I recently read somewhere (don't remember where) about how much the prices of condominiums can vary depending on the year they were built, with the 1800s being the most value-increasing, and ~1970-1990 the least. So I seem not to be alone in liking homes with high ceilings and stucco, and buildings with beautiful facades and fine ornaments.
But if you look at all new constructions, they're not exactly in 1800s style. And it hasn't been that way if you look back a few years. How on earth did architects think when designing the houses built in, say, the 50s and onwards? And I can even easily find examples of ugly buildings from the 30s.
Then maybe it's one thing if you're building a completely new area from scratch, but when you can easily find ugly "new builds" (relatively speaking) right in the middle of lots of beautiful buildings, it's just downright wrong-headed as I see it.
Then one can also wonder why those living in these existing ugly buildings don't do more to make them beautiful. I mean, it can't cost an arm and a leg to renovate a facade and make it really nice, can it? Now I'm primarily thinking of condominiums in multi-family houses, as there are several households that can share the cost, and they are the ones who live there and co-own the building (instead of a separate owner renting out rental apartments) and therefore have a vested interest in having a nicer facade. Rental apartments could also be included if there was free rent setting, as this could be a competitive advantage to be able to offer rentals in a beautiful building, and thus be able to garner higher rental income, but that's perhaps a separate discussion...
What do you think? Aren't the majority of buildings from the turn of the century significantly more beautiful than an average building from the 50s or later? And did people really think the new builds in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and later, were beautiful when they were built? Or did the beautiful have to yield to the functional and cheap?
I did feel some hope, though, when I saw this article:
http://www.svd.se/1800-talspalats-byggs-i-vaxjo
But if you look at all new constructions, they're not exactly in 1800s style. And it hasn't been that way if you look back a few years. How on earth did architects think when designing the houses built in, say, the 50s and onwards? And I can even easily find examples of ugly buildings from the 30s.
Then maybe it's one thing if you're building a completely new area from scratch, but when you can easily find ugly "new builds" (relatively speaking) right in the middle of lots of beautiful buildings, it's just downright wrong-headed as I see it.
Then one can also wonder why those living in these existing ugly buildings don't do more to make them beautiful. I mean, it can't cost an arm and a leg to renovate a facade and make it really nice, can it? Now I'm primarily thinking of condominiums in multi-family houses, as there are several households that can share the cost, and they are the ones who live there and co-own the building (instead of a separate owner renting out rental apartments) and therefore have a vested interest in having a nicer facade. Rental apartments could also be included if there was free rent setting, as this could be a competitive advantage to be able to offer rentals in a beautiful building, and thus be able to garner higher rental income, but that's perhaps a separate discussion...
What do you think? Aren't the majority of buildings from the turn of the century significantly more beautiful than an average building from the 50s or later? And did people really think the new builds in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and later, were beautiful when they were built? Or did the beautiful have to yield to the functional and cheap?
I did feel some hope, though, when I saw this article:
http://www.svd.se/1800-talspalats-byggs-i-vaxjo
The problem is that the knowledge and precision required to build a house in that style with stucco and ornaments cannot be produced for a reasonable amount of money and it takes much too long. However, high ceilings are definitely something that can be created. The issue with this is that there is usually a height limitation in the zoning plan, and you want to fit in as many floors as possible. It's also difficult to build such a house in anything other than solid brick or similar heavy construction, which becomes very poorly insulated.
However, I agree with you about the appearance. I think there are beautiful buildings from all eras, except for just the 70s-90s era.
However, I agree with you about the appearance. I think there are beautiful buildings from all eras, except for just the 70s-90s era.
Absolutely, the buildings were aesthetically more beautiful at the turn of the last century! Unfortunately, function and cost dominate modern projects, and few builders want to fund visual details as it encroaches on profitability. Furthermore, when it comes to things like high ceilings, there are, among other things, energy-technical reasons for not building like that... Everything has its explanation in regulations and/or economics.
It entirely depends on the target audience you are building for, and their economic conditions. Read some architectural history, and you'll learn all of this. It's incredibly exciting. It's about access to building materials, cost of labor versus materials, building regulations, etc. Today, you can't pay someone to do stucco work on a new building. Solid brick houses are no longer feasible for energy reasons (but you can build energy-efficient houses with a nice brick facade if you can afford it).
Many of the reasons seem to be economically based. But what I'm primarily talking about is the surface appearance. For me, there is no added value in the entire building being made of brick or equivalent; I'm just talking about the outermost layer of the façade and ornaments that can be added afterwards. And how much more can it really cost? Say it costs half a million for the façade of a building with 20 apartments. That's 25,000 SEK per apartment, which can easily be incorporated into a loan that the association takes, if desired. In an attractive area, it should be a completely justifiable cost, as I believe it should increase the value by more than 25,000 per apartment. Plus, you get a much nicer façade to enjoy yourself while living there.
I find it a bit strange and unfortunate that there is such a clearly large demand for this type of quality and style, while the market does not seem willing to expand the supply even a little bit. Whether it comes to renovations of existing buildings or the construction of new buildings.
And at the same time, it's interesting that things like height restrictions in planning can have such negative effects, which I don't think was the intention of the underlying legislation. Wouldn't it make more sense if the detailed plans and building regulations had some leeway, where, for example, you could get permission for a taller building if you have a higher internal ceiling height and a nicer façade. I actually think that people generally find the streetscape more pleasant with a beautiful building at 50 m than a less beautiful building at 45 m, even though the former casts a bit more shadow.
I find it a bit strange and unfortunate that there is such a clearly large demand for this type of quality and style, while the market does not seem willing to expand the supply even a little bit. Whether it comes to renovations of existing buildings or the construction of new buildings.
And at the same time, it's interesting that things like height restrictions in planning can have such negative effects, which I don't think was the intention of the underlying legislation. Wouldn't it make more sense if the detailed plans and building regulations had some leeway, where, for example, you could get permission for a taller building if you have a higher internal ceiling height and a nicer façade. I actually think that people generally find the streetscape more pleasant with a beautiful building at 50 m than a less beautiful building at 45 m, even though the former casts a bit more shadow.
Are you saying there's any developer today building multi-family houses in the 1800s style, with beautiful stuccoes and ornaments?Thomas_Blekinge said:
Why not? Is the knowledge completely gone? If as a private person, you can find an artist or skilled mason (or equivalent) who can do this, then a developer should be able to do it too.
I have yet to hear any concrete examples of what this might cost, so it's difficult to assess if it's reasonable to afford this or not. But my guess in the post above, roughly an additional half a million for the facade (the street-facing side, i.e., the front) for a quality renovation so that the facade becomes really nice with beautiful ornaments, is that completely insufficient?
OK, I might have been a bit off when it comes to the cost of setting up an entire brick facade, but when I first wrote that about half a million, I was thinking solely about putting up ornaments in specific places, like around the door, around windows, and maybe in a few strategically chosen spots. Why would it need to cost many millions (which you imply, since half a million doesn't go far)?falkn said:
Prefabricate? That's an optimization you make when demand is high enough to justify the startup costs such a process entails. And of course, it would then be an absolute requirement that the prefabricated parts have the quality needed for them to withstand our climate.
But here and now, I'm thinking of classic craftsmanship. People are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of kronor on the appearance inside their apartment, so they should also be willing to spend a not insignificant sum on the building's external appearance, i.e., the facade. And as mentioned, in several cases, I believe that an upgrade from an ugly facade to a beautiful facade could very well be economically viable when you eventually sell your apartment.
Like you and many others, I enjoy older houses and find most things from the 1930s onwards to be dull. I would love to see new houses in an older style.
Besides economics and regulations, we have architects. Most architects seem to be some form of modernists who are not keen on imitating 100-150-year-old styles. They want to create something new. Similar thoughts can probably be found among the people in the municipality.
When it comes to apartment buildings, the final buyers have no influence. Thus, there are no beautiful apartment buildings in older styles. The sum of the builder's architects, the people in the municipality, economics, and regulations kills houses in older styles at the idea stage.
However, I am convinced that it would be both possible and profitable to build a house in an older style with certain adjustments to today's requirements and regulations. There is a willingness to pay.
Besides economics and regulations, we have architects. Most architects seem to be some form of modernists who are not keen on imitating 100-150-year-old styles. They want to create something new. Similar thoughts can probably be found among the people in the municipality.
When it comes to apartment buildings, the final buyers have no influence. Thus, there are no beautiful apartment buildings in older styles. The sum of the builder's architects, the people in the municipality, economics, and regulations kills houses in older styles at the idea stage.
However, I am convinced that it would be both possible and profitable to build a house in an older style with certain adjustments to today's requirements and regulations. There is a willingness to pay.
I think all "epochs" have their charm... not to say that I think all houses are pretty (or practical). But if all houses looked like they did in the 1800s... if everyone had built that way, now and then... they wouldn’t be as charming... they wouldn’t be special in any way (because you wouldn't have anything else to compare them to..).
It's only when you have something else to compare to that you see the beauty in everything else..
Just like the seasons in Sweden, I appreciate them enormously... each season has its charm, and I wouldn't want summer all year round (even though I like warmth, but I love the shifts in nature and the colors that change..).
Have a pleasant evening,
Best regards, Sandra
It's only when you have something else to compare to that you see the beauty in everything else..
Just like the seasons in Sweden, I appreciate them enormously... each season has its charm, and I wouldn't want summer all year round (even though I like warmth, but I love the shifts in nature and the colors that change..).
Have a pleasant evening,
Best regards, Sandra
Getting stuck in an 1800s style with cramped housing and poor layout is not something anyone wants. Putting "ornaments" etc. on existing facades is nothing but bad taste. Lifestyle and architecture evolve over time, thank goodness.
No, probably no one wants that, but the aesthetics of beautiful classical buildings is something few would object to, especially when contrasted with the "sunkis" era. I agree that we should incorporate more cultural-historical perspectives in modern buildings and pay some homage to Swedish cultural history. There hasn't been much of that. Are there any such projects in planning/construction in the country at all?Hemmakatten said:
New single-family homes are often built in an older style. Usually with a wooden facade and mullioned windows, so not actually more expensive on the outside, just more "design." Now, I often find this not very attractive, as it is apparent that it's a new construction in most cases.
However, I find the idea of an entire block in an old style quite amusing.
Personally, I would build myself a castle if I could afford it. Far too few of those are built today...
However, I find the idea of an entire block in an old style quite amusing.
Personally, I would build myself a castle if I could afford it. Far too few of those are built today...
That it is not economically feasible to recreate the details of the 1800s I can easily accept, but why not be inspired by the functionalism of the 1930s? I live in a multi-family house from 1936 that basically has no decorations at all, but which is still more beautiful than anything built after World War II.
I have such a house nearby that is very lavish with mullions, wide window frames, a porch and entryway with decorative woodwork. Despite this, it doesn't look great, probably because it's a 1.5-story house with 2.4-meter ceiling height on the ground floor.Pin said:
The proportions are wrong, with windows too small, too much roof, and not enough facade. However, the house is still more attractive than the new modern box next door.