[deltron3030]

< I wonder if there are contemporary developments that will, some day, be considered truly beautiful.

By whom? It's a matter of perspective. If you're into architecture and design you'll care more about the practicality and function of the building than it's exterior appearance. A sterile exterior then becomes an indicator that the budget went into what matters most.

In my personal opinion, the exterior of buildings (excluding windows) should all be considered public space, they should be open for decoration, like street art, mural paintings etc., so this problem would be solved by the people who live there and take action.

[coldtea]

>By whom?

By those who live in them and by those that visit them.

Those who design them and those who write design critiques don't matter at all, and should not even have a voice (at least not one anybody should care about). The best buildings, people take pride living in, and coming from abroad to admire, were built that people we don't even know their name, many even designed and built by craftsmen (as opposed to university-studied architects).

>If you're into architecture and design you'll care more about the practicality and function of the building than it's exterior appearance

The exterior appearance is part of the practicality and function of the building. A bleak appearance can crush the soul, destroy any community pride, and even make people physically ill. Humans are not cattle (though even cattle deserve better).

[deltron3030]

Is it because of the structural complexity of individual buildings (e.g. kitsch ornamentation) or could it be just the color and texture (e.g. people hating flat grey walls)?

A painted and decorated facade could change the exterior impression completely.

The problem is more the large scale uniformity and a lack of variance, like housing complexes that all look the same, not individual buildings.

Here's an extreme kitsch example: https://www.dezeen.com/2019/01/18/drone-abandoned-turkish-ch...

[pchristensen]

At a high level, people enjoy "information" and tune out areas that don't have any. It doesn't have to be useful information - a blank brick wall is more interesting than a blank concrete wall, and older hand-laid bricks with more variation and mortar thickness is more interesting still. Small modifications on a repetition (e.g. https://www.curbed.com/2016/6/2/11833698/brownstone-greyston...) add a sense of life, even if it's in the window screens, handrails, landscaping, etc. Central Paris is full of 5-7 story buildings with stone facades and Juliet balconies, but they're all different enough that it's interesting to walk block after block.

It matters what scale you experience it - you can notice cool individual trees when you're hiking, but not when you're driving. As more travel became motorized vs pedestrian/horse, there was less and less reason to prioritize street-level beauty. Also, cars opened up so much land that there was less redevelopment, so a lot of buildings are the first buildings ever built on that site.

[zwaps]

I think in two senses.

First, reception by audiences such as tourists. What is on their vacation photographs? Boulevards, or high rises of Italie 13?

Second, by the people who live there. The Olympiades never attracted the successful young professionals they were intended for, and in that sense, were not successful in their design. It may indeed often be the case that some modernist areas are in fact quite nice and comfortable to live in - I do not know. But at the very least they did not turn out to be as desirable as they were planned.