This article should not be taken as an attack on the video's view on affordable housing and why 5-over-1s are necessary for the time being. I'm not qualified to talk about politics and economics. I am, however, compelled to explain my gripe with Vox's defense of 5-over-1s as an all-around great invention rather than a necessary evil.
[The five-over-one architecture style] can be bland and look artificial, but that authenticity problem is an old one. In this book, "The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn", Suleiman Osman writes about the iconic brownstones of Brooklyn, a design that today, is widely considered to be deeply authentic to New York. But in the 19th century, compared to the mostly wooden homes which predated them critics actually dismissed brownstones as "modern and artificial". They called them out as "products of the mechanical age, poorly built and subject to decay" with a "dehumanizing monotony". Sound familiar?
Yes, it does sound familiar. Brownstones suck too.
The only reason we look fondly at brownstones today is because they are old, and because the level of craft required to make them can now be avoided for more efficient methods, NOT because the craft was good to begin with.
Brownstones are an admirable part of Brooklyn because they give a breath of fresh air and a sense of familiarity from the modern glass buildings found elsewhere in the New York City area. Likewise, the modern architecture of the past 70 years has provided novelty and relief from the monotony of every brownstone being different yet all the same. As aesthetically pleasing a brownstone may be, once you have seen one, you have basically seen them all.
That picture at the top of this page? There are a few old brick buildings from the early 20th century in view, but you probably didn't notice them. That's largely because ALL of the buildings (Aside from the steeple) were not designed. They were built to fit in with all the other buildings that served to the lowest common denominator while adding just enough flare to give you something to look at. Throw in some cookie cutter masonry so it's not just another warehouse, and throw in some decorative paneling so it's not just a grey cube.
In other words, the problem is not that the 5-over-1 is a bad option. The problem is that it's the only option.
The 5-over-1 may be seen in the future as a cultural zeitgeist to the civil reforms and improvements of our generation, but it is still an eyesore to those of us living now during the rise of the 5-over-1. In a possible future where the drive for equality failed and "affordable housing" is just bunk beds and cubicles in the hollowed out remains of abandoned Walmarts, the 5-over-1 would be seen as a luxury. But I am writing this in our present. They are an affront to cultural and aesthetic diversity and are nothing more than another tourist trap on the never ending road of cutting corners. And every single 5-over-1 built leaves a lasting visual scar that perfectly symbolizes the problems of today for tommorrow's generation to see: the fact we have to resort to making cut-and-paste buildings that aren't even loved in our time just for people to survive speaks volumes to the economic and political crisis we face today.
So in a way, I defend Vox for saying the gentrification building is a blessing for people of lower income and social class. But for people who have to go outside? Well, [The five-over-one architecture style] can be bland and look artificial, but that authenticity problem is an old one.
Argot
Page created: Friday, March 5th, 2022