Ugly Architecture: Does It Have An Alibi?
This commentary from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer looks at the idea that buildings can make us happy, and asks why we put up with buildings that make us unhappy.
"Why try to make buildings and cities beautiful if not to help us feel better?"
"Which raises a more complicated question: Why do we keep building things that make us unhappy?"
"Architects' egos can lead to buildings that bruise cities. Some are so eager to impose their grand vision that the mundane matter of how it may feel to people at street level is scuttled."
"Frequently it's a lesser-of-evils tradeoff. Public school buildings thrown up from 1950 to the 1970s to engorge the baby boom are almost universally bleak; they exude all the charm of insecticide factories. But replacing them would create a crushing tax burden, so we endure."
"And finally, in many cases there's really no one to blame. Glum buildings ooze into existence because there's no coherent process for saying no."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- In Seattle, Feelings are Mixed on Extra Perks for "Ultra-Green" Building Standards - Oct 21, 2011
- Faking It: Imitations of Cities Around the Globe - Sep 09, 2011
- "Living Building" Vision Comes to Life - Sep 02, 2011
- Washington Towns Reimagine Waterfronts - Jun 11, 2011
- Green Development in Seattle Hits it Out of the Park - Jun 07, 2011


















Demolition Company
I would like to start a demolition company whose slogan would be "So much bad architecture, so little time."
National Trust For Demolition
How about a National Trust for Selective Demolition, which would complement the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The preservationists should work to save good architecture, and the demolitionists should work to get rid of bad architecture. Eg, the demolitionists could hold a celebration when Boston City Hall is demolished.
Charles Siegel