This short 5-minute video by Vox is a perfect example of how, just like with fashion, architecture and design tastes are always changing. The things we like at one point in time may not be what we like in the future. And it can go from extreme desire to extreme disgust. In this video, Vox makes the argument that the mansions of America's Gilded Age are the reason why all haunted houses seem to look the same in popular culture and in our imaginations.

Once the extreme desire of America's nouveau riche (who were clearly trying to emulate rich Europeans), they fell out of favor with the arrival of modernism and a new cultural ethos. All of a sudden it wasn't fashionable to have copious amounts of ornament and labyrinthian-like floor plans filled with a bunch of gaudy stuff. So the rich moved on and many of these homes fell into disrepair, setting the stage for spooky thoughts.

What's interesting about this phenomenon is that it can make it difficult to discern what has design and cultural value and what doesn't. Because something that has value today, may not have perceived value tomorrow (and it may also become the backdrop for future horror movies). Of course, the opposite is also true. We could hate something today, but eventually learn to love it.

Brutalism is perhaps a good example. Though there seems to be a groundswell of people interested in preserving this style of architecture, I continue to think that it remains a generally unloved kind of built form when it comes to the general public. So does that mean it has little present and/or future value? That's not a straightforward question.

The other thing I find fascinating about this haunted house phenomenon is that it shows how one thing can lead to another. If the typology of haunted houses is a result of the Gilded Age mansion, then it's also important to consider that the Gilded Age mansion is arguably a result of the new wealth that was being amassed by some Americans at the end of the 19th century.

The Gilded Age was a period economic expansion for the United States. New fortunes were being made via rail, steel, tobacco, and other industries. (Inequality was a concern.) And this new wealth was naturally looking for a way to show off (as it usually does). That happened to manifest itself in ornate European-like mansions. But had that not happened, would haunted houses look the way that they do today?

Happy Halloween.

This is a fascinating short video (by Vox) about a former neighborhood in Manhattan known as Seneca Village. Today, its land forms part of Central Park.

Most of us would probably agree that building Central Park was both a good idea and a powerful example of the value of foresight.

But that doesn't mean that the area's pre-park history is something that should be forgotten. (Thanks for sending this along, Jeremiah Shamess.)

If you'd like to learn more about Seneca Village, check out this NY Times opinion piece by Brent Staples. It's called, The Death of the Black Utopia.

As I approach one year of ATC and as people like Lockhart Steele (founder of Curbed and Eater) return to personal blogging, I wanted to share something that’s been on my mind for almost this entire last year. And that is, should ATC just be a personal blog or should there be some greater end goal?

Right now it’s a bit of a hybrid. It’s hosted at brandondonnelly.com, but along the way I created a somewhat independent Architect This City brand. The most obvious option is to continue to grow ATC and turn it into something like Curbed, This Big City, or Sustainable Cities Collective. In fact, a good friend of mine emailed me a few weeks ago and asked me why I’m not doing that.

But to do that would require a lot more time and many more posts a day. It would also mean more restrictions on what I can, or should, write about. Personal blogs are, well, personal. Branded blogs typically require a focus. Today I live comfortably in between both of those worlds. I write almost exclusively about city building, but I introduce many personal touches. Architect This City has become my personal brand.

In many ways, I feel like this tension is a natural one. With the rise of social media and the belief that “everybody is their own media company”, more and more people are finding themselves debating whether or not they should position themselves personally online or create an independent brand.

At the same time, blogging is evolutionary. It’s a laboratory. And most of the benefits are entirely indirect. Writing helps you get your ideas on “paper” and sort through them publicly. And sometimes that leads to unexpected outcomes. I mean, in the case of Lockhart, he started blogging about his Lower East Side neighborhood and that gave birth to Curbed, which he then sold to Vox Media.

So as much as I try and plan out where I think blogging everyday could take me, it’s also good to sit back, enjoy the ride, and just see where it takes me.