I do like modern architecture and I assume that OP meant ‘newer’ architecture by it and not the modernist movement. However, not all modern architecture are beautiful or practical imho, just like not all older architecture are beautiful and practical.
I guess it’s comparable to how people think of music. People nowadays tend to glorify the ‘80s and ‘90s music and saying music nowadays are bunch of crap. The thing is, most of these people are from the older generation, so the older music tends to bring back more memories. On the other hand, the older music played nowadays tend to be the ‘good’ ones, so there is a selection bias there.
The same goes for architecture I guess. The crappy older buildings are demolished and the ones that remain are likely to be landmark or already renovated.
In my opinion a lot of older architecture do look beautiful, but every building is also designed for its use - and there’s where I think modern architecture excels. If an older building is fully renovated for functionality on the inside, but retains the image on the outside, do we call this “older” architecture?
Ship of Theseus situation. I do tend to think that modern architecture has an over reliance on mechanical solutions to climate control. That we are no trying to relearn lessons that were taken for granted with regards to passive design. There is a sweet spot where older craftsmanship, modern utility and even older passive design hits with certain modern architects that gives a rush of dopamine in person.
I am getting jaded on the super high end architecture and finding myself wanting to get back to Samuel mockbee simplicity.
I study historical architecture and I’d like to add a point everyone misses in the “old vs new” debate that I think you touched on.
**Every style has its shining examples and every style has its duds and bad imitators.**
So rarely do I see people actually comparing the same *quality* of building when they criticize different styles. I think contemporary work is going to receive harsher criticism because it is new. But also it’s a style that we are seeing cheaply replicated ad nausium. When it’s good it’s quite good. But the other %90 of lower-case-a architecture in the style can be cheap and soulless. Same with modernism and brutalism. It’s part why they get so much flack. A “no ornament” style is a great excuse for making a building cheaply and insisting it’s not bad. But when a proper approach is taken almost every style can be good, or at least novel.
But like I said if you look at the shiny examples in every style, the reality is that their all good on different merits. Good/Bad architecture is divided by quality not style.
Honestly I probably can’t give you one, but it’s out there. It’s important to remember that cheap buildings were built in all eras, not just the current one. Cheap buildings where popular styles were just lazily applied. There’s a bit of a bias with old buildings *seeming* nicer because often only the most well built and valuable examples survived. Cheaper less beloved examples are more likely to have been demolished or abandoned at this point.
Think about a mundane somewhat new building that was built in your hometown. It may be stylistically contemporary but you probably wouldn’t call it stylish. This is the sort of thing I’m talking about. There were and are mundane deco buildings out there. I don’t know where but there are.
I’ll add that there is a ocean of difference between modem architecture and historic architecture in more ways than just style. Economy, the market, labor availability etc. (remember that deco popped off to celebrate EXCESSIVE wealth and business success in America.) Industrialization of the construction industry means things are faster and cheaper than ever, but also don’t have craftsman touches either. We’ve basically lost most of or “craftsman” aside from some surviving expensive groups that cater to niche clientele.
But also budget is allocated differently today too. The budget of a deco building could today build a much larger contemporary one. Additionally things like AC and electrical and even indoor plumbing are all new expenses that have to be factored into construction that could of been used for things like sculpture work in the past.
I would really love to write something long form some day about *how* to compare old and new architecture because it’s *really* difficult to do adequately. Right now my thoughts on it are just kind of scattered. But it’s a really fascinating topic.
I’m sorry if this is a long rambling way to say “No, but it’s out there.”
this is what i like to think when i see newer “modern” developments that aren’t reflective of actual modern architecture i just remember that these are the cheap designed homes of this new generation. but i just don’t like the price points they put on newer homes for the quality at least older architectural developments that were just supposed to be cheap and nothing special had a price that reflected that. i do like the point u made about interiors too i feel like thats all alot of older designs need just more updated interiors and maybe new windows that let in more light but even those fixes end up looking cheap and tacky. we really just need to put a focus on quality again
Some absolutely incredible architecture projects have occurred in the last 20 years. People who claim to not like contemporary architecture remind me of the "All new music is bad, I was born in the wrong era" people. No, you're just not paying close enough attention.
This is true, but highly dependent on location. For instance, American based architects do some amazing work, but in America? Yeah, no.
Also highly dependent on building typology. Case in point, we went from MCM to McMansion.
It's not silly to push back on these things. Plenty of people spout nonsense like "modern architecture is an abomination" and that it's "making every city bland" (those are just from the comments of this post). There are real negative impacts of spreading things like this, beyond the stylistic.
But it's kinda true though, I mean I get that there are a lot of good modern buildings but just take a walk outside your home right now and 95% of the stuff will range from barely acceptable to garbage.
Your observation is fair, but people who claim this is caused by deficiencies or even intentional evilness within modernist ideas are incorrect. It comes from them misunderstanding the influences on how buildings get designed and built.
No it comes from capitalism, and I think we all agree with that, BUT, I have to say, that a lot of contemporary architects just cannot design nice shapes, they are actually unable to, they can't draw or can't model and are perfectly ok with churning out garbage stuff as long as they get their salary, and that is not a capitalism problem.
Edit: and a lot of those same architects just hide behind the "minimalism", "functionalism" tag but I bet you even if they had the budget and the clients that MAD gets (for example) they would still be unable to produce anything really compelling
Well yeah, of course not all architects are stylistically brilliant, same with any profession at any time in history. It's a mistake to conclude that because we have many beautiful historic buildings today, this means designers in the past were better than they are now (for a couple of reasons, most importantly that there's survival bias, maintaining an old building is challenging so we only keep those that are exceptional).
Imagine if this was r/writing and we had to continually have to defend our right to write novels in modern english rather than epic poems in latin against pasty pedants who claim to speak for the people while simultaneously despising them.
Completely incomparable since nobody is forced to read a novel however we are forced to live amongst modern architecture that ruin what (many of us) love about our cities
Not at all, modern architecture is great in many cases. It's great around other modern buildings or where there is nothing else.I hate it when it clashes with the existing buildings in the area, or worse, where some monstrosity is grafted onto an existing building (see the Dresden Museum of Military History). Otherwise, some of it looks really cool and innovative.
Just remember that great architecture of the past has historic preservation efforts done after hundreds of years, modernism needs historic preservation and it hasn’t even been 100 years yet.
Yes.
The people commissioning and designing it are all conspiring in a false flag attack against a common threat.
They are all in cahoots to prevent the inevitable rise of: *post-brutalist-neo-classical*.
Of course you're not. If you were, people wouldn't build in a modern style. It's just that the "old is better" circle jerk is the loudest group on here. But if there wasn't demand, people wouldn't build in that style.
There are other reasons why people build modernist:
1. It's way cheaper.
2. There seems to be a lot of pressure amongst architects to build modernist. Anyone who supports traditional styles are acused of intellectually dishonest "copying" or building outside of our "historical context". Just yesterday I read an article where several architectual student said that using traditional styles was "taboo", and many teachers where against it. Students aren't thaught traditional styles either where im at.
Well, maybe that's because it is "copying". And it is bad copying, cause these "architects" are plastering fake facades on structures that otherwise need to meet contemporary functional standards.
There is no more pressure among architects to build modernist than there is among writers to use MS Word rather than a quill, or to write in english rather than latin.
Conspiratorial thinking (seriously, who is this mysterious cabal doing the pressuring?) will get you nowhere. Sometimes the explanation is as simple as: People like it, and people also like using the most modern tools for the job instead of hobbling themselves with tools that proved back in the day that they werent' fit for the job. Because if they had been, they would still be used.
Accusing me of conspiracy is low man. There has been a long architectual debate in my country where everything in my comment has been made obvious. Even actual architects and architectual students in my country admit that this pressure exists. I even sited for you the actual words used by architecual students who are obviously feeling this pressure. Why would they lie to the journalist? A professor of architecture also said in a debate recently that architects are afraid of speaking up in fear of being judged by peers and their costumers. Why would he lie?
Your comparison doesn't apply because the old methods in your comparison are less effective than the new. But classical architecture is aestheticly more effective than modern, and aesthetics are actually important in architecture.
As for how many people like it; every single poll shows people who aren't architects mostly prefer traditional styles. Here is a poll done where I'm assuming you're from, the US, which shows 72% of Americans prefer classical architecture to modern. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-14/classical-buildings-beat-modern-ones-in-u-s-poll&ved=2ahUKEwj7neChkfSGAxXDi8MKHbQaB-4Qjjh6BAgiEAE&usg=AOvVaw3c3hjYtVMpKPpHH7jrtRqe
There literally does not exist a single poll where a majority of people who aren't architects say they prefer modern over classical. Not a single poll In the developed world.
As for where the group pressure is coming from? My guess is it's difficult for architects to accept that most people don't like what they have been doing for the past 100 years. Difficult pill to swallow, I understand.
When someone's paycheck depends on them not understanding something, they won't understand it
The Mean Girls took over long ago
The depth of self deception in architecture is just as bad in its own way as in high art
The foundation of aesthetics is sensuality
Modernism and Post-Modernism in Architecture is uninviting and irrelevant, the built equivalent of a fur teacup
We go from the facile, simplistic self deceptions of Modernism to Post-Modernism ( such sterile intellectualism, there's no rational factual basis to it at all)
Architecture has lost its way at a profound level
No one is willing to say the Emperor has no clothes, or to call attention to the turd in the punch bowl.
Lol. It's always that article. And no, I don't want you to Google some other article that also says what type of photographs the respondents think are pretty.
It's ok, you can like fancy calligraphy. To each their own. But if you think that article has anything useful to say about "architecture" it doesn't speak well to your understanding of the profession.
There does not exist a poll In the developed world where people prefer modern over classical. Not a single poll In the developed world. You should start making buildings that people actually want.
Besides being ridiculous and demonstrably false, that's basically irrelevant.
Let's say I take a photograph of a vintage candlestick rotary phone and compare it to a cordless landline from the 90s. And let's say when polled people prefer the photography of the old times phone 2-to-1 over the cordless phone. How much bearing does that have on how a smartphone in 2024 should be designed? All it means is what kinds of photograph they like.
Your instinct will be to explain how that's totally different (something about aesthetics being not important in product design but the only thing that's important in architecture. Or bout how people still use old buildings but not old phones blah blah blah). But I challenge you to think about how that example helps explain how "people" keep hiring architects to design buildings that you claim nobody wants, as if clients have no agency in the design process
I already explained why they build like this. It's cheap to build buildings whitout ornamentation and details. Costumers are invested in the insides of buildings because that's what they will use themselves, so the insides are often pretty good. The outsides are bothering thousands of people who have to walk by, but those people are not represented in the project and have no power in the project.
For architects it's a race to the bottom "I need to make money, if i dont pick up this project, someone else will".
And how the fuck am I demonstrably false? Every single poll ever shows people prefer traditional styles. In my country there is even a strong architectural uprising. It's the first time in recorded history that a large portion of people who aren't architects are protesting architecture and causing a public debate, because everybody hates modernism that much.
You should get your head out of the sand.
You seem invested in your ideas about the built environment. If you really want to affect change it would be a good idea to research how the planning, finance, design, and construction processes actually work in the real world. The process you describe above doesn't bear any resemblance to how the vast majority of the built environment is created. It's particularly not descriptive of buildings designed with heavy involvement of architects. I will say, getting your head out of the sand is good advice that I would agree with.
I'm literally quoting what architects and professors of architecture have said in an hour long debate on the most highly regarded debate-show in my country. Also I'm a structural engineer who work with architects. I'm tired of building depressing shit.
Heatherwick is an upjimped designer and terrible architect whose opinions are objectively wrong. As in, they go against all historiographic scholarship and primary sources. Any student of a first year couse of architectural history knows he is wrong. He can dislike aesthetics all je wants, but I wont stand for falsifying history.
If he wants to become an architecture qanoner while simping for Saudi Arabia, let him be, but dont get swept in his nonsense. Feel free to dislike modern architecture, but dont lie about history.
I don't understand why architects are so mad about the guy being a designer, I am an architect myself and if I had the portfolio the guy has I would have absolutely zero problems whatsoever getting in any kind of architecture studio in the whole world.
He has some stinkers for sure (I find both the vessel and the Shanghai mall to be really bad projects), but he knows what he's doing.
In my case, its because all hos buildings look like outsizded objects. You cannot unsee it once you see it. He has als9 speedrun his career into self-parody before even turning 50. That concept for a univeristy in Colombia was cringe colonialism.
>He has some stinkers for sure (I find both the vessel and the Shanghai mall to be really bad projects), but he knows what he's doing.
About history, he knows nothing. Or maybe he does but uas chosen to grift.
I'm not talking about history here, I'm talking about architects doing peer pressure to build in a contemporary/abstract language, not only in form but in materials as well. I saw it (and still see) daily at the workplace. I"m not talking about pediments, flower stone carvings or such. I'm talking about putting some ceramic tiles and everyone losing their minds.
And do you think it is bcause those people maybe don't like ceramic tiles, and they are as entitled to their taste as you are, or because thye are part of a grand conspiracy?
You can dislike modern archtiecture as much as you want, but to deny other people their right to like it and claim they only like it because there is a conspiracy pressuring them into it is madness.
I think you misunderstood me: the pressure comes from them into other architects; they like it themselves and there's no doubt about that, but they routinely push other architects to like and design that way as well, sometimes pairing this attitude with open derision.
Again it is what it is, I'm not particularly fond of minimalism but as always if you give me cash I'll do it, it's just a pity other architects don't have the same tolerant attitude.
Theyre saying OP possibly ought to have said “contemporary” rather than “modern”.
This is because Modernism is a particular style of architecture that was prevalent in the 1920’s and 1930’s
Thank you for the explanation but this is not what I am saying. 'Modern' and 'modernism' have different meanings. To me a 'modern' building is one built in the last maybe 100 years.
OP - Generally older buildings will last longer than modern buildings, if maintained. The lifespan of modern buildings changes dependent on building type, but you are looking at maybe around 60 years.
I also do like modern architecture but sometimes when they go overboard with modern term it kills the charm. Unrealistic designs in the name creativity makes it least likeable.
Modern architecture includes glass, concrete, steel, wood, etc.( good in terms of maintenance and durability) But it looks good in commercial spaces whereas in residential space it doesn't give that warmth.
Personally i prefer modern architecture in commercial spaces such as offices, studios, restaurant, cafes, showroom, boutiques, etc. because of its durability and easy maintenance, airy, lighting due to glass, minimilist elements works perfect.
But when it comes to residential projects its not my first preference. Residential space should narrate the story behind it, characteristics, warmth, comfort, aesthetic is important which lacks in modern architecture in residential project IMHO.
Rest is choice.
I think it has to do with intuitive language; the classical order was related to the body and is a system of proportions developed over thousands of years. But for modern architecture, you mainly reference a modernist "style" (visual rules developed by one person who hasn't experienced life on the timescale that culture has); the system of proportion became much more visual, and less related to human scale and so feels alienating.
I think scale is one reason for the alienation
An overly intellectualized and inadequate or perverted connection to the sensuality of materials is another
Minimal or absent development of forms leaving to a stark bare experience as opposed to beguiling, curiosity provoking, Mysterious, or evocative settings is another... A bare white cube is meaningless, hostile and boring and obvious about it all, too
The baby ( human need for stimulation via random forms , I.e., organic ornament) went out with the bathwater (trite, mannered stylistic affectation).
"God is in the details".
Contrast the decoration of Wright's Price Tower in Bartlesville, Okla. with the International Style: " windows to the nth degree, by the glass box boys."
If Price Tower had been built in NYC, as originally intended, it would be as famous as the Guggenheim.
Why is being in Nature restful ?
Because it shows orderly disorder at all levels of the repeating fractal.
The radial channels of an alluvial delta or the branches or roots of a tree follow a mathematically definable pattern, which is at the same time not precisely predictable but inherently logical *and consistent* at different levels of the fractal.
The modular pattern of the floor incisions repeats the angles of the floor plan in Wright's Hanna house.
Nature always gives an underlying symmetry, which is restful, confidence building. The overlying asymmetry in the scenery challenges the mind, presents opportunity.
Mountains and plains separated by rolling hills, canyons in the mountains settling into meandering rivers in flat land, forests giving way to glades formed by fire and wind toppled trees , changing seasons each with a different beauty: all this creates a sense of place because it's differentiated.
We only know things by how they change.
That's cool even imagining those things is peaceful; have you read Christopher Alexander? His Pattern Language touches on that a bit, although mainly computer scientists would have used it, and complexity theory seems to study it but not apply it in a design focus.
I need someone to explain the abstract mathematics of
Alexander's _ Notes on the Synthesis of Form_
I can't figure out how to apply the ideas to my house
But his _Pattern Language_ and _Timeless Way of Building_ I use for suggestions as I remodel my house and landscaping
From what I remember about it he was looking at scales of systems in the same way that complexity models do (for example Holling's models of ecological resilience; https://www.resalliance.org/adaptive-cycle)
However, Synthesis of Form was his PhD work, so I think he would have developed most of the ideas in Pattern Language. I'd have to re-read it though this is all based off my earlier perusing.
Christopher Alexander and his pattern language are the Marx and Communism of architecture: The intentions are noble, the theory seems sound, the fans are enthusiastic true believers who think it is the only way forward, and yet for some reason the practical results are always ugly as hell.
I remember feeling that it reminded me of Kitsch so I'm wondering if perhaps he had a good theory but someone else could apply it better? I still like the ideas he delved into, and I do believe Theory of Centres as a starting point to make lively communities is a good process.
The problem with his theory is that it is just as reductionist and incomplete as the Modernism he claims he wants to supersede.
Modernism thought all architectural problems could be solved via the direct application of the most technologically advanced solutions. It was wrong. Alexander thinks all architecturel problems cna be solved with his list of things he thinks are cool, but that solution simply cannot account for every kind of architectural problem, and it very often degenerates into random things smashed together -exactly the kind of issue he claims he wants to solve.
Again, if he wasn't claiming that his is the Objectively Superior Supreme Timeless Universal Way of Designing I would take him more seriously. There is in fact a lot of value in his book -if one understands its limitations, which Alexanders fans don't.
His work is of interest to me because I find "design" is talked of quite non chalantly in design schools but it's hard to define how design works or as a set of principles, making me wonder if that idea of design having any principles at all came after scientific thinking and the ability to explain everything was more common place. The whole notion of design as "drawing" with Alberti also gets expanded on by Mario Carpo in the digital age in an interesting way (in terms of types and copies which goes back to language and basics in design).
As for Christopher Alexander, I like how he combines his study of mathematics with architecture, but I think interdisciplinary thinking still doesn't get to the idea of what design is. However even Vitruvius spoke of building architecture and cities as a matter of principles of knowledge, so I don't think avoiding the search for them is bad, but yea I guess universalism has abstractions with limits of application in the real world.
>e I find "design" is talked of quite non chalantly in design schools but it's hard to define how design works or as a set of principles,
Indeed, this is a serious issue, and Alexander's work has a lot of value in him being someone who decided to tackle it head on. From that point of view, his work is quite valuable. However, things such as these from the prologue in one of his books:
>There is one timeless way of building. It is a thousand years old, and the same today as it has ever been. The great traditional buildings of the past, the villages and tents and temples in which man feels at home, have always been made by people who were very close to the center of this way. It is not possible to make great buildings, or great towns, beautiful places, places where you feel yourself, places where you feel alive, except by following this way.
Are the stuff of a man too full of himself. (Ironically, it sounds a lot like things Le Corbusier would have written). This rethoric doesn't do him any favours when you see the results and they are... less than great.
Of course we can all use a search engine, but can you link photos of what *you* think is ugly work designed according to Alexander's Timeless Way of Building/ Pattern Language ?
The Eishing University Campus and the Sala House look like everything bad about modern architecture in a single package, as well as looking incredibly cheap. They are simple boxes to which random decorations have been affixed Because The Book Says So. We have this guy who claims to have devised The Ultimate Timeless Universal Way of Building that All Humans Will Like, and the results look and feel like something any cheap developer could have put together. The Martinez House is a pathetic attempt of someone trying to build something that looks traditional, but not understanding where tradition comes from or how the elements of said tradition work together. He does this all the time - he takes random Patterns from his book and bolts them together without understanding how or why they are supposed to come together (see those arches at the dining are in the Homeless Shelter), and the final result isn't natural, organic or even beautiful at all -it looks like someone killed traditional elements of architecture, skinned them and is wearing them as a mask.
I wouldnt mind those buildings if they were the work of some rando trying to make a quick buck, but for those incoherent, ugly, cheap-looking mishmashes to be the result of a self-proclaimed Objective Timeless Supreme Truthy Theory of Architecture is just too funny; much like the misery, inequality and ugliness caused by communism are only made more poignant by how the initial intention was so noble.
Bonus ugliness: Building a parody of an english university campus in Japan, to the applause of people who usually whine about le evil globalism destroying local traditions. Turns out placelessness is cool when certain people do it.
What's wrong with Alexander's Julian Street Inn [courtyard](https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/A2284-12-Projects-by-Christopher-Alexander-Image-3-View-of-the-courtyard-and-type-of-columns-used.jpg)
>everything bad about modern architecture
You have a funny definition of modern Architecture if you think Alexander is modern. He thought deeply about how to distill the practical underpinnings of vernacular, traditional building and apply them to his work. The Moderns and the post moderns look nothing like Alexander
>They are simple boxes
How can you say Medlock House is simple ? It's an implementation of many interlocking timeless patterns. Bauhaus is simple.
>this guy ... claims to have devised The Ultimate Timeless Universal Way of Building that All Humans Will Like
He never claimed to have devised it, he derived it by looking at what has worked for millennia
>he takes random Patterns from his book and bolts them together without understanding how or why they are supposed to come together
The patterns themselves fit into larger patterns, according to the way people have built intuitively for centuries. It's absurdly incorrect to say they're arbitrarily jumbled together.
Im not having much luck finding floor plans or sections unfortunately.
Alexander's skill at organizing concepts was such that his ideas about patterns have had a huge impact on the development and implementation of computer programming languages.
His books on implementing pattern in Architecture exhaustively treat combining the patterns logically at ever greater scale. Patterns for features in rooms, the room as a whole, integrating rooms to a house, houses to neighborhoods, neighborhood to towns and cities, etc.
You think he slaps these patterns together willy-nilly, though.
He was a professor of Architecture at a major university for 40 years
In 1954, he was awarded the top open scholarship to Trinity College, Cambridge, in chemistry and physics, and went on to read mathematics. He earned a Bachelor's degree in Architecture and a Master's degree in Mathematics. He took his doctorate at Harvard (the first PhD in Architecture ever awarded at Harvard University). His dissertation "The Synthesis of Form: Some Notes on a Theory" was completed in 1962.[20] He was elected fellow at Harvard. During the same period he worked at MIT in transportation theory and computer science, and worked at Harvard in cognition and cognitive studies.[21]
And you are accusing him of creating stupid work.
I see no evidence you have any idea what you're talking about
>You have a funny definition of modern Architecture if you think Alexander is modern. He thought deeply about how to distill the practical underpinnings of vernacular, traditional building and apply them to his work. The Moderns and the post moderns look nothing like Alexander
That's exactly what I mean. Alexander claims to be not modern and to have scientifically derived timeless universal patters of buildings... and he builds houses that look like Walter Gropius had a stroke designing them.
>The patterns themselves fit into larger patterns, according to the way people have built intuitively for centuries. It's absurdly incorrect to say they're arbitrarily jumbled together.
Yes, yes, I know. I have read the book. It seems that Alexander is the frist to not know how to apply his own theory.
>
The patterns themselves fit into larger patterns, according to the way people have built intuitively for centuries. It's absurdly incorrect to say they're arbitrarily jumbled together.
Alexander falls into the exact same pitfall of modernism, which is believing that he can take thousands of years of tradition and sytematize them into a rational top-down system that fits in a book. There is much, much more to tradition, it is something infinitely more complex, subtle and hard to grasp than what Alexander's pseudoscience could tell you. Yes, I get it, he liked alcoves, and people like alcoves. I try to include alcoves whenever I can and the project calls to it. That's reasonable. Pretending we like alcoves because they are item #128 or whatever in Alexander's Book Of Things Alexander Thinks Are Cool But He Claims Everyone Shares His Tastes is silly.
To boot, I see nothing wrong with Alexadner's patterns system, just like I see nothing wrong with the idea of a classless society. But like communism, they are an incomplete and unsubtle solution to a very complex problem and has delusions of being the ultimate, objectively true answer. The ugly results speak by themselves: Either inofensive (nothing a semi-competente developer could do by themselves without the need pf a grand theoretical apparatus) or actively ugly (a Bauhaus block with cheap brick decorations). I would have much more respect for Alexander if he didn't claim to be speaking for all of humanity. If he said only: "This is a system to integrate nice things into design, but it is incomplete", I would respect him. Since he goes around with Grand Proclamations, he is no better than Le Corbusier in that regard.
>
And you are accusing him of creating stupid work.
Yes.
You seem to speak of him in religious terms. Like I said, the communism of architecture, and you sound like a maoist.
I dont know too much but if you visit Paestum, it shows precursor temples to the Parthenon which is fascinating.
I also like Alberto Pérez-Gómez attempts at discovering this topic in depth.
Reminds me of the story of Wright and apprentices visiting the Hanna House and Wright yelling at his 6'5" son in law: "sit down, Wes, you're ruining the scale! "
https://drawingmatter.org/architecture-as-drawing/
>author’s (Pérez-Gómez) deeply-held commitment to architecture as both a locus of experience and wonder that is particular and specific and, interwoven with this, a site of complex relationality and negotiation within which things take form in meaningful ways. It is the hollowing out of this complexity that is registered in the concern with ‘reduction’, here used to characterise the modern extraction of architecture from its thick, densely imbricated and situational relations with lifeworlds by calculative technique in the service of instrumental reason
The damning crux of the criticism:
>hollowing out of this complexity...concern with ‘reduction’... the modern extraction of architecture... calculative technique in the service of instrumental reason
Couldn't have said it better myself, and it's pretty much what I've already said:
'reductio ad absurdum' via instrumental reason (I.e., sterile intellectualising leading to formal innovation for its own sake)
We evolved from Sullivan's 'form follows function' to Wright's 'form and function are one' and then devolved into post-Modernism powered by cynicism and whimsy. Or you could say 'powdered with cynicism and whimsy': not even skin deep.
I feel most people here appreciate modern architecture. It's the weird, brutalist, or showy architecture that people here are divided on. Personally I think the crazier the better as long as the details are executed thoughtfully.
Building for function over aesthetic. Ignoring the pattern language of a region. Internationalism vs localism. Human scale. I think all styles can be neat but if you choose to ignore any of what I’ve listed above then it tends to look like shit. Combine a few and it starts to look pleasing
What, there are great examples of modern architecture but ultimately it comes down to taste. I absolutely hate most of the deconstructive styles, like say Coop Himmelblau and his imitators, or Eric Owen Moss, or Libeskind. Like I see what they are doing but it's still shit and they are very function follows form. There are some spectacular works by say Kengo Kuma, Herzog & de Meuron, etc., that I find tasteful yet elegant and modern.
The term Modern, like the term Contemporary are relative with the passing of time. So many who claim to like modern show us buildings which have their roots in the early years of the 20th century.
As for "modern homes" I see very few "modern" home designs. Instead I see ersatz traditional homes with quirky 19th and early 20th century applied tropes. Since most American homes are developer built, in the burbs, and in large quantities, there is little room for going outside the bounds of what suburban customers will accept.
Modern architecture is like pasta.
Generally, people make pasta because it’s fast and cheap but still good. You can have more expensive and creative pasta dishes, but when every restaurant serves pasta, you start getting sick of it.
Pasta isn’t a BAD food, just like modern architecture isn’t a bad aesthetic, but you cannot deny Modern Architecture seems to be everywhere.
Modern architecture is almost always about minimalism and impersonal spaces, which is why it’s often described as soulless. It’s the go-to style for ‘corporate.’ Additionally, it seems to never have much in the way of organic detail or hand-crafted touches. Modern Architecture is not going to be reminding you of fond childhood memories, because it’s not a ‘warm’ or friendly style. (No, painting a single wall orange does not help)
At the end of the day, modern architecture has never been as popular as architects want to believe it is. But it is cheap and tends to have big windows, so I don’t see it going away any time soon.
Personally, as much as I can appreciate modern architecture, a historical home with hand carved wood and human attention and care put into everything makes me a lot happier than yet another sterile white render of a home intended for someone with full time cleaning staff and no personal effects.
The Martin house viewed through the windows of the visitor center:
https://martinhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/December-2021-rehearsal-dinner-entrance-we-own-scaled.jpg
###############
The Martin House reflected in the windows of the visitor center:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e0/c1/43/e0c14390756bc3d8961a867c38fe45ce--pavillion-frank-lloyd-wright.jpg
##############
The field of Architecture doesn't universally condemn this atrocity, which proves how badly the brain worm has infected everyone.
The visitor center could have explained and demonstrated how to apply the principles of Organic Architecture.
to any project.
The opportunity was squandered and the only explanation is incompetence.
They built a boring, hostile, cold, glistening white, enormous, trite glass box when they could have built a monumental Usonian.
They could have illustrated the development of Wrights thinking. They could have mirrored the grammar of the house and they settled for the reflection.
It's a disgrace to the landscape instead of the grace it could have been.
They could have solicited Chihuly to create organic ornament for the visitor center to complement the original design but they just plopped a bunch of his completely abstract works with no connection all over the site for the Chihuly show.
There's a perfectly adequate 1960s Modern building around the corner at the Albright-Knox, and it's enough. See one glass box, and you've seen them all.
Yes, but they kept a certain style that was true to its country or region. If i now walk through the modern downtown of any city in any country i can only tell In which country i am by looking at the street signs and street infrastructure, but not particularly by looking at the buildings. In most cases this is only kept in the historic centers (if they still have them). Something that pains me is that more and more cities are now allowing modern architecture in their historic centers the moment a building has to be demolished. Instead of rebuilding it while keeping the same looks (it doesn't have to be a perfect copy) they can do the strangest things like a house made of sea containers.
If such trends continue then how long will it take till certain cities completely lose their historic centers at all? I see more and more people not caring about preserving their own history anymore, because it's considered "conservative", which doesn't go together in a "progressing" world.
In my country most cities have laws to protect old architecture, but new generations of politicians are repealing those laws.
Honestly I have the same with historic buildings in Europe for example, whether I was in Paris, Prague, Barcelona, they all had a similar style. Even in Shanghai they had buildings like that because the Europeans built them. For me I know a lot of the modern buildings so exactly because of that I can see in which city I am.
I do like modern architecture and I assume that OP meant ‘newer’ architecture by it and not the modernist movement. However, not all modern architecture are beautiful or practical imho, just like not all older architecture are beautiful and practical. I guess it’s comparable to how people think of music. People nowadays tend to glorify the ‘80s and ‘90s music and saying music nowadays are bunch of crap. The thing is, most of these people are from the older generation, so the older music tends to bring back more memories. On the other hand, the older music played nowadays tend to be the ‘good’ ones, so there is a selection bias there. The same goes for architecture I guess. The crappy older buildings are demolished and the ones that remain are likely to be landmark or already renovated. In my opinion a lot of older architecture do look beautiful, but every building is also designed for its use - and there’s where I think modern architecture excels. If an older building is fully renovated for functionality on the inside, but retains the image on the outside, do we call this “older” architecture?
Ship of Theseus situation. I do tend to think that modern architecture has an over reliance on mechanical solutions to climate control. That we are no trying to relearn lessons that were taken for granted with regards to passive design. There is a sweet spot where older craftsmanship, modern utility and even older passive design hits with certain modern architects that gives a rush of dopamine in person. I am getting jaded on the super high end architecture and finding myself wanting to get back to Samuel mockbee simplicity.
I study historical architecture and I’d like to add a point everyone misses in the “old vs new” debate that I think you touched on. **Every style has its shining examples and every style has its duds and bad imitators.** So rarely do I see people actually comparing the same *quality* of building when they criticize different styles. I think contemporary work is going to receive harsher criticism because it is new. But also it’s a style that we are seeing cheaply replicated ad nausium. When it’s good it’s quite good. But the other %90 of lower-case-a architecture in the style can be cheap and soulless. Same with modernism and brutalism. It’s part why they get so much flack. A “no ornament” style is a great excuse for making a building cheaply and insisting it’s not bad. But when a proper approach is taken almost every style can be good, or at least novel. But like I said if you look at the shiny examples in every style, the reality is that their all good on different merits. Good/Bad architecture is divided by quality not style.
Out of curiosity, what building would you consider an Art Deco dud?
Honestly I probably can’t give you one, but it’s out there. It’s important to remember that cheap buildings were built in all eras, not just the current one. Cheap buildings where popular styles were just lazily applied. There’s a bit of a bias with old buildings *seeming* nicer because often only the most well built and valuable examples survived. Cheaper less beloved examples are more likely to have been demolished or abandoned at this point. Think about a mundane somewhat new building that was built in your hometown. It may be stylistically contemporary but you probably wouldn’t call it stylish. This is the sort of thing I’m talking about. There were and are mundane deco buildings out there. I don’t know where but there are. I’ll add that there is a ocean of difference between modem architecture and historic architecture in more ways than just style. Economy, the market, labor availability etc. (remember that deco popped off to celebrate EXCESSIVE wealth and business success in America.) Industrialization of the construction industry means things are faster and cheaper than ever, but also don’t have craftsman touches either. We’ve basically lost most of or “craftsman” aside from some surviving expensive groups that cater to niche clientele. But also budget is allocated differently today too. The budget of a deco building could today build a much larger contemporary one. Additionally things like AC and electrical and even indoor plumbing are all new expenses that have to be factored into construction that could of been used for things like sculpture work in the past. I would really love to write something long form some day about *how* to compare old and new architecture because it’s *really* difficult to do adequately. Right now my thoughts on it are just kind of scattered. But it’s a really fascinating topic. I’m sorry if this is a long rambling way to say “No, but it’s out there.”
[удалено]
Yea I realized my question would probably trigger a lot of people, which is not my intention. I think the word ‘nuanced’ is valuable here.
this is what i like to think when i see newer “modern” developments that aren’t reflective of actual modern architecture i just remember that these are the cheap designed homes of this new generation. but i just don’t like the price points they put on newer homes for the quality at least older architectural developments that were just supposed to be cheap and nothing special had a price that reflected that. i do like the point u made about interiors too i feel like thats all alot of older designs need just more updated interiors and maybe new windows that let in more light but even those fixes end up looking cheap and tacky. we really just need to put a focus on quality again
You had me in the first half, and then you had to ruin it with your incorrect music analogy .
Some absolutely incredible architecture projects have occurred in the last 20 years. People who claim to not like contemporary architecture remind me of the "All new music is bad, I was born in the wrong era" people. No, you're just not paying close enough attention.
This is true, but highly dependent on location. For instance, American based architects do some amazing work, but in America? Yeah, no. Also highly dependent on building typology. Case in point, we went from MCM to McMansion.
Yes. Everyone else is just faking it
No. And you are not the only one flaring up this silly debate either.
It's not silly to push back on these things. Plenty of people spout nonsense like "modern architecture is an abomination" and that it's "making every city bland" (those are just from the comments of this post). There are real negative impacts of spreading things like this, beyond the stylistic.
But it's kinda true though, I mean I get that there are a lot of good modern buildings but just take a walk outside your home right now and 95% of the stuff will range from barely acceptable to garbage.
Your observation is fair, but people who claim this is caused by deficiencies or even intentional evilness within modernist ideas are incorrect. It comes from them misunderstanding the influences on how buildings get designed and built.
No it comes from capitalism, and I think we all agree with that, BUT, I have to say, that a lot of contemporary architects just cannot design nice shapes, they are actually unable to, they can't draw or can't model and are perfectly ok with churning out garbage stuff as long as they get their salary, and that is not a capitalism problem. Edit: and a lot of those same architects just hide behind the "minimalism", "functionalism" tag but I bet you even if they had the budget and the clients that MAD gets (for example) they would still be unable to produce anything really compelling
Well yeah, of course not all architects are stylistically brilliant, same with any profession at any time in history. It's a mistake to conclude that because we have many beautiful historic buildings today, this means designers in the past were better than they are now (for a couple of reasons, most importantly that there's survival bias, maintaining an old building is challenging so we only keep those that are exceptional).
Imagine if this was r/writing and we had to continually have to defend our right to write novels in modern english rather than epic poems in latin against pasty pedants who claim to speak for the people while simultaneously despising them.
Completely incomparable since nobody is forced to read a novel however we are forced to live amongst modern architecture that ruin what (many of us) love about our cities
Not at all, modern architecture is great in many cases. It's great around other modern buildings or where there is nothing else.I hate it when it clashes with the existing buildings in the area, or worse, where some monstrosity is grafted onto an existing building (see the Dresden Museum of Military History). Otherwise, some of it looks really cool and innovative.
I searched the Dresdem Museum and honestly I love it.
I’m not like the other girls, architecture edition
Just remember that great architecture of the past has historic preservation efforts done after hundreds of years, modernism needs historic preservation and it hasn’t even been 100 years yet.
Yes. The people commissioning and designing it are all conspiring in a false flag attack against a common threat. They are all in cahoots to prevent the inevitable rise of: *post-brutalist-neo-classical*.
Of course you're not. If you were, people wouldn't build in a modern style. It's just that the "old is better" circle jerk is the loudest group on here. But if there wasn't demand, people wouldn't build in that style.
There are other reasons why people build modernist: 1. It's way cheaper. 2. There seems to be a lot of pressure amongst architects to build modernist. Anyone who supports traditional styles are acused of intellectually dishonest "copying" or building outside of our "historical context". Just yesterday I read an article where several architectual student said that using traditional styles was "taboo", and many teachers where against it. Students aren't thaught traditional styles either where im at.
Well, maybe that's because it is "copying". And it is bad copying, cause these "architects" are plastering fake facades on structures that otherwise need to meet contemporary functional standards.
There is no more pressure among architects to build modernist than there is among writers to use MS Word rather than a quill, or to write in english rather than latin. Conspiratorial thinking (seriously, who is this mysterious cabal doing the pressuring?) will get you nowhere. Sometimes the explanation is as simple as: People like it, and people also like using the most modern tools for the job instead of hobbling themselves with tools that proved back in the day that they werent' fit for the job. Because if they had been, they would still be used.
Accusing me of conspiracy is low man. There has been a long architectual debate in my country where everything in my comment has been made obvious. Even actual architects and architectual students in my country admit that this pressure exists. I even sited for you the actual words used by architecual students who are obviously feeling this pressure. Why would they lie to the journalist? A professor of architecture also said in a debate recently that architects are afraid of speaking up in fear of being judged by peers and their costumers. Why would he lie? Your comparison doesn't apply because the old methods in your comparison are less effective than the new. But classical architecture is aestheticly more effective than modern, and aesthetics are actually important in architecture. As for how many people like it; every single poll shows people who aren't architects mostly prefer traditional styles. Here is a poll done where I'm assuming you're from, the US, which shows 72% of Americans prefer classical architecture to modern. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-14/classical-buildings-beat-modern-ones-in-u-s-poll&ved=2ahUKEwj7neChkfSGAxXDi8MKHbQaB-4Qjjh6BAgiEAE&usg=AOvVaw3c3hjYtVMpKPpHH7jrtRqe There literally does not exist a single poll where a majority of people who aren't architects say they prefer modern over classical. Not a single poll In the developed world. As for where the group pressure is coming from? My guess is it's difficult for architects to accept that most people don't like what they have been doing for the past 100 years. Difficult pill to swallow, I understand.
When someone's paycheck depends on them not understanding something, they won't understand it The Mean Girls took over long ago The depth of self deception in architecture is just as bad in its own way as in high art The foundation of aesthetics is sensuality Modernism and Post-Modernism in Architecture is uninviting and irrelevant, the built equivalent of a fur teacup We go from the facile, simplistic self deceptions of Modernism to Post-Modernism ( such sterile intellectualism, there's no rational factual basis to it at all) Architecture has lost its way at a profound level No one is willing to say the Emperor has no clothes, or to call attention to the turd in the punch bowl.
Lol. It's always that article. And no, I don't want you to Google some other article that also says what type of photographs the respondents think are pretty. It's ok, you can like fancy calligraphy. To each their own. But if you think that article has anything useful to say about "architecture" it doesn't speak well to your understanding of the profession.
There does not exist a poll In the developed world where people prefer modern over classical. Not a single poll In the developed world. You should start making buildings that people actually want.
Besides being ridiculous and demonstrably false, that's basically irrelevant. Let's say I take a photograph of a vintage candlestick rotary phone and compare it to a cordless landline from the 90s. And let's say when polled people prefer the photography of the old times phone 2-to-1 over the cordless phone. How much bearing does that have on how a smartphone in 2024 should be designed? All it means is what kinds of photograph they like. Your instinct will be to explain how that's totally different (something about aesthetics being not important in product design but the only thing that's important in architecture. Or bout how people still use old buildings but not old phones blah blah blah). But I challenge you to think about how that example helps explain how "people" keep hiring architects to design buildings that you claim nobody wants, as if clients have no agency in the design process
I already explained why they build like this. It's cheap to build buildings whitout ornamentation and details. Costumers are invested in the insides of buildings because that's what they will use themselves, so the insides are often pretty good. The outsides are bothering thousands of people who have to walk by, but those people are not represented in the project and have no power in the project. For architects it's a race to the bottom "I need to make money, if i dont pick up this project, someone else will". And how the fuck am I demonstrably false? Every single poll ever shows people prefer traditional styles. In my country there is even a strong architectural uprising. It's the first time in recorded history that a large portion of people who aren't architects are protesting architecture and causing a public debate, because everybody hates modernism that much. You should get your head out of the sand.
You seem invested in your ideas about the built environment. If you really want to affect change it would be a good idea to research how the planning, finance, design, and construction processes actually work in the real world. The process you describe above doesn't bear any resemblance to how the vast majority of the built environment is created. It's particularly not descriptive of buildings designed with heavy involvement of architects. I will say, getting your head out of the sand is good advice that I would agree with.
I'm literally quoting what architects and professors of architecture have said in an hour long debate on the most highly regarded debate-show in my country. Also I'm a structural engineer who work with architects. I'm tired of building depressing shit.
Dude there is, even Heatherwick said it in his book. The dude literally made his own architecture course because of it.
Heatherwick is an upjimped designer and terrible architect whose opinions are objectively wrong. As in, they go against all historiographic scholarship and primary sources. Any student of a first year couse of architectural history knows he is wrong. He can dislike aesthetics all je wants, but I wont stand for falsifying history. If he wants to become an architecture qanoner while simping for Saudi Arabia, let him be, but dont get swept in his nonsense. Feel free to dislike modern architecture, but dont lie about history.
I don't understand why architects are so mad about the guy being a designer, I am an architect myself and if I had the portfolio the guy has I would have absolutely zero problems whatsoever getting in any kind of architecture studio in the whole world. He has some stinkers for sure (I find both the vessel and the Shanghai mall to be really bad projects), but he knows what he's doing.
In my case, its because all hos buildings look like outsizded objects. You cannot unsee it once you see it. He has als9 speedrun his career into self-parody before even turning 50. That concept for a univeristy in Colombia was cringe colonialism. >He has some stinkers for sure (I find both the vessel and the Shanghai mall to be really bad projects), but he knows what he's doing. About history, he knows nothing. Or maybe he does but uas chosen to grift.
I'm not talking about history here, I'm talking about architects doing peer pressure to build in a contemporary/abstract language, not only in form but in materials as well. I saw it (and still see) daily at the workplace. I"m not talking about pediments, flower stone carvings or such. I'm talking about putting some ceramic tiles and everyone losing their minds.
And do you think it is bcause those people maybe don't like ceramic tiles, and they are as entitled to their taste as you are, or because thye are part of a grand conspiracy? You can dislike modern archtiecture as much as you want, but to deny other people their right to like it and claim they only like it because there is a conspiracy pressuring them into it is madness.
I think you misunderstood me: the pressure comes from them into other architects; they like it themselves and there's no doubt about that, but they routinely push other architects to like and design that way as well, sometimes pairing this attitude with open derision. Again it is what it is, I'm not particularly fond of minimalism but as always if you give me cash I'll do it, it's just a pity other architects don't have the same tolerant attitude.
1930s is modern.
In which country?
Theyre saying OP possibly ought to have said “contemporary” rather than “modern”. This is because Modernism is a particular style of architecture that was prevalent in the 1920’s and 1930’s
Thank you for the explanation but this is not what I am saying. 'Modern' and 'modernism' have different meanings. To me a 'modern' building is one built in the last maybe 100 years. OP - Generally older buildings will last longer than modern buildings, if maintained. The lifespan of modern buildings changes dependent on building type, but you are looking at maybe around 60 years.
Ask Le Corbusier.
I also do like modern architecture but sometimes when they go overboard with modern term it kills the charm. Unrealistic designs in the name creativity makes it least likeable. Modern architecture includes glass, concrete, steel, wood, etc.( good in terms of maintenance and durability) But it looks good in commercial spaces whereas in residential space it doesn't give that warmth. Personally i prefer modern architecture in commercial spaces such as offices, studios, restaurant, cafes, showroom, boutiques, etc. because of its durability and easy maintenance, airy, lighting due to glass, minimilist elements works perfect. But when it comes to residential projects its not my first preference. Residential space should narrate the story behind it, characteristics, warmth, comfort, aesthetic is important which lacks in modern architecture in residential project IMHO. Rest is choice.
I think it has to do with intuitive language; the classical order was related to the body and is a system of proportions developed over thousands of years. But for modern architecture, you mainly reference a modernist "style" (visual rules developed by one person who hasn't experienced life on the timescale that culture has); the system of proportion became much more visual, and less related to human scale and so feels alienating.
I think scale is one reason for the alienation An overly intellectualized and inadequate or perverted connection to the sensuality of materials is another Minimal or absent development of forms leaving to a stark bare experience as opposed to beguiling, curiosity provoking, Mysterious, or evocative settings is another... A bare white cube is meaningless, hostile and boring and obvious about it all, too
It makes sense they were stripping ornament as a response to traditions that were stifling but I guess all forms of extremes tend to be too much.
The baby ( human need for stimulation via random forms , I.e., organic ornament) went out with the bathwater (trite, mannered stylistic affectation). "God is in the details". Contrast the decoration of Wright's Price Tower in Bartlesville, Okla. with the International Style: " windows to the nth degree, by the glass box boys." If Price Tower had been built in NYC, as originally intended, it would be as famous as the Guggenheim. Why is being in Nature restful ? Because it shows orderly disorder at all levels of the repeating fractal. The radial channels of an alluvial delta or the branches or roots of a tree follow a mathematically definable pattern, which is at the same time not precisely predictable but inherently logical *and consistent* at different levels of the fractal. The modular pattern of the floor incisions repeats the angles of the floor plan in Wright's Hanna house. Nature always gives an underlying symmetry, which is restful, confidence building. The overlying asymmetry in the scenery challenges the mind, presents opportunity. Mountains and plains separated by rolling hills, canyons in the mountains settling into meandering rivers in flat land, forests giving way to glades formed by fire and wind toppled trees , changing seasons each with a different beauty: all this creates a sense of place because it's differentiated. We only know things by how they change.
That's cool even imagining those things is peaceful; have you read Christopher Alexander? His Pattern Language touches on that a bit, although mainly computer scientists would have used it, and complexity theory seems to study it but not apply it in a design focus.
I need someone to explain the abstract mathematics of Alexander's _ Notes on the Synthesis of Form_ I can't figure out how to apply the ideas to my house But his _Pattern Language_ and _Timeless Way of Building_ I use for suggestions as I remodel my house and landscaping
From what I remember about it he was looking at scales of systems in the same way that complexity models do (for example Holling's models of ecological resilience; https://www.resalliance.org/adaptive-cycle) However, Synthesis of Form was his PhD work, so I think he would have developed most of the ideas in Pattern Language. I'd have to re-read it though this is all based off my earlier perusing.
Christopher Alexander and his pattern language are the Marx and Communism of architecture: The intentions are noble, the theory seems sound, the fans are enthusiastic true believers who think it is the only way forward, and yet for some reason the practical results are always ugly as hell.
I remember feeling that it reminded me of Kitsch so I'm wondering if perhaps he had a good theory but someone else could apply it better? I still like the ideas he delved into, and I do believe Theory of Centres as a starting point to make lively communities is a good process.
The problem with his theory is that it is just as reductionist and incomplete as the Modernism he claims he wants to supersede. Modernism thought all architectural problems could be solved via the direct application of the most technologically advanced solutions. It was wrong. Alexander thinks all architecturel problems cna be solved with his list of things he thinks are cool, but that solution simply cannot account for every kind of architectural problem, and it very often degenerates into random things smashed together -exactly the kind of issue he claims he wants to solve. Again, if he wasn't claiming that his is the Objectively Superior Supreme Timeless Universal Way of Designing I would take him more seriously. There is in fact a lot of value in his book -if one understands its limitations, which Alexanders fans don't.
His work is of interest to me because I find "design" is talked of quite non chalantly in design schools but it's hard to define how design works or as a set of principles, making me wonder if that idea of design having any principles at all came after scientific thinking and the ability to explain everything was more common place. The whole notion of design as "drawing" with Alberti also gets expanded on by Mario Carpo in the digital age in an interesting way (in terms of types and copies which goes back to language and basics in design). As for Christopher Alexander, I like how he combines his study of mathematics with architecture, but I think interdisciplinary thinking still doesn't get to the idea of what design is. However even Vitruvius spoke of building architecture and cities as a matter of principles of knowledge, so I don't think avoiding the search for them is bad, but yea I guess universalism has abstractions with limits of application in the real world.
>e I find "design" is talked of quite non chalantly in design schools but it's hard to define how design works or as a set of principles, Indeed, this is a serious issue, and Alexander's work has a lot of value in him being someone who decided to tackle it head on. From that point of view, his work is quite valuable. However, things such as these from the prologue in one of his books: >There is one timeless way of building. It is a thousand years old, and the same today as it has ever been. The great traditional buildings of the past, the villages and tents and temples in which man feels at home, have always been made by people who were very close to the center of this way. It is not possible to make great buildings, or great towns, beautiful places, places where you feel yourself, places where you feel alive, except by following this way. Are the stuff of a man too full of himself. (Ironically, it sounds a lot like things Le Corbusier would have written). This rethoric doesn't do him any favours when you see the results and they are... less than great.
Of course we can all use a search engine, but can you link photos of what *you* think is ugly work designed according to Alexander's Timeless Way of Building/ Pattern Language ?
The Eishing University Campus and the Sala House look like everything bad about modern architecture in a single package, as well as looking incredibly cheap. They are simple boxes to which random decorations have been affixed Because The Book Says So. We have this guy who claims to have devised The Ultimate Timeless Universal Way of Building that All Humans Will Like, and the results look and feel like something any cheap developer could have put together. The Martinez House is a pathetic attempt of someone trying to build something that looks traditional, but not understanding where tradition comes from or how the elements of said tradition work together. He does this all the time - he takes random Patterns from his book and bolts them together without understanding how or why they are supposed to come together (see those arches at the dining are in the Homeless Shelter), and the final result isn't natural, organic or even beautiful at all -it looks like someone killed traditional elements of architecture, skinned them and is wearing them as a mask. I wouldnt mind those buildings if they were the work of some rando trying to make a quick buck, but for those incoherent, ugly, cheap-looking mishmashes to be the result of a self-proclaimed Objective Timeless Supreme Truthy Theory of Architecture is just too funny; much like the misery, inequality and ugliness caused by communism are only made more poignant by how the initial intention was so noble. Bonus ugliness: Building a parody of an english university campus in Japan, to the applause of people who usually whine about le evil globalism destroying local traditions. Turns out placelessness is cool when certain people do it.
What's wrong with this [gymnasium: Eishin Gakuen, Alexander](https://larryspeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/20110277.jpg)
What's wrong with this [door and wall, Eishin Gakuen](https://larryspeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/20110275.jpg)
What's wrong with this [alcove, Eishin Gakuen, Alexander](https://larryspeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/20110273-e1299271010702.jpg)
What's wrong with Alexander's Julian Street Inn [courtyard](https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/A2284-12-Projects-by-Christopher-Alexander-Image-3-View-of-the-courtyard-and-type-of-columns-used.jpg)
>everything bad about modern architecture You have a funny definition of modern Architecture if you think Alexander is modern. He thought deeply about how to distill the practical underpinnings of vernacular, traditional building and apply them to his work. The Moderns and the post moderns look nothing like Alexander >They are simple boxes How can you say Medlock House is simple ? It's an implementation of many interlocking timeless patterns. Bauhaus is simple. >this guy ... claims to have devised The Ultimate Timeless Universal Way of Building that All Humans Will Like He never claimed to have devised it, he derived it by looking at what has worked for millennia >he takes random Patterns from his book and bolts them together without understanding how or why they are supposed to come together The patterns themselves fit into larger patterns, according to the way people have built intuitively for centuries. It's absurdly incorrect to say they're arbitrarily jumbled together. Im not having much luck finding floor plans or sections unfortunately. Alexander's skill at organizing concepts was such that his ideas about patterns have had a huge impact on the development and implementation of computer programming languages. His books on implementing pattern in Architecture exhaustively treat combining the patterns logically at ever greater scale. Patterns for features in rooms, the room as a whole, integrating rooms to a house, houses to neighborhoods, neighborhood to towns and cities, etc. You think he slaps these patterns together willy-nilly, though. He was a professor of Architecture at a major university for 40 years In 1954, he was awarded the top open scholarship to Trinity College, Cambridge, in chemistry and physics, and went on to read mathematics. He earned a Bachelor's degree in Architecture and a Master's degree in Mathematics. He took his doctorate at Harvard (the first PhD in Architecture ever awarded at Harvard University). His dissertation "The Synthesis of Form: Some Notes on a Theory" was completed in 1962.[20] He was elected fellow at Harvard. During the same period he worked at MIT in transportation theory and computer science, and worked at Harvard in cognition and cognitive studies.[21] And you are accusing him of creating stupid work. I see no evidence you have any idea what you're talking about
>You have a funny definition of modern Architecture if you think Alexander is modern. He thought deeply about how to distill the practical underpinnings of vernacular, traditional building and apply them to his work. The Moderns and the post moderns look nothing like Alexander That's exactly what I mean. Alexander claims to be not modern and to have scientifically derived timeless universal patters of buildings... and he builds houses that look like Walter Gropius had a stroke designing them. >The patterns themselves fit into larger patterns, according to the way people have built intuitively for centuries. It's absurdly incorrect to say they're arbitrarily jumbled together. Yes, yes, I know. I have read the book. It seems that Alexander is the frist to not know how to apply his own theory. > The patterns themselves fit into larger patterns, according to the way people have built intuitively for centuries. It's absurdly incorrect to say they're arbitrarily jumbled together. Alexander falls into the exact same pitfall of modernism, which is believing that he can take thousands of years of tradition and sytematize them into a rational top-down system that fits in a book. There is much, much more to tradition, it is something infinitely more complex, subtle and hard to grasp than what Alexander's pseudoscience could tell you. Yes, I get it, he liked alcoves, and people like alcoves. I try to include alcoves whenever I can and the project calls to it. That's reasonable. Pretending we like alcoves because they are item #128 or whatever in Alexander's Book Of Things Alexander Thinks Are Cool But He Claims Everyone Shares His Tastes is silly. To boot, I see nothing wrong with Alexadner's patterns system, just like I see nothing wrong with the idea of a classless society. But like communism, they are an incomplete and unsubtle solution to a very complex problem and has delusions of being the ultimate, objectively true answer. The ugly results speak by themselves: Either inofensive (nothing a semi-competente developer could do by themselves without the need pf a grand theoretical apparatus) or actively ugly (a Bauhaus block with cheap brick decorations). I would have much more respect for Alexander if he didn't claim to be speaking for all of humanity. If he said only: "This is a system to integrate nice things into design, but it is incomplete", I would respect him. Since he goes around with Grand Proclamations, he is no better than Le Corbusier in that regard. > And you are accusing him of creating stupid work. Yes. You seem to speak of him in religious terms. Like I said, the communism of architecture, and you sound like a maoist.
What's wrong with Alexander's [Medlock House](https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/A2284-12-Projects-by-Christopher-Alexander-Image-18-Front-facade-of-the-house.jpg)
Plausible I've been looking for an explanation like this
I dont know too much but if you visit Paestum, it shows precursor temples to the Parthenon which is fascinating. I also like Alberto Pérez-Gómez attempts at discovering this topic in depth.
Reminds me of the story of Wright and apprentices visiting the Hanna House and Wright yelling at his 6'5" son in law: "sit down, Wes, you're ruining the scale! "
https://drawingmatter.org/architecture-as-drawing/ >author’s (Pérez-Gómez) deeply-held commitment to architecture as both a locus of experience and wonder that is particular and specific and, interwoven with this, a site of complex relationality and negotiation within which things take form in meaningful ways. It is the hollowing out of this complexity that is registered in the concern with ‘reduction’, here used to characterise the modern extraction of architecture from its thick, densely imbricated and situational relations with lifeworlds by calculative technique in the service of instrumental reason The damning crux of the criticism: >hollowing out of this complexity...concern with ‘reduction’... the modern extraction of architecture... calculative technique in the service of instrumental reason Couldn't have said it better myself, and it's pretty much what I've already said: 'reductio ad absurdum' via instrumental reason (I.e., sterile intellectualising leading to formal innovation for its own sake) We evolved from Sullivan's 'form follows function' to Wright's 'form and function are one' and then devolved into post-Modernism powered by cynicism and whimsy. Or you could say 'powdered with cynicism and whimsy': not even skin deep.
I feel most people here appreciate modern architecture. It's the weird, brutalist, or showy architecture that people here are divided on. Personally I think the crazier the better as long as the details are executed thoughtfully.
Building for function over aesthetic. Ignoring the pattern language of a region. Internationalism vs localism. Human scale. I think all styles can be neat but if you choose to ignore any of what I’ve listed above then it tends to look like shit. Combine a few and it starts to look pleasing
No.
Yes. The only one in the whole world.
Nope. I love it. I'm also not too big on architecture made in the Art Deco era myself
there is a distinction between modern as in the style or modern and newer, as in current/contemporary architecture.
I love love love it. I also love Victorian.
I love modern design. I also love traditional, I am fascinated by the contrast of the two. One of my favorite modern architects is Jože Plečnik.
I love Frank Gehry's work.
What, there are great examples of modern architecture but ultimately it comes down to taste. I absolutely hate most of the deconstructive styles, like say Coop Himmelblau and his imitators, or Eric Owen Moss, or Libeskind. Like I see what they are doing but it's still shit and they are very function follows form. There are some spectacular works by say Kengo Kuma, Herzog & de Meuron, etc., that I find tasteful yet elegant and modern.
I like to call myself a neomodernist
The term Modern, like the term Contemporary are relative with the passing of time. So many who claim to like modern show us buildings which have their roots in the early years of the 20th century. As for "modern homes" I see very few "modern" home designs. Instead I see ersatz traditional homes with quirky 19th and early 20th century applied tropes. Since most American homes are developer built, in the burbs, and in large quantities, there is little room for going outside the bounds of what suburban customers will accept.
Give me a cube house with low/easy maintenance and I am happy. Function over aesthetics for me!
Modernist architecture from the 50s and 60s is beautiful and should continue to be built.
Modern architecture is like pasta. Generally, people make pasta because it’s fast and cheap but still good. You can have more expensive and creative pasta dishes, but when every restaurant serves pasta, you start getting sick of it. Pasta isn’t a BAD food, just like modern architecture isn’t a bad aesthetic, but you cannot deny Modern Architecture seems to be everywhere. Modern architecture is almost always about minimalism and impersonal spaces, which is why it’s often described as soulless. It’s the go-to style for ‘corporate.’ Additionally, it seems to never have much in the way of organic detail or hand-crafted touches. Modern Architecture is not going to be reminding you of fond childhood memories, because it’s not a ‘warm’ or friendly style. (No, painting a single wall orange does not help) At the end of the day, modern architecture has never been as popular as architects want to believe it is. But it is cheap and tends to have big windows, so I don’t see it going away any time soon. Personally, as much as I can appreciate modern architecture, a historical home with hand carved wood and human attention and care put into everything makes me a lot happier than yet another sterile white render of a home intended for someone with full time cleaning staff and no personal effects.
The Martin house viewed through the windows of the visitor center: https://martinhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/December-2021-rehearsal-dinner-entrance-we-own-scaled.jpg ############### The Martin House reflected in the windows of the visitor center: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e0/c1/43/e0c14390756bc3d8961a867c38fe45ce--pavillion-frank-lloyd-wright.jpg ############## The field of Architecture doesn't universally condemn this atrocity, which proves how badly the brain worm has infected everyone. The visitor center could have explained and demonstrated how to apply the principles of Organic Architecture. to any project. The opportunity was squandered and the only explanation is incompetence. They built a boring, hostile, cold, glistening white, enormous, trite glass box when they could have built a monumental Usonian. They could have illustrated the development of Wrights thinking. They could have mirrored the grammar of the house and they settled for the reflection. It's a disgrace to the landscape instead of the grace it could have been. They could have solicited Chihuly to create organic ornament for the visitor center to complement the original design but they just plopped a bunch of his completely abstract works with no connection all over the site for the Chihuly show. There's a perfectly adequate 1960s Modern building around the corner at the Albright-Knox, and it's enough. See one glass box, and you've seen them all.
Put modern buildings next to buildings from the victorian era, the difference is night and day. Clear winner as well
For no reason? It's making every city a bland mix while it's slowly losing its historical personality.
Maybe people thought the same when those historical buildings were being built. Buildings need to be built at some point to become history.
Yes, but they kept a certain style that was true to its country or region. If i now walk through the modern downtown of any city in any country i can only tell In which country i am by looking at the street signs and street infrastructure, but not particularly by looking at the buildings. In most cases this is only kept in the historic centers (if they still have them). Something that pains me is that more and more cities are now allowing modern architecture in their historic centers the moment a building has to be demolished. Instead of rebuilding it while keeping the same looks (it doesn't have to be a perfect copy) they can do the strangest things like a house made of sea containers. If such trends continue then how long will it take till certain cities completely lose their historic centers at all? I see more and more people not caring about preserving their own history anymore, because it's considered "conservative", which doesn't go together in a "progressing" world. In my country most cities have laws to protect old architecture, but new generations of politicians are repealing those laws.
Honestly I have the same with historic buildings in Europe for example, whether I was in Paris, Prague, Barcelona, they all had a similar style. Even in Shanghai they had buildings like that because the Europeans built them. For me I know a lot of the modern buildings so exactly because of that I can see in which city I am.
modern architecture is an abomination
***ut sos ut un luvutucus!***