| ▲ | WillAdams 3 hours ago |
| Only the rich can afford to own nothing/exert effort to have empty space without consequence. Ordinary folks when presented with an object have to perform a mental calculation over the cost/inconvenience of storage vs. disposal and if wanted again, replacement. |
|
| ▲ | fcarraldo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The rich also can afford to keep their minimalist modern spaces clean and clutter-free, through paying staff. These environments tend to look awful when not tended to continuously because a single out-of-place item is so clearly visible. Cluttered old homes with lots of things all over the place make it a bit less jarring when there's a stack of work left out on a table. |
| |
| ▲ | tpm 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Cluttered old homes with lots of things all over the place make it a bit less jarring when there's a stack of work left out on a table. that's wrong: my minimalist (in looks, not in equipment) all white kitchen looks completely fine even after a dinner party, because even then it doesn't look full, dirty or cluttered. The old one (and it wasn't that old, only there were more and darker colors and lines and objects) decidedly didn't. The art of designing modern spaces lies in the ability to make the space visually appealing (in my case minimal) while still able to function correctly. Too often the designers and their clients forget about the practical aspects. | |
| ▲ | kakacik an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | They are awful to even look at, IHMO. Cold, sterile, tells something about people living in such fugly soulless places. Which is fine to be honest, its nice to see clearly the type of person on the other side of the table, no need to dig through empty speech clutter for clues. But impressive it is not. |
|
|
| ▲ | snozolli 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Only the rich can afford to own nothing/exert effort to have empty space without consequence. Reminds me of the reason that grass yards exist: to show the world that one can afford land for the sake of owning it, rather than for growing crops. |
| |
| ▲ | pooploop64 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Lawns are for much more than just flexing. It's an outdoor part of your property which is flat and open enough to use for various activities and purposes. I don't know where people get such a cynical idea that this is THE reason anyone has lawns. | | |
| ▲ | jmbwell 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah this is all very regional too. Row houses in London and brownstones in New York or whatever won’t have front lawns as a function of density, but may have back yards or gardens, which may or may not be a function of producing your own food, which is all tied up in different experiences of war, while certainly countryside estates are for form more than function, while post war housing in the midwestern US was in part a build-on-your-lot market with houses literally ordered from a Sears catalog… There’s definitely more to the story and there are myriad factors. | | | |
| ▲ | asdfasvea 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wouldn't a non-grassy flat and open area serve the same purpose? | | |
| ▲ | blipvert 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not sure that I’d want to lie down with a book on a slab of concrete. |
|
| |
| ▲ | throwaway7783 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | A dirt yard is sufficient if it was to show off land. Grass is not required | | |
|
