• SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    An awfully large number of things that are now considered ‘historical scenic attractions’ and ‘an integral part of the landscape’ were originally built entirely for practical purposes with almost no consideration for aesthetics. Especially bridges and other infrastructure. See also steam trains.

    But you try and build new infrastructure and everyone wants to spend 3x the cost on architectural design, screening, or tunnel it underground entirely.

    • kmaismith@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I beg to differ on the abject lack of aesthetic consideration. I’ve skimmed through old construction manuals and from even the surface it seems old masters of the building craft were obsessed with the blending of aesthetics and function

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I think it was because the balance between materials and labor costs was different back then. If everything was being handmade by artisans anyway, why not let them make it look nice while they’re at it? Besides, without machine precision, ornamentation is probably quicker and easier than straight lines in a lot of cases.

        (See also: traditional architectural styles vs. modernism.)