Bottom doesn’t have trees, bushes and the sea. Modernism does not have to be soulless.

Also, let’s talk about the class issue. The people who live in the most boxy and ugly “boxes” today would be living in literal shacks in the past. Not everyone is a wealthy farmer.

Don’t idealize the past and don’t forego the future.

We should be building beautiful, livable, comfortable housing for all humans.

In my experience they’re mostly painted yellow rather than white, but yup this is pretty accurate.

If the design’s boring and copy-pasted everywhere, how could people grow attached to their houses? Furthermore, if people had to go to apartments, like for unwieldy prices for years now, they would be desensitized on the part of losing the house.

My town is the top frame. The industry that was here previously crashed big time in the early 1900s. There were no jobs, so no one wanted to live here. The old city never got redeveloped. So the official buildings and even the high school are from another time. Same with the houses. Now it’s part of the charm and what brings people to visit.

That same stucco sterile box style is everywhere. It’s like a generic rich people tract house that you get from a vending machine. Just add water and they pop up, all the same, brick paved driveways, generic minimalist interiors, nobody actually lives there. It’s as empty and uncreative as the people who hired someone else to design it for them.

Where I live, having a flat roof is absolute madness. The snow load would collapse it during the first big snowstorm.

*Cries in french* Around my hometown I have 4 styles of different houses depending of the microregion they are in. All in a 40 km radius. There is even a continum with hybrids as we move from a place to another.

… That’s for older house of course. They are still here, terribly laking heat isolation and in desperate need of renovation, but still here but for every new family that move in the village of for every second brother that stays as an adult, there is a cookie cutter home terribly laking in hot weather resistance that will be desperate for renovation in just 15 years.

Curious that Provence needed neither chimneys nor garages.
What’s that about?

Architectural degeneration.

Why do you need big heavily fortified steepled roofs when snowfall is shrinking and you’re not worried about roof collapse?

Why are you using heavy lumber, stone, and plaster to build a frame when steel is cheaper and hardy plank more reliable?

Why do you need a chimney?

A wonderful thing is the regional differences in door casing styles.

Every house everywhere have doors and all of them have trims (door casing), but they’re not the same.

In a lot of old houses/apartments, these are rarely changed. They suck to change because you’ll probably want the same for all the doors in the house or it looks weird. So if you want to change/repair just one, you’d want the same profile again and that’s not available, because every single carpenter had their own design back in the pre-1950s where stuff like this wasn’t mass produced, but made by the carpenter. So you either don’t change it or you get the same again. The design caries over either way.

In old large cities like Copenhagen where they obviously had several carpenters, you can tell to this day which neighborhood you’re in by looking at the door trims if you know how they look.

These days the new ones are all just flat. No profile. Sure, it makes it easier to maintain, but its a real loss in my opinion.

Ʌ921 is crazy

Fachwerksbau (Alsace) is just fetish harness for houses, change my mind.

I just love modern monochromatic architecture. Inject glass walls, metal accents, and white concrete into my veins.

Looks like in the past people wanted to be Hobbits and now they want to be Robots! I like them both, I think there is more diversity in modern styles than is really depicted here, even if I understand the sentiment.

I’ll say this much, when it comes time to replace the roof, Style A is gonna punch you in the nuts a whole lot harder than Style B.