Why Are Condos Ugly?

[Nite]

Why Are Condos Ugly?

• Video Link

[biguc]

I've been feeling kind of bad since I killed off the last thread you started featuring this dude.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=249256

His videos are good. And I like what he's doing here. For those who don't want to watch the videos, he's started a multi-part series on the minutia behind nimbyism and upzoning. It's a worthwhile endeavour, understanding what people actually want when they say no, or what people expect when they demand yes. He's doing some nice polling too. It's informative stuff--I'll definitely pay attention to where he's going with this.

It's no wonder it doesn't generate conversation though. He's well past the reductionist, "Ackchooally it's my pet cause that's the one and only real problem," talk that gets threads going.

[C.]

Why are condos ugly? Developers use cheaper cladding materials because homebuyers/renters are not willing to pay for the cost that come with more expensive but aesthetically pleasing materials.

This is something that can easily be regulated in zoning, but public values are more concerned about making sure there is a minimum amount of parking spaces or setbacks from street, but little to nothing when it comes to the materials to be used.

The part about architects is interesting.

[mhays]

The video is good in some ways and vastly oversimplifies others.

Good (and correct): Home buyers and renters care more about square footage and amenities than exterior aesthetics. And the general public generally doesn't care about the same aspects as the architects who design buildings or conduct public reviews.

Oversimplified/omitted: He makes it sound like exterior materials are the main factor in both aesthetics and what neighbors will be ok with, including their perception of height and bulk. Other stuff matters too, like street interaction, rooflines, and so on.

I like his idea of allowing additional height for better materials.

However that would NEVER happen in my city. Height bonuses are for affordability and sustainability, which are massively larger priorities for our current leadership, perhaps rightly.

We could simply require certain materials, but that would add significant cost. With the affordability problem that's extremely unlikely.

[Steely Dan]

more traditional-styled buildings with clay brick can still look really bad when executed by those who have no idea what they're doing.

two recent-ish low-rise condo building examples from my neighborhood:


i'd take this mish-mosh contemporary style condo building: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9657...7i16384!8i8192

over this more traditional one with clay brick/stone: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9686...7i16384!8i8192

[Nite]

Originally Posted by mhays

The video is good in some ways and vastly oversimplifies others.

Good (and correct): Home buyers and renters care more about square footage and amenities than exterior aesthetics. And the general public generally doesn't care about the same aspects as the architects who design buildings or conduct public reviews.

Oversimplified/omitted: He makes it sound like exterior materials are the main factor in both aesthetics and what neighbors will be ok with, including their perception of height and bulk. Other stuff matters too, like street interaction, rooflines, and so on.

I like his idea of allowing additional height for better materials.

However that would NEVER happen in my city. Height bonuses are for affordability and sustainability, which are massively larger priorities for our current leadership, perhaps rightly.

We could simply require certain materials, but that would add significant cost. With the affordability problem that's extremely unlikely.

In the following video he discusses how people will accept buildings height increases in their neighborhoods as long as its within 3x of other building in their neighbourhood using his polling data (go to 5:54)

• Video Link

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

more traditional-styled buildings with clay brick can still look really bad when executed by those who have no idea what they're doing.

two recent-ish low-rise condo building examples from my neighborhood:


i'd take this mish-mosh contemporary style condo building: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9657...7i16384!8i8192

over this more traditional one with clay brick/stone: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9686...7i16384!8i8192

totally agree - that traditional one could be decent with a few small modifications (balcony railings, jail cell first floors) but i still prefer the modern one.

[MolsonExport]

This monstrosity lives in Toronto

blogto

[mhays]

That looks like some surface parking spaces at ground level, and townhouses instead of say six-story apartments around the towers. Otherwise they look fine to me.

[Chef]

People generally hate contemporary architecture. It is only once the people who watched the buildings being built die off that an architectural style becomes "classic".

[biguc]

Originally Posted by mhays

The video is good in some ways and vastly oversimplifies others.

Good (and correct): Home buyers and renters care more about square footage and amenities than exterior aesthetics. And the general public generally doesn't care about the same aspects as the architects who design buildings or conduct public reviews.

Oversimplified/omitted: He makes it sound like exterior materials are the main factor in both aesthetics and what neighbors will be ok with, including their perception of height and bulk. Other stuff matters too, like street interaction, rooflines, and so on.

I like his idea of allowing additional height for better materials.

However that would NEVER happen in my city. Height bonuses are for affordability and sustainability, which are massively larger priorities for our current leadership, perhaps rightly.

We could simply require certain materials, but that would add significant cost. With the affordability problem that's extremely unlikely.

Check out the other video Nite posted. Paige Saunders is trying to figure out how cities can get communities to accommodate growth. It's complicated, but seems doable. So, they might grant height bonuses for affordability and sustainability, but why not also for better materials? The neighbourhood wants it; they'll tolerate height increases if they get it. Why not find, and then grease, the groove?

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

This monstrosity lives in Toronto

What the hell? That is ugly. What's the name of that condo complex?


They messed it up with the crown/roofs if we want to call it that. Almost like a McMansion type of crown/roof. Just gaudy and out of place.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Chef

People generally hate contemporary architecture. It is only once the people who watched the buildings being built die off that an architectural style becomes "classic".

Architectural Record did a landmark survey of 1,000(?) random Americans using proper survey techniques. This involved respondents choosing half the pictures from about 100 total buildings. The pre-war buildings utterly destroyed the field.

This was hotly debated in architectural circles. Some suggested that it was generational, and a love for old things. But young respondents didn't pick the post-war stuff either. The debate (iirc) largely centered on whether public opinion really matters (bunch of Applebees eaters) and wether architects should design buildings in ways the public can understand and like.

I believe the survey turned out well for newer buildings that used traditional aesthetics as well.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by ChiRy

because most people with money, and with balls, dont do real estate.

I'm betting you've never had any connection to building anything.

Developers risk everything. Sometimes they lose their entire investments...common around 2001, 2008, 2020...

It's not easy to balance costs, risks, features, etc., while money is flying out the door. And exterior aesthetic differences can easily cost more than they're worth in sale price or rent.

Further, even if you're willing to lose your shirt, lenders won't touch anyone without a likely path to profit.

I'm not a developer either, but I've worked with a bunch of them.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by mhays

Architectural Record did a landmark survey of 1,000(?) random Americans using proper survey techniques. This involved respondents choosing half the pictures from about 100 total buildings. The pre-war buildings utterly destroyed the field.

This was hotly debated in architectural circles. Some suggested that it was generational, and a love for old things. But young respondents didn't pick the post-war stuff either. The debate (iirc) largely centered on whether public opinion really matters (bunch of Applebees eaters) and wether architects should design buildings in ways the public can understand and like.

I believe the survey turned out well for newer buildings that used traditional aesthetics as well.

I feel like some of it is that in much of NA, pre-war buildings (and those with a similar style) are becoming increasingly rare and often make up the minority of building. Partly because of how much the population has grown since then, but also because many are destroyed accidentally through things like fire and many are destroyed deliberately for re-development. Also, I feel like on average it's the higher quality examples of buildings from past eras that are most likely to be preserved so we're not necessarily looking at a representative sample.

Fact is, things that are rare and have a finite supply tend to increase in value. There's the old saying that familiarity breeds contempt while absence makes the heart grow fonder. We don't know whether perceptions would change if most new buildings across NA had traditional styles and materials. It's hard to say if historic buildings or districts would have the same impact without the contrast provided by the contemporary environs.

[mhays]

You have some good points, but I don't think it's about rarity.

With new houses in existing neighborhoods, the public seems to have a massive bias toward traditional styles vs. flat roofs and other modernist styles. Modernist infill houses are often seen as interlopers.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Fact is, things that are rare and have a finite supply tend to increase in value. There's the old saying that familiarity breeds contempt while absence makes the heart grow fonder. We don't know whether perceptions would change if most new buildings across NA had traditional styles and materials. It's hard to say if historic buildings or districts would have the same impact without the contrast provided by the contemporary environs.

Yes, I think this is it. Also, it's easy to put a historic building up on a pedestal if - because it's a rare thing - the rich flock to them, thus making them even more of a desirable object and status symbol, and then invest sums of money on their upkeep that would have made absolutely no economic sense in the time when they were built.

For example, in gentrified, formerly working class neighborhoods of Toronto, nouveau riche people spend upwards of $600,000 on renovating simple 1,500 ft2 Victorian semis, gutting the property from top to bottom and installing bespoke features like wide plank engineered hardwood floors laid in a herringbone pattern or polished copper eavestroughs. All this on a house that was hastily banged together 130 years ago for a bunch of Irish families and was recently in danger of falling over.

People see homes like that and think that was the standard to which all houses were built in the olden days.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by mhays

You have some good points, but I don't think it's about rarity.

With new houses in existing neighborhoods, the public seems to have a massive bias toward traditional styles vs. flat roofs and other modernist styles. Modernist infill houses are often seen as interlopers.

My biggest issue with flat roofs is maintenance. I don't know how to maintain a flat roof whereas a pitched roof is something I know how to maintain.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

My biggest issue with flat roofs is maintenance. I don't know how to maintain a flat roof whereas a pitched roof is something I know how to maintain.

In southern Arizona the pueblo style calls for flat roofs and typically they are coated with a white, highly reflective elastomeric product. Maintenance is simple and straightforward; even within the ability of most do-it-yourselfers. Basically they just need to be pressure washed and given 2 fresh coats of the same elastomeric substance that goes on like white paint.

If they have been neglected and not maintained for a number of years, they can be restored by applying a layer of fiberglass cloth layed down on wet elastomeric and then another elastomeric coat applied when that is dry. Even this can be done by a competent do-it-yourselfer though it takes a couple of people to lay the cloth while the coating is wet.

Also, smaller quantities of a patching compound made for these roofs is sold in every local hardware store. This can be applied with a paintbrush, again just like paint though it’s a bit thicker and gooeyer.

[WhipperSnapper]

Scuppers tend to freeze up solid in these parts forming lakes that rise and penetrate rood access points. Flat roofs are often outdoor living space and the only space at that. Still, a waterfall down the roof access stairwell is probably still better than OSB I-beams failing under the weight while you were sleeping.

The Chrysler inspired New York Towers in suburban Toronto were built 20 years ago. There's been hundreds of towers built since. Surely one can find something as ugly that was completed more recently and closer to the core.