The economics behind why modern buildings are ugly

Why old buildings are prettier (and it's not just nostalgia)

The complaint is a familiar one: new buildings are soulless concrete boxes, while those built a century ago oozed charm. But developers' greed is the same as it ever was. So why is the result so different? Economic and urban analysis points to several overlapping causes.

First, survival bias: only the best buildings from each era survive. The working-class housing and cheap construction of the 19th century were mostly demolished; what we see today is a filtered sample. We compare palaces and bourgeois boulevards with today's entire run of ordinary development.

But there are weighty economic reasons too. The artisan labour that carved mouldings, forged curved railings and decorated façades was cheap relative to the building's total value. Today, the cost of hand ornamentation is prohibitive, and industrialised solutions cut costs on timelines, financing and maintenance. A prefabricated straight railing costs less than a curved, custom-made one.

What's more, the decision maker changed. The 19th-century owner wanted his surname carved into the façade for generations; today's developer maximises short-term profit. It's not just aesthetics either: urban planning has done away with shrubs, fountains and balconies, leaving a grey slab with no life. Apartments costing 600,000 euros have flat façades and straight railings.

The question remains open: if greed is timeless, what drove 19th-century builders to invest in beauty? Perhaps the answer is not only economic, but lies in the model of ownership and social prestige.