Reflections on Beauty and Ugliness in Old and New Architecture

I have been thinking about this question for a while: why does architecture from the past often feel more beautiful? Why is it so hard to recreate the grandeur of London, Paris, Budapest, and other cities built a century or more ago? Has humanity become worse at architecture? Has our taste become more mediocre?

But technology has advanced rapidly, and our actual building capabilities have clearly improved. Our sense of beauty does not seem to have regressed either. People today still look at palaces, castles, and towers and find them beautiful and magnificent. So what exactly happened?

One explanation that feels reasonable to me is this: many of the grand and ornate buildings of the past were built on the extraction of a small ruling class from the majority of people. Behind the palaces and magnificent cityscapes were countless people with limited living standards who continued to labor. By contrast, the plain or even ugly apartment blocks of the modern world may be the product of human society extending the greatest possible kindness: making housing available to the majority. After all, not everyone can live in Versailles.

After World War II, societies tried to bring a “reasonable” standard of living to as many people as possible. The result was architecture that met only a minimal standard aesthetically, but far exceeded older housing functionally. Low cost, high utility. In daylight, sanitation, heating, safety, and comfort, these buildings were often far better than most ancient homes. If that is true, then perhaps this was not a decline in aesthetics, but a kind of moral progress.

Architecture in the past was more concerned with displaying power, status, and civilizational achievement. Modern architecture, by contrast, was given the task of helping more people access affordable housing. Seen from that angle, those monotonous and repetitive apartment buildings may not be just concrete and steel. They may be proof of humanity’s first attempt to distribute a decent life to the majority. They may not be as beautiful as Versailles, but they may be kinder than Versailles. Perhaps the next time we see an ugly apartment building, we can feel some compassion before reflexively complaining about it.

That does not mean ugly buildings should not be criticized. Many buildings lack beauty not simply because housing had to be made accessible, but because of cost pressure, developer incentives, and compromises in planning. Still, as human technology and wealth continue to accumulate, it is undoubtedly a good thing that the standard of affordable living can keep rising.

Seen step by step, the history of cities may look something like this:

Beautiful buildings for the few -> ugly buildings for the many -> beautiful buildings for the many

I think we are now standing at the point where the second stage begins to move toward the third. That is why replacing the old and ugly with the new and beautiful is necessary, and why proposing improvements is also necessary. Society does not have to choose between beauty and fairness. It first solves fairness, and then learns to pursue beauty again. Perhaps the true progress of civilization is not allowing a few people to live in Versailles, but one day allowing most people to live in beautiful cities.

---

思考這個問題一段時間了，為什麼過去的建築比較美？倫敦、巴黎、布達佩斯那些百年前的富麗堂皇為什麼難以重現？難道人類的建築水平退步了？還是審美趨於平庸？但科技發展飛速，建築水平無疑是增加的，審美似乎也不見退後的跡象，現在的人看到那些宮殿城堡塔樓還是覺得美麗壯觀，那到底為什麼呢？

我想到一個合理的解釋是：過去那些雄偉華麗的建築建立在社會少數權貴階級對多數人們的壓榨，那些皇宮與壯麗城市景觀之外，是大量生活水平有限卻仍持續勞動的人們，而現在那些看似平凡甚至醜陋的集合式住宅卻恰恰是人類社會發揮最大限度的仁慈把居住權普及給大多數人的產物，畢竟不可能大家都住在凡爾賽宮裡。

二戰後我們想要盡可能把「合理」的生活水平帶給更多人，因此設計出外觀上只滿足最低程度、但機能上遠勝於過往房屋的建築，低成本、高機能，在採光、衛生、保暖、安全與居住舒適度上，往往遠勝於大部分古代建築。若真是如此，那麼這或許不是審美的倒退，反而是某種人性的進步。

過去的建築更重視權力、地位與文明成就的展示，而現代建築則被賦予讓更多人擁有可負擔居住空間的任務。若從這個角度思考，那些單調重複的公寓大樓或許不只是鋼筋水泥，而是人類第一次嘗試將體面的生活分配給大多數人的證明，它們或許沒有凡爾賽宮那麼美，卻可能比凡爾賽宮更善良。若以此角度思考下次看到醜陋的公寓大樓時也許能心生憐憫而不是不假思索的抱怨了吧！

但這也不是說這些「醜」的建築不應該被檢討，畢竟許多建築缺乏美感，未必完全是居住普及的代價，也可能來自成本考量、開發利益或規劃上的妥協。不過在人類科技財富持續累積的同時，能夠負擔的居住標準逐漸提升，無疑是一件好事。

循序漸進地看，城市史或許像是這樣的：

服務少數人的美的建築 -> 服務多數人的醜的建築 -> 服務多數人的美的建築

而我認為我們正站在第二階段邁向第三階段的節點，因此汰舊（醜）換新（美）是必要的，提出改良意見也是必要的。社會並不是在美與公平之間二選一，而是在先解決公平之後，再重新追求美。或許文明真正的進步，不是讓少數人住進凡爾賽宮，而是有一天，讓大多數人都能生活在美麗的城市之中。

• Tags:
• Society
• Cities
• Reflection