipes and all the ornamentation now and how much that would cost.

People prefer ancient dry stone walls over fences but they cost orders of magnitude differently.

I wonder if with robots and what not if we will see a resurgence in detail and ornamentation and other kinds of expensive but nice constructions.

Related: https://www.bensouthwood.co.uk/p/eight-architecture-myths-bu...

Modernist builds aren't really cheaper.

Am I the only one who thinks they use especially weak modernist buildings as references?

Maybe the average modernist building really is that bad and the issue is that "traditional" buildings are more forgiving for an average architect.

The exterior perhaps but definitely not the interior. If you visit Europe, the interiors are all small and cramped.

Baumol’s cost disease makes building ornamentation cost prohibitive for all except the highest profile (and budget) projects.

What is traditional now was once modern.

> Respondents preferred the traditional design by 74 percent to 26 percent. There was almost no variation by social class, and only modest variation by political party. Older people were, as in most studies, more traditional than younger people, but even 18–24s still preferred the traditional design by 61 to 39 percent.

I might be missing something but isn't this all a bit of a no-brainer?

In the old days, buildings were made to impress, to project wealth, to show the generosity of wealthy benefactors to their town or city. Take a look around somewhere like historic Bruges, which benefited from the wealth of local merchants. Incredibly impressive. Not remotely cost effective.

Today, buildings are typically functional, or at least financial considerations are top of mind. And cheaper tends to be uglier. Why would someone invest in an elaborate and expensive design when they could simply throw up a slab of brutalist concrete and punch some windows into it? It's all the same to the workers inside.

And of course for older folks, older buildings are closer to what they grew up with. Even if only a bit. Seems a natural effect for older people to enjoy older architecture.

When I was a child I saw Blade Runner. Ever since that day I've had a weakness for concrete jungles. Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai- that's how humans were intended to live.

Unfortunately my European brothers and sisters prefer to live in open air museums. However slowly but surely skyscrapers have been creeping up into the Netherlands- you just can't beat the efficiency.

It’s interesting how many studies were performed that confirmed this, and yet most (all?) of the time, the modernist building was built anyway. What was the point?

> Why are we commissioning styles that we say we dislike? There are several interesting possibilities.

Like what? A shadowy cabal of liberal elites pulling the strings from the shadows? Stripe (who own Works In Progress) founder Patrick Collision donated to the Trump campaign in 2024. Tiresomely obvious what this "piece" is trying to do. Find a new gimmick imho.

modern architecture is best understood as an expression of the ethos of efficiency. because it is cheap, easy to maintain, uniform, reproducible (which are machine values), therefore it is good, aspirational, wholesome (which are humanist values) for people.

as an aside, for the longest time i have thought modernity was fully understood by the 60s (ellul, debord, macluhan, ...). but maybe there the focus was too narrowly political, sociological. it has been revealing to see this ethos (and it is an ethos, make no mistake) recently linked to autism. high modernists are uniform, monomaniacal people. like machines. and the world they fashion, is therefore one that is uniform, principled. how the unsociable autist colleague cannot distinguish between is and ought, so will modern architecture barrel down deductively to its unpleasant conclusion.

modernisn is the commodification of all spheres of existence, it is an unprecedented evolution, how to break out of this, how to get of this train with only a single endpoint.

TLDR: Architecture optimizes for what is cheap to construct and meets the needs of the commissioning entity at the time of construction. This is often about a big facade, a dream, grandstanding or power dynamics instead of livability or community experience, particularly street acceptance. It's no wonder people prefer older architecture: it was necessarily more reasonably scaled, often more ornate and particular (since hand tools were used anyway: why not make it beautiful?), and featured now basically unavailable materials like giant timber beams which present more softly.

It is normal to gravitate towards beauty, it's in our nature. The root of efficiency is always someone's greed, pity that is also in our nature.

You see the same thing in literature, where modernism has crowded out of other styles. As one example, you see way less description today than in older books.

I'm not a hater on modernism -- I like stripped down literature and architecture (though I wish concrete buildings were cleaned more regularly). But there does seem to be some truth in this idea that "the elite critics" have dominated these fields, resulting in the production of art (and buildings) that are broadly unpopular. I think the overriding goal of these critics is avoiding kitsch, which they see in classical forms.

[flagged]

How funny, they chose very beautiful old architecture and very ugly modern architecture and invented a result - why not choose things like the Bahai temple in Delhi or Fallingwater by Frank Lloyd Wright? I'm sure there are some old ugly buildings and the ones that people hated probably got torn down so there's survivorship bias in play here too!