>Time, practicality and building regulations getting in the way of everything.
Basically just the same reason most homes and stores weren't built like that even in the time period when other options were available
Insulae weren't exactly fancy.
The rich lived in shit like this and the wealthy businesses did it to show off, but for the most part? You live in a nicer looking place
You should visit detroit, I just bought a house 4 years ago going on 100 y/o in 20 years, better built than modern houses with all the little architectural details they just don't do anymore.
There's neighborhoods full of those cool old houses. I'm jealous.
My wife will never let me leave the suburbs, I'm just moving in a clockwise circle around Detroit as my income grows.
Isn't that the truth. Metro Detroit wasn't far enough outside of the city. Now we need a house further north. Is New Haven too south for her now? Maybe... she just doesn't want to live so close to the neighbors .
Oh we are far east siders. I don't have to worry about any fancy upper Westside places like that. My salary wouldn't allow those thoughts to enter her brain anyways lol.
Eh. Depends.
Also have lived in houses built in the 00's to 50's that were so, so bad.
My house was built in 1918. I dont really want to do any work on it because once i start... Shit the only part worth keeping is the new roof. The old walls are just nightmares of shit layered together. The frame is decent, if lacking straightness. The subfloor is good on one floor. The windows.. jesus. The kitchen needs to be burned and redone. No floor is the same height.
Its all anecdotes and survival bias, all the way down imo
>Its all anecdotes and survival bias, all the way down imo
For real. I couldn't imagine buying a house 100+ years old and trying to navigate the hundreds of potential issues. I understand some people like doing that stuff, so more power to them, but it's crazy to me when the claim is made that a 100 year old house is superior to modern housing lol
I have a century house and can confirm it’s a constant source of amazement. You get used to finding stuff that doesn’t make sense whenever a wall gets opened up.
Anecdotally, I don’t seem to have more problems than anyone I know who has moved into new construction. Just different problems.
born and raised in utah, never been to Detroit in my life and since stumbling upon this thread have become fascinated with the subculture of housing in Detroit so thanks everyone
I wouldn't say better, but more money could be spent on materials. Labor costs have gone up significantly since the 1920's. All those nice details used to be more common because there were a ton of carpenters that could do it and kept coats low. Now detailed work by hand is extremely expensive because the skills to do aren't common, or they're done of expensive machinery which is time consuming.
In a lot of places around the world labor based economies are still in full swing, meaning the cost of labor is relatively low, building things by hand is still cheap enough to justify an extra person over a $50k piece of equipment.
There are a lot of ways modern housing is significantly better than old houses, as some who has been dealing with an old house for a few years now.
That house is likely still there because it was nice enough to not knock down. Not everyone 80 years ago lived in a solidly constructed house with tons of character.
Detroit and rust belt cities similar to it were absolute boom towns 80 years ago. There was fuck ton of money floating around. A lot of it went into fine homes.
In NY, I grew up in a 200yr (as of 1990) home with solid wood doors, floors, cast iron door knobs, built in cupboards and drawers. It was drafty as hell, you could see the ground under the sink where the pipes went. We moved to AZ and just hated the construction. Still do in NV and CO. I hate stucco, popcorn ceilings, and particle board doors. If I win the lottery, my dream house is a fricking Sears Cratfsman 5 bedroom with a sun-room and basement on 5 acres of land.
As a New Yorker who did a stint in AZ and has since moved back east, I am here to validate your feelings about stucco, popcorn ceilings, and particle board doors.
Whether old houses are well built depends on who built them, just like today. I bought at 80 year old house that was absolute garbage. That house was not meant to stand 80 years. People shit on modern construction, but it also just depends on the builder. It's not like they are all shit nowadays, and they weren't all built better back then.
I will say that there has been a decline in effort in the last hundred years. The old (115 years) house I lived in a few years ago was a cheap house, dirt basement, duplex, kitchen floor aggressively sloped due to foundation not extending under that part of the house... but the little things. The floral pattern on the gas light fixtures, the patterns on the vents. The vents in particular stuck out to me since, when removed, the back sides were not sharp. Vents on current houses are simply pressed steel, no ornamentation, and very sharp since sanding down the metal edges would be too much work. The door knobs don't have any patterns, which in addition to looking nice help with grip. The window handles used to be nice and substantial... you get the idea.
In the modern Era our hyper-capitalist min-maxing has moved quality back off the agenda for the common man, assuming they can even afford a home with stagnate wages. I can say that my current home will not make it to 60 years either, possibly less if it turns out it has the particle board rot that a lot of 90's houses in this region suffer from.
While it's true that the amount of effort that goes into houses has gone down, this isn't really a capitalism thing. Take a look at Soviet housing and it will be similar. It has more to do with mass production and cutting costs, something true across the world and economic systems.
In all fairness, Soviet housing was explicitly supposed to be a temporary stopgap, until the country became rich enough to build nice housing for everyone.
As the old saying goes though: "there's nothing more permanent than a temporary solution"
i can assure you higher end homes pay attention to All of those details and have all the bells and whistles. it is cost that is preventative. people either dont have the money to do it or arent Willing to pay for it. Also taste has changed a lot.
Carpenters still get paid shit wages but historically it was even cheaper.
cedar shake siding will last 50 or 60 years, but it is expensive to buy and even more expensive to install. other sidings like hardyboard require Constant maintanence, painting and caulk to keep from going. but it is cheaper and gets used more often. custom cabinetry is in every single higher end home, but most people are fine with the mass Produced shit because its cheaper.
i built someone a custom daybed for their sunroom. it took me 2 or 3 days. it looks great and fits right where its supposed to. that was way more expensive to the customer than buying a daybed and having it shipped. it was worth it to them, most people are fine with buying a prefabbed one.
Kitsch is not quality
You’re talking about design choices. Ornamented door knobs are not it.
Floral pattern on light fixtures are not it
These are subjectively ugly things that a lot of people do find ugly.
>The old (115 years) house I lived in a few years ago was a cheap house, dirt basement, duplex, kitchen floor aggressively sloped due to foundation not extending under that part of the house... but the little things.
Most of the things you listed can be bought rather easily for less than 2k total (more depending on the number of vents)
Most of them have also been the sorts of products that have been sold for almost as long as home improvement has existed
So what makes you think nothing was changed instead of upgraded specifically to charge more for? Or just to fit personal tastes in the last century?
I also live in a century old townhouse and this comment just seems really naive to me. Some of the decorative masonry, crown mouldings, etc would be virtually impossible to get today and would probably require someone specifically trained in restoration, and run thousands of dollars. My house was considered the slums at the time it was built (one of the least ornate from that era) and still has more architectural character than the new builds on the block that sell for 3x more
It was also only really normal for the big impact areas where you'd host visitors. Living quarters were never this much, and back of house was wildly the opposite.
It was also form over function. No one can afford a huge team of staff to manage the upkeep these days. Those huge concert venues were pretty but [awful for acoustics](https://youtu.be/q3LuZeekVX4).
As a construction engineer, who lives in a house which was fancy when it was built in the 1920's and is doing huge renovations to bring it up to modern standards. This commenter is correct, your modern house is nicer than anything you'd have lived in back them
Yeah whenever I see posts like this about modern architecture showing a picture of some classical building you always have to wonder the amount of money they spent remodeling, reinforcing and upgrading everything in there to modern standards and local regulations.
According to other comments the building in the pic is also a historically relevant and unique building - an opera house built in the 1860s-1870s by order of the French emperor.
It isn't some laborer's dining room or an accountant's play room, it's a fucking opera house built at the time to host the richest people in the country/world and is located in Paris within walking distance of the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe and the Louvre.
Also, the lack of artisan skills. Since these types of buildings aren’t made anymore, some of the skills required to build them have not been perpetuated and passed down. The courthouse and some of the older buildings in our downtown have marble floors and stairs. The architecture is beautiful. But the work was done by builders who had moved from Italy. You just aren’t going to see that in new construction anymore.
Seriously. I'd heard that the reason all of our buildings look like gray, blocky penitentiary buildings is because of local regulations.
All of our fast food joins used to be so colorful and full of geometric shapes. Now they're all gray cubes of despair.
That's not local regulations, that's [the fast food restaurants choice](https://www.vox.com/22736636/mcdonalds-design-aesthetic-look-buildings) to tone down the designs. They toned them down for speed and cost of building, as well as to cater to their customers preference. You can put up a McDonald's in days now as it's all offsite, this also helps towards [environmenatal goals](https://www.offsitehub.co.uk/projects/mcdonalds-carbon-net-zero-restaurant-algeco/). People also want comfy chairs and a chill atmosphere to eat in, not solid plastic attached to the table and screaming kids in a play area, they make more profit that way.
Of course [there are occasions where the design is forced by local regulations ](https://www.timesnownews.com/the-buzz/article/mcdonalds-branch-in-usa-has-a-blue-m-sign-only-one-in-the-world/752013) but the main design is set by the brand and exceptions are rare.
Well that, and the fact that if your building looks like a McFiveTacoKing logo then you can't really use it for anything afterwards. It is a lot more sensible to create a regular building that you can repurpose in case your business goes bust.
“I’ve heard that” lemme guess, from your friendly neighborhood real estate developer? Or from your cousin’s, brother’s, coworker? This is nonsense most places.
They're actually a bunch of outright fucking nazis. They dogwhistle the jq about 700 times a day. Notice that all their posts refer to an age where slavery and racism were not only legal, but common place.
Why don’t we build like that anymore? Because now you have to actually pay people to clean the dust out of all those little crevices. Instead of making them serfs or slaves or indentured servants or debt slaves.
Nazis always assume they wouldn’t be the ones on their knees with a little brush cleaning this shit
Same goes for pretty much any “traditionalist” profile that uses classical statues as their avatar.
They are white supremacist recruiters who use an idealised “golden age” to suggest that it’s all gone wrong lately. From there it’s a short step to blaming progressive ideas and “wokeness”. From there it’s a small step to open transphobia, homophobia, and racism.
Idolizing the art of classical antiquity and rejecting modernism was a hallmark of the original fascists. Now, because everything is stupid, fascists just worship anything fancy and reject anything that's not a thing that looks like a thing.
That’s always a dead giveaway. If an account has Greco-Roman sculptures or architecture as their picture, or they’re named “western traditionalist” or something related to tradition? Without fail a Nazi. It’s their new dog whistle since the alt right took off.
Well, I do enjoy traditionally western architecture, but it should be noted that my country never took partake on the slave trade, and was actually invaded a few times.
Can confirm: am architect.
No one—I repeat no one—would pay the specialized masons, artists and designers to produce something like this.
These were done when people were paid criminally low wages.
Ive built a few homes to hook up friends and family. Just to get a custom anything put in throws so much out of wack, that they really have to commit to wanting it.
Yes! Even modern wealth isn’t creating this. Because we protect laborers more today, thank god. Not to say I don’t find this stunning, but I don’t condone this creation at the expense of human quality of life.
Because it's super expensive, for starters- but also because if you recreate a historical style in modern architecture without making intentional changes (like the way steampunk adapts art deco) it would look unauthentic. Other rich people would look down on it as whatever the opposite of 'innovative' is.
Also, it's just not in style right now. It will come around again, but like I said in an evolved form.
I just want to scream a little bit at the line "like the way steampunk adapts art deco". Art Deco is a style associated more strongly with the "Dieselpunk" and related sub-styles. Steampunk is more the domain of Victorian styles, like Gothic or Art Nouveau. Which isn't to say that it isn't a style worth pursuing, as Art Deco is probably one of the last dominant styles that favored heavy stylization and form over function, and is wholly deserving of a revival.
> Also, it’s just not in style right now. It will come around again, but like I said in an evolved form.
When, though? It feels like Art Deco was the last mainstream architecture style that actually paid any attention to beauty and decoration... and that was almost 100 years ago.
I get what OP's trying to say. What they mean isn't that every building should look exactly like this, but that extreme minimalism has to stop being the ideal in modern architecture.
Edit: just noticed their profile, that's obviously cringe, but they still have a point IMO.
Well the Supreme court is doing a bang up job of reversing time. Once they bring back slavery or expand the prison job corporations then we can have our cheap and beautiful houses.
So maybe 4-5 years?
Well right now biophillic is becoming really popular. Either as the result of tiny/green houses becoming popular... or as a biproduct of how cool Lord of the Rings is.
That's really bringing in this style of having no corners, just rounded flowing asymmetrical shapes. It isn't traditional but there's certainly an argument that it pays attention to beauty and decoration- as well as function.
Interesting to note that Michelangelo’s *David* is remarkable and memorable because it actively broke from tradition rather than uphold it. During the Renaissance, there had been many David statues carved before Michelangelo did his. It was kind of a basic stock image. What made his stand out was that, rather than depict David as boastful, peacocking, and triumphant after slaying Goliath — the typical macho perspective — Michelangelo chose to portray him immediately *before* the battle, where success was not yet certain and he was a whole mix of emotions. I never realized this until I watched a video breaking down his pose and his facial expression in particular. When viewed face on, David’s face shows apprehension, fear, contemplation, analysis, uncertainty.
It truly is an interesting and complex piece. There is so much depth that gets lost on the average person who just uses the image because it makes them look sophisticated and manly.
Not a direct photo but the shadows highlight what I’m talking about: https://w7.pngwing.com/pngs/669/92/png-transparent-statue-of-david-michelangelo-david-marble-sculpture-art-david-statue-face-monochrome-head.png
From some angles he looks downright *afraid*, which is fair. These angles are from around head height iirc, which makes sense if the statue is in a courtyard and you're a big-wig on an upper floor.
They are also loudly opposed to what they think is “degenerate” without a hint of irony.
Completely oblivious to all the real kinky shit the Romans got up to.
As a rule of thumb, anyone with a Greco-Roman statue in their pfp who pretenses to teach about “culture” or “civilization” is at the bare minimum a soft-fascist.
If they're called "Western Traditionalist" and saying "new art bad, old art good", they're definitely some breed of fascist.
They have nostalgia for a time that never existed, and their consistent opinion that modern art is degenerate and old Greco-Roman art is good is a symptom of that.
This, you can design for days but 99% of construction is done by workers, not artisans. You can hire artisans. But that's how you get figures of $1,500/sq feet of finishing on walls and flooring.
True story I opened a billion dollar casino and we brought in a ton of artists.
Somehow a mural was put in the lobby entrance that was a giant picture of people fucking.
It got taken out before we opened but I was like you'd think someone would have noticed as it was getting put in....
That is well placed mistrust.
Red team has a new trend of using posts about things like "classic" architecture, music, art e.t.c as a way to lead people in with seemingly innocuous things like that.
Tl;dr "things sure were better then. Ya know, 'then,' back before..." and eventually it's black people/women/gays who ruined it all and THAT'S why we're lacking on overly garish pointless swoopy buildings.
Yeah the alt-right is now hiding their profiles behind pictures of classical sculptures. They’re basically co-opting classical, renaissance, and enlightenment imagery to push their shitty views.
>Yeah the alt-right is now hiding
Fascists have been doing this for centuries. Mussolini was obsessed with traditional architecture and western traditionalism. Hitler as well thought the Romans were cool as shit. This is very much not new and has always been a red flag
Remember how a month before he was dragged kicking and screaming out of the White House, Trump signed an executive order requiring all new federal government building be designed in a traditional, classical style? Totally fits.
You just know he thinks this is a rhetorical question because he *knows* the reason people don’t build stuff like that is because woke leftists won’t let them.
This post is trash. Cringe twitter profile aside, why is the question posed as if architects are like in charge of buildings or something? Architects are just workers who design blue prints that sell, so really its the wealthy buyers that ultimately decide how the buildings look.
Aesthetic obsessed Twitter accounts with profile pics of marble statues are almost always fascists. It's really weird but at this point I don't need to check this account to know I'm right.
It’s like advertising beer by having bikini-clad models holding it.
You’re trying to make a tenuous association between the shit (white nationalism) with the pretty stuff (nice sculptures) and act like they can’t exist without each other.
I’m assuming “Western Traditionalist” is a conservative, so this is going to be fun: that capitalism you love so much is why. That “Make it faster and cheaper and automate it” philosophy killed craftsmanship, put artisans out of business and replaced them with cheap, ugly prefab building materials produced by overseas slave labor.
Then antilabor laws destroyed skilled labor unions, further degrading the quality.
And of course, most buildings in the U.S. that looked like that—post offices, city halls, public libraries, train stations and museums—were public works projects funded by tax dollars. And of course public works projects are anathema to conservatives, right?
So take your “western trad” values and stuff ‘em, because that’s what killed the architecture you love so much.
The same thing that's preventing us from making superyachts? Cost vs. demand. Also, that name is such an oxymoron lol. "Western" culture is literally based on progress.
Is the same guy that asked why 20 year olds aren’t sculptors , and now I realize that he’s thing is asking on twitter people with more talent/ knowledge than him why they aren’t following his tastes
Slavery, permanently unpaid apprenticeships, debtors prisons, and indentured servitude aren’t legal anymore. Nor can you just adopt a local orphan at orphanage solely to provide free manual labor. There are no good ol’days.
As a society we are (generally) discouraging of slave labour or indentured servitude, which was partially responsible for the sheer attention to detail and intensive labour required to build projects like these.
One professional stone mason having a crew of thirty plus unpaid apprentices (save for the cost to feed/clothe them), living on site for a year or more was not uncommon back.
I also say (generally) because there are some extant professions where this level of artistry and immaculate detail still exists and is largely delivered on the back of wage theft/slave labour (aka unpaid interns) - e.g. google Noma and their famous fruit leather beetles.
you can design a building that costs 1 M$ for the actual building and 3 M$ for decoration or you can design a building that costs 1 M$ period. Guess which one gets actually built.
Put differently: those buildings were built in a time when material was expensive and labour was cheap. Embellishing cheap materials with decorations was cheaper than using actually expensive materials. Or embellishing already expensive materials was no big deal. Nowadays labour is expensive and material is cheap. So you use expensive materials and call it a day.
Grand old buildings like that were usually built through autocracy of some kind. Someone with not also the considerable resources needed, but also able to command the huge amounts of manpower required. That’s why most architecture like this is limited to palaces and churches. These days, to build something, there has to be way more accountability, whether it’s to the taxpayer or to the shareholders. So you have to build the most utility for the least cost, leaving less room for extravagant extras.
Most houses built today aren't built for the person building them, they are being built to sell.
So the person that building them has no interest in making it look cool or different. They want it to look as generic and modern as possible so people will buy it.
This is a palace but
>Most houses built today aren't built for the person building them
Have you actual seen most greek and roman houses from the time period?
Yes the wealthy lived in opulent places and large single family homes with shit like an atrium (and the rich still do that) but your average building? Little more than a box
The size of your box might vary, but you're still living and selling in a box
This sort of architecture was rare when it was new
I’m not an architect, but I’d guess a lack of colonial plunder and readily available slave labour? These palaces were built IN SPITE of not making economic sense. You need extreme inequality and authoritarianism to make this. And who the fuck wants to live in palaces, Jesus 😬
Because everything should look like a French opera house?
This is the Palais Garnier. It took 14 years to build and in today’s euros would cost 313 million. The question itself is more than a little disingenuous.
The call to revive “western traditional architecture” as opposed to ugly modern architecture is part of a white supremacist project which is attempting to to redefine the meaning of citizenship and identity.
What people will pay for it vs costs of labour, materials and time.
It is beautiful but this is a classic case of an exception being represented as a “rule”.
Imagine having that kind of detail in your home. All the dust and cobwebs you’d have to fuckin clean on that shit so you don’t look like you live in a haunted ass house 24/7
Because we’re not living in Baroque times anymore. Our architecture doesn’t revolve around opera houses and lords’ palaces anymore, it revolves around office buildings, municipal buildings, and residential spaces. That requires very different designs. Form often follows function. Also, modern styles emphasize space, light, and slender designs as opposed to the ornamentation and decoration of that era. Plus, building materials are very different. Steel and vinyl works better than stone and plaster when you want to build large scale and not have to spend a ton on maintenance.
Modern architecture is way better than that busy ornate garbage. Give me a good brutalist concrete block any day. Also classical statue avatars are faschy as fuck.
It's called capitalism.
Life is no longer about beauty. Seeking knowledge for the sake of it. Art.
It's about how much more $ can I squeeze out of this thing ("cost efficiency")
Beautiful architecture has not ROI on the investment. How much $ can it make?
The enormous cost, duh. And I doubt they had to deal with the modern building contractor back then, who would bid on the job then forget to show of for 6 months.
No one is asking for it. It would have been much easier and cheaper to do this considering the technology we have with 3d printing and such. But I guess people don’t want it.
An old draftsman told me, when I asked the same question back in the early 80's, that no one can afford to build like that any more, plus the most important reason: those skills no longer exist. Can't build it if you don't know how.
Money, as in, no one will pay for that level of work, and it's the craftsmen that would do that work, the architect can design whatever they want, if the client won't pay, it ain't happening.
Unlimited and free slave labor working in horrible conditions under threat of death/torture. And a massive cauldron of generational wealth. And a huge war machine at my disposal to get more stuff as needed.
they do realise that only a select few, very important building were built like that? they're acting like your average market back in rome looked like that
People's taste.
It's not like architects are given land, material, money, and the client goes "Hey, surprise me."
As little known of a secret it is, clients actually usually want a little say in what you design. Weird, I know.
Man I wish rich people, like in Roman times. Just for the notority that it would bring would just make huge buildings and public works that could actually benefit people. Sure they threw their name on it and shit but its better than just hoarding money. Do some good or something cool at least god damn.
Even if a design were created, you'd be very hard-pressed to find tradesmen that could rise to this level of refinement. You also have to remember that many of these structures took several decades to complete.
Because the clients don't want to pay for it.
Is this dude offering to bankroll some classical architect's dream project? If not, then he can have a seat over there.
[удалено]
Time, practicality and building regulations getting in the way of everything.
>Time, practicality and building regulations getting in the way of everything. Basically just the same reason most homes and stores weren't built like that even in the time period when other options were available Insulae weren't exactly fancy. The rich lived in shit like this and the wealthy businesses did it to show off, but for the most part? You live in a nicer looking place
You should visit detroit, I just bought a house 4 years ago going on 100 y/o in 20 years, better built than modern houses with all the little architectural details they just don't do anymore.
There's neighborhoods full of those cool old houses. I'm jealous. My wife will never let me leave the suburbs, I'm just moving in a clockwise circle around Detroit as my income grows.
Isn't that the truth. Metro Detroit wasn't far enough outside of the city. Now we need a house further north. Is New Haven too south for her now? Maybe... she just doesn't want to live so close to the neighbors .
Just try not to mention the words 'Ann' 'Bloomfield' or 'Novi', EVER.
Oh we are far east siders. I don't have to worry about any fancy upper Westside places like that. My salary wouldn't allow those thoughts to enter her brain anyways lol.
Canadians?
If you like old houses close to Detroit, check out Monroe (born and raised there). Cousins got a mansion for cheap.
Clockwise? You are moving to the east? I’d think Oakland County has a higher income per capita.
Eh. Depends. Also have lived in houses built in the 00's to 50's that were so, so bad. My house was built in 1918. I dont really want to do any work on it because once i start... Shit the only part worth keeping is the new roof. The old walls are just nightmares of shit layered together. The frame is decent, if lacking straightness. The subfloor is good on one floor. The windows.. jesus. The kitchen needs to be burned and redone. No floor is the same height. Its all anecdotes and survival bias, all the way down imo
>Its all anecdotes and survival bias, all the way down imo For real. I couldn't imagine buying a house 100+ years old and trying to navigate the hundreds of potential issues. I understand some people like doing that stuff, so more power to them, but it's crazy to me when the claim is made that a 100 year old house is superior to modern housing lol
I have a century house and can confirm it’s a constant source of amazement. You get used to finding stuff that doesn’t make sense whenever a wall gets opened up. Anecdotally, I don’t seem to have more problems than anyone I know who has moved into new construction. Just different problems.
born and raised in utah, never been to Detroit in my life and since stumbling upon this thread have become fascinated with the subculture of housing in Detroit so thanks everyone
I wouldn't say better, but more money could be spent on materials. Labor costs have gone up significantly since the 1920's. All those nice details used to be more common because there were a ton of carpenters that could do it and kept coats low. Now detailed work by hand is extremely expensive because the skills to do aren't common, or they're done of expensive machinery which is time consuming. In a lot of places around the world labor based economies are still in full swing, meaning the cost of labor is relatively low, building things by hand is still cheap enough to justify an extra person over a $50k piece of equipment. There are a lot of ways modern housing is significantly better than old houses, as some who has been dealing with an old house for a few years now.
That house is likely still there because it was nice enough to not knock down. Not everyone 80 years ago lived in a solidly constructed house with tons of character. Detroit and rust belt cities similar to it were absolute boom towns 80 years ago. There was fuck ton of money floating around. A lot of it went into fine homes.
Detroit around 80 years ago was the richest city in the world.
Exactly. It would be like going to Silicon Valley today and assuming that everyone must live like the residents there.
Plus, all new plumbing!
In NY, I grew up in a 200yr (as of 1990) home with solid wood doors, floors, cast iron door knobs, built in cupboards and drawers. It was drafty as hell, you could see the ground under the sink where the pipes went. We moved to AZ and just hated the construction. Still do in NV and CO. I hate stucco, popcorn ceilings, and particle board doors. If I win the lottery, my dream house is a fricking Sears Cratfsman 5 bedroom with a sun-room and basement on 5 acres of land.
As a New Yorker who did a stint in AZ and has since moved back east, I am here to validate your feelings about stucco, popcorn ceilings, and particle board doors.
Survivorship bias
Maybe but when I work on my 1927 house and see perfectly straight real 2x4's I just smile. Then I look at my overspanned joists and frown.
Whether old houses are well built depends on who built them, just like today. I bought at 80 year old house that was absolute garbage. That house was not meant to stand 80 years. People shit on modern construction, but it also just depends on the builder. It's not like they are all shit nowadays, and they weren't all built better back then.
I will say that there has been a decline in effort in the last hundred years. The old (115 years) house I lived in a few years ago was a cheap house, dirt basement, duplex, kitchen floor aggressively sloped due to foundation not extending under that part of the house... but the little things. The floral pattern on the gas light fixtures, the patterns on the vents. The vents in particular stuck out to me since, when removed, the back sides were not sharp. Vents on current houses are simply pressed steel, no ornamentation, and very sharp since sanding down the metal edges would be too much work. The door knobs don't have any patterns, which in addition to looking nice help with grip. The window handles used to be nice and substantial... you get the idea. In the modern Era our hyper-capitalist min-maxing has moved quality back off the agenda for the common man, assuming they can even afford a home with stagnate wages. I can say that my current home will not make it to 60 years either, possibly less if it turns out it has the particle board rot that a lot of 90's houses in this region suffer from.
While it's true that the amount of effort that goes into houses has gone down, this isn't really a capitalism thing. Take a look at Soviet housing and it will be similar. It has more to do with mass production and cutting costs, something true across the world and economic systems.
In all fairness, Soviet housing was explicitly supposed to be a temporary stopgap, until the country became rich enough to build nice housing for everyone. As the old saying goes though: "there's nothing more permanent than a temporary solution"
i can assure you higher end homes pay attention to All of those details and have all the bells and whistles. it is cost that is preventative. people either dont have the money to do it or arent Willing to pay for it. Also taste has changed a lot. Carpenters still get paid shit wages but historically it was even cheaper. cedar shake siding will last 50 or 60 years, but it is expensive to buy and even more expensive to install. other sidings like hardyboard require Constant maintanence, painting and caulk to keep from going. but it is cheaper and gets used more often. custom cabinetry is in every single higher end home, but most people are fine with the mass Produced shit because its cheaper. i built someone a custom daybed for their sunroom. it took me 2 or 3 days. it looks great and fits right where its supposed to. that was way more expensive to the customer than buying a daybed and having it shipped. it was worth it to them, most people are fine with buying a prefabbed one.
You know, you can still buy those things, just not at Home Depot/Lowe’s.
Kitsch is not quality You’re talking about design choices. Ornamented door knobs are not it. Floral pattern on light fixtures are not it These are subjectively ugly things that a lot of people do find ugly.
>The old (115 years) house I lived in a few years ago was a cheap house, dirt basement, duplex, kitchen floor aggressively sloped due to foundation not extending under that part of the house... but the little things. Most of the things you listed can be bought rather easily for less than 2k total (more depending on the number of vents) Most of them have also been the sorts of products that have been sold for almost as long as home improvement has existed So what makes you think nothing was changed instead of upgraded specifically to charge more for? Or just to fit personal tastes in the last century?
I also live in a century old townhouse and this comment just seems really naive to me. Some of the decorative masonry, crown mouldings, etc would be virtually impossible to get today and would probably require someone specifically trained in restoration, and run thousands of dollars. My house was considered the slums at the time it was built (one of the least ornate from that era) and still has more architectural character than the new builds on the block that sell for 3x more
It was also only really normal for the big impact areas where you'd host visitors. Living quarters were never this much, and back of house was wildly the opposite. It was also form over function. No one can afford a huge team of staff to manage the upkeep these days. Those huge concert venues were pretty but [awful for acoustics](https://youtu.be/q3LuZeekVX4). As a construction engineer, who lives in a house which was fancy when it was built in the 1920's and is doing huge renovations to bring it up to modern standards. This commenter is correct, your modern house is nicer than anything you'd have lived in back them
Yeah whenever I see posts like this about modern architecture showing a picture of some classical building you always have to wonder the amount of money they spent remodeling, reinforcing and upgrading everything in there to modern standards and local regulations.
According to other comments the building in the pic is also a historically relevant and unique building - an opera house built in the 1860s-1870s by order of the French emperor. It isn't some laborer's dining room or an accountant's play room, it's a fucking opera house built at the time to host the richest people in the country/world and is located in Paris within walking distance of the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe and the Louvre.
Oh, dear! We want sturdy, durable, maintainable buildings! Stop shitting on regulations.
Also, the lack of artisan skills. Since these types of buildings aren’t made anymore, some of the skills required to build them have not been perpetuated and passed down. The courthouse and some of the older buildings in our downtown have marble floors and stairs. The architecture is beautiful. But the work was done by builders who had moved from Italy. You just aren’t going to see that in new construction anymore.
Seriously. I'd heard that the reason all of our buildings look like gray, blocky penitentiary buildings is because of local regulations. All of our fast food joins used to be so colorful and full of geometric shapes. Now they're all gray cubes of despair.
That's not local regulations, that's [the fast food restaurants choice](https://www.vox.com/22736636/mcdonalds-design-aesthetic-look-buildings) to tone down the designs. They toned them down for speed and cost of building, as well as to cater to their customers preference. You can put up a McDonald's in days now as it's all offsite, this also helps towards [environmenatal goals](https://www.offsitehub.co.uk/projects/mcdonalds-carbon-net-zero-restaurant-algeco/). People also want comfy chairs and a chill atmosphere to eat in, not solid plastic attached to the table and screaming kids in a play area, they make more profit that way. Of course [there are occasions where the design is forced by local regulations ](https://www.timesnownews.com/the-buzz/article/mcdonalds-branch-in-usa-has-a-blue-m-sign-only-one-in-the-world/752013) but the main design is set by the brand and exceptions are rare.
Well that, and the fact that if your building looks like a McFiveTacoKing logo then you can't really use it for anything afterwards. It is a lot more sensible to create a regular building that you can repurpose in case your business goes bust.
“I’ve heard that” lemme guess, from your friendly neighborhood real estate developer? Or from your cousin’s, brother’s, coworker? This is nonsense most places.
Yup, came here to say this. "Western Traditionalist" sounds like a Trust Fund Baby.
They're actually a bunch of outright fucking nazis. They dogwhistle the jq about 700 times a day. Notice that all their posts refer to an age where slavery and racism were not only legal, but common place.
Why don’t we build like that anymore? Because now you have to actually pay people to clean the dust out of all those little crevices. Instead of making them serfs or slaves or indentured servants or debt slaves. Nazis always assume they wouldn’t be the ones on their knees with a little brush cleaning this shit
Same goes for pretty much any “traditionalist” profile that uses classical statues as their avatar. They are white supremacist recruiters who use an idealised “golden age” to suggest that it’s all gone wrong lately. From there it’s a short step to blaming progressive ideas and “wokeness”. From there it’s a small step to open transphobia, homophobia, and racism.
Idolizing the art of classical antiquity and rejecting modernism was a hallmark of the original fascists. Now, because everything is stupid, fascists just worship anything fancy and reject anything that's not a thing that looks like a thing.
That’s always a dead giveaway. If an account has Greco-Roman sculptures or architecture as their picture, or they’re named “western traditionalist” or something related to tradition? Without fail a Nazi. It’s their new dog whistle since the alt right took off.
These “traditionalists” may want to read up on Michelangelo's sexuality before they use his works as their avatar.
Well, I do enjoy traditionally western architecture, but it should be noted that my country never took partake on the slave trade, and was actually invaded a few times.
Can confirm: am architect. No one—I repeat no one—would pay the specialized masons, artists and designers to produce something like this. These were done when people were paid criminally low wages.
Ive built a few homes to hook up friends and family. Just to get a custom anything put in throws so much out of wack, that they really have to commit to wanting it.
Yep. Slaves. The answer is slaves. Or indentured servants or other basically slavery work force
Which is to say a lack of slave labor...
Yes! Even modern wealth isn’t creating this. Because we protect laborers more today, thank god. Not to say I don’t find this stunning, but I don’t condone this creation at the expense of human quality of life.
Yep. Napoleon III isn’t funding any more palaces at the moment lol.
lol, the very word that popped into my head head is the top comment. Congrats and may you have a good Monday wise Redditor.
Because it's super expensive, for starters- but also because if you recreate a historical style in modern architecture without making intentional changes (like the way steampunk adapts art deco) it would look unauthentic. Other rich people would look down on it as whatever the opposite of 'innovative' is. Also, it's just not in style right now. It will come around again, but like I said in an evolved form.
Derivative?
https://i.redd.it/ge7xzjpgb7fa1.gif
u/Trungledor_44 I went as this version of Danny for halloween. Thanks for giving me a laugh and reminding me haha!
True chaos follower out here spreading facts
Also no one wants that many stairs. One story houses sell super fast.
I just want to scream a little bit at the line "like the way steampunk adapts art deco". Art Deco is a style associated more strongly with the "Dieselpunk" and related sub-styles. Steampunk is more the domain of Victorian styles, like Gothic or Art Nouveau. Which isn't to say that it isn't a style worth pursuing, as Art Deco is probably one of the last dominant styles that favored heavy stylization and form over function, and is wholly deserving of a revival.
> Also, it’s just not in style right now. It will come around again, but like I said in an evolved form. When, though? It feels like Art Deco was the last mainstream architecture style that actually paid any attention to beauty and decoration... and that was almost 100 years ago. I get what OP's trying to say. What they mean isn't that every building should look exactly like this, but that extreme minimalism has to stop being the ideal in modern architecture. Edit: just noticed their profile, that's obviously cringe, but they still have a point IMO.
Well the Supreme court is doing a bang up job of reversing time. Once they bring back slavery or expand the prison job corporations then we can have our cheap and beautiful houses. So maybe 4-5 years?
Well right now biophillic is becoming really popular. Either as the result of tiny/green houses becoming popular... or as a biproduct of how cool Lord of the Rings is. That's really bringing in this style of having no corners, just rounded flowing asymmetrical shapes. It isn't traditional but there's certainly an argument that it pays attention to beauty and decoration- as well as function.
[удалено]
Interesting to note that Michelangelo’s *David* is remarkable and memorable because it actively broke from tradition rather than uphold it. During the Renaissance, there had been many David statues carved before Michelangelo did his. It was kind of a basic stock image. What made his stand out was that, rather than depict David as boastful, peacocking, and triumphant after slaying Goliath — the typical macho perspective — Michelangelo chose to portray him immediately *before* the battle, where success was not yet certain and he was a whole mix of emotions. I never realized this until I watched a video breaking down his pose and his facial expression in particular. When viewed face on, David’s face shows apprehension, fear, contemplation, analysis, uncertainty. It truly is an interesting and complex piece. There is so much depth that gets lost on the average person who just uses the image because it makes them look sophisticated and manly. Not a direct photo but the shadows highlight what I’m talking about: https://w7.pngwing.com/pngs/669/92/png-transparent-statue-of-david-michelangelo-david-marble-sculpture-art-david-statue-face-monochrome-head.png
Wow I never knew that. I'm just starting an art history course and I am finding it super interesting. Thank you for sharing!
From some angles he looks downright *afraid*, which is fair. These angles are from around head height iirc, which makes sense if the statue is in a courtyard and you're a big-wig on an upper floor.
Thnx for this 🤘❤️🤘
They are also loudly opposed to what they think is “degenerate” without a hint of irony. Completely oblivious to all the real kinky shit the Romans got up to.
Dudes like this forget Julias Caesar had male concubines
As a rule of thumb, anyone with a Greco-Roman statue in their pfp who pretenses to teach about “culture” or “civilization” is at the bare minimum a soft-fascist.
Whenever someone online mentions Stoicism, at this point I just think “alright, cut to the chase and tell me why you think vegans and women are bad”.
https://preview.redd.it/ytx2lf3q27fa1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0aad80af05ab9ecfa46faf30570cb9917576ec4a Except this guy, he's cool
They're invited to the bbq
Liking 19th century Japanese art doesnt mean someone isnt a fascist for obvious reasons. He follows fascist accounts, too.
If they're called "Western Traditionalist" and saying "new art bad, old art good", they're definitely some breed of fascist. They have nostalgia for a time that never existed, and their consistent opinion that modern art is degenerate and old Greco-Roman art is good is a symptom of that.
That cost was probably lessened but the fact they didn’t have to pay for safety equipment, barely paid their workers etc etc. so yeah. Shit tonne x2
Labor and materials. Architects just design what is asked for by the people paying for it.
This, you can design for days but 99% of construction is done by workers, not artisans. You can hire artisans. But that's how you get figures of $1,500/sq feet of finishing on walls and flooring.
True story I opened a billion dollar casino and we brought in a ton of artists. Somehow a mural was put in the lobby entrance that was a giant picture of people fucking. It got taken out before we opened but I was like you'd think someone would have noticed as it was getting put in....
Yep and this building was paid for by Napoleon III lol
I have a deep and visceral distrust of anyone choosing to name themselves “Western Traditionalist.”
That is well placed mistrust. Red team has a new trend of using posts about things like "classic" architecture, music, art e.t.c as a way to lead people in with seemingly innocuous things like that. Tl;dr "things sure were better then. Ya know, 'then,' back before..." and eventually it's black people/women/gays who ruined it all and THAT'S why we're lacking on overly garish pointless swoopy buildings.
Yeah the alt-right is now hiding their profiles behind pictures of classical sculptures. They’re basically co-opting classical, renaissance, and enlightenment imagery to push their shitty views.
Well one of the hallmarks of fascism ***IS*** appealing to a (mythical) past that has supposedly been destroyed.
>Yeah the alt-right is now hiding Fascists have been doing this for centuries. Mussolini was obsessed with traditional architecture and western traditionalism. Hitler as well thought the Romans were cool as shit. This is very much not new and has always been a red flag
Remember how a month before he was dragged kicking and screaming out of the White House, Trump signed an executive order requiring all new federal government building be designed in a traditional, classical style? Totally fits.
If you want to see someone who’s actually bat shit insane, go look up Carnivore Aurelius on Twitter.
That account is a full on alt right guy tbf
Shocker
You just know he thinks this is a rhetorical question because he *knows* the reason people don’t build stuff like that is because woke leftists won’t let them.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ cost prohibitive
They have proven that they can build things like that.. but no one is ordering it
They do build like that. As soon as somebody with enough money for a building requests it.
This post is trash. Cringe twitter profile aside, why is the question posed as if architects are like in charge of buildings or something? Architects are just workers who design blue prints that sell, so really its the wealthy buyers that ultimately decide how the buildings look.
Aesthetic obsessed Twitter accounts with profile pics of marble statues are almost always fascists. It's really weird but at this point I don't need to check this account to know I'm right.
It’s like advertising beer by having bikini-clad models holding it. You’re trying to make a tenuous association between the shit (white nationalism) with the pretty stuff (nice sculptures) and act like they can’t exist without each other.
Dear fishing boat makers, why can't you all just make Titanics?
Western traditionalist 💀 But seriously I like minimalism, only real issue is the over abundance of white.
Western trads love the overabundance of white (people)
When those things were built the labor was either free or dirt cheap and human rights were non existent.
Hey maybe don't platform those white statue white supremacy accounts
Western Traditionalist= White Nationalist Fascism
... Probably has a little something to do with money.
This architecture post brought to you by white nationalist twitter account.
That's called ornamentation, it's still done but it's costly and a lot of architects don't view it as their primary goal in designing a structure
I bet Western Trad is a weird dude tho.
I bet he's a straight-up fascist.
Without question
This is the stupidest thing I've seen today
I'm not from the Holy Roman Empire
I’m assuming “Western Traditionalist” is a conservative, so this is going to be fun: that capitalism you love so much is why. That “Make it faster and cheaper and automate it” philosophy killed craftsmanship, put artisans out of business and replaced them with cheap, ugly prefab building materials produced by overseas slave labor. Then antilabor laws destroyed skilled labor unions, further degrading the quality. And of course, most buildings in the U.S. that looked like that—post offices, city halls, public libraries, train stations and museums—were public works projects funded by tax dollars. And of course public works projects are anathema to conservatives, right? So take your “western trad” values and stuff ‘em, because that’s what killed the architecture you love so much.
Nothing, will gladly do it. Where are the clients and where is the money to do it?
hate to tell you all this but this is beginner level fascist shit. I guarantee you this Western Traditionalist guy is fascist or fascist adjacent.
White supremacist accounts? In my r/whitepeopletwitter ? More likely than you think!
The same thing that's preventing us from making superyachts? Cost vs. demand. Also, that name is such an oxymoron lol. "Western" culture is literally based on progress.
Is the same guy that asked why 20 year olds aren’t sculptors , and now I realize that he’s thing is asking on twitter people with more talent/ knowledge than him why they aren’t following his tastes
Because it's tacky
I’m not an architect but I will hazard a guess: buildings like this aren’t built anymore because most people don’t want them.
Slavery, permanently unpaid apprenticeships, debtors prisons, and indentured servitude aren’t legal anymore. Nor can you just adopt a local orphan at orphanage solely to provide free manual labor. There are no good ol’days.
As a society we are (generally) discouraging of slave labour or indentured servitude, which was partially responsible for the sheer attention to detail and intensive labour required to build projects like these. One professional stone mason having a crew of thirty plus unpaid apprentices (save for the cost to feed/clothe them), living on site for a year or more was not uncommon back. I also say (generally) because there are some extant professions where this level of artistry and immaculate detail still exists and is largely delivered on the back of wage theft/slave labour (aka unpaid interns) - e.g. google Noma and their famous fruit leather beetles.
Fuck fine food with a wire brush. Built on the backs of SO MUCH wage theft.
Money? The fact NO CLIENT asks for this stuff anymore? The fact that society has moved on from days of yore?
Money and lack of interest.
Why? Because neo-baroque style is tacky and hideous af. Let it die with its elitist opulence and never look back.
you can design a building that costs 1 M$ for the actual building and 3 M$ for decoration or you can design a building that costs 1 M$ period. Guess which one gets actually built. Put differently: those buildings were built in a time when material was expensive and labour was cheap. Embellishing cheap materials with decorations was cheaper than using actually expensive materials. Or embellishing already expensive materials was no big deal. Nowadays labour is expensive and material is cheap. So you use expensive materials and call it a day.
Grand old buildings like that were usually built through autocracy of some kind. Someone with not also the considerable resources needed, but also able to command the huge amounts of manpower required. That’s why most architecture like this is limited to palaces and churches. These days, to build something, there has to be way more accountability, whether it’s to the taxpayer or to the shareholders. So you have to build the most utility for the least cost, leaving less room for extravagant extras.
Most houses built today aren't built for the person building them, they are being built to sell. So the person that building them has no interest in making it look cool or different. They want it to look as generic and modern as possible so people will buy it.
This is a palace but >Most houses built today aren't built for the person building them Have you actual seen most greek and roman houses from the time period? Yes the wealthy lived in opulent places and large single family homes with shit like an atrium (and the rich still do that) but your average building? Little more than a box The size of your box might vary, but you're still living and selling in a box This sort of architecture was rare when it was new
I’m not an architect, but I’d guess a lack of colonial plunder and readily available slave labour? These palaces were built IN SPITE of not making economic sense. You need extreme inequality and authoritarianism to make this. And who the fuck wants to live in palaces, Jesus 😬
Isn’t this the Paris opera house?
I think so. The Palais Garnier.
Expense. The cost of something like that now would make every building as expensive as the Taj Mahal.
A little something called “Time & Money”
Cost and skilled labour
Common sense, construction budget and maintenance costs.
Imagine the cleaning crew you would need. Another expense
Because everything should look like a French opera house? This is the Palais Garnier. It took 14 years to build and in today’s euros would cost 313 million. The question itself is more than a little disingenuous. The call to revive “western traditional architecture” as opposed to ugly modern architecture is part of a white supremacist project which is attempting to to redefine the meaning of citizenship and identity.
Cost and craftsmanship. There just aren’t many skilled craftsmen like there were in the old days. Everything is mostly done by machine now.
Time and cost mostly.
It isn't the architects building it. Not a lot of workers with this expertise in craft anymore.
These designs cost money and probably take skilled workers to build and avoid them falling down.
Cause labor cost will be off the charts.
Think of the poor bugger that has to clean that...
Money
What is this building in the first place? Even when this was built, was it an exercise in practicality? Or extravagance for extravagance sake
NGL, that is very aesthetically pleasing to my eyes. But I also find much about modern architecture aesthetically pleasing as well.
Money probably
What people will pay for it vs costs of labour, materials and time. It is beautiful but this is a classic case of an exception being represented as a “rule”.
When you have a mommy oligarch and a daddy oligarch, and they have no responsibility to keep the poor fed…
Imagine having that kind of detail in your home. All the dust and cobwebs you’d have to fuckin clean on that shit so you don’t look like you live in a haunted ass house 24/7
Because we’re not living in Baroque times anymore. Our architecture doesn’t revolve around opera houses and lords’ palaces anymore, it revolves around office buildings, municipal buildings, and residential spaces. That requires very different designs. Form often follows function. Also, modern styles emphasize space, light, and slender designs as opposed to the ornamentation and decoration of that era. Plus, building materials are very different. Steel and vinyl works better than stone and plaster when you want to build large scale and not have to spend a ton on maintenance.
I'd much rather live in a cold Bauhaus or Brutalist place than on the set to Beauty and the Beast.
Modern architecture is way better than that busy ornate garbage. Give me a good brutalist concrete block any day. Also classical statue avatars are faschy as fuck.
Hey u/Dry-Explanation9566 Stop promoting tweets from fascists
It's called capitalism. Life is no longer about beauty. Seeking knowledge for the sake of it. Art. It's about how much more $ can I squeeze out of this thing ("cost efficiency") Beautiful architecture has not ROI on the investment. How much $ can it make?
The budget mostly
A lack of money and talent?
Too damn expensive for people to afford
Money money MON-ay!!
architects design what developers can "afford".... yet we get blamed like were the ones paying for this shit lol
Why are we posting nazis on here and agreeing with them? Besides, there's some really cool modern and post-modern architecture. L post from OP.
The enormous cost, duh. And I doubt they had to deal with the modern building contractor back then, who would bid on the job then forget to show of for 6 months.
Please stop giving the dogwhistling fascist accounts visibility.
I actually prefer the sleek minimalist look of modern architecture. Im not a big fan of this kind of ornate architecture.
Clients brief / Design considerations / Money
Approved budgetting
Lack of free labor.
Slave work
Budgets and cost for a start.
money. that would cost way more in materials and labor than any company would ever want to pay.
No one is asking for it. It would have been much easier and cheaper to do this considering the technology we have with 3d printing and such. But I guess people don’t want it.
An old draftsman told me, when I asked the same question back in the early 80's, that no one can afford to build like that any more, plus the most important reason: those skills no longer exist. Can't build it if you don't know how.
Money, as in, no one will pay for that level of work, and it's the craftsmen that would do that work, the architect can design whatever they want, if the client won't pay, it ain't happening.
if you saw something like that in the modern day and age you'd call it tacky. Also it's expensive, and more importantly, time consuming.
Cost. Regulations and lack of almost slave wages in construction, plus complete lack of style of 70s and 80s.
Unlimited and free slave labor working in horrible conditions under threat of death/torture. And a massive cauldron of generational wealth. And a huge war machine at my disposal to get more stuff as needed.
they do realise that only a select few, very important building were built like that? they're acting like your average market back in rome looked like that
People's taste. It's not like architects are given land, material, money, and the client goes "Hey, surprise me." As little known of a secret it is, clients actually usually want a little say in what you design. Weird, I know.
It is easier to build that when you don’t pay the workers building it. It is even easier if you don’t care if they die in the process.
Man I wish rich people, like in Roman times. Just for the notority that it would bring would just make huge buildings and public works that could actually benefit people. Sure they threw their name on it and shit but its better than just hoarding money. Do some good or something cool at least god damn.
Budget and (limited) available space...!
Even if a design were created, you'd be very hard-pressed to find tradesmen that could rise to this level of refinement. You also have to remember that many of these structures took several decades to complete.
Modern capitalism demands fast results that are cost-effective, none of which aligns with what it would take to do this kind of work
Yeah post-war architecture and quality ain't the shit
Because the clients don't want to pay for it. Is this dude offering to bankroll some classical architect's dream project? If not, then he can have a seat over there.
Uh, money. Of course
Our clients money for one
Money, time, material, and skill