We ought to be honest that design reviews have not produced attractive mid-rise homes that the public appears to like en-masse. If anything, they might have contributed to the unattractiveness. In contrast, people generally like the architecture of new single-family developments and townhomes. Lennar Corporation is seen as the McDonalds of single-family home construction but few would argue their creations are unattractive. Lennar incorporate features that are aesthetically pleasing to Americans: shingles, ornaments, simple stone masonry, plastered on wooden paneling etc. I find some of these homes to look quite silly, but I don’t think the average American disapproves. So why can’t we build apartments in similar styles?
This is anecdotal but condos (or owner-occupied housing) tends to look much better than even contemporary design apartments. Most new multi-family homes are rentals and the buyers of apartments are not average people but corporate landlords. Very few prospective tenants looking for rental listings are paying an ounce of attention to the building’s exterior. (If you do, you’re a bit weird or snobbish.) A condo and single-family developer’s market is mostly average people looking to own a home, so they care deeply about the exterior. Some developers are going to invest more money into hiring architects to build their projects with homey features or go for the neo-classic look.
Because architecture is subjective in attractiveness, it’s often hit or miss. Some developers hire architects that will get the job done cheap, with minor altercations of pre-existing designs from their portfolios. Others, in an attempt to appease architecturally critical communities, will hire architects that will use more expensive materials to achieve a pleasing design.
Design review as it currently exists doesn’t seem to make people happy and probably should be abolished entirely. Any design standards that aren’t directly about public safety or are extremely vague and lack explicit design features should probably be eliminated. D.R.s tend to be staffed with architects who tend to be snobby and can be in very insular conversations in their industry.
Fascinating article. I don’t really agree with half of what he finds aesthetically pleasing, but I do approve of the idea that it would be nice to have a little bit more diversity in exterior appearance of high density housing buildings.
Yeah, saying few would argue that McMansions are aesthetically pleasing is a choice, but overall I agree having a diverse spread of buildings would be great
Not to beat a dead horse, but the solution to the housing crisis is not MOAR RENTALS. These fucking Boomers who paid off their mortgage think it’s totally fair to literally steal from their own kids (I’m the son of Boomers, so this isn’t your standard snark) by forcing people into a lifelong rental trap, going up 15% a year, but no, you can’t have a raise.
This is why I’m homeless.
We’ve got these shoebox buildings popping up all over town, and I really couldn’t care less about the external appearance. But with some of them, it looks like a giant correctional facility, not housing, and the city approves permits before building the road infrastructure, resulting in traffic nightmares because they are rarely built on bus routes and generally have a garage exit onto a 50mph road without adding any turn lanes.
Like, the aesthetics are the tiniest concern of this whole milieu.
legos
I went from trusting to fury and hate in seconds. If you can’t work with mass nouns, just don’t use them.
