Anti-Ugly Action
theparisreview.org
theparisreview.org
so in the absence of a point in the article, here's the point i wish it made alongside those pictures: all of those buildings would surely be called "ugly" if somebody proposed building them in my city. it seems like every time a new building is proposed, the general consensus amongst the neighbours is that it's ugly, and will ruin the "character of the neighbourhood". but looking back on historical buildings, it seems like almost nothing is considered ugly. everything is a style, and a specific building might be a good or bad example of the style. but everything that gets built is worthy of appreciation (and preservation).
once a building exists and has been used, or even just experience by people passing by, people will come to love the building for what it is. there's no such thing as an ugly building.
So, while I don't agree every building deserves appreciation or preservation, wishing everyone would STFU comes to the same conclusion that things should be built if someone is willing to put their own money up to do it and it doesn't violate very basic rules (what those rules should be and what should be zoned under what set of rules is a whole different discussion).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1
See a lot of these in my area (Southern California). I'm ok with them. Probably need more.
And it would have destroyed any character that has made the city so desirable in the first place.
Paris is certainly denser than any american suburb. How about getting rid of the extreme negative cases trying to optimize what is perfectly within an acceptable range?
I really don't get this argument, even less so with the hyper-connected world we live today.
The world's population has grown ~6x since the Eiffel Tower was built. Why do we need to cram these people into the already big cities, instead of developing the smaller towns? It's not like land is a problem, and it's not like we still depend on having our settlements on an area with immediate access to a port or river.
In North America specifically, it would be a lot easier to change the zoning laws and regulations in the suburbs and increase their absurdly low density and inefficient land use, than it would be to constantly trying to put everyone and their dog in the already dense cities.
The best way to avoid turning Paris into a "rich guy playground" is by creating a supply of other playgrounds to keep up with the increased demand, not by destroying the existing playgrounds in the first place.
Typical from them https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35774193
It is not a thesis. It is a page of history «from the introduction to Ian Nairn’s Modern Buildings in London, out in a reissue from Notting Hill Editions».
About the movement:
> As a figure venting dissent to an emerging generation frustrated by the pace of change, Nairn would go on to inspire a fully-fledged protest group. After giving an incendiary lecture at the Royal College of Art in 1958, a band of students, among them the pop art painter Pauline Boty, were roused to found Anti-Ugly Action. Its members took to the streets to express their disgust with buildings they considered reactionary or offensive, in flamboyant fashion
And the book (the work) is promoted presenting Nairn as bearer of strong insights about «understanding of how people live and behave», «the interaction between people and places».
The article explores the architectural criticism of Ian Nairn, focusing on his 1964 book "Modern Buildings in London." It highlights Nairn's initial optimism for modern architecture and his subsequent disillusionment with its direction and quality. The article reflects on the lost era of London's architectural history, emphasizing Nairn's influence on architectural criticism and his relevance in understanding the relationship between people and urban environments. It serves as a commentary on how architecture shapes society and human behavior.