Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
The arts have always been influenced by the philosophy of their time.

However, there is a divide between vernacular and classical architecture. Vernacular is utilitarian and it is what most people build (you build your house to serve your needs) while classical is not only utilitarian but also communicates a message (authority in gov. buildings).

Most people find vernacular architecture pretty. For example, Florence, San Miguel de Allende, New Orleans, etc. All of them have different architecture caused by the locally available materials and the weather of the place. Contrary to popular belief most of their 'beauty' doesn't come from an old appreciation of the arts people, instead these buildings only met the needs with what was available and worked best.

For example, in the north of Mexico houses were built with thick limestone ('sillar de caliche'). The thickness helped as insulation (hot weather). The limestone was plastered with 'cal' in a light color with an 'aborregado' finish that helped reflect the sunlight thus keeping the house cooler. The houses were tall because hot air rises, windows looked almost like doors because people opened them during the night to let the air in. The buildings are beautiful but they are extremely utilitarian. Nowadays most houses in Mexico are built with cement and rebar, which is ugly.

The architect Leon Krier made the argument that all of this was a 20th century phenomenon caused by industrialization and fossil fuel dependency, which has not only affected buildings but how cities get built (urban planning). He believed this would end once fossil fuels reservoirs decreased.

Now that is an technical sngle that I'd be really curious about. How is the energy footbrint of cutting and machining stones in comparison to pouring concrete? How for the whole of mining tarnsporting cutting stone in comparison to mining sand and lime, firing the concrete, transporting and pouring it? Would seem like the energy that is already invested through geological processes to make stone (sedimentary, metamorphic, pyrophoric) would be a huge share of the energy. The whole chemical energy needed for concrete should be huge comparatively to blasting once way through a rock deposit and cutting it. But then that is entirely unsubstantiated and I'm very aware that such intuited assumptions are very prone to erring.
I agree with you about the vernacular thing, and a note that it does sort of contribute to its own beauty intrinsically because there is a harmonizing design language across any particular area in a variety that goes from place to place and even complements its environs