The negative transformation in architecture, often rightly critiqued by Bitcoiners, wasn’t driven solely by fiat money. Both modern architecture and fiat currency are 20th‑century phenomena born of the same push for standardization, industrialization, and modernism
In the late 19th century, architecture, art, and design were deeply rooted in historical styles and maximalism. As the industrial revolution took hold, counter-movements emerged.
Adolf Loos was a radical early‑20th‑century Viennese architect who challenged norms by stripping away all ornamentation he deemed unnecessary. He argued that modernity required a break from the past.
He influenced a generation of architects. Among them was the Swiss architect Le Corbusier, who would become one of the most influential figures in modern architecture.
Simultaneously, the Bauhaus school emerged in Germany in 1919, under the leadership of Walter Gropius, with notable figures such as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Marcel Breuer.
Their emphasis on simple, functional forms made a lasting impact on global design, laying the groundwork for what we now consider modern, minimalist architecture. But not all minimalism is equal.
Early Bauhaus designers were arguably aesthetic innovators, but most things created since are not so elegantly designed. Today, the world has been filled with careless, knock-off minimalism, it feels cheap rather than stylish, boring instead of sleek.
We have also moved far away from the round shapes and attention to detail we find in nature. It is no wonder that people leave the city on weekends to reconnect with nature, where the calming effect of green soothes the human nervous system.
We have drifted far from nature. Traditional building materials like clay and wood, along with warm color schemes on both the interiors and exteriors of buildings, as well as the inclusion of gardens and dedicated spaces for the community, children, family life, and work, have largely been relegated to the background.
Coupled with rising costs driven by inflation, the deterioration of housing quality has become a hallmark of modernism.
The pendulum of fashion always swings one way, then another, and each generation reacts to what came before. So what is the future of architecture and design?
In much the same way that the Bauhaus movement standardized design, Bitcoin allows us to go back to a more individual design. Bitcoin’s fixed supply naturally encourages a low time‑preference mindset, with the potential to revive the intergenerational outlook vital for thoughtful design, architecture & urban development.
Under a Bitcoin standard, developers and residents alike would be motivated to invest in high‑quality, durable infrastructure and public spaces that benefit not just today’s generation, but those to come.
As Bitcoin continues to mature and integrate into our financial fabric, it may well catalyze a design and architecture revolution. Where the principles of tradition, modern architecture and sound money converge to create more affordable quality housing.
Login to reply
Replies (6)
This is a thoughtful and well-founded critique and it touches on many truths. But the deep change in architectural quality isn’t just about fiat money; it reflects a deeper shift that began with industrialization: efficiency over care, standardization over character, and yes, short-term profit over long-term value.
As Vitruvius put it: Think in terms of firmitas, utilitas, and venustas - strength, function, and beauty.
Historically, labor was cheap and materials were expensive. Buildings were shaped by craftsmanship, durability, and local resources. Ornament and proportion weren’t indulgent. They were signs of care, cultural continuity and socio-economical status. This was no asset in a abstract real estate portfolio - the owner actually lived here. Today, with labor costly and materials cheap, we get mechanized, soulless repetition. A clear loss in the realm of Venustas.
A striking example is stonemasonry: once central to construction, now nearly vanished from new buildings. Natural stone is rarely structural at best, it’s a thin veneer fixed to insulation. The idea of stone as a load-bearing material has been replaced by flexible grids of concrete columns and slabs. With the decline of the stonemason came the loss of centuries of tacit knowledge. In return, we’ve gained new technologies — concrete, float-glass, elevators, timber high-rises, advanced building systems, energy efficiency, accessibility, but often without the depth or craft of the old.
There’s also a selection bias: bad buildings from the past rarely survive. What remains are the best - giving us a distorted sense of history. Add to this the ideological breaks of modernism: Loos, Le Corbusier, and Gropius sought rupture, not continuity. Their early work had substance, but their successors often lacked the skill or sensibility to build meaningfully at human scale.
Vitruvius’ triad «firmitas, utilitas, venustas» has been thrown off balance. Durability is cut, function reduced to rentable floor area, and beauty sacrificed for sterile minimalism.
A Bitcoin standard, with its emphasis on low time preference, could support a shift back to long-term thinking and with it, better architecture. But money alone won’t build cathedrals. Culture, education, and taste must grow with it.
What we need is a new synthesis: craftsmanship and technology, function and beauty, past and future. Only then can architecture once again reflect human scale and meaning.
But it's all connected. The push for standardization is a result of fiat. Fiat is what requires mass produced cheap crap.
That is true. But standardization came before fiat, so fiat is also a consequence of that mindset and helped to accelerate it.
Any kind of standardization beyond that which is organic is synonymous with the word fiat. But people have been making unilateral decisions for a longer time than there have been enough things to standardize in the first place.
Also, I believe debasement of the monetary supply for the gain of the few at the expense of the many is actually a very old phenomenon, probably existing even before "money" was standardized in the first place. All it takes is to barter something which is counterfeit.
But at its core, I think the root cause of fiat is dishonesty. That's your real culprit, and it's a useful one because we can fix the dishonesty in ourselves.
Well said!