Why did modern architecture fail?

[ralph124c]

At the beginning of the 20th century, modern architects (like FL Wright, W. Gropius, etc.) were confident that people would embrace new designs for their homes and workplaces. Some very impressive buildings were built, and quite a few houses. But now, 90+ years later, we seem to be reverting to older designs.
So why is this? Were the bold new designs too radical? Or are people too enmeshed in traditional views (of what a house ought to look like)? Granted, really weird designs (like those of Frank Gehry) mistify me also-they are just so ugly and non-functional.
What is architecture likely to be in 100 years? Will we see a real break with the past, or will 22nd century American still be building cape Cod houses?

[aruvqan]

all of the above ...

Some were seriously ugly, some were unlivable [the house that was all cylinders, um ... Jester or Harlequin house? Falling Water sucks as a long term residence, it would be marginally acceptable as a weekend or short vacation house]

Problem with architects is *in general* they do not design for people, they design for other architects and arty magazines.

If given the option between a place with beautiful clean lines, lots of open spaces and no space for bookshelves, or some 1800s farmhouse type with lots of built in shelves, cupboards to hide crap in which would you pick?

I would be willing to bet that as you are a doper, you probably do something other than sleep, wake up and go to work, then sit and watch TV. You probably have a hobby like reading, wood working, computers, knitting, cooking, gardening ... you have kids with toys, grandkids with toys, pets ... you *live* you arent a sim.

The most boring person I ever met had an architectural digest quality house. She had the perfect danish modern flat, the perfect danish modern furniture. She had 3 whole magazines on the coffee table ... she had a tiny writing desk that she did her monthly bills on, she had vases with floral arrangements, and a tv ... no books, no hobbies, barely any food in the kitchen [model type, always dieting] She had the personality of a store manequin. Perfect hair nails and clothes though....

[The Hamster King]

I don't think modern architecture "failed". As a fashion it had a good run and some really beautiful buildings were built because of it. Some modern architects did act like they were changing things forever and the pendulum would never swing back again. They were wrong about that. But the pendulum didn't swing back because modern architecture was broken. It swung back because eventually people want something new.

That's not to say modern architecture isn't without its problems. Practical design elements like eaves or peaked roofs were abandoned for aesthetic purity, undermining the movement's core aesthetic of "form follows function". Architects would sometimes ignore human factors in a quest for abstract mathematical precision. The minimalist approach also means that there's not much margin for error in the design. With more traditional building styles a mediocre building can still have attractive details -- you can probably find something to like about it. But with modernist designs everything is riding on the "high concept". If the grand vision fails, all you're left with is a crappy-looking box.

Lever House is still a beautiful building, though.

[Daylate]

Probably one of the problems is that "Modern Architecture" occasionally disgorges some monumentally ugly buildings. A case in point is the building housing Seattle's "Experience Music Project". See

http://www.seattleattractions.com/emp.html

Looks amazingly like a crumpled up wad of tinfoil. Or what's in a dirty clothes hamper.

[fiddlesticks]

When I was house hunting (right at the peak of the market, yay me) I saw a bunch of "contemporary houses" and one modern house. I really, really, really wanted to put down an offer on the modern house...but it was real mess beyond the pretty parts that were featured in the brochure. The kitchen, dining room and the master bedrooms were absolutely gorgeous, maybe not Architectural Digest material, but then I'm not a millionaire, but certainly more striking than any other house I saw in my price range. Unfortunately, the rest of the house was sort of an afterthought. It was billed as a 3 bedroom, but was truly only a 2 and the 2nd bedroom was an apparently converted nearly windowless carport space tucked in below the kitchen. The "3rd" bedroom was tucked in behind a half partition wall directly behind the living room. Many, many, many cubic yards of south-facing windows with what appeared to be single pane glass (this is in San Antonio, TX...the A/C bill must be ridiculous).

In the end I got a boring contemporary. Oh well.

[even sven]

Modern architecture is alive and well. The vast majority of office buildings are very modern places and look nothing like the offices of 100 or even 50 years ago. The cubicle is one of the most uniquely modern pieces of architecture ever.

Our homes may look classic on the outside, but on the inside they use a lot of concepts from modern architecture. Older houses have many smaller rooms, closed-off kitchens, definite closed-off formal/informal spaces, etc. Modern houses have larger rooms. more open space, formal and informal spaces that flow into each other naturally, and large kitchens with eating spaces that connect to the rest of the house.

Think of the architecture magazines like runway models. Nobody is supposed to stuff that over the top. But they will work forms, colors and ideas into their designs.

Why do we keep up the classic facade? Well, we know a building is going to last a while. We can't just change it next year when something new is in fashion. So we stay conservative. And we put a lot of emotional investment in our homes, and older designs seem more appropriate for things of that gravity. This isn't a new thing. Even our own founding fathers fell back on ancient Greek architecture to give their new buildings the authority they were lookin g for.

[Key Lime Guy]

I would say that modern architecture was/is very successful for corporate/institutional buildings.

For homes, part of the historical answer was government resistance (the FHA refused to insure flat-roofed houses in the 1940s for example). Also in the 70s it became apparent that all-glass buildings weren't the most energy-efficient, and that attics were good too.

But today, I think it's mostly a matter of taste.

[scule]

Originally Posted by even sven

Think of the architecture magazines like runway models. Nobody is supposed to stuff that over the top. But they will work forms, colors and ideas into their designs.

This I think nails it. Those architects were the Karl Lagerfelds and Yves St. Laurents of the architectural world. They create works of art that provide inspiration for more practical architects to use in building design for every-day life.

You generally never see the fashion shown on the catwalks of New York, Milan or Paris on any regular street corner, but you do see the influence of their designs in the changing winds of fashion with every season. Same thing.

[Beware of Doug]

It was taste, and the market, and our heritage, and ultimately, democracy. The modernists were compulsive planners - most pushed an all-encompassing scheme that only the heavy hand of central planning could have brought about. Even the more independent concepts, such as Wright's Usonian House, clearly pushed a point of view that was at odds with what most people felt "home" ought to be like.

I live in a modernist house myself. It was designed by its builder in the mid-1930s and built in the middle of a typical depression-era neighborhood of small bungalows, craftsmen and colonials. It's a delightful house to me (I grew up in it, FWIW), but it has about zero relevance to its surroundings. It's no longer a sore thumb, having aged with the neighborhood, but in 1937 it must have been glaringly different.

[BrainGlutton]

James Howard Kunstler's website includes an Eyesore of the Month entry showing exactly what is wrong with modern architecture and often comparing it to more traditional architecture. It's worthwhile reading through all the back entries. The most depressing part is how many of the buildings featured are brand-new or nearly so, like the new Seattle Public Library.

On David Szondy's Tales of Future Past site, check out the Future City and Future House sections.

See How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built, by Stewart Brand, for detailed explanations of why Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater has been so difficult to maintain and why Buckminster Fuller's geodesic domes have such limited applications compared to what he hope for them (short answer: roofs leak at the joins; a geodesic dome is all joins).

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Daylate

Probably one of the problems is that "Modern Architecture" occasionally disgorges some monumentally ugly buildings. A case in point is the building housing Seattle's "Experience Music Project". See

http://www.seattleattractions.com/emp.html

Looks amazingly like a crumpled up wad of tinfoil. Or what's in a dirty clothes hamper.

Frank Gehry. I knew it as soon as I saw the photo. I haven't yet seen a building he designed that I'd want to live NEAR, let alone spend any time in.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by jayjay

Frank Gehry. I knew it as soon as I saw the photo. I haven't yet seen a building he designed that I'd want to live NEAR, let alone spend any time in.

I really like the Walt Disney Concert Hall.


In addition to being a stunning building, it is beautiful on the inside as well, and has very good accoustics. I've attended several concerts there.

Ed

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by suranyi

I really like the Walt Disney Concert Hall.


In addition to being a stunning building, it is beautiful on the inside as well, and has very good accoustics. I've attended several concerts there.

Ed

I'm sorry, but that looks like the Sydney Opera House exploded in a horrible concrete-to-sheet-aluminum alchemical transformation to me.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

James Howard Kunstler's website includes an Eyesore of the Month entry showing exactly what is wrong with modern architecture and often comparing it to more traditional architecture. It's worthwhile reading through all the back entries. The most depressing part is how many of the buildings featured are brand-new or nearly so, like the new Seattle Public Library.

That's a fascinating feature...I think I've added a new URL to my work timewaster list. I don't always agree with him, and his social beliefs rub me the wrong way occasionally (Really? Tattoos are barbarous?), and I'm not always sure when he's serious and when he's joking (he's never seen a metallic green electrical transformer box and assumes it's part of the designed aesthetic?), but it's fascinating.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Kuntsler's pretty funny.

Modern architecture was doomed as soon as the field started attracting people with no taste. Like all the arts today, it's a warehouse for fads (blobitechture, brutalism, etc.), bad philosophy (pomo bullshit, etc.) and idiots (Gehrig, etc.). You only need to view the aesthetic holocaust that is, for example, the Scottish Parliament to understand that there's obviously something deeply wrong about the culture of a group of professionals that spawned something so monumentally ugly.

[Dinsdale]

Not really a comment on "modern architecture", but I recall having read several times that "contemporary" styled homes take longer to sell than any other model.

I was a tad surprised to see FLW mentioned in the OP, because at least in my neck of the woods it seems every other new construction is marketed as "Prairie-style" (tho admittedly bearing little resemblance beyond the designation and perhaps a light fixture or two!)

Anyone have a link to that thread a while back on why people hate modern architecture?

[davekhps]

Originally Posted by scule

This I think nails it. Those architects were the Karl Lagerfelds and Yves St. Laurents of the architectural world. They create works of art that provide inspiration for more practical architects to use in building design for every-day life.

You generally never see the fashion shown on the catwalks of New York, Milan or Paris on any regular street corner, but you do see the influence of their designs in the changing winds of fashion with every season. Same thing.

Bingo.

Me, I'm originally from Illinois, love my FLW, prairie/mission/bungalow/Sears arts & craft style homes. But I love that as an *influence*, not as a pure home throughout.

Ditto Eichler homes-- some can be gorgeous, they're always interesting, but taken to the extreme, you get an ugly 1950s plastic house.

In this respect, modern architecture didn't "fail"-- it just got absorbed as another design element to be included in newer designs (either successfully, or terribly unsuccessfully).

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by scule

This I think nails it. Those architects were the Karl Lagerfelds and Yves St. Laurents of the architectural world. They create works of art that provide inspiration for more practical architects to use in building design for every-day life.

You generally never see the fashion shown on the catwalks of New York, Milan or Paris on any regular street corner, but you do see the influence of their designs in the changing winds of fashion with every season. Same thing.

Yeah, but... the great architects of the past - Stanford White, Louis Sullivan, Raymond Hood - they also built beautiful buildings.

I think the difference is that in the past, architects would form schools, study history, and constant copy from each other, thus improving the art from as a whole. Whilst now, every star architect is required to be completely and utterly original - which means they never learn from each other, and never improve. The way I see it, in any field of art it's never the innovators who do the best work, it's the guys who tweak the innovators' work.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Dinsdale

Not really a comment on "modern architecture", but I recall having read several times that "contemporary" styled homes take longer to sell than any other model.

Along the same lines, I live in an area with mainly houses built up to the 1920s - lots of frame houses, tudor style, Georgian, etc. No modern houses and lots of architectural diversity in the neighbourhood. No monster garages opening out on to the front and dwarfing the house.

When we were selling one house in the area and buying another house in the area, our realtor told us that houses in this area go for a premium, especially considering that most of them have old wiring, poor foundations, and so on.

People are willing to pay more for the older style houses, to the point that one developer recently did a sub-division in a new area of the city with new houses built in the older architectural style. Sold out quite quickly.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by suranyi

I really like the Walt Disney Concert Hall.

Ya gotta be fuckin' kiddin' me!

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Ya gotta be fuckin' kiddin' me!

No really, it's brought a lot of interest (and pride) to downtown L.A., and it's almost always sold out.

The LA Philharmonic even uses an outline of the building on its logo.

Ed

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Originally Posted by even sven

Modern architecture is alive and well. The vast majority of office buildings are very modern places and look nothing like the offices of 100 or even 50 years ago. The cubicle is one of the most uniquely modern pieces of architecture ever.

[ ... ]

Modern houses have larger rooms. more open space, formal and informal spaces that flow into each other naturally, and large kitchens with eating spaces that connect to the rest of the house.

And don't forget that flats are still very much around.

Originally Posted by Beware of Doug

The modernists were compulsive planners - most pushed an all-encompassing scheme that only the heavy hand of central planning could have brought about.

Yes, but I think you, and the OP and many people in this thread are mixing modern building - which is doing pretty well, thank you very much, and modernist building - which has left plenty of interesting and accepted new ideas, but has pretty much died out except as a form of conceptual art - if it has ever been more than that.

[smiling bandit]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "modernism". Older modernism, especially up to about the 50's, had some style and class. Not every building was a winner, but for the most part, they tried to have a distinctive but fitting and enjoyable look and were functional. But newer modern and post-modern architecture started going awry, I say. It became about having a unique look, and the fact is that people don't want or need most shapes in their housing.

Yeah, older houses had smaller rooms... but that was not an aesthetic choice. It was because small rooms were easier to heat, and homes were usually much smaller, and needed more functional space.

[GorillaMan]

Originally Posted by suranyi

I really like the Walt Disney Concert Hall.


In addition to being a stunning building, it is beautiful on the inside as well, and has very good accoustics. I've attended several concerts there.

Absolutely. To describe it as 'non-functional' is truly absurd. In a similar vein, I nominate The Lowry. Completely at home in its post-industrial setting and fully acknowledging it, but also beautiful. It even makes a nod to a seafaring connection, with very gently undulating floors which, as you move from one part of the building to another, give the impression of being on water rather than land. Also, above all, it works really well in its various roles as opera house, theatre and art gallery, and is popular.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by suranyi

No really, it's brought a lot of interest (and pride) to downtown L.A., and it's almost always sold out.

Oh, I'm sure it's brilliantly functional. But, from a purely external POV, esthetically indefensible.

By L.A. standards, though . . .

"You should see downtown L.A.! Some of the buildings there are more than 20 years old!"

-- Steve Martin, L.A. Story

[Rune]

When I think of modern architecture I get images of those ugly concrete skyscrapers in the suburbs we have in Europe. Very efficient - but so boring it robs the soul.

http://ing.dk/modules/xphoto/cache/77/22577_620_400.jpg

Originally Posted by aruvqan

The most boring person I ever met had an architectural digest quality house. She had the perfect danish modern flat, the perfect danish modern furniture. She had 3 whole magazines on the coffee table ... she had a tiny writing desk that she did her monthly bills on, she had vases with floral arrangements, and a tv ... no books, no hobbies, barely any food in the kitchen [model type, always dieting] She had the personality of a store manequin. Perfect hair nails and clothes though....

I can’t stand Danish design – sucks the life out of you.

[Knorf]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Oh, I'm sure it's brilliantly functional. But, from a purely external POV, esthetically indefensible.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

I love it. It's an amazing and beautiful building. Too bad you cannot appreciate it, apparently.

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by Knorf

De gustibus non est disputandum.

I love it. It's an amazing and beautiful building. Too bad you cannot appreciate it, apparently.

I can make similar things with crumpled aluminum. I think they're pretty, too, but you don't see me making billion-ton versions for kicks.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

I can make similar things with crumpled aluminum. I think they're pretty, too, but you don't see me making billion-ton versions for kicks.

If nothing else, at least Gehry can bring together such disparate personalities as smiling bandit and myself in agreement.

[The Hamster King]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Oh, I'm sure it's brilliantly functional. But, from a purely external POV, esthetically indefensible.

It's a lovely building to be in and around.

I know it might be hard for you to comprehend, but some of us actually LIKE this sort of thing.

By L.A. standards, though . . .

Here's another modernist L.A. monstrosity.

And this.

[Key Lime Guy]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

James Howard Kunstler's website includes an Eyesore of the Month entry showing exactly what is wrong with modern architecture and often comparing it to more traditional architecture. It's worthwhile reading through all the back entries. The most depressing part is how many of the buildings featured are brand-new or nearly so, like the new Seattle Public Library.

Can you point out the "exactly" part?

Also, I'm sure you're aware that the Seattle Library is beloved by its staff and its users. (stipulated: you can find isolated dissent) Same for Disney Hall, Diamond Ranch HS, Museum of Folk Art, etc, etc

[GorillaMan]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Oh, I'm sure it's brilliantly functional. But, from a purely external POV, esthetically indefensible.

Yes it is defensible as such, with the answer 'I like it'.

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

I can make similar things with crumpled aluminum. I think they're pretty, too, but you don't see me making billion-ton versions for kicks.

OK, go ahead, design something which is also a functioning building, which has meaningful use of space inside appropriate to its purpose, which looks like your crumpled aluminium.

[Mahna Mahna]

In defense of Gehry, he designs as many attractive and functional buildings as he does ugly ones. It's just that the ugly ones are more memorable... they stick out like a sore thumb, instead of blending into their surroundings.

Now, in terms of Good Gehry... The Art Gallery of Ontario recently did a major renovation featuring an addition designed by Gehry (some photos here, here and here)

IMO, it's gorgeous. The main atrium on the second floor feels like the belly of a ship, with huge solid wood beams curving around you, and it's actually enjoyable to walk up those crazy looping staircases and the winding ramp just inside the front doors.

However, this non-Gehry this piece of crap that's right next door? Not so gorgeous, though I have to admit I'm coming to appreciate its cheeky awfulness.

[Gangster Octopus]

I also like the Disney Concert Hall inside and out.

And gehry's guggenheim in bilbao spain is also stunning.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Key Lime Guy

Also, I'm sure you're aware that the Seattle Library is beloved by its staff and its users.

This library?! *sigh* No accounting . . .

Now, this is a library! Or this! I've been in both. Dignified, functional, commodious, and they really relate to the built surroundings! That's one of the worst things about starchitecture, they design it as if it might be plunked down anywhere and it doesn't matter where. Good example here. Or here.

[BrainGlutton]

Hijack: I've sometimes wondered by Ayn Rand wrote an essentially political novel, The Fountainhead, about an architect. But, when you think about it, if she was going to make the alienated-genius hero an artist (rather than, say, an industrialist or inventor, as in Atlas Shrugged), that was the only choice that would serve. Architects make things everybody has to look at, and live or work in; and what they make has social effects and implications. As (I think) Winston Churchill put it, "We shape our buildings, and our buildings shape us."

But -- which surely cannot have been Rand's conscious intention -- Roarke exemplifies all the worst aspects of starchitects. Yes, he has the integrity of his artistic vision, free from social pressures, free from antiquated esthetic conventions -- but he thinks of nothing else. You get the feeling he would just exactly as satisfied if one of his designs were erected in the Gobi Desert, with nobody to use it or look at it, as if it were built in Manhattan. And the physical descriptions of his buildings evoke Nazi architecture more than anything else -- strange choice for a proto-Libertarian author!

[Daylate]

Now, in terms of Good Gehry... The Art Gallery of Ontario recently did a major renovation featuring an addition designed by Gehry (some photos here, here and here)

Yeah, I really like something that looks like a bilboard that's failing in a hurricane.

Is it really against the law to put some architects in front of a firing squad?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Daylate

Is it really against the law to put some architects in front of a firing squad?

Not if you call it performance art!

[Mahna Mahna]

Originally Posted by Daylate

Yeah, I really like something that looks like a bilboard that's failing in a hurricane.

Is it really against the law to put some architects in front of a firing squad?

I'm going to guess you stopped looking after the first photo I linked, because that particular bit of the building is only visible if you're directly facing the northeast corner.

Perhaps you'd like to take a look at the dozens of other photos that show a functional, airy, bright gallery space? Or the grand expanses of warm natural woods and gentle curves? Or what that "billboard" looks like when you're standing on the other side of it?

The architects who belong in front of firing squads are the ones who churn out thousands of bland, generic, Stepford McHouses for new subdivisions (or worse yet, those who design those same homes to replace older, smaller bungalows in established neighbourhoods)... because Og forbid a house actually have some character.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Mahna Mahna

The architects who belong in front of firing squads are the ones who churn out thousands of bland, generic, Stepford McHouses for new subdivisions (or worse yet, those who design those same homes to replace older, smaller bungalows in established neighbourhoods)... because Og forbid a house actually have some character.

Like this?

Or this?

Problem is, it's a challenge to get anything like that built nowadays. Hard to find the materials unless you scavenge them from demolished buildings. Might even be against (modernist-influenced) zoning codes.

[sleestak]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

And the physical descriptions of his buildings evoke Nazi architecture more than anything else -- strange choice for a proto-Libertarian author!

:: post snipped, hijack continued::

Actually, the inspiration for the buildings is more like this, or this. Rand *really* dug Frank Lloyd Wright. Roark, as far as I can tell, was based on Wright. Linky.

Slee

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Rune

When I think of modern architecture I get images of those ugly concrete skyscrapers in the suburbs we have in Europe. Very efficient - but so boring it robs the soul.

http://ing.dk/modules/xphoto/cache/77/22577_620_400.jpg

I can’t stand Danish design – sucks the life out of you.

I have seen it done right - with personality. Bookshelves, small art pieces, wall art, a playroom designed for kids to actually play in. Comfortable furniture with pleasing colors. Comfy beds with those amazing eiderdowns ... clean lines, good storage spaces, spaces for living in, areas for hobbies and crafts ... and then that sterile manequin box....<shudder>

[even sven]

Architecture is a tricky thing, because there is not a clear line between "classic styles" and "tacky imitation." I don't live in a Colonial mansion or a Southern plantation. Why would I want to live in some Disneyland style house that imitates it?

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by GorillaMan

Yes it is defensible as such, with the answer 'I like it'.


OK, go ahead, design something which is also a functioning building, which has meaningful use of space inside appropriate to its purpose, which looks like your crumpled aluminium.

Interior design is whole 'nother ball of wax, but it's only partly connected to exterior. I have serious doubts that Gehry knows enough about acoustics to have designed that.

However, yes, I could do that. Hard to illustrate on something as small as a ball of aluminum, and the excercise would be rather pointless.

[MichaelQReilly]

Originally Posted by even sven

Architecture is a tricky thing, because there is not a clear line between "classic styles" and "tacky imitation." I don't live in a Colonial mansion or a Southern plantation. Why would I want to live in some Disneyland style house that imitates it?

And yet those Southern Plantations are mostly built in the Greek Revival style, why did they want to live in some Disneyland imitation of the Acropolis?

This is one of the things that really annoys me about modern architectural thought; the idea that if a building in any way incorporates elements of old styles that it is somehow "inauthentic" or that people who like it are reactionary fools.

The thing is, I like elements of post WWII architecture. I think the Modernists did kick-ass interiors (especially in commercial architecture), recent skyscraper designs are the best I've seen since the golden age of the 20's and 30's. The problem is, Modernism and its progeny got way more wrong than it got right. It completely abandoned the human element, both in its ascetics and in its interaction with the rest of the built environment. Despite billing itself as a solution to the challenges of modern living and all the talk about form following function, it was impractical and tended to impose its itself onto its inhabitants.

The result is that Modernism and its progeny have produced a shockingly high ratio of failures for its every success. What makes this all the more damning is that it was the very tenets of the modern styles that caused their failure. People aren't machines, they like ornamentation and pleasant materials, not reinforced concrete. All-glass buildings are impossible to heat and cool. Buildings that present blank walls and fort-like appearances don't belong in bustling down towns. Etc., etc., etc.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Originally Posted by GorillaMan

OK, go ahead, design something which is also a functioning building, which has meaningful use of space inside appropriate to its purpose, which looks like your crumpled aluminium.

Why design a building that looks like crumpled aluminium in the first place?

[GorillaMan]

Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party

Why design a building that looks like crumpled aluminium in the first place?

Why not? We've now got the technology to build structures without straight lines, pillars, or whatever, so why not have some fun with it?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by GorillaMan

Why not? We've now got the technology to build structures without straight lines, pillars, or whatever, so why not have some fun with it?

Because a building is not something you can display in a corner of an art museum for the few appreciative cognoscenti who "get it." A building is something everybody has to live with.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Exactly. I can choose to not view whatever piece of shit fad those operating on a higher plane than the rest of us have come up with, if it's stored in a museum. A building? Not so much. The atrocities of the 1960's are still with us today, after the architects finished having "fun".

[Paul in Qatar]

There is lots of modern architecture. Big-box stores, shopping centers and mall, stadiums, skyscrapers. None of these do much more than tip their hat at earlier styles. Sure the Prairie Modern school never got beyond the artsy-fartsy stage, but lots of people learned from those failures and produced our modern world.