Two interrelated thoughts: many of the modern and post modern designs that I see in New England were built during the 1950s and 60s as part of the urban renewal programs that wiped out "blighted" neighborhoods. To my eye, blocks with mixed architectural styles are most intriguing as the designs play off each other. That interplay with historic designs is absent from most of the of the urban renewal planning and many of the buildings fail to celebrate the design possibilities created by the modern style. Second, so much of that design type ignores the proportions of neighborhoods that make people feel welcome and safe. Jane Jacobs' book The Death and Life of Great American Cities is all about this failure.
The result is sub-par designs created in a scale that makes us feel uncomfortable. No wonder people don't like most of it.
Why does it have to be either / or? There is so much great modernist architecture! There is so much terrible modernist architecture! Both are true. I also disagree that the values expressed by a style of architecture are uniform. Maybe a few guys in one decade all had the same idea, but many descendants of the style have an array of values they are trying to express through their reinventions. I also think that while the examples of bad architecture are fair, you need to talk about skyscrapers which were really where modern architecture actually was most expressed. I want to see you argue with Lever House! And most of midtown Manhattan and downtown Chicago etc. I would hate to live in a world where we have a consensus view of beauty, personally. Anyway, I want to re-read your piece but these are some quick initial responses.
My Bailey here is that I was painting with a broad brush. I see a big contrast between the intentions of the people who created the international style and the relativistic appeals used to defend it. I do not even dislike modern architecture that much. It became so dominant that we lost a lot of other architectural richess and tradition in daily life, especially in public spaces.
I tend to agree - most critique of "modern" architecture seems to be fighting the last warm, pointed firmly at 20th century movements we have already left behind. This fight has, for the most part, already been won. When I see new buildings in the cities I spend time in (whether actually recently built, or renderings of upcoming proposals) they might not be "traditional" architecture, but they are definitely not featureless concrete boxes. To my taste, they are usually quite pleasing.
Ugh no. Bring back art nouveau, art deco, and the arts and crafts movement and the army of affordable artisans that let there be detailed ornamentation in average buildings. But with modern central air.
Two interrelated thoughts: many of the modern and post modern designs that I see in New England were built during the 1950s and 60s as part of the urban renewal programs that wiped out "blighted" neighborhoods. To my eye, blocks with mixed architectural styles are most intriguing as the designs play off each other. That interplay with historic designs is absent from most of the of the urban renewal planning and many of the buildings fail to celebrate the design possibilities created by the modern style. Second, so much of that design type ignores the proportions of neighborhoods that make people feel welcome and safe. Jane Jacobs' book The Death and Life of Great American Cities is all about this failure.
The result is sub-par designs created in a scale that makes us feel uncomfortable. No wonder people don't like most of it.
Why does it have to be either / or? There is so much great modernist architecture! There is so much terrible modernist architecture! Both are true. I also disagree that the values expressed by a style of architecture are uniform. Maybe a few guys in one decade all had the same idea, but many descendants of the style have an array of values they are trying to express through their reinventions. I also think that while the examples of bad architecture are fair, you need to talk about skyscrapers which were really where modern architecture actually was most expressed. I want to see you argue with Lever House! And most of midtown Manhattan and downtown Chicago etc. I would hate to live in a world where we have a consensus view of beauty, personally. Anyway, I want to re-read your piece but these are some quick initial responses.
My Bailey here is that I was painting with a broad brush. I see a big contrast between the intentions of the people who created the international style and the relativistic appeals used to defend it. I do not even dislike modern architecture that much. It became so dominant that we lost a lot of other architectural richess and tradition in daily life, especially in public spaces.
I tend to agree - most critique of "modern" architecture seems to be fighting the last warm, pointed firmly at 20th century movements we have already left behind. This fight has, for the most part, already been won. When I see new buildings in the cities I spend time in (whether actually recently built, or renderings of upcoming proposals) they might not be "traditional" architecture, but they are definitely not featureless concrete boxes. To my taste, they are usually quite pleasing.
As disclaimed in the piece, I am not informed on these finer points, but I agree that the design flourishes on new buildings are often quite nice!
Ugh no. Bring back art nouveau, art deco, and the arts and crafts movement and the army of affordable artisans that let there be detailed ornamentation in average buildings. But with modern central air.