Great article. Plastic lawns are an attempt at immortality just like the obsession with stone Victorian houses, "built to last". We should be frequently reminded how quickly nature would reclaim them from us.
And that, for me, is what defines the Janet generation. A refusal to let go, a demand to control the zeitgeist and undermine the young from becoming adults - resisting the natural cycle of youth, life and age in work, politics and nature.
I think refusal gives the concept too much ideology. I think these outcomes are entirely passive and the product of bad incentive structures put in place long before anyone had any idea what they would bring forth.
Also love Victorian stone houses. Natural materials made of wood, brick, stone and so on seem to weather in nature far better than steel, concrete and glass.
Of course you are right I don't think they are literally persuing immortality. When paddling pools of adrenochrome start appearing on artificial lawns, that will be another thing. It is a thematic human flaw - especially when the balance of power is weighted to the old.
On housing - I'm no architect or an architectural prude. I just observe a bias towards certain materials beyond the benefits I see. I've lived in places where the impermenance of housing is appreciated, built-in and lead to more equitable outcomes (Japan). The areas of Manchester filled with Post-WW2 McVictorian houses, barely standing and dilapidated. I would think there was a survivorship effect to old buildings that has much less to do with their building material - only the well built or fastidiously maintained remain.
Anyway you bring up a good point (and I really don't know what I'm talking about beyond casual convos with recent grad architects), so I'll go away and do some research on it.
I do certainly agree with you, but I feel the comparison with architecture is a little unfair.
Buildings can (and should!) last for a long time, if given proper care and thoughtfullness of design. Like a maturing garden, buildings should change and be allowed to age gracefully.
I've been seeing a lot of fake-grass adjacents recently: buildings made half of plastic, with seemingly no regard for the local environment. Worse still, theyre built with 10-20 year life cycles: new estates that have barely sold all their units before the mould begins to set in. Imagine all the waste!
I totally agree that a snobbery about architecture is only going to make the situation worse, but I really do think there is a case for improving our standards. Not to mention, the most low-carbon building is one that already exists!
I wonder if you're familiar with the concept of the 'Lindy effect?' I think it's adjacent to what you're expressing here.
From Wikipedia: 'The Lindy effect is a theorized phenomenon by which the future life expectancy of some non-perishable things, like a technology or an idea, is proportional to their current age.
'Thus, the Lindy effect proposes the longer a period something has survived to exist or be used in the present, the longer its remaining life expectancy. Longevity implies a resistance to change, obsolescence or competition and greater odds of continued existence into the future.'
Some of our most celebrated buildings have lasted centuries, and are likely to last even longer, because they have proven their durable beauty and function.
Great article. Plastic lawns are an attempt at immortality just like the obsession with stone Victorian houses, "built to last". We should be frequently reminded how quickly nature would reclaim them from us.
And that, for me, is what defines the Janet generation. A refusal to let go, a demand to control the zeitgeist and undermine the young from becoming adults - resisting the natural cycle of youth, life and age in work, politics and nature.
I think refusal gives the concept too much ideology. I think these outcomes are entirely passive and the product of bad incentive structures put in place long before anyone had any idea what they would bring forth.
Also love Victorian stone houses. Natural materials made of wood, brick, stone and so on seem to weather in nature far better than steel, concrete and glass.
Of course you are right I don't think they are literally persuing immortality. When paddling pools of adrenochrome start appearing on artificial lawns, that will be another thing. It is a thematic human flaw - especially when the balance of power is weighted to the old.
On housing - I'm no architect or an architectural prude. I just observe a bias towards certain materials beyond the benefits I see. I've lived in places where the impermenance of housing is appreciated, built-in and lead to more equitable outcomes (Japan). The areas of Manchester filled with Post-WW2 McVictorian houses, barely standing and dilapidated. I would think there was a survivorship effect to old buildings that has much less to do with their building material - only the well built or fastidiously maintained remain.
Anyway you bring up a good point (and I really don't know what I'm talking about beyond casual convos with recent grad architects), so I'll go away and do some research on it.
I do certainly agree with you, but I feel the comparison with architecture is a little unfair.
Buildings can (and should!) last for a long time, if given proper care and thoughtfullness of design. Like a maturing garden, buildings should change and be allowed to age gracefully.
I've been seeing a lot of fake-grass adjacents recently: buildings made half of plastic, with seemingly no regard for the local environment. Worse still, theyre built with 10-20 year life cycles: new estates that have barely sold all their units before the mould begins to set in. Imagine all the waste!
I totally agree that a snobbery about architecture is only going to make the situation worse, but I really do think there is a case for improving our standards. Not to mention, the most low-carbon building is one that already exists!
I wonder if you're familiar with the concept of the 'Lindy effect?' I think it's adjacent to what you're expressing here.
From Wikipedia: 'The Lindy effect is a theorized phenomenon by which the future life expectancy of some non-perishable things, like a technology or an idea, is proportional to their current age.
'Thus, the Lindy effect proposes the longer a period something has survived to exist or be used in the present, the longer its remaining life expectancy. Longevity implies a resistance to change, obsolescence or competition and greater odds of continued existence into the future.'
Some of our most celebrated buildings have lasted centuries, and are likely to last even longer, because they have proven their durable beauty and function.