DECAY-DENCE
The atrophy of urban aesthetics
Architecture is a reflection of society, and its buildings are the physical manifestation of the values and priorities of the era in which they were constructed.
For centuries, architecture has been an expression of power, wealth, and creativity. From the Gothic cathedrals of medieval Europe to the skyscrapers of modern-day New York, the world's most beautiful buildings have been designed to convey a sense of awe and wonder.
But what makes a building beautiful? Some might argue that beauty is subjective, that it lies in the eye of the beholder. While personal taste certainly plays a role, there are objective principles of beauty that have been established over centuries of architectural practice. These principles are rooted in functionality and form.
Functionality is the cornerstone of good design. A beautiful building must first and foremost be functional, serving the purpose for which it was designed. It must be well-built, structurally sound, and meet the needs of its occupants. The best architects understand that form follows function and design buildings that are not only aesthetically pleasing but also practical.
Form is the second pillar of beauty. A building's form refers to its shape, size, and structure. A building with pleasing proportions, well-defined lines, and a sense of balance is more likely to be considered beautiful. Architects must consider the interplay between scale and shadow, the use of light and shadow to create depth and dimension, and the balance between simplicity and complexity in their designs.
While these principles may seem straightforward, the reality of architecture is far more complex. In recent decades, the principles of beauty and functionality have come into conflict with the demands of cost-cutting and profit maximisation. The rise of neoliberalism and the prioritisation of market forces over social and environmental concerns have led to a proliferation of cheap, rapidly deteriorating structures that prioritise shorter-term profit over aesthetics, longevity and functionality.
One of the most significant impacts of cost-cutting on architecture has been the reduced quality of building materials. Cheaper materials may reduce costs in the short term. However, this often leads to lower quality and less durable structures. The result is either a cycle of constant renovation, maintenance work and ongoing costs, or a structure showing early wear and degradation. Regardless of the form of a building, this process further erodes the beauty and functionality of the building, and in-turn, the environments we live in and are surrounded by.
The lack of consideration for long-term sustainability and maintenance can ultimately result in deteriorating living conditions for individuals and communities. This is particularly concerning when repairs and maintenance are deemed unprofitable or unaffordable and can lead to poor health outcomes for those living in inadequate housing.
This has normalised an industry focus on short-term financial considerations rather than long-term sustainability and durability. Buildings designed with cheaper materials and with less consideration for longevity require more frequent maintenance and repairs. Ultimately costing more when looked through a frame of years or decades, and often burdening vulnerable people with those costs, who didn't benefit from the original profits created by the initial cost reductions. Conversely, well-designed and constructed buildings that prioritize sustainability and longevity can be more cost-effective in the long run,benefiting the community in many ways, both now and in the future.
Another aspect to consider is the priority of costs on public spaces in urban areas. Public spaces play a critical role in creating livable and vibrant cities. They provide places for people to gather, relax, and engage with their community. However, the cost-cutting measures that prioritize private profits over public benefits has led to the neglect and a lack of investment in public spaces and infrastructure, particularly in low-income areas. As a result, many urban neighborhoods lack basic amenities such as parks, community centers, and public transportation, which can have a significant impact on the quality of life for residents. The lack of funding can result in inadequate maintenance of parks, public squares, and sidewalks, leading to dilapidation and neglect. Private developers, driven by profit motives, have taken over public space, turning once-vibrant city centers into sterile, corporate enclaves. The result is a loss of the social and cultural significance that once defined these spaces, as well as a decline in the quality of life for residents.
However, there are signs that the tide may be turning. As people become more aware of the negative impacts of cost-cutting and standardized design on the urban landscape, there is growing interest in alternative approaches to architectural and urban design.
One such approach is the idea of "human-centered design", which places a greater emphasis on creating buildings and public spaces that are designed with the needs and experiences of people in mind. This can involve everything from designing buildings that are more adaptable and flexible to creating public spaces that are more engaging and accessible.
Another approach is the idea of "biophilic design", which seeks to incorporate natural elements and materials into the built environment in order to create healthier and more sustainable spaces. This can involve everything from incorporating greenery and vegetation into building facades and public spaces to using natural materials such as wood and stone in construction.
Despite these challenges, there are architects and developers who continue to prioritize beauty and functionality in their designs. The rise of green architecture and sustainable design has led to a renewed focus on the importance of creating buildings that are both environmentally sustainable and aesthetically pleasing. The use of natural materials, such as wood and stone, and the incorporation of green spaces and other natural elements, have helped to create more harmonious and sustainable built environments. Additionally, the integration of technology and innovative materials has allowed architects to push the boundaries of what is possible in terms of form and function. While there will always be challenges in balancing the practical considerations of building design with the desire for beauty and creativity, the continued efforts of architects and developers to create buildings that are both functional and visually appealing offer hope for a more inspiring and sustainable built environment in the future.
For me, the concept of beauty in architecture is not purely subjective. It encompasses quantifiable aspects such as intelligent and efficient use of space, dynamic interplay between scale and shadow, skilful manipulation of light to create atmosphere, and the successful integration of these elements to effectively fulfil the intended purpose of the structure.
However, a focus on short-term financial gains, and in turn, cost-cutting measures in architectural design have had a significant impact on urban aesthetics, undermining the philosophy and creativity of talented architects, leading to standardized and homogenous building design, unsightly or toxic atrophy of low-quality materials and less durable housing, neglect of public spaces. It is essential to consider the long-term implications of cost-cutting measures and prioritize sustainable and innovative design solutions to create livable and vibrant cities for future generations.
"While personal taste may vary, there are principles and qualities that contribute to the beauty and virtue of building design, The concept of beauty in architecture is not subjective. It encompasses quantifiable aspects such as intelligent and efficient use of space, dynamic interplay between scale and shadow, skilful manipulation of light to create atmosphere, and the successful integration of these elements to effectively fulfil the intended purpose of the structure."
