Contemporary architecture-- why so blah?

Cafe Society
41

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
Well, what’s so soft and cuddly about right-angles?
[/quote]
Damned if I know. I wouldn’t have considered right angles as a ‘compromise,’ either; but apparently they are. I suspect that the terms of the original compromise involved ‘not constantly threatening to collapse.’

Or perhaps, way back at the dawn of architecture when basic concepts were still being hammered out, the design evolution of ‘doors’ and ‘walls’ was guided by occult numerological principles. Maybe one proto-architect was adamant that his prototype ‘door’ should form a 45-degree slant, while another insisted hotly that the proper shape should splay out at 135 degrees. Then the high priest suggested placatingly, “Guys, guys; why don’t we just agree to split the difference?” And thus was Western culture enslaved to the cult of the 90-degree angle; through wretched compromise of artistic vision.

Speaking of the proper time for compromise… consider this image and its accompanying text:

I submit that this is not merely bad design; it is actively malignant. The goddamn staircase is no place to be playfully toying with your audience’s assumptions about balance and gravity. In the Big Book O’ Things That Should Not Be Included In Building Design, “dizzying” staircases are right up there with “highly polished” handicapped-access ramps and “biodegradable” elevator cables.

I expect that’s probably because Libeskind hasn’t yet figured out how to design buildings without that infernal “floor” compromise. I’m sure he’ll solve that problem once his vertigo-inducing staircase experiments reveal a means of walking on vertical surfaces.

Honestly, I feel kind of sorry for graduates of the London Metropolitan University. No doubt they feel they put a great deal of effort into their education, and I can’t imagine them being too thrilled with a graduate centre that looks like it should be staffed by clowns.

42

I’ve never walked down a spiral staircase without feeling dizzy. I guess those medieval architects were sadists, too?

Or maybe the guys writing that article were having a bit of fun at the expense of realistic metaphors?

[QUOTE=Terrifel]
I expect that’s probably because Libeskind hasn’t yet figured out how to design buildings without that infernal “floor” compromise.
[/QUOTE]

The first time I was at the Lowry Centre (not Libeskind, I know, but coincidentally only yards from his Imperial War Museum North), I started to feel quite unsettled as I walked around. Something felt unstable, the views out of successive windows didn’t feel right. At times I felt quite unsteady. It took a long time until I realised what it was: there’s gentle undulations in the floors, so that as you walk around the building the sensation is not entirely unlike being on a gently rolling ship. Surely deliberate, as part of a landmark building on redeveloped section of the Manchester Ship Canal. (And no, it doesn’t make the place unusable, the effect is only noticable when walking long distances around the building and not when you walk from one side of the cafe to the other.)

43

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
I’ve never walked down a spiral staircase without feeling dizzy. I guess those medieval architects were sadists, too?
[/QUOTE]

Not sadists, perhaps, but certainly defensive minded - ISTR that spiral staircases were favored in medieval construction in part because with the right twist a right-handed defender would have a huge advantage keeping a right-handed assailant from fighting up the stairway, just because of how the lack of free space at the center of the stair would hamper sword and mace blows.

Whether you agree with that thinking or not, I can see where they would have felt that the potentially decisive advantage in defense were worth causing vertigo the rest of the time.

44

[QUOTE=dropzone]
It [Gehry’s Disney Hall] won’t be considered classic. It’ll be considered camp, the fate of art taken to extremes since the Baroque Period. And it will take considerably less than fifty years. Gehry will be tacky in five to ten years and campy in twenty.
[/QUOTE]

I’m basing my opinion on the Berlin Philharmonie (a major influence on Gehry), which is about 45 years old and beloved by pretty much everyone.

Lots of odd-looking buildings become “classic” over time. Eiffel Tower, Center Pompidou, Sydney Opera House are good examples. In fact all of those were much more hated initially than Gehry’s work is now.

45

[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
I’m basing my opinion on the Berlin Philharmonie (a major influence on Gehry), which is about 45 years old and beloved by pretty much everyone.

[/QUOTE]

That’s a fantastic example, because the interior was just as outrageous as the exterior when it was built, but now can be seen as the first of a new generation of concert halls, where the seating can be broken up into sections, almost blurring the distinction between hall, stage and even ceiling. In the photo on that page, it’s quite clear how the flat fronts of seating sections have an acoustic function, reflecting sound just as the baffles hung from the ceiling do. And as has already been mentioned, that’s perhaps a Bauhaus influence, the stark flat white lines of concrete which have a good reason for being there.
It’s far from the first time I’ve mentioned this place on these boards, but local pride insists I do it again: the Willis Building, in a (I admit) very nondescript English town. Ten years younger than the Philharmonie, it’s got a similar place in local adoration, and IMO looks bloody great. What’s more, it’s impossible to claim it doesn’t acknowledge or work with its surroundings: while built on an empty plot of land, the boundaries were dicatated by the medieval street layout, and one of the unusual choices was to make the building follow these very natural and almost tactile curves. Another factor is the reflective glass, which emphasises the neighbouring buildings, especially their upper levels which are often those closest to their original appearance (you can see this at work in that picture).

And the most important thing of all: this is, in functional terms, an office block. And that’s it.
Edit: of course, there’s good photos on the architect’s website, durrrr. http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Projects/0102/Default.aspx

46

I debated about stepping into this one, what with being an Architect and all! :wink: But the broad strokes of the brushes I keep seeing wielded here forced me to add my comments. The explanation of why we don’t see the types of buildings that you describe are a myriad of complex reasons, spanning a multitude of economic and artistic theories. That is why I originally decided not to step into this–it would be difficult to really address this on a message board, but there have been a few posts that I felt I felt my comments might give some perspective.

Given that most if not all of the opinions on this subject will be subjective, nonetheless I thought I would add my perspective as a professional to this debate.

To start off with the buildings you laud (and I also love those types of buildings) are NOT Architecture. They are buildings, and while being a step up from mere structures, are just nice buildings in the end. Many buildings we revere today were not so well received in their day, just as many of the buildings today aren’t received well either. In my opinion there are very few true pieces of Architecture in the world. I have done many very nice buildings in my career—yet none of them in my opinion I would classify as Architecture. Some have come close, and I am proud of almost ALL of my buildings that I have been involved with, but given my expertise (multi-family housing) it is unlikely I will produce a true work of Architecture in my career. Doesn’t mean I won’t try dammit—but I am also a realist.

In my opinion Architecture transcends the materials and the use of the building. Brick and stone and wood are just everyday materials, but in the right hands they can become more then the sum of their parts. Like a painter or a musician very few people can move beyond the pale of the base material. But when you do it is a very moving experience! But that is all in the eye of the beholder isn’t it. I agree many of the big name Architects do projects that I personally don’t care for. I personally believe buildings and Architecture are for people and should reflect that humanity. Obviously based on many of the structures I have seen, not everyone agrees with me!

In my opinion the biggest obstacle to doing those ornate buildings is the revision to the economics from that time period vs. today. With the labor movement and the lack of skilled tradesmen you can’t do that type of work, nor can you find people capable of doing that skilled work anymore. I had a beautiful arch I did on this project when I lived back on the east coast—I had to do a full size template so the mason could do the arch! Arches have been around for thousands of years, yet this mason couldn’t figure out what I wanted. My days are spent trying to make sure my buildings don’t leak, because the labor force doesn’t have enough skilled forces to do the work properly. One hundred years ago that same labor force cared about the work and took pride in it. I see that on occasion, but it is becoming a very rare commodity.

The comments by Spoons made me laugh out loud (not to pick on you–but whatever lecturer you heard). The one item noted I agree with is that the architecture of today has much of its blame on the BauHaus movement in my opinion. But the rest of this post-- Please. First off we don’t bid on work, most of my clients walk through the door or ask for a fee proposal. I am always the high fee (because I am good dammit!) and off we go. The thought of me telling my client ‘this’ is what you are getting is laughable in its naiveté. Do you honestly think a client who is going to spend $80K on a building is going to accept that? Now the one Architect who did and could do this was Frank Lloyd Wright, yet I imagine most people in this thread enjoy his work. Yet many of his buildings leaked (if not all of them). I know that Fallingwater (the Kaufman House) had severe leaking issues and for anyone over 5’8” tall was uncomfortable.—yet I truly feel this is a wonderful piece of Architecture. Gehry—you love him or you hate him. I personally enjoy his buildings, but understand those who don’t care for that type of work.

Traditionally the Architect was the Master Builder and with the economic changes this has changed drastically. Projects today are very cost driven (not that they also weren’t back then), but now you have the General Contractor often controlling the purse strings. Which then leads to Value Engineering (a PC way of saying ‘raping the building’). So you have clients with BMW thoughts but Pinto budgets and General Contractors taking that Pinto budget and reducing it to a Yugo building. Makes it tough to create Architecture out of that if you know what I mean!

However I try and get my clients to set realistic budgets and I can give them good architecture that meets their needs without it being stripped down to its barebones by the General Contractor.

I wish I could give you a few examples of my work-but then I wouldn’t remain as anonymous as I would like on this message board :slight_smile: Perhaps I can find a few similar buildings and see if you think my work is as bad as the work you outlined. Personally I doubt you would think that, but as it is subjective, who knows. I now leave you to your Architect bashing!

Ps—cornices—I like them too, but I doubt you want to be under one in an Earthquake. They usually aren’t the most secure part of the building!

47

[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
Lots of odd-looking buildings become “classic” over time. Eiffel Tower, Center Pompidou, Sydney Opera House are good examples. In fact all of those were much more hated initially than Gehry’s work is now.
[/QUOTE]
That’s false in the case of the SOH. The design and building process was controversial but the finished article met pretty much universal acclaim from day one (for the externals, the interior is a different matter).

The Centre Pompidou is one of the ugliest, nastiest, most brutal excrescenses ever inflicted on an otherwise beautiful city, and I wouldn’t have picked it as support for your position if I were you. The Parisians don’t love it; they have a kind of perverse pride in having an early example of this kind of half-finished oil refinery architecture in their midst, but no-one thinks it is beautiful.

The Eiffel Tower is not a building per se (as it serves no actual purpose), but I agree has moved from being hated to loved by the Parisians and is a lonely example that does support your point.

48

[QUOTE=Hakuna Matata]
In my opinion the biggest obstacle to doing those ornate buildings is the revision to the economics from that time period vs. today. With the labor movement and the lack of skilled tradesmen you can’t do that type of work, nor can you find people capable of doing that skilled work anymore. I had a beautiful arch I did on this project when I lived back on the east coast—I had to do a full size template so the mason could do the arch! Arches have been around for thousands of years, yet this mason couldn’t figure out what I wanted. My days are spent trying to make sure my buildings don’t leak, because the labor force doesn’t have enough skilled forces to do the work properly. One hundred years ago that same labor force cared about the work and took pride in it. I see that on occasion, but it is becoming a very rare commodity.
[/QUOTE]
I think you confuse cause and effect. There are no skilled tradesmen because there is no call for them, not because they’ve willfully de-skilled themselves leaving gasping architects floundering in their wake and finding themselves forced to design buildings around their lack.

49

Personally, I’m just pissed off buildings are made of anything other than twig-framed grass huts. I mean, seriously, why get “modern”? Why can’t everything be the way it used to be? Change sucks. I knew the world of architecture was going to shit when the goddamn grandkids started putting mud - MUD! - on the outside of the house. “But it’ll keep the rain out better, ayeyo!” Little punks. Now the smallest one is saying that if he puts holes in my wall - HOLES IN MY WALL! - that it’ll improve air circulation. The old ways are so much better, back when everyone built everything the same way.

Oh, wait - isn’t that what you guys are calling “subdivisions” these days?

50

[QUOTE=Hakuna Matata]
I debated about stepping into this one, what with being an Architect and all! :wink: But the broad strokes of the brushes I keep seeing wielded here forced me to add my comments.
[/quote]
Thanks for your response, and I am sorry if I have painted with too broad a brush. Such was not my intention. I meant to target only those directly responsible for the design of all modern buildings.

Well, then this is the source of my confusion. “Nice buildings” was the real topic of my screed-- that is, why we don’t have them anymore. My OP mistakenly specified Architecture and architects, because I mistakenly assumed that they were responsible for whether a building is designed attractively or not. If that’s not actually the case, then I hereby revise my OP to focus just on “building design” rather than “Architecture.” So the gist of my rant should be understood to mean, “Why is practically every single modern building design either monotonously drab or actively horrible, when everyone from hotel designers to Quaker barn builders used to know how to create buildings that were at least inoffensively handsome?” Just forget I said anything about architects.

Once again, my earlier remarks were based on the impression that architects were somehow responsible for designing the universe of ugly-ass buildings we are surrounded by today. I apologize for the error.

Well, everyone knows that during an earthquake, the safest place to stand is inside a door frame. You know, like this one.

51

[QUOTE=megas alexandros]
santiago calatrava ( Santiago Calatrava - Wikipedia ) is one interesting modern architect not named frank. his uneven blocks design for 80 south street is at least something different. but overall, modern buildings tend towards the shitty side. have you seen the freedom tower designs?
[/QUOTE]

I came to this thread to mention this guy. I caught his exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC a couple of years ago and it blew my mind. The guy is an artist and a structural engineer. I’m really looking forward to this building in NYC. None of this crumpled pieces of paper like Gehry with Santiago. I still like Gehry though, but I’m sure that what Stranger says about him is pretty much true. I know they had to sand down the Disney Hall to make it acceptably non-glaring to surrounding buildings. My house leaks like a sieve due to shitty design and I can imagine the nightmare that the Disney Hall and the Bilbao art museum are for leaks and HVAC. I have seen the dancing house in Prague and didn’t realize till this thread that it was a Gehry design.

52

I followed GorillaMan’s link to the Libeskind article, and read this:
[QUOTE=Libeskind, in the article]

The three intersecting elements that form the building strategically emphasize certain relationships: one creates a connection between the public, the new building and the university behind, one form gestures from the university toward the tube connection to the city and one more regular form stitches the new building into the context of Holloway Road. A small plaza at the entrance provides an accent and an engaging gateway…

The building is clad entirely with embossed colored stainless steel panels creating a shining and ever-changing surface. Windows are conceived as large geometrical cuts providing accentuated natural light for the café, galleries and seminars. The interior spaces are simple, bold volumes which provide multi-purpose flexibility for programmatic events.
[/QUOTE]
The story of the Emperor’s New Clothes was published 170 years ago, but we still haven’t learnt the lesson. This (Libeskind quote, as above) is meaningless gibberish, in my opinion, and here in the UK would be a prime contender for ‘Private Eye’ magazine’s column called ‘Pseud’s Corner’, being a collection of contemporary pretentious twaddle and jargon.

The building is ugly, impractical and expensive. Just because the architect can draw slanted, angular windows doesn’t mean they are a good idea. For as long as that building exists, they can never just get regular glass to repair any damage, or use regular blinds or curtains. Every piece of glass, every blind, every curtain will have to be ordered and made to measure, and expertly fitted… and for what benefit? None.

A friend of mine made a similar point about the famous Turning torso building in Malmo, Sweden (which I’ve visited and seen the inside of). Sure, you can understand that an architect, with a lively sense of curiosity, might be interested in seeing if, with modern design technology, it would be possible to design such a structure and make it work. You can understand that he or she might then want to take it to the point of detailed drawings and models and plans to show that, hey, yeah, it could be done. But there’s no need to actually go and build the darn thing… which is utterly impractical and weird inside. When you enter one of the rooms, the slanted windows give you a slightly dizzy, disorientated feeling, like a funfair mis-shaped house.

There are two rusty, well-worn responses to any sort of criticism along these lines. One is ‘well, it’s all a matter of taste’ and the other is ‘the fault isn’t with what I’ve made, it’s with your inability to appreciate it’. I’ll leave those debates to those with nothing better to do than engage in them, but I don’t think either excuse amounts to a license to inflict twaddle and bad design on the rest of the world.

To answer the OP, I agree with those who say it’s largely a matter of economics. Designing and building stuff became more expensive, the demand became more urgent and the standards were allowed to slacken because of economic imperatives. Also, pre-fab became possible, and was considered a cheap and quick way to provide housing for the rapidly expanding population (as did high-rise slums, for a while). So, all in all, we ended up with 'build 'em quick, build ‘em cheap’ imperatives, and crass architecture is the result.

53

[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
I’m basing my opinion on the Berlin Philharmonie
[/quote]
Yes, but that’s an attractive building, in a screaming 1960!!! way, and is also functional. Gehry does polished stainless blobs that are functionally problematic.

The Eiffel Tower is a, well, it isn’t really a “building,” is it? Like Gehry’s things, it’s more a “structure,” but it at least has no pretensions of being anything else. The Centre Pompidou and Sydney Opera House are functional buildings. Thirty years from now I wouldn’t be surprised if the Centre Pompidou were quietly demolished in favor of a parking garage. It’s simply not that interesting and won’t be missed.

I don’t recall the Sydney Opera House being hated all that much. It was a cool reference to the sailing ships that used to use Sydney’s harbor. I recall it looking a bit dated when it was finally opened, but not hated by anybody but the worst sticks in the mud. And I think the lack of outrage aimed at Gehry’s worst buildings (some are kinda cool) is partially because of people’s reduced expectations after decades of the Bauhausization of American architecture.

54

[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Thanks for your response, and I am sorry if I have painted with too broad a brush. Such was not my intention. I meant to target only those directly responsible for the design of all modern buildings.Well, then this is the source of my confusion. “Nice buildings” was the real topic of my screed-- that is, why we don’t have them anymore. My OP mistakenly specified Architecture and architects, because I mistakenly assumed that they were responsible for whether a building is designed attractively or not. If that’s not actually the case, then I hereby revise my OP to focus just on “building design” rather than “Architecture.” So the gist of my rant should be understood to mean, “Why is practically every single modern building design either monotonously drab or actively horrible, when everyone from hotel designers to Quaker barn builders used to know how to create buildings that were at least inoffensively handsome?” Just forget I said anything about architects. Once again, my earlier remarks were based on the impression that architects were somehow responsible for designing the universe of ugly-ass buildings we are surrounded by today. I apologize for the error.Well, everyone knows that during an earthquake, the safest place to stand is inside a door frame. You know, like this one.
[/QUOTE]

No you had it correct in that Architects designed those buildings, the question was whether they are Architecture. Architects design most buildings (not all, an engineer could also stamp the drawings). Interestingly enough the vast majority of single family residences are NOT designed by Architects, but the more interesting ones I think are.

The one item I forgot to mention was the Design Review Boards and Design Committees. These are also very influental in the drab buildings you see today. Any design by committee is bound to be bad with each faction trying to force their agenda on the building. In my opinion by far most of the bad buildings I see are a result of this.

Another factor is those buildings you enjoyed from the past are what----8-10 stories tall? That would be about right for the time period and the technology available. Brick, stone and terracotta were the primary buiding materials and cheap craftsman labor was available. Window openings were limited by lintel sizes, etc. With the advances of technology buildings could be much taller, and those materials are not appropriate any longer. Brick traditionally is a load bearing material, and much of the first floor would be solid if used on a 30 or 40 story building. (note–today most brick is a veneer and is not solid masonry). At the time that the BauHaus became popular, if I recall my history correctly, there was a huge public backlash against the type of building you are fondly recalling. The country was more forward looking and didn’t think that our buildings should be design in classic Greek and Roman architectural models, etc. So I would also say that technology played a critical role in the architecture of today.

There have been movements to go back to that type of design. The Post Modern movement was one misguided (in my opinion) attempt at that. Look at some of the buildings by Michael Graves or Philip Johnson. They are decorated boxed (which for all intents and purposes is exactly what the buildings you laud are–decorated boxes).

I personally think that you can do good architectural buildings wtih modern materials without resorting to ‘gilding the lily’. Older buildings like you describe have a human scale to them, and I do think that you can do the same with modern materials if you are careful and thoughtful.

55

[QUOTE=Askance]
I think you confuse cause and effect. There are no skilled tradesmen because there is no call for them, not because they’ve willfully de-skilled themselves leaving gasping architects floundering in their wake and finding themselves forced to design buildings around their lack.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t disagree that the modern movement put many craftsmen out of business but the industry was changing even then due to many factors such as labor unions and technology–to blame it all on the Architect seems disingenuous at best. Today there is a huge lack on interest in being a craftsman in my opinion. I still see a few true craftsman on job sites. My plumber on a current project is one–but it is a family business, handed down from grandfather to father to son. A rare entity in my experience. I still see good craftsmen in some fields such as finish carpentry, a few masons, a few stone guys and a few tile guys. Just because a building is ugly doesn’t mean it can’t be built well and with care! The aesthetic is an opinion–the work is your skills and you should be proud of what you do and do it well.

56

[QUOTE=Hakuna Matata]
The one item I forgot to mention was the Design Review Boards and Design Committees. These are also very influental in the drab buildings you see today. Any design by committee is bound to be bad with each faction trying to force their agenda on the building. In my opinion by far most of the bad buildings I see are a result of this.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a very interesting observation. It occurs to me that most of the renowned architecture of days past is strongly identified with an individual and usually one with a reputation for being willful and opinionated in disposition. When the “vision” for the building is split between a group of people with differing agendas, it’s unsurprising that the result in amorphous and conventional, the result of compromise and apathy.

I’d also like to say that I’ve enjoyed reading your informed commentary in this thread.

Stranger

57

[QUOTE=Hakuna Matata]
Another factor is those buildings you enjoyed from the past are what----8-10 stories tall? That would be about right for the time period and the technology available. Brick, stone and terracotta were the primary buiding materials and cheap craftsman labor was available. Window openings were limited by lintel sizes, etc. With the advances of technology buildings could be much taller, and those materials are not appropriate any longer. Brick traditionally is a load bearing material, and much of the first floor would be solid if used on a 30 or 40 story building. (note–today most brick is a veneer and is not solid masonry). At the time that the BauHaus became popular, if I recall my history correctly, there was a huge public backlash against the type of building you are fondly recalling. The country was more forward looking and didn’t think that our buildings should be design in classic Greek and Roman architectural models, etc. So I would also say that technology played a critical role in the architecture of today.
[/QUOTE]
True, though it seems to me that the Art Deco style produced much more attractive buildings while working to successfully incorporate technological progress, materials and lighting. the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings, for example, are not merely tall boxes; they are expressions of exalted architecture, ‘skyscrapers’ in the best and purest sense of the word. (Although since the Chrysler is actually a brick structure, I guess this also supports your argument.)

While poking around the Wikipedia entry on Santiago Calatrava, I noticed that one of his designs, the Chicago Spire, will apparently be the tallest building in North America when completed in 2011 or thereabouts. I can’t help but notice that the three big-name contemporary architects discussed in this thread so far-- Gehry, Libeskind, and Calatrava-- have all done variations on the twisty building thing. I haven’t even seen any of these buildings in person, and I’m already bored with the idea. We get it, guys. You can make buildings that are twisty. It’s really not all that cool a concept.

58

[QUOTE=Terrifel]

While poking around the Wikipedia entry on Santiago Calatrava, I noticed that one of his designs, the Chicago Spire, will apparently be the tallest building in North America when completed in 2011 or thereabouts. I can’t help but notice that the three big-name contemporary architects discussed in this thread so far-- Gehry, Libeskind, and Calatrava-- have all done variations on the twisty building thing. I haven’t even seen any of these buildings in person, and I’m already bored with the idea. We get it, guys. You can make buildings that are twisty. It’s really not all that cool a concept.
[/QUOTE]

damn there goes my grand idea for doing a large red building shaped like a red vine licorice! :mad:

59

[QUOTE=dropzone]
Yes, but that’s an attractive building … and is also functional.
[/QUOTE]

Actually it’s full of “wasted space” in exactly the same way Disney Hall is.
example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7332902@N05/422404360/

Then again I think what you call “wasted space” is often the kind of space that engages people’s imagination & sense of delight.

ETA: It was Stranger who used the “wasted space” critique upthread. Maybe you mean something different when you say “functional.”

60

[QUOTE=Terrifel]
True, though it seems to me that the Art Deco style produced much more attractive buildings while working to successfully incorporate technological progress, materials and lighting. the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings, for example, are not merely tall boxes; they are expressions of exalted architecture, ‘skyscrapers’ in the best and purest sense of the word. (Although since the Chrysler is actually a brick structure, I guess this also supports your argument.)

[/QUOTE]

Both the Empire State and Chrysler have brick walls, just not load-bearing walls - like virtually every other skyscraper built in New York from 1900 onward, the entire structure is held up by a steel frame.