Creating Atrocity Buildings Does Not Save Money

A friend of mine reacted to this “before and after” photo set by accurately referring to the 2020 design as “an atrocity.”

She observed, as do most people, “that old structures are often expensive to renovate and maintain…”

I pointed out to her that atrocities — at a staggering cost — are nearly all of what we’ve created for over a century.

I informed her that I don’t buy the conventional wisdom that it is “too costly” to renovate and maintain old buildings.

While it is difficult to quantify, I admitted, there is an enormous societal cost associated with transitioning from beautiful buildings to ugly ones.

Loss of civic pride is a big part of that.

And think of how psychologically damaging and depressing it is to live in an ugly city.

Another reason why renovating older, more beautiful buildings is less costly is that beautiful buildings are more loved; they tend to last for decades or centuries (as is seen in Europe). It is extraordinarily costly to construct a building that is so ugly or fragile (due to inferior or exotic materials for the building) that the building is quickly demolished and replaced.

In other words, it is far less costly to build and renovate a more (initially) expensive building that lasts a long time.

Another myth: building ornamentation used in classically designed buildings is “too costly.” Such costs have dropped substantially due to the advanced technologies we have today.

Buildings are plain, boxy, butt-ugly eyesores today because modernist cult members have tossed classical, timeless beauty in the wastebasket and instead inflict ugliness on us.

Modernists call this ugly, bizarre sort of building design “innovation.”

When everyone considers their designs to be eyesores, they simply respond by saying we are “too stupid” to see the quality of the design.

It is no coincidence that modernist architecture was spawned by the insane, ruinous ideology of the (reliably arrogant) political Left.