Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Profit margins have greatly expanded at the expense of wages, cost of materials, etc. Land cost was a much smaller percentage of the building cost back in 1900. In other words, all the efficiency gains in real estate are going to capital.

A "ho hum" building back then was built of steel, brick, masonry, and took many skilled craftsmen to custom design and create every ornamental feature.

Now? Land is expensive and developers want to build as cheap as possible. As much as possible is mass produced and standardized offsite. Buildings now are also much less maintenance intensive compared to the gorgeous buildings of 1900.

Capital demands its outsized returns.

Interesting. What about, for example, the disgusting Penn Station in NYC. It's something The Times has written about needing to be replaced for years. So, no real estate transaction necessary, as it would be built on same space. But it's never gone anywhere. It's just impossible to get anything impressive built. Everyone seems to just kick the can down the street, running the clock out until retirement.

The plan is to build it in the old Post Office there, which is not going to be that easy, I think. At least one transit expert thinks it is over designed.

Who is the transit expert?

Alon Levy.

https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/?s=penn+station

Thank you. I'll review.

It's costs more and what was ugly didn't survive.

As the PP above mentioned with regards to Hoover Dam - people died. Workers rights, OSHA, minimum wage, unions, labor laws, didn't exist or weren't enforced back then. Hoover Dam was a 24/7 construction job in horrible conditions.

Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle

An aspect of this question reflects a cousin of selection bias. Those few buildings from that era that have survived (union station, Brooklyn bridge, etc.) give us the impression that all the buildings from then are somehow better and of greater architectural value than things being built nowadays. In fact, the opposite is very often true. Most buildings built back then were shabby and ugly and have since been torn down or are completely run down. Even the ones that remain and are celebrated today were often originally made with terrible materials like steels that were substantially of lesser quality than anything we use now even for your standard industrial park. Their permanency is effected in spite of these defects and mostly due to external events like the Brooklyn bridge becoming a historical relic. Indeed, if these buildings weren't frequently re-finished and remodeled today, they'd crumble or break down and might very well be replaced.

Anonymous wrote:It is the same for schools. Schools built before 1960 were beautiful. Modern schools look like strip malls.

I think in the 60s, so much had to be built so fast due to the baby boom that people just forgot about aesthetics, and never went back.

Who wants to pay more taxes or have the government issue more bonds? That's what it will take.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine anything like Union Station or Grand Central in NYC ever getting built again. So depressing.

Did they just not care about costs back then? It wasn't all FDR's New Deal.

Hmm. I've seen really massive, impressive airports. Then there is the Calatrave designed transit center in NY. And some incredible new highway bridges.

I think there are two things going on here. 1. Passenger railroads have not been a big deal since 1950 (that MAY be changing in the north east corridor) 2. The favored architectural style has changed - folks who love the old RR stations probably are not big fans of Saarinen (sp?) designed Dulles, or Calatrava designed transit center. Or for that matter the "brutalist" DC metro.

It's not just train stations. Bridges, tunnels, schools ... even courthouses and city halls in small towns are freaking magnificent!

Very little in the last few decades is anywhere near as impressive.

I think the only way we'd see another boom was if Trump launched a bi-partisan infrustructure proposal of $3-6T over 3-5 years. $1T isn't a drop in the bucket.

It is the same for schools. Schools built before 1960 were beautiful. Modern schools look like strip malls.

I think in the 60s, so much had to be built so fast due to the baby boom that people just forgot about aesthetics, and never went back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Profit margins have greatly expanded at the expense of wages, cost of materials, etc. Land cost was a much smaller percentage of the building cost back in 1900. In other words, all the efficiency gains in real estate are going to capital.

A "ho hum" building back then was built of steel, brick, masonry, and took many skilled craftsmen to custom design and create every ornamental feature.

Now? Land is expensive and developers want to build as cheap as possible. As much as possible is mass produced and standardized offsite. Buildings now are also much less maintenance intensive compared to the gorgeous buildings of 1900.

Capital demands its outsized returns.

Interesting. What about, for example, the disgusting Penn Station in NYC. It's something The Times has written about needing to be replaced for years. So, no real estate transaction necessary, as it would be built on same space. But it's never gone anywhere. It's just impossible to get anything impressive built. Everyone seems to just kick the can down the street, running the clock out until retirement.

The plan is to build it in the old Post Office there, which is not going to be that easy, I think. At least one transit expert thinks it is over designed.

Who is the transit expert?

Alon Levy.

https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/?s=penn+station

Anonymous wrote:There's a design aesthetic issue as well. Depending on your sensibilities, the mid-century architectural aesthetic for public buildings is often described as "brutalism". Pretty sharp contrast to the types of art-deco buildings constructed earlier in the 20th Century.

Quibble - everyone calls it brutalism. Brutalism is from the French word "brut" or dry, for the concrete technology used - it is not a claim that the style is 'brutal' Note also bauhaus modernist buildings are NOT brutalist - brutalist is more 1960s and 1970s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Profit margins have greatly expanded at the expense of wages, cost of materials, etc. Land cost was a much smaller percentage of the building cost back in 1900. In other words, all the efficiency gains in real estate are going to capital.

A "ho hum" building back then was built of steel, brick, masonry, and took many skilled craftsmen to custom design and create every ornamental feature.

Now? Land is expensive and developers want to build as cheap as possible. As much as possible is mass produced and standardized offsite. Buildings now are also much less maintenance intensive compared to the gorgeous buildings of 1900.

Capital demands its outsized returns.

Interesting. What about, for example, the disgusting Penn Station in NYC. It's something The Times has written about needing to be replaced for years. So, no real estate transaction necessary, as it would be built on same space. But it's never gone anywhere. It's just impossible to get anything impressive built. Everyone seems to just kick the can down the street, running the clock out until retirement.

The plan is to build it in the old Post Office there, which is not going to be that easy, I think. At least one transit expert thinks it is over designed.

Who is the transit expert?

Anonymous wrote:We spend more on infrastructure now than we ever have. Costs are just so much higher than ever before, for many reasons. The Inter-county connector cost almost 2.6 billion dollars.

For another example the Hoover dam cost an inflation adjusted $825 million dollars.

One of the many reasons costs are much higher now is that we care more about worker safety. At least 96 workers died building the Hoover Dam.

https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/history/essays/fatal.html

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers. They make EVERYTHING more expensive, and take longer.


You know how many lawyers it takes to construct a huge public-funded project?

I don't. I don't know if anyone does.... but it's gotta be in the dozens.

SAHM? Yes, lawyers, architects, engineers and other professionals are required to negotiate and sign off on RFPs, land acquisition agreements and construction contracts, leases, right-of-way, easement and air rights issues, tax issues, environmental impact statements (if necessary), etc.

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine anything like Union Station or Grand Central in NYC ever getting built again. So depressing.

Did they just not care about costs back then? It wasn't all FDR's New Deal.

As others pointed out those things very cheap in today's dollars.

Recently it cost 2+'billion for a short leg of metro in NYC. The cost per mile was five times that of paris.

There's a design aesthetic issue as well. Depending on your sensibilities, the mid-century architectural aesthetic for public buildings is often described as "brutalism". Pretty sharp contrast to the types of art-deco buildings constructed earlier in the 20th Century.

I don't know the extent to which cost was a factor, but I don't think it was the main driver of the change in design. While designs have changed to favor somewhat more organic appearances since then, ornate designs like Union Station and Grand Central are still not what people are designing today.

I think the PP talking about maintenance also has a point...and also there is simply less care put into a single building project nowadays regardless of costs. Finally, it might have something to do with the values of the people doing construction. Most projects nowadays are public-private, with much of teh decision-making authority in private hands. I think you still see some nice religious structures being built (for example there are some gorgeous newly constructed Mormon temples), but in general I think people don't value architecture as much anymore. That's starting to change as people become more aware of the impact the built environment has on other aspects of health and well-being, but it's a major attitude shift.

Anonymous wrote:We spend more on infrastructure now than we ever have. Costs are just so much higher than ever before, for many reasons. The Inter-county connector cost almost 2.6 billion dollars.

For another example the Hoover dam cost an inflation adjusted $825 million dollars.

The golden gate bridge cost an inflation adjusted 1.5 billion dollars, yet rebuilding just the east span of the Bay Bridge in San Francisco has already cost over 6.3 billion.

This,

It costs a lot more now to build things than it did before, especially big projects like roads and bridges. Things that used to get done through ingenuity, grit, and efficiency is now done through standardized brute application of money and resources.

We spend more on infrastructure now than we ever have. Costs are just so much higher than ever before, for many reasons. The Inter-county connector cost almost 2.6 billion dollars.

For another example the Hoover dam cost an inflation adjusted $825 million dollars.

The golden gate bridge cost an inflation adjusted 1.5 billion dollars, yet rebuilding just the east span of the Bay Bridge in San Francisco has already cost over 6.3 billion.