Great article. But there are other factors that constrained vernacular architecture. The past was poor. So you ended up with implicit constraints around things like materials because everyone used the same local quarry or forest. Design guidelines for new towns today essentially emulate the natural constraints of poverty in the past.
You can see how a place like Amalfi emerged if you visit a typical slum/favela in Africa or LatAm. These places have the same sort of fractal layers and mimetic copying of forms as Amalfi. And they even have a somewhat common design language of materials. But now it's ugly cinderblocks and rebar and concrete because that's the practical material available.
Great article. One thing I wonder - admittedly a bit cynically - is even if there was a significant push for design regulations, would there ever be an incentive to support it if better design meant slightly lesser profit margins? It does seem like one unspoken casualty of globalization is forgoing prettiness in building design in favor of getting something up as quick as possible with no room for the architectural aesthetics that made these houses so timelessly appealing.
To contrast the unplanned development of Amalfi Coast, I often think of New York City in the 1840s and the intentional development of Central Park. The city planners intentionally wanted to create a place of community to combat the restlessness caused from the explosion in population at the time and had architects pitch their vision for the sprawling green space.
I wonder if a city planning was in place today, would developers decide on a pretty park that doesn't bring revenue? Or would the result be what we saw in Hudson Yards - a behemoth of 'futuristic' architecture that feels both soulless but also detached from New York City in terms of aesthetic.
Great piece! It's so interesting how unplanned towns look naturally looked planned due to their inherent constraints.
Regarding how contemporary building cultures appear relatively incohesive/clashing, I find that the main exception is colleges. Buildings on college campuses usually use consistent building materials and design features, even when a new building is added 200 years after the college was originally built. I suppose this is because having a consistent identity is important for the college, while the normal tendency in cities and towns is to atomize.
Maybe more neighborhoods could be built like this -- in unified "chunks" rather than fragmented?
If you want to regulate aesthetics, regulate them, but compensate by not regulating density.
Great article. But there are other factors that constrained vernacular architecture. The past was poor. So you ended up with implicit constraints around things like materials because everyone used the same local quarry or forest. Design guidelines for new towns today essentially emulate the natural constraints of poverty in the past.
You can see how a place like Amalfi emerged if you visit a typical slum/favela in Africa or LatAm. These places have the same sort of fractal layers and mimetic copying of forms as Amalfi. And they even have a somewhat common design language of materials. But now it's ugly cinderblocks and rebar and concrete because that's the practical material available.
Possibly of interest: https://www.startupcities.com/p/owned-is-beautiful
Great article. One thing I wonder - admittedly a bit cynically - is even if there was a significant push for design regulations, would there ever be an incentive to support it if better design meant slightly lesser profit margins? It does seem like one unspoken casualty of globalization is forgoing prettiness in building design in favor of getting something up as quick as possible with no room for the architectural aesthetics that made these houses so timelessly appealing.
To contrast the unplanned development of Amalfi Coast, I often think of New York City in the 1840s and the intentional development of Central Park. The city planners intentionally wanted to create a place of community to combat the restlessness caused from the explosion in population at the time and had architects pitch their vision for the sprawling green space.
I wonder if a city planning was in place today, would developers decide on a pretty park that doesn't bring revenue? Or would the result be what we saw in Hudson Yards - a behemoth of 'futuristic' architecture that feels both soulless but also detached from New York City in terms of aesthetic.
Great piece! It's so interesting how unplanned towns look naturally looked planned due to their inherent constraints.
Regarding how contemporary building cultures appear relatively incohesive/clashing, I find that the main exception is colleges. Buildings on college campuses usually use consistent building materials and design features, even when a new building is added 200 years after the college was originally built. I suppose this is because having a consistent identity is important for the college, while the normal tendency in cities and towns is to atomize.
Maybe more neighborhoods could be built like this -- in unified "chunks" rather than fragmented?